csteele

<The reason why you are able to hold the faith of Evangelical Christians up to scrutiny is that they have a solid position on the historical reality of Jesus and his place in the spiritual realm.>

Why do you mix up Evangelical Christianity and spirituality? They have nothing in common, Evangelical Christianity is a purely physical religion. Spirituality is what comes from within.

How can Evangelical Christians even argue about the truth of the Bible when they have butchered the Bible for their own purposes such as changing 'Deliver us from evil' to 'Deliver us from the evil one'? The 'Evil one' is not even in the real Bible. It comes from a distorted version of the story of the watchers from the Book of Enoch. What the Evangelical Christians call the Bible is not even the Bible.

Evangelical Christianity is not based on the Bible. It is a mish-mash of unrelated trivia borrowed and distorted from a wide of material that was excluded from the Bible.

Evangelical Christianity came about as a reaction to the evil of Social Darwinism. But they made the mistake of attacking Darwin instead the concept of the 'Master Race' based on survival of the fittest that lead through to Hitler.

Darwin and the Origin of the Species had nothing to do with Social Darwinism. Yet the Evangelical Christians attacked Darwin and invented a new religion that is totally divorced from Christianity. When debating Christianity, Evangelical Christianity does not even come into it. It is not Christian. Even if the original intent was good (to fight Social Darwinism) it execution was appalling, bastardizing the very worst from a multitude of material.

Evangelical Christianity came about as a misguided attempt to combat a social evil that eventually went full circle until we recently had the spectacle of an Evangelical Christian as the President of the USA practicing Social Darwinism.

None of this has anything to do with spirituality and never will.

Pericles, as you are an athiest, your mock indignation on behalf of Christians is clever but laughable.

So now you have introduced unimportant truths, and irrelevant truths as not necessary for Christians to know. Can you please explain to our Christian friends why you as an athiest don't want them to be informed?

It was you who first called me a troll - I just called you a name for a laugh! Sniffed out any parked cars lately? lol

Some truths are to be found in the Bible : Herod's rule for example - It's just the dates Christians are taught are incorrect. Herod died in 4 BC.

I said <<You were right about the truth>> trying to appease your ego... I am looking for honesty and where possible the truth. If a preacher doesn't know he should say "I don't know" NOT "God works in mysterious ways".

<<It is entirely another to start with the premise - as you did - that because there are disputable facts in the Bible, Christianity is a crock.">> I never said this - You lie - undermining atheism again!

So far a christian will notice Pericles the atheist, makes up statistics, lies to suit his argument and makes false accusations. Yep that sure is doing atheism the world of good!

Go away!!

Sympneology - TY for answering csteele's points - your statement

<<As I understand it, this thread is not about anyone's beliefs but about the way the Bible is used to influence beliefs by promoting it as 'inerrant' or 'infallible' (the same thing) or 'God's word'.>> is absolutely correct!

Daviy, TY for setting csteele straight on Evangelical Christianity and spirituality. The fact that he doesn't know the difference is instructive. I have been most impressed with your inputs throughout this thread and the way in which you keep people on topic and contiually inform.

Pericles and csteele just don't get it. They have a mutual admiration society and continually try to divert the conversation. Could Mrs Pericles please get Mr Pericles off the computer - he is obsessed and very rattled!

Hey Sympneology,

You are wrong when you say “this thread is not about anyone's beliefs but about the way the Bible is used to influence beliefs by promoting it as 'inerrant' or 'infallible' (the same thing) or 'God's word'.”.

Probably if it were left at that many of us would not have an issue with OP2 but he consistently takes the discussion well past that point.

"To all you Christians out there. Make your choice. Is the Bible true or false?"

“Once they realise that their Bible contains errors they can get back to developing their faith & spirituality rather than religion.”

If those are not statements and challenges about people’s beliefs then I’m not sure what would qualify.

OP2 has called on others to explain and justify their beliefs but would appear to be afraid to enlighten us of his own. Hypocrisy bordering on cowardness?

I would invite him once more to answer and let’s let him speak for himself.

I must say though I do get a sense of a kid who has discovered that Santa is not real and has set off around the playground stamping his feet and loudly informing the others of his discovery, not especially because he wants them to know the "TRUTH" but more because he is pissed off that he has had the legs cut out from under his own formative belief system.

May I finish with a couple of OP2 quotes from his reply to Runner:

"Why didn't you answer the questions Runner?"

and

"But please don't accuse me of "judging the judge" when you won't even answer questions."

Indeed!

Hey Daviy,

I have done my fair share of railing against fundamentalist Christianity in the past but I do recognise its power to move people and change their lives. It often provides succour to some much damaged people and allows them to deal with fears, anguish and pain that can be outside the skills and patience of ordinary society to minister to.

You might be able to dismiss this as not having a spiritual growth component but I certainly can’t.

I note a Wikipedia definition “Spirituality is the personal, subjective dimension of religion, particularly that which pertains to liberation or salvation.”

I am quite vociferous when challenging bigotry from them but I have little taste for stripping Evangelists of a ‘rock’ that many hold vital to their faith.

The famous words from the Holy Bible that seem to confine Christians to poverty, from Mark 10:25, all about camels and the eye of a needle, are entirely taken out of context. The entire passage from 10:23 the King James Version finishes thus at 10:27: With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. It goes on: at Mark 10: 28 -31: 10:30, There is no man that hath left house….for my sake and the gospels,(30) but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brethren, and sisters and mothers and children, and lands with persecutions, and in the world to come eternal life.

This is the gospel, not of poverty but of abundance, that the lawyers of this world hate, because they are now first but when they cash their chips, die like any one else. ( Mark 10:31.) When coupled with the 23rd Psalm, much beloved of Christians, and read in the light of Luke 11 verses 46 and 52, it is no wonder lawyers hate Christians.

There is a superannuated Roman Catholic Priest and lawyer running around Australia trying to convince himself the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not law, and convince the public the Parliament of the Commonwealth did not enact it as law, and did not intend it as a Schedule to be part of the law of the land. This is because when Eleanor Roosevelt proposed it to the UN in 1946, she got the idea from the New Testament and it represents the very essence of the gospels.

It bans discrimination, because Jesus Christ did not discriminate. It bans lawyers in Article 25 because Jesus Christ held them in contempt. It paraphrases the Statute of Monopolies, and the Magna Carta, and it became law in Australia in 1981 with a five year sunset clause. Unless renewed in 1986, it was to lapse. The Parliament of the Commonwealth reenacted it unanimously, and our history buffs should check Hansard, to see that I am not a fibber. Lawyers hated Jesus and they hate the Covenant

Your ability to firmly grasp the wrong end of the stick and wave it over your head appears to be infinite, OP2.

>>Pericles, as you are an athiest, your mock indignation on behalf of Christians is clever but laughable.<<

That's not indignation, mock or otherwise.

It is simply my opinion, voiced on an opinion forum, on your snide and gratuitous attacks on Christianity.

I certainly don't represent Christians, or any other religion, in doing so.

I have precisely the same discussion with people who try the same tactics with Islam.

Your approach is highly reminiscent, in fact, of a previous poster, who used this forum to attack Islam, through a one-eyed and personal interpretation of the Qur'an. It is a cheap, and utterly pointless, trick.

>>So now you have introduced unimportant truths, and irrelevant truths as not necessary for Christians to know.<<

That is a pretty poor precis of:

"Where the truth is undiscoverable, unimportant, irrelevant, obscure or a matter for perpetual conjecture, no-one should be subjected to the barrage of innuendo and needling criticism that you load into your posts."

It is your motive, OP2, that is under scrutiny here.

If you succeed in your strategy, and every single Christian in Australia is convinced that the Bible is a crock - sorry, full of lies, what religion do you suggest that they follow?

Without Herod, the entire crucifixion story falls apart.

No Easter. No resurrection. No "died to save mankind".

Presumably, you are equally able to discredit the nativity, Mary and Joseph and all that prophetic star-in-the-sky imagery.

What do you intend to leave the Christians with?

Just that 'Jesus was a really nice guy, and you should all be like him'?

Doesn't exactly set him apart, does it OP2?

So, it's confession time.

Why are you doing this?

No, really.

Why are you doing this? What are your intentions?

So far, you have been needlessly argumentative about trivia - a few irrelevant historical inaccuracies.

What's your game, OP2?