(February 4, 2011 at 10:33 am)Matthew Wrote: Equally the charge could be made that some non-Christians (even atheists in this thread who have come out as ardent supporters of the eternal conscious torment view) interpret Scripture to mean something that they don't like. Is that charge any less baseless than yours?
I can't speak for other non-believers but I take the view that scripture says whatever the reader wants it to say by process of selective reading, selective contextualizing and other tactics to support their own bias. Read cover-to-cover, it's a long, rambling and self-contradictory book. It provides no clear picture as to what the afterlife is going to be, what you have to do to achieve what fate in the afterlife, or even if there is one.
I've yet to know a single believer who didn't see Jesus as a glorified version of themselves. Jesus was a liberal. Jesus was a conservative. Jesus was gay. Jesus was straight. Jesus was black. Jesus was white. Jesus was a communist. Jesus was a capitalist. Jesus was whoever you want him to be and the Bible says what you want it to say.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
