My book report pt1

[Drich]

"the god of the bible"... There were religions before the bible... what god was this, back then?
The god of the torah? There were religions before the torah... what god was this, back then?
The god of Abraham? There were religions before Abraham... (What century is this guy supposed to have lived on?) what god was this, back then?

All of these titles describe the same God.

So, it seems, at that time, either people really wanted to worship whatever god they came up with... or the one true god was popping up all over the place and being misrepresented by the people... or a mix of the two options.
I lean to the first option.

-Or a viable 3rd option was in the instances you just listed the 'people' were just being faithful to the understanding of God given to them. Which is all god requires of us.

How foolish is it to think any one of us has a complete understanding of God. All we are ever given is a picture and all we can ever to is be faithful to the picture(s) we are given.

Aren't you the one who said that god is the alpha and omega, as if this god is everything.

Alpha and Omega mean beginning and end to everything. Meaning He has final say on what happens, and the power and authority to carry out whatever he wants done.

Is god the bible?... apparently, yes.

Uh, no. The bible is just a book that describes God and contains His law and the Gospel.

Is the bible god? just a piece of the guy, no?

No, The bible is an instruction manual. If your car it's owners manual? or is your owners manual your car? no the owners manual is just the book that tells you how to properly interact with your car.

god seems to be so much more than the bible, as we can see so much more than the bible around us.

So again would it not stand to then reason God is not the bible, and the bible is not God?

If you look at the bible's NT as an accurate representation of the events (as many do) then you arrive at Bart's conclusion.

how so?

If you look at the bible's NT as a work of fiction, even if based on some real elements, then you couldn't care less that the differences are irreconcilable... it's fiction, written by several authors, it's expected... Ask any fiction writer, specially those who write several books to cover one story, like Harry Potter, or the Song of Fire and Ice... it's a nightmare making everything fit together nicely.
I'd be very surprised if no differences were to be found in such a huge tome.

but these are not the objections Bart brings up. His primary reasoning centers around that each book was written in such a way as to be completely oblivious to anything else written, which is why there are continuity issues.
However the only way this all works is if you assume as he does the writters all had the same modern understanding as to how to write a unified account, and simply failed at coming up with a consistent story.

Now you're just adding to the cannon. I have to admit, it does make sense!
See how easily it can be done?

So, you are saying my reconciliation of Bart's book "makes sense?"

---

That should be enough to get us started. If there are no questions or objection I will post the next few segments.

If all you are going to do is quote previously done-to-death apologetic bullshit like carm.org, Drippy ( not that I expect you are capable of anything more) you may as well not waste your time.

The ability of xtians to twist their balls into pretzels trying to explain away the obvious problems in your bullshit texts ( problems which have been known for 300 years prior to Ehrman's writings, btw) is well-established.

As noted here:

Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether "answers" can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem.

You sprinkle some bullshit around, go "whew, that was close" and toddle off praising fucking jesus as if you have convinced anyone.

You have not. The problems remain and are clear for anyone who is not blinded by heavenly horseshit.

For some reason Minnie I expected more from you. but all you care to do is appeal to a red herring and move to dismiss what is being discussed without actually addressing the topic.

I'm Truly disappointed, after all this faith breaking book report was your idea

---

With God out of your 'view' you can be who you truly are for a while. That way when your judgement comes you will know without doubt that your judgement is indeed just.

One of the more repulsive implications about the Christian faith is the insistence that unconditional love be a one-way street. A god guilty of so many horrifying crimes has no right to judge anybody whose crimes are lesser than his. And, since he has murdered virtually all of mankind, no human being is less righteous than Yahweh by any standard which values human life.

I ve said this several times now that God's love is very conditional. John 3:16 underscores this point, in that God so loved the world that He gave his only Son that who so ever Believes.... Did you see it That Who so Ever believes, is a condition. Which makes God's love conditional. Which breaks your whole argument in half.