(September 30, 2013 at 8:48 pm)Ryantology Wrote:(September 30, 2013 at 8:37 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It occurs to me that were I to define 'Christianity' in a way that was convenient to my argument, I could 'prove' all sorts of things.
Thankfully, I'm not intellectually bankrupt.
Thankfully, you can define 'Christianity' as the Bible portrays it, without the Bible's biases, and prove all that's necessary to prove.
What is important to remember when talking about the Bible is that there's no rule which says there's a correct way to interpret it, and the 40,000+ denominations of Christianity alone prove that. So, every time someone like Drich tries to tell you that you're not interpreting it correctly, remind him that his version of scripture is just just one meaningless and nonsensical re-interpretations floating about like turds in a Wal-Mart crapper.
Reading the Bible without accepting the pro-God bias which taints the entire narrative is the only way to actually get truth from it. An interpretation which always assumes that God is good is inherently faulty and can safely be dismissed as incorrect.
Sure, of course. But the point stands - when one is free to define terms as one wishes, one can mentally masturbate any "truth" into existence.
That Christianity, as any individual Christian defines it themselves, doesn't make a strong case for itself is convenient to be sure - but largely beside my point.
