It's way past time for me to say Q.E.D. as it's obvious I'm not having a discussion with a rational person here.
I'll conclude by saying there's something I do admire about the Fundy. They at least take their scripture to the logical conclusion. Granted, they come up with laughable scenarios like the 6,000 year old earth, light created en route from the stars and humans living with dinosaurs but at least they're consistent.
The liberal Christian, on the other hand, wants to slap the label "allegory" on events in Genesis that not only have bloodlines (you don't trace your ancestry back to Luke Skywalker or other fictional characters) but are events critical to the very theology of Christianity. Without a literal "fall from grace", as described in Genesis, there's nothing for Jesus to save us from. You need too come up with some way that sin entered the world or else admit that Yahweh created us as sinful beings (and then sent himself to sacrifice himself to convince himself to forgive us for being what he made in the first place).
And yet, these same liberal Christians will ironically slap the label "true history" on the New Testament. Jesus literally was sent by virgin birth through a bloodline traced to a fictional character to save us from the sins brought into the world by fictional events? Paul is said to provide evidence for the resurrection in 1Cor 15 (while, by the way, denying that Jesus had lived within his lifetime at 1Cor 15:8) and yet this same Paul isn't taken seriously when he refers to a literal Adam of history?
Liberal Christianity, one that accepts evolution and treats some parts but not others of the Bible as "allegory", is actually less rational than the fundy's position that everything in the Bible is the literal Word of God. Moderate Christians want to hold the Bible up as the Word of God and then proceed to treat it like it's a buffet table where preferred parts can be taken and others ignored, as if they'll say to their own god, "this part I'll accept but that part I won't."
The fundy I get. The liberal Christian, I don't.
I'll conclude by saying there's something I do admire about the Fundy. They at least take their scripture to the logical conclusion. Granted, they come up with laughable scenarios like the 6,000 year old earth, light created en route from the stars and humans living with dinosaurs but at least they're consistent.
The liberal Christian, on the other hand, wants to slap the label "allegory" on events in Genesis that not only have bloodlines (you don't trace your ancestry back to Luke Skywalker or other fictional characters) but are events critical to the very theology of Christianity. Without a literal "fall from grace", as described in Genesis, there's nothing for Jesus to save us from. You need too come up with some way that sin entered the world or else admit that Yahweh created us as sinful beings (and then sent himself to sacrifice himself to convince himself to forgive us for being what he made in the first place).
And yet, these same liberal Christians will ironically slap the label "true history" on the New Testament. Jesus literally was sent by virgin birth through a bloodline traced to a fictional character to save us from the sins brought into the world by fictional events? Paul is said to provide evidence for the resurrection in 1Cor 15 (while, by the way, denying that Jesus had lived within his lifetime at 1Cor 15:8) and yet this same Paul isn't taken seriously when he refers to a literal Adam of history?
Liberal Christianity, one that accepts evolution and treats some parts but not others of the Bible as "allegory", is actually less rational than the fundy's position that everything in the Bible is the literal Word of God. Moderate Christians want to hold the Bible up as the Word of God and then proceed to treat it like it's a buffet table where preferred parts can be taken and others ignored, as if they'll say to their own god, "this part I'll accept but that part I won't."
The fundy I get. The liberal Christian, I don't.
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
