10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer

[The Grand Nudger]

I've read through your post and a few post responding to this post and I'm not going to read through all 16 pages, forgive me if I repeat things already stated. 

First you call religions philosophy and I can agree to that to a certain extent. However the Christians and Jews who worship the same God do not have a philosophy we have a living relationship with our living God and no I can't give you the proof you want to convince you He's real. On the other hand you can't prove He doesn't exist so your idea of Christianity being a philosophy holds no water. 

New name, same silly arguments.

Second you say Christians cherry pick and many do to support their own beliefs and that's wrong, I do not do that, when someone shows me I'm wrong I study the Bible to find out the truth. I can't call you a cherry picker because you do not even use Bible verses to support your opinions. Since you are condemning the Bible you could show the Bible verses you have problems with, instead you rattle off opinions as if they were proof, shame. If you're going to condemn the Bible you should by necessity use the Bible. An example is your opinion that God called for parents to kill their unruly children, you gave no proof of what you said and I know of no verse that says this. You didn't even give a criteria of what children are. So again you fail at trying to run down the Bible.

Hey, here's one, how about all those verses proclaiming jesus the christ, and insisting that such a thing as vicarious redemption is the righteous creators path to salvation?  I've got a problem with killing the better man to pay for my parking tickets.  

You say the literal interpretation of the Bible limits those Christians who believe the Bible is wholly true. You are wrong we are the ones who can best give a defense for our beliefs. Such as, Christians that do not believe in the Genesis account of creation have a more difficult time of a presenting the gospel of Jesus, why, because Jesus himself believed the account, Jesus the Son of God was the creator and all three parts of the trinity were involved in the creation.

I think that the poster was implying that it limited you to spouting off inanities and other assorted mental detritus, whereas a person who is not a biblical literalist is under no such obligation.  Their faith does not -have- to conflict with reality, for example..the way that yours does.    

You have an opinion and that's all it is that God can't be omnipotent and not lie, I find this highly unusual. What does omnipotence and lying even have in common, being all powerful has nothing to do with being immoral. God said He doesn't lie, why, because it is outside of who He is, this means it's impossible for Him to lie, not because He isn't omnipotent but just the opposite, His omnipotence want allow Him to lie. You need to discover what God's "omnis" are all about. Can you tell me what omnipresent means as pertaining to God?

God must use a different word for the bullshit he tells you. Figures that christer god would be as bad at words as literalist christers.