Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[jenny1972]

i think everyone here is well aware of what christianity believes but drich how do you know that christianity is right other religions have stories written in books too why arent their stories right and yours are right ? what has convinced you what is your evidence that these stories are true and not made up?

On the contrary. I firmly believe, what they say happened to mohammad happened as He says it happend, and for the sake of argument willing to give Joseph Smith a pass as well.. (and as i already stated where i thought greek and Roman gods came from which also have it's roots in reality.)

My objections center around what I used to 'proof' the bible. In that their books make claims/promises that are flat out wrong, or go unfulfilled. Their is a doctrine of faith till you die. I know most of you believe this to be true of Christianity but it is not. We have been given an chance to interact with God in this life. No other religion makes that claim/promise unless one is a prophet. In Christianity we have been given direct access to the Holy Spirit. A promise i took God up on and received. Now because that was true I know the bible to be reliable. Which can not even be claimed in Judaism. Because all other religions put God out of the reach of Man while Christian's purpose is to put man in direct contact with God. Yes their is an after life componet, but where we differ is God wants this relationship in this life as well.

there are many religions that promise direct access to God christianity is not the first or last religion that offers direct access , so if direct access makes a religion true then you should believe in all the religions that teach direct access to God is possible to be also true
christianity/the bible does makes claims/promises that have been flat out wrong and have failed to come to pass

Mark 11:24: " Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. "

In John 14:12-14 we find the same thing:
" I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. "

Jesus says, " I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these " yet believers and those who have faith cannot walk on water or do any of the things that Jesus was able to do, so this is a promise that has not come to pass .

And when Jesus says, "ask anything in my name, and I will do it," this also is not true. Jesus does not just say it once. He says the same thing several times ...

In Matthew 7:7: "Ask, and it will be given to you." In Matthew 17:20: "Nothing will be impossible for you." In Matthew 21:21: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

we can not do the things that Jesus did or greater things , and we cannot receive whatever we ask for in prayer . His deciples could not then and neither can believers today. so i was just wondering what people thought about these promises that have over time proven to be untrue .

Also Jesus told His deciples that "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 , suggesting it seems that Gods Kingdom would come in their lifetime (for some of them) , which also did not come to pass.

[jenny1972]

philippians 4:19 " God will meet all our needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus "

2 corinthians 9: 6-8 " And God is able to make all grace abound to us, so that in all things at all times, having all that we need, we will abound in every good work "

but these promises of needs being met is not true there are many people who go hungry and starve to death and have other unfulfilled needs in this life

[KevinM1]

The bible has a shit ton of detail about lineages and whatnot, but the basic story is very simple -

less than 1/16th of the total volume is dedicated to geneologies.

Hence 'whatnot'.

Mankind is cursed with sin due to Adam and Eve engaging in the Original Sin.

"Original sin' is not a topic mentioned or taught by the bible.

Genesis 3 is all about it.  Humanity is cursed because Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

makes commandments, demands sacrifices, smites people, etc.

This was not so from the start.. there are a few thousand years between Adam's first day out of the garden and when any of that was true. So why the need for it? "pop morality" and the decline of man's ablity to identify right and wrong.

You realize you're defending your god for committing genocide because the people were wicked before he decided it may be a good idea to lay down some ground rules (the commandments)?

After a time, he decides to give humanity an out, so he sends himself (or, a portion of himself) down to live among the people and teach them the right way to live.

Actually the 'out' has been their from the beginning. That's what the sacrifices were all about. It was to train and ingrain what a sacrifice meant and the depth of what God was actually doing when He sent Jesus to be that final sacrifice.

LMFAO.  Man, killing and burning livestock parts is completely different than having a person be tortured to death.  There's false equivocations, and then there's this.

Cue: virgin birth, blah blah blah
Jesus performs some miracles, gains a following among the locals

Why did he do those things?

I honestly don't care.

 Claims to have fulfilled the old prophecies of the coming messiah, but, eh, let's agree to disagree.

If you want to resolve this disagreement I can point to 353 prophecies, and show you where/how they were full filled.

If you feel like starting a new thread.  I'm sure that would yield some giggles.

to himself (lol),

God is a title not a name. Jesus prayes to God the Father.

So, you're pagan, then.  Cool.

In doing so, since he was the epitome of innocence and righteousness, his sacrifice magically gives the rest of humanity a way out of perpetual sin...

Their no magic about it. Jesus' Death and blood shed is the Physical manifestation of the Pain endured by god to forgive sins. We have been given this physical example of pain so we could have some idea of the Spiritual cost. In so far as we can learn to respect what has been given so that we may not be held to account for the sin we have committed.

...that entire description is magical.  Seriously, I've read similar kinds of mumbojumbo in Dungeons and Dragons books.  It's also heinous, morally speaking.  God is powerful enough to do anything, so he can't just give everyone a vision or something, and instead must have his son go on display and be tortured as a lesson to everyone else?  How is that not evil?

You can quibble about the details all you want.  That's the crux of the story.  The blood price paid by Jesus saves humanity, who would otherwise all be sent to writhe and burn in the hell his Phase 2 form created earlier.

"The details" are the whole point.. Knowing the 'crux' without the details is the same as knowing how a movie ends with out the work up/without the details of the story. The whole point of a movie is the whole journey, not just how it ends. What if i gave you the ending of the next starwars movie before you got to see it, what would you call that?
Whether you like star wars or not the point is discovering the 'crux' of a story is not the reason we go to the movies and watch them. its the whole journey, its the details leading up to the 'crux' that gives a movie it's value. The same is true here. Yes you can boil Jesus whole life down to your 'crux', but what gives His work any real meaning are in the details of his story. Which by the way maybe why so many Christians have the 'proof' of God that illudes you and everyone else who just seek the 'crux.'

Except Star Wars is interesting, and Jesus isn't.

No, I'm serious.

I'm one of those people who cannot force themselves to go through media - stories, movies, music, etc. - they don't like.  I've tried reading the bible to see what the fuss is all about.  I can't make it past the first few chapters of Genesis.  It's just wholly uninteresting and boring to me, and I really don't care.

Now, if someone can provide me with 3rd party, legit, verified evidence that this god character you keep talking about is real, then maybe I'll take it more seriously.  But right now?  It's a collection of boring stories that beg the question, and I treat them as such.

What is more unlikely is you being honest enough with yourself to point these supposed problems out rather than just giving a random list of random "problems" and not tying them to the narritive in any way shape or form.
Or can you honestly not see the basic fallacy in reasoning here?

Drich, you're trying to say that if everyone understood the narrative of the story, it would all make sense.  What I'm saying is that the narrative cannot make the ideas of:

God
Hell
Sin
Virgin pregnancy/birth
Resurrection

Less goofy.  It may fit the narrative of the story, but when contrasted with reality, they make no sense.

To go back to Star Wars, The Force, Jedi, Sith, ghosts... all of it (mostly) makes sense within the movies.  The narrative, of varying quality (those prequels... yuck), makes sense.  It's credible and self-referencing.  But, the story obviously don't apply to real life.  You're asking everyone here to take the ancient Middle Eastern version of it seriously, as though it's not fictitious.  And there's no secondary sources of information that tell us we should give it any more respect than any other collection of myths.

[Minimalist]

Drich Wrote:

The bible has a shit ton of detail about lineages and whatnot, but the basic story is very simple -

less than 1/16th of the total volume is dedicated to geneologies.

My dick comprises less than 1/16th of my body weight but I still regard it as inherently important!

[Vincent]

Which faith? or which version of the Faith? Are you suggesting that out of the supposedly 40,000 different expressions of Christianity mine is unique? Or are you simply defaulting to the logical fallacy of sweeping generalizations?

Because in the OP (Again) I point to a very specific faith/system of belief.

That's my point. You can't just say we all don't understand Christianity and then try to teach us your interpretation so we'll be able to argue intelligently. You don't speak for the Catholics with their 1747438 saints. You don't speak for the Mormons and their friendo Joseph Smith. You don't speak for the Protestants or the Lutherans or the Presbyterians or the Baptists or any other Christian denomination. You speak only for yours. And with all the past wars and conflicts and discrimination and aggression between these guys throughout the years, I'd venture to say that the interpretations must be different enough, enough to say that your single sect of Christianity is not a stand in for the whole. 

Homosexuality is a sin, for the sake of that specific arguement. the person i was speaking to was pretending that because Jesus did not identify Homosexuality specifically that the rest of the bible did not matter, and homosexuality according to Christ was not a sin. I said ok fine lets go with homosexuality is not a sin. I pointed out Jesus still identified sexual sin as a sin... And because their wasn't a santified pretext Homosexuals could have sex they were still in sin.

Wow, so you are able to openly admit that your book condemns homosexuality as morally wrong and causes you to think of it as such. THIS kind of shit is why I disagree with the shit you believe in. 

I agree, i have said many times homosexuality is sinful, but their is/was a popular arguement that tries and mutes what the NT says about homosexuality being sinful. The point i was making was that even if you silence the NT on Homosexuality you still do not have permission, as the bible/NT still regulates who has sex with who through a santified marriage.

I don't believe in sex before marriage either, but tbh I don't think of it as sinful or morally wrong. Some people just don't want to get married.   Here is another example of a religion imposing judgment or criticism on someone's lifestyle choice. 

Again, Read the OP. My views only repersent "BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY" Meaning I only am claim to repersent those who only base what they believe only on the bible.

Adorable...  but unfortunately, a vast majority of the Christians that are on TV, in the government, that cause issues, and that i address when I voice my dislike of religion, and that i fight with, are the ones that go to Church, that listen to a Pastor or a Minister or a Priest tell them what to believe. So since those are the ones I criticize, and since you have professed that your thread's insurance policy covers only Christians who are based solely on Bible readings, then that means your accusations of my misguided bigotry aren't even really justified, since my dislike is not aimed at the "Bible-based Christians" you seek to defend (though the homosexual discrimination is still there, so in a way I do have that problem with you). You make no case for the other like 80% that I actually target. 

However, even if you are only defending the Biblical Christians, your thread and nothing you have said thus far has debunked or proven me wrong in saying that you believe in a book that presents scientific impossibilities and that can't honestly be trusted to be the 100% true word of a God it claims exists. How do you know your Bible is true? How can you prove that? That is my issue, and that issue is not being addressed in the content of this thread. I care less about the details of your book and more about you proving to me the validity of it. 

Where does the bible say we must deny evolution?

Well obviously the Bible isn't going to say "thou must deny evolution" because the idea hadn't been discovered yet. However, the entire first chapter of Genesis is not in line with evolution. At all. The only way it can be so is if you twist the words into every which metaphor you can think up. 

lol, A virgin in OT times was a young woman with hymen intact.

Ummmmmmm....... For most women, the hymen breaks when she loses her virginity. 

So two possibilities exist: One, you imply that Jesus's mother DID have sex with a human male, and was just lucky enough that her hymen didn't break. So in this case, if both parents are human, and he was naturally conceived, that means he was NOT divinely conceived, and thus why believe him to be the son of god? 

Possibility two: the hymen is in tact because she never had sex, and because artificial insemination (as far as I know) was not around at the time (and even if it was, that would just lead us back to problem #1), then that means she was a virgin in today's terms. and it is scientifically impossible for a virgin to conceive. 

But there is one more possibility, one that you might not have considered before.........
........
..........
Maybe she just told a lie. 

What if I said i could reproduce all those these feats now? To you, and some knoweledge of modern tech, you might cry foul, but what would someone who live 2000 years ago say? If we can reproduce these effects now then why would it have been 'scientifically impossible' for God to have done them then?

Because first you'd have to prove that God exists in order to make that assertion. You can't lay your claim on another unproven claim. (begging the question)

Maybe because again. you like so many others do not understand the basics of biblical Christianity. Just look at you list of objections.. They are all sterotyped nonsense that is well with in the reach of MAN today. Yet you posit them as impossible. Why? because you have never seriously given any of this any thought outside of what others have pointed out to you to think. You 'think' you know, but as I pointed out your best 'objections' so far are bunk.

It's not a stereotype if it's true. 
Has Christianity not been a leading cause of the things I mentioned? 
Yes? Then it is not a generalization. It's rested on statistics and fact. 

Every blessed one. why? because they are all FIRMLY with in the realm of reason for an open mind.

Hahahahahahhahahhhaahhahahhha.... hahaha..... haha.....ha.

Ok, Drich.

All religion has a negitive aspect, why? because at some point 'religion' is used by hart hearted men to get what they want. Understand though that With or without religion you do not eliminate hard hearted men who will maniuplate anything to get what they want. For them religion becomes a tool to serve a wicked nature. Our natures do not disappear with out God. Matter of fact they worsen.

I agree. It is used by shitty people to do shitty things. Just as science and government sometimes are. However, since we clearly are at a point in societal evolution in which we don't need a god to keep us on our best behavior, and we don't need a god to fill in gaps of scientific knowledge, then we can just toss religion out altogether, in my book. Of course, saying that won't make it true, but one can hope.

The religion, yes. Biblical Christianity no.

Let's take a little vocab lesson. 

Religion (as found in any dictionary): the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Christianity (as found in any dictionary): the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

Biblical Christianity is a religion. Don't try to weasel your way out of denying what Christianity has been responsible for by painting your tiny, specific sect as innocent or abject from the term. The Bible by itself is not a religion. The Bible itself is nothing, just markings on paper. Everything it is and all power and influence it has is intertwined with an individual reading and believing its words to be absolute truth, and once he believes there's a God, it becomes a religion. You don't need to got to church to be a part of a religion. 

You might be able to make a case for organized or institutional religion, but do yourself the favor of admitting that you are in a religion. Denying it will get you nowhere.

It was man's understanding that the earth is only 5000 years old. because when you count the geneologies back to Adam and even include the protracted lives some of these men lived it comes out to 5000 years. So some very 'religious' person proudly proclaimed that because his understanding was such, no other understand had merrit.

How ever if you count the generations back you only come to the point where A&E were expelled from the garden and had thier first kids... Nothing in the bible says how long they were in the garden.

I did read Genesis. Adam and Eve were already established human beings when they were put in the garden. "Man and woman". The only way you can turn it into evolution is if you say that each day God took to make the Earth was longer than a 24 hour day. Kind of a cop out in my opinion, but it would slide. 

The Religion (Again religion is the work of man in the "name" of God/But absent of any biblical mandate) Yes, Biblical Christianity? No. Homosexuals are looked at as sexual sinners. If anything All sexual sinners were looked at with distain, but not until recently were sexual sinners given a pass, but homosexuals were not. Again not a biblical mandate, just something the self righteous among us (without God) have done on their own, but happen to use the 'name of God' to justify their own hate. Show me a Mandate to Hate or even 'judge' evil people let alone sinners. and I will point you back to Romans 2:1 where Paul very specifically says we are not allowed to judge/Act against EVIL People let alone sinners because we are ALL GUILTY of the Same things.

Again your ignorance here of basic biblical Christianity makes you beleve ALL Christians see themselves as being better hence the ablity to judge or hate those in unrepentant sin, when clearly this act would be in direct violation of what Paul says we are to do.

Because viewing them as sexual sinners is soooooo much better. 

Oh, my favorite! Not ALL Christians! Hey, if I'm digging through a barrel of apples, and I can only find 5-6 good ones, and all the rest are rotten, I'm not going to look up and say, "this is a good barrel." Not all of Christianity is bad, but when the percentage is so high, i really don't waste my time searching for the diamonds in the rough. 

Again, If an Evil man wants to use you as an excuse to kill, rape and murder those people in whom you have issue with, yet in no way have you ever expressed a wish for any harm to come to those people, Matter of fact you have a strict live and let live policy, is it your fault your name was used to justify this evil? If you are not at fault for the things evil men do in your name, who then is? It is the evil in those who would use your name to commit the things on their hearts. Men then wanted slaves, they used anything that would sway an arguement to keep what they wanted. Otherwise know, no where does the bible command we all have slaves.

No, but let's be honest... The Bible didn't exactly condemn it. Your guy knows all, sees all, past and future. Don't ya think he would have been smart enough to include "no slaves" up there in the 10 commandments, if he foresaw how lack of it would cause people to use the Bible as a avocation? What poor foresight your god has. Or maybe he just doesn't give a shit. 

I care less about what your book actually says (until you are prepared to prove the shit, since in my book it's all myths), and more about how it affects other people and causes them to act. And if it causes them to do so many shitty things, with so little benefit, then why keep it around? 

By the objections you've listed almost everything. You are like a car guy who changes his own oil trying to tell a guy who worked on cars for 30 years and now designs them 'you' know everything their is to know. when infact your ignorance is staggering, yet you want to claim full knoweledge. I have studied this stuff2 3 hours (sometimes 7 or 8 with you guys) a Day Almost EVERYDAY for the last 20+ years, and what I don't know can fill libaries. So i don't pretend to be in a position to claim even 1/2 the mastery you all do. and yet look at how easily your objections were just picked off one by one. Not even in a subjective way that you can really argue (not to say you wont try) Most of what you know is absolutely wrong, and I've given you the right answers according to what scripture says and what it does not.

Haha, okay. Let's pick this apart. 

I don't claim to have all knowledge, buddy. That's you. YOU and your posse think you KNOW exactly how the universe was created, when at least I will tell you that I lack understanding of that event. You think that you KNOW the nature of a God. You think that you KNOW that he exists, and you think that you KNOW all the shit written in your book is true. There is only one thing I claim to know about your God, your Bible, and your religion: there's no evidence to support any of it. There's no foundation for it's claims of jesus's divinity, of his magic powers, of his "saving mankind", outside of your book and some letters written by the same people who starred in the book. Funny, I'd figure that if there was someone walking on water or floating into the clouds, a number of everyday eye witnesses would have reported it. You have the same issue with the story of Moses parting the Red Sea, and the fact that there's no evidence that the Israelites were even in Egypt to be slaves in the first place. Jesus might have existed, his followers might have existed, but as for all the supernatural mumbo jumbo.... that seems to be remarkably kept between jesus and those followers. Do you think it matters to me how long you've been reading the Bible? I could spend 50 years examining the Harry Potter franchise and I'd be no closer to proving Harry Potter existed. 

I don't claim to know the secrets of the universe. I just know enough to reject stuff the reeks of bullshit. You might call yourself imaginative. I call you gullible.

Actually, you didn't answer any of my points about homosexual discrimination, advocating slavery, denying evolution, and fighting against women's rights. All you did was brush it off saying, "that's religion, not MY religion".

ll i needed to do to prove you wrong is show a discrepency between "religious belief" and what the bible says or does not say.

Don't care that much about what it says. Because I doubt a quarter of it is true. Once again, I care about how people use it. 

Again I am not here to argue denominational doctrines and which one is right. In the OP I state I am trying to communicate what Biblical Christians believe. Nothing more

hey, that's fine. But if you're not interested in any other discussion about Christianity, its crimes, and whether it's actually true, then you don't have grounds to say I'm wrong in what I believe about your religion. 

[robvalue]

What an awesome takedown Laika! That deserves a rep point all on its own Given!

Everyone else's takedowns are also awesome, it's a shame I can't give you all more reps. If I've somehow missed out one of you cool cats on the forum, please let me know and I'll correct the situation!

[Drich]

there are many religions that promise direct access to God christianity is not the first or last religion that offers direct access ,

Like what? What offers a personal relationship between the believer and their God? Aside from satanism I don't know of anyothers that offer what Christianity offers with their deity, again unless the people were being exploited, prophets or emmesarries.

Now Is that religion now considered to be a 'dead religion?' finally Ask yourself why, and why is Christianity still going strong after making the same promise?

so if direct access makes a religion true then you should believe in all the religions that teach direct access to God is possible to be also true

It's not the claim, it is the fulfillment of said claim that makes a religion true.
Again, non of which can be verified in this life aside from Christianity.

christianity/the bible does makes claims/promises that have been flat out wrong and have failed to come to pass

Mark 11:24: " Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. "

In John 14:12-14 we find the same thing:
" I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. "

Jesus says, " I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these " yet believers and those who have faith cannot walk on water or do any of the things that Jesus was able to do, so this is a promise that has not come to pass .

And when Jesus says, "ask anything in my name, and I will do it," this also is not true. Jesus does not just say it once. He says the same thing several times ...

In Matthew 7:7: "Ask, and it will be given to you." In Matthew 17:20: "Nothing will be impossible for you." In Matthew 21:21: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Every single reference you made is out of context. in each case their is a qualifier to "asking in prayer" that you have intentionally left out. Put these verses back in context and the discussion can continue.

we can not do the things that Jesus did or greater things , and we cannot receive whatever we ask for in prayer . His deciples could not then and neither can believers today. so i was just wondering what people thought about these promises that have over time proven to be untrue .

Again context.Who was Jesus speaking to?

Also Jesus told His deciples that "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 , suggesting it seems that Gods Kingdom would come in their lifetime (for some of them) , which also did not come to pass.

What do you think the book of Revelation is? (It is a visual account of the "Son of man" Comming in glory) Who wrote Revelation? (The Apostle In whom Jesus Loved/John) Did He write it before or after he died? I'll let you figure that one out.

What else you got?

[Drich]

philippians 4:19 " God will meet all our needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus "

2 corinthians 9: 6-8 " And God is able to make all grace abound to us, so that in all things at all times, having all that we need, we will abound in every good work "

but these promises of needs being met is not true there are many people who go hungry and starve to death and have other unfulfilled needs in this life

God has given us (collectively) everything we need. At no point has the whole world been in famine at the same time. Yes people do go hungry and starve to death. why? Is it because their is nothing no where to be eaten or do those who have simply not share as God has commanded with those who have not? Who is at fault here? the master who left more than what was needed to care for everyone or the one who sits and does nothing in overabundance?

[Drich]

Hence 'whatnot'.

You are using the term What-not wrong.
It means unmentioned items that could belong the list provided. Ex: we need bread, ham, cheese, tomato and what-not to make a good sam-bitch.

"Original sin' is not a topic mentioned or taught by the bible.

Genesis 3 is all about it.  Humanity is cursed because Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

No it doesn't. Genesis 3 is the passage used to identify what certain denominations define as original sin, but the bible never points to the fall as the point of original sin. It is the point where Adam and Eve first sinned. we are not judged on their sin, but on our own. Each one of us according to the bible, when we become aware of sin and do it anyway is then guilty of sin. Not what someone else did at the dawn of humanity.

You realize you're defending your god for committing genocide because the people were wicked before he decided it may be a good idea to lay down some ground rules (the commandments)?

How so?

LMFAO.  Man, killing and burning livestock parts is completely different than having a person be tortured to death.  There's false equivocations, and then there's this.

Never seen a baby lamb die huh? Maybe you should google it before you speak. My grandfathers (both of them) had live stock.. Baby lambs scream like children when being killed. the way the OT had them slaughtered was to cut their throats and have them bleed out. This was not a quiet or quick way for them to go. The reason being was the picture of innocence they repersented. So every time one was sacrificed the jews were reminded of the cost of sin.
Which would have been a vivid picture up until 'meat' became something you bought in shrink wrapped trays at the store, rather than having been apart of a animal.

Why did he do those things?

I honestly don't care.

good makes my job faster.

So, you're pagan, then.  Cool.

You don't know what that word means either huh? I see a pattern here with you. look it up.

Their no magic about it. Jesus' Death and blood shed is the Physical manifestation of the Pain endured by god to forgive sins. We have been given this physical example of pain so we could have some idea of the Spiritual cost. In so far as we can learn to respect what has been given so that we may not be held to account for the sin we have committed.

...that entire description is magical.

Magic is to effect an event in an unknown way. What is unknown/unknowable about what I said? God used physical pain to communicate to us the pain He endured to forgive sin. So that we may have some way to relate to the cost, and subsequently understand the demand that we acknoweledge the loss as a means to accept the atonement provided by said loss.

 Seriously, I've read similar kinds of mumbojumbo in Dungeons and Dragons books.  It's also heinous, morally speaking.  God is powerful enough to do anything, so he can't just give everyone a vision or something, and instead must have his son go on display and be tortured as a lesson to everyone else?

If the cost could only be communicated by a horrid death on a cross, do you really want that experience beamed into your head? Jesus/God the Son died after 3 hours of this torment.. How long would you suggest we be made to endure?

 How is that not evil?

How do you still not understand the word evil after all of this?
Evil has nothing to do with our actions. it is the love of sin over God. Jesus' death show a greater love for God the Father than for Himself.

"The details" are the whole point.. Knowing the 'crux' without the details is the same as knowing how a movie ends with out the work up/without the details of the story. The whole point of a movie is the whole journey, not just how it ends. What if i gave you the ending of the next starwars movie before you got to see it, what would you call that?
Whether you like star wars or not the point is discovering the 'crux' of a story is not the reason we go to the movies and watch them. its the whole journey, its the details leading up to the 'crux' that gives a movie it's value. The same is true here. Yes you can boil Jesus whole life down to your 'crux', but what gives His work any real meaning are in the details of his story. Which by the way maybe why so many Christians have the 'proof' of God that illudes you and everyone else who just seek the 'crux.'

Except Star Wars is interesting, and Jesus isn't.

No, I'm serious.

I'm one of those people who cannot force themselves to go through media - stories, movies, music, etc. - they don't like.  I've tried reading the bible to see what the fuss is all about.  I can't make it past the first few chapters of Genesis.  It's just wholly uninteresting and boring to me, and I really don't care.

That's because you are reading it as a story. What if the bible was a set of instructions for one to obtain the 'force?'

Now, if someone can provide me with 3rd party, legit, verified evidence that this god character you keep talking about is real, then maybe I'll take it more seriously.  But right now?  It's a collection of boring stories that beg the question, and I treat them as such.

That's the thing though I am many like me are third parties who proclaim all sorts of things god ha done in our lives and point to the fact that we are nothing special. That we simply follow the instructions in the bible and get 'proof of God' by receiving God the Spirit in our lives. Which takes us all off in directions/places we could never otherwise go.

Verfication is not what your looking for. You want a mandate. Something your forced to not ignore. Well, Good news everyone! that day is comming but by then it will be too late for you to benfit from it.

What is more unlikely is you being honest enough with yourself to point these supposed problems out rather than just giving a random list of random "problems" and not tying them to the narritive in any way shape or form.
Or can you honestly not see the basic fallacy in reasoning here?

Drich, you're trying to say that if everyone understood the narrative of the story, it would all make sense.  What I'm saying is that the narrative cannot make the ideas of:

define "sense." Do you mean To compress down to fit into the box you currently think in/can not think past?

God= creator of all things.
Hell=eternal seperation from God/Death
Sin= Anything though/deed not in the Expressed will of God.
Virgin pregnancy/birth= Birth with hymen intact. Google it. In the US 45 'virgin births' since 1995
Resurrection=consciousness up loaded into a different body.

Less goofy.  It may fit the narrative of the story, but when contrasted with reality, they make no sense.

because yu approach with a closed mind. At some point you wrongly assumed what all those things meant and will not/can not change the definations of those terms in your mind. so when the static religious terms are challenged, by ever changing 'science' they fail. so to you they become obsolete. However if you are honest and smart enough to compare apples to apples (when science changes the perception of reality) you to also look at those religious definations and see where an honest change in the perception of the religious can also be made to reflect what we know to be 'real' while not changing the core truth of what God has given us to know.

To go back to Star Wars, The Force, Jedi, Sith, ghosts... all of it (mostly) makes sense within the movies.  The narrative, of varying quality (those prequels... yuck), makes sense.  It's credible and self-referencing.  But, the story obviously don't apply to real life.  You're asking everyone here to take the ancient Middle Eastern version of it seriously, as though it's not fictitious.  And there's no secondary sources of information that tell us we should give it any more respect than any other collection of myths.

Again, why?

The Why you did not care about before, will answer this question, in that where star wars fails to cross the wall between fiction and reality God does cross. Which again is offered to each and every one of us who will A/S/K.

[Minimalist]

good makes my job faster.

You don't have a job, drippy.  You have an obsession.