To sonship, on abortion

Originally posted by lemon lime
You have been interesting to watch as well, but I've gotten over my unhealthy fascination with how your mind works. So now I'm thinking if quoting scripture worked for Jesus to get Satan off his back, then maybe it will work for me too.

Can you pinpoint the post in which you retracted what you said about the Bible not being evidence to support Christian doctrine and, in so doing, reversed your stance on the issue?

Originally posted by FMF
Can you pinpoint the post in which you retracted what you said about the Bible not being evidence to support Christian doctrine and, in so doing, reversed your stance on the issue?

I think you're confused. You are the one claiming I reversed a stance, not me, so it's up to you to find whatever evidence you can to support your claim.

The only reason you and Dive are bringing this up now is because neither of you are getting anywhere in this thread. I knew your MO long before you two began playing your little gotcha games with me, so I made it a point to pay very close attention to what I was saying. Maybe you two should pay closer attention to what you are saying as well, because as it stands you both sound like a couple of idiots who can't seem to deal with the substance of a topic. You've reduced yourselves to nit picking fools looking for whatever little scraps of leverage you think will work.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I think you're confused. You are the one claiming I reversed a stance, not me, so it's up to you to find whatever evidence you can to support your claim.

On Thread 160913 this...

Originally posted by divegeester
Sorry to butt in but isn't what he said; FMF said he "lost confidence in the Bible as evidence to support the claims that Christians make about their God figure and about Jesus Christ."

Besides, as a Christian yourself, do you not accept the word of God (the Bible) as evidence to support the Christian gospel, doctrine and way of life?

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, I don't. I didn't accept that before I believed in God and I still don't accept it.

And now on this thread:

Originally posted by lemon lime
What I said before and am saying again (for the 3rd or 4th time, I've lost count) is that the Bible is obviously evidence of Biblical doctrine.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Maybe you two should pay closer attention to what you are saying as well, because as it stands you both sound like a couple of idiots who can't seem to deal with the substance of a topic. You've reduced yourselves to nit picking fools looking for whatever little scraps of leverage you think will work. It's pathetic.

For several days you were taking an essentially non-Christian stance on the Bible. Suggesting that the Bible does not present evidence to support Christian doctrine strikes me as being "substance" whether it's convenient for you or not. You were given countless opportunities to retract it gracefully, but you chose not to.

Originally posted by FMF
For several days you were taking an essentially non-Christian stance on the Bible. Suggesting that the Bible does not present evidence to support Christian doctrine strikes me as being "substance" whether it's convenient for you or not. You were given countless opportunities to retract it gracefully, but you chose not to.

The Bible is a book. The word bible literally means 'book'. You may think it's okay to worship a book, but I don't. So are you able to gracefully admit you misunderstood my point about the Bible? I'm not asking you to retract anything you've said, I'm simply giving you the opportunity to admit you didn't understand what I was saying.

Originally posted by lemon lime
What I said before and am saying again (for the 3rd or 4th time, I've lost count) is that the Bible is obviously evidence of Biblical doctrine.

No, you're just being dishonest again aren't you.

What you said was that you personally DID NOT accept the Bible as evidence of what Christian's believe about Christ. You also said to me what FMF quoted on the previous page:

If this is so, why then ~ when asked by divegeester "...as a Christian yourself, do you not accept the word of God (the Bible) as evidence to support the Christian gospel, doctrine and way of life?" ~ did you answer: "No, I don't. I didn't accept that before I believed in God and I still don't accept it"

I find it amusing that every time you are caught lying you accuse me of either not being a Christian, undermining the faith of other Christians or now as a wold in sheep's clothing.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The only reason you and Dive are bringing this up now is because neither of you are getting anywhere in this thread.

But I've not posted in this thread prior to my catching you out lying again.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Maybe you two should pay closer attention to what you are saying as well, because as it stands you both sound like a couple of idiots who can't seem to deal with the substance of a topic.

You have been caught lying several times in both this forum and the general forum.

That you are a serial liar is of little consequence to me - that you simultaneously accuse me of not being a Christian, undermining the faith of other Christians, of being a wolf in sheep's clothing and now an idiot - does have consequence to me and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The Bible is a book. The word bible literally means 'book'. You may think it's okay to worship a book, but I don't. So are you able to gracefully admit you misunderstood my point about the Bible? I'm not asking you to retract anything you've said, I'm simply giving you the opportunity to admit you didn't understand what I was saying.

I have never said anything whatsoever about "worshipping a book". I have said nothing of the sort, as you well know. I don't recall anyone on this forum who has equated finding the Bible to be evidence with "worshipping" it. No one. I am asking you about when it was that you retracted your suggestion that you "do not accept the word of God (the Bible) as evidence to support the Christian gospel, doctrine and way of life" and did an about face and suggested "the Bible is obviously evidence of Biblical doctrine".

Originally posted by lemon lime
The only reason you and Dive are bringing this up now is because neither of you are getting anywhere in this thread.

How so? My only contribution to this thread had been on page 1 when I said this to whodey: "The OP is not about "progressives". The question is posed by one anti-abortion Christian to another anti-abortion Christian and is a theological one, not a political one."

Originally posted by lemon lime

But if God cares about me and won't lie to me, and he says it's there, then why shouldn't I believe him?

You have to stand back a little bit here and take a different view. HOW do you know that God said that? Because it says so in the Bible. End of argument. Or is it? We can have a long discussion about if every word is inspired or not, but this is not the place. However, to simply say "God says so!" whilst referring to a specific scripture, is to ignore the obvious fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations will take the SAME scripture and say "No! THIS is what God says!"

If I get into the habit of picking and choosing what I want to believe is true (or not true) then how am I any different than someone who falls into the habit of comforting himself with self serving lies?

This is an old argument which says that if I question ANY ONE THING in the Bible, then the whole thing falls apart like a pack of cards, and there is NOTHING that I can trust and stand on.

This is patently not true. I can, and have, used my God-given brain to question some things, for example the story of the Flood that I have believed since childhood, and suddenly one day wake up and say: "Hey, wait a minute! This cannot possibly be literally true, that animals from Australia and South America physically walked to the ME and back again!" So I dropped it, with no damage to my soul.

If you understand how and when and by whom the collected works that we call the Bible was written, then you can (and should) use your God-given intellect to differentiate what is significant, meaningful and critical, and what is merely beautiful and poetic.

See what can happen once you start playing around with the idea that maybe God doesn't always tell the truth?

Do you see what you have done again here? Begging the question! Obviously, God being God, when he speaks will always tell the truth. The problem is that what we attribute to God, isn't always necessarily God that is doing the speaking!

Originally posted by CalJust
[b]
But if God cares about me and won't lie to me, and he says it's there, then why shouldn't I believe him?

You have to stand back a little bit here and take a different view. HOW do you know that God said that? Because it says so in the Bible. End of argument. Or is it? We can have a long discussion about if every word is inspired or not, b ...[text shortened]... oblem is that what we attribute to God, isn't always necessarily God that is doing the speaking![/b]

So as a Christian, and someone who believes Jesus told the truth...

If Jesus is God in the flesh, and Jesus warned about hell, what more evidence do you need that hell is real and a place to avoid? In your opinion is heaven real? This may seem like a dumb question, but why would anyone believe heaven is real but not hell?

Originally posted by CalJust
[b]
But if God cares about me and won't lie to me, and he says it's there, then why shouldn't I believe him?

You have to stand back a little bit here and take a different view. HOW do you know that God said that? Because it says so in the Bible. End of argument. Or is it? We can have a long discussion about if every word is inspired or not, b ...[text shortened]... oblem is that what we attribute to God, isn't always necessarily God that is doing the speaking![/b]

I don't want to get into a debate over evolution or the flood. I've spent a lot of time studying this over the past 15 years, and have gotten into some debates over it and the result is always the same. Anyone who believes in evolution can find support for that belief, and anyone who questions it can find evidence to refute it.

For most of my life I was a die hard evolutionist who couldn't reconcile stories of creation in the Bible to what I believed was cold hard fact, but after being confronted with new evidence (new to me) I eventually changed my mind. Changing my mind was no easy task, so I won't assume it can be easy for anyone else.

Science debates conducted like political debates annoy me to no end, so I don't bother with it anymore. I'll just say that I found enough evidence of a world wide flood to convince me it happened, and enough evidence contradicting claims evolutionists have made to convince me as well. The most damning evidence (in my opinion) of why evolution is untenable is the fact that most evolutionists won't talk about abiogenesis, and will claim it has nothing to do with the study of evolution.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So as a Christian, and someone who believes Jesus told the truth...

If Jesus is God in the flesh, and Jesus warned about hell, what more evidence do you need that hell is real and a place to avoid? In your opinion is heaven real? This may seem like a dumb question, but why would anyone believe heaven is real but not hell?

Jesus said many, many things that were metaphorical, some obviously so and some not.

For example, do you know of anyone who has "plucked out their eye" to avoid hellfire (because they looked lustfully on a woman)?

Jesus was invariably concerned about the here and now, and our relationships.

Yes, I do believe in a heaven, but have no idea what it will be like. Certainly not streets paved with gold, etc.

Also, concerning your other post, I have no intention of digressing into evolution in this thread - boooring and overdone.

Final thought : if you think you know what God is like, you can be 100% sure you are wrong, because a human brain can understand God as easily as an ant can understand a Boeing 747. That's why the commandment says: don't make yoursef an image of him!

Originally posted by CalJust
Jesus said many, many things that were metaphorical, some obviously so and some not.

For example, do you know of anyone who has "plucked out their eye" to avoid hellfire (because they looked lustfully on a woman)?

Jesus was invariably concerned about the here and now, and our relationships.

Yes, I do believe in a heaven, but have no idea what it wi ...[text shortened]... an understand a Boeing 747. That's why the commandment says: don't make yoursef an image of him!

I can never fully understand God, but I think God made man in such a way that we would be able to understand him to some degree. I didn't understand for example, why God would pay so much attention to man or be concerned about him, given that man is so utterly dependent and mostly disobedient to him... what does God get out of the relationship? Then I had kids of my own and I understood. Babies cry a lot and keep us awake at night and treat us to poopy diapers and spit up on us (the spit up smells worse than the poop) and repeat things we've said to the people we've been talking about behind their backs and etc. etc. etc.

Anyone who has had kids can tell you what a pain in rump they can be. However, it was because of my kids that I was able to understand why God loves any of us and takes care of us in spite of everything, including disappointments.

Yeah, I get the part about plucking out an eye that offends is better than the whole body being tossed into hell. But if you look at what he is literally saying then it's clear he isn't telling anyone to pluck out their eyes. I'm very literal minded, so when I see him saying it's better to do something horrid so that something worse won't happen, I can clearly see that he is not saying if your eye offends you must pluck it out.

If I told you it's better for you to cut off a finger than it is for you to jump into an active volcano, you wouldn't think I was telling you to cut off your finger... and the fact is, losing one eye would be better than for the whole body being tossed into hell. If you can imagine the horror of plucking out one of your own eyes, and then you're told that's much better than being tossed into hell, then I think he came up with a very good illustration of the unimaginable horror of hell itself.

He was making an important point, and making it in a rather shocking and attention getting way. Why would he do that? Maybe it was to wake them up, so that the point he was making would break through and get passed the stupor of people whose senses had become dulled.