William Lane Craig Is Better Off Citing Matt 13:10-15

As for the sexual abuse insinuation in that the single woman were left alive. Once more we need only use a little common sense. The Jewish soldiers were ... Jews. Jews live by the laws of Moses. What is punishment for rape according to the laws of Moses? What is punishment for adultery according to the laws of Moses?

Is it the fact that children died that upsets you? All children go to heaven.

Ask atheists to rephrase their questions like this: How does a good (Psalm 136:1), impartial (Acts 10:34), loving (John 3:16), just (2 Thess 1:6-9), patient, longsuffering God who relents from sending calamity and created us, justify doing X and Y?

God has got nothing to hide. The devil wants us to lose confidence in scripture. The Holy Spirit should be teaching us its inerrancy... or leading us to the true word of God that points to Jesus and was with Him from the beginning!! John 1:1.

Now this scripture states otherwise
Deuteronomy 22:10-14
21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her
 
When saying blasphemy is demonstrated by Thomas Jefferson, where is the example of him cherry picking the good stuff? What specifically does he say that is considered cherry picking?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I just think in the long run, doubling down on scriptural integrity over the love of Christ will bring about a mass exodus from the faith as more & more get exposed to the scriptures not preached on Sunday.”

I can agree that the love of Christ should be a central focus, but what scriptures specifically are you referring to that get preached on Sunday that will cause the mass exodus? Please be specific

Jeremiah7:29 said – “When I first learned of all of these problematic scriptures, it was like I was on Cheaters, having Joey Greco show me footage of my soul mates secret double life. When these scriptures are presented to me, I can only throw up my hands and agree with the critic.”

Please specify the scripture you believe is problematic that made you feel like a cheater?

Which specific scripture are you referring to that will cause you to throw up your hands?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “But I don't believe that means I have to give up my Faith in Jesus. I can acknowledge that the Bible is not a historical account but a spiritual account. So the supernatural claims exist in our heart, that dimension of the spirit that encompasses our dreams & desires.”

I am most joyful that you have not given up the faith my friend.

Why do you believe the Bible is only a spiritual account? What scripture, specifics or historical evidence do you stand on to formulate this stance?

Please explain what you are referring to in more detail regarding the supernatural that exists in our heart that encompasses our dreams and desires?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “It is my lone & sole opinion that Matthew 13:10-15 is Jesus divine insight on avoiding strict scriptural interpretations. I personally want to believe the core story of Jesus is love, and as Jesus says, that is the only commandment we need to concern ourselves with. I believe this is the Gospel Jesus wanted his followers to spread to the world.”

Does this passage in Matthew say that strict scriptural interpretations should be avoided?

Where does Christ suggest that love is the only commandment we need to concern ourselves with?

So by your last statement you then believe that Jesus wanted us to “only” spread a commandment of love?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “But I only came to this conclusion as a result of failed apologetics. The William Lane Craig argument just sounds like a lawyer throwing out confusing terms that sound lofty but when investigated further lack any substance, leaving seekers & struggling beleivers even more confused.”

What specific failed apologetics gave you a result?

Specifically what apologetics did you study that moved your opinion away from Craig? Also in the apologetic material what specific context convinced you, and what author wrote the competing apologetics?

Know that I am not in agreement or disagreement with Craig at this point, but am trying to figure out where you stand.

Who are the confused seekers you refer too?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I'm very aware that I'm an anomaly & don't represent the belief of my church or the body of Christ as a whole. That's why I'm here hoping to come to a proper consensus on strategies to defend our Faith.”

Should it be wrong of me my friend to penalize you in my mind because you challenge foundations of hermeneutics and theology? I do not judge you, for I believe tangible truth will find you in your exploration and discovery of Christ Jesus, if your “faith” in Christ is an immovable premise.

Shall a proper consensus and a strategic notion in common only have success if an agreeable foundation in faith can exist without division. There are many divisions and denominations in the faith for this very reason that many disagree on a spiritual, and theological frameworks regarding scripture .

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html

Here's a link regarding the Jefferson Bible. If you read through the thread you will see me answering a lot of your questions but there are other questions you presented that I need to address & I will do my best to give you a detailed response as soon as I can

 
Last edited:
I think Presuppositional Apologetics is convoluted & ineffective.

Interesting word convuluted, , kinda complicated intricate elaborate to understand : )

Reading your link, i think you are referring more on bible inerrancy.

BUT.....

How to answer those who ask, especially on the old testament topics you raised about?
I heard William Craig but I have no idea how he approach an issue.


I think:
If one (the listener) seeks God and His righteousness: one will look for His righteousness....


Thus, for the defender/speaker:
For those who believe in bible inerrancy: one will find reasons for His righteousness
For those who believe not in bible inerrancy: one will find reasons for His righteousness


If that is the case, there should be no problem at all : because the listener look for God and His rightheousness...

The problem I see starts when:
Those belong in the first group throw rocks of heresy to the other.
While the second group: throw rocks of idolatry to the other.
 
Last edited:
Now this scripture states otherwise
C'mon Jeremiah, start discerning better please!!

Jews cannot take a wife from the captives? You want to imagine a pagan tribe raping and forcing themselves onto their captives. The Jews were a God fearing tribe. Did you miss every scripture from Moses in the OT?

This scripture is saying that if a single Jewish man wants a non-Jewish wife captured from war, He must NOT rape or abuse her. He must marry her. I think a bible study on Jewish marriage will help you further get peace on this.

I am done discussing with you. I see future disucssion with you as chasing red herrings.
 
Last edited:
Interesting word convuluted, , kinda complicated intricate elaborate to understand : )

Reading your link, i think you are referring more on bible inerrancy.

BUT.....

How to answer those who ask, especially on the old testament topics you raised about?
I heard William Craig but I have no idea how he approach an issue.


I think:
If one (the listener) seeks God and His righteousness: one will look for His righteousness....


Thus, for the defender/speaker:
For those who believe in bible inerrancy: one will find reasons for His righteousness
For those who believe not in bible inerrancy: one will find reasons for His righteousness


If that is the case, there should be no problem at all : because the listener look for God and His rightheousness...

The problem I see starts when:
Those belong in the first group throw rocks of heresy to the other.
While the second group: throw rocks of idolatry to the other.

I don't disagree. If someones personal relationship involves a literal interpretation of the Bible, and they are not trying to legislate their beliefs & they are not using those scriptures to justify harm to themself or others (which includes apologetics because those literalist arguments harm seekers & wavering believers) then I don't see a problem with that view of the Bible.

My point in this thread is that, that argument throws unnecessary stumbling blocks into the apologetic discussion. It's good for presuppositional justification of indefensible scripture which comes across as reprehensible and for that reason, this apologetic approach will always be like chasing a red herring. It's too incoherent to engage & just leaves everyone with a big headache.
 
Last edited:
So here we are, seeing genocide, sexual slavery, and the murder of children being justified in the name of Christianity.

Genocide: wiping out an entire race of people is the very definition of genocide.

Sexual slavery: If a soldier came into my town, killed my dad, my mom, my older sister, her kids, and all my other relatives, then decided I was good looking enough to take back to his home, shaved my head and locked me up for a month, do you think I would be a willing sexual partner to him? If you do, there's something wrong with you.

Murder of children: KingJ said it directly, "Is it the fact that children died that upsets you? All children go to heaven." Imagine for yourself if a Muslim said that to you. What would your reaction be?

When we put this all together with the other things the fundamentalists have been telling us here, we are apparently to believe that in order to be a Christian, one must:

  • believe that sometimes genocide is just fine and dandy
  • taking a virgin woman captive after you've killed her family, and locking her up for a month before you marry her is a good thing
  • killing children is no big deal because they go to heaven anyway
  • science is a tool of the devil
  • scientists are under the control of Satan
  • you must rebuke and judge everyone
  • if you waver on any of the above, even in the slightest way, you are not a Christian because it's an all-or-none proposition
I think if I were Satan and I wanted to turn people away from the path to salvation, I would try and associate it with as much distasteful and absurd things as I could, thus making it as unappealing as possible. Think about it.
 
You reject the OT and Paul's teaching, tell me what part do you read when you read? Why when you post are there no scriptures? Is your opinion your source of truth?
Again with the black/white thinking. To you, not reading things in exactly the way you do is "rejecting them". You honestly don't see any other possibilities than either reading everything hyper-literally and rejecting it altogether? Seriously?

If God is evil according to the bible I will not serve Him. So any accusations that He is evil / advice to reject parts of scripture has to be scrutinized. God has to be judged properly and according to all scripture 2 Tim 3:16. So far the arguments are weak and clear lies straight from the devils mouth that you and Jeremiah give in to with little resistance... not even coming close to grasping that you are taking naive leaps in his direction by rejecting parts of scripture. Completely blind to the devils deceit :(.
I'm not the one defending genocide, sexual slavery, and the murder of children. On those subjects, which side do you think Satan is on, pro or con?
 
1 believe that sometimes genocide is just fine and dandy
2 taking a virgin woman captive after you've killed her family, and locking her up for a month before you marry her is a good thing
3 killing children is no big deal because they go to heaven anyway
4 science is a tool of the devil
5 scientists are under the control of Satan
6 you must rebuke and judge everyone
7 if you waver on any of the above, even in the slightest way, you are not a Christian because it's an all-or-none proposition

1. In the case of the Jews it was necessary. You think God's wrath is over? Have you read revelations?
2. Amazing discernment, must I really repeat myself again?
3. The subject of kids being killed in God's wrath is a lengthy study. I mentioned only the bottom line.
4. You are being deceitful again. Scientists can be tools of the devil.
5. Try get a government grant for research without ticking the 'I have faith in evolution block'.
6. Deceitful again. I said judge all things (not condemn ;)) but only deal with / rebuke the saved.
7. No. If you intentionally / deceitfully miss quote, not me (naughty girl ;))....but God...ie scripture.....you are of your father the devil.

For your sake, I certainly hope you are just naive.
 
Last edited:
Again with the black/white thinking. To you, not reading things in exactly the way you do is "rejecting them". You honestly don't see any other possibilities than either reading everything hyper-literally and rejecting it altogether? Seriously?
For crying out loud. Stop dodging and just answer the question. You reject Paul's teaching and the OT, what part of the remaining 10% do you not reject?
I'm not the one defending genocide, sexual slavery, and the murder of children. On those subjects, which side do you think Satan is on, pro or con?
You think God needs me to defend Him? If what you say about God is true I will abandon my Christianity immediately. Who would serve an evil God? The thing is, what you say is not true. In fact your reasoning is so one-sided and blind that I would not be fooled by you even if I was unsaved. Please promise me you will never be a judge or in the jury!!
 
KingJ,

Why do you assume I'm only taking about you? Did you think you are the only fundamentalist here?

For crying out loud. Stop dodging and just answer the question. You reject Paul's teaching and the OT, what part of the remaining 10% do you not reject?
I don't reject those things. I tried to explain to you that it's not just a black/white issue, but apparently you didn't get that.

You think God needs me to defend Him? If what you say about God is true I will abandon my Christianity immediately. Who would serve an evil God? The thing is, what you say is not true. In fact your reasoning is so one-sided and blind. Please promise me you will never be a judge or in the jury!!
I'm constantly amazed when someone such as you displays such absolutism. As I keep saying, you show a simplistic mode of thinking that I just can't relate to at all.

And trust me, I won't be judging you anytime soon. I'm not a fundamentalist. ;)
 
I'd like to go on record and say the anti-fundamentalist rhetoric is getting old. They don't deserve it. If anti-Catholic statements were being said, I'd certainly appreciate fundamentalists standing up for us. I think perhaps it's time we cut the bigoted remarks.

I'm not trying to sandbag you, RiverJordan, but it seems every other comment you leave is degrading our fundamentalist friends here.
 
And trust me, I won't be judging you anytime soon. I'm not a fundamentalist. ;)
:unsure: Yeah, you need to think on that a bit more....

If you were swimming in the see and a strong current was taking you out, who would you want saving you? The brother that told you to avoid the deep (rebuked), yelled at you when you swam in high tide (exhort / judge)..... and is now next to you pulling you hard against the current to your great discomfort (correction). Or the brother that says ''be positive, think happy thoughts, do what you want as long as you feel good inside and remember I love you''....whilst sun tanning on the beach.
 
I'd like to go on record and say the anti-fundamentalist rhetoric is getting old. They don't deserve it. If anti-Catholic statements were being said, I'd certainly appreciate fundamentalists standing up for us. I think perhaps it's time we cut the bigoted remarks.

I'm not trying to sandbag you, RiverJordan, but it seems every other comment you leave is degrading our fundamentalist friends here.

I can go on and on about why Christian Fundamentalism should be universally condemned. From parents disowning their children for disbelief, to LGBT individuals committing suicide over their perceived rejection in the Bible, to republican politicians citing the Book of Daniel as an excuse to start a final world war to usher in the apocalypse, to school boards demanding we teach creationism in schools, to Kony who is only following the literal example of Moses by seeking to establish the 10 commandments as the Law of Uganda. He's a living example of a fundamentalist carrying out the scriptures your defending.

Joseph Kony's justification for the Lords Resistance Army.
Religious beliefs
Kony believes in the literal protection provided by a cross symbol and tells his child soldiers a cross on their chest drawn in oil will protect them from bullets.[18] He also believes in polygamy. He is thought of have had many wives some getting killed during the insurgency; and there are claims that he has 42 children.[5][6] Kony insists that he and the Lord's Resistance Army are fighting for theTen Commandments. He defends his actions: "Is it bad? It is not against human rights. And that commandment was not given by Joseph. It was not given by LRA. No, those commandments were given by God."[28]

Betty Bigombe remembered that the first time she met Kony, his followers used oil to ward off bullets and evil spirits.[29] In a letter regarding future talks, Kony stated that he must consult his self-styled holy spirit. When the talks did occur, they insisted on the participation of religious leaders and opened the proceedings with prayers, led by LRA's Director of Religious Affairs Jenaro Bongomi. During the 1994 peace talks, Kony was preceded by men in robes sprinkling holy water.[15] According to Francis Ongom, a former LRA officer who defected, Kony "has found Bible justifications for killing witches, for killing [those who farm or eat] pigs because of the story of the Gadarene swine, and for killing [other] people because God did the same with Noah's flood and Sodom and Gomorrah."[30]
Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army: a primer
By Elizabeth Flock
President Obama, in a letter to Congress, has authorized the deployment of about 100 U.S. combat forces to central Africa to assist in the fight against the notoriously savage Lord’s Resistance Army.

knoy.JPG

One of the world's most wanted rebel chiefs, Joseph Kony of the Lord's Resistance Army, seen on TV in 2006. (REUTERS TV - REUTERS)The goal: to track down LRA’s leader, Joseph Kony.

Here’s some things to know about Kony and the group:

Lord’s Resistance Army from the remnants of the Holy Spirit Movement, an armed group led by his aunt that fought the Ugandan government in the late 1980s.”

Responsible for mass human rights violations

Since its creation in 1987, the group has engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government and committed an extraordinarynumber of human rights violations. Most notably, his troops enter a village, killing the adults and kidnapping the children. The boys are enscripted into the army and the girls are taken as ‘bush wives.’

Obama notes in his letter that the LRA has “murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa” and “continues to commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan that have a disproportionate impact on regional security.”

Why is the US going in there?

In May of 2010, Obama signed a bill committing the United States to help arrest Kony. Kenneth Roth, the director of Human Rights Watch wrote in October of 2010 that Obama needed to put in practice what the president said during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: “Force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans.”

What does the LRA want?

The LRA wants to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and the tradition of the Acholi people, an ethnic group in northern Uganda.

What is the political situation in Uganda?

According to the C.I.A. Factbook, Uganda suffered grave atrocities under the dictatorial regime of Idi Amin in the 1970s, but since 1986 the country has seen relative stability and economic growth under Youweri Museveni.

More:

Here’s a link to 344 cables released by WikiLeaks that mention the LGA. Many of the cables are updates on the LRA’s movements with questions about how to end his reign of violence.

This three-minute short film was produced by the group Invisible Children, a non-profit organization working to end Kony’s rule. (Warning there are graphic images in the movie.)

Who is the LRA from INVISIBLE CHILDREN on Vimeo.

For crying out loud. Stop dodging and just answer the question. You reject Paul's teaching and the OT, what part of the remaining 10% do you not reject?
You think God needs me to defend Him? If what you say about God is true I will abandon my Christianity immediately. Who would serve an evil God? The thing is, what you say is not true. In fact your reasoning is so one-sided and blind that I would not be fooled by you even if I was unsaved. Please promise me you will never be a judge or in the jury!!

Your bubble is impenetrable which is not only sad but deeply disturbing. RiverJordan so eloquently pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. It's so condescending when you somehow insinuate you have superior reading comprehension skills than everyone else. This is the self serving, transparent, delusional apologetic reasoning that not only mortifies rational believers defending the faith, but is detrimental to our greatest commandment to spread the Gospel throughout the world. Christians are increasingly being demonized as cretins and even being identified as hate groups because of these literalist positions. When your argument only serves to drive away seekers and believers, I can't help but to go back to Matthew 25:31-46 and ask you which lot you think you'll be cast, the goats or the sheep?
 
Last edited:
Let's take Exodus 21:7-11 for Example. (I owe KingJ a break down of scriptural interpretation as well.)

Exodus 21:7-11
New International Version (NIV)

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Here's Kony's Justification for the LRA or any other proponent of slavery and genocide in the name of God. These are the biblical guidelines for generating revenue from sex slaves.
How much money for a slave?
A slave is generally worth about 30 shekels.
Exodus 21:32
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels[a] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.

Is it a wise investment to reproduce & sell sex slaves, or is it more of a clearance-sale type venture?
Well this would be more of a business decision depending on the slave market, cost of slave upkeep, etc., but you can certainly breed your slaves, own the offspring and sell them.
Exodus 21:1-4
“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free"

How do you break into the sex slave business without any idea of a projected return on investment?
You best bet would probably be to capture your enemies and enslave them, which is fine.
Deuteronomy 20:14
As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

That would reduce your startup costs assuming you couldn't get a good deal on your initial slave breeders at the market. I would recommend targeting nearby gentile villages as there are less restrictions on those slaves and they are probably weak and easy to conquer, thus reducing your initial investment.
Leviticus 25:44-46
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Just be aware that if you want to have sex with any of the female slaves you capture, you have to let them go after you are finished unless you want to marry them because they pleased you. Of course out of decency you should shave their heads, trim their nails and give them a month to mourn the parents you killed before having sex with them.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Doesn't get anymore straight forward than that. This is the literalist interpretation of the Bible that you are defending? I'm done discussing this too. The errancy in these scriptures is crystal clear & unjustifiable. There is nothing further to discuss. Please don't embarrass yourself any further.
 
Last edited:
If what you say about God is true I will abandon my Christianity immediately. Who would serve an evil God?

How to live as a Christian without having to believe the unbelievable

April 27, 2012 By Jim Burklo 8 Comments
Christianity asks you to do very hard things that are supremely worth the effort.Loving your enemies – that often seems impossible. Willingly giving up your power and money and time and influence in order to serve the poor and the sick and the oppressed – that can be downright scary. Having a heart full of pure love in all circumstances – how can we do it? But if we do it, we build heaven on earth. These are things that matter, things Jesus asks us to do. It takes a lifetime of serious spiritual and physical and emotional work to come even close to rising to these challenges.

Compared to them, believing in the factuality of the fantastic stories in the Bible is trivial. And that is exactly why it makes no sense to let such questions matter very much in living a faithful Christian life. It really isn’t important whether or not you take the Bible literally, or whether or not you believe all the creeds word-for-word. If they don’t make sense to you, don’t worry about them. Don’t let dogma and doctrine get in the way of practicing Love, who is God. Doctrines can be interesting. They help us understand the origins and background of our religion. But repeating creeds is not the price of admission into Christianity. Instead of caring whether the story of Jesus’ resurrection was a fact or a myth, let’s concern ourselves with things that matter. Let’s care about our neighbors without jobs or health insurance, face the resentment in our hearts that needs to be released, struggle with how vote and be activist citizens, and learn how to bring our careers in alignment with our highest values. Let’s gather in churches, soup kitchens, work-places, living rooms, and cafés to support each other in doing things that matter, and let go of old doctrines that don’t.

When Jesus asked us to believe in him, he wasn’t asking us to believe a list of ideas about him. He was asking us to believe in that spark of the divine that was inside of him, because he wanted us to believe in the spark of the divine that is in every one of us. The belief that mattered to him was faithfulness, a willingness to follow in the way of Love. A willingness to feed the hungry, liberate the oppressed, heal the sick, and preach the gospel, which is the good news that Love is all that matters.

The key to Christianity is the Sermon on the Mount in the gospel of Matthew, chapters 5-7. This is the first teaching that Jesus gave his disciples and a crowd of followers. He exhorts them to love their enemies. He urges them to be humble in prayer. He tells the poor that they shall be blessed. He asks them not to worry. He tells them not to judge.

And he says nothing at all about the following topics:

1) The Bible. Neither Jesus nor any of the people after whom its books were named had any idea that what they said or wrote would become part of the Bible. The New Testament was created much later, over a period of over 300 years, by early Christians. Jesus quoted and interpreted the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament) very often, and he had a free-spirited, poetic, allegorical way of using those writings to illustrate his teachings. It is very hard to imagine that he would have demanded that Christians take the New Testament as literal, factual history, had he known that someday it would exist.

2) Creeds, dogma, or doctrine. One would think that if such things mattered so much to Jesus, he would have begun his preaching career by addressing them right away. But the Sermon on the Mount makes no mention of believing in miracles, believing the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ, believing in the Trinity or the Apostle’s Creed, or even “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior”. Jesus didn’t care about dogma. He cared about what was in the hearts of people, and about how they treated each other.

3) Homosexuality and abortion. Jesus said nothing about these topics whatsoever in the New Testament. There’s no hint in the Bible that these topics mattered to him at all. Christianity should not be confused with a rigid set of ancient rules or with a current partisan political agenda.

Christianity is both simpler and harder than most people make it out to be.

My first step into an adult Christian life came when I was sixteen years old. I went on a backpacking trip with a Christian group. On top of a high pass in the Sierra Nevada, the leader, appropriately, read aloud the Sermon on the Mount. When he repeated Jesus’ words: “Love your enemies”, a rush of energy went through my body. I was certain that this experience was God, or was of God. I knew in an instant that it was worth basing my whole life on this one commandment.

I’m still working on it, decades later. While his words have shaped my entire life and career profoundly, I am far from completely fulfilling Jesus’ command.

It’s been so challenging to love my enemies – to love in tough circumstances, and to love people who present me with difficulties – that I can’t imagine putting other stumbling blocks in front of people who might want to join me in following Jesus. Many if not most people in America today cannot accept the idea that there is only one true religion. They see people of many religions living faithful, loving lives, and cannot imagine that they are going to hell for failing to accept one certain creed. Many people are bewildered by the contradiction of taking science seriously and then being told that the miracle stories in the Bible are literally true. But these issues are not crucial to living a life of faith. There is plenty of room in Christianity for people who want to follow Jesus’ way of unconditional, difficult love, but whose God-given common sense prevents them from nodding along with implausible or confounding doctrines.

How can you follow Jesus’ way of love without accepting creeds that are confusing or impossible for you to believe?

1) Find a community of people who will give you support in following the way of Love. Find people who care much more about works of compassion and about inner spiritual growth than they do about doctrines. You may find these people in a church – or in a sub-group of a church – or in an informal gathering of friends – or even in an online community. Find a circle of people you can trust to challenge you to acts of kindness and service, people who can give you honest feedback, and will trust you to do the same for them. Whether this circle goes by the name “church” doesn’t matter nearly as much as whether or not it helps its members to live like Jesus lived. For communities in your area, see progressivechristianity.org under “affiliates”.

2) Practice a spiritual discipline. In Christianity, there are very many forms of prayer, contemplation, meditation, and other means of spiritual awakening and deepening. Find the one that is right for you, and practice it regularly. These disciplines can help you stay centered in love and compassion and self-awareness, giving you much more choice about how best to respond to your own emotions and urges, as well as to your encounters with others. It prepares you for compassionate action. For suggestions about spiritual disciplines, see my website, jimburklo.com.

3) Learn about the history of the Bible, the Christian religion, and other religions.Read and study the Bible itself, and alongside it, read interpretations of it by non-doctrinal, academic scholars who can reveal to you the cultural background and historical milieu in which its books were composed. Websites that will introduce you to this scholarship: progressivechristianity.org and westarinstitute.org . You’ll discover that the Bible is a very human document, but that makes it all the more fascinating. You’ll start to feel the spiritual experiences of the people who wrote it and read it in ancient times. You’ll begin to appreciate that while much of the Bible is mythological, many of its myths have an enduring power to transform lives toward Love. You’ll understand that the miracles in the Bible are not historical facts, but that the real miracle is the Bible itself: a treasure-trove of poetry, stories, deep wisdom, and inspiration. Learning about other world religions will make your studies in Christianity come alive, as you compare and contrast the various faith traditions to discover common themes and uncommon insights.



http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/10/my-take-jesus-would-believe-in-evolution-and-so-should-you/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/...nt-Bible-Good-for-Christians-Bad-for-Wingnuts


http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/o..._christians_have_to_believe_in_the_bible.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-idom/the-bible-vital-tool-or-m_b_814058.html

For crying out loud. Stop dodging and just answer the question. You reject Paul's teaching and the OT, what part of the remaining 10% do you not reject?
You think God needs me to defend Him? If what you say about God is true I will abandon my Christianity immediately. Who would serve an evil God? The thing is, what you say is not true. In fact your reasoning is so one-sided and blind that I would not be fooled by you even if I was unsaved. Please promise me you will never be a judge or in the jury!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-thielen/whats-the-least-you-can-b_b_811353.html


You can be a believer in Jesus and believe in an errant Bible. We need to let go of our attachment to Biblical inerrancy. When we defend God sanctioned genocide & slavery it is an abomination to the Gospel of Jesus.
Women 'held as slaves for 30 years'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25040741
 
Last edited:
KingJ, once again thank you so much for supporting the Bible. Indeed, so many times I think I’m the only one left in the world who actually believes in the Bible. Ironically, even on a Christian forum…

Well, that wouldn’t stop me, but of course it’s nice to feel I’m not actually alone.

Also my thanks to Great Fiction, in the same regard.

I’m preparing a new thread to straighten the ways of so many here.
 
I'm done with this thread & forum as well. I find myself getting out of the character of a Christian. We all have our opinions & I admit I have incited some heated responses & for that I apologize. One thing we can all admit is that Jesus is everything to all of us and as long as we humble ourselves before God we will all come to his grace & mercies. My apologies again for taking the arguments to far let's just keep each other in prayer & leave it at that.

I think it's time to retire this conversation on this forum all together. I'm officially signing off on that note.
 
I'm going to do KingJ a favor & provide William Lane Craig's argument for Biblical Inerrancy. He is the leading figure in Christian Apologetics. I and many others believe his apologetic stance only serves to deter & confuse not convince & convert.

I personally couldn’t care less about Craig’s arguments. And I think neither KingJ cares about Craig.

And I’ll even tell you why: because WLC is not the fellow Christians are supposed to listen to, since he already compromised the Bible to the highest degree possible. Craig believes in big bang and all the other forms of evolution, so no surprise that he’s losing almost all his debates with atheists. Indeed, when you embrace their theories, what exactly are you left with as arguments against their theories? Figure that out!


The History Channel is currently airing the series "Hidden Secrets of the Bible."

Is that your source of information regarding your disbelief in the Bible, especially Genesis? An atheistic source? Really? Yet again: really?

What would you expect them to say, that the Bible is true?



This is one of the most pathetic things I have ever heard. Jeremiah7:29, do you even know what ‘apologetics’ means?

So, in your view, the best defense for the Bible is actually ignoring what the Bible says and corrupting the Bible with external authority such as human theories?

Oh, boy…

And now let’s take a look at what that fellow (the fellow that you recommended) says:
(I only took the time to review your first link, and it was already too much. You’ll see below why.)

“But when it comes to the truth of evolution, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way.”

Ironically that’s exactly what he does: indeed, when it comes to the truth of the Bible, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way. Because they don’t want God’s truth. They instead want a man-fabricated ‘truth”: evolution. But then why do they claim to be Christians?


“They hold on to a particular interpretation of an ancient story in Genesis“

1. Taking Genesis literally is actually no interpretation, not a “particular interpretation”.
2. If he calls Genesis as “an ancient story” then this settles how much of a Christian he really is.


“a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago”

There he is, going against the Bible in the highest degree possible, and then calling himself a Christian.


“While Genesis contains wonderful insights into the relationship between God and the creation, it simply does not contain scientific ideas about the origin of the universe, the age of the earth or the development of life.”

Utterly wrong. The origin of the universe is this one: God made the universe.

As for “the development of life”, the Bible is also clear: animals would bring forth “after their kind”.


“For more than two centuries, careful scientific research, much of it done by Christians, has demonstrated clearly that the earth is billions years old, not mere thousands, as many creationists argue.”

So if he’s not a “creationist” (that is, if he doesn’t believe that God created the universe), what exactly is this fellow? Doesn’t he claim to be a Christian?


“We now know that the human race began millions of years ago in Africa - not thousands of years ago in the Middle East, as the story in Genesis suggests.”

Well, if there was any doubt that this fellow isn’t a Christian in any amount, now there is no such doubt anymore. I strongly suspect that he’s an atheistic troll. And I don’t think anyone in the world could run against himself in such a large degree (didn’t he claim to be a Christian?).


“And all life forms are related to each other though evolution. These are important truths that science has discovered through careful research. They are not “opinions” that can be set aside if you don’t like them.”

I really laughed here. Big time.


“Anyone who values truth must take these ideas seriously, for they have been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt.”

At this one I laughed so much that my belly still hurts.

Oh, boy, how truly pathetic.


“In particular, humans share an unfortunate “broken gene” with many other primates, including chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. This gene, which works fine in most mammals, enables the production of Vitamin C. Species with broken versions of the gene can’t make Vitamin C and must get it from foods like oranges and lemons.”

Indeed, that was an argument for evolution. Far from the smoking gun (never present), but an argument nevertheless. Fortunately, meanwhile it was shown that pseudogenes are not pseudo after all. And if they are functional genes, instead of junk genes, then they indicate common design instead of common ancestor. In other words, they show Creation, not evolution. How about that…

The very concept of pseudogenes was disproved - by evolutionists themselves…

For example:
http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/11/R102
or:
https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/rnabiology/article/18277/

Indeed, YECs really don’t have to do anything to disprove evolution. They only have to stand aside and watch. Sooner or later, evolutionists would do such a fine job in disproving evolution all by themselves…

But I suppose not all evolutionists have heard the news:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudogene

You can see that all references given there date back to 2008 or earlier…

Well, wikipedia is notorious, just as rationalwiki and talkorigins, for its willingness to “see” evolution and disregard all evidence against evolution, so no news here.

Meanwhile, not only pseudogenes are not pseudo, not only they are actually functional, but in fact they are required for proper functionality of the organism. How about that…

And the irony of all this is not that this is a 2012 news. On the contrary, evolutionists knew more or less about this since mid-1980s, for example:
http://mcb.asm.org/content/5/8/2090.full.pdf

And let me remind you that as late as 2010, hardcore evolutionists such as John C. Avise published books such as “Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design”:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inside-Human-Genome-Non-Intelligent-Design/dp/0195393430

in which they claimed:
“noncoding repetitive sequences—“junk DNA”—comprise the vast bulk (at least 50%, and probably much more) of the human genome”


I guess this settles for how true the evolutionary predictions are. Indeed, yet another failed evolutionary prediction. But again, apparently not all evolutionists have heard the news:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/


“Furthermore, while these vestigial DNA sequences were discovered more recently than the vestigial organs known in Darwin's time, we know enough about how they arise that we do not need to postulate any mysterious designer or unknown function to explain them.”


What? “Vestigial DNA sequences”? They’re not vestigial anymore. How about that…

What? “We know enough about how they arise”? Really? Is that why they didn’t even know what exactly they are?

What? “We do not need to postulate any mysterious designer or unknown function”? Well, indeed, you don’t need to postulate any unknown function. You only need to postulate known functions…

And a known designer too, by the way. How about that…

Here’s another failed evolutionary prediction: introns, assumed to be “evolutionary junk”. But in 2003 Scientific American, quoting a molecular bioscience institute director, said that "The failure to recognize the importance of introns may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology":
www.imb.uq.edu.au/download/large/TheUnseenGenome.pdf

And here’s another evolutionary source admitting that “If it's "so-called" junk, whoever is calling it that is wrong”:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/discoveries_mak068581.html

and quoting a research news release on the matter:
“Far from being useless, the non-coding part of DNA contains so-called regulatory regions or enhancers that determine when and where each gene is expressed.”

Therefore that page concludes:
“That's not junk. The only thing that's garbage here is the term "junk" itself.”


Now, enough talking about failed evolutionary predictions. So, is there anyone still believing in evolution? Is there anyone around still believing in these fellows, who always have it wrong, instead of believing in God, who always has it right?


Now, Jeremiah7:29, let‘s return to your link. Let’s see what other things that fellow of yours is capable of.


“Thousands of hapless sailors died painful deaths scurvy during the age of exploration because their “Vitamin C” gene was broken.”

Well, if those sailors didn’t read their Bible…

Because God clearly said we should eat plants and their fruits and their seeds.

And by the way, it’s not thousands of sailors. It’s actually millions. And all they had to do to not die is read their Bible. How about that…

So much for how helpful the human theories are. And how actually helpful the Bible is…


“Such evidence proves common ancestry with a level of certainty comparable to the evidence that the earth goes around the sun.”

Well, since now we actually know the “certainty” of the former, we can thus also tell the “certainty” of the latter. Even without bringing relativity into discussion…


“This is but one of many, many evidences that support the truth of evolution - that make it a “sacred fact” that Christians must embrace in the name of truth. “

Look at how terribly sick this fellow is: he calls human theories as “sacred”.

Since in the rest of the “article” he doesn’t make any point, I’ll stop here.

So, Jeremiah7:29, are these the fellows that you believe in? Are these the sort of people, the sort of authorities that keep you away from the Bible? Because I find him utterly pathetic.


And let’s in the end review the title, to see if even that makes any sense:
“Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you”

Wait… what? Jesus would believe in evolution? In other words, Jesus would believe that He is profoundly incapable of creating things? That He couldn’t even make a chicken? And that all that He could do is a primordial soup? Really? Yet again: really?

But wait, not even that, because formal theories include abiogenesis. So what could have Jesus created? The rock upon which would rain for millions of years to form the oceans? No, not even that rock, because there’s a theory for that too, included in geological evolution. How about the universe, is Jesus the Creator of that? Of course not: don’t mainstreamers work hard to “explain” away even that? (See for example the last books of Stephen Hawking, 2010, and Lawrence Krauss, 2012).

So in the view of this profoundly sick fellow that you, Jeremiah7:29, believe in and so proudly quoted here, Jesus would believe that Jesus couldn’t create anything.

Let me tell you again: this fellow, the fellow that you linked to, is not only sick, he’s terribly sick. And not only he’s not a Christian, but he’s so unchristian.



Other than that, can I help you with anything else? Like, perhaps, finding Jesus? The real Jesus, this time? The Biblical Jesus?

Because if you think that a tolerant Jesus is the real Jesus, you cannot possibly be more mistaken. The real Jesus is the Jesus that will send most of mankind to hell. It’s not me saying that, it’s the Bible saying that. That is, if you read the actual Bible, and not human interpretations of the Bible.

True, this is the age of mercy. Plentifully given to everybody that wants it. But very soon that will end and the age of justice will come. And stay forever. Read that again, and make sure you understand it: forever. Do you have any idea what forever means?

If you think that Jesus is or should be tolerant, let’s see if you are instead tolerant. So you tell me: would you welcome in your home somebody that claims that you don’t exist (atheists)? How about those who follow the atheists (those who embrace atheistic theories)? And would you welcome in your house somebody that would claim that the very chair he’s sitting on was not made by you, but instead by long naturalistic processes? Would you share eternity and your home with people like that?

Looking forward for your answer.
 
Jeremiah, I’m sorry that:
- it took me so much to write my replies (I had to interrupt several times, for other things); I really would have wanted your answers;
- you felt opposition from us in this forum.

In regard to the latter, here’s my advice: don’t mind about opposition from other people. You will always find people that don’t agree with you.

That’s why you should only be concerned about possible opposition between you and God. Now that’s indeed something to be concerned about.

I wish you all the best - and especially may it be that you find the real God. Not the god invented by humans, but the God that actually exists. And that made His will clear in the Bible. In the whole of the Bible.
 
So here we are, seeing genocide, sexual slavery, and the murder of children being justified in the name of Christianity.

If you didn’t understand anything from what KingJ said, then there’s you not understanding anything from what KingJ said. But then, why would you Jeremiah7:29 even bother to ask for comments that you’re not willing to consider?


Genocide: wiping out an entire race of people is the very definition of genocide.

Let me go even further than that. God destroyed not some people, not a few peoples, but the entire mankind, with the exact exception of 8 people. Not only that, but He will soon destroy the world yet again.

So let’s see you claiming once again that you believe in God. I really want to see that.

Oh, and I find you considering that you’re morally superior to God (your Creator !!) as truly ironic. Just as I thought in case of Jeremiah7:29.

There was this German pastor, Wilhelm Busch, who went into a troubled group of miners. One of them just had an accident that will leave him paralyzed for the entire life. And so that miner went on to claim how is God just, if He allowed that to happen to him?

And therefore the miner, soon accompanied by all his co-workers, aggressed the Pastor and shouted: “Down with god! Down with him, he’s not good!”

Do you have any idea what the Pastor replied? Well, he joined them. So he shouted too: “Indeed, down with that god. Down with him forever!” The miners were astounded, and one of them asked the Pastor: “Wait a second, you can’t really do that, you’re a Pastor!”

And Busch told them that the god who would allow himself to be judged by his own creation deserves to be, well, judged by his own creation.

I hope you’ll understand what I mean, and I’ll stop here.


Murder of children: KingJ said it directly, "Is it the fact that children died that upsets you? All children go to heaven." Imagine for yourself if a Muslim said that to you. What would your reaction be?

That’s your problem, right there. You always think that this life is all that is, and therefore your perspective is erroneous whatever main topic you approach. Unlike you, God sees everything from the perspective of eternity (how could He not do that?).

So, yes, KingJ was right.

But if you think that you’re morally superior to your own Creator, then let’s put you in the posture of God. So you have these 2 options:
- would you allow those children to live, which means to turn into what their fathers were: human beasts, preying upon other humans, sacrificing other humans to their inexistent gods, ignoring hygiene, propagating and perpetuating wherever they went: misery, disease, murder, rape, lying, promiscuity, child sacrifices, etcetera; that would not only mean a miserable and evil life both for them and the people near them, but also that they went straight to hell when they died;
- would you allow those children to die, which means that at the judgment they will have immensely fewer sins to account for (if any - depending).

So, as I said, you are the judge. So judge that. Let’s see what you would choose for those children that you claim you care about: an eternal hell, or not.



Now, parallel to that, let’s take what you said literally. In other words, let’s consider what you said as completely true. Let’s say that God indeed commanded slavery and whatever else you want Him to have commanded. Then answer me this: why do you believe in God?

And if you instead answer that you believe in Jesus, let me inform you, one more time, that the God of the New testament is exactly the God of the Old Testament. And if you throw away the OT, then you have no reason, literally no reason at all, to believe in Jesus.

Now, is that any clearer for you?
 
Back
Top