First off, fuck you guys for putting me in the position of having to defend Christianity, but jesus fucking christ, you are so very broken. I am not a christian. I have never been a christian. I can only think of one christian that I know socially, and he sings in a metal band.

Posted by Nvr2loud however if someone is going to worship a god based on a book, they can not only accept parts of that book as true.

Why the hell not? Some Christians would agree with that statement, but those guys would be ignorant jerks, just like you. I think that typically, "good" Christians would tell you that the god that they worship is based more on what they feel inside of them than on what they read in the bible.
And if you have to throw out the whole message because part of it is distasteful, there is a whole lot of other stuff that has to go:
1) Civil Rights (Martin Luther King had affairs)
2) America (Washington had misgivings about slavery, yet owned over 300 slaves)
3) Relativity (Einstein pursued his cosmological constant for basically faith based reasons)

Posted by Nvr2loud If catholics (only an example of one religion within the christian faith) can decide which sections to believe or which sections are false, then the bible can be used to justify any and all actions.

Most of the stuff Catholics believe isn't from the bible. And yes, the bible could be used to justify any and all actions, as could most any text.

Posted by Nvr2loud People need to understand their morals come from compassion and sympathy for their fellow humans, not from some book that they somewhat believe in.

But you need to understand that morals and compassion are built by communities and society over time, and that the communication method across time and space that provides the framework for these things are, in fact, the collected writings of philosophers, thinkers, etc. Especially those writings that, for whatever reason, resonate with large numbers of people.

Posted by tekriter My opinions are based on facts and evidence. You would have to have an encyclopedic ignorance of history to miss the harm that organized religion has done to the world. You would have to ignore every facet of the scientific method and of reason to justify believing in those things.

I have said for years that organized religion is the greatest evil that has ever befallen mankind, but the fact is that religion has also been a very useful tool for the survival of mankind. Religion has evolved alongside man, providing useful guidelines for stupid people to survive. At one point, everyone was stupid. As time progressed, there have been more non-stupid people born.

We are now living in a time when there are still lots of people who need religion for various reasons. It's a shame that some people still need the traditional mindless religions, but it's a fact. And it's much more of a shame that some people are using those religions and their followers for their own evil designs (George and Osama, for example).

Maybe sometime soon we can slough off these outdated, vestigial religions, just like tails and appendixes (oh, wait, we still have those, and they occasionally burst like little fundamentalist terrorist bombs).

Posted by tekriter if much is wrong with the fundamentalist view, then why not (like me) scrap the whole unjustified belief system? (For a hint, start with wishful thinking.) How do moderates decide what parts of the texts are true and what parts are to be ignored?

So, tell me, do you have a complete and perfect understanding of logic and every facet and detail of it, or do you not understand logic at all? Which is it? Because not everything is only this or that.

I agree that the bible is essentially nonsense. First off, the witting is terrible and mostly boring. Second, the translations are flawed and manipulated at best. Third, the canonization process was about as inspired by god as a good cat fucking is.

But that doesn't mean that someone can't find nice bits in there. I have found a nice bit before, a bit that made me think about things differently, and in a way that I feel is better for me and for the world at large. A Christian can read the bible and "get" parts of it as helpful information about how to live their life, and not get other parts of it yet. Any Christian who thinks he understands everything perfectly is not a "good" Christian.

Posted by tekriter The moderate christians can cherry pick what ever they want to from the bible, but they can't do it without offending the fundies, and without lying to themselves. Their justifications will be ignored by the fundies and the reasonable people, just as everyone will ignore your half-hearted defence of christendom.

God, you are a tool.

Posted by MutantMandias Most of the stuff Catholics believe isn't from the bible.

GOOD fucking point.

Posted by White Rabbit GOOD fucking point.

Have you two ever been involved with the catholic church?

Their ENTIRE religion is based on the Gospel - which is part of the Bible. There is no part of the catholic faith that isn't dictated by the bible, the parts they preach are taken extremely literally, but on the flipside they readily dismiss sections they don't agree with. How can an entire religion be built on the writtings of one book when parts of the book are being ignored. I'm not arguing wheather the bible is correct or incorrect, that is completely another discussion based on logic, however when a religion is built on the foundation of a single source writing, then yes we can call the catholics hypocrites for their menu style beliefs of which sections apply to them at any given time.

Quite simply...

Catholics = Bible literally (when in the purest form of catholosism)

Bible literally = Non evolution

Therefore: Catholics = Non evolution

So any catholics who believe in any form of evolution are dismissing part of their faith. Yes, logically I agree a catholic can believe we are a product of evolution rather then an image of god, but that catholic is bending their faith to suit their own logical (and intelligent) believe that is supported by science.

Posted by Nvr2loud Have you two ever been involved with the catholic church? Their ENTIRE religion is based on the Gospel

Uh, no. It's not. Seriously, it's totally not. In fact, Catholicism is full of so many dogmatic beliefs it's not even funny.

Off the top of my head:

Papal infallibility is not in the Bible.
Papal succession is not in the Bible.
Clergy celibacy is not in the Bible.
Purgatory is not in the Bible.
The trinity is not in the Bible.
Praying to saints and Mary for supplication is not in the Bible.
The use of Latin is certainly not dictated by the Bible.

The Holy Trinity is indeed written within the bible....


http://www.gotques...Trinity-Bible.html

The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are, therefore we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean it is not true or not based on the teachings of the Bible.



Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word "Trinity" is not used in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God, the fact that there are 3 coexistent, co-eternal persons that make up God. Understand that this is NOT in any way suggesting 3 Gods. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons. There is nothing wrong with using the term "Trinity" even though the word is not found in the Bible. It is shorter to say the word "Trinity" than to say "3 coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 God." If this presents a problem to you, consider this: the word grandfather is not used in the Bible either. Yet, we know there were grandfathers in the Bible. Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. So don't get hung up on the term "Trinity" itself. What should be of real importance is that the concept that is REPRESENTED by the word "Trinity" does exist in Scripture. With the introduction out of the way, Bible verses will be given in discussion of the Trinity.



1) There is one God: Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.



2) The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).



In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of 3 distinct persons in the Trinity.



3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinity - the Father.



4) Each member of the Trinity is God: The Father is God: John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2. The Son is God: John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20. The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16 (The One who indwells is the Holy Spirit - Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:1-4).



5) The subordination within the Trinity: Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship, and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see: Luke 22:42; John 5:36; John 20:21; 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see: John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7 and especially John 16:13-14.



6) The tasks of the individual members of the Trinity: The Father is the ultimate source or cause of: 1) the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); 2) divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); 3) salvation (John 3:16-17); and 4) Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father INITIATES all of these things.



The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: 1) the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); 2) divine revelation (John 1:1; Matthew 11:27; John 16:12-15; Revelation 1:1); and 3) salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.



The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: 1) creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); 2) divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); 3) salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and 4) Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I have to leave for a service call, I'll try to get to your other points later.

Posted by Nvr2loud The Holy Trinity is indeed written within the bible....

Sorry dude. You couldn't be more wrong on this. I wasn't referring merely to the word trinity. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that God is three distinct beings as one. That's dogma. It's not in there.

And please for the love of God don't just copy and paste something from a website--I get enough of that from tekriter.

Not to mention, I highly doubt you've actually read all those Bible passages below, so it's not exactly fair to expect me to look every one of those passages up and show you they don't say what you think they say when you haven't even read them yourself.

In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinity - the Father.

Here's the problem with that: Never, not even once, did Jesus ever claim to be God. He never even asked for anyone to worship him. He claimed to be the son of God--NOT God himself.

So for him to be talking to God, does not indicate that they're two parts of a trinity--and that's a crazy leap of logic to make.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God: The Father is God: John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2. The Son is God: John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20. The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16 (The One who indwells is the Holy Spirit - Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:1-4).

The Holy Spirit, if you read the entire Bible, is basically God's presence or force. It was NEVER portrayed in the Bible as a separate distinct being. Never. Seriously.

5) The subordination within the Trinity: Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship, and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity.

Um, it actually does deny the deity of Jesus--since Jesus never claimed to be a deity. He was subordinate to God because he never claimed to be God.

Concerning the Holy Spirit see: John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7 and especially John 16:13-14.

None of these support the idea of the Holy Spirit being a separate being. They support the idea of someone being filled with God's spirit.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works:

Yes, the Bible says that. What it doesn't say is:

Jesus never claimed to be God.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God is made up of three separate distinct beings.

Posted by Nvr2loud I have to leave for a service call, I'll try to get to your other points later.

If you really want to debate this, here's what I want you to do (because I can't deal with the huge copy and paste from a website thing).

Post the actual scripture (not the book, chapter, and verse numbers) that you think supports the idea of a trinity. And don't post some big thing from a website, look up the actual scriptures you think support it and post them.

Because there actually aren't any. There's only one in the entire Bible that even comes close. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass for giggles. If I knew as much about some other things as I do the Bible, I'd probably be a millionaire.

It just ain't in there, dude. It's a dogmatic belief that was incorporated after the fact.

And, if you believe that Catholics only believe in the Bible literally, then you might in fact believe that Jesus performed some silly miracles at the last supper, and all of the disciples were willing cannibals. Okay, literally, that's true, from the words, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Ignoring the fact that, historically, people have always spoken with imagery and symbolism).

But no where in the Bible does it say that every priest can perform miracles and summon Christ's corpse on demand. They will do everything in their power to try to deceive people into thinking that it is supported by the Bible, but deception and control of minds has always been the sole purpose for the existence of the Catholic church.

Posted by White Rabbit It's a dogmatic belief that was incorporated after the fact.

In 325 AD. And, actually, I must admit that I kind of like the whole thing, because it defines the church where I teach "sunday school" as a real, honest-to-god heretical church.

Therefore I am a documented heretic. Soooo awesome.

Posted by MutantMandias And, if you believe that Catholics only believe in the Bible literally, then you might in fact believe that Jesus performed some silly miracles at the last supper, and all of the disciples were willing cannibals. Okay, literally, that's true, from the words, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Ignoring the fact that, historically, people have always spoken with imagery and symbolism).

I don't actually believe it is only catholics I'm just not familiar with other religions as I am with the catholic church. I had to attend the Roman Catholic School board my entire childhood, forced to be an altar server, forced to be confirmed, first communion, confession, ect. Forced to attend mass every sunday and religious 'special' day. My parents are cathoholics, I really do not have any experience with any other religions. My wife is united, and my parents freaked out over that.

Posted by Nvr2loud Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word "Trinity" is not used in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God, the fact that there are 3 coexistent, co-eternal persons that make up God. Understand that this is NOT in any way suggesting 3 Gods. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons. There is nothing wrong with using the term "Trinity" even though the word is not found in the Bible. It is shorter to say the word "Trinity" than to say "3 coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 God." If this presents a problem to you, consider this: the word grandfather is not used in the Bible either. Yet, we know there were grandfathers in the Bible. Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. So don't get hung up on the term "Trinity" itself. What should be of real importance is that the concept that is REPRESENTED by the word "Trinity" does exist in Scripture. With the introduction out of the way, Bible verses will be given in discussion of the Trinity.

From my post above, what part of this explanation did you miss? This is how catholics feel about the holy father, the son, and the holy spirit. They are always considered three coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 god. The Trinity is just a way to name these three 'persons' I don't understand your argument about the trinity, please elaborate.

Posted by tekriter You believe what, exactly? Can I ask how you account for dinosaurs? Do you call them Jesus Horses, or believe that paleontologist are sneaking around planting evidence?

I believe that God made dinosaurs along with all the other animals, but the species died out. (I have a feeling you expected a more complicated answer?)

Posted by tekriter There is no good reason to believe that the universe was created for a reason.

Well, define "good." Your idea of a good reason may not be my idea of a good reason, but we can still have our reasons to believe in purposeful or non-purposeful creation! Come on, that was a silly statement that only leads to "yes, it does." "no, it doesn't." "yes, it does." "no it doesn't." etc. No one is actually going to change their mind when reading that.

Posted by White Rabbit Well, perhaps if every question wasn't buried in a page of Google-spam, I could fucking pick them out a little bit better.

Touche.

Posted by Nvr2loud From my post above, what part of this explanation did you miss? This is how catholics feel about the holy father, the son, and the holy spirit. They are always considered three coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 god. The Trinity is just a way to name these three 'persons' I don't understand your argument about the trinity, please elaborate.

I'm not saying that's not what they believe. That's pretty much right on the money.

But you said they believe that because it's in the Bible.

Well... It's not. There's no biblical basis to believe in the trinity. There's nothing in the Bible that supports it.

In fact, the first century Christians had no notion of the trinity (nor did the Jews before them). It's a dogmatic belief that came later.

But, almost all Christian sects, from the Baptists, to the Catholics, to the Jehovah's Witnesses, believe things that have no biblical basis. And, they almost all claim those things do

That's all my point was. I don't dispute that Catholics believe it--it's just not in the Bible is all. It's tradition, dogma.

Katwoman. I hate you for reminding me this forum exists. !!! (j/k)

Reading this thread makes my head hurt.

You people are so annoying and I don't even know why I'm bothering to post this because I know it'll get twisted but... oh well.

if someone is going to worship a god based on a book, they can not only accept parts of that book as true.

I believe in the Bible
I do not believe that the world was created in 6 days.
I believe in the book of Genesis.
I believe in the book of Revelations.
I do NOT believe in Dragons.

How do all these statements come together to be true?

Well there's this thing call metaphor. perhaps you've heard of it?

Jesus used a LOT of metaphors, allegory, allusions in his teachings. is it so hard to believe that there are metaphors, allegory, allusions in the Bible itself?

It's not.

As for not believing parts of the Bible you don't like...

I HATE that Women aren't allowed to be in the ministry, that women aren't supposed to be elders of the church. But it's in the bible, it can't be described as metaphor, allegory or allusion. I put up with it.

I can't say all Christians work this way.

I can only speak for myself and my beliefs.

Posted by journeylady I believe in the Bible

Can I respectfully ask, Why?

Seriously, I want a discourse. I'm not trying to criticize you for it.


If there is a way for you to put it into words, can you? I could understand if you don't feel that you can, but I would like to hear why you believe in it, if it says things that you feel should not be true?

Posted by MutantMandias Can I respectfully ask, Why? Seriously, I want a discourse. I'm not trying to criticize you for it. If there is a way for you to put it into words, can you? I could understand if you don't feel that you can, but I would like to hear why you believe in it, if it says things that you feel should not be true?

It's hard to explain,

First I will admit I have not read, page for page, the whole bible. I have read the new testament and the beginning of the old testament. I skipped over all the laws for the Jews because Jesus came to fulfill those laws and so they don't apply anymore (As it says in the new testament), I also skipped quite a few of the Psalms and Proverbs. I come back to them every once in a while. I'm still trying to get back to the prophets, of the old testament.

I know the stories though. I know a lot of the things that happened in these books even though I haven't read them. I've attended Bible Studies for years and been 'churched' for over 20 years.


That being said,

I believe in the Bible because it makes sense to me. because a lot of what I have read seems logical and it feels right to me. inside.

This is not because I've been going to church since I was 5. because in my early 20s I had a lot of doubts about the Bible.

That's when I started reading the sections I have read, when I started taking a lot longer to read them because I was really THINKING about what I was reading and why these things are in there.

I HATE that the Bible says that women shouldn't teach men biblical stuff (they can teach anything else, have power, whatever just not teach a man the bible) HATE it. BUT I have faith in my God that he had a good reason for it.

Maybe that reason doesn't exist anymore, maybe it was that in that day and age having a woman teach it would have distracted men enough that they didn't get out of it what they should, or that they wouldn't have taken it seriously.

But still, we don't get to choose what to take out of the bible.

I was really surprised to learn that the Bible didn't out and out condemn slavery. But the more I read the section and talked to my paster about it I realized it was because the commandments provide for the slaves of a household in the same way as the wife and the children. That a slave is a member of the household as well and protected

The Bible doesn't condone treating slaves like cattle. It does condone treating everyone as you would wish to be treated.

But I guess the main reason I believe in the Bible is because the Spirit worked inside of me, it moved me to put aside my foolish belief that I could know better than my God.

And it gives me Hope.

Okay, now, I DO want to remain respectful here, but I would like to ask a couple of follow ups, if I may...

I hope none of this offends you. I expect that you might not want to carry on with this discussion, since I was unable to refrain from breaking your post down into pieces and talking about the pieces, which as we know, is the path towards a real mess of an internet discussion. So, if you want to just ignore me, just know that I will not consider that as any kind of loss of argument on your side, or anything negative at all.

I recognize that I can get tiresome.

But anyway, on with the show.....

Posted by journeylady It's hard to explain, First I will admit I have not read, page for page, the whole bible.

I recommend that you go ahead and take the time to do it. You can find recommended schedules for how to read the Bible in a year or a month, or probably any period of time. It's been a long time since I read it the whole thing, and I wouldn't have done it if it hadn't been required reading at my high school, but what I'm saying is, if you believe in all of it the way that you seem to, then it must be the most important thing in all of existence to you. Doesn't the most important thing in all of existence deserve 30 minutes a day of reading?

Posted by journeylady That being said, I believe in the Bible because it makes sense to me. because a lot of what I have read seems logical and it feels right to me. inside.

Well, I'm pretty sure you're not being honest with yourself when you say that it seems logical. Pretty much all Biblical experts accept that it's not logical. In fact, I have even heard that used as a defense for it's truth: "Well, if it was all made up, they would have taken care of the obvious logical problems and inconsistencies. The fact that it doesn't make sense simply shows that it's all true."

But, what about crazy things like Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber's Manifesto; Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf; Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, and John Gray's Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus? All of those writings have large parts that make a whole lot of sense, are internally consistent, and verifiably true, based on experiences. But they also have crazy bits. Do we have to accept the crazy bits? Do we have to start worshiping John Gray? (This is of course rhetorical. Everyone already worships John Gray).

Posted by journeylady I HATE that the Bible says that women shouldn't teach men biblical stuff (they can teach anything else, have power, whatever just not teach a man the bible) HATE it. BUT I have faith in my God that he had a good reason for it. Maybe that reason doesn't exist anymore, maybe it was that in that day and age having a woman teach it would have distracted men enough that they didn't get out of it what they should, or that they wouldn't have taken it seriously.

So, if that's the case, then isn't Christianity a dead religion if it is not able to account for the lives of people today? It seems that it's either that, or you are fundamentally wrong to dislike that women can't teach the Bible to men.

Posted by journeylady But still, we don't get to choose what to take out of the bible.

I thought you already did choose, when you said that the world wasn't created in 6 days.

As a side note, honestly, that has always seemed to me to be the smallest possible complaint about the Bible. I mean, if you accept the premise that there is a supreme, omniscient, omnipotent being, why the hell would it even take as long as 6 days to create everything? I am more concerned with the fact that an omniscient God speaks with dangling prepositions:
And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

Posted by journeylady But I guess the main reason I believe in the Bible is because the Spirit worked inside of me, it moved me to put aside my foolish belief that I could know better than my God. And it gives me Hope.

I hate to see that you discard foolish beliefs. Especially foolish beliefs that are only made foolish by other foolish beliefs. Because, you have to admit, belief in a conscious god is rather foolish by nature. And I know that sounds extremely critical and offensive, but it is a belief based on nothing tangible or provable, and besides, I like foolish beliefs and think they are important. (Recommended reading: He: Understanding Masculine Psychology by Robert A. Johnson in which a fool discovers the Holy Grail)

I have Hope. Great and powerful hope. And Joy. Seemingly limitless Joy. And no god. I feel that something akin to a Spirit moves inside of me and other people all of the time, but you might as well call it the spirit of Christmas, or simply the brotherhood of man.

I recommend that you go ahead and take the time to do it. You can find recommended schedules for how to read the Bible in a year or a month, or probably any period of time.

I am slowly trying to get through it. I keep getting bogged down in the old testiment. but I am working on it.

Well, I'm pretty sure you're not being honest with yourself when you say that it seems logical.

Very fair, maybe I'm not.

So, if that's the case, then isn't Christianity a dead religion if it is not able to account for the lives of people today? It seems that it's either that, or you are fundamentally wrong to dislike that women can't teach the Bible to men.

I'm fundamentally wrong to dislike it. but then again, I'm a selfish sinful woman so that's not all that surprising.

I thought you already did choose, when you said that the world wasn't created in 6 days.

Did not. I said that I don't believe that it was created in a literal 6 days. 40 days and nights doesn't mean 40 days and nights, it means an undetermined amount of time. How do we know that the Genesis 6 days is 144 hours? I believe in the account of creation. But time means different things to God. it's very possible it's allusion or metaphor.

I hate to see that you discard foolish beliefs. Especially foolish beliefs that are only made foolish by other foolish beliefs.

Well don't worry. I won't be discarding my beliefs on your account.

I'm very strong in my faith and these discussion don't bring me any doubt.

I have Hope. Great and powerful hope. And Joy. Seemingly limitless Joy. And no god. I feel that something akin to a Spirit moves inside of me and other people all of the time, but you might as well call it the spirit of Christmas, or simply the brotherhood of man.

Well that's great for you. I'm glad you're happy!

I'm still going to stick with my God.