This is a common canard from defenders of religious dogma. You either believe that the Bible is the most important, true, and sacred book on Earth or you aren't really a Christian. You also either believe Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected three days later or you aren't a Christian.
While you continue to speak in generalities you continue to fail to respond to the statements that I made. Your "either/or" statements are irrelevant to the post I made. Nowhere in my statements did I discuss "important/true/or sacred". Of what relevance are "important/true or sacred" to the comments I offered?
Was this an attempt to respond to the post that I made? You quoted it.
This is a perfectly reasonable response to your post. You relish being in the gray area, because then you don't have to defend the foolishness contained in the Bible.
Your vague, wishy-washy approach to the Bible is not an adequate representation of the Christian faith.
GoodK wrote:This is a perfectly reasonable response to your post. You relish being in the gray area, because then you don't have to defend the foolishness contained in the Bible.
Your vague, wishy-washy approach to the Bible is not an adequate representation of the Christian faith.
And you are qualified to determine what is an "adequate" representation of the Christian faith, and what isn't... why?
GoodK wrote:This is a perfectly reasonable response to your post. You relish being in the gray area, because then you don't have to defend the foolishness contained in the Bible.
Your vague, wishy-washy approach to the Bible is not an adequate representation of the Christian faith.
And you are qualified to determine what is an "adequate" representation of the Christian faith, and what isn't... why?
Because most Christians don't view the Bible in such a diffident manner.
GoodK wrote:This is a perfectly reasonable response to your post. You relish being in the gray area, because then you don't have to defend the foolishness contained in the Bible.
Your vague, wishy-washy approach to the Bible is not an adequate representation of the Christian faith.
And you are qualified to determine what is an "adequate" representation of the Christian faith, and what isn't... why?
Because most Christians don't view the Bible in such a diffident manner.
And you are qualified to make a statement about "most Christians"... why?
GoodK wrote:This is a perfectly reasonable response to your post. You relish being in the gray area, because then you don't have to defend the foolishness contained in the Bible.
Your vague, wishy-washy approach to the Bible is not an adequate representation of the Christian faith.
And you are qualified to determine what is an "adequate" representation of the Christian faith, and what isn't... why?
Because most Christians don't view the Bible in such a diffident manner.
And you are qualified to make a statement about "most Christians"... why?
Because I have been alive in the real world for quite some time.
Here is why "most" is an appropriate word:
More than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago.
44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years.
Arguing the semantics of the word "most" is sort of trivial, wouldn't you say?
GoodK wrote:This is a perfectly reasonable response to your post. You relish being in the gray area, because then you don't have to defend the foolishness contained in the Bible.
Your vague, wishy-washy approach to the Bible is not an adequate representation of the Christian faith.
And you are qualified to determine what is an "adequate" representation of the Christian faith, and what isn't... why?
Because most Christians don't view the Bible in such a diffident manner.
And you are qualified to make a statement about "most Christians"... why?
Because I have been alive in the real world for quite some time.
Here is why "most" is an appropriate word:
More than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago.
44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years.
Arguing the semantics of the word "most" is sort of trivial, wouldn't you say?
I hate to be the one to tell you this, GoodK, but Christianity isn't confined to the United States. And 44% isn't a majority.
I'm not worrying about your supposed point, GoodK. I'm wondering about your qualification to make it.
Last edited by Yahoo MMCrawler [Bot] on Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
GoodK wrote:This is a perfectly reasonable response to your post. You relish being in the gray area, because then you don't have to defend the foolishness contained in the Bible.
Your vague, wishy-washy approach to the Bible is not an adequate representation of the Christian faith.
And you are qualified to determine what is an "adequate" representation of the Christian faith, and what isn't... why?
Because most Christians don't view the Bible in such a diffident manner.
And you are qualified to make a statement about "most Christians"... why?
Because I have been alive in the real world for quite some time.
Here is why "most" is an appropriate word:
More than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago.
44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years.
Arguing the semantics of the word "most" is sort of trivial, wouldn't you say?
I hate to be the one to tell you this, GoodK, but Christianity isn't confined to the United States. And 44% isn't a majority.
Like I said, trivial.
I'll say it again:
Most Christians don't view the Bible in such a diffident manner.
And outside of the United States is certainly worse:
Did Christian missionaries start giving out copies of the Cosmos instead of Bibles as they evangelized in third world countries?
Notice how you aren't really claiming what I'm saying is false, rather, sort of annoyingly bickering over semantics.
Last edited by _GoodK on Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.