Can You Believe The Bible Is The Word Of God And Blow Off Some Of It

Many of my readers would agree in general with this link.  The writer says one can believe the Bible is the word of God but refuse to take every word of it literally.

Since publishing this blog I have heard from a large number of people who are confident, in fact supremely confident, they know which parts of the Bible to take literally and which are not intended to be taken literally. Unfortunately, these confident people do not agree with each other.

To an outsider, it is baffling to hear say they are certain about this. Why would their god would bother to write things that were not to be taken literally? When Congress passes laws, do they advise people not to take time literally?

The link author is also baffled. But, he is baffled by people who take the Bible literally. Such people simply do not understand the faith he says. One who understands the faith ignores parts of the Bible and focuses on other parts.

Much of this seems like inside the faith arguments. Denominations split constantly. One person thinks he understands the faith better than his colleagues so he and his friends trot off to form a different denomination. They are not interested in the impression this creates for nonbelievers who conclude there is no ultimate and final truth about the Bible.

I don’t see how believers can rationally conclude the Bible is the word of God and think they can ignore some of it.

39 Responses

  1. Juan Ruiz

    Both the Jews and Christians of long ago believed that the texts were to be read from an historical, moral, symbolic, and allegorical perspective. This whole business of literalism is quite new, and limited to a small number of adherents. When John calls Jesus the Lamb of God, he is not saying he’s an ovine, for example.

    The writers and storytellers of both Judaism and Christianity belonged to a story-telling tradition. All the figurative language they used was recognized by their audience. Revelation’s Horsemen weren’t really men on horses; even the author makes that clear. They are allegories.

    But, not to be surprised. Too many people are literal, and incapable of thinking figuratively. So it’s easy to believe man was made from dust and, lacking the knowledge of Hebrew, miss the pun.

  2. Brandon

    Jon, you bring up a great point, and you are right that this makes the Christian faith look poor. I have brought it up in a few posts in the past that a lot of Christians out there who profess Christ are not real Christians at all, and the reason for that is because they will believe one point of the Bible but decide that another point is false.

    2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” This means that everything in the Bible is there for a reason.

    As Juan said above, the Bible is full of different writing styles. Some is historical, some is prophetic, some is poetic. Understanding the Bible for what it truly is, is to understand the time it was written at and to understand that sometimes the meaning that is meant to get across requires some digging.

    I am proud to be part of a solid Bible believing Church. The real Church will know that Gods’ word is the sole authority and that no other person or book has anything to add or take away.

    1. Brandon 7:15 Thanks for taking the time to post all that.

      2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” This means that everything in the Bible is there for a reason.

      I have to say that when a sentence about a piece of scripture starts, “That means…” I know there will be thousands or millions who think it means something different.

    2. Juan Ruiz

      “2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” This means that everything in the Bible is there for a reason.”

      This text is generally employed by Christians to legitimize the New Testament. Problem is, scholars generally date it to about 63 CE, before the Gospels, epistles, and Revelation were even written. It seems to only apply to Paul’s own writings. In fact,, it was long before Irenaeus decided what the “real” gospels should be, and centuries before the New Testament was canonized. In the meantime, hundreds of other gospels were circulating, with hundreds of other takes on who Jesus was.

    3. Matthew Hauff

      What is the metaphorical meaning behind ‘slaves obey your masters, even the cruel ones’? Both the Old and New Testament repeatedly condone slavery. What part of not owning other people is difficult for your god to understand? There isn’t a poetic, historical or prophetic interpretation for this barbaric bronze age passage

      1. Juan Ruiz

        “What is the metaphorical meaning behind ‘slaves obey your masters, even the cruel ones’? ”

        None. It was a reality of the time, and the writers reflected that reality.

  3. Mike

    The authenticity of the Bible is at the crux of the Christian religion. For Christians, your view of the Bible would fall into two categories. Either the Bible IS the Word of God or simply CONTAINS the Word of God. The answer to that question should be obvious, as stated above in 2 Timothy: All Scripture is God-breathed.

    You either believe the Bible in its totality or you don’t. It is only human arrogance to take the other position and think that you are “smart” enough to figure out which parts are true and which aren’t. It is also a self-defeating approach because you are admitting the Bible has “errors”, which draws the logical conclusion that is some parts of the Bible are not true, how can we trust any of it?

    This “need” to qualify the entirety of the Bible seems to revolve in part around certain supposed inconsistencies in various parts of the Bible. As Juan correctly points out in his previous note listed above, the approach a Christian should take is to read the Bible in the context of which it was written. An expression that summarizes this concept would be to say: “the Bible interprets itself”. In other words, you can’t pluck one verse or series of verses from the Bible and draw conclusions solely on that information alone without seeing it expressed in other parts of the Bible. You have to understand the frame of reference in which it was written.

    However, to get to the “bottom line” of this discussion, I would like to quote from a statement attributed to the author, Mark Twain, who once said: “it’s not the parts of the Bible that I DON’T understand that concern me. It’s the parts of the Bible that I DO understand that bother me”. While most Bible-believing Christians would say there is a lot of fact-based historical information in the Bible, the Bible is still ultimately a book of faith. Either you believe that you are a lost and condemned creature and Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, and by his death and resurrection, you are saved… or you don’t.

    1. Mike 9:44 Welcome to the forum and thank you for sharing your views.

      Either you believe that you are a lost and condemned creature and Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, and by his death and resurrection, you are saved… or you don’t.

      Not to argue you point but to show the wide variety of views that exist, there is a liberal United Church of Christ near where I live that I attend some. Our granddaughter was there at a confirmation class and her mother, our daughter, happened to be present. The head pastor was asked by a kid, “Why did Jesus die for our sins?” The pastor replied that he, himself, does not believe Jesus died for out sins. I’ve heard this fellow preach several times. I would call him a devout Christian.

      For such liberals as that Pastor, and for several of our nation’s founding fathers, I think your sentence would read, “Either you believe participating in the fellowship and rituals of the Christian faith leads to a better society or you do not.” Just my take on that branch of the faith.

    2. Juan Ruiz

      “as stated above in 2 Timothy: All Scripture is God-breathed. ”

      One more time, when you read 2 Tim you see that Paul is contrasting the works of “wicked men and imposters” with his own. It is the latter which he characterizes as “breathed out of God.” Given there was no Bible when Paul was dictating his letters, any association between it and him is purely anachronistic.

    3. entech

      @ 9:44 I can see your line of reasoning but I do think you are confusing what is “true” and what is a “truism”.

      Par. 1.
      The crux of any belief system would be that its texts are authentic. Many religions are built on the belief that a new version of the texts is provided because the old ones are been corrupted and are no longer authentic. The Koran is one such text.
      Par. 2.
      You reach the only logical conclusion here, how can any of it be trusted.
      Par. 3.
      If you believe it in its totality, then it becomes difficult to explain away the “supposed” inconsistencies. Another way of saying “frame of reference” is to say context. There is essentially only one way and that is to say that it is “revealed truth” which comes down to who revealed what and to whom.
      Par. 4.
      Either you believe that you are a lost and condemned creature and Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, and by his death and resurrection, you are saved… or you don’t.
      This is all well and good as far as it goes, but the very concept requires a belief in the existence of the “Trinitarian” explanation of a certain worldview. As you say it is a book of faith and without that faith it is difficult to justify any of it.

      That I am a none-believer shades my view of how to read the Bible, I could well be wrong in all that I think about your belief system.
      I apologise for my somewhat sarcastic tone and ask you to accept that I did not intend to be insulting – it is just the “THE HENRY” leaps in with his own sarcastic manner about Jon “THE ATHEIST” not being able to appreciate what you wrote while disagreeing with it. Henry seems to be unable to tolerate the very existence of anyone that could read or interpret the Book in any way that did not accept perfect faith in its authenticity (while maintaining a position of it being true and authentic but not to be taken hyper literally).

    4. Grandma

      Hi there, Mike: Either the Bible IS the Word of God or simply CONTAINS the Word of God.

      Please remember that what people think of the Bible was actually a collection of manuscripts and letters put together well after the events it describes took place. Therefore, we have to look at not only what might have been metaphorical, but what was selected, what was left out, and who did the selecting and for what purposes.

  4. Mike

    I appreciate the opportunity to post my thoughts on your website. My reaction to your anecdote is that this is a sad indictment of many so-called Christian preachers in this world. The apostle Paul once summarized his role as pastor with these words: “I preach Christ Crucified”. Any minister who doesn’t understand this misses the whole point of the Bible.

    Your comment on the founding fathers is an interesting tie-in to what is actually being taught in these “liberal” churches you mentioned. They are engaging in activities that would be characterized as “Social Gospel”. This is an expression that was coined to describe how doing good works for your “fellow man” is a means in itself. While it is certainly a good thing to help your fellow man and God wants us to perform these acts of kindness, it was never meant to be the sole message of the Bible.

    Sadly, however, in these churches, this “Social Gospel” is all they have left since the basic tenets of the Christian religion, Law and Gospel, are no longer being taught and preached in their pulpits each Sunday. When there is no discussion of SIN and the need for a Savior (Jesus Christ), then all you do each Sunday is talk about how Jesus is a “good role model”. In point of fact, he was the perfect role model, but that misses the chief reason for his presence on earth some 2000 years ago.

    As to the impact of Christian rituals having a positive impact on society, that may certainly be true, but “being kind to one another” doesn’t necessarily require a belief in a God. Non Christians can recognize the obvious benefits of philanthropy, and how maintaining the principles of Law and Order can have a positive impact in creating an orderly society. The Christian, on the other hand, who has the correct understanding of the point of good works, knows that we perform these good deeds as an appreciation for what God has already done for us. He sent his Son to suffer and die for our sins, and by believing in him, we will have eternal life.

    1. Henry

      Mike, good essay. Jon gives out the “good essay” rating often. Your piece truly deserves that. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that from Jon.

    2. Mike 12:15 Thanks for another fine piece of writing.

      The Christian, on the other hand, who has the correct understanding of the point of good works, knows that we perform these good deeds as an appreciation for what God has already done for us. He sent his Son to suffer and die for our sins, and by believing in him, we will have eternal life.

      I have referred dozens of times here to author Stephen Prothero’s book, “God is Not One.” He points out there are two ways to determine what the faith is all about. One is what scholars who have studied the Bible claim it to be. The other is what folks in the pews THINK it is. I have always maintained those in the pews are an important part because they pay the bills. Without them, there would be no churches.

      The picture gets even more complicated when we look across the horizon of professionals in the field of Bible study. The preacher I spoke of went to Yale seminary. I think there are four pastors in that church and currently all of them graduated from Yale. I clipped out an article from the Wall Street Journal 20 years ago which quoted a Dean of some prominent seminary. He said no seminary he knew of taught that there is a literal life after death. I assume this is the case at Yale. Thus, major seminaries across the country are teaching a view contrary to yours.

      This is not to say you are wrong and they are right. It is to say instead there is no way of knowing. Having no source of ultimate truth the only rational conclusion is that each person picks the view that works for them.

      1. Catcher

        @ 8;51; “…quoted a Dean of some prominent seminary. He said no seminary he knew of taught that there is a literal life after death.” Even if one considers the broad definition of “life after death”, one must ask which two seminaries did he investigate.

        1. entech

          You, on the contrary have always demonstrated perfect knowledge, perhaps Jon could tell you the name and then you could Catch his errors and put him straight.

          Perhaps you could help me with a question I do ponder, given the breadth (and depth) of the available definitions – how do you differentiate between “life after death” and the natural corollary “death before life”.

          1. Catcher

            @ 10;40; Those would be questions asked of Jon and the professor he referenced., (given the breadth (and depth) of the available definitions. One must consider the definitions and relation of life before death, to “death before life”, followed by “life after death”.

          2. entech

            @ 11:34 actually they are the questions, perhaps only the one question, that I asked of you. If you have no answer or prefer to decline to answer o be it.

            I can answer the first part for myself, death before life is as close to certain as can be expected. People who have reincarnation as part of their worldview would disagree but to me I can see no alternative before I was alive I was dead – the follow on, of which I am almost certain is that after life I will return to death. There is the added part which is the speculative bit about a non-physical life a soul or spirit.
            I am happy to follow the words of Fr. George Coyne, Jesuit Cosmologist, who talks of the fertile universe with stars creating the elements from simpler atoms to all the bits of stuff that make up the planets and eventually life. It is said we are all made of star dust and after death return to the constituent elements from which we came. Interesting that Coyne does not find that his evolutionary view of life the universe and everything is not at odds with his Christian faith, for my part I find it helps explain the cosmos without the need for a creator entity.

          3. Catcher

            @ 10;54; Actually Jon brought it up, and presented the professor/ dean and his statements. Since they claim such wisdom, they should answer, not me.

            My only question was in regard to; ” He said no seminary he knew of taught there is a literal life after death.
            “Which two seminaries did he investigate.” As a corollary; which seminaries did he not investigate?

          4. entech

            Separate paragraph separate question addressed to you, an answer is not compulsory if you do not feel inclined. 🙂

  5. Catcher

    Jon; I notice my e-mail address has changed, Not from my initiation. I also note that now my posts are immediately published. If that’s what it takes to not have to wait for approval, it’s OK with me, I think.

    1. Catcher 9:21 I also note that now my posts are immediately published. If that’s what it takes to not have to wait for approval, it’s OK with me, I think.

      A modern day miracle! 🙂

  6. Mike

    With your last paragraph, Jon, you have summarized the entire issue people have with the Bible. Many people in this world believe there is no such thing as absolute truth. The attitude is “I’m ok and you’re okay” or “You have your truth and I have my truth.” And so on. That way no one gets into an argument, etc., etc., etc.

    Is it any wonder then that you have Bible scholars who use a Historical Critical method to pick apart and tear down the validity of the Bible? Is it any wonder that there are pastors who don’t believe in some of the primary tenets of the Christian faith? Is it any wonder that some who claim to view themselves as Christians take the attitude that the Bible is like a buffet: they can pick & choose anything they like and disregard the rest?
    But this is nothing new. When Christ was before Pilate, Jesus stated that He had come into this world to declare the truth. In reply, Pilate dismissively said: “what is truth?”

    It is understandable, though, why many in this world would like to write off the Bible as just an ordinary book, that was written many years ago, and that has no relevance to their lives. Like Mark Twain, who I referenced earlier, famously a non believer during his lifetime, there are certain passages in the Bible that make you uncomfortable and you would prefer to ignore them. They seem to revolve around the discussion of sin.

    What also makes people uncomfortable is the so-called exclusivity of Jesus Christ and the salvation he has won for us all. Jesus states in John 14:6 that “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through me.” or in the words of John 11:25 before he raised Lazarus: I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me, though he may die, yet will he live.” Hence the concept that it doesn’t matter what you believe because everyone is going to heaven is certainly debunked by the Scriptures.

    These are just two of many unambiguous and well known passages in Scriptures that declare these basic tenets of the Christian faith. Even non believers are familar with many of these same verses, so knowledge of the Christian religion is not the issue. It all boils down to faith and who you put your trust in. In closing, I would like to describe to you what it feels like to place my confidence in His hands.

    When I lay my head down on the pillow at night, I can be at rest. Whatever troubles in life I have or sins that my conscience may accuse me of, I can be at peace due to the blessed reassurance that my sins are forgiven. Not due to anything I may or may not have done, but by what Christ has accomplished for me and all believers. He has won for me salvation of my soul and I will spend eternal life in heaven due to His deeds. That is what I put my trust in!

    1. Mike 6:06 What also makes people uncomfortable is the so-called exclusivity of Jesus Christ and the salvation he has won for us all.

      That is quite a generalization. It is not what makes me uncomfortable. What makes me uncomfortable are people who quote Jesus and believe Jesus actually said such things. No one in the Bible claims to have been present when these words were supposedly uttered. It can be shown though references they made to secular events that the authors of the Bible wrote long after Jesus was allegedly dead. There are no quotations from Jesus which should be considered historically accurate. Instead, they were statements made up by authors who wanted their own ideas put in the voice of Jesus.

      I am glad, however, you find comfort in believing the myths found in the Bible. I find comfort also in knowing I can consider the Bible to be religious propaganda and approach it with the same critical thinking I apply to other advertising and propaganda in our everyday life.

  7. Mike

    It would seem that my last post hit a little too close to home for you. In your previous two posts, you were kind and caring – relatively low key in your responses – and seemed appreciative that someone was engaging in debate on your web site. You made no attempt to throw any inflamatory language about and were respectful of another’s point of view, even if you disagreed with them.

    With this latest reply, however, you seemed to have regressed into a standard set of “pat answers” that all non-believers fall back on, and when really pressed, they reply with name calling. I am actually willing to “reach across the aisle” to accommodate you and admit that I might have used a bit of an exaggeration in lumping all non-believers into one train of thought, regarding sin.

    However, your fall back response that “no one was there at the time” is just not accurate. Except for the book of Hebrews, the authors of all the other books of the Bible are well known. Of the four Gospels, John and Matthew wrote their own books. Mark, the first book to be published, wrote on behalf of Peter, and Luke was backed up by the apostle Paul. There were 11 surviving disciples but certainly many others who were eyewitnesses to what Jesus said during his ministry, so if there are any “myths” being perpretrated, the idea that no one was around is certainly one of those myths.

    Besides all that, there were hundeds of writers and scholars at the time that corroborated all of the events that took place during this time. The most famous of these was Josephus, a Jewish scholar who escaped the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Since he never claimed to be a Christian, he can’t be discredited as being merely a pawn or puppet who was trying to prop up a new religion.

    In your last paragraph, your use of inflammatory words such as “myth” and “propaganda” seemed rather low to me. That may be what you truly believe, but to actually put it in print seems rather intentional and meant to get a reaction. It would seem that when someone shares their heart felt beliefs, it makes you uncomfortable.

    Perhaps I am overreacting and do not understand the purpose of this blog. Is this strictly an entertainment vehicle and not meant to be taken too seriously? I can assure you that I took
    it seriously as a place to have an honest discussion of topics. It was not my intention to throw
    out “fire bombs” simply to get a reaction or be antagonistic. I hope that some of my comments,
    regarding this topic, have proved interesting and maybe even enlightening. Thank you.

    1. Mike 10:10 I apologize for my aggressive post. We inhabit two different worlds and will never it seems know the others. When I wrote that we don’t know who wrote the various books in the Bible, which I have said here dozens of times, I was referring to the row of books on my shelf which give evidence of this.
      Ancient writers themselves, including “Paul” alluded to imposters of the time.

      You correctly said at the beginning its all about faith. To me this means if a person’s mind does not have a god in it, then there is no god. I have heard for my entire life the teachings of Christianity. When I learned of its skeptics I was interested to know why and where doubts arise. I assume others who grew up in the faith share this interest and write this blog about it. Often, of course, others are not interested in the faith’s weaknesses.

      What perhaps made me write so aggressively was you somewhat smugly description of yourself at days end. It struck me that you might not know sin was an invention of the ancient writers. They invented it to control people during that time. My instinct is always to help people understand this. But when the heart is hardened I should leave well enough along.

      1. entech

        Naughty, naughty Jon! “the hardened heart” is owned exclusively by Christianity, rather like “the bondage of the will”. And other good “fall back pat answers” to explain why a person without faith may not recognize what is patently obvious to one of faith.

        1. entech 12:00 Naughty, naughty Jon! “the hardened heart” is owned exclusively by Christianity, rather like “the bondage of the will”

          I confess, guilty as charged. Since Mike called my nonbeliever answers “pat” ones, I thought it fun to use canned answers from the faith for my own purposes. What’s so good about “hardened heart” is that it implies a defect in those who do not believe. Now the defect resides in believers. In fact, I have filed papers with the government and atheists now own exclusively the term, HARDENED HEART(Trademark). 🙂

  8. Mike

    I am glad you and entech are enjoying yourselves, Jon. The expression “preaching to the choir” is often used by detractors of talk shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The same can be said, I would imagine, to those people who listen to the talk show and read the columns of Mike McFeely, so perhaps it is only natural that your blog attracts like-minded individuals such as yourself.

    However, the primary reason I decided to submit another post is to express my appreciation for your apologetic remarks in your last response to me. Should I assume that you didn’t really mean it, after your last post with entech, which seemed to be making fun of me?

    However, moving on from that, I would agree that some Christians do come across, sometimes, as self-righteous. We certainly have no right to be. “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”, is found in Romans 3:23 and would summarize the Christian beliefs. The only righteousness we can possibly achieve is through what Christ did for us. There is none other.

    Your comments regarding “two different worlds” also seems to be, sadly, very true. I would say to you, and other like minded atheists that do not believe in a god, that the evidence for God and a Creator is all around you. You see it every day in the mirror: the workings of the human body, the beauty of child birth, our environment, the sun in the sky, the planets, etc. It is everywhere.

    Now, if you were to tell me that you are an agnostic, whose position from what I understand states that he acknowledges there was a Creator because of the evidence all around us. However, he is bothered by how God can allow certain random things to occur so he reasons in his mind that there must not be a God. Another explanation is that there is a God, but he must not be all powerful, since he can’t stop “bad” things from happening to “good” people. I wouldn’t agree with those two positions, but at least, I can understand how you might come up with the idea.

    However, as I have said in the past, it still comes down to faith. Where do you put your trust? The Bible tells us that we should always be prepared to testify to the great hope we have in our hearts. I have tried, in my own small way, to testify to what I believe.

    1. entech

      I do apologise for not being as polite and respectful as your sincerity deserves, it is simply as a 99% non believer I am reacting to your overwhelming certainty.

      You say the evidence is all around, what I see from the universe around me is that if you say there was a creator that produced it all and everything in it is that looking around and seeing that all of this actually exists can only take us so far. That it does exist prevents an out of hand rejection of the claims, the worldview you propound must be given a possibility. As more is added I find the possibility diminishing rather than increasing – as I have often said there is a long way to go from accepting the possibility of a creator and creation still leaves a long way to go to be certain that the creator is your Trinitarian God. I see the Hindu Brahman and the monotheistic God of Abraham being just as likely.

      From my understanding an agnostic does not state that there is a god, he/she does not deny but simply states that he cannot see sufficient evidence, you are extending this to the problem of evil which is a stumbling block for many – the first formalized expression bein from Epicurus about 300 BCE. My own position is “ignostic”, ignorant of knowledge. There are so many different ways of describing god and his attributes that my answer to the question, “do you believe in god” can only be that I do not understand the question.

      If I may be forgiven for imposing my interpretation of your position, you believe that there is a creator and that that creator is the Christian God and the Bible is an accurate and authentic exposition of his requirements. This position does require what Kierkegaard called a leap into faith.

      You could well be totally correct and my own views totally mistaken.

      1. Henry

        e11:08: “You could well be totally correct and my own views totally mistaken.”

        A certainty, except for perhaps the “ignorant of knowledge” part.

        1. entech

          One man’s certainty is another man’s doubt. What it finally comes down to is that I am a doubter and you are dubious.

    2. Mike 9:19 I am enjoying our conversation and I hope you are as well.

      Entech further explained the meaning a agnosticism. It is somewhat complicated but not what you wrote. The now famous author, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) spent about nine pages discussing agnosticism. To summarize, he admits we who call our selves “atheists” are actually 0.001% agnostic. There are questions about the origin of the universe we do not yet know. One of many potential explanations is a religious one. As entech pointed out even if there is the unlikely religious explanation, the odds of it being a Christian one instead hundreds of other religions makes the Bible explanation a very, very remote possibility.

      Thus, while the faith seems an answer to you, it is merely a remote possibility to the skeptic. Adding to the skepticism is that those who promised life after death in the Bible also wanted money. I’m sure you have said this often in your secular life, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” That is how I see promises of never dying. Until someone comes back from being dead for a long time, I assume there is no life after death. I’ve asked here many times for an example the Bible keeping its promise of life after death and so far, after 2000 years, there is not even one example.

  9. Mike

    Henry, I see that you are still out there monitoring these discussions. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank you for your previous comments of support.

    Entech, I appreciate your apology and do agree that an acceptance of the Creator God does not automatically equate to an acceptance in the Trinitarian God of the Bible and the beliefs it espouses. I was only pointing out that it was not logical to have the position that there is no God, since there is so much proof everywhere.

    However, I am not trying to win any “debate” points here. It still comes back to faith, which circles back to the original topic (does anyone still remember that)? 🙂 As the rooster in Looney Tunes would say: “that’s a joke, son”. See I can make light of a normally serious situation!

    Anyway, my only intention in posting to this blog was to declare the truth, as I believe it. As the Bible states, “God wants all men to come to the knowledge of the truth”. There are no lost causes, so I am simply spreading that Gospel message in hopes that one day you, and any other fellow non-believers might come to the faith of the Christian beliefs. You are welcome to dive in the pool! You will find peace and comfort for your soul.

    1. entech

      Thanks Mike, The only thing I would contest in your post is your assumption that Henry is offering you support. The thing with Henry, for as long as this blog has existed, is his multi faceted attack on anything that could be vaguely thought of having any “atheist” attached to it. Closely followed by anything “Roman Catholic”. These two are just the top of what is most likely a very long list.

    2. Mike 9:54 However, I am not trying to win any “debate” points here.

      This site deals a lot with what you call “debate points”. While your sweeping generalization is that there is a God and you get great comfort from believing such an idea, we deal a lot with the question, “Why do you believe there is a God, Jesus, heaven, hell, sin and the other various topics that go with Christianity?” All of these things are invisible. The majority of humans in the world do not believe these same things. So, it is interesting to wonder why one set of people believe such things and another believes something altogether different. It is not convincing that you, yourself, get comfort from these beliefs when others get equal comfort from believing the opposite.

      We would all gain from learning exactly why you think other religions are wrong. Quoting the Bible is not an argument because other faiths have their own religious tomes they have reason to believe are the actual source of truth.

Comments are closed.