Wayne Delia

That's useless. What is God supposed to "taste" like? Obviously, this is not the standard definition of "taste" in effect, so it's anyone's guess what you are referring to. What happens when somebody looks at what is supposed to be the Lord's word, and finds out it "tastes" like dogshit?

WMD

John A. Broussard

Don't go listening to those cynical unbelievers who've just posted.

Instead, explain to me how one can know what is the word of god and what isn't before one starts tasting.

I'm looking forward to your answer and, despite what these others keep saying, they're waiting for it too.

Thank you.

rhutchin

You mean, "How do you know these passages are not fake?" I don't. But then, you don't know that they are not. We both operate by faith in this area.

JPD

It's the changing of God's mind. Instead of punishing he rewards them for turning away from evil. So they have been rewarded for a combination of good and evil. The problem I have is what else might God change his mind about? Also, what is to stop an endless cycle of evil topped off with a thin slither of good from being acceptable?

Wayne Delia

No. Absolutely not. What's wrong with assuming he meant exactly what he wrote? "How do you know these passages are not just meaningless gibberish" is not equivalent to whether the passages are fake. They could be genuinely inspired by God and somehow actually written by Paul in 2 Timothy and Titus, and still be meaningless gibberish. That is an annoying and dishonest habit you have developed lately: you cannot answer the actual question, so you need to misrepresent it into something materially different, and wander off the garden path to take the discussion off into an irrelevant topic. Perhaps you were conned by someone else who used that technique to hornswaggle you, but it's not working on those of us with a normal tolerance level of bullshit. That is exactly your method of argument, and it's simply not working.

You've just conceded the debate, by admitting you cannot support your point.

WMD

Wayne Delia

You're not alone with that problem, I'd guess: it would be devastating for any fundamentalist Christian to consider the possibility that God might suddenly change His mind about the terms of eternal salvation... such as allowing everyone in, or punishing Christian fundamentalist hypocrisy, or pretty much reneging on every promise made in the Gospels.

WMD

JPD

I get the impression that the Bible promotes bad behaviour, but this is okay as long as you apologise at the end. A fundamentalist Christian would consider one of the elect (note that this is what led to the crusades - the new chosen trying to wipe out those - the Jews and Muslims - who merely believed that they were the chosen) superior, regardless of what they do in this life. So belief becomes more important than deed. It is a lousy belief system.

Helpmabob

Hi Wayne - Correct. In the same way that the world talks of the ‘broken hearted’ whilst not implying that someone has just died of heart failure. The Bible has two clear facets – 1. it draws (some) people to God; and 2. it acts like a guide book to life for those that come. In your case, as an unbeliever, the tasting would be to take the word of God far more seriously, as though the destiny of your life and soul depended upon what lies therein. The tasting comes first and then comes the seeing. Then there is more tasting and more seeing. Everything you will ever need is there.

Hi John - Sorry, but I think I cannot meaningfully enlarge on the answers to similar given by rhutchin above. Perhaps the answer to your question lies in the tasting, but then I am probably guilty of circular reasoning or worse?

rhutchin

I guess everyone must concede the debate since none can prove their point.

As a consequence, let's just work on determining what the Bible says and not try to prove what it says.

gregor

Not so fast, pal.

There are 100 billion stories created since Homo developed written languages (guessitmate). You say that 66 of them are inspired by God and inerrant. You have the burden of proof.

We can point out historical errors, internal conflicts, and implausible items in your 66. You have to defend your position.

This is not a "I have faith and you have faith" excuse game. The default position (ours) is that all books are the work of man. You've got to show otherwise.