The problem is you completely ignore the absurd contradictions in the Bible. These contradictions occur because the OT has evolved and been edited many times over hundreds of years. One author inserted one law and another inserted something that wasnt quite as harsh.
Do you even read what I write? Do you pause to think about it?
I will repeat that I do not ignore the contradictions. I look to the truth to know what is true because of the contradictions. And because, well, it just makes sense to look at the truth to know the truth.
It is reasonable to expect that a superior God creator of the universe would not make such a simple mistake as writing such stupid contradictions. However if we accept that many men over many years edited the text we can see how these contradictions happened. Its almost always the simple answer that makes sense.
YES! Lying pen of the scribes. Like I said earlier. Also mistranslations, misunderstanding, etc. The reason why one can only know the truth by looking AT the Truth.
But if you know this, then why do you insist on stating that your view is correct? Why do you choose to believe the bad when there are verses that clearly contradict it? What makes you choose one over the other? Or do you just ignore the ones that contradict what you want to believe, never mind the truth?
I have told you why I choose one over another... and that is because one is in conflict with the truth, and one is in line with truth. I choose by looking at the Truth, Christ. HE is the image of God. So why look somewhere else to determine the truth and nature of God when it is to CHRIST that one must look to know and to see God?
Being liberal implies that you are not being totally honest taking the text literally
Who says all te x t is supposed to be taken literally?
but rather are not afraid of twisting things to match some agenda.
Perhaps you should look to the log in your own eye here.
You either believe all the Bible or you dont.
You mean all or nothing?
That is a fundamentalist pov that has no basis in reality.
You can ignore some messages, if you wish. However if it has contradictions because of edits, how do you know which promises are true and which are false ?
Once again... look at Christ to know the Truth. You know... the image of God?
Simple. (it is almost always the simple answer that makes sense... your words, mP)
Im afraid you do not understand how the graphs were created. It is obvious yo just looked at them and didnt like the message so ignored them. Follow the links to the full lists and you will see overall there are more evils than goods.
You think whatever makes you feel better about what I do or don't do; but that is not going to get you any closer to truth.
You, yourself, admit that there are contradictions, and that men changed verses. So what difference do the numbers make? It is Christ to whom you must look, if you want to know truth. Even the bible 'states' that.
Take a look at some of the messages and you will see there are many things a christian of today will find offensive.
Why would I care what many christians would find offensive today? Does that make it offensive, or does that make them quick to find fault and take offense? I care only what my Lord teaches me. Believe me, he doesn't teach me to look at Ruth and judge her in the same way that you have done, or have implied that I should do.
Okay, it is a nice story. And it seems to show some concern for poor widows -- even for those who are foreign-born and with different religious beliefs. But it's far from clear whether these tolerant ideas are endorsed or approved by the author. And there is no indication
that such tolerance is a part of its message.
So... the poor and widows are cared for, Ruth is 100% loyal to her mil, spends her days gleaning the fields of Boaz for food, and he makes certain that she is not harmed, that his men even throw more than just gleanings her way to make sure she has enough food, he marries her and is honored that she chose him (where is the racism in that again?)... and in this case, as the law says, the foreign born is treated as good as the native born.
But in your opinion... these are merely 'nice' things, but not good things. More than that, the book stays in your 'bad books with nothing good in them' category. So nice must also be bad?
And you wonder why I won't give credence to anything else you have to say in your charts and links? They are the meaningless, subjective views of a person pushing his own agenda.
But you aren't done with Ruth yet. Oh no. What else you have to say about this woman who travelled across the land out of love and loyalty to her mil, who spent her days gleaning fields so that she and her mil could eat, who embraced the God of her mil out of love, who humbled herself to Boaz who was allowing her to glean from his fields with his promise of protection from harm...? Oh yes, you imply that she is a slut... or at least you imply that I should think that she is a slut... by christian standards of course, and not your own. You can't argue with all the good she did, or that the book has a lot of good in it and so should not be in the place you have set it... so you hope to offend my sensibilites by showing her to be a slut, and somehow you think that I am going to look at this and see 'the light'.
Or should I say see 'the dark?'
My lord does not teach such judgmentalism. He does not teach such cruelty or narrow-mindedness. He does not teach such slander, or to search through a person's deeds to find and twist something good to darkness. (looking at the speck in your brother's eyes, rather than realizing you've got a log in your eye)
I wonder if you can live up to the apparent standards you set for others?
Be honest you did not even read any of the good or bad lists. Your general comment without a concrete example shows you are lying and did not check a single link. The lists are exhaustive you could not possible discount all 1200 bad items and find hundreds of good
ones to surpass and"win". If the Bible was a good book it shouldnt have 1200 bad items, it should have almost none.
I don't have to check a single link. Your take on Ruth tells me all I need to know about your standards. Plus, I never said that I checked your links. I said only that those lists are subjective. How did I know that? Because everything you state is subjective.
To point a fact, I looked through the books themselves, rather than at your subjective take on them.
And when did you ever hear me argue that the bible was a good book? Our conversations started out not on whether the bible was 'good' or 'bad'... it contains both. But rather on whether the conclusions you have drawn on it and the people written about within it are justified or not.
Peace,
tammy
