You mistake me. I have read the Bible -- more than most Christians I know, actually, because I've been a huge reader all of my life. And I have written on it, as well -- often receiving (as in University) high praise for the quality of my exegesis -- although my exegesis did not and does not lead to the same place as that of many others.
Lets use a treasure map analogy. There is a huge difference between following the map and arriving at the X and finding the treasure, and sitting on the couch perusing the map, writing about the origin of the map, and then displaying the map on a table or shelf. I will make this very easy.
Christ said to Nicodemus that unless he became born from above he could not even see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus was a Jewish scholar, he forgot more about holy texts and did more works in God's name than we have combined. Same thing with Martin Luther. However neither man were saved until they were born again.
I do not know how you read, and what you include or ignore in forming your overall opinion of what you've read. In my case, it is and has always been that the Bible is not coherent -- rather the reverse in many ways. And I cannot help but observe that much of the overall message of the Gospels and the rest of the NT are not followed particularly well be most people who claim to be Christian. For example, in spite of being told "take no thought for the morrow," everybody is constantly worrying about it, and in spite of being warned that it is damned near impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, far too many are striving far too hard to be just that -- rich. And the NT is extremely clear about one thing: the Parousia was imminent -- so much so that there really was no point in even getting married, unless you couldn't contain yourself.
The bible is an enormous text, written over 1800 years, has around 40 authors, and covers everything from creation, salvation, to end time eschatology. It is bound to be a tricky read. Outside of a few teachings I have been able to harmonize any part of the bible I felt deserving of the time to clarify. Your example compares an ideal with an actual (and even your actual does not hold true at all times). The bible harmonizes what you described by giving us a goal, telling us to strive for that goal, then admitting we will all fall short, that is why we need a savior, and why Jesus came to earth. Paul is not teaching about the coming of Christ as it concerns marriage. In short he was saying you could serve God better if unattached than if married, but that marriage far from being forbidden is a holy institution. So far I only see perfect harmony.
(And by the way, I've also read the apologetics that try to explain all that away, and find them generally specious and self-serving.)
IOW you found their responses inconvenient. You shouldn't debate by proxy. I am not bound by your opinions of others.
The same can be said of infatuation, which is far too often mistaken for love. It is, unfortunately, based to much on surface matter and not enough depth.
What are you talking about? Your response had no bearing on my analogy.
Craig is the worst of the lying apologists -- one that I would accuse of doing a lot more eisegesis than exegesis. ("Reading into" rather than "reading out of.") No doubt he believes himself to be totally honest. I unfortunately do not.
Yep, he is so universally despised he sits on the board of a well respected university and non theistic scholars say he is the only philosopher who can put the fear of God into an atheist. Your conclusions about Craig say more about you, than him.
That being said I am perfectly aware that we are all strongly emotionally motivated to accept what confirms our existing beliefs, and reject what contradicts them. I'm the same, no doubt. But I think that I work very hard to spot my cognitive dissonances, and to deal with them analytically.
I do not find much of my faith to be convenient, if I could I would rewrite 75% of the bible, and for many years I literally hated a being I didn't think existed. I came to faith kicking and screaming only to find it perfectly refuted every argument against it I had ever had.
And as a result, it is my considered belief that most revelation is in fact largely wishful thinking mixed with fundamental errors in reasoning, largely brought about by our own biases.
The chief founders of Christianity suffered in every way possible for a claim they knew for a fact whether it was true or false. IOW if false they knew it was a lie, if true they knew it to be true. No greater test for sincerity exists than what Christ and the apostles went through without flinching. I will let one of (if not the) greatest experts on evidence and testimony make the point).
"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings.
If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
Simon Greenleaf (former atheist)