That’s problematic and proves you were never a Christian. You make up you own definitions and then claim those as the reality of what a born again believer is in truth.
Not your call to make who is or was a Christian, and arrogant of you to assume that you have that right or power, or that you can dismiss other definitions. I've explained to you why your definition of Christian is inadequate for a nonbeliever. It assumes the truth of faith-based doctrine, which makes any conclusion drawn from that belief unsound.
And you can test these differences against what the Bible says and means to get the proper application, or reject the false teaching. It’s not the Bible that’s the problem it’s people that for whatever reason change the meaning or make up their own definitions.
You seem to have lost sight of what this sub-thread was about: the many different ways that Christians interpret the same text, the one you call reliable, the one you say you but not others reading it differently understand. You're unwittingly agreeing with that premise. And yes, biblical scripture with its contradictions and vague language is a large part of the problem.
I mean you read it before and still don’t know what a lot of it means.
No, it's you that doesn't know what scripture says. You can't see contradictions. Why would the opinion of such a person about what the words mean matter to somebody who CAN see the contradictions?
I found that Scripture interprets Scripture and when the Scriptures say a plain meaning seek no other sense.
No, you interpret scripture, as do I. And you do it differently. You do it with an agenda to preserve your belief that it is divinely authored and contains deep wisdom but no errors or contradictions. I can do that too, but as an unbeliever, I have no reason to. I can be impartial.
When asked to examine those supposed contradictions and differences against the Bible? Where are they?
Right in front of your faith-based confirmation bias. Are you having trouble seeing them.
I was prepared to teach you about several biblical contradictions, but you evaded the quiz. What do you think that does for you ethos as a competent interpreter of scripture. I was there for the discussion, and you weren't.
Why would the hand waving and goal post shifting commence?
That's what biblical apologists do. Your job is to show that a book riddled with problems has none to people not reading that book through your Bible goggles. You have no chance of doing that with fallacious arguments, at least not on this side of the church door.
You're probably accustomed to that approach working in churches, where people are actually exhorted to not think critically. They are. Cognitive dissonance is the devil trying to steal your soul, so just stifle such thought and use faith instead and just believe what you are told. People are happy to do that there, and the pastor meets little or no resistance.
Then the apologist comes to a mixed debate forum like this one in the marketplace of ideas and presents the same flawed arguments, but meets a different audience, one that applies a different standard to the process, and that approach is no longer effective. He's surprised by this at first, but eventually comes to expect that kind of response. He sees it the way they would in Sunday school - emotionally and judgmentally. He sees is as obstinance, rebellion, and defines it as the work of the devil. He calls the skeptic a dissolute hedonist attempting to sin without accountability by replacing God with himself. He resents the skeptic and considers him morally flawed for that reaction.
Once again, why would the opinions of somebody who processes information that way be of interest to somebody who requires rigor in thought? This phenomenon pops up everywhere one encounters faith-based thought, not just religious discussions. Do you believe that the 2020 election was stolen, or that the virus is worse than the vaccine, or that more guns are the solution rather than the problem, or that global warming is a hoax? I can say that I would not be interested in any other opinions from such people as soon as I see any of those shibboleths of faith-based thought. How about a horoscope? Do you even read those? I don't.
And that goes for biblical apologists as well. As soon as I see something like, "What contradictions?," I have no further regard for their opinions regarding scripture. I understand that you might object to that. You want to be taken seriously and have your opinions respected like those of others, but that ship sails with, "What contradictions?"
Just because they didn’t take credit for them doesn’t mean they didn’t write them or that they aren’t true accounts.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter who wrote them if it wasn't God. Also, we know that they aren't reliable for multiple other reasons. You don't understand the significance of the internal contradictions to skeptics because you don't see them yourself.
Too bad you ran from the
quiz. I covered that for you with "[2] What were Jesus' very last words on the cross?" The answer(s) are
here.
John (19:30) says that Jesus' final utterance was, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." Luke (23:46) says it was, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."
I'm pretty certain that everybody else reading this but you can see the contradiction here. This is a fine example of the claim of believers that only they can understand what such words mean because they have the counsel of the Holy Spirit, and that skeptics that disagree should have their opinions disqualified, when in reality, the words are simple enough for children to understand and see the contradictions. It's the other way around: the apologist seems to have no ideas what he reads. This is why his opinions are disqualified by the critical thinker. Once again, what do you think that the value of such opinions are to the person who DOES see the contradiction?
