An apology and a clarification

[Contemporary Protestant]

I have never met a human being without sin, and I need God to get through my life (for guidance and discernment)

Despite Christianity being a religion, I think some of the rules are good for anyone to follow

1. Turn the other Cheek (pacifism)

2. Matthew 5:28, don't look at women lustfully (respect and gender equality)

3. Do unto others as you would yourself

4. Stewardship (taking care of the planet)

5. Give time and money to charities (not Churches in particular but any charity) I personally love water is basic and doctors without borders

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You holiness is simply a manifestation of your imaginary friend.

[Shol'va]

Man ... I never realised how much of a rough bunch we are

[Contemporary Protestant]

I never said I was holy, I deserve to go to Hell because I have sinned against myself, my parents, my superiors, my peers, and those I was supposed to protect (people who can't defend themselves)

But I believe because Jesus was without sin, and had to suffer the fires of hell for three days, I can go to Heaven some day

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I never said I was holy, I deserve to go to Hell because I have sinned against myself, my parents, my superiors, my peers, and those I was supposed to protect (people who can't defend themselves)

But I believe because Jesus was without sin, and had to suffer the fires of hell for three days, I can go to Heaven some day

Delusional states aren't picky.

[Mermaid]

Delusional states aren't picky.

Dude, why are you giving this guy such a hard time? You believe what you believe, and he believes what he believes. Being a dick to him isn't going to change that.

[SGOS]

Im not sure I agree with the concept of original sin, I think that if a normal human being can go without sinning their entire life, then fine they are with out sin, and can go to heaven without believing in God

If I understand the reasoning behind Mr. Obvious' dissection of original sin in light of the acceptance of evolution, what you arbitrarily accept in the Bible is only tangentially relevant.  We know that Genesis got evolution all wrong, probably because it was written by men working from the only knowledge (specifically their lack of knowledge) they had about the subject.  If there were an all knowing god of the Bible behind the writing he would have known about evolution, even if he had directed it.  When the fairy tale version of Adam and Eve is negated by evolution, original sin could not have come about.  It would have been irrational for god to wipe out original sin through the sacrifice of his son.

It's not just that you are apologizing (as in Christian apologetics) irrationally.  GOD would be acting irrationally.  Why offer a sacrifice for some problem that does not exist?  I suppose God could insist that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and their story is true.  But we know it's not true.  The only way this can be reconciled is through the never ending handstands and back flips of apologetics, which is a science that belongs in a file with alchemy.

Fundamentalist Christians, although they are in scientific denial and show flawed reason on so many other Biblical issues, are at least attempting to be consistent on that particular issue.

No matter how fundamental you are, or how moderate you are, no one can rationally support the Bible.  It's mythology with a few references to actual history thrown in.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Im fine with the fact that you disagree with me

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Dude, why are you giving this guy such a hard time? You believe what you believe, and he believes what he believes. Being a dick to him isn't going to change that.

Don't like what I post, don't read it.

[Contemporary Protestant]

With one google search, I found this, its huffington post, and Im not familiar with the author, so take it with a grain of salt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/4-good-reasons-not-to-read-bible-literally_b_919345.html

[Shol'va]

Don't like what I post, don't read it.

Wouldn't it be equally justified for one to say "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it"?
I would submit that such a statement has more merit simply because people tend to react for the better when they are explained something reasonably than when they are met with a proverbial punch in the face.
I think this guy deserves better for the simple reason that I can't recall when I've last seen a Christian actually argue against a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Being right does not excuse violation of form.
I believe Ducky from NCIS said that

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good lucky with your hall monitor job.

[Shol'va]

You're free to conduct yourself as you wish, in fact I don't have a problem in particular with anything anyone says or the way they say it. I was meaning my reply as constructive criticism. Maybe I am operating under the wrong impression that the goal here is to help others see the light of reason. Hostility doesn't accomplish that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're free to conduct yourself as you wish, in fact I don't have a problem in particular with anything anyone says or the way they say it. I was meaning my reply as constructive criticism. Maybe I am operating under the wrong impression that the goal here is to help others see the light of reason. Hostility doesn't accomplish that.

I haven't posted anything hostile.

Yet.

[Shol'va]

I used the term hostile in place of its synonims, which are unfriendly, antagonistic, unkind, etc.
That said, I wouldn't want to see you upset. That is to say, I wouldn't want to be on your bad side :)