tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post98633246447379831..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Canon Within the CanonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42289877671595415582007-10-20T11:05:00.000-04:002007-10-20T11:05:00.000-04:00AG: (going back a bit)You say:My response is that ...AG: (going back a bit)<BR/>You say:My response is that you look at the community of believers as the histry of believers. The consistency of faith from Apostles, church fathers etc until now is a way of understanding the community as a voice to help guide and minimize error. Yes whole communities can be wrong, but 2000 years of believers is a better voice.<BR/><BR/>The trouble with this is that, even in the earliest days of Christianity, there was <I>no such consistency</I>. I'd strongly suggest that you -- and the other commenters here on the 'Christian side' go to a library (or join Questia.com) and read Chapter 5 of Bart Ehrman's LOST CHRISTIANITIES. (The whole book is worth it, but start with Chapter 5.)<BR/><BR/>This shows that, at least as early as 100 AD, there were Christians, the 'ebionites' -- Ehrman argues that Matthew supports this -- arguing the necessity of following the Old Law, of becoming Jewish first, before they could become Christians, and, shortly after, other Christians, followers of Marcion, who so rejected the Jewish foundations of Christianity that Marcion argued "that there must in fact be two Gods: the God of the Jews, as found in the Old Testament, and the God of Jesus, as found in the writings of Paul. <BR/><BR/>"Once Marcion arrived at this understanding, everything else naturally fell into place. The God of the Old Testament was the God who created this world and everything in it, as described in Genesis. The God of Jesus, therefore, had never been involved with this world but came into it only when Jesus himself appeared from heaven. The God of the Old Testament was the God who called the Jews to be his people and gave them his Law. The God of Jesus did not consider the Jews to be his people (for him; they were the chosen of the other God), and he was not a God who gave laws. <BR/><BR/>"The God of the Old Testament insisted that people keep his Law and penalized them when they failed. He was not evil, but he was rigorously just. He had laws and inflicted penalties on those who did not keep them. But this necessarily made him a wrathful God, since no one kept all of his laws perfectly. Everyone had to pay the price for their transgressions, and the penalty for transgression was death. The God of the Old Testament was therefore completely justified in exacting his punishments and sentencing all people to death. <BR/><BR/>"The God of Jesus came into this world in order to save people from the vengeful God of the Jews. He was previously unknown to this world and had never had any previous dealings with it. Hence Marcion sometimes referred to him as God the Stranger. Not even the prophecies of the future Messiah come from this God, for these refer not to Jesus but to a coming Messiah of Israel, to be sent by the God of the Jews, the creator of this world and the God of the Old Testament. Jesus came completely unexpectedly and did what no one could possibly have hoped for: He paid the penalty for other people's sins, to save them from the just wrath of the Old Testament God."<BR/><BR/>A clear message? One group of universally accepted principles, or universally accepted books. Not hardly. (The Ebionites rejected Paul, the Marcionites -- and Ehrman claims that Marcion may have been the first to compile a 'Bible' -- included only Paul and one -- edited -- Gospel, probably Luke's.)Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70589295944829601622007-10-19T22:52:00.000-04:002007-10-19T22:52:00.000-04:00I was working under the assumption that your God i...I was working under the assumption that your God is omnipotent. If an omnipotent being wished to communicate something with me, I would have no opportunity to mishear or mis-see it. The only way a message from an omnipotent being could be garbled is if the omnipotent being wished it to be garbled. He did not wish it to be garbled when He talked to Adam and Eve regarding the Tree of Knowledge--he told Adam and Eve, and they chose to disobey.<BR/><BR/>Is God omnipotent or not? You can't have it both ways.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56874193561642484332007-10-19T22:41:00.000-04:002007-10-19T22:41:00.000-04:00Did anyone ever say God communicated unclearly? I...Did anyone ever say God communicated unclearly? I think the issue is how the hearer hears and the "see-r" sees.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9529978276077235522007-10-18T17:07:00.000-04:002007-10-18T17:07:00.000-04:00I don't see that you have made your point. You sti...<I>I don't see that you have made your point. You still want only two choices but there are more. I can ignore them, I can misunderstand them, I can read into them, and I can misread them. That's at least four options.</I><BR/><BR/>Let me quote my words:<BR/><BR/>"I'll assert it again; either God has made His will clearly known to His followers and people are choosing to ignore it, which is against the evidence; or God cannot and/or chooses not to make His will clearly known to His followers, and therefore these people are following an unjustifiable faith."<BR/><BR/>I purposely said *clearly* known. Certainly, God may have decided to muddle the situation when He tried to communicate so as to prevent some people from understanding. Would such an act be within the character of the Christian God? To what end would he purposely communicate unclearly?Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45188094919062590782007-10-18T16:26:00.000-04:002007-10-18T16:26:00.000-04:00Joseph, you are confirming that humans can prove w...Joseph, you are confirming that humans can prove what they want to prove and think what they want to think. We can reason through most anything to a reasonable certainty. But that doesn't call into question God's claim to be the great I Am. It just says that nothing proves it objectively and with certainty, just as nothing proves that God's claim isn't true with certainty or objectively. <BR/><BR/>You have to make a choice. I've chosen to believe and God has, for me, personally and intimately in many ways, confirmed that decision.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72673246868600018982007-10-18T16:22:00.000-04:002007-10-18T16:22:00.000-04:00SG, you write:Can you choose not to read the words...SG, you write:<BR/><BR/>Can you choose not to read the words you just read? Of course not--you read them, now you can only ignore them or not.<BR/><BR/>I don't see that you have made your point. You still want only two choices but there are more. I can ignore them, I can misunderstand them, I can read into them, and I can misread them. That's at least four options.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37430209670533630062007-10-18T09:47:00.000-04:002007-10-18T09:47:00.000-04:00False dichotomy. There are other "ors" to be found...<I>False dichotomy. There are other "ors" to be found, Shygetz. we all wish it were so simple. Just one example would be "or he allows us the ability to choose not to see/hear His revealed will." <BR/><BR/>I believe we are pretty ingenious, just fallen. He's not force feeding us.</I><BR/><BR/>You mean He gives us the conscious ability to choose to not hear what we hear and not see what we see?<BR/><BR/>That is a logical contradiction. Can you choose not to read the words you just read? Of course not--you read them, now you can only ignore them or not. Similarly, if God is really talking to us, we cannot choose not to hear. We can only choose to ignore. You may argue (albeit poorly) that people who devote their lives to God are willfully ignoring the clear word of God, but you cannot logically argue that they can choose not to hear or see it in the face of an omnipotent God who wants them to hear or see it.<BR/><BR/>I'll assert it again; either God has made His will clearly known to His followers and people are choosing to ignore it, which is against the evidence; or God cannot and/or chooses not to make His will clearly known to His followers, and therefore these people are following an unjustifiable faith.<BR/><BR/>As I argued elsewhere, <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/09/fallibility-of-human-experience.html" REL="nofollow">since God has not made His will clearly known to all peoples and His followers often claim contradictory revealed knowledge, revealed knowledge must be subjected to evidentiary validation to be considered reliable for justifying beliefs and actions.</A>Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17071876766053037252007-10-18T00:45:00.000-04:002007-10-18T00:45:00.000-04:00hmmm, i jut posted and it didnt come through...doh...hmmm, i jut posted and it didnt come through...doh!CPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12815602433487791142007-10-18T00:21:00.000-04:002007-10-18T00:21:00.000-04:00ag, I see that as a digression from the discussion...ag, I see that as a digression from the discussion at hand. I'm not going to get distracted in a debate over the philosophical meaning of objectivity or defining love. Maybe elsewhere, but not here. I'm a business man with a very practical outlook on life. If you tell me that I need to invest money into an idea, I'm going to put that idea through rigorous examination and testing before I approve the flow of cash in that direction. I don't see why every idea shouldn't be approached with the same perspective--especially a religious ideology that demands the surrender of your life. Before I accept your ideas about the Bible and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, I need some sort of substantiation for those truth claims. It's no different with UFOs, Mormonism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Parmesan and Oregano Be Upon Him). I need something which I or any reasonable person could look at and say, "Yes, that's bears out as true. All the facts line up. This works. This is internally consistent, etc." <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that if eternal life is the "baby," then Christian theology is the "bathwater." In order for Christians to keep their precious hope of a hereafter, they ascribe authority to a book called the Bible. But the Bible has many outmoded ideas, questionable morals, and factual errors. So liberal Christians come along and "solves" the problem by reinterpreting it so that it reflects the current thinking of the culture. We can still keep the baby, but let's swirl around the bathwater some more...or add some more water to the bath. There's nothing even remotely "objective" or consistent about such a stance. It simply reflects the direction of the wind. When slavery was popular, the Bible was used to justify it. When civil rights became an issue, suddenly the Bible had something to say about that, too. Now that homosexuality is mainstream, there are those who would radically reinterpret the Bible's anti-gay passages to more easily fit with the current popular mindset. The current trend of post-modernism is driven and influenced by the culture and the church is merely reacting or conforming to it, all the while giving the Holy Spirit credit.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66713415429635710362007-10-17T23:53:00.000-04:002007-10-17T23:53:00.000-04:00there lies the fundamental difference between the ...there lies the fundamental difference between the bible as a faith book and not a book that is up for scientific or 'objective' truth that can be verified. So in that sense all the atheists 'win' the arguments they present and continue to think that evrything in life can be objectively verified and proved, and thus making it reality because it can be so. I have yet to come across any genuine philosophical arguments that can be objectively verified on this site. You will always win if you are so narrow to look for imperical realities to make something 'true'.<BR/>For the sake of an old argument.<BR/>Joseph and the like, give me some hard 'evidence' of what love IS and how you can be 100% sure someone 'LOVES' you. Maybe the pycholigist of your posse can answer this one for you, i am sure she will have heaps of hard evidence from all here study.<BR/>All the best<BR/>:o)CPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57372656288842894632007-10-17T21:40:00.000-04:002007-10-17T21:40:00.000-04:00Jennifer, you said it best: "I think..." "I belie...Jennifer, you said it best: "I think..." "I believe..." "I guess..." Your beliefs may be subjectively true to you, but I cannot see how your statements can be objectively verified as truth.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29811282401597177492007-10-17T20:18:00.000-04:002007-10-17T20:18:00.000-04:00Jennifer, thanks for taking the time to write that...Jennifer, thanks for taking the time to write that. I haven't taken the time to write out such a detailed statement here yet, but I love your comment and agree.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34520577742923537932007-10-17T18:10:00.000-04:002007-10-17T18:10:00.000-04:00Jennifer, I assume you mean that the Holy Spirit h...<I>Jennifer, I assume you mean that the Holy Spirit has a job of helping true Christians understand God's word in their community of faith?</I><BR/><BR/>I believe the Holy Spirit will show anyone, not only "true Christians", who God is if they are seeking with pure motives. I don't think people need to be in community for this to happen, but that birds of a feather will congregate. I don't even think people need a Bible to begin with.<BR/><BR/><I>Which community?</I><BR/>Any and every community.<BR/><BR/><I>What faith?</I><BR/>Well, personally, I believe that a person of any proclaimed faith can come to faith in Jesus as the savior of all mankind, and that when they do, they let the false aspects of religion fall away. Even Christians. There is a little bit of truth in every tradition. I know many Christians would dispute this, but I have to wonder if they have actually read from other faiths to understand the underlying premises and what is being practiced. So, to answer your question, faith in the sacrifice of Jesus as the only true "sin eater".<BR/><BR/><I>And why isn't the Holy Spirit doing his job? You do realize that people have been killed because the Holy Spirit didn't properly do his job over trivial issues like communion and baptism, right, as well as more important issue like what to do with witches heretics and people of different color?</I><BR/><BR/>This is where I go back to the "what would you propose God do?" argument. I'm not sure anyone was listening to the Holy Spirit when it came to baptism and sacraments. According to the N.T., the Holy Spirit didn't step in and audibly correct gnosticism or other sects, it was left up to the apostles. They were pretty revolutionary for their time in proclaiming the abolition of food laws, the equal position befor God of slaves and women, circumcsion and living peacefully instead of rebelling against authorities. The one example of direct intervetion in the early church would be the deaths of Ananias and Saphira who were going to be leading others while lying boldy before God..with full knowledge of what they were doing and showing no repentance.<BR/><BR/>I think Paul did a good job of dealing with heretics....he argued and explained over and over again. He told the early church to live at peace with all men, as far as it depended on them. That implies that self defense is OK, but not reaching out in violence.<BR/><BR/>Witches in O.T. Israel were under the Law. I think there are N.T. examples of how magical people were treated. It seems they were helped out of their practice of witchcraft (visible, not perceived) by being released of evil powers over them, whether real or imagined. <BR/><BR/><I>As far as "true Christians" go (you never mentioned this but I think it's implied) we only see professing Christians. We never see a true Christian. Describe one and there will be other professing Christians who will disagree.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. There are only professing Christians and that's why I think the Bible is helpful, if not necessary at some level. I don't always live up to 1 Corinthians 13, for example, but it is my aim and I don't mind if I am judged by it and fall short. It is the standard for love, in my opinion. Maybe it's the word "Christian" that is getting in the way. A true follower of Christ would behave like Him more and more as they mature. <BR/>I guess I don't see the need for a clear definition, but that's part of my "conceptual" perception. <BR/><BR/>To wrap it up, I think the Holy Spirit can speak to whomever He chooses in whatever place He chooses to bring about the ultimate plan of God. I was told by a wise man that there will be surprises in heaven...people we never would have guessed and some absent who we would have expected. Christians are sometimes the poorest examples, myself included, and that's where grace comes in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54397022235999131322007-10-17T15:29:00.000-04:002007-10-17T15:29:00.000-04:00False dichotomy. There are other "ors" to be foun...False dichotomy. There are other "ors" to be found, Shygetz. we all wish it were so simple. Just one example would be "or he allows us the ability to choose not to see/hear His revealed will." <BR/><BR/>I believe we are pretty ingenious, just fallen. He's not force feeding us.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80394454741024961842007-10-17T14:13:00.000-04:002007-10-17T14:13:00.000-04:00But Shygetz, you must admit that that is a circula...<I>But Shygetz, you must admit that that is a circular argument to conclude there is no God.</I> <BR/><BR/>I do not argue that gods don't exist; I argue that you haven't shown me any evidence that one does, much less your god. <BR/><BR/>Also, how is the argument circular? An omnipotent God can make his will clearly known if He wants. A person who devotes his life to following the will of God is likely to follow what he believes to be the will of God. Therefore, the fact that different people follow different "wills of God" indicates that God has not made His will clearly known, which is antithetical to the idea of an omnipotent God who sends His Holy Spirit to fulfill His desire to direct believers.<BR/><BR/><I>And, it leaves out a very real and present intervening factor: my own fallibility.</I><BR/><BR/>How does your infallibility affect the ability of an infallible God to communicate His will to His subjects effectively? The only option (and the one that you mentioned) is that the believer knows the will of God but chooses to disregard it, which would be contrary to the evidences of many people leading self-sacrificing lives to fulfill the opposing wills of each's God.<BR/><BR/><I>It doesn't lessen the odds that God is Who He says He Is, it just further substantiates that I likely am not all that I hope to be.</I><BR/><BR/>Nope, for the reasons above. Either God cannot make His will clearly known (and therefore is not omnipotent) or does not want His believers to truly know His will (and therefore the Holy Spirit is not a reliable guide).Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73518923836973191432007-10-17T11:57:00.000-04:002007-10-17T11:57:00.000-04:00But Shygetz, you must admit that that is a circula...But Shygetz, you must admit that that is a circular argument to conclude there is no God. And, it leaves out a very real and present intervening factor: my own fallibility. It doesn't lessen the odds that God is Who He says He Is, it just further substantiates that I likely am not all that I hope to be.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60879954379550493842007-10-17T11:52:00.000-04:002007-10-17T11:52:00.000-04:00Bryan Riley said... John, what makes you think God...<I>Bryan Riley said... <BR/>John, what makes you think God didn't tell those people that it was wrong? They didn't obey is all.</I><BR/><BR/>The same thing that makes me think that God isn't telling <B>you</B> that you are wrong...I assume that someone who devotes their life to God is likely to follow any clear commands of God.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38250662360075607742007-10-17T10:18:00.000-04:002007-10-17T10:18:00.000-04:00John, what makes you think God didn't tell those p...John, what makes you think God didn't tell those people that it was wrong? They didn't obey is all.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72436826445774709612007-10-17T10:12:00.000-04:002007-10-17T10:12:00.000-04:00John, I will try to read what you've written some ...John, I will try to read what you've written some time soon, but it really is hard to follow links and even harder when it is just a link to seven more links. <BR/><BR/>I definitely hope to continue the discourse and hope you are open to having a newbie wade through your waters, maybe not exactly in the way you are accustomed. It's good for discussion, I hope. <BR/><BR/>I have to do some preparation for a home showing and need some more coffee. Thanks for responding.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35196490765424559162007-10-17T10:08:00.000-04:002007-10-17T10:08:00.000-04:00Bryan, your 6th point is irrelevant to the issue a...Bryan, your 6th point is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the defense of your loving God in the face of so much suffering in the world; that's all. It's a separate topic unrelated to the former topic. And I addressed it in the link above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56360782578170778062007-10-17T10:05:00.000-04:002007-10-17T10:05:00.000-04:00John, I don't follow. Sorry. And I am not sure h...John, I don't follow. Sorry. And I am not sure how I go off-topic when we are having a wide-open discussion, or are we?<BR/><BR/>Let's talk beliefs that support what I am attempting to articulate. <BR/><BR/>1. God loves. <BR/>2. Love doesn't demand. Love simply loves.<BR/>3. Because love doesn't demand, God allows God's creation to choose to love or not. <BR/>4. As a result, although God is all powerful, He limits His power to enable us to choose His way or not. In other words, God didn't create robots who obey Him; instead, He created humans in His image (as the bible states). <BR/>5. Evil in the world isn't inconsistent with God's character, nor does it disprove His existence. It simply proves the existence of evil. <BR/>6. When you describe something as evil, you make a moral judgment about the existence of good and evil. <BR/><BR/>Now, if I'm completely off topic, I'm sorry. I definitely am not a perfect intellectual.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17484710334534926362007-10-17T10:02:00.000-04:002007-10-17T10:02:00.000-04:00The killing and torturing I refer to in my previou...The killing and torturing I refer to in my previous comment has to do with the Inquisition as a context. Why didn't your God tell believers in no uncertain terms doing so was wrong? The fact is the OT does sanction witch, heretic, gay and honor killings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36979836655342480792007-10-17T09:55:00.000-04:002007-10-17T09:55:00.000-04:00Bryan said...Now, havng said that, you and I are b...Bryan said...<I>Now, havng said that, you and I are both making moral judgments. You are judging the morality of the Inquisition. On what basis?</I><BR/><BR/>Let's say I love killing and torturing people who disagree with me, okay. This is far from the truth, but assume I think that. Then I could still torture people who disagreed with me and at the very same time ask you about YOUR consistency. I could still ask why your loving God did not make it crystal clear in the Bible that doing so was immoral, or why upon your supposition the Holy Spirit didn't properly do his job. I could also ask you why it's okay for your God to allow something like this when the Biblical ethic you adhere to calls upon you to defend the defenseless. Why is it your God does not have to live by the moral code he demands of you? Why is it he does not have to love and defend the defenseless but demands that you do.<BR/><BR/>I could ask all of these internal questions of what YOU believe while dismembering and torturing another person. There would be no inconsistency on my part at all.<BR/><BR/>As far as your off-toic question goes, though, I have responded <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/06/atheistic-ethic_13.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Maybe you will now attempt to answer our questions on their own terms.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87102267354572665042007-10-17T09:46:00.000-04:002007-10-17T09:46:00.000-04:00Shygetz, you are correct that I will see things th...Shygetz, you are correct that I will see things that are evil as the works of the devil and/or man. I will see things that are good as the works of God. That is because I believe in an infinitely good God. I believe that is God's character. And, I do not believe God ever deviates from His character. However, as another post on this site notes, humans do. We are hypocrites, whether some are more than others was the only debate. <BR/><BR/>Now, havng said that, you and I are both making moral judgments. You are judging the morality of the Inquisition. On what basis?Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58793860527953579642007-10-17T09:30:00.000-04:002007-10-17T09:30:00.000-04:00John, what I hear you accusing the Holy Spirit of ...<I>John, what I hear you accusing the Holy Spirit of sounds like the work of people to me. But you are correct that all of those things happened. <BR/><BR/>Why does that change Who God Is? How do you explain these issues? What is the cause in your mind? Are you blaming God?</I><BR/><BR/>Tell me how you differentiate between acts of the Holy Spirit and acts of people. From my vantage, all I ever see is <I>post hoc</I> justification based on actions that currently conform to the social norm. Civil rights=Holy Spirit (except for certain troglodytes whom most Christians distance themselves from), Spanish Inquisition=work of man (again, except for some troglodytes). For currently contentious issues such as equal treatment for women and GLBTs, the Christian community is split. <BR/><BR/>I will make a hypothesis. I hypothesize that the emphases of the Bible that are called "Holy Spirit-inspired" by most Christians are the ones that most Christians are predisposed to agree with due to societal pressure, and the emphases of the Bible that they call "works of man" are the ones that they are predisposed to disagree with due to societal pressure. Therefore, I predict that in the future, the majority of Christians will emphasize the portions of the Bible that agree with the treatment of GLBT and women by secular society, and de-emphasize those that disagree; moreover, I predict that they will consider this pattern of emphasis "Holy Spirit-inspired".<BR/><BR/>If I am wrong, then the pattern of majority Christian thought should not neccesarily track with secular societal thought, and majority Christian opinion will move independently of secular societal opinion. Now I admit that this is not an air-tight hypothesis, but it does begin to test this idea of a Holy Spirit guiding the thoughts of the Church.<BR/><BR/>Care to make a testable prediction about what we will see if the Holy Spirit is real?Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.com