[Wondergirl]

A Quora member's answer today (not MY answer!!!):

"The Bible contains a talking snake, a talking bush and a talking donkey. The Bible has a story about humanity being punished over a fruit. The Bible has a saviour who is born of a virgin, and becomes his own son (and a ghost). This saviour does things such as curse fig trees for being out of season.

The Bible contains weird rules about slavery and animal sacrifice, and seems to be disgusted by women’s bodily functions. The Bible has laws prohibiting wearing mixed fabrics. The Bible praises the righteousness of a man who impregnated his daughters after first offering them up for rape. The Bible has a story about an ark that contained two or seven of every animal, the rest perishing in a flood that covered the entire world.

The Bible contains contradictions, false history, inaccurate science and failed prophecies. The Bible extols the virtues of genocidal leaders such as Moses and Joshua. The Bible ends in a series of bizarre prophecies, culminating in a mass slaughter of the human race.

What I am stumped about is how anyone still takes the Bible seriously."

[jlisenbe]

What I am stumped about is how anyone still takes the Bible seriously."

Apparently you do not.

And I'm right and you know it and you're trying desperately to make them true or your faith is in vain!

Nonsense. I don't even know what you think you are right about. You don't even know why you consider a passage to literal or figurative in meaning.

Which brings me to the question of the day...does a Christian have to believe in everything exactly correctly in order to be saved?

What do you mean by, "...believe in everything exactly correctly"?

[Wondergirl]

What I am stumped about is how anyone still takes the Bible seriously."

Apparently you do not.

That's part of the long Quora quote, not my words. Hmm, now I'm wondering about YOUR criteria.

[jlisenbe]

So you posted a quote that you disagree with? Uhm...don't really believe that. When you're trying to make a point, you don't support it with a quote with which you disagree.

To be clear, a person can be a Christian and not consider the creation story or the story of Noah's flood to be literal events. I suppose that person could also consider the Mt. 25 passage to be metaphorical, but it would be foolish to do so. It is clearly not a parable, and it reads like direct teaching on a future event that is certain to come. That understanding would be in harmony with many other passages which teach on the coming judgment day of God stretching all the way back to Genesis 18:25. But even if a person wanted to take it as a metaphor, you would still need to establish what it was pointing towards. After all, metaphors have meaning, so if this passage is an allegory, then it is certainly picturing something of a dreadful and horrible nature that is yet to happen, and that being the case, it doesn't do much to relieve you of your dread of hell.

[Wondergirl]

So you posted a quote that you disagree with? Uhm...don't really believe that. When you're trying to make a point, you don't support it with a quote with which you disagree.

Read the ENTIRE Quora quote!!! Do I have to explain EVERYthing to you???

Our Heavenly Father has richly blessed me. Micah 6:8 (NIV) says it best, "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

I have no fear of hell, jlisenbe.

[jlisenbe]

You do when you have made such a whacky mistake as to post a quote which you then want to claim you don't agree with. Just incredible. I will give you this. You do frequently bring humor to my day. "Hey look. I have posted a quote from an unbeliever who agrees with me on many things!" Well now, what would that tend to say about you?

And then you seem to think we all have some magical ability to look at your quote and discern which parts you like and which parts you discount. As I said, just incredible.

[Wondergirl]

The Quora quote supports the original Quora question. I thought you would be able to figure that out.

[waltero]

UNBELIEVABLE!

Just as Eve added to God's command. The two of you are willing to add to the Bible.

What makes you think John 3:16 is a love verse? Maybe because you understand God's love (being unconditional) better than God

Whereas it may be immediately obvious to us that God will not decide to stop loving us, for some reason it is less obvious that his love is different from our love. We are often less alert to the ways in which the love language is to be interpreted in the light of God’s other descriptions of himself.


When in the history of the Church did John 3:16, profess to be a love verse?

@WG; take post 141; everywhere you see "The Bible," replace it with Humanity.

Example: (post 141) What I am stumped about is how anyone still takes [Humanity] seriously."

[Wondergirl]

waltero, I was quoting someone in #141. Those are NOT my words.

[waltero]

Those are NOT my words.

I wouldn't be so sure of that If I were you.
I hear you talking along the same exact lines as that.

[Wondergirl]

I wouldn't be so sure of that If I were you.
I hear you talking along the same exact lines as that.

I'm not sure what you've been drinking. NEVER have I talked like that!

[Wondergirl]

A Protestant pastor told me this yesterday. Has anyone heard this:

"Surprise comment from a colleague today, first time ever for me. Talking about the thief on the cross next to Jesus. While Jesus was dying on the cross, his spatter blood gave the thief baptism. Questioning and answering went on between them, was like private confession and confirmation questioning. And he was allowed
into heaven and given paradise because he confessed the true (Protestant) faith.

[waltero]

NEVER have I talked like that!

a most common retort on this site.
You have over 39,000 posts, and you are sure you've "never talked like that?"
Much the same with other members on this site. "I never said that"...quick way to put an end to any further conversation.
Example: JL - "Nobody ever said John 3:16 was a love verse." Somebody else, name I will not mention, Asked a question. I insinuated that it might have been a loaded question, and all Hell broke loose. Then later on in the conversation, he mentioned that it really wasn't a question at all...all the while arguing that it was an honest question.
Instead of trying to fix or explain what it is to have a personal relationship with God, get into a "personal" relationship with God... keyword is Personal, we must have a personal relationship with God...get into personal...keep it personal.

A Protestant pastor told me this yesterday. Has anyone heard this:

We hear it coming from you all the time. Quote: "I was raised a ministers Daughter."

[jlisenbe]

What makes you think John 3:16 is a love verse?

Uhm...perhaps because the fourth word in the verse is "love", and God's love is presented as being the motivation for all that follows???

Example: JL - "Nobody ever said John 3:16 was a love verse."

I have no idea where that quote came from, but it did not come from me, and I know that is true because I know how to search responses on this site. Took about three minutes. You should try it, and then you wouldn't make this mistake. If you don't believe that, then look here for it will show you your mistake. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showpo...&postcount=128

I responded by saying, "Who pointed out John 3:16 as a love verse?" So you have made the same mistake twice now.

You quoted WG incorrectly. She was referring to a response from another website.

While Jesus was dying on the cross, his spatter blood gave the thief baptism. Questioning and answering went on between them, was like private confession and confirmation questioning. And he was allowed into heaven and given paradise because he confessed the true (Protestant) faith.

Complete conjecture supported by nothing in the Bible. Jesus would have had no "splatter blood" on the cross.

[waltero]

@JL: I don't think that post is the one I was referring to.
as far as WG, "she was referring to a response from another website." The fact is, she has said as much in many of her posts here.

I'm not going to get into it with the two of you - he said she said...it seems as though that is your guys' main concern.

When it comes to - "Who pointed out John 3:16 as a love verse? When in the history of the Church did this become a love verse?
I will point out, just as Eve added to God's command, here in John 3;16 are the two of you (even the church) adding to God's word... believing "Unconditional love" should be the theme...should be injected into the verse.
A Christian need not argue about such things. Keep it personal.

Post 47, we were talking about trusting the Bible. It might have been presented as having a reason for trusting in the Bible.
I have no reason to trust in the Bible. I came to a conscious decision to trust in the Bible, not through any particular reason (I don't have to prove, nor does the Bible have to prove) other than the fact that I must believe or it would never set right.
None of it makes sense and it doesn't have to make any sense...not to me. I know what I know and thats all that I know. I know the Bible is the living Word of God and I believe every word of it.

[jlisenbe]

@JL: I don't think that post is the one I was referring to.

If you are going to quote someone, then you should know.

as far as WG, "she was referring to a response from another website." The fact is, she has said as much in many of her posts here.

Maybe so, but you claimed it was a quote by her when, in fact, it was not.

I don't know what your argument is about John 3:16. Love is a major theme of the verse and think that is clear from the text. Is it unconditional love? Hard to say, but I'm honestly not even clear on what it is you object to.

I have no reason to trust in the Bible.

I do, and it makes great sense to me, but I'm fine with you having your own position on the subject.

[waltero]

I don't know what your argument is about John 3:16. Love is a major theme of the verse and think that is clear from the text. Is it unconditional love? Hard to say, but I'm honestly not even clear on what it is you object to.

Have to ask why this verse only became a love verse in the past 200 yrs or so. You read something in the Bible and analyze it, up, down, and sideways. Through that process you are able to decipher what it means, then you go on to explain to others what it means. When in fact you have no idea what it means because you have not experienced it.
A few of you treat it like a textbook, a science book, etc. If somebody were to explain to you that John 3:16 was not a love verse, and you were to understand it differently...would not your lifes work be in question?

Let me reiterate: I need no reason, for me, to trust in the bible, I trust it unconditionally. Your position is vastly different.

[Wondergirl]

If somebody were to explain to you that John 3:16 was not a love verse, and you were to understand it differently...would not your lifes work be in question?

If not a love verse, then what is it?

[jlisenbe]

Let me reiterate: I need no reason, for me, to trust in the bible, I trust it unconditionally. Your position is vastly different.

You trust the Bible unconditionally but not other books. Why the Bible only?

Have to ask why this verse only became a love verse in the past 200 yrs or so.

How do you know that John 3:16 was not a "love verse" three or four hundred years ago?

Perhaps you are saying that it is not ONLY about love. I would agree with that. John 3:16 is a wonderfully succinct description of the Gospel. People are perishing because of our sins. God's great love inclined Him to send His only Son as our Savior. Those who believe in Him will not perish, but rather will have eternal life. Do you find that to be acceptable?

[waltero]

If you have a relationship with God then you'd have no desire to try and explain that relationship, as if it should solidify said relationship. We should all have a personal, "personal" (get it) relationship with God. God's kind of personal relationship is more complex than we are capable of understanding. the relationship is more personal than we can possibly understand. There is no reason why you or anybody else "try" and explain their relationship with God...yet we do it all the time. we focus on that. Take yourself for instance. You believe in love, unconditional love. you believe in it like no other person I've ever heard. That is fine, Hallelujah!!! That would be more of a personal thing than something that you should be trying to educate others. A person has to experience God's love in order to know God's love. That's why God's love was never preached among the early church.

You trust the Bible unconditionally but not other books. Why the Bible only?

Because it is all about the breath of life. God's Breath came to life in the Man Jesus. His word is the truth and the life.
You can see it happening today. People create and claim their own pronouns as if it is truth. making up words, redefining words, Laws, and life.

As soon as God breathed into man, The Word (Jesus) was brought to life. If I believe in Jesus, then I must believe his word to be true. And know that when all of creation is rolled up like a scroll, his word is the only thing we can stand on. I believe because I believe...no rime or reason. I trust in the good word being the true word of all life.