Jesus is quoted as saying: "You will know them by their fruits."

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

Christian people, the current Republican party has made it clear who they are.

Matthew 7:15-20

15 (B)“Beware of false prophets, (C)who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 (D)You will know them by their fruits. (E)Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, (F)every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 (G)Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

 

[fredjr82]

The Bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written! 💪🙌

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The Bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written! 💪🙌

Fiction can be instructive. The GQP needs to be "cut down and thrown into the fire".

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

The Bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written! 💪🙌

There are many literary genres and devices within the Bible. To reduce it all to "fiction" is intellectually dishonest.

 

[TJ8869]

May those who love us, love us
And those who don’t love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn’t turn their hearts
Then may He turn their ankles
So we will know them by their limping.

 

[fredjr82]

There are many literary genres and devices within the Bible. To reduce it all to "fiction" is intellectually dishonest.

Did your wife give you that opinion or did you come up with it on your own?

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

Fiction can be instructive. The GQP needs to be "cut down and thrown into the fire".

Yes, hence why Jesus spoke in parables. Most of the Bible is instructive and not literal. Hence why the placement of books in the Bible is not done according to a sequential timeline.

 

[fredjr82]

May those who love us, love us
And those who don’t love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn’t turn their hearts
Then may He turn their ankles
So we will know them by their limping.

This is my "go to" speech before shots

There's another that starts with "Women who wear red shoes..."

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

Did your wife give you that opinion or did you come up with it on your own?

Lol. Nah. Sadly, her church is replete with Bible literalism.

 

[fredjr82]

Lol. Nah. Sadly, her church is replete with Bible literalism.

@Hoosierhawkeye can give you the reasons for divorce. Being nutty doesn't qualify last I checked

 

[CleteyColgate]

The Bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written! 💪🙌

Sadly, the Trump nightmare continues to haunt us in real-time due to gutless Republicans who stand for nothing.

 

[ft254]

Yes, hence why Jesus spoke in parables. Most of the Bible is instructive and not literal. Hence why the placement of books in the Bible is not done according to a sequential timeline.

They should have thought of that Before burning all those people at the the stake.

 

[DooBi]

Christian people, the current Republican party has made it clear who they are.

Matthew 7:15-20

15 (B)“Beware of false prophets, (C)who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 (D)You will know them by their fruits. (E)Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, (F)every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 (G)Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

And how does that make you feel about many of your posts on this board?

 

[TarponSpringsNole]

The evangelicals are a cancer to the party.

 

[thewop]

Every person who has ever used the bible to show that their US political view is the right one has been wrong.

Look no further than baby killing and border walls.

 

[DFSNOLE]

The evangelicals are a cancer to the party.

The saddest thing is that they have been manipulated for their vote since Newt Gingrich and his "religious right" and they don't even realize and/or acknowledge that. Blind fealty is a dangerous thing.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

And how does that make you feel about many of your posts on this board?

That my sense of humor needs work?

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

Your thoughts, @Chishawk1425?

 

[HugeEddie]

The Bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written! 💪🙌

Actually it’s your post.

 

[alaskanseminole]

The Bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written! 💪🙌

Definitive proof, please.

 

[WisestIowan]

The Bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written! 💪🙌

Catholic school in DSM for 13 years and I agree. It's a book of fables and fictional material aimed at making society act right and be better to each other. Completely made up or at minimum MOSTLY made up.

 

[Chishawk1425]

Your thoughts, @Chishawk1425?

This is excellent. Well done.

 

[WisestIowan]

This is my "go to" speech before shots

There's another that starts with "Women who wear red shoes..."

A Letter from Paul to the Apostles.

There once was a man from Nantucket.
Who's d*ck was so long he could suck it.
He said, with a grin, as he wiped off his chin
If my neck was a c*nt I would f*ck it.

 

[fredjr82]

Catholic school in DSM for 13 years and I agree. It's a book of fables and fictional material aimed at making society act right and be better to each other. Completely made up or at minimum MOSTLY made up.

Agreed. I don't need a book or an invisible man in the sky to convince me to be a good person.

 

[fredjr82]

A Letter from Paul to the Apostles.

There once was a man from Nantucket.
Who's d*ck was so long he could suck it.
He said, with a grin, as he wiped off his chin
If my neck was a c*nt I would f*ck it.

Now I have a 3rd 😍

 

[alaskanseminole]

Catholic school in DSM for 13 years and I agree. It's a book of fables and fictional material aimed at making society act right and be better to each other. Completely made up or at minimum MOSTLY made up.

Historicity, as it is commonly understood (complete historical accuracy, chronological order, etc.), is a modern post-enlightenment Western notion that should not be imposed on the Bible—which is an ancient Near Eastern text. Strictly speaking, historicity can only be evaluated when there are multiple attestations to the same event. Historicity is not exactly the same as historical reliability. If the Bible provides the only account of an historical event, this biblical account must be understood in light of the overall framework of history provided by our worldview. The denial of the Bible’s historicity due to its inclusion of the miraculous or of otherwise-unattested accounts is based on one’s predisposition against the Bible’s truth claims—not evidence to the contrary. The Bible refers to real people and events in a manner that truthfully conveys the divine Author’s message. Our reading of the Bible’s historical literature is based upon the presupposition that there is a God, and He has spoken truthfully in Scripture. Those with presuppositions to the contrary must acknowledge the oft-cited dictum: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In other words, it is unscientific and irrational to claim that the Bible is historically inaccurate if evidence cannot disprove the Bible’s historical claims—and hard data disproving biblical history is simply not available. If one claims that the Bible is historically unreliable on the basis of their anti-supernatural worldview, this should be admitted.

Where both the Bible and extra-biblical sources provide attestations to the same event, the Bible’s historicity is confirmed. However, we need not wait for archaeologists to recover the next cache of texts that corroborate biblical history before we believe in the Bible’s historical reliability. Where it can be tested, the Bible stands the test. But the larger issue of our willingness to believe that which we cannot prove is determined by our worldview. Evidences can encourage our faith, but they are no replacement for faith. We must admit that we cannot “prove” the historicity of the entire Bible, but we can defend the reasonableness of faith in the Bible as an historical document—especially when compared to other worldview options.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Historicity, as it is commonly understood (complete historical accuracy, chronological order, etc.), is a modern post-enlightenment Western notion that should not be imposed on the Bible—which is an ancient Near Eastern text. Strictly speaking, historicity can only be evaluated when there are multiple attestations to the same event. Historicity is not exactly the same as historical reliability. If the Bible provides the only account of an historical event, this biblical account must be understood in light of the overall framework of history provided by our worldview. The denial of the Bible’s historicity due to its inclusion of the miraculous or of otherwise-unattested accounts is based on one’s predisposition against the Bible’s truth claims—not evidence to the contrary. The Bible refers to real people and events in a manner that truthfully conveys the divine Author’s message. Our reading of the Bible’s historical literature is based upon the presupposition that there is a God, and He has spoken truthfully in Scripture. Those with presuppositions to the contrary must acknowledge the oft-cited dictum: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In other words, it is unscientific and irrational to claim that the Bible is historically inaccurate if evidence cannot disprove the Bible’s historical claims—and hard data disproving biblical history is simply not available. If one claims that the Bible is historically unreliable on the basis of their anti-supernatural worldview, this should be admitted.

Where both the Bible and extra-biblical sources provide attestations to the same event, the Bible’s historicity is confirmed. However, we need not wait for archaeologists to recover the next cache of texts that corroborate biblical history before we believe in the Bible’s historical reliability. Where it can be tested, the Bible stands the test. But the larger issue of our willingness to believe that which we cannot prove is determined by our worldview. Evidences can encourage our faith, but they are no replacement for faith. We must admit that we cannot “prove” the historicity of the entire Bible, but we can defend the reasonableness of faith in the Bible as an historical document—especially when compared to other worldview options.

So...historical fiction?

 

[z_ape]

Lindsey Graham

 

[LuteHawk]

Christians believe the Bible is God's Word. We accept the
truth of the Bible by FAITH. We trust in God by faith. We
have faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior from sin & eternal
death. We are saved by God's grace through faith in Him.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

Agreed. I don't need a book or an invisible man in the sky to convince me to be a good person.

Overly simplistic and not a cogent argument.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

Christians believe the Bible is God's Word. We accept the
truth of the Bible by FAITH. We trust in God by faith. We
have faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior from sin & eternal
death. We are saved by God's grace through faith in Him.

I would add the faith you speak of is not completely devoid of tangible evidence for many of the truths conveyed in the Bible. For example, I came to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus through the intellect.

 

[LuteHawk]

One of the problems in our current culture in America is
to believe that Evangelicals represent all Christians.
Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists,
Presbyterians are not considered "Evangelicals"..

 

[anon_p5xhdxl4apz5n]

What an inappropriate thread, the Devil tells Jesus he will give him all the kingdoms on Earth, and Jesus says nothing to fight that claim that the Devil owns all the kingdoms on Earth. You cannot give something you don't have. The Upper Kingdom does not play this little game you are playing.

 

[SSG T]

The saddest thing is that they have been manipulated for their vote since Newt Gingrich and his "religious right" and they don't even realize and/or acknowledge that. Blind fealty is a dangerous thing.

It started before Gingrich. The Moral Majority did the same to help noted Christian scholar Ronald Reagan win in 1980.

 

[Capernum]

Historicity, as it is commonly understood (complete historical accuracy, chronological order, etc.), is a modern post-enlightenment Western notion that should not be imposed on the Bible—which is an ancient Near Eastern text. Strictly speaking, historicity can only be evaluated when there are multiple attestations to the same event. Historicity is not exactly the same as historical reliability. If the Bible provides the only account of an historical event, this biblical account must be understood in light of the overall framework of history provided by our worldview. The denial of the Bible’s historicity due to its inclusion of the miraculous or of otherwise-unattested accounts is based on one’s predisposition against the Bible’s truth claims—not evidence to the contrary. The Bible refers to real people and events in a manner that truthfully conveys the divine Author’s message. Our reading of the Bible’s historical literature is based upon the presupposition that there is a God, and He has spoken truthfully in Scripture. Those with presuppositions to the contrary must acknowledge the oft-cited dictum: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In other words, it is unscientific and irrational to claim that the Bible is historically inaccurate if evidence cannot disprove the Bible’s historical claims—and hard data disproving biblical history is simply not available. If one claims that the Bible is historically unreliable on the basis of their anti-supernatural worldview, this should be admitted.

Where both the Bible and extra-biblical sources provide attestations to the same event, the Bible’s historicity is confirmed. However, we need not wait for archaeologists to recover the next cache of texts that corroborate biblical history before we believe in the Bible’s historical reliability. Where it can be tested, the Bible stands the test. But the larger issue of our willingness to believe that which we cannot prove is determined by our worldview. Evidences can encourage our faith, but they are no replacement for faith. We must admit that we cannot “prove” the historicity of the entire Bible, but we can defend the reasonableness of faith in the Bible as an historical document—especially when compared to other worldview options.

The Bible is the collection of multiple genres of literature that tell the story of two societies' connection to and understanding of the divine.

 

[LuteHawk]

The Devil tempted Jesus with these words: "All these kingdoms
of the world I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me."

Jesus replied: "Be gone Satan, for it is written: You shall worship
the Lord your God and him only shall you serve"

The issue between the Devil & Jesus was this: Who deserves to
be worshiped? Jesus settled the issue by saying only God is to
be worshiped and served.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

What an inappropriate thread, the Devil tells Jesus he will give him all the kingdoms on Earth, and Jesus says nothing to fight that claim that the Devil owns all the kingdoms on Earth. You cannot give something you don't have. The Upper Kingdom does not play this little game you are playing.

Republicans have staked their claim for years that they are the party of Jesus. Try to keep up.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Overly simplistic and not a cogent argument.

Agreed. "Invisible"? At least state you don't believe in a fifth realm; a spiritual realm.

 

[fredjr82]

Overly simplistic and not a cogent argument.

Hey some need a crutch, others don't. Simple as that

 

[WisestIowan]

This title of the thread reminded me of Natural. He was my #1 internet fruit. RIP bro. 😢