Champ, here is a way to get a glimps of the other side of the coin without having to argue to get there, "Socrates and Jesus" do it all for us. You may have already read the discourse, but in case you haven't I urge you to. http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm
The gospels, written hundreds of years after christ is alleged to have lived, also put words into his mouth. And between them, they put a lot of inconsistent words in his mouth, so by definition most of them cannot be the actual words he is said to have spoken.
Why should we pay any attention to them? And how do we know which gospel is the correct one?
I thought Socrates tied poor Jesus in knots and exposed his lack of a message that makes any sense. How do you christians live with the inconsistency of the message? Do you just repeat it enough times so that you eventually erase its meaning?
TChamp, it seems that in the dialogue between Socrates and Jesus, the obvious winner (the one who actually makes sense) is Socrates. Yet you respond with the comment that it is silly to “put words in the mouth of god” - but that is what you do all the time, in fact you are always giving us your version of your god’s “wisdom” (and many scriptural quotes as well, which don’t do a hell of a lot of good except to offer more confusion and contradiction).
My challenge to you is to change some of the dialogue attributed to Jesus in that piece so that it would make more sense out of your religion/beliefs? Socrates shows emphatically that the christian religion is a complete hoax - how would you, a devout christian, answer any of the questions that Socrates poses to better express or elucidate the meaning of the christian cosmic view? Can you answer just one of those questions any better?
I remember on day I was talking to a pastor at a church I was attending (or going through the motions at). We were having an argument about the existence of god. Besides the fact the he flat out denied evolution, and explained the existence of dinosaurs as a chapter missing from the bible, he had a rather peculiar answer for on thing in particular. When he asked me weather I believed in God, I said yes, in a sense that something can’t come from nothing. I then proceeded to mention something that plato or socrates might have once concluded, and before I could say any more, he jumped, turned red, and laughed in my face saying, “Plato and Socrates weren’t saved!” So I just kind of rolled my eyes at myself and thought of a way politely excuse myself from this person. That incident always begged the question; Was he implying that one has to be saved to have any valid opinion whatsoever? Was he saying that even if someone is speaking the truth, unless they are saved, then what they’re saying is worthless? Or just what was he saying?
Just reading the blurb was enough to turn one’s stomach, it must be a good read. The idea of Adam and Eve having to copulate with their children and grandchildren and every other combination of incest possible gives the command to “populate the Earth” an erie sort of immorality. God’s plans are so neat, aren’t they?