Quote# 9539

A non believers take on understanding and a saved person's take on understanding are two different things. Because if a non-believer truly understood what the Bible meant, they wouldn't be a non-believer.

Ginny, Christian Forums 9 Comments [2/11/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


Really? I'd always heard it the other way round:

Because if a believer truly understood what the Bible meant, they wouldn't be a believer

2/12/2006 2:34:05 AM

David D.G.

Rats, Julian already has this one covered perfectly. Oh, well, chalk me up as a fervent \"ditto.\"

~David D.G.

2/12/2006 8:01:50 PM


Well Ginny, that's some mighty fine circular logic ye got there, yesiree.

2/12/2006 8:40:45 PM


Or, if a believer truly understood what the Bible truly meant, the target audience might be willing to listen to what they have to say.

Knowing a few that strive better to imitate the guy on the cross than the priests that put him there, I'd say a little humility and introspection goes a long way. Of course, they wouldn't be fundies then, would they?

2/13/2006 12:23:33 AM


Yeah, a big ditto to what Julian said.

2/13/2006 5:45:12 PM


Sure, because if we were smart, we'd agree with you because you're obviously right and only dumb people have differing opinions.

9/15/2011 11:17:50 AM

Dr. Shrinker

We're not the ones who need piles of apologetics to explain what the bible "really" says.

10/4/2011 8:35:51 AM


So what do the contradictions really mean?

Because, to me, they mean:
Don't take this book literally
This book is flawed
This book was badly edited from compiled material.
This book is fiction

10/5/2011 3:29:00 PM

What about people like me, that used to be 'saved' but then became an Atheist? Especially given that I became an Atheist after studying the Bible and understanding how messed up it was.

5/23/2012 5:51:41 PM

1 | top: comments page