pajarito

Of course, you wouldn’t seek approval if you didn’t believe in God. The reason for all of this talk, however, is to hopefully show those nonbelievers that there is a God and that he does have a purpose for our lives. The reason is simply to bring the message. Only God can open someone’s heart to the truth. As it is written “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Romans 3:10-12 You’ve either broken the law or you haven’t. You’re either righteous on your own merit or your not and you need saving grace and reconciliation. I fit the latter category as well as everybody else, whether they admit it to themselves or not. It doesn’t matter how many “good” things you do in your life. You could be the greatest humanitarian the world has ever seen building houses for poor people all over the world and feeding kids in all the orphanages. It amounts to nothing in the eyes of God unless it’s done through the Jesus who is in the heart of true Christians. The best person you know in the world is still a sinner. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Ephesians 2:8-10”

That example you've given deals with the sort of person who puts on the appearance of respectability and charity, never steps out of line but works inside the law to make himself rich. The question you were posed deals with a truely selfless person, someone who does good deeds for others just because they want to help, yet happens not to believe in god. There's a huge difference there. I don’t believe I am. The parable of the Lost Son (us) describes a person who fell from the grace of his father (God), sinned against himself and his father (Like we all have and will again), but was welcomed back when he repented of his sin and returned (Accepted forgiveness by grace through faith in Jesus who made atonement for the sins of all men at the cross.). The older son (Like the Pharisee) stayed home and followed the letter of the law (Good works; self-righteousness). He’s still flawed, however, is not capable of following the letter of the law (Wages of sin is death (spiritual death; total separation from God; hell), has sinned against God at some point in time in his heart even if never openly, and is, therefore, separated from God through his sinful nature. The quote that you made from the parable of the Six Woes describes a person such as the one you accurately described. The person described in the question by 3ringheathen does not exist. The only person to fit that bill that ever walked the earth and is, therefore, qualified to make atonement for the sins of man is Jesus Christ. His question is completely fictitious as there can be no person like that. I challenge you or anyone else to honestly tell me that they’ve “never” broken one of the 10 Commandments. All it takes is one. I know I can’t say that.

I worked in the IT field for 8 years. The kinds of people I used to work with, for the most part, were very smart, arrogant, proud, self-reliant, humanistic, “I control every bit of my own destiny”, kinds of people (goes hand-in-hand with many skydivers as well). Many were either agnostic, atheist, or intentionally did not ascribe to any religion due to the personality traits mentioned. I’m guessing that is typical of many people who work/play with computers or work in some sort of tech arena. Therefore, a significant number of people who participate in this forum aren’t just skydivers but are also people who also fit that description. Not all, but a significant number (Just guessing based on my personal experience, mind you). The people participating in this forum IMO aren’t a good representation of the entire population. In such case, there would be more people, in this forum, who would pick the opposite side of the argument from the one I’ve taken. If this discussion took place in another setting, the statistics might be different. I don’t think it’s because my “position is indefensible.” I think I’ve done a descent job at that so far. When it comes right down to it, though, you can’t prove that what I’m saying isn’t true. I mean, like many have said before in these threads, you can’t prove/disprove things happened the way they are said to in a document the same way you might prove a scientific experiment. I’m not going to quote and respond to some of the rest of this because you’ve pointed to nothing specific, have only accused illogic/faulty reasoning, and you sound like you’re just spewing the same old venom that critics always do. I agree. It’s much easier to begin when we agree on some basic assumptions (i.e. there is a God of some sort). That’s why most of this isn’t really called “evangelism” as some of you call it. It’s really pre-evangelism. There has to be a starting point in order for any of this to be productive. The walls have to be broken down so that progress can be made. Examples? Yes? I’m not a Military Intelligence person nor have I worked for the CIA but doing what I did in the Army, I’ve worked with both very closely and have done some low level intelligence gathering myself. In order to give credibility to information from a particular source and, therefore, make it actionable against a target, it needs to be confirmed by at least a couple of other sources. Is that logical thinking? It’s what we use anyway. That’s what the Gospels do as well. I don’t understand how your statement is logical. You’ve missed my point about what “blind faith” is. There is an element of faith in Christianity. There is no way of getting around that. But mine is based on evidence (whether you like it or not or don’t agree with it or think it irrational/illogical, etc.) It is definitely not “blind faith.” As you said, I would point to the Bible to discern what God wants of us. You’ve made it clear that doesn’t work for you, however. Those who think they are good and follow the law to the letter (as in the example of the “better” son) are like the Pharisees. They made it their lives to know and live by the law. They believed that was what made them right with God and won their righteousness (i.e. the son that stayed home and did what he was supposed to do). Jesus made it very clear, however, that their (and our) self-appointed righteousness amounts to nothing. Luke 11:37-54 (Six Woes) 37When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. 39Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41But give what is inside the dish[10] to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. 42"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. 43"Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. 44"Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it." 45One of the experts in the law answered him, "Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also." 46Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. 47"Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' 50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all. 52"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." 53When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, 54waiting to catch him in something he might say.

There is “plenty” of evidence to support the case for Christianity. Just because we don’t have all the answers and are not meant to does not mean that making the decision to follow Christ has to be made blindly. I’m the type of person that doesn’t like to accept what one person tells me is true. If multiple people also tell me that it’s true, however, then it strengthens the case and I have much more confidence in it. Blind faith would be like you jumping off a bridge just because I (and no one else) told you that it was about to fall and you saw no evidence of structural failure. Who are you to speak for God? The Parable of the Lost Son Jesus continued: There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them. Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father. I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men. So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, “Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’ ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’” Luke 15:11-32

I’ve made my personal thoughts known clearly and in much detail throughout. I do also cite research that has been done by others as well. I don’t consider myself an expert. Just trying to make the case. I got ganged up on pretty good throughout this thread and didn’t get much help from anyone on my side of the argument. Sometimes having to respond to 7-8 posts in sequence opposing my view. If I didn’t respond to a question of yours, I will review and try to find it. My bad. I was in high-gear at some points. I didn’t mean to “ignore” it and I’m certainly not afraid to answer. Then how can you reject his studies outright and publish your negative sentiments concerning his works or his character to the world? ***Which brings me back to the point of my earlier post: If one reads the book reviews at amazon.com, you'll find readers repeating all of his blatantly flawed arguments in the reviews themselves. It's quite plain that McDowell eschues logic in favor of arguments from authority and other flawed techniques. Over the years, I've invested *enormous* amounts of time investigating various claims surrounding religions, mostly Christianity. After all, it's prevalent in my society. Sound logic, valid evidence, and legitimate research supporting your position are as elusive as Bigfoot or the Lochness monster. Without exception I've been disapointed in my quest for a sensible argument in favor of Christianity, particularly your brand of it. I've tried very hard to maintain an open mind, but fundamentalist apologists keep trying to dump garbage in it. I've wondered how come I haven't seen the light. Over and over again it turns out that their isn't even a light bulb in the biblical socket. McDowells approach is severely flawed, and nearly identical to that of countless others before him. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, at some point you get tired of double checking and make the reasonable assumption that it's probably a freaking duck!*** It just doesn’t fit your brand of logic, apparently. In addition, that “light bulb” you’re referring to can only come from God. If you read the review that I posted in its entirety, it explained quite well that there will always be people who reject the message even when presented with evidence. It doesn’t matter how good the evidence is. Only God can turn the light bulb on in your head and bring about wisdom instead of just knowledge.

You’re right. Not in this lifetime, at least. How do we know the details of what God’s future plan is? ….We don’t know. Also, the New Covenant can either be looked at as a HUGE hindrance to you or it can be looked at as a GREAT hope for humanity and your personal salvation. Those chaotic, unreasonable, inconsistent, and patently unfair qualities that you mention are descriptive of how “you” see it. I don’t and I’m trying to get others to see that. I understand that you are turned against and hostile toward the idea of Christianity or religion in general but others may not be. AGAIN, not trying to shove anything down “your” throat. In reference to the abuses done by religious leaders, in general and not just Catholic, we are all human and, therefore, fallible. There should be no excuses made for religious leaders who abuse the system. Their abuses should not be hidden or “covered up” from within. Bad things that people do “DO NOT” take away from the message of Christianity. It does demonstrate the sinful nature of everyone, however deep it may be hidden.

You're right. I stand corrected. I read it too fast before I responded and missed that one. Not trying to play a game and I will try to make my answers in good faith. Most of your responses are inflamatory, however, and I would ask that you do the same.

So, what books have you read of Josh McDowell's to base your negative opinion? Tell me what you liked or disliked about them. Do you have any ideas of your own that you'd like to discuss pertaining to this topic?

If I had not already served at least one of my terms of enlistment, I would volunteer instead of being drafted. However, if I was drafted, I would serve my country proudly as should every US Citizen.

So....a baby seal walks into a club........ (I know...not religious...I just like that one.)

You're right. Just because someone writes a book about God doesn't necessarily make that book accurate about God. The entire collection of books, which is The Christian Bible however, was written over the period of about 1,500 years, by people in different places, of different education levels, from different cultures, and on 3 different continents. Some of the New Testament books were written well within 50 years of when the actual events occurred. Some, quite possibly, were written within the lifetimes of eye witnesses to the events. In comparison to most historical documents we have today, this time period is considered negligible by some historians. The books were written by more than 40 different people who came from different backgrounds. Hundreds of topics are discussed. It is claimed in the Bible that it, as a whole, was written by man with divine inspiration from God. In short, it claims to be the written word of God. This claim is supported by its organization and content. Even if you say that the books were "hand picked" to form the canon, all it really takes is to read just one of the gospels. The entire Bible fits together perfectly and flows from beginning to end. There is much fulfilled prophesy from the beginning to the end. It supports itself well to the scrutiny that it is not necessarily “of God” and just something conjured up by man.

Definitely. See, all those anti spearkers corner bashers don't know what they're missing. I have a lot of respect for anyone that participates in these discussions and vehemently defends their point of view with logical reasoning. Likewise, in reference to you, but you make me want to squeeze your eyeballs sometimes.

Well then....8 pages later....I stand corrected.

I agree with you 100% unless they have a political purpose for the gathering. If so, then they are trying to change the system to include their lifestyle into political matters (i.e. gay marriage) and are open to peaceful protest. If they want to go stick their penis in some other guys ear, I don't care. It's only when the homosexual movement (speaking collectively) attempts to affect us as a whole that I draw exception.

And a dog's penis isn't designed to hump my leg, but my friend's dog used to do it. Was he sinning? Is he condemned to hell? Did the dog make a conscious choice to betray god and nature? Maybe in your religion. Like I said, Of course, you can do other things with it. That doesn't mean that it was designed that way. You're going to actually argue with me that the primary purpose (i.e. what it was designed for) of a male sexual organ isn't supposed to work with a female sexual organ for a specific purpose?

If you read my previous post, you'd see that I said that of course you can do other things with a penis but that it isn't "designed" to go up a guy's or girl's butt. Whether you believe the development to have come about from intelligent design or through a process of evolution. It doesn't matter. A penis and a vagina are both sex organs designed to work together with the primary purpose of reproduction. I don't believe you'll find a physician to disagree with me there. You absolutley will not get a girl pregnant through anal sex unless there's a tear of some sort in the lining that separates the rectum from the vagina and semen gets through. I'm just saying that it's not supposed to work that way. Again, that was but ONE of the arguments listed before. By the way, Peacefuljeffrey, you're pretty good at throwing around insults like inferring that people you disagree with are "ignorant" in an attempt to drive your point home. That's bad form and doesn't add to your credibility.

Feel free to review what we have already covered in very much detail concerning your question.

The quote, listed above, by 3ringheathen was actually a book review by Stephen M. St. Clair of Orlando, FL. 3ringheathen misleads by using the words, “A Sample.” The book it is referencing is The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. There were actually 48 total book reviews listed on http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785243631/102-7097555-3799315?v=glance&vi=customer-reviews. I counted them all and found 31 to be positive reviews and only 17 to be negative. He picked the last negative comment on the first page to present to you. One such positive review to contradict the one above is: “This book, like any other apologetic work, has its strengths and weaknesses. While it is true that it treats each topic briefly, it nonetheless is a handy reference tool for basic and thoughtful responses to critics. Critics and unbelievers will always be unbelievers unless the Spirit of God softens their hearts, so don't expect any apologetic work in of itself to convert an unbeliver. McDowell's Evidence book does provide a wealth of circumstantial evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ and other Christian beliefs. One's assumptions are ultimately important when reading this book and judging if Jesus truly is the Lord of the earth. If one reads this book with the assumption that miracles are impossible, the Bible writers are all liars, and somehow science has "disproven" everything, then one shouldn't even waste their time. This book succeeds in one incredible way - it emphasizes the historical evidence, the Bible's text. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical question, not a scientific one. Science cannot prove nor disprove miracles, for miracles are additions/exceptions to the natural laws and thus cannot be measured or tested by scientific methods. But the event, whether Jesus rose from the dead, is a historical matter. And this book adequately shows that much of the evidence favors the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course critics and skeptics will come up with all kinds of ways to dismantle this, but the bottom-line is that this book organizes nicely various reasons that the Christian faith has promoted the same message for nearly 2000 years... that Jesus died and rose again, and that this event can be trusted as a historical, objective reality. Is it the type of evidence that modern skeptics would like? Of course not, because modern skeptics demand precise CNN-news style reporting from writers two millennia ago. Even if the resurrection of Jesus were caught on a news camera, a skeptic would find ways to doubt this historical event. Special effects, actors, a false location, whatever, somehow in some fashion something would be proposed to deny this historical event. McDowell succeeds in presenting a book full of helpful circumstantial evidence that when combined overall, provides a most compelling and convincing case for faith in Jesus Christ.” Paul Lee from San Diego I’ve never read this particular book but I’m not willing to discount it outright just because I might not like Josh McDowell for some reason or have an antagonistic view of Christianity. I’ve read a couple of his books and found them very comprehensive, informative, and inspiring.

Yikes. Citing Josh McDowell is a bit like citing Pinochio, except his deceptions aren't as easily identified. For those that aren't familiar with this author, simply check out reviews of his books on Amazon.com. If you're still curious, go to the library, but whatever you do, don't subsidize this crackpot by purchasing one of his books! I recommend reading a sampling of the positive and negative reviews. The average lucidity of each ought to give you an idea of how hopeless it is to reason with his followers. A sample: This book is a complete and utter waste of time if you are looking for objective scholarship, honest historical research from a learned scholar. This author is nothing more than a promoter who operates under the guise of scholarship. His arguments - evidence is specious and he commits virtually every logical fallacy one can commit. -Josh Nice tactic to criticize without pointing to any real specifics to base your position or to offer alternatives. You sound like a Democrat.

Quoted from study done by Don Stewart: The New Testament was written a short time after the events. The city of Jerusalem and Temple were still standing when the New Testament was written. 1. The first three gospels, and possibly the fourth, were apparently written whild the city of Jerusalem was still standing. Each of the first three Gospels contains predictions by Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), but none records the fulfillment. We know that Titus the Roman destroyed the city and Temple in A.D. 70. Hence, the composition of the first three Gospels must have occurred sometime before this event; otherwise their destruction would have been recorded. The Book of Acts provides a clue to the date of the gospels. 2. The Book of Acts provides us with a clue as to when the gospels were written. Acts records the highlights in the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul. The book concludes with Paul at Rome awaiting trial before Caesar. The inference is that Acts was written while Paul was still alive, seeing his death is not recorded. Since there is good evidence that Paul died in the Neronian persecution about A.D. 67, the Book of Acts can be dated approximately A.D. 62. Acts is the second part of Luke’s writings. 3. If Acts was written about A.D. 62, then this helps us date the gospels, since the Book of Acts is the second half of a treatise written by Luke to a man named Theophilus. Because we know that the gospel of Luke was written before the Book of Acts, we can then date the Gospel of Luke sometime around A.D. 60 or before. “The brother who was well-known” may have been Luke. 4. There may be further evidence for an early date for Luke’s gospel. Paul wrote of a brother who was well-known among the churches for the gospel. “And we have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the gospel has spread through all the churches.” 2 Corinthians 8:18 There is ancient testimony that this refers to Luke and his written gospel. If this is speaking of Luke and the gospel he composed, then we have it well-known in the mid-fifties of the first century. Mark was probably used as a source for Luke. 5. There may be a reference in the writings of Luke that he used Mark as a written source. John Mark is called a “minister” by Luke in Acts 13:5 (the Greek word huparetas). In 1:2, Luke says he derived the information for his gospel from those who were “eyewitnesses” and “ministers” of the word. The term translated “minister” is the same Greek word huparetas. It is possible that this could be a reference to Mark as one of his written sources. Mark was probably written before Luke. 6. Furthermore, modern scholarship has generally assumed that the Gospel of Mark was written before Luke. If this is the case, then this book was composed somewhere in the fifties of the first century A.D. Since Jesus’ death and resurrection occurred approximately in the year A.D. 33, these two gospels were written during the time when eyewitnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, were still alive. These eyewitnesses could either verify or falsify the information contained in the gospels. Matthew was the first Gospel written. 7. We now go a step further by considering Matthew’s gospel. According to the unanimous testimony of the early church, Matthew was the first gospel written. The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew’s gospel in A.D. 41. If this is true, then we have a third independent source about the life of Christ that was written during the eyewitness period. John was an eye-witness to the events. 8. The Gospel of John is usually assumed to have been the last of the four gospels composed. John testified that he was an eyewitness to the events that he recorded. “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” John 20:30-31 He also wrote: “This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true.” John 21:24 There is internal evidence for an early date for John’s gospel. 9. There is internal evidence that John himself wrote before A.D. 70. “Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes.” John 5:2 John describes the sheep gate as still standing at the time he wrote. The sheep gate was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, along with the rest of the city of Jerusalem. This could very well be an indication that John wrote his gospel while the city of Jerusalem was still standing. There is an early date for the entire New Testament. 10. When all the historical and textual evidence is amassed, it becomes clear that the New Testament was composed at a very early date either by eyewitnesses or those who recorded eyewitness testimony.

The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are, in fact, very similar and tell the same eye-witness accounts (minus Luke who was not an eye-witness) of the life, teachings, crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They validate each other with their similarity and great detail. As for the writing style and substance, however, it differs with each text. Matthew – Matthew was written for and tailored to the Jewish believers. The Jewish background is evident in many ways, including (1) its reliance on OT revelation, promises and prophecy to prove that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah; (2) its tracing of Jesus’ lineage, starting from Abraham; (3) its repeated declaration that Jesus is the “Son of David”; (4) its use of preferred Jewish terminology such as “kingdom of heaven” because of the Jews’ reverential reluctance to say the name of God directly; and (5) its reference to Jewish customs without any explanation. Mark – Mark derived the content of his Gospel fro his association with Peter, wrote it in Rome, and designed it for Roman believers. It was written as a pastoral response to that time of Christian persecution and was meant to give foundation and strength. Luke – Luke was not an eye-witness like the others and was also not a Jew. He was a very meticulous doctor and a loyal coworker with Paul. He was well educated, a skilled writer, a careful historian, and an inspired theologian. He was inspired to write a more detailed account of the life of Jesus to a man named Theophilus (who’s name means “one who loves God”). When he wrote the Gospel, the Gentile church apparently had no complete or widely circulated Gospel about Jesus. Luke’s account was tailored in style for the Gentile believers. John – John’s Gospel reveals more fully the mystery of Jesus’ personhood which the others do not elaborate as much on. His message was tailored to the unbeliever in order to convince them to believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and be “saved.”

Even if you inserted it, turned upside down, and spun in a complete circle it doesn’t change the fact that one organ was designed for the other and that two of the same was not. I also didn’t say that was the only reason. There are others. Your personal experience beats out statistical studies? Marriage has been demonstrated over thousands of years to be the most healthy and successful organizational model for society. Slavery, although productive for the owners, has always been unhealthy and abusive. Just because they’ve both been around for a very long time, I still say you’re comparing apples to oranges. There is no correlation.

The agenda, from the e-mails that I pirate, is mostly about the encouragement of the use of hair gel amongst heterosexual men at this point. The kid raising stuff comes after the proper use of beauty products. So you're telling me that they don't want what I've stated before. They don't really have a political agenda and I'm just pulling all this out of "mi arss."

I know because it spells it out in the Bible. 1. The time span between the date of composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest surviving manuscripts is relatively short. 2. The number of manuscripts is greater than any other ancient work. 3. The Greek New Testament was translated into other languages at an early date. Very uncommon. 4. The writings of the Church Fathers could be used to reconstruct the New Testament text in its entirety even without the manuscripts. 5. There were different groups who watched carefully the transmission of the New Testament text. 6. Variant readings do exist but do not affect the reliability of the text or the Christian doctrine. In the entire New Testament, there are only about 50 variant readings. That doesn’t discredit the Bible. The bad things that people do in the name of God doesn’t make what they do “of God.” You’re correct. Without accepting the saving grace of God through faith in his son Jesus, there is no salvation and you are lost. Your sin, however small it may seem to you, will be judged whether you like it or not. I agree. I’m no better than a non-religious person. I’m not perfect, just forgiven.

Are you acting as defense counsel for Billvon now? I would think, since it is part of the homosexual movement's agenda to change the definition of marriage to include them, that the burdon of proof would be in their court. That is, if they're going to use that argument to give support to their cause.