Satan and the New Testament

[-V-]

I saw that. Why would you need feedback from someone else to answer a simple yes or no question though? Does your answer rely on getting information from someone else?

Asked & answered. I'm not going over it again.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Atheists:

V is not interested in anything but derailing the thread. I think he's been given enough chances. He's proven to me, Hitch, and everyone that he prefers gymnastics to answers.


Christians:

Now, as for the OP, can any Christian please explain why the New Testament is not a lie from Satan despite the claim that Mormonism, Islam, and etc are? Those religions are additions to existing scripture, no different from the New Testament.

 

[-V-]

Atheists:

V is not interested in anything but derailing the thread. I think he's been given enough chances. He's proven to me, Hitch, and everyone that he prefers gymnastics to answers.

It wasn't "derailed" until you guys insisted on pitching a fit because someone has an answer that is more complicated than you want it to be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christians:

Now, as for the OP, can any Christian please explain why the New Testament is not a lie from Satan despite the claim that Mormonism, Islam, and etc are? Those religions are additions to existing scripture, no different from the New Testament.

No different? Really? Not even one iota?

 

[-V-]

Now, as for the OP, can any Christian please explain why the New Testament is not a lie from Satan despite the claim that Mormonism, Islam, and etc are? Those religions are additions to existing scripture, no different from the New Testament.

We can dismiss Islam because the Quran contradicts itself and actually claims that people should follow the Bible. Details in the video:

As for Mormonism, its basis for being true rests on the New Testament being true. So you can't accept Mormonsim without first accepting the New Testament.

As for any other religions, I still haven't seen you point out which of those meet the prophecy requirements of the Old Testament, which your OP presumes is true.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We can dismiss Islam because the Quran contradicts itself and actually claims that people should follow the Bible. Details in the video:

As for Mormonism, its basis for being true rests on the New Testament being true. So you can't accept Mormonsim without first accepting the New Testament.

As for any other religions, I still haven't seen you point out which of those meet the prophecy requirements of the Old Testament, which your OP presumes is true.

I said goodbye to you. Let me make this clear again. I'm not discussing anything with you until you answer the original question that you've been dodging. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. Dodging isn't. Answer the original question, do nothing, or continue giving me irrelevant responses that I won't read. Your choice.

 

[-V-]

I said goodbye to you. Let me make this clear again. I'm not discussing anything with you until you answer the original question that you've been dodging. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. Dodging isn't. Answer the original question, do nothing, or continue giving me irrelevant responses that I won't read. Your choice.

No sweat off my back if you refuse to respond to challenges of your view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Atheists:

V is not interested in anything but derailing the thread. I think he's been given enough chances. He's proven to me, Hitch, and everyone that he prefers gymnastics to answers.


Christians:

Now, as for the OP, can any Christian please explain why the New Testament is not a lie from Satan despite the claim that Mormonism, Islam, and etc are? Those religions are additions to existing scripture, no different from the New Testament.

Yes, NV. I've had about enough of your two year charade here.

The New Testament is not a lie from Satan because it very well reflects the truth about Satan as he exists and has existed in our world. In fact, one can see 666 written in nearly every....single....thing....that WESTERN society has been doing for a very, very, very long time and is still doing. It's pretty clear if you just open your eyes. If you open them just even a fraction, you'll see Satan staring back at you, green with envy. And the sad thing is...we're all infected by him, but only a few of us are willing to fight the good fight so we can receive the antidote to his overflowing poison.

You wonder WHY so few people truly give to charity to truly help those in need, NV? And this, even among those who call themselves Christian? You know. Don't you, NV? It's because we're late capitalists filled with covetousness and lust; many of us are unable to separate ourselves from the possibility of a pleasure or an escape that can be had at every waking moment for the price of a few bucks. There's even some, I've heard, who like to trust in illusions of self-sufficiency, and some apparently are just entertained by doing various tricks with ropes and chairs.

And there you have it. Starkly Sad yet True. Yet we deny it. In fact, we deny it every day and keep on telling ourselves the same alibi(s). Day after day, year after sad, long year. Of course, it hurts us to be told this and to come to know this, but I guess someone has to say it. I might as well be one of those who do.

And now I've finally realized why I believe in the Christian faith so ardently, despite the struggles I've experienced in life. It's BECAUSE of the kinds of evil I see around me; those that the New Testament informed me all about. So I believe because of evil, not in spite of it. And this is also why I KNOW that Mormonism and Islam are false.

So, with that, I thank you for helping me to fully realize this; I guess you deserve a 'thank you' for something at least.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, NV. I've had about enough of your two year charade here.

Feel free to add me to your ignore list. Just let me know and I'll even do you the favor of not responding to anything you say. That way, other members won't think you're rude for ignoring me.

The New Testament is not a lie from Satan because it very well reflects the truth about Satan as he exists and has existed in our world.

So... Islam and Mormonism don't mention Satan?

In fact, one can see 666 written in nearly every....single....thing....that WESTERN society has been doing for a very, very, very long time and is still doing.

I don't know which deserves the "first of all" here, so...

1a) 666 refers to the Antichrist, not Satan.
1b) How is 666 everywhere? You believe in the Illuminati?

It's pretty clear if you just open your eyes. If you open them just even a fraction, you'll see Satan staring back at you, green with envy. And the sad thing is...we're all infected by him, but only a few of us are willing to fight the good fight so we can receive the antidote to his overflowing poison.

Uhhh... what? And if Satan is this powerful/prevalent, then... why, again, is the OP wrong?

You wonder WHY so few people truly give to charity to truly help those in need, NV? And this, even among those who call themselves Christian? You know. Don't you, NV? It's because we are capitalists filled with covetousness and lust; many of us are unable to separate ourselves from the possibility of a pleasure or an escape to be had at every waking moment.

So... Jesus was not a Republican?

There's even some, I've heard, who like to trust in illusions using ropes and chairs.

Are you referring to suicide or auto-erotic asphyxiation? How is either relevant to anything here?

And there you have it. Starkly Sad yet True. Yet we deny it. In fact, we deny it every day and keep on telling ourselves the same alibi. Day after day, year after sad long year. Of course, it hurts to know this, but I guess someone has to say it. It might as well be me.

Reading this post reminds me of the movie The Cell. Spoiler alert: the premise is that they go inside the mind of a madman.

And now I've finally realized why I believe so ardently. It's BECAUSE of the evil I see around me, not in spite of it. And this is also why I KNOW that Mormonism and Islam are false. So, with that, I thank you for helping me to fully realize this; I guess you deserve a 'thank you' for something at least.

2PhiloVoid

I don't know what it is you think you've realized, or how I'm involved in that, and I have no clue as to what exactly you are citing as to the reason why Mormonism and Islam are false.

Who are you and what have you done with 2PhiloVoid? How did you hijack his account?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Feel free to add me to your ignore list. Just let me know and I'll even do you the favor of not responding to anything you say. That way, other members won't think you're rude for ignoring me.

Surely you know that I don't have an ignore list, NV. As I've told others here, and maybe you didn't see my comments at an earlier time elsewhere here at CF, I have an absolute policy against using the Ignore function. I don't do that to anyone; although I'm confident it has been used on me a few times.

You need to stop with the 'rudeness' accusations. There are just times when any of us here may feel unmotivated to respond to every single jot and tittle that some other poster places before us. Besides, it's not like you've fully engaged or read through, or watched, many (if any) of the various sources I've linked you up with over the past two years.

So... Islam and Mormonism don't mention Satan?

Sure; those cults mention Satan, and they do so in similar, though not quite identical ways to New Testament writers. ...Just like they mention Jesus in similar, though not quite identical ways, to New Testament writers.

I don't know which deserves the "first of all" here, so...

1a) 666 refers to the Antichrist, not Satan.

Yep. So what? You're smart; you know what I mean.

1b) How is 666 everywhere? You believe in the Illuminati?

....I wouldn't say that I 'believe' in the Illuminati as it is glamorously depicted to be, as if it is merely some hidden, elite force of power and prestige. It might include something like that, but I don't think that is exactly what it is. In fact, I'm not sure that all of the purveyors of 666 always know that they are indeed what they are. Some of them might even think they're making the world a better place.

Yes, I believe that 666 represents and involves the influence of corrupt but organized criminals and some kind of esoteric, anti-Christian elites. But, 666 is much, much more than that ... it's not just some reference to a specific 'Illuminati' group as conspiracy theorists imagine it to be.

Uhhh... what? And if Satan is this powerful/prevalent, then... why, again, is the OP wrong?

To ask what is wrong is to approach the whole 'ball-of-wax' with the wrong epistemological framework, NV. Haven't you learned that yet? You keep hedging your bets that the Christian enterprise hinges on some kind of foundational, evidential outworking. Well, it doesn't. Sorry to disappoint you. When you open yourself up to this fact, God willing, then you'll perhaps begin to 'see' something. But as it is, you seem to be stuck in the old epistemological paradigm that your earlier Christian influences gave you.

So... Jesus was not a Republican?

Surely, you don't think I'm one of those Christians, do you? You really don't know me, do you, NV?

Are you referring to suicide or auto-erotic asphyxiation? How is either relevant to anything here?

It means whatever anyone wants it to mean; take it metaphorically and don't worry about it. I'm simply indicating that people do weird things because they're confused.

Reading this post reminds me of the movie The Cell. Spoiler alert: the premise is that they go inside the mind of a madman.

And reading your post reminds me of yet another movie ... but thanks for the "madman" compliment. I guess I should do a little jump for joy in response to that.

I don't know what it is you think you've realized, or how I'm involved in that, and I have no clue as to what exactly you are citing as to the reason why Mormonism and Islam are false.

Of course you don't have a clue; God will have to give you that.

Who are you and what have you done with 2PhiloVoid? How did you hijack his account?

Funny, NV. As always.

Peace?
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's try this again...since...well, you know, NV.

When I was a Christian, I was told that Joseph Smith, Muhammad (FBUH), and the like were in communication with the devil when they concocted their false religions. Alien abductees were actually victims of demonic encounters.

So Satan has the ability to create false religions, he has the desire to, and he has in fact succeeded in doing so.

Now, imagine that you're Satan in 1000 BC. You see that God has established a covenant with man and has set up specific rules for living, atonement of sins, and etc. You want to deceive these people. How do you do it?

Would you perhaps find a way to convince them that they don't need to perform animal sacrifices? Would you find a way to convince them that the temple is no longer a holy place? What if you could accomplish this by substituting for God someone else that they could worship? Would that be a worthwhile aim, again, pretending that you're Satan?

If I were Satan....I would try to get the people of God to accept a 'false prophet,' or more particularly get them to accept one who claims to be the One [big] Prophet but doesn't meet the requirements for this personage that God set out through Moses in the Pentateuch. (Deuteronomy 18:15-22)

The interesting thing is that if we look at the implications of Deuteronomy 18, both Mohammad and Joseph Smith are immediately disqualified since they don't measure up---neither of them was Jewish.

If you're Satan in 1000 BC, what parts of the New Testament would not seem like a good idea to you? In short, I'd like to know what parts of the New Testament could not have been authored or inspired by Satan. What parts of the New Testament contradict Satan's goals to the point that he would not advocate such ideas even to advance a false god for people to worship?

Probably, if I were Satan, I would think that bits and pieces about a Son of God or a 'Son of Man' could be reworked and/or challenged (especially if I didn't really understand what they referred to).

If you refuse to answer this, then you surrender your right to fling accusations of other religions or experiences being Satanic. And worse, if you refuse to answer, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not your beliefs are an extreme insult to YHWH.

Ok. I'm going to retain my 'right' to fling accusations at other religions or experiences as being Satanic (or at least partially so) ... and we continue ... But whether or not I will actually fling accusations is another issue altogether.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Let's try this again...since...well, you know, NV.
If I were Satan....I would try to get the people of God to accept a 'false prophet,' or more particularly get them to accept one who claims to be the One [big] Prophet but doesn't meet the requirements for this personage that God set out through Moses in the Pentateuch. (Deuteronomy 18:15-22)

Errr... ok... but why? Why would you deliberately choose an invalid candidate? Why not choose a candidate that is valid so as to cause legitimate confusion? Even you believe - granted that you accept the New Testament, which is in question here - that Satan can appear as an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:14. So believing that, why would you say this?

The interesting thing is that if we look at the implications of Deuteronomy 18, both Mohammad and Joseph Smith are immediately disqualified since they don't measure up---neither of them was Jewish.

I have to think that most Christians wouldn't interpret this passage that way since most - probably nearly all - Christians hold to authentic authorship of the gospels. It's one of the few Catholic traditions that transferred over to Protestantism. Thus most Christians believe that Luke, a gentile, wrote a gospel and also the canonized version of Acts. Given the assumption that his writings are divinely inspired, it follows that a gentile has spoken for God. Doesn't this make him a prophet, or does he have to predict future events to be a prophet?

Probably, if I were Satan, I would think that bits and pieces about a Son of God or a 'Son of Man' could be reworked and/or challenged (especially if I didn't really understand what they referred to).

Ok. I'm going to retain my 'right' to fling accusations at other religions or experiences as being Satanic (or at least partially so) ... and we continue ... But whether or not I will actually fling accusations is another issue altogether.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Well, I appreciate the effort, but if we are to "give the devil his due" - or, in other words, acknowledge that he is a worthy adversary - then we have to at the very least assume he is as intelligent as a mastermind criminal. I'm under the impression that he's far more intelligent than any human that's ever lived, so the bar must be at least that high. I don't think you give this "wandering, roaring lion" enough credit.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Errr... ok... but why? Why would you deliberately choose an invalid candidate? Why not choose a candidate that is valid so as to cause legitimate confusion?

If I were Satan, I'd want to exploit the perceptual and conceptual weaknesses which I know humanity is capable of, and I'd tempt people to de-emphasize the importance of paying attention to the biblical parameters of validity which mark a true prophet of God (such as are given in Deuteronomy 13). This exploitation would be particularly effective in the long run if I could bring about the misconstrual of the texts pertaining to the qualifications of priests, to the ONE PROPHET who was/is yet to come after Moses (as seen in Deuteronomy 18), as well as to the identity and purpose of the coming MESSIAH.

If we begin with the premise that the OT is true, and if we take into account the semantic pattern of deception employed by the Serpent wherein he inverts God's truth and subsequently seduces Adam and Even to sin in the Garden of Eden, then it seems that the use of an invalid prophet isn't something that Satan would simply ignore and pass up on.

Why would this be? Well, I'm sure Satan knows that humanity, in its separation from God, experiences fits of ignorance, emotional turmoil, relational instability and struggles to perceive the world--all of which can be used to his advantage. So, an invalid prophet would still provide an opportunity to distort people's understanding about God's Will, even more so if they could be dissuaded from making a concerted effort to understand God's Word. If the use of an invalid candidate further obscures the truth by which we discern God's Will, maybe because we don't understand God's Word in the first place, then this would serve as a strategy that is as good as any. (In fact, we see shadows of this in the OT major prophetic books--remember Hananiah?).

Even you believe - granted that you accept the New Testament, which is in question here - that Satan can appear as an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:14. So believing that, why would you say this?

If the New Testament isn't valid, then the statement by which we think that “Satan can appear as an angel of light” should be seen as invalid, too. It's not logical to apply a certain schema to Satan if the entire ideation through which that schema comes is itself false. Do we in fact know that Satan likes to "cross-dress" as an Angel of Light? How do we know this? Do we know it because we trust what Paul says? If not, why are we concerned about this possible schema of Satan?

The obverse of this can be seen in that, if it turns out that the NT is true, then we'd have to wonder why Satan would want to input something into Paul's writing that further elucidates the nature of Satanic power and warns us to be cautious of the very thing that has the potential to damn us the most.

I have to think that most Christians wouldn't interpret this passage that way since most - probably nearly all - Christians hold to authentic authorship of the gospels. It's one of the few Catholic traditions that transferred over to Protestantism. Thus most Christians believe that Luke, a gentile, wrote a gospel and also the canonized version of Acts. Given the assumption that his writings are divinely inspired, it follows that a gentile has spoken for God. Doesn't this make him a prophet, or does he have to predict future events to be a prophet?

Actually, the passage in Deuteronomy 18 isn't to be applied to just 'any' prophet, apostle, or writer of holy scripture, but rather, it applies specifically to “THE PROPHET.” We know that early Christians recognized this principle fairly early on, because it is reflected in the NT narrative where the inhabitants of Jerusalem discuss among themselves as to who exactly John the Baptist might be in fulfillment of the O.T., and as to who Jesus may be, also in fulfillment of the O.T.

So, the issue in Deuteronomy 18 has to do with identifying the BIG PROPHET, not just evaluating a writer of a NT gospel who also happens to be a Gentile.

Well, I appreciate the effort, but if we are to "give the devil his due" - or, in other words, acknowledge that he is a worthy adversary - then we have to at the very least assume he is as intelligent as a mastermind criminal. I'm under the impression that he's far more intelligent than any human that's ever lived, so the bar must be at least that high. I don't think you give this "wandering, roaring lion" enough credit.

I give Satan plenty of credance. Being that C.S. Lewis' book The Screwtape Letters was one of the first books I read upon becoming a Christian, I wouldn't say that I downplay Satan's possible character, ability or style of scheming. Certainly you could see additional evidence of this in my previous mini-rant about the prevalence of 666, which I think is clearly an expression of Satan's influence.

On a related note, if we're going to accept the “impression” that Satan is far more intelligent than what we might otherwise give him the credit for, then it seems to me we must also to do two things: 1) be under the impression that Satan does not act beyond the scope of God's intelligence, power, and authority, and 2) be aware that if we think we gain information about Satan via the NT, such as his facade of being an "Angel of Light," then by corollary we should also take seriously what it says about the nature of God's Will and the purposes of His Christ, Jesus of Nazareth.

So, don't worry, I'm all about giving the devil his due ... [... and no, this has no direct insinuation for you.]

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Lily of Valleys]

If you're Satan in 1000 BC, what parts of the New Testament would not seem like a good idea to you? In short, I'd like to know what parts of the New Testament could not have been authored or inspired by Satan. What parts of the New Testament contradict Satan's goals to the point that he would not advocate such ideas even to advance a false god for people to worship?

Satan's goal would be to take as many people's souls to hell with him, and if that is not possible, to alienate them from God as much as possible, so as long as he can twist one of the below in the New Testament he would be able to achieve his goal:

• what the Old testament teaches about God and His nature
• the Old testament's prophecies about the Messiah being God
  
• the same path to salvation as what the old testament teaches
• God's people not to worship creation and idols made by human hands
  
• God's people to be holy and not to do anything evil
• God's people to be obedient to God

 

[StTruth]

When I was a Christian, I was told that Joseph Smith, Muhammad (FBUH), and the like were in communication with the devil when they concocted their false religions. Alien abductees were actually victims of demonic encounters.

So Satan has the ability to create false religions, he has the desire to, and he has in fact succeeded in doing so.

Now, imagine that you're Satan in 1000 BC. You see that God has established a covenant with man and has set up specific rules for living, atonement of sins, and etc. You want to deceive these people. How do you do it?

Would you perhaps find a way to convince them that they don't need to perform animal sacrifices? Would you find a way to convince them that the temple is no longer a holy place? What if you could accomplish this by substituting for God someone else that they could worship? Would that be a worthwhile aim, again, pretending that you're Satan?

If you're Satan in 1000 BC, what parts of the New Testament would not seem like a good idea to you? In short, I'd like to know what parts of the New Testament could not have been authored or inspired by Satan. What parts of the New Testament contradict Satan's goals to the point that he would not advocate such ideas even to advance a false god for people to worship?

If you refuse to answer this, then you surrender your right to fling accusations of other religions or experiences being Satanic. And worse, if you refuse to answer, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not your beliefs are an extreme insult to YHWH.

Thanks again, Nihilist Virus, for your thought-provoking post. I will try to answer it plainly and truthfully.

First, i don't believe Satan exists. There are serious scholars who have suggested this and it's based on the total absence of any mention of Satan in the OT as we know him today. Further, some of the ancient religions are far older than Christianity or Judaism so it's ludicrous to say that Satan invented these religions thousands of years before God revealed his true religion (presumably Judaism) to the world.

I acknowledge a good argument can be made that Christianity perverts the original idea of God in the OT and hence it's started by Satan. But as a Christian, of course I don't believe that. But it's ultimately what I believe and what another person believes and no argument can sort these things out because they are all based on mere beliefs, and not evidence or objective truth.

Cheers,

St Truth.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Thanks again, Nihilist Virus, for your thought-provoking post. I will try to answer it plainly and truthfully.

First, i don't believe Satan exists. There are serious scholars who have suggested this and it's based on the total absence of any mention of Satan in the OT as we know him today. Further, some of the ancient religions are far older than Christianity or Judaism so it's ludicrous to say that Satan invented these religions thousands of years before God revealed his true religion (presumably Judaism) to the world.

I acknowledge a good argument can be made that Christianity perverts the original idea of God in the OT and hence it's started by Satan. But as a Christian, of course I don't believe that. But it's ultimately what I believe and what another person believes and no argument can sort these things out because they are all based on mere beliefs, and not evidence or objective truth.

Cheers,

St Truth.

As in the other thread, it appears we have no common ground. I cannot comprehend a genuine disinterest in the truth.

 

[StTruth]

As in the other thread, it appears we have no common ground. I cannot comprehend a genuine disinterest in the truth.

As I stated in the previous thread, we have more common ground than you do with other believers.

It's not true that I don't have an interest in the truth. I do. I am vividly alive to the fact that there are many areas where my faith conflicts with truth. The difference between us lies in our submission to the Church. I submit to it but you don't. That's all. We both have the same understanding of what the truth is. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that EVERYONE has the same understanding of what the truth is. It's just that some people refuse to acknowledge the truth because they think maintaining a falsehood as truth is essential for them to keep their faith. But I'm very clear in my mind what the truth is and what my faith is. Truth is a matter for the mind and faith for the heart.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Nihilist Virus]

As I stated in the previous thread, we have more common ground than you do with other believers.

It's not true that I don't have an interest in the truth. I do. I am vividly alive to the fact that there are many areas where my faith conflicts with truth. The difference between us lies in our submission to the Church. I submit to it but you don't. That's all. We both have the same understanding of what the truth is. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that EVERYONE has the same understanding of what the truth is. It's just that some people refuse to acknowledge the truth because they think maintaining a falsehood as truth is essential for them to keep their faith. But I'm very clear in my mind what the truth is and what my faith is. Truth is a matter for the mind and faith for the heart.

Cheers,

St Truth

So if the church is wrong, why do you submit? Also, are they unintentionally wrong or are they lying?

 

[StTruth]

So if the church is wrong, why do you submit? Also, are they unintentionally wrong or are they lying?

The church functions for the good of mankind. That is the ultimate goal of the faith. The Bible stories are used as a prop to that end. I don't see fiction as lies. The lesson behind the stories is always for good. Of course some of the stories are too crass and harsh to be used for good. So the church doesn't bring these up any more. Only people such as Dawkins do that. Dawkins talked a lot about Elisha praying to God who sent two she-bears to tear up 42 boys for teasing him for being bald. It's very hard to use that barbaric story for good and so the church never mentions it.

It's much too two-dimensional to see stories as either true or false, and if false, chuck it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The church functions for the good of mankind.

Suppose there was an openly atheist organization that helped the world as much as the church does. And suppose also that this organization was found to have been covering up the rape of thousands of children for decades. It would only be a matter of days before this organization was torn to the ground and all of its assets seized by the various governments of the world.

So at best, we can only attempt to discuss the "net good" that the church has done. Have their good deeds truly compensated for the thousands of raped children? Also we need to consider that the investigations of rape only went back several decades - anything beyond that and we are trying to interrogate dead priests and dead victims. It's not reasonable to speculate that the church was happily going on its way for nearly 2000 years and then suddenly there was a spontaneous outbreak of thousands of cases of rape all across the entire world.

Women have only been allowed to vote for 100 years in America, which was supposedly a democratic nation from the very start. For the entire age of the church, women have been oppressed. When women are oppressed, children are also because oppressed women are the keepers of children. So no child from 1000 years ago could accuse a priest of rape - that would have been considered lunacy, given the clout priests had.

So until evidence to the contrary arises, I'm going to assume that the church has been raping children for 2000 years at the same rate as was discovered in the recent scandals. I cannot conceive of how such an entity is good for humanity unless their propositions about eternal life are actually true. But of course, an organization that knows the truth does not need to destroy/fabricate/alter documents and execute dissenters.

That is the ultimate goal of the faith. The Bible stories are used as a prop to that end. I don't see fiction as lies. The lesson behind the stories is always for good. Of course some of the stories are too crass and harsh to be used for good. So the church doesn't bring these up any more. Only people such as Dawkins do that. Dawkins talked a lot about Elisha praying to God who sent two she-bears to tear up 42 boys for teasing him for being bald. It's very hard to use that barbaric story for good and so the church never mentions it.

It's much too two-dimensional to see stories as either true or false, and if false, chuck it.

Most Christians that I know of - even the ones who dismiss the entire Old Testament and accept the ideas of deep time and biological evolution by natural selection - insist that at least the core events of the gospel occurred in physical reality and were not intended as fictions. You cannot be a Christian if you don't believe that Jesus was killed and then rose from the dead. Attempting to place these events in physical reality and actual history is just not possible, and apologists at some point are compelled to dodge questions, abandon conversation, or simply lie - and that's what Dawkins et al have a problem with. Everything you've said here is basically untouchable by Dawkins or any atheist. We would be curious why you even bother to believe at all, given what you said, but beyond that there is little to be said.