Changes
:An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."
:What follows from that is my (very minimal) analysis of that. Most of it consists of the construction of an analogy. If what I had written had been more along the lines of "so, if we take the Christian message ''X'' to be true, then ''Y'' and ''Z'' can be deduced from that, and if ''Z'' is true, then that leads us to ''A'', ''B'', and eventually to ''C''....", then it would be fairer to call it "one man's view". But in fact all I've done is to restate the Christian message. The "final catch" in my last paragraph is the well-known John 3:16. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::Your essay is very interesting, as it shows how Jesus is trying to reach to you, and how you struggle with what you've been falsely taught. You fall just short of explicitly stating the alleged 'contradiction' in the Bible, in the manner you describe here (if X then Y thus Z). I think it would be very beneficial for yourself if you tried to, as you would have the opportunity see where your argument fails. Regards,--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::(EC) There is far too much interpretative distortion in this essay for this to be entitled "the Bible." Just to take your first example from Hebrews 9:22 about shedding blood, that is a reference to mostly ''animal'' sacrifice in the Old Testament tradition, the audience of the essay (Letter ''to the Hebrews''). Yet your essay treats that like it must always mean the shedding of human blood.
::An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
