For example:
"Good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell."
"God can do anything."
"God knows everything."

Biblically (and common sensibly) speaking, all of the above statements are false. For example:
-- "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms, and do not determine a person's entry into Heaven or Hell anyway.
-- God can't do nonsense (in response to another's question, "Can God make a rock that he can't lift?").
-- God does not know everything, if he chooses to forget people's sins once they repent.

What has this watered-down presentation of the Gospel done to modern people's faith (or lack thereof)?

The underlying problem with your example is that they are interpretations of the bible.  While to you they are false, they also are quite true.


I agree with your definition  on good and bad. However, the saying is also considered as defining that a "good" person is one who follows the laws of the bible and living the way of the denomination.  "Bad"  are people who do not "believe" in the same way or act in deference to the denominations view of the laws.  This definition allows for the statement to be true.  Is there not a common saying that if you keep doing "bad" or "not believing" a certain way that the person will go to hell.  It is a cornerstone of "saving" people from their consequences of life.
Anxiety makes a valid point that God as described by the Jews is beyond the rules of the universe. He lives outside of creation and is not bound by our logic. Which allows the last two statement to be true also.

The watered down analogies do not diminish the faith of the people, but does show that people have become mentally lazy in their quest for knowledge and meaning of the words in the bible.  They have given their authority and rationale to those who "coin" these sayings as was once the way that the bible was taught in the early years of the church before the population was able to read the bible on their own.

I wouldn't assert that so quickly and matter-of-factly. The positive position to those questions has been defended  by theologians for centuries.

It has also been "asserted matter of factly" by theologians. I'm not aware of anyone who has satisfactorily answered the nonsensical question posed, or others like it. I also think that debating them is a waste of time, but that's just my opinion.

God may exist outside the bounds of logic. Even a person can forgive without forgetting.

Granted, but first of all God is not a human and we should not attribute human qualities to him where it is not appropriate. Secondly, the Bible says God chooses not to remember our sins. Doing a little bit of research shows that the interpretation of that is up in the air (i.e., may not be literally forgetting, etc.), but my statement was based on Scripture.

While to you they are false, they also are quite true.

Something cannot be true and false at the same time. Either I'm wrong, or you're wrong, but we can't both be right, as much as proponents of the self esteem movement would like us to believe.

However, the saying is also considered as defining that a "good" person is one who follows the laws of the bible and living the way of the denomination.  "Bad"  are people who do not "believe" in the same way or act in deference to the denominations view of the laws.  This definition allows for the statement to be true.  Is there not a common saying that if you keep doing "bad" or "not believing" a certain way that the person will go to hell.  It is a cornerstone of "saving" people from their consequences of life.

While this is an excellent point, I think it only further shows that watering down the Gospel had led to confusion and lack of faith. There's no real definition of what is good or bad, since we live in a society in which others believe it is "bad" to have faith and "good" to reject faith.

Anxiety makes a valid point that God as described by the Jews is beyond the rules of the universe. He lives outside of creation and is not bound by our logic. Which allows the last two statement to be true also.

While I agree that God is not bound by our limited understanding of him, it doesn't mean we can just make up whatever we want about him and call it true. Certainly it makes no sense in our world for a being to be made up of three separate entities (Father, Son, and Spirit), but there is Scriptural basis for that. God also can't interfere with our free will -- although if you want to be really pedantic about it, maybe it's my choosing of the word "can" or "can't," which implies ability. Theoretically I suppose he could do anything he wants, but there are things he just does not do (i.e. "nonsense," messing with our free will, etc.).

The watered down analogies do not diminish the faith of the people, but does show that people have become mentally lazy in their quest for knowledge and meaning of the words in the bible.  They have given their authority and rationale to those who "coin" these sayings as was once the way that the bible was taught in the early years of the church before the population was able to read the bible on their own.

Therein lies the bedrock of my original post. By not reading the Scripture and thinking and praying on our own, it gets VERY confusing for people on the "outside" to accept what Christianity really is.

Another avenue of thought is that your quotes are reflective of a mentality and interpretation that is 2000 years old. It has not evolved with society so that they now are whimsical and nonsensical.  Jesus, told his disciples that the Holy Spirit was taking over his teachings for humanity and we have as a theology placed a period at the end of the bible instead of a comma noting a new change of thought and interpretation. That of the Holy Spirit.

Also agreed.

As Bruce likes to illustrate, in quantum physics, light is a wave and a particle at the same time.  While in motion it is a wavelength, yet fixate that wavelength to a stop and it is a particle.  So we can have two views on the same topic that are opposite.

Also, both parties can be correct as neither may have the entire facts in front of them.

If you don't have all the facts, the conclusion you come to most likely isn't correct... so it's more accurate to say that both parties are INcorrect. (Better to view it this way anyway -- more room for growth.) Also, Bruce's illustration requires conditionals, i.e. the light must be in motion to be considered a wavelength. The fact that it behaves as a wave is contingent upon the fact that it is moving. So we can make a statement about anything else, but as soon as we start adding conditionals, it's no longer the same statement.

Excellent ending thought which could lead to a whole new tangent.  I agree that there is no real definition of good or bad but maybe the thought should be on the end result. What is the purpose of faith?  There are many different definitions but I would like to place the thought that the end result according to the bible is that humanity finds a way to end our quarrels and we look out for each other's best interest. That is faith in the final outcome, it doesn't matter where you are religious, atheistic, or have any different belief system.

I honestly don't know of anyone who would disagree with that statement. However, I think that is only a secondary goal of faith. I think the first goal of faith is to form a relationship with God. Getting back to the original point, I don't think watered-down statements about God help people get any closer to him.

What do you mean "indentured?"

Oh, I see. I agree with what you're saying. I thought you meant that it's possible to achieve a better human race without God's help.

Not at all.