ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

[Rolf Ernst]

Prodigal--You are very unscientific. You don't even believe there is any substance or basis for the mathematical law of probabilities. If you did have any confidence in them, the Bible is the first book you would embrace. Your rejection of it flies in the face of reason and rationality.

 

[Granite]

The Bible is not a mathematic or scientific proof text. It was not designed to be.

 

[On Fire]

Rolf, granite1010 has trouble understanding basic concepts. You are encouraged to use the following reference book when communicating with him:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-4742855-5778438?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by On Fire

Rolf, granite1010 has trouble understanding basic concepts. You are encouraged to use the following reference book when communicating with him:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-4742855-5778438?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

And you can't hold your own in a halfway intellectual conversation. I'd rather be a hellbound apostate than a religious fanatic without a clue.

 

[On Fire]

Too bad you're not halfway intellectual - then we could see about that!

 

[prodigal]

Rolf,

there IS the unity Christ prayed for is evident by anyone who is really interested in the truth

The definition of truth varies from Christian to Christian. Christians can’t even decide upon how one comes to salvation (free-will vs. election). With this being the case, wouldn’t you say that the minutia (nice word, by the way) often defines how Christians approach the crucial elements, therefore the crucial elements are defined by how Christians approach their minute doctrine?

those from different denominations can still find fellowship in Christ.

Very few can actually do that from what I have experienced in the past twenty years. Perhaps there are exceptions to the rule, but I’ve noticed that Christians are far more absorbed with the minutia than the crucial elements. The minutia has caused a fragmentation that sets a standard of unreliability in anything that Christians say or hold themselves to.

You are very unscientific.

Never claimed that I was. YOU claimed that I was. You based your entire argument upon the assumption (even after I have denied it) that I am a scientifically based person. I’m not, so stop saying I am bad at something that I never espoused to begin with. You can’t base your rightness on your own false claims about someone else’s position. That’s just not cool.

You don't even believe there is any substance or basis for the mathematical law of probabilities

When did I ever say this? This is just preposterous Rolf. I understand the math that you’ve been using, what I don’t understand is how you take sound math, and then transpose your conclusions upon it. You’ve never been able to explain your stretches, I’ve asked over and over and over again, and you’ve never done it.

If you did have any confidence in them, the Bible is the first book you would embrace.

Where do you get this? How do you draw this conclusion from the premise? The consistency of the premise proves the consistency of the premise, not the stretch FROM the premise to the conclusion. Please, explain how you have drawn this conclusion from a sound mathematical premise.

Your rejection of it flies in the face of reason and rationality.

Once again, please explain. You haven’t yet, I’ve begged you to and you have completely avoided it. You have premises, you have conclusions, you have never supplied an explanation of how you get from one to the other.

On Fire,

You have added nothing to the debate.

You aren’t doing Rolf a lick of good because he has been unable to explain how he draws his fantastical conclusions from sound premises. If you can’t help him do that, maybe you should not say anything.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Lighthouse--getting to your scripture reference which you say disproves Calvinism--"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

I have a question for you. Do you see in this text an expressed motivation for Christ not yet having returned? If so, what is that motive?

I ask because I want to get some insight into the nitty-gritty of what you believe this text teaches.

I believe that it teaches that God doesn't choose anyone to perish. This verse disproves that fallacy of "election."

 

[prodigal]

Dairy Queen,

I've been able to determine a couple of things in my research.

The gospel of Mark was written between 60 and 70 AD.

Tradition dictates that Mark was the author, but no one really knows for sure.

An early church father, Papias is said to have mentioned the possibility that Mark was simply taking dictation from Peter, or was recording what Peter said.

The book of Mark was more than likely re-arranged after Mark compiled all of his work from fragments passed on to him from oral traditions. From what I've been able to find, it's assumed that Mark's work was edited some time after he wrote it. By who? I'm not sure if any one has any clue.

The oldest copy of Mark ends at 16:8. The KJV adds a new ending that is not attributed to Mark's original authorship.

Except for Mark 13, there are no major speeches by jesus.

There is room to doubt that Mark 13 was original to Mark. There is speculation that it was added later.

Galatians, Thessalonians and both Corinthians were all written before Mark.

Marcan priority is the belief that Mark was the first of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke depended upon it for their source material.

Apparently there is strong evidence to suggest that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a basis for their writings.

80% of Mark is copped by both Matthew and Luke.

The title of "According to Mark" was not attributed to the work until the 2nd century.

Eusebius quotes Papias in Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord as saying:

"And the Presbyter used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

What this means is that Mark did not witness the events he writes of. It also means that he did not write what Peter told him in the chronological order of the events. It also means that since he did not write these things in order, it was edited later by some unknown fellow who we now must believe was divinely inspired.

Just some food for thought, DQ.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Dairy Queen,



I’ll seek god when I’m ready to. You have given me no reason to believe that your god is the one to seek.

I never said what specific god to seek. I merely said that you should seek Him. This means that you should seek God, seperate of any doctrine or dogma. Just seek the Creator, to see if He is there. Then, when you find Him, seek the answers to the questions you have, from Him.

So you pick and choose at your whim that which you choose to interpret literally and metaphorically?

No. I decide what to believe as a metaphor, or similie, or literal based on the context, and what the context says. There is a verse in Revelation that speaks of God's legs being as pillars. I do not beleive that God's legs are pillars. But I can see that it says they were like pillars, as in they are huge and solid, like pillars are.

Shrug. Denominations are pointless anyway.

Agreed.

And ignoring scripture? Why not?

Because the only way to be a Biblical church is to take all scripture, in context, not ignoring any of it for the purposes of doing what you want. Just because one verse backs up a belief, doesn't mean that the interpretation is correct. Scripture should be interpreted in light of scripture. If one interpretation clashes with the rest of scripture, then it is false.

For every verse you can find backing up a particular denomination’s doctrine you can find a verse that backs up a completely different doctrine. The bible is as unreliable as it is consistent. It certainly doesn’t warrant as much seriousness as you lend it. Wantsdirection seems to have a pretty good handle on what Christianity should be like. Very loose, not too serious, but still a discipline.

It's telling that she constantly struggles with whether or not she is saved.

You’re just a fanatic.

How so? Is it wrong to be zealous?

I’m not certain, I’m just trying to figure out what the heck you believe. I don’t understand what you believe, DQ. Okay, what you’re saying is this (stop me if I’m wrong): I’m not part of god’s plan until I submit to his will, but my existence is still WITH purpose, even though that purpose doesn’t help your god’s plan succeed?

It doesn't hinder His plan, either.

Oh, you make it up as you go along! I get it now. That’s why none of what you say ever makes sense, you’re probably just as confused as I am.

I made nothing up.

"And I believe what I believe is what makes me waht I am
I did not make it, no it is making me
It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man"
-Rich Mullins
'Creed'

I learned about Open Theism from other people. Maybe you should learn what something actually means, before assuming and throwing out libelous statements. Open Theism is the belief that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge fo the future.

But what Paul preached seems to be nothing more than that of a mystical resurrection, not a physical one.

How so?

So Paul doesn’t support the gospel account? An account that is in four parts, four parts that are in constant disagreement with themselves, four accounts that barely match each other, four accounts that except for the names and some of the places could be four almost completely different stories.

Do what? How did you get the idea that Paul doesn't support the gospel account, from what I typed?

I’ve been looking. If you know scripture so well, maybe you should help?

I thought you said you didn't trust in scripture. Paul said that we are saved if we believe that God raised Jesus from the dead [Rom. 10:9].

Maybe you should do some research. All I had to do was read a couple of books.

I've heard this before. I just don't know what people base it on. If it were true, then the disciples who wrote three of them would have had to have been in their 70s, at least, when they were written.

Christians were despised by almost everyone at their inception. They were claiming commonly known mythical elements as their own, they were anti-family, they stood against the morals, traditions and values of the their culture and age. Paul was persecuting them because they were a danger to society, as they still are today.

:darwinsm:

Anti-family?
Stood agains morals?

:darwinsm:

How does this have anything to do with this discussion?

I read the whole chapter when I found it, but it escapes me right now. I’ll have to go back and reread it, but you’re probably right.

I'll wait.

He preached it in a mystical sense. I’ve only been able to find one piece of scripture (1 Cor. 15) that makes even a vague reference to a physical resurrection, but it’s weak at best. If you know of any others let me know. Whatever Paul was teaching more closely resembles the mystical teachings of contemporary or even past myths. You say Mithra didn’t gain followers until after Christ, that may be, but it also makes sense. Christians took the myths seriously. They took traditional myths meant to teach a moral lesson and they applied them to their own ideas of religion and began to take the myths literally.

I never said Mithra didn't have followers until after Christ. I said the Mithraic beleifs that are similar to Christianity were not a part of Mithraism until after Christ.

It means that even Paul recognized that it wasn’t a fact based matter, and he was alive when jesus was crucified. He didn’t know if jesus actually rose again in a physical sense, but he knew of mythical traditions that taught of a spiritual resurrection, so he applied traditional myths to the story of jesus, using the mystical resurrection of the spirit, not the super-natural phenomenon of physical resurrection which is impossible. He knew of no physical resurrection, just the spiritual one that had been taught for quite some time and was already in acceptance.

The disciples were preaching Christ resurrected. That is what Paul knew. He had already heard what they said.

And please don’t call me stupid.

I didn't say you were. I asked if you were.

but the epistles are a major basis of modern theology. Yes the rest of the bible is taken into account, but the teachings of Paul are exceptionally important to whatever theological claims you make. Please, DQ, help me find an epistle reference to the physical resurrection of Christ.

Already done.

And please don’t call me a moron.

Then stop saying moronic things.

No, I don’t take any of their words. I’m saying that their words are in conflict with one another and therefore the whole is unreliable.

Examples?

Whatever. From what I understand, Paul didn’t have the gospels as a reference, just witnesses and oral tradition. The gospels were written after the epistles of Paul, not the other way around. Paul was speaking in mystical language, the gospels were written as if it were literal.

The gospels were written by those who were there, with the exception of Luke. They were written accounts of what had already been preached. And Paul heard what the writers of the gospels preached, before he ever wrote word one of his epistles.

I read books, DQ.

And where did they get their idea from? Do they have any proof?

Aren’t you supposed to be the bible expert? If you can’t see the discrepancies between the four accounts than you’re just as blind as you claim me to be.

I know of a few discrepancies, but nothing that can't be attributed to who the account is from, and the different points of view. You say you know some, but can't provide anything to back your position up. The burden of proof lies on you.

Yet Paul doesn’t mention this, as far as I know. Why wouldn’t Paul use Peter’s eye witness testimony to better validate his theology? If it was something that everyone just took for granted, why is it not mentioned more often and in more concrete language?

Who says he didn't? Acts is pretty clear that Paul and Peter knew each other. And so is Galatians 2.

My contention is that there was no physical resurrection. The gospel accounts were written according to the agenda and theology of the writers. Paul was making mystical, non-literal analogies using jesus as the main character of the story.

How so?

Perhaps, but it was more than likely a spiritual, mystical resurrection, not an impossible physical one.

How is resurrection impossible for an omnipotent God? Do you think the resurrection of Lazarus is a myth, as well?

DQ, you’re a barbarian compared to me.

How so?

Is that all you’ve got?
It's what I believe. And it does not contradict scripture.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Dairy Queen,

I've been able to determine a couple of things in my research.

The gospel of Mark was written between 60 and 70 AD.

Any proof?

Tradition dictates that Mark was the author, but no one really knows for sure.

And?

An early church father, Papias is said to have mentioned the possibility that Mark was simply taking dictation from Peter, or was recording what Peter said.

And? Mark was there, either way.

The book of Mark was more than likely re-arranged after Mark compiled all of his work from fragments passed on to him from oral traditions. From what I've been able to find, it's assumed that Mark's work was edited some time after he wrote it. By who? I'm not sure if any one has any clue.

Mark was one of the twelve. So why do you assume there was nothing of his own accounts in his gospel?

The oldest copy of Mark ends at 16:8. The KJV adds a new ending that is not attributed to Mark's original authorship.

Proof?

Except for Mark 13, there are no major speeches by jesus.

Even if that were true, what does it matter?

There is room to doubt that Mark 13 was original to Mark. There is speculation that it was added later.

Proof?

Galatians, Thessalonians and both Corinthians were all written before Mark.

So? Proof?

Marcan priority is the belief that Mark was the first of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke depended upon it for their source material.

I agree that Luke depended on previous accounts. But I don't see why Matthew would have. Matthew was one of the twelve disciples.

Apparently there is strong evidence to suggest that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a basis for their writings.

And that evidence is what?

80% of Mark is copped by both Matthew and Luke.

Like what?

The title of "According to Mark" was not attributed to the work until the 2nd century.

So?

Eusebius quotes Papias in Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord as saying:



What this means is that Mark did not witness the events he writes of. It also means that he did not write what Peter told him in the chronological order of the events. It also means that since he did not write these things in order, it was edited later by some unknown fellow who we now must believe was divinely inspired.

Just some food for thought, DQ.

Papias was a fool if he believed that Mark was not an eye witness to the events.

 

[Granite]

Brandon, what prodigal's said about the gospel of Mark is accepted as fact by scholars both liberal and conservative. That you're not well-read on this subject isn't prodigal's fault, it's yours. Read a book or two. Don't expect someone else to do your homework for you.

 

[prodigal]

Lighthouse,

Scripture should be interpreted in light of scripture. If one interpretation clashes with the rest of scripture, then it is false.

It’s my contention that this happens far too often for it to be considered reliable.

It doesn't hinder His plan, either.

Doesn’t clarify anything. What purpose does my existence serve if it does not add to the success of your god’s over all plan?

Open Theism is the belief that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge fo the future.

So you believe that god’s knowledge is limited? I thought he knows all that can be known?

quote:But what Paul preached seems to be nothing more than that of a mystical resurrection, not a physical one.


How so?

Look at the context. He never refers to the death and physical resurrection of jesus in a literal sense. It’s always in vague terminology, the only time he makes reference to the physical resurrection is when he states it to be a matter of faith, not fact.

Do what? How did you get the idea that Paul doesn't support the gospel account, from what I typed?

Didn’t you say that it was unnecessary for Paul to support the gospel accounts because it was already common knowledge amongst the disciples?

I thought you said you didn't trust in scripture. Paul said that we are saved if we believe that God raised Jesus from the dead [Rom. 10:9].

But it’s always a faith based matter. Paul never gives any one any reason to believe that these actually happened. He never makes a clear reference to the physical resurrection.

If it were true, then the disciples who wrote three of them would have had to have been in their 70s, at least, when they were written.

Exactly.

Anti-family?
Stood agains morals?
How does this have anything to do with this discussion?

Christians were incited to leave their families, to separate themselves from everything they had known and to follow Christ.

You mentioned Paul’s persecution of Christians, that’s what it has to do with the discussion. Have you ever read anything besides the bible? Have you ever read anything being critical of the bible? Are you interested at all in knowing why people have their doubts?

I never said Mithra didn't have followers until after Christ.

I think you did.

I said the Mithraic beleifs that are similar to Christianity were not a part of Mithraism until after Christ.

This rings a bell, but I don’t think it’s true.

quote:No, I don’t take any of their words. I’m saying that their words are in conflict with one another and therefore the whole is unreliable.


Examples?

Just look at the accounts of jesus’ appearances after the “resurrection”. Mark doesn’t even have any.

The gospels were written by those who were there, with the exception of Luke.

And except for Mark whose work was copped by Matthew and Luke by up to eighty percent.

They were written accounts of what had already been preached.

Except the gospels make no mention of Paul’s Christian work. Curious, especially if Mark was written between 60 and 70 AD, you know, so long after Paul began his work.

You say you know some, but can't provide anything to back your position up. The burden of proof lies on you.

You’re right, but I don’t always have a bible handy. You’ll have to give me a little time.

Who says he didn't? Acts is pretty clear that Paul and Peter knew each other. And so is Galatians 2.

You do, but just because they knew each other doesn’t mean that Paul ever quoted Peter’s testimony.

quote:My contention is that there was no physical resurrection. The gospel accounts were written according to the agenda and theology of the writers. Paul was making mystical, non-literal analogies using jesus as the main character of the story.


How so?

If you don’t get it, that’s too bad. There were certain ways of telling mythical stories back in the day, and Paul used those methods to convey the story of jesus using mystical elements to help teach a lesson.

How is resurrection impossible for an omnipotent God? Do you think the resurrection of Lazarus is a myth, as well?

Because you have admitted that you cannot prove the existence of your god. How can I believe that your god is all powerful when he cannot be proven to exist? And with that as the case, how am I supposed to believe impossible stories about him?

Your expectations are far too unrealistic.

Lighthouse, just go online, or read some books. The information is there, I’m not going to waste my time going into details when you could just as easily do it yourself. The details exist, the evidence is there, just look for it. Read all four accounts of the gospel and count the discrepancies. There are questions of Christianity that have no good answers. Why don’t you look into the arguments of those you oppose to get a better understanding of their beliefs?

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

I was a Christian for 20 years, now I’m on the other side of the table, a perspective you couldn’t possibly begin to imagine.

I'm just tired of talking to you.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

Brandon, what prodigal's said about the gospel of Mark is accepted as fact by scholars both liberal and conservative. That you're not well-read on this subject isn't prodigal's fault, it's yours. Read a book or two. Don't expect someone else to do your homework for you.

I just want to know what proof the scholars have. Did they back it up, or just accept it arbitrarily?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,



It’s my contention that this happens far too often for it to be considered reliable.

Do what? I don't think you were following along. Scripture does not contrast with scripture. People's interpretations are what contrast.

Doesn’t clarify anything. What purpose does my existence serve if it does not add to the success of your god’s over all plan?

I'M NOT A CALVINIST!

How may times do I have to tell you that? Not everything is in God's plan. And even stuff outside His plan has a purpose, apart from His plan.:doh:

So you believe that god’s knowledge is limited? I thought he knows all that can be known?

He does. The future is non existant, and therefore can not be known. Get it?

Look at the context. He never refers to the death and physical resurrection of jesus in a literal sense. It’s always in vague terminology, the only time he makes reference to the physical resurrection is when he states it to be a matter of faith, not fact.

You're an idiot. Paul speaks of the resurrection as if he believes that it happened physically, and tells those he writes to to believe in it just the same. And the verse I gave you doesn't even use the word faith. It says to "believe in your heart."

Didn’t you say that it was unnecessary for Paul to support the gospel accounts because it was already common knowledge amongst the disciples?

And among those they preached to, and those Paul preached to. I said it was unecessary for Paul to recount the gospel accounts. I never said it wasn't necessary for him to support them.

But it’s always a faith based matter. Paul never gives any one any reason to believe that these actually happened. He never makes a clear reference to the physical resurrection.

So, faith in God's existence isn't beleif that He actually exists? You're a moron.

Exactly.

And?

Christians were incited to leave their families, to separate themselves from everything they had known and to follow Christ.

By who? Don't you think their families were enticed to come along, and follow Christ as well?

You mentioned Paul’s persecution of Christians, that’s what it has to do with the discussion.

It was a rhetorical question. Paul was persecuting Christians for heresy in their preaching of the risen Christ.

Have you ever read anything besides the bible?

No. Huh uh.

Have you ever read anything being critical of the bible?

Well, I;ve read your posts. And granite's.

Are you interested at all in knowing why people have their doubts?

I know why people have their doubts, and it's all based on out of context verses. Or not being able to read, as was the case with your contention of Michal and her children.

I think you did.

When?

This rings a bell, but I don’t think it’s true.

:yawn:

Just look at the accounts of jesus’ appearances after the resurrection”. Mark doesn’t even have any.

It does in my Bible. Of course, it's in the verses you say weren't a part of the original.

And except for Mark whose work was copped by Matthew and Luke by up to eighty percent.

Where do you get this crap? Matthew was one of the twelve. And wasn't John Mark, as well?

Except the gospels make no mention of Paul’s Christian work. Curious, especially if Mark was written between 60 and 70 AD, you know, so long after Paul began his work.

Let's see. The events accounted in the gospels took place before Paul was converted...:doh: You really are a tool.

You’re right, but I don’t always have a bible handy. You’ll have to give me a little time.

Tick tock.

You do, but just because they knew each other doesn’t mean that Paul ever quoted Peter’s testimony.

Yet you can't provide any proof that he didn't.:nono:

If you don’t get it, that’s too bad. There were certain ways of telling mythical stories back in the day, and Paul used those methods to convey the story of jesus using mystical elements to help teach a lesson.

:blabla:

What mythical elements are you talking about?

Because you have admitted that you cannot prove the existence of your god. How can I believe that your god is all powerful when he cannot be proven to exist? And with that as the case, how am I supposed to believe impossible stories about him?

I didn't say He copuldn't be proven. I can't prove Him, because it is not up to me. It's up to you to find Him.

Your expectations are far too unrealistic.

No. Yours are.

Lighthouse, just go online, or read some books. The information is there, I’m not going to waste my time going into details when you could just as easily do it yourself. The details exist, the evidence is there, just look for it. Read all four accounts of the gospel and count the discrepancies. There are questions of Christianity that have no good answers. Why don’t you look into the arguments of those you oppose to get a better understanding of their beliefs?

All I asked was what the proof was. And I have heard all you have said about when the gospels were written, from other sources, before. But I have yet to see anything to back it up. I've also seen proposals that they were written a lot earlier.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Are you suggesting I should invite you over for dinner?

I was a Christian for 20 years, now I’m on the other side of the table, a perspective you couldn’t possibly begin to imagine.

And I wouldn't hope to. But, as I've said, you never knew Christ.

I'm just tired of talking to you.

Then shut up.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I just want to know what proof the scholars have. Did they back it up, or just accept it arbitrarily?

Brandon: I am not going to do your homework for you.

However--if you read something like "Unger's Bible Handbook" or just a general encyclopedia of the Bible you'll get some general information. I'm encouraging you to read more about the book you depend on! Come on! This should be a no brainer.

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by prodigal

Because you have admitted that you cannot prove the existence of your god. How can I believe that your god is all powerful when he cannot be proven to exist? And with that as the case, how am I supposed to believe impossible stories about him?

You can't. Those who don't believe God exists can't expect to receive anything from Him. Only a fool believes there is no God. The wise take Him at His Word, and find Him True.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[PureX]

This is always so cult-like. "If you don't believe, you won't believe". "If you don't believe, you'll demand proof, but God doesn't give you proof unless you believe".... It's all such foolishness. You could say all these same things about the belief that you're a bunny rabbit. As long as you already believe you're a bunny rabbit, you will "see" proof that what you believe is true, because you already believe it is true. But if you don't already believe that you're a bunny rabbit, you won't see any proof that you are one. So the proof that you really are a bunny rabbit is that you can't see that you're a bunny rabbit unless you already believe that you're a bunny rabbit.

How can people be so stupid?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by PureX

This is always so cult-like. "If you don't believe, you won't believe". "If you don't believe, you'll demand proof, but God doesn't give you proof unless you believe".... It's all such foolishness. You could say all these same things about the belief that you're a bunny rabbit. As long as you already believe you're a bunny rabbit, you will "see" proof that what you believe is true, because you already believe it is true. But if you don't already believe that you're a bunny rabbit, you won't see any proof that you are one. So the proof that you really are a bunny rabbit is that you can't see that you're a bunny rabbit unless you already believe that you're a bunny rabbit.

How can people be so stupid?

Exactly. It's extremely cult-like. I'm starting to think that all of Christianity is, in one way or another, some kind of psychological aberration. (Well, not just Christianity; any kind of religious fundamentalism, really.)

PureX, I may have asked you before, but are you familiar with "memes" and the connection some make between memes and Christianity?

 

[prodigal]

Lighthouse,

I'M NOT A CALVINIST!

How may times do I have to tell you that? Not everything is in God's plan. And even stuff outside His plan has a purpose, apart from His plan.

Fine, whatever you say. What you believe makes absolutely no sense.

Scripture does not contrast with scripture. People's interpretations are what contrast.

The meaning of scripture is defined by the interpretation. Rolf is right, for the most part Christians are able to agree on the crucial points (those things that are crucial to salvation) but even those points were interpreted and decided upon by mere men. Whatever you believe may be what the bible says, but the bible says a lot of things. There’s no way to determine which interpretation is correct, because for every doctrine you follow there’s a contrary one that others follow and can make an equally strong case for.

The future is non existant, and therefore can not be known. Get it?

I thought your god was supposed to live outside of time and sees it as a whole. What about all of the scripture passages referring to your god’s foreknowledge of the future?

You're an idiot. Paul speaks of the resurrection as if he believes that it happened physically, and tells those he writes to to believe in it just the same. And the verse I gave you doesn't even use the word faith. It says to "believe in your heart."

That may be so, but if you actually read Paul’s words than you’ll be able to tell that not even he knows for sure. It’s just as faith based for him as it is for everyone else. He doesn’t know, he just believes.

So, faith in God's existence isn't beleif that He actually exists? You're a moron.

Not what I said at all. I’m not an idiot, I’m not a moron. I’m saying that you’re interpreting something literally that was supposed to be taken as a metaphorical lesson, like the rest of the literature of the NT author’s day and age.

Don't you think their families were enticed to come along, and follow Christ as well?

Seeing as how Christianity was hated even at it’s inception, I doubt too many broken families would follow their raving children in a religion that was copping every myth they had grown up with.

Well, I;ve read your posts. And granite's.

Doesn’t really count. Read Wheless, read Doherty. Read the Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read.

I know why people have their doubts, and it's all based on out of context verses. Or not being able to read, as was the case with your contention of Michal and her children.

That’s not all that it’s based on. Like I said, because you are still a Christian, my perspective and Granite’s perspective are too unique for your little brain to handle. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Also, I commended you for being able to explain the discrepancy in the Michal passage, but that was one contradiction of many that I cited and only one of many more that I didn’t. Even if these contradictions were enough for someone not to believe, it would be more than enough.

It does in my Bible. Of course, it's in the verses you say weren't a part of the original

Scholars educated in this realm of study will tell you that. I’m just pointing out what people light years ahead of yourself know for a fact.

Where do you get this crap? Matthew was one of the twelve. And wasn't John Mark, as well?

Reading. Reading what scholars who have studied the origins of the bible have to say. And John Mark and Mark are two completely different people as I understand it. Might be wrong, but I don’t think I am. All you have to do is read Matthew and Luke and compare them to Mark while you’re doing it.

Really easy.

The events accounted in the gospels took place before Paul was converted...

That’s right. Why does that make me a tool?

Yet you can't provide any proof that he didn't.

Than prove me wrong and cite scripture where Paul is quoting Peter’s account of the gospel story. In the epistles that is.

What mythical elements are you talking about?

God coming to earth as a man, the death and resurrection, etc. These are themes that are recurring throughout history. Christianity copped a lot of them and its followers started taking them seriously. Only the retelling of the myths was now centered around jesus. If you don’t know this stuff, it’s too bad.

Are you suggesting I should invite you over for dinner?

No, but one day I’ll pull up to your Dairy Queen in my Chrysler 300C and have you make me an oreo blizzard.

And I wouldn't hope to. But, as I've said, you never knew Christ.

How disgustingly pretentious of you, barbarian.

Please don’t tell me to shut up. You’re the most unpleasant person I’ve run across in a long time. Reading your words makes me tired you superstitious peasant.

Aimiel,

You can't. Those who don't believe God exists can't expect to receive anything from Him. Only a fool believes there is no God. The wise take Him at His Word, and find Him True.

You’re back from the corner? Did you have fun with that huge list of contradictions in your ancient book?

PureX,

Hit the nail right on the head. You will see whatever you want to see depending on what you believe. If you believe you’re from another planet you’ll be able to find reasons to back it up. It’s called your imagination getting the better of you. It’s called your mind playing tricks on you. LH is suffering from this malady to the umpteenth degree.

Yours truly,

Prodigal

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by PureX

How can people be so stupid?

What would you have God do, prove Himself by circumstances? Just because the god of this world has manipulated circumstances (death, wars, illness, misfortune, etc.) does that make him supreme, in your estimation? The Lord has chosen to reveal Himself to those who trust Him, and not to those who might, were He to reveal Himself openly, turn away at the first sign of any opposition. When you're looking for someone to go into battle on your behalf, and wage total war against the enemy, upholding your rule of the land, you don't want people who would only join if you forced them to, you want people who join because they believe in you and what you stand for. When people believe that because there is no proof that God exists it must mean that He doesn't, that's what is stupid. God could reveal Himself, and make everyone bow to His Will at all times, but we wouldn't be walking around in free will, as we are. Angels behold Him, but He has chosen to veil His Presence from us, so that we could appreciate Him more than they.