“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#422041 Nov 23, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
The will just refuse to take their Haldol.
We have institutions for those kind of crazies.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422042 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree with Romans being banned. I think it belongs in the Bible. Perhaps I'm not presenting my thoughts clearly?
Okay, let's focus on strictly the NT. For right now, forget the rest of the Bible. We can come back to it after we get this ironed out. I get the sense that you're truly interested in my views (rather than just ridicule which tends to get a bit out of hand here, including myself among the guilty.)
Everything that is currently in the NT, regardless of whether the Synod of Laodicea endorsed it or not, is what I agree with, but not just because they voted and said so. Also, more specifically, I wish to keep my arguments focused on the 4 canonical gospels, and the book of Acts, which is a continuation of Luke. I don't mind discussing the rest at a later date. If this is agreeable to you, we'll leave it open for discussion. I'm not going to cut and run. If I don't answer right away, please don't assume that I won't answer at all. I will treat you with the same respect. I can wait.
Maybe you should go back and read my post again. I didn't ask you why you agreed with it being banned. I asked you why you disagreed.

Quote:
And why do you disagree with Romans being banned?

I'm sorry. You don't get to decide what questions I ask you. I'm sure you would rather discuss the gospels in the Bible. That's what most people are comfortable with. But I'm not here for your comfort.

You made a statement. I challenged it. That's the way things work on Topix. If you don't ever want to be challenged, then you should never type anything. Because no matter who you are, you are going to be challenged if you come as a Christian to a thread entitled 'Why I'm no longer a Christian' and start trying to prove to us that you have the 'truth', the only truth, and nothing but the truth.

We do not have faith that your 'truth' comes from fact. Therefore, it will be challenged.

If I were not interested in your views, I wouldn't hold a civil conversation with you. Period. But just because I am interested in your views does not mean that I will agree with them. If you're good with that, fine.

Your religious beliefs are just right for you and where you are in this life. Mine are just right for me and where I am in my life. I think you've probably had a really hard time coming to the point you are. You seem to be searching for something that tells you that no matter what, you are the good person you think you are. I would not argue that. But I would say it's not my idea of the reason one should search for answers to religion. I think you have to feel good about who you are and wonder why others in your religion think you're not. If you know you're a good person, then it's probably them, not you, who is in error.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422043 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>...I agree with every book that the Laodicean Synod approved of that is currently in the 66 book Protestant Bible....
So you agree with the books selected in 1650 from the ones selected 350 AND accept the ones rejected in 325 but were accepted in 1650 but NOT the ones selected 325 that were rejected in 1650.....based on absolutely no criteria at all.

<face palm>

So, is Romans in or out ?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#422044 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
True AnnieJ, but are you talking about testimony in a criminal court case where "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard, or in relation to history where there is a little more latitude? I do mean a little. History is not held to the same standard as a criminal court case is. Doing so would be unrealistic. Also, getting back to the subject of ethnocentrism, in today's modern media where everything is on film or audio, we are more skeptical of eye-witness accounts from antiquity. We have become cynical unless we can see it for ourselves.
It is either verifiable or it is not verifiable.
I will prefer the verifiable to make conclusion.
All else is hearsay, and is useless banter.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422045 Nov 23, 2012
Sorry for the double post. I am having problems with my mouse. It doubles or triples everything on which I click, like 'post comment'. ARGH!

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#422046 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We have institutions for those kind of crazies.
HA! If one does it under the guise of religionism it is accepted. If one does it as a secular citizen he/she is recommended for psychiatric treatment or institutional incarceration.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#422047 Nov 23, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
HA! If one does it under the guise of religionism it is accepted. If one does it as a secular citizen he/she is recommended for psychiatric treatment or institutional incarceration.
That is the hypocrisy of religious and the mob rule we still adhere to.

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#422048 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
True AnnieJ, but are you talking about testimony in a criminal court case where "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard, or in relation to history where there is a little more latitude? I do mean a little. History is not held to the same standard as a criminal court case is. Doing so would be unrealistic. Also, getting back to the subject of ethnocentrism, in today's modern media where everything is on film or audio, we are more skeptical of eye-witness accounts from antiquity. We have become cynical unless we can see it for ourselves.
When you call a book God's inspired word...when you tell people that they need to believe...when you tell them their fate is burning in hell...don't you think that it should be "beyond reasonable doubt"?

How many times were these eye witness accounts repeated before being written down? Did the author remember them exactly as how they were related or did they add filler? Through all of the rewrites did these stories stay the same or were they tweaked to be make more sense or fit the authors opinion?

If you choose to place your fate in the hands of eye witness accounts...okay.

Truth of the matter is...you have no more proof that your faith is any more accurate than mine...nor do I have any proof concerning my faith.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422049 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree with Romans being banned....
But you just said you agree with the Lacedocian "criteria".

Now you are saying their methods and decissions were wrong.

Please make up your mind.

Luther wanted Revelation removed.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422050 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We have institutions for those kind of crazies.
We used to. It was too expensive and most of them were/are shut down, begining in the 70's.

If they aren't suicide or homicide threats then they are turned away.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422051 Nov 23, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
HA! If one does it under the guise of religionism it is accepted. If one does it as a secular citizen he/she is recommended for psychiatric treatment or institutional incarceration.
Yep.

Believe in zombies and vampires you are a lunatic.
Believe in a zombie god-man then drink his blood and eat his flesh every Sunday and you are a fine Christian.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#422052 Nov 23, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree with the books selected in 1650 from the ones selected 350 AND accept the ones rejected in 325 but were accepted in 1650 but NOT the ones selected 325 that were rejected in 1650.....based on absolutely no criteria at all.
<face palm>
So, is Romans in or out ?
Romans go home!

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#422053 Nov 23, 2012
Would you trust a 2000 year old evaluation of a magic show?

David Copperfield would have been a powerful god to people of ancient times.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422054 Nov 23, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
But you just said you agree with the Lacedocian "criteria".
Now you are saying their methods and decissions were wrong.
Please make up your mind.
Luther wanted Revelation removed.
When you make a clear statement as to why you accept the canonized NT and do not accept that which is not due to a specific thing and then disagree with that specific thing.....

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422055 Nov 23, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
Would you trust a 2000 year old evaluation of a magic show?
David Copperfield would have been a powerful god to people of ancient times.
That's true. Moses' magic won out and his magic was not even compare to the magic of today.

Talk about seeing through ethnocentrism!

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#422056 Nov 23, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>Also, people disagreeing with him doesn't mean he is correct as he assumes that is the reason for people disagreeing with him by his statement.
I would also say that Resurrectionist thinks he is more knowledgeable about the Bible and its history than anyone else here. but people who have studied actual history and the Bible itself and do not use apologetics as an answer, but use their own knowledge seem to me to be more learned to me. But that's just an opinion.
And yes, almost every Christian comes here thinking they will make their case and everyone will just be in utter awe of them and agree with them. I can't imagine having an ego large enough to think that everyone will just believe what I tell them just because it's me doing the typing.
I agree with you that true knowledge is how to apply that which you have learned in the here and now. True spiritual knowledge is not a sermon. It's a whisper.
I have offended more than one Christian when I ask them to explain the scripture that they posted...what it means to them in their own words and how it affects their lives. One even accused me of trying to control him and how he posts to me.

Anyone can post scripture...I can read that for myself...I want to know...how that scripture plays a role in their daily lives. It must be a tough question because I seldom get a reply! LOL

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422057 Nov 23, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
But you just said you agree with the Lacedocian "criteria".
Now you are saying their methods and decissions were wrong.
Please make up your mind.
Luther wanted Revelation removed.
I was not specific enough which is my own fault. Everything that is currently in the Protestant Bible belongs there. Everything that the Laodicean Synod approved, which is currently included, is correct in my own estimation. Everything that is currently in the Protestant Bible that they rejected, should also be included. The later Council of Carthage (along with subsequent councils) have made corrections as needed, and yes I believe that minor mistakes have been made, but none that effect traditional Protestant Christian doctrine. When I was talking about the Laodicean Synod, in my mind I was specifically referring to the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John, plus Acts which is a continuation of Luke. So the fault is mine for not being specific.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422059 Nov 23, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you should go back and read my post again. I didn't ask you why you agreed with it being banned. I asked you why you disagreed.
Quote:
And why do you disagree with Romans being banned?
I'm sorry. You don't get to decide what questions I ask you. I'm sure you would rather discuss the gospels in the Bible. That's what most people are comfortable with. But I'm not here for your comfort.
You made a statement. I challenged it. That's the way things work on Topix. If you don't ever want to be challenged, then you should never type anything. Because no matter who you are, you are going to be challenged if you come as a Christian to a thread entitled 'Why I'm no longer a Christian' and start trying to prove to us that you have the 'truth', the only truth, and nothing but the truth.
We do not have faith that your 'truth' comes from fact. Therefore, it will be challenged.
If I were not interested in your views, I wouldn't hold a civil conversation with you. Period. But just because I am interested in your views does not mean that I will agree with them. If you're good with that, fine.
Your religious beliefs are just right for you and where you are in this life. Mine are just right for me and where I am in my life. I think you've probably had a really hard time coming to the point you are. You seem to be searching for something that tells you that no matter what, you are the good person you think you are. I would not argue that. But I would say it's not my idea of the reason one should search for answers to religion. I think you have to feel good about who you are and wonder why others in your religion think you're not. If you know you're a good person, then it's probably them, not you, who is in error.
I'm not trying to decide what questions you ask me. I wasn't specific enough and the discussion went a direction that was somewhat off the thought process I was discussing, or more accurately, wanting to discuss. I am trying to stay focused on one subject without going down several different rabbit trails.

In response to your statement that apologetics isn't history, I think a lot of it is. There are cosmological arguments which is apologetics, there are ontological arguments which is also apologetics. I also happen to believe that history is a part of the total package of apologetics. So let me ask a simple question.

It is my opinion that a majority of skeptics reject the use of apologetics because they see apologetics as canned responses designed to silence their objections towards accepting Christianity as a worldview. Does this reflect your current opinion of apologetics?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#422060 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything that is currently in the NT, regardless of whether the Synod of Laodicea endorsed it or not, is what I agree with, but not just because they voted and said so. Also, more specifically, I wish to keep my arguments focused on the 4 canonical gospels, and the book of Acts, which is a continuation of Luke.
Actually, you agree entirely because they said so. The fact is, if they had selected a completely different set of writings, that's what you would be agreeing with, as long as someone died for your "salvation". It's not your fault, you weren't there, and you have no choice as a believer. Since we have yet to see you express anything not "accepted", it's really hard to imagine you've done anything in your "research" but snag onto whatever bolsters the standard line.

What happens if we apply Occam's Razor to the NT salvation concept? It comes down to begging God to save us from.....God, who despises us and can't stand the sight of us unless we cloak ourselves with the son God had killed to save us from.....well, there it is again. God. There's something bass-ackwards about that, man.

Thomas Paine said it as clearly as can be said:

"In order to make for (Christianity) a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan a power equally as great, if not greater, than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterwards to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.

Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.

Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd, less contradictory. But, instead of this they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall."
The Age Of Reason

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422061 Nov 23, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
I have offended more than one Christian when I ask them to explain the scripture that they posted...what it means to them in their own words and how it affects their lives. One even accused me of trying to control him and how he posts to me.
Anyone can post scripture...I can read that for myself...I want to know...how that scripture plays a role in their daily lives. It must be a tough question because I seldom get a reply! LOL
I don't mind answering questions on scripture at all. If I don't understand it, I'll tell you I don't. The majority of NT scripture I see as ushering in the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ, as foretold in the OT.

I think I have a very unique perspective on scripture that is tough to put into words at times. I try to keep in mind that I can not prove anything to people who don't want that proof. I try to keep in mind that a lot of people have misconceptions because they try to compare our own culture to the culture of ancient times. This is what I mean when I say people are being ethnocentric. I'm talking about historical ethnocentrism. This is what people don't understand, and it's why opinions and hypotheses and facts get all jumbled into a cluster-flop. What I try to do is untangle this mess.

I am convinced through my own research that the core historical truths are more plausible than any competing theories or hypotheses.

This is what gives meaning to my life. Not that it's absolutely and literally true as printed in black and white,(literalism) but that the conclusions reached by the consensus of scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of this subject are more plausible than all other competitive hypotheses and objections. I have double checked a lot of their work,(and even that is only scratching the surface of the available information) and have found that the majority of modern historically based apologetics are closer to the truth than all other objections combined.

This has nothing to do with me needing a crutch to be a good person. because if I accept the truth of the Bible (what I believe to be true) then I am a flawed human being, and my own efforts to "be good" are useless anyway. The key for me is to trust that Jesus is the Son of God, and His resurrection is His signature on the tapestry of human history, like a signature on a contract, that we are destined for bigger and better things after we biologically die.

If people don't want to accept this, and only live for what is here and now, that is their choice, and if they're okay with that, there's not much I can say to change that. However, for those who just might want to explore the possibility and probability that any of this is true, then my purpose is to present what I believe is most plausible in light of the information that is currently available.

End of story.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 min NEWS-FLASH 174,528
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min dirty white boy- 753,517
Michelle Nunn policy 6 min Obama 5
Long Term Effects of Alcohol What it Really D... 8 min yon 6
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 18 min Dorian_Gay 262,069
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 33 min yon 38,899
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 56 min Epiphany2 602,762
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr hojo 550,793

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE