Comments
398,541 - 398,560 of 441,212 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“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.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#422062 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Please forgive me if I mention that this "evolution" of yours sounds like just making it up as one goes along. You expressed a conviction, were challenged, you recognize the validity of the challenge, and now you make advantageous "adjustments" in response.

This behavior eerily parallels the development of the gospel legends. Paul's letters came first. You'll note in Pauls' letters a glaring deficiency - you'll find NO miracles and signs of Jesus beyond the alleged resurrection, you'll find NO direct reference to Jesus' teachings and ministry, not one single parable or teaching, no virgins, no miracles, no healings. Somewhere in there a published Mark appeared, short and sweet, with a few "signs", but also with no resurrection. Matthew and Luke really layered on the details, just as one would expect in the telling and re-telling of a story in competition with other stories. Matt especially went over the top scouring faulty translations of Hebrew scripture with which to beef up their burgeoning hero Godman.
Time went by, numerous conflicting traditions sprang up surrounding the Jesus figure, challenges to the gospel story achieved popularity as well.

Finally, John was written specifically to address these objections,as well as to incorporate bits of the rival traditions, most notably that of Thomas and the Judaizers. John is without doubt the most anti-Semitic book in the Bible outside of Paul's letters, reflecting the very real and vicious rivalry Paul and his cohorts felt for the original apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422063 Nov 23, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>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.
No, not at all. I do have a choice. The gnostic gospels exist. I could easily adapt to the philosophies there. I could adopt Hinduism. The thing is, after doing years of research, my opinion is that modern Protestant Christianity is closer to the truth than anything else. I was raised in a Roman Catholic Irish home. I agree with G_O_D (if I'm understanding him correctly) that much of what the RCC did in the years between the Council of Carthage and the Protestant Reformation was to control and twist the truth to further their own political agenda. In my view, the Protestant Reformation challenged the RCC's stranglehold on spiritual knowledge and made it available to the common man on the street.

Where G_O_D and I disagree, is on the subject of the Pauline traditions vs. Gnosticism. I believe strongly that Paul was very misunderstood,(and still is) and is an integral part of the total worldview we call Christianity.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422064 Nov 23, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Please forgive me if I mention that this "evolution" of yours sounds like just making it up as one goes along. You expressed a conviction, were challenged, you recognize the validity of the challenge, and now you make advantageous "adjustments" in response.
This behavior eerily parallels the development of the gospel legends. Paul's letters came first. You'll note in Pauls' letters a glaring deficiency - you'll find NO miracles and signs of Jesus beyond the alleged resurrection, you'll find NO direct reference to Jesus' teachings and ministry, not one single parable or teaching, no virgins, no miracles, no healings. Somewhere in there a published Mark appeared, short and sweet, with a few "signs", but also with no resurrection. Matthew and Luke really layered on the details, just as one would expect in the telling and re-telling of a story in competition with other stories. Matt especially went over the top scouring faulty translations of Hebrew scripture with which to beef up their burgeoning hero Godman.
Time went by, numerous conflicting traditions sprang up surrounding the Jesus figure, challenges to the gospel story achieved popularity as well.
Finally, John was written specifically to address these objections,as well as to incorporate bits of the rival traditions, most notably that of Thomas and the Judaizers. John is without doubt the most anti-Semitic book in the Bible outside of Paul's letters, reflecting the very real and vicious rivalry Paul and his cohorts felt for the original apostles and disciples of Jesus.
In response to your statement that I'm making it all up as I go along, don't I have the right to clarify my original intended argument? People misspeak all the time, and then back up to clarify. That's just intelligent conversation. It's expected that people will make mistakes in what they say. I'm not claiming perfection here. I wasn't specific enough, and now I'm correcting that. Are you saying that I can't or shouldn't now that you think you have me on the ropes? Sorry, but this is an open discussion. We all have the right to clarify our original intent.

Paul's letters weren't about detailing Jesus' miracles. Oral tradition of the time was already doing that. Paul wouldn't need to.
Paul's letters were instructions to the various early churches to unify them in a time when disunity would crush the growth of the church.

I am of the opinion that Matthew wrote his gospel first, and in Hebrew because he was a Jewish tax collector. I am also of the opinion that all 4 gospels plus Acts were written prior to the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem. I have already gone into the reasons why I believe this. There are other reasons that I didn't go into, that I could, but will save for now. Do you want me to go over this again at a later date?

How could John be anti-Semitic in light of the fact that he was also a Jew? If anything, John was taking shots at the leaders who turned Jesus over to the Romans for execution. His comments wouldn't have been directed at ALL Jews.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#422065 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
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'll tell ya, friend, if you don't see the smug condescending tone you've taken to using, you are quite possibly borderline sociopathic. If you are aware of it, then you're just another puffed-up pompous piety-peddler. We've seen scores of them file through here, believe me, each one declaring their Pyrrhic "victories", which itself belies a deep insecurity. In either case, it ain't conducive to a genuine dialogue. Just sayin'...

You're not going to catch too many flies using this tactic of asserting your research as somehow more in-depth and superior to those you deign to converse with. Again, if you've never come across anything that gives you pause, and so far you've admitted none, then you very obviously "researched" only that which underscored your pre-convictions. At the same time, you recognize it as a weakness, so you attempt to pre-emptively blunt such a charge with the common rhetorical tactic of accusing it in others before it can be used against you.

How would it be if you assume that your dance partner may have tramped these steps just as lively as yourself? Could it be that these lowly sinners really DO take the question seriously, really DO yearn for spiritual and/or philosophical truths, really do care for the nature of man and his folly? I've said it before - we ain't no young pups here (but dashed good-looking for all that;) and we're well past the age of seeking to escape our responsibilities to a possible God. We each of us also have our own "very unique perspective" on the scripture we grew up with, and which many of us lived with conviction, until that is, we got really serious about it and actually examined that which we'd believed. A little credit, as a courtesy, if nothing else?
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>I am convinced through my own research that the core historical truths are more plausible than any competing theories or hypotheses.
This is where your argument is weakest. It is the "core historical" FACTS (as opposed to subjective "truths") that most severely undermine the gospel accounts, and yes, I say that having researched extensively the cultural and historical context. Again, faith that relies on historical "truths" is not faith at all. Paul warned you about that, didn't he?

“Messenger w/ a Message”

Since: Sep 07

planet earth, for now

#422066 Nov 23, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll tell ya, friend, if you don't see the smug condescending tone you've taken to using, you are quite possibly borderline sociopathic. If you are aware of it, then you're just another puffed-up pompous piety-peddler. We've seen scores of them file through here, believe me, each one declaring their Pyrrhic "victories", which itself belies a deep insecurity. In either case, it ain't conducive to a genuine dialogue. Just sayin'...
You're not going to catch too many flies using this tactic of asserting your research as somehow more in-depth and superior to those you deign to converse with. Again, if you've never come across anything that gives you pause, and so far you've admitted none, then you very obviously "researched" only that which underscored your pre-convictions. At the same time, you recognize it as a weakness, so you attempt to pre-emptively blunt such a charge with the common rhetorical tactic of accusing it in others before it can be used against you.
How would it be if you assume that your dance partner may have tramped these steps just as lively as yourself? Could it be that these lowly sinners really DO take the question seriously, really DO yearn for spiritual and/or philosophical truths, really do care for the nature of man and his folly? I've said it before - we ain't no young pups here (but dashed good-looking for all that;) and we're well past the age of seeking to escape our responsibilities to a possible God. We each of us also have our own "very unique perspective" on the scripture we grew up with, and which many of us lived with conviction, until that is, we got really serious about it and actually examined that which we'd believed. A little credit, as a courtesy, if nothing else?
<quoted text>This is where your argument is weakest. It is the "core historical" FACTS (as opposed to subjective "truths") that most severely undermine the gospel accounts, and yes, I say that having researched extensively the cultural and historical context. Again, faith that relies on historical "truths" is not faith at all. Paul warned you about that, didn't he?
What's up Hip?

“Messenger w/ a Message”

Since: Sep 07

planet earth, for now

#422067 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
You've never offended me, Annie.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422068 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.....
So you don;t use the Laodicean "criteria" as you previously claimed.

You have yet to answer "WHY" you accept any of it.
Just be honest and admit you have no idea why you even accept the Protestant Bibles over the Catholic ones...yes Plural, but we'll teach you about that later.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422069 Nov 23, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>....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
BULL"S EYE !!!!!!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min Truth 539,562
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 18 min Catcher1 734,045
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 19 min bad bob 173,312
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 25 min Jim Justice 118,133
wonders on temple of solution (Jun '11) 45 min please help me 46
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Porkpie Hat 258,216
Sharing my wife's nude pics to be exposed 1 hr dobryidrug 32
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Stephania capitani 600,207
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••