Atheism-o-Phobia

[BackInAction]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Oh thanks, I guess I’ll disregard the 1500-1700 years of record keeping and historians, along with the philosophers, theologians, priests, laity, and I’ll just believe your belief that you probably picked up in some atheist “historian” book on the Bible that it was written in fragments, sometimes hundreds of years apart, based on hearsay of illiterate people. Yeah I’m sure Jesus would say the words fucked up too. What crassness. Maybe you should actually pick up a history book, instead of reading fiction on shit that you don’t know about.[/quote]

there was no jesus and the anecdotes of him are all far older then him. How do you explain that?
The wonders and various gods (which even the bible mentions), which were abundant back then and aren’t now, the stolen myths and the convergent myths around the world. the “absence” of god in hundreds of thousands of years in mankind’s history, the oral tradition, which is, again, pretty similar across the world, and which doesn’t give a shit about details and words. etc etc
[/quote]

There is no Jesus, interesting because as of now there is three historical documents that record the man named Jesus. All these claims no proof. Interesting, I wonder if this came out of a book written by a historian with an atheist agenda. I’m not sure what most of this says, you lost me.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You obviously have never picked up a Bible because even though part of the fundamentals are in the 10 commandments, the whole ten commandments are not the basic fundamentals. And there is more to being a Christian than just the fundamentals. Sorry, as a Christian you don’t get to pick a choose what you follow, in the Catholic Church we have a name for those people. Cafeteria Catholics. Mormons have a name for the same thing in their church, Jack Mormons. Secular Jews in Judaism, and I’m sure Muslims the same thing. As I say, if you’re not going to follow the damn instructions fuck it. Might as well go through the thing blind.

perhaps you’ll tell us straight why you won’t follow some EXPLICIT words and follow others , which are rather vague, then? Why don’t you just drop the old testament completely if it’s just “history”. Why do you refuse to look at the rest of the bible from a historic point of view? This is the archetype of today’s mildly religious, semi-educated, cherrypicking, cafeteria religiousness,

[/quote]

I do follow the Bible literally, I’m not sure what you are referring to. Maybe you can give me an example so I understand what you are getting at. The Old Covenant is very important to me, it is more than just history. Where did I say it is just history? I’m extremely religious, so much so I would call myself a radical. I may be semi-educated (I am finite after all), but at least I have a 2000 year institute to give me answers. Please bring proof if you are going to name call.[/quote]

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.

[Spartiates]

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.

[BackInAction]

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.[/quote]

Exactly. This is why people use it as guidelines and follow parts of it.

[haney1]

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.[/quote]

Exactly. This is why people use it as guidelines and follow parts of it.[/quote]

I think he is over generalizing his statement and you in turn are over simplifying yours.

In my opinion it isnâ??t that we pick and choose what to follow and what not, it is that we qualify the statements before the contradictions and that allows us to follow the principles
of Christianity while ignoring some of the old testament.

As an example a Christian will say that they donâ??t follow the 10 commandments because that is under the law and we are not under the law, but under grace.

Basically all he is saying is that grace supersedes the law and he isnâ??t bound by that law.

This is a similar argument that Paul uses in the book of Romans.

So basically when he says he follows it literally he isnâ??t really lying, he is expecting you to under stand that by follow grace he is fulfilling the law as well since grace removed the need for the law.

[Spartiates]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.[/quote]

Exactly. This is why people use it as guidelines and follow parts of it.[/quote]

I think he is over generalizing his statement and you in turn are over simplifying yours.

In my opinion it isnâ??t that we pick and choose what to follow and what not, it is that we qualify the statements before the contradictions and that allows us to follow the principles
of Christianity while ignoring some of the old testament.

As an example a Christian will say that they donâ??t follow the 10 commandments because that is under the law and we are not under the law, but under grace.

Basically all he is saying is that grace supersedes the law and he isnâ??t bound by that law.

This is a similar argument that Paul uses in the book of Romans.

So basically when he says he follows it literally he isnâ??t really lying, he is expecting you to under stand that by follow grace he is fulfilling the law as well since grace removed the need for the law.
[/quote]

Yes.

Essentially you can make an argument based on Paul, someone who never had any contract with Jesus, that you can throw out the entire old testament.

Paul also gives us crazy things like a war between heaven and hell being literally fought by angles and demons, end times, ect. which allow you to re-cast the entire Bible in a whole new light.

Paul, who again, has no real authority, even by Biblical standards. Yet, somehow made it into the Bible… hmmmm…

[haney1]

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.[/quote]

Exactly. This is why people use it as guidelines and follow parts of it.[/quote]

I think he is over generalizing his statement and you in turn are over simplifying yours.

In my opinion it isn�¢??t that we pick and choose what to follow and what not, it is that we qualify the statements before the contradictions and that allows us to follow the principles
of Christianity while ignoring some of the old testament.

As an example a Christian will say that they don�¢??t follow the 10 commandments because that is under the law and we are not under the law, but under grace.

Basically all he is saying is that grace supersedes the law and he isn�¢??t bound by that law.

This is a similar argument that Paul uses in the book of Romans.

So basically when he says he follows it literally he isn�¢??t really lying, he is expecting you to under stand that by follow grace he is fulfilling the law as well since grace removed the need for the law.
[/quote]

Yes.

Essentially you can make an argument based on Paul, someone who never had any contract with Jesus, that you can throw out the entire old testament.

Paul also gives us crazy things like a war between heaven and hell being literally fought by angles and demons, end times, ect. which allow you to re-cast the entire Bible in a whole new light.

Paul, who again, has no real authority, even by Biblical standards. Yet, somehow made it into the Bible… hmmmm…[/quote]

Is that a rebuttal or do you just enjoy throwing out logical fallacies in a discussion that have no relevance?

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.[/quote]

Exactly. This is why people use it as guidelines and follow parts of it.[/quote]

I think he is over generalizing his statement and you in turn are over simplifying yours.

In my opinion it isn�?�¢??t that we pick and choose what to follow and what not, it is that we qualify the statements before the contradictions and that allows us to follow the principles
of Christianity while ignoring some of the old testament.

As an example a Christian will say that they don�?�¢??t follow the 10 commandments because that is under the law and we are not under the law, but under grace.

Basically all he is saying is that grace supersedes the law and he isn�?�¢??t bound by that law.

This is a similar argument that Paul uses in the book of Romans.

So basically when he says he follows it literally he isn�?�¢??t really lying, he is expecting you to under stand that by follow grace he is fulfilling the law as well since grace removed the need for the law.
[/quote]

Yes.

Essentially you can make an argument based on Paul, someone who never had any contract with Jesus, that you can throw out the entire old testament.

Paul also gives us crazy things like a war between heaven and hell being literally fought by angles and demons, end times, ect. which allow you to re-cast the entire Bible in a whole new light.

Paul, who again, has no real authority, even by Biblical standards. Yet, somehow made it into the Bible… hmmmm…[/quote]

Is that a rebuttal or do you just enjoy throwing out logical fallacies in a discussion that have no relevance?[/quote]
This topic would have more relevance if brought up in my Misconceptions of Christianity 2 thread than a thread about Atheism-o-Phobia.

[haney1]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.[/quote]

Exactly. This is why people use it as guidelines and follow parts of it.[/quote]

I think he is over generalizing his statement and you in turn are over simplifying yours.

In my opinion it isn�??�??�?�¢??t that we pick and choose what to follow and what not, it is that we qualify the statements before the contradictions and that allows us to follow the principles
of Christianity while ignoring some of the old testament.

As an example a Christian will say that they don�??�??�?�¢??t follow the 10 commandments because that is under the law and we are not under the law, but under grace.

Basically all he is saying is that grace supersedes the law and he isn�??�??�?�¢??t bound by that law.

This is a similar argument that Paul uses in the book of Romans.

So basically when he says he follows it literally he isn�??�??�?�¢??t really lying, he is expecting you to under stand that by follow grace he is fulfilling the law as well since grace removed the need for the law.
[/quote]

Yes.

Essentially you can make an argument based on Paul, someone who never had any contract with Jesus, that you can throw out the entire old testament.

Paul also gives us crazy things like a war between heaven and hell being literally fought by angles and demons, end times, ect. which allow you to re-cast the entire Bible in a whole new light.

Paul, who again, has no real authority, even by Biblical standards. Yet, somehow made it into the Bible… hmmmm…[/quote]

Is that a rebuttal or do you just enjoy throwing out logical fallacies in a discussion that have no relevance?[/quote]
This topic would have more relevance if brought up in my Misconceptions of Christianity 2 thread than a thread about Atheism-o-Phobia.[/quote]

Just in case…

While I agree with you, my point on relevance was specific to his comment, most of the statements about Paul have no bearing on Paul’s statements on the topic of grace I cited.

couple that with some passer by comment on why Paul has no authoirty in the Bible which he doesn’t offer any reasons why.

I stand by my point that all he did with his post was commit logical fallacies that have no relevance to my post on clarifying Bro. Chris’s position. Which I technically can’t speak for him, I just took a guess based on a general acceptance of the issue by most Christians.

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.[/quote]

Exactly. This is why people use it as guidelines and follow parts of it.[/quote]

I think he is over generalizing his statement and you in turn are over simplifying yours.

In my opinion it isn�??�??�??�?�¢??t that we pick and choose what to follow and what not, it is that we qualify the statements before the contradictions and that allows us to follow the principles
of Christianity while ignoring some of the old testament.

As an example a Christian will say that they don�??�??�??�?�¢??t follow the 10 commandments because that is under the law and we are not under the law, but under grace.

Basically all he is saying is that grace supersedes the law and he isn�??�??�??�?�¢??t bound by that law.

This is a similar argument that Paul uses in the book of Romans.

So basically when he says he follows it literally he isn�??�??�??�?�¢??t really lying, he is expecting you to under stand that by follow grace he is fulfilling the law as well since grace removed the need for the law.
[/quote]

Yes.

Essentially you can make an argument based on Paul, someone who never had any contract with Jesus, that you can throw out the entire old testament.

Paul also gives us crazy things like a war between heaven and hell being literally fought by angles and demons, end times, ect. which allow you to re-cast the entire Bible in a whole new light.

Paul, who again, has no real authority, even by Biblical standards. Yet, somehow made it into the Bible… hmmmm…[/quote]

Is that a rebuttal or do you just enjoy throwing out logical fallacies in a discussion that have no relevance?[/quote]
This topic would have more relevance if brought up in my Misconceptions of Christianity 2 thread than a thread about Atheism-o-Phobia.[/quote]

Just in case…

While I agree with you, my point on relevance was specific to his comment, most of the statements about Paul have no bearing on Paul’s statements on the topic of grace I cited.

couple that with some passer by comment on why Paul has no authoirty in the Bible which he doesn’t offer any reasons why.

I stand by my point that all he did with his post was commit logical fallacies that have no relevance to my post on clarifying Bro. Chris’s position. Which I technically can’t speak for him, I just took a guess based on a general acceptance of the issue by most Christians.
[/quote]
I know I was just pointing it out the people who were bringing up apparent contradictions in the bible.

[Tiribulus]

Paul did a masterful job of expositing exactly what the purpose of the law was/is and exactly how the finished work of the sinless, crucified and risen Christ is the sum of every bit of it in all it’s holiness and justice. The spirit and the letter are not always the same practical thing as even David understood clearly 1000 years before Christ.

Obeying some parts is still essential and disobeying others now is. Adultery is still sin, but now in the age and covenant of Grace, being circumcised as a service to God, while once essential is now itself sin and evidence of a lack of understanding of the gospel by Paul’s own declarations. To cite a couple examples. Once the foundations of biblical knowledge are laid knowing the difference isn’t even that tricky in most cases.

[pat]

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.[/quote]

Exactly. This is why people use it as guidelines and follow parts of it.[/quote]

I think he is over generalizing his statement and you in turn are over simplifying yours.

In my opinion it isn�¢??t that we pick and choose what to follow and what not, it is that we qualify the statements before the contradictions and that allows us to follow the principles
of Christianity while ignoring some of the old testament.

As an example a Christian will say that they don�¢??t follow the 10 commandments because that is under the law and we are not under the law, but under grace.

Basically all he is saying is that grace supersedes the law and he isn�¢??t bound by that law.

This is a similar argument that Paul uses in the book of Romans.

So basically when he says he follows it literally he isn�¢??t really lying, he is expecting you to under stand that by follow grace he is fulfilling the law as well since grace removed the need for the law.
[/quote]

Yes.

Essentially you can make an argument based on Paul, someone who never had any contract with Jesus, that you can throw out the entire old testament.

Paul also gives us crazy things like a war between heaven and hell being literally fought by angles and demons, end times, ect. which allow you to re-cast the entire Bible in a whole new light.

Paul, who again, has no real authority, even by Biblical standards. Yet, somehow made it into the Bible… hmmmm…[/quote]

Huh? Paul did to have contact with Jesus…In Acts? Jesus knocked him off of his horse and blinded him?

[pat]

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I do not think you follow the Bible literally. If you did, you would be in violation of the rules of the ten commandments.[/quote]

And your head would explode trying to workout how to literally follow contradictory directives given by different parts of the Bible.[/quote]

for instance?

[Spartiates]

[quote]pat wrote:

Huh? Paul did to have contact with Jesus…In Acts? Jesus knocked him off of his horse and blinded him? [/quote]

You’re confusing Pauls. Saul, who became Paul, never met Jesus, and was picked up by Peter after Jesus has already died.

[haney1]

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Huh? Paul did to have contact with Jesus…In Acts? Jesus knocked him off of his horse and blinded him? [/quote]

You’re confusing Pauls. Saul, who became Paul, never met Jesus, and was picked up by Peter after Jesus has already died.[/quote]

lol

[ephrem]

Speaking at the most recent EG conference, author, philosopher, prankster and journalist A.J. Jacobs talks about the year he spent living biblically – following the rules in the Bible as literally as possible.

http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html

[pat]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Huh? Paul did to have contact with Jesus…In Acts? Jesus knocked him off of his horse and blinded him? [/quote]

You’re confusing Pauls. Saul, who became Paul, never met Jesus, and was picked up by Peter after Jesus has already died.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

So, if you change your name, what happened under your previous name is not longer applicable to you??

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Speaking at the most recent EG conference, author, philosopher, prankster and journalist A.J. Jacobs talks about the year he spent living biblically – following the rules in the Bible as literally as possible.

http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html[/quote]

I gotta admit, this was interesting. He verified what I said before, there is no such thing as a Bible literalist. It’s impossible.
As to the rituals of yore, the purpose for those rules was to get uneducated people to do the right thing, really. That’s it. Washing hands? Keeps dirt and germs out of food. Circumcision, Keeps dirt off the pee pee. If you don’t wash all that much, it’s problem. Why circumcise on the 8th day? Because that is when the clotting factors are most prevalent in the human infant. Most of those ancient rituals had a purpose for the time and place where they were.
The punishments, for instance, were harsh because your dealing with basically a grungy uneducated motorcycle gang. They may not understand good reasoning or what makes a healthy family, but they know a big rock cracking your skull hurts. These ancient Jews were not exactely easy to deal with…

[duffyj2]

I am always struck by how pedantic arguments on this forum become. I was reading the Feynmann lectures yesterday and uncovered a lovely quote that describes it quite well…

• We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophersâ?¦ one saying to the other: “you don’t know what you are talking about!”. The second one says: “what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?” -

[haney1]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Huh? Paul did to have contact with Jesus…In Acts? Jesus knocked him off of his horse and blinded him? [/quote]

You’re confusing Pauls. Saul, who became Paul, never met Jesus, and was picked up by Peter after Jesus has already died.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

So, if you change your name, what happened under your previous name is not longer applicable to you??[/quote]

That isn’t what he is claiming. If I am guessing his argument correctly He is claiming that the Paul who wrote most of the NT is some unknown Paul and is not linked with the Paul of acts.

IIRC: the claim is that the second unknown Paul was actually trying to lead a revolt against Rome.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Speaking at the most recent EG conference, author, philosopher, prankster and journalist A.J. Jacobs talks about the year he spent living biblically – following the rules in the Bible as literally as possible.

http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html[/quote]

I gotta admit, this was interesting. He verified what I said before, there is no such thing as a Bible literalist. It’s impossible.
As to the rituals of yore, the purpose for those rules was to get uneducated people to do the right thing, really. That’s it. Washing hands? Keeps dirt and germs out of food. Circumcision, Keeps dirt off the pee pee. If you don’t wash all that much, it’s problem. Why circumcise on the 8th day? Because that is when the clotting factors are most prevalent in the human infant. Most of those ancient rituals had a purpose for the time and place where they were.
The punishments, for instance, were harsh because your dealing with basically a grungy uneducated motorcycle gang. They may not understand good reasoning or what makes a healthy family, but they know a big rock cracking your skull hurts. These ancient Jews were not exactely easy to deal with…[/quote]

…i welcome the day when the Jewish, Muslim and Christian people of this earth and all demoninations realise that much of their religious ideology is outdated and non-applicable. By all means keep the good parts: be kind; live well; do no harm. What the rest is concerned: it’s archeology…