Jesus didn’t write the goddamn Bible. He was dead two hundred years before they even began writing the New Testament books.
[/quote]
I expected you to be a tad bit more informed on when the New Testament was written.
The most conservative estimate of the writtings being completed is 75 A.D.
The most liberal estimate of the writings being completed is 140 A.D.
The last one puts them no later than a century. Mind you that is all 27 books being completed by that date. Most thouh are estimated to have been finished at latest by 95 A.D.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
John S. wrote:
pookie wrote:
John S. wrote:
The ultimate sacrifice(Jesus) died to take all the sins of the world from past present and future. Meaning God was no longer vengeful for every sin as long as you ask for forgiveness.
So, if I get this correctly, we could summarize thus:
The first little prototype couple in God’s oddly flawed creation made ONE mistake (an innocent one too, since they had no sense of right and wrong at the time) and “Mister Infinite Love and Mercy” threw a fit and, in anger, drove his own “children” out of their home and held a grudge for century after century.
His idea of clearing it all up was to climb into a virgin and pop out wearing a baby suit so that he could grow up and get nailed to a Roman torture device so he could pay some kind of “sin bill” back to himself before he “un-died” and flew back to sit at the right hand of himself so that whoever believed all this insanity wouldn’t have to go to Hell and suffer eternally because he loves us all sooo much.
Is that an accurate summary?
No thats not correct. You twist words so its obvious this post won’t affect you but I will give it a shot anyways. He created man, gave them one rule not to eat from the tree of knowledge. They where tempted and got kicked out. God told them what they had to do but also said he would send the savior(Jesus).
He died for are sins. Rose again 3 days later(beating death). Later he returned to God.
If god could do anything… why put the fruit there in the first place?
If god knew it was all going to happen from the beginning… why set up the conditions for imperfect beings to behave imperfectly, then punish them for being imperfect?
Doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]
A test? How am I supposed to know Gods thinking. People out there have idea’s but I can’t give you a definitive answer.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
John S. wrote:
No thats not correct. You twist words so its obvious this post won’t affect you but I will give it a shot anyways. He created man, gave them one rule not to eat from the tree of knowledge. They where tempted and got kicked out. God told them what they had to do but also said he would send the savior(Jesus).
He died for are sins. Rose again 3 days later(beating death). Later he returned to God.
John s. no offense, but pookie is one of the better educated skeptics. You are a little out of your league when dealing with him.
He is a true student when it comes to looking for real answers. IIRC, he has even said he would like to believe but does not feel compelled by the evidence.
Your efforts would be better served in reforming your agruments to a level that is more suited to either a skeptic that is not as demanding as pookie, or improving your arguments based off of pookie’s argument.
He isn’t twisting things as much as you think, but he is having fun at your expense.
[/quote]
Fun at my expense? Hardly. It takes a good deal of faith to believe in a religion.
Ive heard his argument time and time again, I explain it but some people will not believe, thats not a bad thing but its not like im overwelmed by his knowledge on this subject. He twists words and adds in some funny comments, and I try and break it down.
He isn’t twisting things as much as you think, but he is having fun at your expense.
He is not twisting things at all.
[/quote]
He is over simplifying things, and that can be taken as twisting them a tad bit.
He has a better grasp of the topics than what he posted, so that is why I phrased it like that.
Please… most of your arguments have been with fundamentalist, who I don’t consider to be true students of the Bible.
[quote]
However,
"The study of theology is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
(Thomas Paine: The Age of Reason)"[/quote]
Why do you guys like Thomas Paine so much? His stuff was not that great.
Why bother giving me a quote that is only full of assertions? Can you back it up? could He? You can speculate at best. It isn’t grounded in History, or science. Just him rambling, and you agreeing with it.
At the very least I attempt to understand the Bible as it was written to the people in that day in time. So mine is grounded in history, and anthropology.
My belief in miracles, and your disbelief puts us even.
Neither has scientific proof that it can or can’t happen.
So why come at me with this junk quotes?
I think you could do better than Thomas Paine(incidentially He is one of my ancestor’s).
Fun at my expense? Hardly. It takes a good deal of faith to believe in a religion.
John,
I sympathize with you, and I find your posts lacking.
Ive heard his argument time and time again, I explain it but some people will not believe, thats not a bad thing but its not like im overwelmed by his knowledge on this subject.
You should be overwhelmed by his knowledge of the subject and your lack there of.
He twists words and adds in some funny comments, and I try and break it down.
You need a new approach.
As a believer I’m not compelled by your posts. Why do you think any skeptic would be?
[/quote]
Tell me whats missing. Did you not say correct to most of my statements? Forgive me for not hitting everything at once. I have given my argument, If you have more to add please do.
Tell me whats missing.
[/quote]
How about real answers instead of sweeping everything under the rug with Jesus made it obsolete.
just because you stated correct facts about theology does not mean you are making a compelling argument to those who don’t believe.
Don’t take it so personal. I am trying to help you reform your argument. It is lacking, and rather weak. You could learn alot from skeptics that are reasonable. You in turn have to be reasonable back. Perhaps you should ask pookie why he isn’t compelled by your argument. Personally I like when I get asked questions by him, or any other skeptic. If I have the answer great. If not, I am forced to search for an answer. Sometimes I find that my pov is incorrect, and I am forced to change. Christianity is not about doctrinal believes, it is about searching for the truth.
[quote]
I have given my argument, If you have more to add please do.[/quote]
I have had this talk with other’s on the forum. If they ever want an answer to why I believe what I do, or why most Christians belive what they do they can always ask me.
How about real answers instead of sweeping everything under the rug with Jesus made it obsolete.
[/quote]
They have provided passages I provided links with answers. They asked me some questions where the answer is Jesus changed it. Im not sweepign things under the rug.
[quote]John S. wrote:
haney1 wrote:
John S. wrote:
Tell me whats missing.
How about real answers instead of sweeping everything under the rug with Jesus made it obsolete.
They have provided passages I provided links with answers. They asked me some questions where the answer is Jesus changed it. Im not sweepign things under the rug.[/quote]
I didn’t see any links for the levitical passages. That is what I am referring to being swept under the clause of Jesus.
Since you insist that the links are a good enough answer then why not tell us give us a summary of those long winded links. Tell us why you think they are correct as well. What is it in those links that is compelling enough for you to believe the exlpination that they give?
Why does Paul address women that way? what is the culture that Paul was addressing? What impact do those verses have on our life today?
"The study of theology is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
(Thomas Paine: The Age of Reason)"
Why do you guys like Thomas Paine so much? His stuff was not that great.
Why bother giving me a quote that is only full of assertions? Can you back it up? could He? You can speculate at best. It isn’t grounded in History, or science. Just him rambling, and you agreeing with it.
[/quote]
I like him so much, because in a time where he could have been a folk hero, if he had just shut up about his beliefs on religion, he chose not to.
Consider him an atheist prophet.
I appreciate that. It weakens your religious zeal.
It makes you a doubting, second-guessing, intellectual, in-name-only Christian.
I happen to think that this is a good thing.
Twist them words like a pretzel until they fit whatever humanitarian cause you have.
It does not put us even.
If you claim something extraordinary surely the burden of proof is on you, given my and everybody elses troubles to prove a negative.
And last but not least it is not a junk quote.
A “science” that starts out with its conclusions and then tries to rape ancient texts until they fit, is mainly an exercise in mental masturbation.
Santa Claus lives at the north pole and bring presents to each kid every year.
Having established that, let us study how he does it.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
John S. wrote:
haney1 wrote:
John S. wrote:
Tell me whats missing.
How about real answers instead of sweeping everything under the rug with Jesus made it obsolete.
They have provided passages I provided links with answers. They asked me some questions where the answer is Jesus changed it. Im not sweepign things under the rug.
I didn’t see any links for the levitical passages. That is what I am referring to being swept under the clause of Jesus.
Since you insist that the links are a good enough answer then why not tell us give us a summary of those long winded links. Tell us why you think they are correct as well. What is it in those links that is compelling enough for you to believe the exlpination that they give?
Why does Paul address women that way? what is the culture that Paul was addressing? What impact do those verses have on our life today?
arguing by weblink is not very impressive.
[/quote]
The weblink holds the passages that will explain them. They have people who understand the bible a lot more then I do explaining it too. Therefor they are correct responses to there argument.
[quote]orion wrote:
I like him so much, because in a time where he could have been a folk hero, if he had just shut up about his beliefs on religion, he chose not to.
Consider him an atheist prophet.
[/quote]
So you admire a guy who doesn’t even offer very compelling arguments?
[quote]
I appreciate that. It weakens your religious zeal.
It makes you a doubting, second-guessing, intellectual, in-name-only Christian.[/quote]
Actually my faith is stronger than it has ever been.
I don’t twist. I have no need to. I think making the text fit my ideas is a horrible practice. Instead I conform my understanding as I learn things. The text doesn’t change, my understanding of it does.
It does prove us even. for instance prove to me that miracles can’t happen. Prove that it is 100% impossible for them to occur.
Can you?
Theology never claims to be a science.
The text are a by product of what is believed history. Theology is us understanding that history in spiritual terms. However if it was a science it would resemble archeaology.
which starts with a “conclusion” and then works backwards with new facts as it finds them. Things get lost over time you know.
That conclusion paine states is not offered. Although it is in the premise that theology claims Jesus is God’s plan for the redemption of man.
On that point alone paine is in error.
Red herring
[quote]
Having established that, let us study how he does it.
Yup, Paine got it all wrong…[/quote]
Yes he did. He had no clue what theology was, and he can’t back up his claim. Neither can you.
[quote]John S. wrote:
The weblink holds the passages that will explain them. They have people who understand the bible a lot more then I do explaining it too. Therefor they are correct responses to there argument.
[/quote]
See pookie. I think this post upholds my percentage about Christians who read an attempt to understand the Bible for themselves.
The weblink holds the passages that will explain them. They have people who understand the bible a lot more then I do explaining it too. Therefor they are correct responses to there argument.
[/quote]
One could post links to explanations from any number of athiest, non believer, or heretical sources who understand the bible a lot more. Therefore those sources will be correct in their respective responses.
The weblink holds the passages that will explain them. They have people who understand the bible a lot more then I do explaining it too. Therefor they are correct responses to there argument.
One could post links to explanations from any number of athiest, non believer, or heretical sources who understand the bible a lot more. Therefore those sources will be correct in their respective responses.[/quote]
Which would still not explain why John believes those web links make sense.
The weblink holds the passages that will explain them. They have people who understand the bible a lot more then I do explaining it too. Therefor they are correct responses to there argument.
One could post links to explanations from any number of athiest, non believer, or heretical sources who understand the bible a lot more. Therefore those sources will be correct in their respective responses.[/quote]
I posted those links up because they had passages(which you guys are drilling me about not putting up).
And They have people who understand The bible a lot more then me. They provided the response I did not, But to cast them out because they are links is borderline retarded. Next time ill just copy the passages because apparently links are the devil to you guys.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
orion wrote:
I like him so much, because in a time where he could have been a folk hero, if he had just shut up about his beliefs on religion, he chose not to.
Consider him an atheist prophet.
So you admire a guy who doesn’t even offer very compelling arguments?
[/quote]
He told us the emperor was naked at a time where that did cost you.
He never needed compelling arguments, he just needed to point out you do not have any.
If there’s one thing that is nearly unassailable, it’s a man’s faith in that which is beyond his comprehension. In other words, God.
Let me just offer this tidbit. Once upon a time, the Church, as being the Holy Word of God on Earth, declared:
The earth was flat - proven false
Earth was the center of the universe - proven false
God gave his Authority to rule over man to Nobles (Lords, Dukes, Emperors) as ordained representatives of His Holy Order. To this day, we still give prayers to “The Lord,” which is blatant god worship of the local ruler in the stead of God. A proxy, as it were. Thus setting up a government with complete control over it’s subjects, on pain of death. This has proven to be a very unstable form of government, as corruption runs rampant with those with complete power. Not to mention that people were praying to the local lord, as well as god. Thus creating a dual divinity. That, my friends, is heresy. “You shall worship only one God.”
If religions go wrong anywhere, it would be that God allows humans to be involved. The religions out there today are religions of man, not God.
[quote]orion wrote:
haney1 wrote:
orion wrote:
I like him so much, because in a time where he could have been a folk hero, if he had just shut up about his beliefs on religion, he chose not to.
Consider him an atheist prophet.
So you admire a guy who doesn’t even offer very compelling arguments?
He told us the emperor was naked at a time where that did cost you.
He never needed compelling arguments, he just needed to point out you do not have any.[/quote]
He didn’t point anything out. He claimed we don’t. He offered no proof. His logic was faulty, and his philosophy was weak at best.
He was not the only diest at that time in America, shoot he wasn’t even the most well known diest. Thomas Jefferson would be a better candidate to follow after.