Author Topic: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible  (Read 8556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2012, 11:54:32 AM »
He, in blind faith, believes all the good propaganda about Wal-Mart. He thinks anyone/anything someone says anything that contradicts his image of Wal-Mart must therefore not be true.

As an employee of Wal-Mart, though I cannot verify what takes place over-seas, though I do know a lot of stuff is imported from China, and they do have a lot of sweatshops there and care nothing for safety standards. Just one example of China's standards in safety. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-15604288 While this has nothing to do directly with Wal-Mart, mines produce metal which is used for other things.

When Wal-Mart wanted to build thier "Supercenter" in a location where we get our local drinking from, they had to agree that they could not build a gas station there. When nearly finished with the parking lot, they decided to start building a Gas Station. When the city made them stop they challenged this City of 20k as if they could do anything they want and there wasn't **** we could do about it. We won the legal battle, but now our property taxes are double, to pay all the legal fees. When Wal-Mart builds in an area where there are residences near by, it brings down the desirablity of the properties.

By the way, if you aren't dead or already at the hospital by the beginning of your shift, there is absolutely no excuse to miss work, or leave work early: Broken bones, fever, throwing up, injury or trauma. I wouldn't be surprised if they were to write up or fire a woman for leaving due to her water breaking. They make you stay late one day, then make you cut it another day so you don't get OT.

-------------------------------

For someone indoctrinated that Paul's message agreed completely with Jesus' message, to be shown side by side proof Paul contradicts Jesus. It even comes with verses so he can look it up himself to verify. However, instead of looking up the verses himself, he finds something else on that site he disagrees with, and uses that as "proof" that "Paulinity" doesn't contradict Christianity. However he doesn't realize comparing Wal-Mart to Paulinity is like comparing apples to the 757. You cannot use one to prove or disprove the other.

Offline onesteward

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Darwins +3/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #88 on: January 09, 2012, 06:58:27 PM »

Your commentaries are pretty amusing.  We have the first one trying to say that hate means the same as “Matthew” saying  those who love their parents more than JC aren’t worthy.  Problem is that if they mean the same, why weren’t the same words used if they mean the same?
Translating two different authors who used two different expressions for the same idea?

 Alas, for Chrsitians, the word hate means hate, not “love more” or “love less”, which are quite possible in the language.

Which language? English? Gee, I love pudding but hate pistachio pudding.I hate getting up early in the morning on a day off.I'm a Yankees fan so I hate The Red Sox.I hate to listen to the stories of child abuse that my friend , who is a counselor tells me about.I hate it when our youth are compromised by unscrupulous dope dealers in my town.The word 'hate" isn't better understood by seeing it in context?I don't feel the same about the drugs as I do the pistachio.

  Which version is what God “really” meant?  Poor god, can’t get his message through clearly again.  The second interpretation is pretty clear that hate is accurate, with the writer saying that families are indeed to be “yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples.”

That is the same commentator who said this just previous to your chosen quote:

not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in Matthew 10:37

 That seems as if he's in agreement with the comparative view of 'hate".


 People’s New Testament also agrees with this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People's New Testament
14:26,27 If any man come to me. See notes on Mt 10:37,38

 It really doesn't agree with you at all.Remember what Matt 10 37 & 38 said?...

Matthew 10:37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;38)and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.


 

Essentially the main arguments against the idea of hate is that “hate” is “sometimes” meaning just a ranking of affection.  This of course requires the magic decoder rings to come out.
That seems to require study more than magic .

 If we say that hate is just a ranking, then Christians have nothing to claim when they insist that they were such martyrs, indeed, the bible “really” only says that believers will only be liked less than other people.  In Malachi, God didn’t really hate Esau and he didn’t really turn his inheritance over to jackals or his home into a wasteland. Poor JC, all of the sudden his prophecies aren’t being fulfilled at all, with his claims that people will hate his followers.  Romans 9 suddenly becomes pointless since the dichotomy that is shows with “Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated” becomes “Jacob I loved and Esau I kinda loved a little less”.
Of course, you’ll insist that in the instances that are important to you, hate magically means hate again.  I love the hypocrisy. 
Would you like more expert opinions on the subject of hate? Maybe it will be clarified for you.I mean Biblical uses of course.

Please do show me where they *all* disagree that the instance of Job gaining a “better” family and wealth is reflected in the teachings of JC in that your family is not important but only following him is.
I wasn't referring to Job  but your assertion that Jesus commands us to abandon our families in the scriptures I had quoted:Matt 19: 29, Mark 10 :29 and Luke 18 :29. You brought Job into it.Job didn't leave anyone.
 

Darn, did a google search and showed you wrong with no problem. One of your fellow Christians agrees with me here: “Nevertheless, our responsibility to God is to obey Him, to trust Him and to submit to His will, whether we understand it or not.” http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Job.html )  Seems that these folks have no problem in obeying what JC says of course, until it makes them decide that hate doesn’t “really” mean that: http://www.gotquestions.org/hate-father-mother.html   I do enjoy this excuse: “The love of a Christian for a non-Christian is almost always seen as hatred, intolerance, bigotry, etc.”  and the immediate martyr claim that Christians are “hated” too.  Again, such convenience for determing what hate means so the Christians can feel better about themselves.

So, are you using them or disparaging them?

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
what ever my lot, you have taught me to say
it is well, it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #89 on: January 10, 2012, 05:27:27 AM »
Matthew 10:37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;38)and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

I know a guy that loved Jesus more than his wife and family. He left her to do God's work, to make Jeus happy. God "called" him and rewarded him with a family 100x better. She became a widow with a 4th on the way. Sucks to be her, eh? If only she listened to him, there would have only been 3 orphans , but taking responsibility and raising her children, instead of shoving them off onto somebody, was more important.

I know I know.... This IS what God wants:

-----------------------------------

Woman(W): I'll be over in the morning dropping off my kids.
W's Sister(S): Why?
W: God has called my husband and I to do something for him, and I cannot take my kids with me.
S: They're YOUR kids! You need to be responsible FOR THEM!
W: But HE really wants me to go onto this mission trip! I cannot take them out of school for this, it's not a permenant move.
S: How long?
W: Only a few weeks. We'll be back before you even know it.
S: Well, God IS more important than your Children. We know what he would think of you if you were to actally take responsibility after having a good time. God forbid!
W: See you at seven!

(Two days after drop off)

It's 2 am
Knock Knock
S: ummm....   Hello?
Police: Are you (S)?
S: Yes, I am.
P: We regretfully inform you that your sister and husband died an an airplane accident.

-------------------------------------------

I'm just glad I was never "blessed" to have parents like that. It's amazing how someone knows what God has called them to do, tells them that it's only for a few weeks, but instead it was a permenant move. How did, [He] a minister, miss that?

EDIT: No, this had nothing to do with me becomming an Atheist. I left the church long before this. After reading Levitivus, the only thing getting me to church was being dragged to church. No, I will not focus on the chocolate bar in a cow pattie. I will acknowledge that IT is in a cow pattie, and therefore have nothing to do with it. You can eat it and enjoy it all you want. Whenever I get a chocolate bar, I want it unadorned with turd.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 05:41:25 AM by TruthSeeker »

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #90 on: January 10, 2012, 10:40:16 AM »
Translating two different authors who used two different expressions for the same idea?
That would be nice if you could show that was indeed the case.  Can you???  I’m waiting. 
Quote
Which language? English? Gee, I love pudding but hate pistachio pudding.I hate getting up early in the morning on a day off.I'm a Yankees fan so I hate The Red Sox.I hate to listen to the stories of child abuse that my friend , who is a counselor tells me about.I hate it when our youth are compromised by unscrupulous dope dealers in my town.The word 'hate" isn't better understood by seeing it in context?I don't feel the same about the drugs as I do the pistachio.
  And ah, the excuse that the translators didn’t get it right in any instance that the Christian finds inconvenient. Which begs the question, why is your god so impotent that it can’t get its message through correctly? Why does it allow humans to have it say one thing if it didn’t mean it?  How can we figure out what this god of yours “really” meant if we can’t trust the bible?  The usual excuse for this is that the Christian will claim knowledge of what their god really means by the “holy spirit” but again, many Christians claim this and all get different answers on what God “really” means with no more evidence than the next that their version is indeed the god-approved one.  I’m still up for testing your claims with altars just like Elijah did and god supposedly approved of.  Funny how no theist accepts that challenge.  I think you know it would fail. 
Quote
That is the same commentator who said this just previous to your chosen quote:
actually let me quote the whole thing for both of us
Quote
If any man come to me,.... Not in a corporeal, but in a spiritual way; nor barely to hear him preach; but so come, as that he believes in him, applies to him for grace, pardon, righteousness, life, and salvation; professes to be his, submits to his ordinances, and desires to be a disciple of his; and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple: not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in Matthew 10:37 yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples. The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account.
  I do enjoy the contradiction right in the whole thing.  We have the commentator claiming that JC didn’t want people to be “properly hated” (of course not defining what he means by this term) but are to not to be preferred to JC or loved more.  Then it goes into how these people should be neglected and forsaken and turned from with indignation and resentment.  Wow, OS, again, I’m happy not to be in your family if you think that loving them less then god means you can neglect them and forsake them and turn from them.  Gill goes on to say that indeed believers are to be ready to part with *everything* in order to follow JC.  This goes back to my question, sicne you cite missionaries who do indeed risk everything for this religion, are they the only true Christians?  I don’t see you doing any such thing.
Quote
People's New Testament
14:26,27 If any man come to me. See notes on Mt 10:37,38
 It really doesn't agree with you at all.Remember what Matt 10 37 & 38 said?...
Matthew 10:37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;38)and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Well, OS, let’s look at what the PNT said about the two bunches of verses:
Quote
Luke14:26,27 If any man come to me. See notes on Mt 10:37,38. Hate not his father. In just the same sense that he hates his own life also. That is, these must all be given up, turned away from, if we have to choose between them and Christ.
and about Matthew
Quote
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me. The Lord does not require us to love these less, but him more. Love for him must become the dominant principle of life. Is not worthy of me. Will not be accepted as worthy.
Which is it? Are we to hate our family as much as we hate our life?  Be willing to leave it and sacrifice it as is demanded?  Again, it seems that hate is pretty much though to be the same thing here, that one cannot have two masters.  I am still quite happy to say that I love my parents more than some imaginary being.  And incidentally, I have yet to see what “cross” you take OS, at all.  But I know this is just an exercise for me in typing since a Christian rarely leaves what he’s made up for himself.
 
Quote
That seems to require study more than magic .
No, it requires a need to have a god that doesn’t require *too much* of a believer.  So many Christians fall all over themselves to claim that God hates this and god hates that, but when it comes to something that is important to the very human Christian, suddenly they get “divine revelation” that the part they don’t like is not what their god “really” meant.
Quote
Would you like more expert opinions on the subject of hate? Maybe it will be clarified for you.I mean Biblical uses of course.
  I’ve already seen expert opinions on the subject of hate in the bible.  It’s pretty much exactly what I’ve said before, Christian pick and choose the times you want hate to apply.  Linguists working from just the words and no presupposition, use the best word for the translation.  I see that you didn’t address my point here.  If you can ignore the word hate when you want, why should anyone pay attention to it when its used when Christians claim their wannabee martyrdom?  What happens to the prophecies when they were evidently mistralated according to your cherry picking?   
Quote
I wasn't referring to Job  but your assertion that Jesus commands us to abandon our families in the scriptures I had quoted:Matt 19: 29, Mark 10 :29 and Luke 18 :29. You brought Job into it.Job didn't leave anyone.
Well, show me where they “all” disagree, OS.  I brought Job into it since JC promises new families, wealth, etc for those who leave their families.  Your god allowed Job’s family to be murdered, his wealth to be taken away and then gave him “better” ones. 
Quote
So, are you using them or disparaging them?

I’m showing you how your claims of having the only “right” claim of what god really meant aren’t true. Again.  And how Christians can’t agree. Again.  And oh yes, that evidence that your god exists and is responsible for creation and Tezcatlipoca isn’t real and isn’t responsible?  and the evidence that I pull things from “thin air”?  oh and your opinion on the whole Paulianity thing and how Chrisitansn don’t agree with you?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #91 on: January 11, 2012, 03:15:31 AM »
Deary me. The synoptic gospel is full of ideas that you are supposed to do awesome works, in order to get your ranking and real estate in heaven.


[46] For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the republicans the same?
[47] And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the republicans so?
[48] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

No pressure.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline onesteward

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Darwins +3/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #92 on: January 11, 2012, 05:39:46 PM »
Translating two different authors who used two different expressions for the same idea?
That would be nice if you could show that was indeed the case.  Can you???  I’m waiting.

I did with at least a dozen references.Sometimes 'hate" is an expression of "degrees" in the ANE.Sometimes it is like that even if you don't go all the way back to the ANE :
     
       Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

                    Hate

1. (n.) To have a great aversion to, with a strong desire that evil should befall the person toward whom the feeling is directed; to dislike intensely; to detest; as, to hate one's enemies; to hate hypocrisy.

2. (n.) To be very unwilling; followed by an infinitive, or a substantive clause with that; as, to hate to get into debt; to hate that anything should be wasted.

3. (n.) To love less, relatively.

4. (v.) Strong aversion coupled with desire that evil should befall the person toward whom the feeling is directed; as exercised toward things, intense dislike; hatred; detestation; -- opposed to love.

 And ah, the excuse that the translators didn’t get it right in any instance that the Christian finds inconvenient.
That  has no bearing on the point I made.A word like "hate" is often better understood in context.I think you should see that in Websters definition it is pretty much necessary.

 Which begs the question, why is your god so impotent that it can’t get its message through correctly?
He has- several billion times so far.Just because you couldn't seem to grasp it doesn't make it wrong.

 Why does it allow humans to have it say one thing if it didn’t mean it?  How can we figure out what this god of yours “really” meant if we can’t trust the bible?  The usual excuse for this is that the Christian will claim knowledge of what their god really means by the “holy spirit” but again, many Christians claim this and all get different answers on what God “really” means with no more evidence than the next that their version is indeed the god-approved one.  I’m still up for testing your claims with altars just like Elijah did and god supposedly approved of.  Funny how no theist accepts that challenge.  I think you know it would fail. 

You are just rambling here.Make a point- I'd answer it...not many in one paragraph.



 actually let me quote the whole thing for both of us:

 If any man come to me,.... Not in a corporeal, but in a spiritual way; nor barely to hear him preach; but so come, as that he believes in him, applies to him for grace, pardon, righteousness, life, and salvation; professes to be his, submits to his ordinances, and desires to be a disciple of his; and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple: not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in Matthew 10:37 yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples. The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account.


 Again pointing to Matt 10 : 37.Comparatively speaking......

Condition 1 ) When they stand in the way of the honor and interest of Christ.

Condition 2) When Christ calls for it.





 I do enjoy the contradiction right in the whole thing.  We have the commentator claiming that JC didn’t want people to be “properly hated” (of course not defining what he means by this term) but are to not to be preferred to JC or loved more.

 Probably it didn't need an accompanying definition in the 1700s when it was 1st written.I think you might be able to pull the meaning from the context, though.


  Then it goes into how these people should be neglected and forsaken and turned from with indignation and resentment.  Wow, OS, again, I’m happy not to be in your family if you think that loving them less then god means you can neglect them and forsake them and turn from them.

Relative to serving Jesus?Meeting the conditions mentioned above? I agree with Gill on that matter.As far as you not being in my family: I would say I'm joyous about that."Happy" seems too transitory...Joy; deeper and more abiding.



 Well, OS, let’s look at what the PNT said about the two bunches of verses:
Luke14:26,27 If any man come to me. See notes on Mt 10:37,38. Hate not his father. In just the same sense that he hates his own life also. That is, these must all be given up, turned away from, if we have to choose between them and Christ. and about Matthew10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me. The Lord does not require us to love these less, but him more. Love for him must become the dominant principle of life. Is not worthy of me. Will not be accepted as worthy.

Which is it? Are we to hate our family as much as we hate our life?  Be willing to leave it and sacrifice it as is demanded?  Again, it seems that hate is pretty much though to be the same thing here, that one cannot have two masters.

If circumstances require a choice I would hope to choose Christ.


  I am still quite happy to say that I love my parents more than some imaginary being.

 I have to wholeheartedly agree. Although my Dad died several years ago I do indeed love my Mom more than any imaginary being(s).




 No, it requires a need to have a god that doesn’t require *too much* of a believer.  So many Christians fall all over themselves to claim that God hates this and god hates that, but when it comes to something that is important to the very human Christian, suddenly they get “divine revelation” that the part they don’t like is not what their god “really” meant.

 You have been following our conversation , right?



  I’ve already seen expert opinions on the subject of hate in the bible.  It’s pretty much exactly what I’ve said before, Christian pick and choose the times you want hate to apply.

  It seems as if their opinions differed with yours?


Linguists working from just the words and no presupposition, use the best word for the translation.

Are you saying that they( the linguists) don't factor in the historic period or culture  or geography and so on when doing translations?The character of persons who's quotes they may be translating?

 I see that you didn’t address my point here.  If you can ignore the word hate when you want, why should anyone pay attention to it when its used when Christians claim their wannabee martyrdom?  What happens to the prophecies when they were evidently mistralated according to your cherry picking? 

 I'm not ignoring the word " hate".I just want its best definition based on the best scholarship.So far all we have is - every expert on one side and on the other side is you.Gee, decisions, decisions.I wonder which side has it right.
 

I’m showing you how your claims of having the only “right” claim of what god really meant aren’t true. Again.

 I don't recall making that claim.Could you point me to where you believe that I did?



 
« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 05:43:06 PM by onesteward »
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
what ever my lot, you have taught me to say
it is well, it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #93 on: January 12, 2012, 07:49:03 AM »

I did with at least a dozen references.Sometimes 'hate" is an expression of "degrees" in the ANE.Sometimes it is like that even if you don't go all the way back to the ANE :
     
       Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

                    Hate

1. (n.) To have a great aversion to, with a strong desire that evil should befall the person toward whom the feeling is directed; to dislike intensely; to detest; as, to hate one's enemies; to hate hypocrisy.

2. (n.) To be very unwilling; followed by an infinitive, or a substantive clause with that; as, to hate to get into debt; to hate that anything should be wasted.

3. (n.) To love less, relatively.

4. (v.) Strong aversion coupled with desire that evil should befall the person toward whom the feeling is directed; as exercised toward things, intense dislike; hatred; detestation; -- opposed to love.


http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

The Greek NT consistently uses the root word MIC (mis) (eg. misogyny) for all instances of HATE. In all cases that I can see, the NT uses MIC in the burning HATRED sense.

A Christian who wants to argue that Luke 14:26 is an exception, has to invoke the magic decoder ring.

Quote
I'm not ignoring the word " hate".I just want its best definition based on the best scholarship.So far all we have is - every expert on one side and on the other side is you.Gee, decisions, decisions.I wonder which side has it right.

My guess is that Christianity was originally apocalyptic, and early converts were encouraged to hate their corrupt Jewish parents.

Since Christianity has worn on, 2000 years longer than expected, Christians are no longer comfortable with hating their Christian parents, so along with the failure of the Kingdom to Come, words in the NT have to be reinterpreted. 
.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 07:58:29 AM by Add Homonym »
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #94 on: January 12, 2012, 11:16:41 AM »
And I’m still waiting, it seems.  Yep, I know the definitions, OS.  I’m waiting for evidence to support your claim about the two authors.  Now I’m seeing in Webster’s unabridged a slightly different version than you have.  Here’s the part “3. (Script.) To love less, relatively. Luke xiv.”  So we have definition that is no where else supported but in a claim of interpretation from the bible and only in one part of it.  It ignores the fact that the same word is used to mean hate just like in the other definitions that the dictionary gives.  Very amusing and convenient for Christians. 
 
Quote
That  has no bearing on the point I made.A word like "hate" is often better understood in context.I think you should see that in Websters definition it is pretty much necessary.
Oh yes it does have bearing. I do love how you make such claims and of course can’t support them. You even use the claim of “context” that thing that Christians run too but ignore when it’s inconvenient for them.  Sorry, OS, but I am using context and there is nothing in the context that shows that JC meant anything other than hate as the revilement of the objects or people hated (your one commentator supports this but has the caveat that one has to be asked by JC). But I’m willing to give you a chance. If it does, please so show me how this context works to support your claim.  And to help you, this is what context is: “Anything beyond the specific words of a literary work that may be relevant to understanding the meaning. Contexts may be economic, social, cultural, historical, literary, biographical, etc.” http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu/reading-writing/on-line/lit-terms.html  I have shown the context I believe relevant, the words of the bible itself, the knowledge that JC seems to believe that the end times are imminent, the subsequent changes in the message by “Paul”, etc.   
 
Quote
He has- several billion times so far.Just because you couldn't seem to grasp it doesn't make it wrong.
Oh, so I should just ignore that there are thousands of Christians sects that don’t agree on what God really meant. :D  OS, I see Christians try this over and over, you want to claim that all people who claim to be Christians are just that when trying to bulk up your numbers but when looking at an individual person’s beliefs, those numbers dwindle quite sharply.  Is the Roman Catholic Church correct? Are Calvinists?  Are the Orthodox churches? Are Southern Baptists? The Mormons? The Jehovah’s Witnesses?  All are in those “billions” you want to claim but if they are so correct, why do they try to convert each others adherents? Why aren’t you a Catholic since that’s been around longest and seems to have the most adherents? And I grasped it quite fine, until I realized it made no sense, partially for the exact thing just mentioned, that Christians of any stripe are no more in possession of any truth than the next.

And when Islam overtakes  Christianity, what then OS? Will you become a Muslim since, by your reasoning, numbers matter on determining what you believe?  Even Islam isn’t immune to sects.
Quote
You are just rambling here. Make a point- I'd answer it...not many in one paragraph.
I have made a point, and it’s so cute to see you dodge by claiming I’m “rambling.”  I’ve asked two, count them, two whole questions. I have followed up those questions with what I have seen as a common answer from Christians.  I’m asking you if you can answer it any differently and show how you know that your answer is any better than anyone else who has claimed the “holy spirit”. 

You want only answer one question, pick one.  It’s not hard, OS.  I’ll even simplify the first one for you: Why does your god allow people to have a supposedly wrong interpretation of this book that he supposedly divinely inspired?   

Quote
Again pointing to Matt 10 : 37.Comparatively speaking......
Condition 1 ) When they stand in the way of the honor and interest of Christ.
Condition 2) When Christ calls for it.
So, now its’ up to Christ to call for you do do what he’s asked.  And how does one know they are called?  Isn’t that convenient, to depend on a “call” now.  Funny how that call is just as up to the believer as what God really means. Since God has not called you to forsake your family, then you must be cool with him, right?  or is it that your god says nothing at all, and you assume this is the case because you want to love your family?  We have the one should not “properly hate” people but then we should indeed do anything short of whatever that is, if they “stand in the way”.  Of course, that’s also dependent on what the believer wants. 
Quote
Probably it didn't need an accompanying definition in the 1700s when it was 1st written.I think you might be able to pull the meaning from the context, though.
Probably?  And pull meaning from the “context”?  Again, I did and found such a nice contradiction.  Again, if you wish to show how the context works for you, please do.
Quote
Relative to serving Jesus?Meeting the conditions mentioned above? I agree with Gill on that matter.As far as you not being in my family: I would say I'm joyous about that."Happy" seems too transitory...Joy; deeper and more abiding.
  Oh, can I play word games too?  I’m quite *joyous* that I am not part of a family that has someone who would do anything as long as he was “called”, and who thinks that it’s okay to forsake and resent his family as long as he doesn’t quite “hate” it. 
Quote
If circumstances require a choice I would hope to choose Christ.
I should think you would indeed hope that since you are damned if you don’t.  Such a nice god, making people choose between him and family. 
Quote
I have to wholeheartedly agree. Although my Dad died several years ago I do indeed love my Mom more than any imaginary being(s).
so you do have that evidence that your god isn’t imaginary?
Quote
It seems as if their opinions differed with yours?
Because they pick and choose? Yep. 
Quote
Are you saying that they( the linguists) don't factor in the historic period or culture  or geography and so on when doing translations?The character of persons who's quotes they may be translating?
You’re right and that is what I meant, excepting the nonsense about the “character”.  They do indeed use the history, culture, and they get what you see, for example saying “hate” rather than saying “love less”.  How do you think they know the character of the author, OS?
Quote
I'm not ignoring the word " hate".I just want its best definition based on the best scholarship.So far all we have is - every expert on one side and on the other side is you.Gee, decisions, decisions.I wonder which side has it right.
And no, the only expert on my side is not me. Cute but not true at all.  We have translators saying “hate” not “love less”.  The only people who say it simply must mean “love less” is Christians who need to ignore JC’s direct words since they are inconvenient.  In every other instance they are quite happy to go with hate meaning hate, no attempts to redefine a word at all.  You want to have hate mean hate when it works well in a supposed prophecy, but oh if it requires you to give up something, then magically it changes.   
Quote
I don't recall making that claim.Could you point me to where you believe that I did?
Ah, the word games again.  I am sure you’ve never said directly “I have the only right claim of what god really means”. However, you don’t have to.  You have claimed that I am wrong.  You have claimed that other Christians are wrong.  Thus you believe you have the only right claim, correct?  If you don’t think that you are right, why do you claim to believe the things you do? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #95 on: January 12, 2012, 11:20:05 AM »

My guess is that Christianity was originally apocalyptic, and early converts were encouraged to hate their corrupt Jewish parents.

Since Christianity has worn on, 2000 years longer than expected, Christians are no longer comfortable with hating their Christian parents, so along with the failure of the Kingdom to Come, words in the NT have to be reinterpreted. 

The point you made is spot on. Any attempt to understand the NT texts and the mindset of the 1st century believers to whom they were addressed must be done in light of the fact that the overwhelming issue that the messages were standing upon was the idea that an apocalyse, a return of King Jesus as savior and judge, and a resurrection of the saints to be with Jesus and the saints who hadn't ever died was to occur soon, within the very lifetime of the original audience.

One of the biggest problems with Christianity is that its adherants do not realize that the religion they subscribe to is a revisionist religion founded some time after the culmination of what the supposedly Christian documents (New Testament) spoke of was to occur. Christians read themselves and their contemporary time period into the NT texts and fully buy into the idea that the writings are directed to THEM as if they are the primary audience the men writing the texts had in mind.
Many Christians have seemed to somewhat understand this in every generation and I believe that is why in every generation you will find many Christian spouting "last days" nonsense. They don't fully grasp that the NT wasn't written to their "special" generation, but they do seem to grasp the immediacy found within its pages and realize that the tone of the writings is tone that calls for readiness for something that is "at hand." Too bad they don't grasp that the time that the things written of were to be "at hand" some 1950 or so years ago.

Offline onesteward

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Darwins +3/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #96 on: January 12, 2012, 06:06:42 PM »
And I’m still waiting, it seems.  Yep, I know the definitions, OS.  I’m waiting for evidence to support your claim about the two authors.
Read the two Scriptures again.Check out the numerous experts on the original languages I posted for you and how they all agree that the two scriptures mean the same thing.


 Now I’m seeing in Webster’s unabridged a slightly different version than you have.  Here’s the part “3. (Script.) To love less, relatively. Luke xiv.”  So we have definition that is no where else supported but in a claim of interpretation from the bible and only in one part of it.  It ignores the fact that the same word is used to mean hate just like in the other definitions that the dictionary gives.  Very amusing and convenient for Christians.

So then Websters isn't acceptable as a dictionary any longer?Just that definition  because it is at odds with you?

 No, the expession "hate" is used in a comparative sense in various places in the Bible.

 

  Oh yes it does have bearing. I do love how you make such claims and of course can’t support them. You even use the claim of “context” that thing that Christians run too but ignore when it’s inconvenient for them.

  Sorry, OS, but I am using context and there is nothing in the context that shows that JC meant anything other than hate as the revilement of the objects or people hated (your one commentator supports this but has the caveat that one has to be asked by JC). But I’m willing to give you a chance. If it does, please so show me how this context works to support your claim.  And to help you, this is what context is: “Anything beyond the specific words of a literary work that may be relevant to understanding the meaning. Contexts may be economic, social, cultural, historical, literary, biographical, etc.”


and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple: not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in Matthew 10:37

In the context of any and all of those things.

 

 I have shown the context I believe relevant, the words of the bible itself, the knowledge that JC seems to believe that the end times are imminent, the subsequent changes in the message by “Paul”, etc. 
Not that I'm in agreement with you on either of those statements, but how would either of them affect the meaning of Luke 14: 26?Matt. 10 :37?
 

 Oh, so I should just ignore that there are thousands of Christians sects that don’t agree on what God really meant. :D

You're free to do whatever you like.


 OS, I see Christians try this over and over, you want to claim that all people who claim to be Christians are just that when trying to bulk up your numbers but when looking at an individual person’s beliefs, those numbers dwindle quite sharply.  Is the Roman Catholic Church correct? Are Calvinists?  Are the Orthodox churches? Are Southern Baptists? The Mormons? The Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Are they correct about what? What differences would separate them from the others regarding salvation?What differences about  Who Jesus is?

  All are in those “billions” you want to claim but if they are so correct, why do they try to convert each others adherents? Why aren’t you a Catholic since that’s been around longest and seems to have the most adherents?

 I don't belong to any one denomination.
 


 And I grasped it quite fine, until I realized it made no sense, partially for the exact thing just mentioned, that Christians of any stripe are no more in possession of any truth than the next.

OK

And when Islam overtakes  Christianity, what then OS? Will you become a Muslim since, by your reasoning, numbers matter on determining what you believe?

Numbers don't matter on what I believe.Not that they are inconsequential.


You want only answer one question, pick one.  It’s not hard, OS.  I’ll even simplify the first one for you: Why does your god allow people to have a supposedly wrong interpretation of this book that he supposedly divinely inspired?

 Why?  I don't know. 

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
what ever my lot, you have taught me to say
it is well, it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #97 on: January 12, 2012, 11:55:52 PM »
Matt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

That pretty much clears it up for me.

There is hyperbole in the beatitudes (pluck out your right eye; left hand knows what your right hand is doing), but the above statement is arguably one which is supposed to be taken at face value.

The problem for Christians, is not only that it requires sacrifice, but it is against the general 'grace' premise of Paul. It implies a righteous meritocracy, because it actually specifies how much you will be rewarded.

[28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Yeah, let's judge the twelve tribes of Israel, that will  be real fun. What about the Congo and Serbia?
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #98 on: January 13, 2012, 10:15:27 AM »
Read the two Scriptures again.Check out the numerous experts on the original languages I posted for you and how they all agree that the two scriptures mean the same thing.
Oooh, Christians who agree on the meaning. And no one else does.  Try again, dear.  Those people whom you call experts on the official languages are experts how, OS? Because they agree with you?  Again, the actually translators use hate with no problem, it’s “commentators”, not translators” who have declared that hate doesn’t really mean hate. And yes, I know this argument has been going on and OS will never agree, no matter what the evidence.  Oh well, it’s a good exercise to demonstrate how deceitful a theist can be.
Quote
So then Websters isn't acceptable as a dictionary any longer?Just that definition  because it is at odds with you?
  Nice strawman there, OS.  I didn’t say that and it’s nice to see you being a liar.  Dictionary entries are created in a certain way. The first entry under a word is the most common, and then the next most common, etc.  The definition you use is valid but as I said only in one source and is *never* show to be used like that in any other scenario or source, not even within the bible itself, only one cherry picked verses that Christians claim that it has this meaning with no more evidence than they don’t like the message it conveys.  It’s lovely evidence that the Christian claim is ridiculous. 
Quote
No, the expession "hate" is used in a comparative sense in various places in the Bible.
really? Where?  How can you tell?
Quote
and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple: not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in Matthew 10:37
In the context of any and all of those things.
and repeating nonsense and oooh, even making it in bold doesn’t make it any more valid.  Seems you can’t quite get that.  It’s just a commentator making things up to excuse a very unpalatable verse in the bible that make a problem with the verses that say “honor your mother and father”.  I will have to say that it is interesting that this commentator has to invoke humanity to excuse this verse when isn’t it god’s law we should be concerned about, not what humanity thinks?  Indeed what does *all* of humanity think and how does this person know that *all* think exactly like he does?   It’s also curious he also has to invoke the “light of nature”?  what is that? Define it for me if you think it is somehow related to “context”.  It must be something other than this god?  And then finally “reason and divine revelation”.  Again, we have theists who are sure that they know what their god “really” meant, aka, they can ignore what they don’t like, but have no evidence that their divine revelation is that at all and not just a personal opinion. And invoking reason?  That’s pretty amusing.  Reason tells me that it is much more important to love real people rather than imaginary gods. 

I see no use of context (Contexts may be economic, social, cultural, historical, literary, biographical, etc.) here at all, just about everything else but, and all appeals to nothing concrete.  Please do show me, OS, it’s used if you think it is. 
Quote
Not that I'm in agreement with you on either of those statements, but how would either of them affect the meaning of Luke 14: 26?Matt. 10 :37?
Oh perish the thought that you would actually agree with me.  I’ve already gone over this. This is the context (economic, social, cultural, historical, literary, biographical, etc.) I see:  The character JC is sure that he will return very soon.  He promises this repeatedly.  A belief that this is the case makes is vastly easier to follow his commands to leave family, work, anything important that is “worldly”, and to depend on god alone for everything.  A few months, a few years, no problem.   

But when it become decades and centuries, then it is a problem to follow these commands.  The character Paul changes the message radically to keep up the religion.  Now you don’t have to depend on god, you have to work for a living.  You have to deal with governments.  If the message of JC is so pure and truthful, why did it have to be changed so much after he died and *didn’t* return?  The context shows that it was simply an act to survive. 
Quote
You're free to do whatever you like.
No, OS, this is a question. You claimed this “He has- several billion times so far.Just because you couldn't seem to grasp it doesn't make it wrong.”  And I know you don’t find all of those Christians you claim to be true Christians.  Your claim is quite a bit of hypocrisy.
and hiliarous
Quote
Are they correct about what? What differences would separate them from the others regarding salvation?What differences about  Who Jesus is?
What do you think?  Nice delaying the inevitable, OS.  Are they true Christians, OS? If they all have the same beliefs why do they have missionaries to convert each other? Do you think they all will get into heaven or the city of god on earth?  You want to claim that you dont’ belongn to any one denomination, but I know you have your own beliefs on what is right and what is wrong, so that’s your denomination, the usual Christian create your own version of god and what he “really” means.  Since you aren’t of any of the named denominations, you evidently think that they are wrong, yes? 
Quote
OK
oh, so do you accept that I was a Christian just as good as you now? I’m guessing not, and your “ok” was rather meaningless.
Quote
Numbers don't matter on what I believe.Not that they are inconsequential.
Oh suer they are. You didn’t really mean this when you said it.
Quote
He has- several billion times so far.Just because you couldn't seem to grasp it doesn't make it wrong.
  golly numbers just aren’t important for you at all. &) 
Quote
Why?  I don't know.
  Convenient that.  Always the theists who can claim to know what god thinks, what god really means but when it comes to knowing why god allows people to get his message wrong and pass it along to other people as wrong, gee, they just don’t know.  Poor things.  Ah, I wish Ray was here to comment.   

good points, Add homonym, nice one about sacrifice and grace.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline onesteward

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Darwins +3/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #99 on: January 14, 2012, 06:53:50 PM »
Matt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

That pretty much clears it up for me.

There is hyperbole in the beatitudes (pluck out your right eye; left hand knows what your right hand is doing), but the above statement is arguably one which is supposed to be taken at face value.
At face value? If I were to leave a house and two brothers I would get 100 houses and 200 brothers , in this lifetime? Like that did you mean?
 Plus, you are able to identify where in The Bible there is hyperbole?If any Christian ever said that they would have to produce their " magic decoder ring".


The problem for Christians, is not only that it requires sacrifice, but it is against the general 'grace' premise of Paul. It implies a righteous meritocracy, because it actually specifies how much you will be rewarded.

 I take Grace to be either affiliated with salvation or enablement.Salvation isn't taught as as a reward for works as far as I can tell.Jesus taught this :

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
 That is Grace.

[28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Yeah, let's judge the twelve tribes of Israel, that will  be real fun. What about the Congo and Serbia?

Patience...everyone gets their turn.
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
what ever my lot, you have taught me to say
it is well, it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #100 on: January 14, 2012, 11:03:57 PM »

At face value? If I were to leave a house and two brothers I would get 100 houses and 200 brothers , in this lifetime? Like that did you mean?


Well, it actually looks like he is saying you will get houses in the afterlife, otherwise, yes, due to perhaps inaccuracy in the KJV translation, it looks like you will receive houses in this life. However, in the Greek, it is less ambiguous.

http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat19.pdf

You are also conflating the idea of entering the Kingdom with everlasting life, when you could enter the Kingdom and only have 10 years life.

Quote
Plus, you are able to identify where in The Bible there is hyperbole?If any Christian ever said that they would have to produce their " magic decoder ring".

Just giving you the benefit of the doubt, otherwise you should have plucked out your right eye by now. Do you pray only in a closet? The strict nature of the synoptic undermines the intent of John and Paul

“You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matt. 23:24, NIV)
“Everything is possible for him who believes.” (Mark 9:23b, NIV)
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Have you given away all your possessions?

Quote
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
 That is Grace.

Well, I guess you should cling to the parts of the Bibel that you like, and ignore those you don't.

Quote
Patience...everyone gets their turn.

Except those who have been magically forgiven by Grace, due to the writings of Paul and John.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 11:15:04 PM by Add Homonym »
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline onesteward

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Darwins +3/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #101 on: January 15, 2012, 02:26:28 PM »

Well, it actually looks like he is saying you will get houses in the afterlife, otherwise, yes, due to perhaps inaccuracy in the KJV translation, it looks like you will receive houses in this life. However, in the Greek, it is less ambiguous.

http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat19.pdf]


Maybe, but both Luke 18 : 30 and Mark 10 : 30  seem to indicate this life.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/luk18.pdf

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar10.pdf


You are also conflating the idea of entering the Kingdom with everlasting life, when you could enter the Kingdom and only have 10 years life.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.The Kingdom and eternal life are both in Matthew 19.


Just giving you the benefit of the doubt, otherwise you should have plucked out your right eye by now. Do you pray only in a closet?

Thanks .That is why an understanding of the Languages, customs and so forth are necessary to the understanding of some Scriptures.Closets for instance...would the people of the ANE take that to mean what we would? what do you consider to be a closet in the sense it was translated as such?


 The strict nature of the synoptic undermines the intent of John and Paul

I don't understand what you are saying there, sorry.


“You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matt. 23:24, NIV)
“Everything is possible for him who believes.” (Mark 9:23b, NIV)
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Have you given away all your possessions?    

 He wasn't telling every believer to sell all their possessions  He was telling the Rich Young Ruler.


Well, I guess you should cling to the parts of the Bibel that you like, and ignore those you don't.

 I don't believe I do.I'm not  looking for a 'watered down Gospel'.


Except those who have been magically forgiven by Grace, due to the writings of Paul and John.


 I can't see that as being a bad thing.

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
what ever my lot, you have taught me to say
it is well, it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4411
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #102 on: January 15, 2012, 03:06:29 PM »

My guess is that Christianity was originally apocalyptic, and early converts were encouraged to hate their corrupt Jewish parents.

Since Christianity has worn on, 2000 years longer than expected, Christians are no longer comfortable with hating their Christian parents, so along with the failure of the Kingdom to Come, words in the NT have to be reinterpreted. 

The point you made is spot on. Any attempt to understand the NT texts and the mindset of the 1st century believers to whom they were addressed must be done in light of the fact that the overwhelming issue that the messages were standing upon was the idea that an apocalyse, a return of King Jesus as savior and judge, and a resurrection of the saints to be with Jesus and the saints who hadn't ever died was to occur soon, within the very lifetime of the original audience.

One of the biggest problems with Christianity is that its adherants do not realize that the religion they subscribe to is a revisionist religion founded some time after the culmination of what the supposedly Christian documents (New Testament) spoke of was to occur. Christians read themselves and their contemporary time period into the NT texts and fully buy into the idea that the writings are directed to THEM as if they are the primary audience the men writing the texts had in mind.
Many Christians have seemed to somewhat understand this in every generation and I believe that is why in every generation you will find many Christian spouting "last days" nonsense. They don't fully grasp that the NT wasn't written to their "special" generation, but they do seem to grasp the immediacy found within its pages and realize that the tone of the writings is tone that calls for readiness for something that is "at hand." Too bad they don't grasp that the time that the things written of were to be "at hand" some 1950 or so years ago.
ToT...how in the hell do they KEEP the followers they have? I can understand the first few generations after the death of Jesus being devoted Christians,but after he failed to deliver....how are 21st century people still as stupid as first century people?

 As you said we have had many who told of the "end times" and have failed,we also have Christians who love the fact that Israel exists so their king has a place to return to.......If we could only answer WHY.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #103 on: January 15, 2012, 04:58:16 PM »
Have you given away all your possessions?    

He wasn't telling every believer to sell all their possessions  He was telling the Rich Young Ruler.

And he only told the Jews. Thou shalt not kill. Is this applicable to you? Of course not! God wasn't talking to YOU after all.

'Rich' in the Bible is a misnomer. It really correlates anyone whom places anything of material possession that can rot away, above Jesus' rewards in Heaven that cannot rot away. Which is more important: your car or forsaking your material possessions to take a mission trip to the Congo?

Yeah, I thought so. Your car that can rot (rust) is definately more important than Jesus. Whatever it takes to not put Jesus first in your life. Don't you remember his promise? God clothes the flowers, he feeds the birds. He certainly Loves you more than them. As long as you have faith in him, he WILL take care of you. You have no need to worry about the future, even tomorrow, because tommorow has enough problems on it's own. If you leave everyone and everything behind, he WILL take care of you. You will never need to worry about food. You will never need to worry about a roof over your head. You will never need to worry about travel because if you're doing God's work, He wil make sure you are where he wants you, so you have no need of a car. Yet instead of putting Faith in God, you forsake him, ignore him and treat mundane material things that will rot, rust, die and pass away over Jesus.

If Jesus was talking about "rich" in the way you mean "rich" how much a week income or assets would one need to be considered "rich?" If he means it your way, Jesus would have definately said something concrete here. "If you're only living paycheck to paycheck and barely able to pay your bills, this does not applpy to you." So ... which book:verse did Jesus say that? Au contraire. Yet he talks about the point I just made, instead. Someone who treats anything in this life is more important that the next and Jesus... that's what Jesus is referring to "rich." Going further, if you put your very own life over Jesus and the next life, you are "rich," for he calls you to give that up for him as well.

Well, I guess you should cling to the parts of the Bibel Buybull that you like, and ignore those you don't.

Fixed it for ya.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 04:59:56 PM by TruthSeeker »

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #104 on: January 16, 2012, 12:35:19 AM »
Maybe, but both Luke 18 : 30 and Mark 10 : 30  seem to indicate this life.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/luk18.pdf

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar10.pdf

The intent of those verses is apparently to show that you are supposed to lose brothers and parents. I don't notice many Christians inheriting more houses and parents in this life, but I understand the theory of what is trying to be conveyed. (I don't trust it as a promise from God, but maybe as a philosophical premise that might work occasionally)

There is an inherent uninterpretability of the NT, because it's a series of redactions, bringing together a few human hypotheses on life, afterlife, and communism. They didn't agree on what the 'Kingdom' was, or when it would come. So, as you've pointed out, Christians are supposed to have reward in this life. This appears to be from a strain of Christianity which believed that the Kingdom would not come "by observation" Luk 17:20, Thomas 3, but instead was like a state of mind that one could achieve, using "the Kingdom is like" meditations. "The Kingdom of God is within you."

They then back over this with a truck, and say: Matt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. How do we interpret this, if the kingdom is within us?  Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Ambiguous.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matt 5:10. I can't interpret this without afterlife, so it's a different Kingdom being talked about.

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

We have a mixture of 2 types of Kingdoms, skillfully interwoven, to make it look like they are talking about the same thing, but, philosophically, one extreme gives way to Buddhism/gnosticism, and the other to an expectation of an Earthly apocalypse, now.

Strangely, even though Luke says that the Kingdom is within us, it then throws in a strange Luke 16 parable of Lazarus, where Jesus is talking about hell in sheol, contradicting Revelation. So, we have 2 models of afterlife. (This could easily be rectified by deleting Revelation or Luke. The Kingdom ambiguity would not be obvious without Luke and Thomas)

Quote
Thanks .That is why an understanding of the Languages, customs and so forth are necessary to the understanding of some Scriptures.Closets for instance...would the people of the ANE take that to mean what we would? what do you consider to be a closet in the sense it was translated as such?

Tamieion appears to be a secret chamber.

Quote
The strict nature of the synoptic undermines the intent of John and Paul

I don't understand what you are saying there, sorry.

Paul is all about forgiveness, if you accept Christ and love your neighbour. John says that the primary ingredient is believing that Jesus is the messiah.

The synoptic does not say that Jesus is your personal savior, but portrays him as an expert master, who is the pinnacle of Judaism. He denies being good, but implies that you get a ranking in heaven according to how well you adhere to Jewish law. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. He expects perfection "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." The beatitudes then speak in apparent hyperbole, which may not be hyperbole, if you believe that hell is real. (It could also be hyperbole, as with the rest of the gospel.) "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.", "And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you?"

If we just had the synoptic gospels, we would have to be very strict Jews, who did not get divorced, and prayed in closets. This is too overwhelming for the average MacDonald's Christian, so they fall back on Paul and John to bail them out.


Quote
He wasn't telling every believer to sell all their possessions  He was telling the Rich Young Ruler.

And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great,

Quote
I can't see that as being a bad thing.

It's not a bad thing if it's actually true. A few saved people is better than none. However, it comes from Paul, really, not Jesus, so you should be hoping that this anonymous epistle writer was sane. (If any of it was true.)
.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 12:41:41 AM by Add Homonym »
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #105 on: January 16, 2012, 01:18:19 AM »
That actually fits in with what Truth OT said.

Looking at the Kingdom quotes, you can see how Christianity abandoned its apocalypse and then reinterpreted most of the Kingdom quotes to be about this life. This might put a dating on the Gospel of Thomas. Since saying 3 is positioned so high in the text, it gives a clue that this was its agenda.

3)   Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."

When I'm totally bored, I shall have to figure out which Kingdom quotes are applicable only to afterlife.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline onesteward

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Darwins +3/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #106 on: January 16, 2012, 04:20:43 PM »
The intent of those verses is apparently to show that you are supposed to lose brothers and parents.

I don't think it teaches that we are supposed to but that in the event we are called to we will have a reward.He says " No one who has left.....



 I don't notice many Christians inheriting more houses and parents in this life, but I understand the theory of what is trying to be conveyed. (I don't trust it as a promise from God, but maybe as a philosophical premise that might work occasionally)

 I thought you were an atheist.You can't trust anything as a promise from God in that case.If not , sorry for making that assumption.I don't take it as literal either but can see where it would make sense for a missionary, for instance.

There is an inherent uninterpretability of the NT, because it's a series of redactions, bringing together a few human hypotheses on life, afterlife, and communism.

Never heard that before.It has been interpreted sufficiently to bring the Truth of salvation to people.


 They didn't agree on what the 'Kingdom' was, or when it would come. So, as you've pointed out, Christians are supposed to have reward in this life.

Eternal life is a pretty good reward.There are several meanings for " Kingdom" in the Greek.If it is "earthly" and 'spiritual' some questions are answered.If it is both present and future then questions are answered as well.



 This appears to be from a strain of Christianity which believed that the Kingdom would not come "by observation" Luk 17:20, Thomas 3, but instead was like a state of mind that one could achieve, using "the Kingdom is like" meditations. "The Kingdom of God is within you."

I know almost nothing about The Gospel of Thomas.


They then back over this with a truck, and say: Matt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. How do we interpret this, if the kingdom is within us?
Mrk 9 :1 and Luke 9: 27 have the same saying in essence. Both are then followed by the story of the Transfiguration .Could that be what it meant?

How do we interpret this, if the kingdom is within us?
 Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Ambiguous.
Not if it is Spiritual.The Holy Spirit can be both internal and external why not the spiritual kingdom?



Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matt 5:10. I can't interpret this without afterlife, so it's a different Kingdom being talked about.

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

We have a mixture of 2 types of Kingdoms, skillfully interwoven, to make it look like they are talking about the same thing, but, philosophically, one extreme gives way to Buddhism/gnosticism, and the other to an expectation of an Earthly apocalypse, now.
Because it speaks of more than one type of Kingdom?


Strangely, even though Luke says that the Kingdom is within us, it then throws in a strange Luke 16 parable of Lazarus, where Jesus is talking about hell in sheol, contradicting Revelation. So, we have 2 models of afterlife. (This could easily be rectified by deleting Revelation or Luke. The Kingdom ambiguity would not be obvious without Luke and Thomas)

Well seeing that they weren't deleted maybe the ambiguity wasn't seen like you see it.

Quote
Thanks .That is why an understanding of the Languages, customs and so forth are necessary to the understanding of some Scriptures.Closets for instance...would the people of the ANE take that to mean what we would? what do you consider to be a closet in the sense it was translated as such?

Tamieion appears to be a secret chamber.

 Basically to pray in private as a rule? I see it that way anyway.



When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
what ever my lot, you have taught me to say
it is well, it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #107 on: January 17, 2012, 10:14:17 AM »
I like how onesteward explains one verse with another verse which in all actuality doesn't explain the initial verse in the first place.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #108 on: January 17, 2012, 11:37:05 AM »
I like how he replies that Christians are supposed to be rewarded in this life with, "Eternal life IS a pretty good reward."

Honor your father and mother, and ye shall have long life.

"Those whom believe will not die, but have Eternal Life."

Ironically enough, in order to have this "gift" of "Eternal Life" you must Die/Perish first. Which is, obviously, not a reward in this life.

Someone clearly knows how good eternal life is, since he's obviously experienced it. My guess is, they're really under 120 and have never experienced anything 'eternal' once in thier entire life.

I have some advice for you. Beware the promise of eternal life without the promise of eternal youth.

Offline onesteward

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Darwins +3/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #109 on: January 17, 2012, 04:14:49 PM »
I like how he replies that Christians are supposed to be rewarded in this life with, "Eternal life IS a pretty good reward."

Honor your father and mother, and ye shall have long life.

"Those whom believe will not die, but have Eternal Life."

Ironically enough, in order to have this "gift" of "Eternal Life" you must Die/Perish first. Which is, obviously, not a reward in this life.

1 John 5:
13)I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in [c]the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, [d]yes, eternal life.

John 5
24)I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, the person whose ears are open to My words [who listens to My message] and believes and trusts in and clings to and relies on Him Who sent Me has (possesses now) eternal life. And he does not come into judgment [does not incur sentence of judgment, will not come under condemnation], but he has already passed over out of death into life.

There are others as well.


Someone clearly knows how good eternal life is, since he's obviously experienced it. My guess is, they're really under 120 and have never experienced anything 'eternal' once in thier entire life.
As you can most likely now see, experiencing eternal life is for now.Eternal Life is not about duration only but the quality of ones life as well.


I have some advice for you. Beware the promise of eternal life without the promise of eternal youth.

 And I have some advice for you , too.If you can have eternal life...take it any way you are able.
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
what ever my lot, you have taught me to say
it is well, it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6237
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #110 on: January 17, 2012, 05:09:42 PM »
^^^Are you kidding? You would take any kind of eternal life over a normal life span followed by death? Even if you were suffering from some horrible painful illness forever and never got any relief? Would you want eternal life if you were going to spend it in a mental institution with dementia, in a work camp in China or the Russian Gulag?

We have discussed this often here-- what would eternal life in heaven/paradise mean if you did not have your memories, your personality, the hobbies and interests you currently have? What would eternal life be without the friends, family and neighbors who you cherish? You would be cool with never seeing your sweet gay nephew or wacky Muslim neighbor or eccentric atheist father in law again?

Maybe Jesus said to give up your worldly possessions and discard your earthly family for practice. Because then you would really be ready for the long, unendingly boring, lonely, humorless, eventless existence that heaven would be. No parties. No videos. No sex. No booze. No chocolate cake. For all eternity.

Many theists have problems with this "give up everything and everyone that makes life worthwhile for god" concept as well. So we get new dogma-free versions of Christianity that say everyone will go to heaven if they are nice, even if they don't accept Jesus as saviour, or follow the ten commandments or read the bible or go to church or believe in the correct version of god. Even dogs go to heaven nowadays, and they don't believe god is watching over them. (If they did, would they lick their privates all the time? I think not.)

Because deep down inside nobody really wants to be left alone with Jehovah god for all eternity. He does have a lot of power, but has no sense of humor, is very moody, has arbitrary rules, is obsessed with sex and is way too into fits of violent destructive rage. God is a dictator.  Heaven would be like being locked in a luxurious palace with Kim Jong Il or Idi Amin Dada forever and ever amen. No thanks.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline onesteward

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Darwins +3/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #111 on: January 17, 2012, 06:40:31 PM »
^^^Are you kidding? You would take any kind of eternal life over a normal life span followed by death? Even if you were suffering from some horrible painful illness forever and never got any relief? Would you want eternal life if you were going to spend it in a mental institution with dementia, in a work camp in China or the Russian Gulag?

 Eternal life comes from God, His life.None of those horrible things will be there.

We have discussed this often here-- what would eternal life in heaven/paradise mean if you did not have your memories, your personality, the hobbies and interests you currently have?

 I don't know about my memories and personality.Do you know they would no longer exist? I'm thinking a God of infinite wonders and creativity will come up with something to keep my attention.I might miss Golf if it's not there though.


 What would eternal life be without the friends, family and neighbors who you cherish? You would be cool with never seeing your sweet gay nephew or wacky Muslim neighbor or eccentric atheist father in law again?

I will have friends and family there.Neighbors as well.I don't know about those who aren't there....will I know they aren't there?

Maybe Jesus said to give up your worldly possessions and discard your earthly family for practice. Because then you would really be ready for the long, unendingly boring, lonely, humorless, eventless existence that heaven would be.

 Wow, nothing at all like I'm going to experience.It could be an eternity of things, marvelous things, that we may only have to learn once and then move onto new things.Forever.

 No parties. No videos. No sex. No booze. No chocolate cake. For all eternity.

I know I'm invited to a Wedding Banquet there.I think it should be quite a bash with all the saints of all the ages there.What they will serve and what exactly will happen will have to wait to be found out I guess.

Many theists have problems with this "give up everything and everyone that makes life worthwhile for god" concept as well.
But it is God that made life worthwhile.

 So we get new dogma-free versions of Christianity that say everyone will go to heaven if they are nice, even if they don't accept Jesus as saviour, or follow the ten commandments or read the bible or go to church or believe in the correct version of god. Even dogs go to heaven nowadays, and they don't believe god is watching over them. (If they did, would they lick their privates all the time? I think not.)
If we snuck food to the dog off the table my father would joke that ..."now the dog is going to have to lick himself to get the taste of your mother's cooking out of his mouth. :)


Because deep down inside nobody really wants to be left alone with Jehovah god for all eternity. He does have a lot of power, but has no sense of humor, is very moody, has arbitrary rules, is obsessed with sex and is way too into fits of violent destructive rage. God is a dictator.  Heaven would be like being locked in a luxurious palace with Kim Jong Il or Idi Amin Dada forever and ever amen.

You are thinking of the wrong God.I am not familiar with that one.


 No thanks.

 Well  , it is your choice.
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
what ever my lot, you have taught me to say
it is well, it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6237
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #112 on: January 17, 2012, 08:30:23 PM »
No horrible things will be in heaven because, why? How do you know that god won't let a few guinea worms, a celebutard reality show and a concentration camp or two slip in? He let an awful lot of awful things slip into earth, now didn't he?

Are you going to try to argue that all the nice things on earth (puppies and crayons and rainbows and snowflakes and chocolate cake and Robert Downey Jr.) came from Jehovah god but all the bad things (rabies, cigarettes, hurricanes, frostbite, cavities and Paris Hilton) came from somewhere else, like in the back door when god was not looking or maybe on his day off when he had a sub? Isn't god paying attention to his creation? Hello, rabies? Hello?

If you won't know whether or not your family and friends are with you there in heaven, you can't say you will have your same memories, now can you? And if you won't want to do the same things you like doing now, you can't say that you will be the same person, now can you? So, who exactly will be the you that is the you that goes to heaven? A you that does not remember your gay nephew or golf or cheetos or those red basketball high tops that you really love or whatever, would not be the same you.

I know that god will come up with something to distract you from not having your wife or kids or brother or neighbors because they did not make the cut. Something shiny and flashy. Oh yeah, Saint Paul and Mother Teresa will have hourly penance and castigation sessions. Partaaay! But Gandhi and Anne Frank won't be there-- as non-Christians they will be burning in hell with the rest of us. Bummer.

The god who destroyed all plant and animal and human life on the entire planet in a giant kick-ass flood[1] is not a dictator? My bad, then. I guess we need to pardon Genghis Khan,  Idi Amin and Pol Pot. They don't qualify as evil dictators anymore --compared to god they are pretty nice guys. They did not off anywhere near the number of grandmas, children, babies, kittens and puppies as god drowned in just a few weeks.... &)

Or have you not read the bible?




 1. or was that a metaphor?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #113 on: January 17, 2012, 09:48:59 PM »


 Eternal life comes from God, His life

Don't be ridiculous. We all know that eternal life comes from Horcruxes. I dare you to prove otherwise.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #114 on: January 18, 2012, 12:15:50 AM »

Quote
There is an inherent uninterpretability of the NT, because it's a series of redactions, bringing together a few human hypotheses on life, afterlife, and communism.

Never heard that before.It has been interpreted sufficiently to bring the Truth of salvation to people.


That's a funny one. You mean, as long as (a) they interpreted it correctly, (b) it's actually true that some people have been saved.

(Anyway, this is what the thread is about.)

I noticed that you avoided commenting on this.
Quote
Paul is all about forgiveness, if you accept Christ and love your neighbour. John says that the primary ingredient is believing that Jesus is the messiah.

The synoptic does not say that Jesus is your personal savior, but portrays him as an expert master, who is the pinnacle of Judaism. He denies being good, but implies that you get a ranking in heaven according to how well you adhere to Jewish law. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. He expects perfection "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." The beatitudes then speak in apparent hyperbole, which may not be hyperbole, if you believe that hell is real. (It could also be hyperbole, as with the rest of the gospel.) "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.", "And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you?"

If we just had the synoptic gospels, we would have to be very strict Jews, who did not get divorced, and prayed in closets. This is too overwhelming for the average MacDonald's Christian, so they fall back on Paul and John to bail them out.

Just as a hypothetical, here: what if the gospel of John was just a fake? What if it was the opinion of one clever dick, who decided to define Christianity the way he wanted it, and got away with it? What if the people who say that the scriptures are "divinely inspired" are not divinely inspired themselves, but simply decide scripture based on a popular vote, and bitch-fights. What if they didn't like the look of the Judaized scripture, and wanted it to be a bit easier, because they were not Jews? If there was no Paul and John to rescue you from Christianity, then you would have to do this sort of thing:

Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Acts 4:
[31] And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,


It appears to me that Christian doctrine says that when you leave your own house, you receive back a communal house. When you leave your mother and father, you get to live with your new brothers and sisters in the communist, shared household. And if you don't, they kill you.... Acts 5:5 (Serves you right, really.)


Surely it's about time that Christians lost their trainer wheels, and followed the synoptic gospel?

I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible
« Reply #115 on: January 18, 2012, 10:25:32 AM »
1 John 5:
13)I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in [c]the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, [d]yes, eternal life.

Eternal Life = Immortal. Or is it barring Disease, a knife to the chest, drowning, or etc? Because dying of Old Age is definately not "Eternal." Less than 120 years is not "Eternal".

John 5
24)I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, the person whose ears are open to My words [who listens to My message] and believes and trusts in and clings to and relies on Him Who sent Me has (possesses now) eternal life. And he does not come into judgment [does not incur sentence of judgment, will not come under condemnation], but he has already passed over out of death into life.

There are others as well.

Since Christians die just as often as non-Christians, how would you know who has "Eternal Life" or not?

As you can most likely now see, experiencing eternal life is for now.Eternal Life is not about duration only but the quality of ones life as well.

Christians also have life "more abundantly." I'm surprised you didn't state that one for your "Quality of Life."
 
Ah, so it's like the Life line in Palm Reading.... have to explain why that person with that really long life line died so young. Again, you still do not impress. Though Christians are supposed to have "Eternal Life" that really means "quality of life, not length of life" yet, there are Christians that have miserable miserable lives. Just think of all those Christians during the Black Death. No matter how horrible you think your life may be, the people who lived during those times had it bad... really really bad. I guess "Eternal Life" which is really the "Quality of Life" is just like Santa Claus and God. Santa perfers the children born of rich people, just as God prefers those born on first world countries. I guess the "Eternal Quality of Life" is relative. If you're well off, God makes it all better for you, as if you could tell, since you're already well off. If the world you live in is a shit-hole where you cannot eat for days at a time, I guess God cannot make your life that great because it being obvious that you know something we don't... nah, don't want to go there. Might ruin people's "free will" right?

Can you just imagine having God's abundant "Eternal Life" while living in Etheopia or Darfur?

And I have some advice for you , too.If you can have eternal life...take it any way you are able.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "I'd rather die than..."? There are some fates worse than death. Likewise there are some eternal lifes that are worse than knowing one day you will die. Spending eternity with a "Do as I say not as I do," "Freewill[1]: Submit or Die[2]," sexist, racist[3], homophobic[4], ignorant[5], bully, tyrannical dictator.... no thanks.

I have been putting this off because I don't have a printer, but I've been thinking about writting a paper on all the lies in Genesis 1. I will be assuming for sake of arguement that God is real and the Earth was created in 6 days. Cannot pass a single day with out a single lie... except the 7th... since we are assuming there is a god. If the Bible is supposed to be God's love letter to us, how he wants to be with us, then he did a shit job from the get-go of the "relationship".

Edit: So close to not needing an EDIT. /sigh
 1. ie. Coercion
 2. or spend eternity in Hell.
 3. a chosen people then the 'trash'
 4. so much for "All-Loving"
 5. thinks the Earth is flat, stars: itty-bitty shiny rocks
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 10:30:18 AM by TruthSeeker »