Author Topic: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated  (Read 7001 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #58 on: February 25, 2012, 11:04:34 AM »
What's with the wall of words?

You really suck at quoting. Are you trying to Provoke me? :)
Right on both counts monkeymind:-)
If you are expecting me to quote verses, forget it.  That is what has the church so doctrinally confused and doctrinally divided.  Reasonable scriptural points can only be made by relating the pertinent parts of the whole story.
You have to be able to see the logical flow of the well known bible events, to see where they obviously lead. 

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #59 on: February 25, 2012, 12:02:28 PM »
What's with the wall of words?

You really suck at quoting. Are you trying to Provoke me? :)
Right on both counts monkeymind:-)
If you are expecting me to quote verses, forget it.  That is what has the church so doctrinally confused and doctrinally divided.  Reasonable scriptural points can only be made by relating the pertinent parts of the whole story.
You have to be able to see the logical flow of the well known bible events, to see where they obviously lead.

LoL, That's what I thot. LoL
Quote
someone who deliberately foments trouble; "she was the instigator of their quarrel"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/provoker

However, you didn't provoke me. You'll have to do better than that!  I see you as an amateur provoker (an amvoker).

From Monkeypedia:
Quote
amvoker 1. Noun. someone who deliberately tries to foment trouble, but really can't because they are an amateur; "she was unsuccessful in instigating a quarrel because she sucked at it."
http://www.monkeypedia.com/provoker

OK, on not quoting versus, however, I don't know how you will back up your assertions without them. I'm all for reading between the lines.

Here, you give it a try first:
/What/a/maroon/!/

Lol, Lol, Lol
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline rickymooston

Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #60 on: February 25, 2012, 12:06:51 PM »
Christian:  think God is more forgiving of which interpretation you choose and more insistent on living a life that is honorable, helpful, and worthwhile. Both religions push the same kind of living. The devil is in the details, but Jesus never pushed detail oriented religion, so I don't push it either.


Hi, scanning over the debate, in my view, the Christian is closer to the mark than the atheist but both have made valid points.

Note that they are debating reasonable interpretations of the bible and NOT the existence of God. Being a smite worthy. Oosy bastard I will comment on all.

There are several passages, verses and parables that in my mind support the Christians point of view

First of all, There exists a verse where Jesus summarizes the command thus
1 Love god with all your heart soul and mind
2 Love other people as you love your self.

Next Jesus is described as witnessing a stoning of a woman for adultery. The Jewish Law condemned her and yet Jesus said that he who never sinned can cast the first stone.

Only Jesus saw left and he told her to not seen again.

He didn't say adultery was OK. However he overturned the traditional punishment for it and focused on the inner person.

Another example has Jesus telling people to remove planks from there eyes rather than focusing on the sins of others

Several passages discuss an obligation in paying of one's taxes and submit to other obligations imposed on you by society including unjust ones like slavery. Not that in those days taxation amounted to stealing. The Romans were stealing for their subject people's.

Oddly christian slavemasters are nit condemned but onesimous was freed by Christian brothers. In any case the status quo isn't,the opposed

What is opposed isva total lack of compassion for the poor hungry and shelterless. Jesus goes so far as to suggest damnation for those who ignore the plight of the suffering.

Quote
[color=green]Atheist: [/color] yeah, details. shit that gets in the place of grand stories. details dont matter to the religious. its the bigger picture!
the end justifies the means = rape, pillage, be immoral, just as long as you repent before you die so that you can make it to heaven. What a crock of shit.

Stupid strawman arguments are a crock of shit. The passages on forgiveness speak of true sincere
Repentance.

What you describe is somebody who plans out his wickedness with the intent of getting away with it later.

Consider that Jesus was even passed off at the pharosees for the minor sin of hypocracy and pride.

In terms of the question of biblical interpretation several guidelines are provided. One has to judge people by the fruits of their teachings.

Salvation apparently comes only through Jesus

It's not clear to me that every. Inor misinterpretation leads one to damnation. To the contrary as the christian said there isca huge amount of emphasis in sincerity. Faith but not on intelligence or education per se

Quote
Christian: Nope, actually, that's the opposite of what Jesus meant. All the immoral is precisely what is important to abstain from, the exact beliefs that set up denominations are what is unimportant. That's why churches are so off base sometimes. 

I don't understand the last claim per se. Agree with him ikely intent has a huge importance in the message that Jesus parables seem to provide

Quote
Me jumping in: What about when Jesus said he came to uphold old testament law and not change it. Old Testament law includes, rape, beating slaves, murder, etc.
Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."


Fair point but in context of other things he did and said it makes no sense that the violence and lack of compassion was what he was referring to. Again consider adultery and turn the other cheek examples

In no case does Jesus ever condone harming others and when given the opportunity he even condemns allowing one to suffer by neglect.

Consider the parable of the good samritan. He condemned not helping a stranger, not working on the sabbath where somebody was being harmed and even praised a non jew

Now the kind of stuff he did condemn included divorce.

You are right the apostles in wishing to provide a good witness supported the status quo and even slavery.

Jesus never spoke on rape but given his views on divorce and on harming people the only reasonable interpretation is that he was against it. In a society that was against women and nonjews in many ways he defended both. Saving a woman and praising a Samritan
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #61 on: February 25, 2012, 12:56:33 PM »
Provoker,
Despite what you may think, this is not a Monty Python Style argument clinic. We strive to exchange meaningful ideas and seek developed paths of thought.
Hello Brakeman:
I hoped that this forum would be a place to exchange meaningful ideas, but what I have run into is the proverbial Monty Python Style arguement clinic.
Quote


Please try to exchange ideas and not just comments to muddy up flows of conversation.
Have you noticed the the flows of conversation which I have had to defend against?  I am new here and I am simply following the lead of the regulars.  I think you should spread your criticism a little more evenly:-)
Quote

Additional care with your quoting would be most appreciated as well.
Not sure what you mean by that, but I will comment on whatever quotes I include.
Quote

Now that all of that has been said. Can you give us a clear summery of your position on the topic?
Certainly!
Scripture was written in flowing narrative, not verses, so it is my contention that scripture is more likely to be properly understood if we appeal to the narrative rather than the verses. 
The "church at large" agrees on one thing; "the Nicean Creed", and feels free to disagree on everything else.  Since the Nicean Creed was established by democratic vote among representatives of all the churches in the Roman Empire, it is undoubtably pagan, and Constantine legislated that the Nicean Creed was to be preached in every church.
What we have today is a church which still dutifully agrees with the Nicean Creed, and still feels free to disagree on everything else.
The only thing which unites Christians today, is a set of pagan doctrines which were forced on all the churches of the Roman Empire after the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325AD.
Beginning with Abraham, "the faith", known as the faith of Abraham, is that a great nation of Abraham's seed will inherit all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt for an everlasting possession, and will bless all the families of all nations.
Now since the earth lost peace and good will when man began to falsely judge good and evil, and since a NT prophecy says that the Christ will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men, I concluded that peace on earth, good will toward men, brought about by David's kingdom, is close enough to a great nation blessing all the families of all nations, to consider it as evidence of story continuity.
Back to Abraham:  Abraham believed God's promise, and righteousness was counted unto him for his faith(he was justified by his faith).  Now since God's promise was that a great nation would bless all nations, not that God would bless all nations, Abraham began to watch, wait, and prepare for the coming great nation, and the annointed one who will establish and lead it.  Anything Abraham did in preparation for the coming great nation, was justified by his faith in the outcome.  If he had to do something which was evil to prepare for the coming great nation, he counted himself righteous because of his faith in the outcome.  Because Abraham had faith in the end which God saw from the beginning, his faith in the end, justified the means.  This is probably where the Catholic idea of indulgences came from.
It should be noted here, that it is commonly known that the very religious everywhere, have always given, and always give, God the credit for everything which happens in their lives.  It is a common form of worship, and it is even endorsed in scripture.  So even though God's promise to Abraham is that a great nation will bless all nations, religious writers after the fact, worshipped God by writing Him into the record as the author of every event. 
When the mixed national assembly known as the Children of Israel was chosen by Moses, to become the great nation of God's promise, Moses gave the national assembly 10 rules of national unity, which would lead it to great everlasting nationhood.
The Children of Israel virtually wiped out the Canaanites to conquer the land defined in God's promise, and it justified this evil action by their faith in the outcome.  Scripture writers made sure to complete that justification by adding that God told the Children of Israel to do it.
The geographically defined nation of Israel became a kingdom, and during the reign of Solomon, it became divided against it'self, having obviously broken the 10 rules of national unity, and Israel fell into non-existence without having achieved everlasting possession of the land, and obviously without repenting of breaking the 10.
Now since God saw the end from the beginning, then His promised ending is everlasting and unconditional.  Prophets began to warn the former Israelites in the two warring enemy kingdoms which resulted from Israel's fall, that Israel is going to be resurrected, and that the former Israelites should repent and resurrect Israel.
The small remnant of those who still remained faithful to God's promise, looked forward to the coming resurrection of the kingdom of Israel, so they were "spiritual Israel", or "the spiritual kingdom", looking forward to the literal kingdom of Israel.
When the Babylonian captivity ended, the faithful remnant among the Judahites, resettled in Persian ruled Judea, and were made to feel so "at home" that they lost interest in resurrecting the kingdom, and became focused on the ritual practice of old redundant Israelite laws and traditions.  They had become the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jesus, a zealous member of the faithful remnant, came preaching the same good news which God had revealed to Abraham.  However, since Israel had become a kingdom before it fell, God's promise was now defined as the good news of the coming kingdom, rather than the good news of the coming great nation.
Since the borders of the great nation/kingdom were specifically defined in God's promise, and that specific land was part of the Roman Empire, Jesus' message represented a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire.  Jesus was executed for sedition, before he could do anthing which might cause Rome to retaliate by killing all the Jews.  "Jesus died to save the Jews" from death at the hands of the Romans.
The apostles carried on preaching the good news of the coming kingdom and were all killed by Rome.  The church was driven underground around 70AD, and was never heard from again, that we know of.
The anti-Nicean fathers were pagans, but since they defined the church, the church does not realize it.  250 years after the church went underground and disappeared, Emperor Constantine decided to unify all the religious organizations of the Roman Empire under one universal god, so he summoned representatives of all the churches of the empire to Nicea, and told them to bring all their sacred writings(refered to as testimonies) with them.  They were ordered to discuss all their various doctrines and by democratic vote, establish one universal set of doctrines which all could live with.
The council lasted for either almost 2 years by one account, to more than 4 years by another account.  In the end, the vote agreed with Constantine's initial proposal, and the Nicean Creed was established.  The names of the Celtic god Hesus, and the eastern god Krishna, were blended to name the new universal god.
Constantine ordered Eusebius to read all the testimonies of the gods, which had been brought to the council, and write "The New Testimonies", blending everything which is good in the testemonies, and throwing out everything which is evil in the testemonies.  50 copies of Eusebius' "New Testimonies" were made and distributed to all corners of the empire, with the order that the new creed be preached in all churches.
All the old testimonies, and records of the council, were burned, and Constantine ordered that anyone found with a copy of any of the old testimonies was to be beheaded.
The rest is church history.
I would be happy to enlarge on any particular part of my synopsis:-)



« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 12:59:20 PM by Provoker »

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #62 on: February 25, 2012, 01:20:18 PM »
Silly Monkeymind had a brain fart! I thot you copy/pasted  w/o giving credit.

I'm sorry.

I would give myself a thumbs down if it was allowed.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 02:17:47 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #63 on: February 25, 2012, 01:39:17 PM »
Interesting post, Provoker. A few quick questions.

Is it fair to extrapolate an area described as "all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt" as the whole world?
Hi PP:
However one chooses to interpret scripture is fair as far as I am concerned.  My only interest is to show that there is a logical story to use as a starting point for interpretation.
Quote

"Nations" at that time were groups of people, not geographic entities. Does that make any difference today? In your opinion, of course.
I don't think that groups of people actually constituted nations, which I think were always geographically defined.  The concept of "nation" was skewed by the priesthood which Israel fell.  The point was that as long as the former national Israelites could remain convinced that they were still Israelites, the priesthood could maintain the status it enjoyed while geographically defined Israel existed.
For instance;  The two warring enemy kingdoms resulting from the fall of Israel, are commonly, but falsely, refered to as "the divided kingdom".  In fact, the kingdom was divided during Solomon's reign, and that division caused it's fall.  The two warring enemy kingdoms were not a divided anything, they were two separate, non-covenant kingdoms.
Quote
Given the Israelis inability to make even token peace with just the Palestinians, are they really likely to be the source of that claim that "peace and good will would be brought to the earth by a great everlasting nation"? If Iran nukes them, will that slow down the process?
There is nothing about the modern state of Israel which leads me to think that it is a legitimate resurrection of the great nation of God's promise to Abraham.
The reason I say that is because a majority of Israelite Jews are actually atheists, and as a democracy, the fact that Arab Israelies are reproducing at a much higher rate than Israeli Jews, it has been calculated that Israel will be an Arab state in a matter of 50 years or so.
Quote

If there is a god, he should known that if people are involved, it will never work out. He would have had better luck making Adam and Eve into dolphins. Of course that would have mucked up his plans to flood the place later on, which of course he knew about before he started playing in the dirt and making Adam. Were I omnipotent I think I would actually use the information I already know.
Of course you must recognize that I consider the story of Adam and Eve to be metaphorical, and while I believe in some kind of creation, I don't claim that the creator is the God of scripture, or that I have any idea of what form the creator has, is, was, etc.  Since astronomers tell us that the universe is explanding outward in all directions, suggests to me that it had a starting point.  Beyond that I cannot speculate.
Quote

A god who knows the shit is going to hit the fan and responds by making more shit available doesn't impress me much.
My sentiments exactly.  That is why I consider this part of the creation story; "God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down" to be metaphorically saying that God is not involved with His finished creation.
Quote


I do appreciate the overview you provided. I don't believe any of it, but at least it clarified a few christians points of view. And it wasn't preaching.
I doubt if there are any Christian points of view which can be clarified by my opinions:-) 
I am not trying to show that the story of the bible is true.  I'm simply trying to show that there is a chronologically continuous logical story running through the bible.

Offline shnozzola

Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #64 on: February 25, 2012, 01:54:56 PM »
Hi Provoker,
   Sorry to jump into the middle of this, but looking over this thread,  I thought a posting in the review section might be of interest to you.  It is a quick critique of Christianity posted by "Foxy Freedom" (an hour or so reading) that I felt was pretty well written - although I disagreed with some things, most things I felt were well thought out, backed up with some evidence, and I could agree with:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21282.msg479417.html#msg479417

here's the actual link
http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V


My question is, do you think Jesus is going to return and “sow things up”, so to speak?

Oops, I almost forgot.  Can I use this below as a quote from you as my future signature?

You see, when the Miss America contestants wish for world peace, they are actually stating the faith of Abraham.
edit: spelling
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 02:07:23 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #65 on: February 25, 2012, 03:05:08 PM »
Interesting...

So what about the lost tribes? Anything in your narrative about them? Do the missing 10 tribes have to unite in or over Israel for world peace?
Hi monkeymind:
A tribe is an assembly, and when an assembly is dispersed, it is no longer an assembly(tribe), so there are no literal tribes to unite. 
Since the faith which the Children of Israel was chosen to fulfill, is a faith, not a family, being a member of that nation, or of a tribe in that nation, is not based on bloodline but on faith, so when the kingdom is resurrected, it will be populated by those who have the faith of Abraham at the time the kingdom is resurrected.  While the kingdom of Israel would have to be literally resurrected, the tribes will only be resurrected as names for the old tribal division of the land. 
In God's definition of the New Covenant he will make with Israel(Jeremiah 31:31-34), He refers to Israel as the two houses.  This is an obvious reference to the two kingdoms reuniting to resurrect Israel.  However, since these two kingdoms were not in existence in Jeremiah's day, the reference has to be metaphorical.  It is only logical that resurrected Israel will be populated by the faithful living at the time the kingdom is resurrected.  The tribes will be metaphorically be reunited.
The annointed one(Christ/Messiah), sitting on the throne of David's resurrected kingdom, will make his enemies his foot stool, he will rule them with a rod of iron, he will make them beat their swords into plowshares, he will stop them from learning war, and nation will no longer rise up against nation.  Sounds like a solid plan for blessing all the families of all nations with peace on earth, good will toward men:-)

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #66 on: February 25, 2012, 03:11:06 PM »
Any idea/guess who the Messiah is?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2012, 03:14:40 PM »
Hi Provoker,
My question is, do you think Jesus is going to return and “sow things up”, so to speak?
Hi shnozzola:
I don't think that any dead person is going to show up again...LOL
The one and only prophecy of messianic purpose, is that he will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men.  How many times must a messiah come, to fulfill one little prophecy?
Quote

Oops, I almost forgot.  Can I use this below as a quote from you as my future signature?
By all means, by my guest:-)
Quote

You see, when the Miss America contestants wish for world peace, they are actually stating the faith of Abraham.
edit: spelling

Offline rickymooston

Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2012, 03:48:25 PM »
If you are expecting me to quote verses, forget it.

Well, if you are arguing about what the bible intends to say, you either have to quote verses or at least allude to them. It is true that its easy to quote them out of context.  :-X

Quote
  That is what has the church so doctrinally confused and doctrinally divided.

I disagree with this statement. Doctrine depended on a number of factors. One can't assume all the theologians were idiots unable to read their texts in context.

Quote
  Reasonable scriptural points can only be made by relating the pertinent parts of the whole story.
You have to be able to see the logical flow of the well known bible events, to see where they obviously lead.

I agree. Of course, quoting verses can sometimes help establish this but often one may also allude to context. The question of quoting or not quoting is a matter of people believing your claims about said texts and readibility of them.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #69 on: February 25, 2012, 04:36:23 PM »
What you say may very well be true, but it does not apply to anything I have written here.

...Yeah, it does. Read the part I quoted. It applies to that.
Hi Luci:
I am discussing with a legion of people here, so unless you can remind me what it is, I cannot comment.
Quote

Scripture was not written in verses.  It was written in flowing narrative.  It was later divided into verses for ease of making references.

Source?
Hmm.  I don't know.  However it is commonly known that scripture was written in flowing narrative, without punctuation or spaces, and it is also commonly known that splitting scripture up into verses was done sometime in the middle ages.  I guess you will have to google it:-)
Quote

Unfortunately, the good idea of verses created the bad situation of fragmenting scripture.  Scripture has to be defragged in order to get back to the flowing narrative.  A sentence which is lifted from narrative and quoted as if it was written to stand alone, is always quoted outside of it's context.  The accuracy of what a quoted verse appears to say, can only be determined according to it's agreement with the overall narrative.  IOW, quoting a single verse from a story, means absolutely nothing unless the quoter and the hearer both understand the story.

Irrelevant. The inconsistencies are not explained away by yelling "CONTEXT". Just in Genesis you have light before light sources, the moon being one of said light sources, A&E being created before and after all living things, et cetera.
Context appears to be quite relevant to the Republican candidates for presidential nomination:-)  Surely you have seen the lies which can be spread by lifting a "sound bite" out of it's context in a speach, and using it to imply something the speaker did not mean.  Without appealing to context, no one would understand anything.
If you can see the inconsistencies in scripture, you are half way to rightly dividing scripture so that you can see the consistency of the story which runs through scripture.
The story of Adam and Eve is a common creation legend in several cultures, and is not part of the faith of scripture.  One of the main morals found in the bible story, is that when we get hung up on religious traditions and customs, we cannot recognize "the faith" of scripture, which is that a great nation will bless all nations with peace on earth, good will toward men.  All the religious stuff which has been added to the faith over the last 3500 years, has only served to cover up the very faith which is the one and only point of scripture.
The church is also focused on silly religious traditions, and that is why it lost the faith more than 1500 years ago.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11140
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #70 on: February 25, 2012, 04:47:41 PM »
I am discussing with a legion of people here, so unless you can remind me what it is, I cannot comment.

"It" is my post explaining what cherry picking is after you misused the term.

Hmm.  I don't know.  However it is commonly known that scripture was written in flowing narrative, without punctuation or spaces, and it is also commonly known that splitting scripture up into verses was done sometime in the middle ages.

True for the most part. Dunno about the bold parts and the "commonly known" bits, though. However, that doesn't matter. Even if that is so, it doesn't affect the issue with the inconsistencies, which is the main issue here.

Context appears to be quite relevant to the Republican candidates for presidential nomination
<snip>

I didn't say that context was irrelevant, but rather that a lot of the inconsistencies do not depend on the context of the verses.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #71 on: February 25, 2012, 06:44:51 PM »
Hi Provoker

The green text indicates I am acting as a moderator and not a participant in the discussion.  This post is not meant to be argumentative and a rebuttal would be considered inappropriate


Additional care with your quoting would be most appreciated as well.

Not sure what you mean by that, but I will comment on whatever quotes I include.

He means you made an error in one of your posts with the quote tags. I fixed for you. I suggest you check out our quoting tutorial here.  Or, if you understand how to quote and it was simply a typo, I suggest using the preview button before you post.  I still make quoting errors myself and 100% of the time it is because I failed to preview before posting.

Regards 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Darwins +544/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #72 on: February 26, 2012, 06:29:40 AM »
The first thing that a disinterested reader will note is that if you remove all references to God, from the following, there is no loss of meaning. (I have also corrected the spelling of Nicene and Nicaea)
Can you give us a clear summary of your position on the topic?
Certainly!
Scripture was written in flowing narrative, not verses, so it is my contention that scripture is more likely to be properly understood if we appeal to the narrative rather than the verses.
This is either trivial or misleading. It is obvious that words taken out of context are without value, but the proposition of the Bible is that all the words are God’s; a Christian who then suggests that God could not express Himself perfectly, is then committing blasphemy.
Quote
The "church at large" agrees on one thing; "the Nicene Creed", and feels free to disagree on everything else.  Since the Nicene Creed was established by democratic vote among representatives of all the churches in the Roman Empire, it is undoubtedly pagan,
This is a strange concept. In application this argument would indicate that the Declaration of Independence is a British Document, as those who produced it were British. I personally see this as the fact of the matter, but have to say that the Declaration makes sufficient distinction between “being British” and “being a member of a break-away group.” Thus the Nicene Creed established the basic tenets of Christianity sufficient to distinguish the belief system from the pagan one.
Quote
The only thing which unites Christians today, is a set of pagan doctrines which were forced on all the churches of the Roman Empire after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325AD.
… and thus they are all that is required.
Quote
Beginning with Abraham, "the faith", known as the faith of Abraham, is that a great nation of Abraham's seed will inherit all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt for an everlasting possession, and will bless all the families of all nations.
This is based upon an assumption that Abraham’s claim was indeed by God, and not simply Abraham and others claiming the authority of a mythical being.

Quote
Now since the earth lost peace and good will when man began to falsely judge good and evil,
This is a bald statement without any support. Against it is (i) the serpent’s word that “ye will be as gods and know good from evil” (ii) there is nothing in history to show that there has ever been a “loss of peace and good.”

Quote
and since a NT prophecy says that the Christ will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men,
(i) Do you have the reference of that ‘prophecy’? (ii) I see you omit the slaughter of one third of Mankind in the process.
Quote
I concluded that peace on earth, good will toward men, brought about by David's kingdom, is close enough to a great nation blessing all the families of all nations, to consider it as evidence of story continuity.
So, this is a personal opinion of God’s word and has no authority at all. It is what you imagine.
Quote
Back to Abraham:  Abraham believed God's promise, … was that a great nation would bless all nations, not that God would bless all nations, …  Anything Abraham did in preparation for the coming great nation, was justified by his faith in the outcome.
This is the doctrine of “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” 

Quote
If he had to do something which was evil to prepare for the coming great nation, he counted himself righteous because of his faith in the outcome. Because Abraham had faith in the end which God saw from the beginning, his faith in the end, justified the means.
Were it so that God were inspiring him, would this not mean that God could not achieve His ends without being evil? 

Quote
When the mixed national assembly known as the Children of Israel was chosen by Moses, to become the great nation of God's promise, Moses gave the national assembly 10 rules of national unity, which would lead it to great everlasting nationhood.
You realise that there is no evidence for the existence of Moses, and much against it?
Quote
The Children of Israel virtually wiped out the Canaanites to conquer the land defined in God's promise, and it justified this evil action by their faith in the outcome  Scripture writers made sure to complete that justification by adding that God told the Children of Israel to do it. .
Again, an omnipotent God fails to find a peaceful or just solution
Quote
The geographically defined nation of Israel became a kingdom, and during the reign of Solomon, it became divided against itself, having obviously broken the 10 rules of national unity, and Israel fell into non-existence without having achieved everlasting possession of the land, and obviously without repenting of breaking the 10.
You make it sound as if God had something to do with this.
Quote
Now since God saw the end from the beginning,
But did He see the middle – did He foresee that He would have to order the death of millions?
Quote
then His promised ending is everlasting and unconditional.
How do you know that (i) God has not withheld a sequel? Or (ii) in view of later changing prophecies, that what you claim is at all correct?
Quote
Prophets began to warn the former Israelites in the two warring enemy kingdoms which resulted from Israel's fall, that Israel is going to be resurrected, and that the former Israelites should repent and resurrect Israel.
To accept this, you have to believe that prophets can see into the future, for which there is no evidence. You also have to realise that these prophets made no prophecies about things that God must have known but they could not know – you will note the lack of prophecies about events in Australia.
Quote
God's promise was now defined as the good news of the coming kingdom, rather than the good news of the coming great nation.
Here we see the fallacy of believing a prophecy, as the prophecy changes as circumstances changes and its words are tortured to fit.
Quote
Since the borders of the great nation/kingdom were specifically defined in God's promise, and that specific land was part of the Roman Empire, Jesus' message represented a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire.  Jesus was executed for sedition, before he could do anything which might cause Rome to retaliate by killing all the Jews.  "Jesus died to save the Jews" from death at the hands of the Romans.
The truth of the matter is that the Romans has little interest in the affairs of the Jews. There were constant squabbles about who should run the Temple and how it should be run. So unimportant was the internecine strife, that Jesus is never mentioned  in any known documents, although others who fomented trouble are.
Quote
The apostles carried on preaching the good news of the coming kingdom and were all killed by Rome.  The church was driven underground around 70AD, and was never heard from again, that we know of.
This is not true. I suggest you have a look at various “gospels” that were written ater that date.
Quote
The anti-Nicean fathers were pagans,
See my earlier point
Quote
The names of the Celtic god Hesus, and the eastern god Krishna, were blended to name the new universal god.
Really? I’d be interested in any substantiated references.

Reality is a little different. The OT is a general and fictionalised account of the area of and around present-day Israel. It is a story of warring tribes; sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

The NT is a story of rebellion against authority. It is probably no more than a political document turned into a narrative with a fictional hero used for unity of that narrative.

I end by urging you to remove references to any deity and observing that the events then do not change, but tend to make more sense.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #73 on: February 26, 2012, 09:57:06 AM »
Any idea/guess who the Messiah is?
Hi monkeymind:
After trying to get me in shit with the moderators, I shouldn't even be speaking to you!!!
The only thing which would identify the messiah is:  A successful takeover of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, by someone who intends to be a benevolent dictator to the whole world:-)

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #74 on: February 26, 2012, 10:56:52 AM »
Any idea/guess who the Messiah is?
Hi monkeymind:
After trying to get me in s**t with the moderators, I shouldn't even be speaking to you!!!
The only thing which would identify the messiah is:  A successful takeover of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, by someone who intends to be a benevolent dictator to the whole world:-)

No, that is a mischaracterization of what happened. I thot you copied and pasted your first paragraph in a post w/o attributing your source. I notified a moderator (I don't know which one) & also posted a link in the thread immediately. I noticed within a minute or two, my mistake. I immediately notified the moderator explaining I was in error and Modified my post apologizing to you as well. What happened was a simple mistake. However, the moderator may have made the same mistake, or just taken my word for it, and put you on watched status. At any rate, (once again) I am  sorry about this regretful error.

I  happy that you are willing to speak with me (in spite of you having reservations about it).

You must be a better provoker than I anticipated as I generally don't make those kinds of mistakes, maybe you threw me off my game!  ;)

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #75 on: February 26, 2012, 02:18:08 PM »
The first thing that a disinterested reader will note is that if you remove all references to God, from the following, there is no loss of meaning. (I have also corrected the spelling of Nicene and Nicaea)
Can you give us a clear summary of your position on the topic?
Certainly!
Scripture was written in flowing narrative, not verses, so it is my contention that scripture is more likely to be properly understood if we appeal to the narrative rather than the verses.
This is either trivial or misleading. It is obvious that words taken out of context are without value, but the proposition of the Bible is that all the words are God’s; a Christian who then suggests that God could not express Himself perfectly, is then committing blasphemy.
Hello Greybeard:
There is no bible proposition on the bible, making the rest of your comments on my first sentence either trivial of misleading:-)
Quote
Quote
The "church at large" agrees on one thing; "the Nicene Creed", and feels free to disagree on everything else.  Since the Nicene Creed was established by democratic vote among representatives of all the churches in the Roman Empire, it is undoubtedly pagan,
This is a strange concept. In application this argument would indicate that the Declaration of Independence is a British Document, as those who produced it were British. I personally see this as the fact of the matter, but have to say that the Declaration makes sufficient distinction between “being British” and “being a member of a break-away group.” Thus the Nicene Creed established the basic tenets of Christianity sufficient to distinguish the belief system from the pagan one.
Your analogy completely misses the point.  The apostolic church went underground in 70AD and never surfaced again.   The religious organizations of the 4th century Roman Empire were either pagan or Jewish, and the Nicean Creed is a blending of pagan and Jewish doctrines.   Hundreds of years later the universal religion was declared to be Christian, and that declaration, of course, became retroactive to the first century.
Quote
Quote
The only thing which unites Christians today, is a set of pagan doctrines which were forced on all the churches of the Roman Empire after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325AD.
… and thus they are all that is required.
I agree that the universal church, and the protestant denominations, are all complete religious organizations, and their doctrines are valid within the context of those organizations.  My contention is the word "Christian", when understood in it's proper context, does not define the universal church nor the protestant churches.  This means that the universal church, and the protestant churches, regardless of how complete they are in themselves, are not Christian in the contextually accurate sense of the word.  The post-Nicean church defines the word "Christian" as "One who follows Jesus Christ".  But...a contextually accurate understanding of the word "Christian", would be; "One who watches and waits for the Annointed one(Christ) who will fulfill the gospel of the coming great nation/kingdom".
Quote
This is based upon an assumption that Abraham’s claim was indeed by God, and not simply Abraham and others claiming the authority of a mythical being.
This is actually based upon the fact that the continuous story running through the bible, says that God made a promise to Abraham.  I am arguing for the story, not for literal truth:-)
Quote
Quote
Now since the earth lost peace and good will when man began to falsely judge good and evil,
This is a bald statement without any support. Against it is (i) the serpent’s word that “ye will be as gods and know good from evil” (ii) there is nothing in history to show that there has ever been a “loss of peace and good.”
Let me put some hair on my statement:-)  The story of Adam and Eve is obviously a metaphore which refers to man being tricked into getting the knowledge of good and evil, even though he had been warned of the consequences.
Then man presumed to judge his own nakedness as evil, in contradiction to the fact that God had already declared man's nakedness as good.  There is nothing which will destroy peace and good will faster than men falsely presuming to judge good and evil.  I try to interpret "in context" rather than according to church tradition:-)
Quote
Quote
and since a NT prophecy says that the Christ will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men,
(i) Do you have the reference of that ‘prophecy’? (ii) I see you omit the slaughter of one third of Mankind in the process.
(i) Trust me!  An angel in one of the gospels, states that he will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men. (ii) I am offering the basis for my opinion that the bible contains a chronologically continuous story.  I am not attempting to interpret, or endorse, all the details, but to establish a contextual basis for the acceptance, or rejection, of details.  The logic is that if there is a continuous story running through scripture, then any text which conflicts with that story, is not part of the story.  It may simply be misunderstood, but a misunderstood meaning is still not part of the story.
Quote

Quote
I concluded that peace on earth, good will toward men, brought about by David's kingdom, is close enough to a great nation blessing all the families of all nations, to consider it as evidence of story continuity.
So, this is a personal opinion of God’s word and has no authority at all. It is what you imagine.
Everything I write is my own personal opinion.  I don't recognize any authority in anyone else's personal opinion.  Who do you know who has the authority to make opinions for you?:-)
Quote
Quote
Back to Abraham:  Abraham believed God's promise, … was that a great nation would bless all nations, not that God would bless all nations, …  Anything Abraham did in preparation for the coming great nation, was justified by his faith in the outcome.
This is the doctrine of “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”
Absolutely.  In context, can you think of a better explanation of justification by faith?
Quote
 

Quote
If he had to do something which was evil to prepare for the coming great nation, he counted himself righteous because of his faith in the outcome. Because Abraham had faith in the end which God saw from the beginning, his faith in the end, justified the means.
Were it so that God were inspiring him, would this not mean that God could not achieve His ends without being evil?
Yes, except that I don't see the fulfillment of God's promise as "God's ends".  God saw the end from the beginning and He graciously revealed the good news to Abraham, that in the end, man will bless all nations with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men.
This is also based on my interpretation of the metaphorical statement that God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down.  I cannot see that meaning anything other than that the creator's job was finished properly, and that man is not a work in progress, as far as the creator is concerned.
Quote
   

Quote
When the mixed national assembly known as the Children of Israel was chosen by Moses, to become the great nation of God's promise, Moses gave the national assembly 10 rules of national unity, which would lead it to great everlasting nationhood.
You realise that there is no evidence for the existence of Moses, and much against it?
What I realize is that Moses exists as a principle character in the story of the bible.  I am arguing for the story, not for actuality:-)
Quote
Quote
The Children of Israel virtually wiped out the Canaanites to conquer the land defined in God's promise, and it justified this evil action by their faith in the outcome  Scripture writers made sure to complete that justification by adding that God told the Children of Israel to do it. .
Again, an omnipotent God fails to find a peaceful or just solution
In the context of the bible story, God's job was finished when He declared it good, and sat down.  God is not finding solutions for man, God is simply the one who saw the end from the beginning, and told Abraham what he saw.
Quote
The geographically defined nation of Israel became a kingdom, and during the reign of Solomon, it became divided against itself, having obviously broken the 10 rules of national unity, and Israel fell into non-existence without having achieved everlasting possession of the land, and obviously without repenting of breaking the 10.
You make it sound as if God had something to do with this.[/quote]Unfortunately there are so many factions for this to be understandable to, that it has to be written in accepted terminology.  "Repentance" for division, is obviously "reunification", and the 10 commandments are obviously designed to maintain unity.
Quote

Quote
Now since God saw the end from the beginning,
But did He see the middle – did He foresee that He would have to order the death of millions?
I would hope that you can understand the difference between "seeing the end", and "directing the end".
Quote
Quote
then His promised ending is everlasting and unconditional.
How do you know that (i) God has not withheld a sequel? Or (ii) in view of later changing prophecies, that what you claim is at all correct?
Quote
(i)God is simply a character written into the story by religious writers who considered it a form of worship to give Him the glory for everything.(ii)The only thing I claim is correct, is that there is a chronologically continuous logical story running through the bible.
Quote
Quote
Prophets began to warn the former Israelites in the two warring enemy kingdoms which resulted from Israel's fall, that Israel is going to be resurrected, and that the former Israelites should repent and resurrect Israel.
To accept this, you have to believe that prophets can see into the future, for which there is no evidence. You also have to realise that these prophets made no prophecies about things that God must have known but they could not know – you will note the lack of prophecies about events in Australia.
Actually, the prophets basically reiterated a slightly embellished version of God's gospel promise to Abraham.  Many passages which the post-Nicean church call prophecies, are actually just conveniently worded passages which, if they were prophecies, would support post-Nicean doctrine:-)
Quote
Quote
God's promise was now defined as the good news of the coming kingdom, rather than the good news of the coming great nation.
Here we see the fallacy of believing a prophecy, as the prophecy changes as circumstances changes and its words are tortured to fit.
A kingdom is simply a great nation which ruled and protected by the leader of an army.  I'm trying to simplify a principle which the church has purposely made confusing, and you are nit picking...LOL
Quote
Quote
Since the borders of the great nation/kingdom were specifically defined in God's promise, and that specific land was part of the Roman Empire, Jesus' message represented a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire.  Jesus was executed for sedition, before he could do anything which might cause Rome to retaliate by killing all the Jews.  "Jesus died to save the Jews" from death at the hands of the Romans.
The truth of the matter is that the Romans has little interest in the affairs of the Jews. There were constant squabbles about who should run the Temple and how it should be run. So unimportant was the internecine strife, that Jesus is never mentioned  in any known documents, although others who fomented trouble are.
The truth is that the only sect of the Jews which was not backslidden from the faith of Abraham, was called "The Zealots".  So called because they were zealous for kingdom resurrection.  The Zealots were a thorn in the side of Rome because they were waging a constant geurilla war against the Roman authority.  While it is true that Rome did not worry about the faithless Jewish ritual belief in the coming kingdom, Jesus came preaching the same message with faith.  His purpose was to heal the backsliding of the Jews, and return them to their lost zeal for kingdom resurrection.  That is why Jesus was a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire.  These events did not take place in a vacuum, they took place in the context of the reality of the time.
Quote

Quote
The apostles carried on preaching the good news of the coming kingdom and were all killed by Rome.  The church was driven underground around 70AD, and was never heard from again, that we know of.
This is not true. I suggest you have a look at various “gospels” that were written ater that date.
I suggest that unless you were there at the time, that you don't make statements regarding what is true or not true.  It is common courtesy to show the same kind of respect for another's opinion, that you show when your boss says that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.  Not only that, but a "not true" accusation is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad hominem type strawman, unless you qualify it with some evidence other than a suggestion. 
All the gospels were written after 70AD, but in the context of documents recording the events of the first council of Nicea, and the life of Constantine, there is little reason to consider the gospels as evidence of the existence of the church after 70AD.
The oldest known bible, the Sinai bible, c. 380AD only contains one of the gospels which are found in our bibles today; "the gospel of Mark".  The gospel of Mark in today's bibles, contains 10,000 more words than the Sinai bible version of Mark, and it also contains passages from know pagan sources.
Quote
Quote
The anti-Nicean fathers were pagans,
See my earlier point
You made no point earlier:-)
Quote
Quote
The names of the Celtic god Hesus, and the eastern god Krishna, were blended to name the new universal god.
Really? I’d be interested in any substantiated references.
I'll look it up.  I read it in an article by Tony Bushby, and he gives references for everything he states.
Quote
Reality is a little different. The OT is a general and fictionalised account of the area of and around present-day Israel. It is a story of warring tribes; sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.
That is the "reality" you have been taught, and the church would rather deal with that general statement than deal with the possibily that there is actually a continuous, logical story running through the bible.
Quote
The NT is a story of rebellion against authority. It is probably no more than a political document turned into a narrative with a fictional hero used for unity of that narrative.
OK...The NT is Roman propaganda designed to support the dismissal of the faith of Abraham, which occurred after the apostolic era, and made official by Constantine in 325AD.
Quote
I end by urging you to remove references to any deity and observing that the events then do not change, but tend to make more sense.
And I urge you wait for a rebuttal before you declare yourself correct and the discussion closed.  I am never surprised when someone assumes that his one critical post will settle the issue...LOL
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 02:33:20 PM by Provoker »

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #76 on: February 26, 2012, 02:25:56 PM »
Once again the wall. I couldn't read all that, but this caught my eye:
Quote
There is no bible proposition on the bible


Which of these did you mean?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proposition
Quote
Definition of PROPOSITION
1
a (1) : something offered for consideration or acceptance : proposal (2) : a request for sexual intercourse b : the point to be discussed or maintained in argument usually stated in sentence form near the outset c : a theorem or problem to be demonstrated or performed
2
a : an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false b : the objective meaning of a proposition


What does this mean then?

http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #77 on: February 26, 2012, 03:06:52 PM »
Once again the wall. I couldn't read all that, but this caught my eye:
Quote
There is no bible proposition on the bible


Which of these did you mean?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proposition
Quote
Definition of PROPOSITION
1
a (1) : something offered for consideration or acceptance : proposal (2) : a request for sexual intercourse b : the point to be discussed or maintained in argument usually stated in sentence form near the outset c : a theorem or problem to be demonstrated or performed
2
a : an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false b : the objective meaning of a proposition


What does this mean then?

http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Hello monkeymind:
I still should not be speaking to you:-)
Traditional church thinking is that "all scripture" refers to the bible, however there is a problem with that.  The bible contains books doctrinally selected from "all scripture", and passages in the bible, quote from, and refer to, scripture which is not found in the bible.  The book of Enoch is quoted in the bible, but the book it'self was rejected by the canonizers.  The bible cannot be considered "all scripture".
Beyond that, because God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down, nothing in God's creation is a a work in progress.  Man is on his own, and the only thing he has to thank God for is creation.
And beyond that, God is only written into scripture by religious writers who worshipped God by giving Him the credit for everything.  It is a very common practice among the religious.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #78 on: February 26, 2012, 03:08:19 PM »
^^^
Quote
Hello monkeymind:
I still should not be speaking to you:-)

And like a jilted lover, you keep complaining yet returning for more!
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #79 on: February 26, 2012, 03:12:58 PM »
Quote
The bible contains books doctrinally selected from "all scripture", and passages in the bible, quote from, and refer to, scripture which is not found in the bible.  The book of Enoch is quoted in the bible, but the book it'self was rejected by the canonizers.  The bible cannot be considered "all scripture".

But there is enough to form a view and present it to us in narrative form? What have you read of the missing scripture?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #80 on: February 26, 2012, 03:15:49 PM »
Any idea/guess who the Messiah is?
Hi monkeymind:
After trying to get me in s**t with the moderators, I shouldn't even be speaking to you!!!
The only thing which would identify the messiah is:  A successful takeover of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, by someone who intends to be a benevolent dictator to the whole world:-)

No, that is a mischaracterization of what happened. I thot you copied and pasted your first paragraph in a post w/o attributing your source. I notified a moderator (I don't know which one) & also posted a link in the thread immediately. I noticed within a minute or two, my mistake. I immediately notified the moderator explaining I was in error and Modified my post apologizing to you as well. What happened was a simple mistake. However, the moderator may have made the same mistake, or just taken my word for it, and put you on watched status. At any rate, (once again) I am  sorry about this regretful error.

I  happy that you are willing to speak with me (in spite of you having reservations about it).

You must be a better provoker than I anticipated as I generally don't make those kinds of mistakes, maybe you threw me off my game!  ;)
Hello Monkeymind:
I'm curious as to why you would jump to such a conclusion, and why you would be so quick to report it.  When you have no evidence, why would you not give me the benefit of the doubt?
I will have to admit that I am not finding this forum to be much of a positive experience:-(

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #81 on: February 26, 2012, 03:20:32 PM »

I'm curious as to why you would jump to such a conclusion, and why you would be so quick to report it.  When you have no evidence, why would you not give me the benefit of the doubt?
I will have to admit that I am not finding this forum to be much of a positive experience:-(

No, I did not jump to a conclusion, I misinterpreted the results of my Google query. I copied your first paragraph and Googled it. At the top of the results page it asked did you mean....and had the entire paragraph underlined. I mistakenly thot that was a link. When I went back to see the link, I discovered my error. First time that this has ever happened.

The bad thing about it was that I reported it in haste (before going to the "link").


ADDED: BTW I won't hesitate to report anyone that uses someone's words without attribution. I'll be sure that I don't confuse the Did you mean? link tho....
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 03:27:35 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #82 on: February 26, 2012, 07:59:01 PM »
.....
Well, if you are arguing about what the bible intends to say, you either have to quote verses or at least allude to them.....
Quote
Hi ricky:
When people ask me why I consider myself qualified to give a synopsis of the bible, I always tell them that I have read hundreds, maybe thousands, of stories in my life.  I always understood the stories, and I never remembered a single sentence from them:-)
Anyone who went to Sunday school knows all the stories of the bible.  It is simply a matter of placing them in chronological order, standing back, and taking a logical panoramic look at them.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #83 on: February 26, 2012, 09:30:48 PM »
Quote
The bible contains books doctrinally selected from "all scripture", and passages in the bible, quote from, and refer to, scripture which is not found in the bible.  The book of Enoch is quoted in the bible, but the book it'self was rejected by the canonizers.  The bible cannot be considered "all scripture".

But there is enough to form a view and present it to us in narrative form? What have you read of the missing scripture?
Hi monkeymind:
The very point of presenting the narrative is to bring you to the obvious conclusion that all Hebrew scripture exists to tell this narrative, and no matter what Hebrew scripture had been included in the bible, as long as it covered a sufficient time span, the story would still be clear. 

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #84 on: February 27, 2012, 08:57:30 AM »
Hi Provoker

Please practice using the quote feature. Your quoting errors are making it difficult to understand you.  In more than one of your posts I cannot tell which text is yours and which you have quoted.  please see this post:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21530.msg480146.html#msg480146

Thanks.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #85 on: February 27, 2012, 12:16:18 PM »
Ah, Prov, your post in reply to mine was pretty much as expected.  Why yes, I am serious about being an atheist.  Nice try in your attempt to claim I’m a “Christian in denial”, it’s so cute when theists try their best to lie about atheists. No, Prov, I was a Christian but no more.  Just because I know a lot about Christianity, evidently much more than you, and I am willing to discuss the religion and its harmful tendencies doesn’t mean I “really” do believe in God.  Many Christians would desperately hope that, so they get more external validation.  Unfortunately, there is none to be found with me. 

It’s so cute that you can declare that the Jews were and are “backslidden” when their religion is just as intact, and supported, as yours.  No evidence for that claim at all.  They were waiting for their messiah and Jesus managed to screw up fulfilling the prophecies, and the Jews were split on whether to believe him or not.  Early Christians *were* Jews who thought they got the right one but like all theists had to cherry pick their supposed divingly given books to make things fit.  So much for any “truth”.  JC himself said that the laws were to be followed and yes, that the Pharisees were placing too much emphasis on the “word” and not the implicatiosn behind them.  Again, the laws were still to be followed, all of them. 

And then we get into your claims about the “end times”. Of course, no answers to be had about the details about those end times, just the usual ooga-booga by a Christian and then when asked about his claims of details on how one knows the end times will come, suddenly nothing.  No detaisl on how “large” is large.  Nice to cover your butt so you don’t look as ridiculous as every other Christain who has told a lie about the end times being “real soon now”.  You have claimed:
Quote
First, I have said nothing about God returning.
No, didn’t need to read your mind at all. 
Quote
Hence the good news of the coming kingdom. When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments.
Quote
(Do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no!)  Even though you asked your question in such a presumptuous way that I cannot logically answer it, I will answer the question that I think you meant to, or should have, asked:  "Large enough" means enough people to conquer and occupy all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, which is the land defined in God's everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham.
oooh, questions I “should have asked”.  That’s good, Prov.  Making baseless claims that you couldn’t “logically” answer what I asked by calling it “presumputous”and then making up a new question.  Nice dodge there, though.  Again, this means nothing.  This would vary depending on time period and technology.  The theist’s vagueness strikes again.   


Quote
What a dreamer:-(  Do you really think that everything I write is something that I think I know? 
  Oh my, what a lovely quote.  Good to know that you write about nonsense and evidently you do know it!    and this one too

Quote
Try to keep in mind that I have made no claims of having any knowledge of biblical truth, but my claim is that I know that there is a continuous, logical, story running through scripture, which has been covered up and ignored by all who take it upon themselves to make claims about bible truth.
You know, that quote above, where you say “The good news of the coming kingdom”.  Oh yes, that where you claim to be telling what will happen.  &) 
Quote
How could you know that?  What is your definition of a Christian?  You think you know way too much, for one who doesn't have a clue about what she is talking about.
Do you not see how ridiculous your questions are?  If you want me to show where the bible says all the things I have claimed, which you actually only think I claimed:-), I would simply say; read the bible for the chronologically continuous story which flows through it.  It's a story, and a story is only defined by the story.  I don't have a bunch of standard verses which have been doctrinally selected to support my position.  If that is what you expect, then I am becoming more convinced that you are a Christian in denial.
  So, you’ve not bothered actually showing where the bible supports the things you’ve claimed as I asked.  My definition of a Christian is based someone calling themselves a Christian.  There is no better way to know, especially since Christians differ on how they define being a Christian.  Now, you’ve claimed this, Prov: “However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.”  I want to know where in the bible it says this.  You have claimed that the bible is a continuous story. You have claimed that that you know that this god knows various things and has said various things. The only way you would know is by the bible, right?   I know the bible quite well and I’m calling you on your claims.  I find your claims ridiculous since they seem to be only things made up by you.  And why would my requests for you to support your claims make me a “Christian in denial”?  It’s a nice thing for you to baselessly claim but again, without evidence, it makes you only seem that you can lie.
Quote
Can't you keep your mind on anything long enough to type a sentence?  I just stated that God is not involved with man, and I gave you the reason why I say that, and immediately you ask me why God does not do the things that are in the myths about Him.  There is little point in you asking me questions, if you are going to ignore my answers, and just rant about whatever you imagine...LOL  I think you should settle down and become rational, before you respond to this post.  Apply the common rules of English composition to what I write, and be completely sure that you understand what I said.
More things made up.  yes, I saw that you claimed that god is now not involved with man.  You have declared that god has left the building and that suddenly the whole story is just a metaphor.  Nice decoder ring there.  You are now the arbiter about this god and what bits are myths and what bits are true.  That’s my point, Prov, you are just one more theist with your own religion.  You have decided on your own what the “true” story of the bible is.

Quote
If we were discussing Shakespeare, would you accuse me of stating that Romeo was an actual person?  Get real!!!:-)
No dear, I wouldn’t.  But I’m guessing that you would not have claimed that your interpretation of Shakespear was the only “right” one. But as it seems from your antics so far, you very well might do so.     

Prov, you have declared that the “10 Commandments” were the only law given by this god.  I’ve shown your claim wrong and I have your inabnlity to support your claim.  So, I find that I am indeed correct when I accuse you of making up your own version of what the bible “really” means.  We have repeated verses that have this god declaring he is giving laws.  You might wish to ignore those verses to support your own premise but that is exactly what I’m getting at. 

The bible is not continuous and chronological.  We have no idea when some of the events occurred or if they did occur.  The bible ignores that it kills some tribes off “entirely” when it brings them back again to be annihilated.  The NT ignores the OT when it comes to prophecies when convenient.  And for you accusing me of paranoia, I do love your claim that
Quote
I am perfectly happy to demonstrate how scripture is a chronologically continuous story, and explain why that has been covered up, but I think you should settle down and become rational before I do that:-)
Ooh conspiracies!  Sigh, one more claim from a theist on how they “know” things.

As for your claims that I somehow feel “guilt”, again, nice but baseless claim.  Just how are you taking any punishment for me?  Tsk, such a martyr complex.  Nope, dear, I have anything but guilt, but I do have no problem in showing your claims to be nonsense and calling you on them.  You have claimed to know about “Covenant Israel”, something that only a few sects of Christianity try to natter on about.  You claim to know that “whole story of scripture is about Covenant Israel, because God chose Covenant Israel to fulfill His everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise.  Anyone who has read the bible through twice, should know that.” and try to claim that “anyone” should know this somehow, when that is not the case at all, again making claims that your version is the only “right” one.”

Quote
If your point is that the details are silly, I agree.  Interestingly, one of the important points that one finds in the story, is that concentrating on the silly religious details keeps one from seeing the point of the story.  If anything, the story goes out of it's way to dismiss silly religious details.
Yep, the details are silly, but they do show your claim that you somehow know that God only gave the “ten commandments” as laws to be utter nonsense.  And here we go with the claims of you knowing what the “real” point of the story is.  Yep, you and ever Christian all claims that they know this, and funny how they differ. 

You wan to claim that you know the “real” gospel.  Hmmm perhaps not a Mormon but a Gnostic Christian who again has made up his own version of the “truth”.  You want to split your god from the religion you don’t like.  Not suprising many theists do.  You’ve all shat on your religions by your actions so that you run away from the concept so you don’t have to be responsible for anything.  Again, nothing to show that this god is what you claim, that is means to bless anything or create an everlasting nation.  Just more wannabee chosen people.

« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 12:18:56 PM by velkyn »
"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 Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #86 on: February 27, 2012, 01:10:13 PM »
I am discussing with a legion of people here, so unless you can remind me what it is, I cannot comment.

"It" is my post explaining what cherry picking is after you misused the term.
Hi Luci:
Yes, now I remember.  Cherry picking is looking for a conveniently worded passage to support a preconceived belief.  My point is that every time someone quotes a verse, or a passage, outside of the story it is part of, he is quoting it out of context.  It might mean what he claims, but it is still quoted out of context.  The story is the story, and the story only becomes context when refering to a single verse of passage.  People who define the story with doctrinally selected single passages, are putting the cart before the horse:-)  No quoted single verse, or passage, means anything unless both the quoter and the hearer, understand the story.  So quoting verses to tell the story is not very reliable, and thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations shows that.
The verses, or passages, which support the obvious theme, can be reasonable assumed to be understood in context, but verses, or passages, which appear to conflict with, or contradict the obvious theme, must be assumed to be misunderstood, and doctrine should not be made out of them.  The problem of course, is understanding the continuing theme so that it can be used as context for understanding verses.
When one reads scripture logically, as a story, he is naturally looking for a continuous theme.  When a logical theme becomes obvious, the reader will then begin to understand the details he has already read so far.  Keeping
 the obvious theme in mind, the reader will know when a particular verse does not maintain continuity with the continuing theme, and so he will not make a kneejerk doctrine out of it.  By the time the reader finishes reading the story, he should understand it, even if he did not understand all the details(verses).  However, he will now have a contextual basis for going back and studying the details he did not understand.  It is the lack of that contextual basis which has spawned all the kneejerk doctrines which have spawned all the doctrinally disagreeing denominations.  And, of course, the doctrines of the Nicean Creed, which contradict the continuous contextual theme of scripture, discourage bible readers from even expecting a logically contextual story to exist.
Cherry picking is ignoring the context of the story, and selecting a verse for it's convenient wording, to support a preconception.  Establishing a continuing bible theme, is the opposite of cherry picking.
Quote

Hmm.  I don't know.  However it is commonly known that scripture was written in flowing narrative, without punctuation or spaces, and it is also commonly known that splitting scripture up into verses was done sometime in the middle ages.

True for the most part. Dunno about the bold parts and the "commonly known" bits, though. However, that doesn't matter. Even if that is so, it doesn't affect the issue with the inconsistencies, which is the main issue here.
The establishment of a logical continuous scriptural theme is the establishment of scriptural consistency.  Considering how old scripture is, and how many administrations it has gone through, it is bound to have inconsistencies.  The key to understanding scripture is separating the story from the chaos of quoted-out-of-context verses:-)
Quote


Context appears to be quite relevant to the Republican candidates for presidential nomination
<snip>

I didn't say that context was irrelevant, but rather that a lot of the inconsistencies do not depend on the context of the verses.
That is right, however, understanding the greater context of scripture will allow one to honestly reject the apparent meaning of inconsistent verses.  That is what context is all about:-)