Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

06-26-2012, 09:02 AM

(06-23-2012 04:58 PM)Zadig Wrote:
(06-23-2012 02:54 PM)Bob M Wrote: If you are trying t o say that Paul should have only repeated verbatim what Jesus said, or they contradcit each opther, you're wrong.

There are plenty of theologians who would disagree with you. The differences between the two have been discussed for centuries.

Quote:They were in different time periods in the coming of the kingdom of God. Jesus was the one who initiated it. Paul was there to answer questions that arose during the start of the early church. They were in different situations and had different emphases, but what they taught is totally consistent with each other.

Thanks for sharing a legitimate opinion on the topic. Back to my earlier examples, how do Paul's comments about women and slaves correlate with anything Jesus taught?

I answered you sufficiently. They don't need to. They wrote for different purposes and they do not contradict each other. Show me where Jesus DIRECTLY contradicted anything Paul said. I contend that every single supposed contradiction that you try to present can be answered. Some are not easy answers, but every one can be answered.

fundyvangelicalcatholic · 06-26-2012, 12:59 PM

(06-25-2012 10:13 PM)Zadig Wrote: I'm saying it's odd that a messenger would choose a very ineffective mode of broadcasting his message. Especially one who was supposedly divine.

IWhat is your angle? We have given you answers. You may think we are delusional or that our answers are lame, but they are answers none the less.

We hold that Jesus is divine. You seem to think that someone divine would not choose to communicate in the means of communication relevant to that age. Should Jesus have created broadband infrastructure, the internet and YouTube to broadcast his message? After all, he was supposedly divine.

Wouldn't a divine figure choose to manifest himself in the age we live in today? After all, we are more enlighted and have instant communication. We could instantly discredit all of this non-sense of "Messiah" with science since nobody has ever escaped a tortuous death and actually came back from the dead. That is science fiction!

I choose to believe Jesus is divine. I take my proof from scripture. You obviously believe scripture is not inspired and just a bunch of stories passed on in book form. Your belief is your belief. We have answered your questions, but it seems as if you want to discredit our faith as a bunch of non-sense. Even if it is non-sense, a bunch of posts on a message board isn't going to change our minds just like our answers are not going to change yours.

Good day.

~~Zadig~~ · 06-26-2012, 02:39 PM

(06-26-2012 07:02 AM)elfdream Wrote:
(06-25-2012 10:59 PM)Zadig Wrote: I didn't say it invalidates the entire message. I said it demonstrates that it's a poor way to communicate. And as I said, it seems odd that the most important message ever given to the human species wasn't written down by the messenger.

Oral tradition was once the only means of communication both informal and legal simply because few people could read or write. A person's word and honestly was of such importance that a person could be thrown in jail or worse for breaking it. In fact the idea of documenting something by having it written down is a rather recent idea.

It was not a recent idea 2000 years ago to write something down otherwise the Library at Alexandria would not have been stacked wall to wall.

FmrMarine · 06-26-2012, 02:56 PM

(06-26-2012 12:59 PM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote:
(06-25-2012 10:13 PM)Zadig Wrote: I'm saying it's odd that a messenger would choose a very ineffective mode of broadcasting his message. Especially one who was supposedly divine.

IWhat is your angle? We have given you answers. You may think we are delusional or that our answers are lame, but they are answers none the less.

We hold that Jesus is divine. You seem to think that someone divine would not choose to communicate in the means of communication relevant to that age. Should Jesus have created broadband infrastructure, the internet and YouTube to broadcast his message? After all, he was supposedly divine.

Wouldn't a divine figure choose to manifest himself in the age we live in today? After all, we are more enlighted and have instant communication. We could instantly discredit all of this non-sense of "Messiah" with science since nobody has ever escaped a tortuous death and actually came back from the dead. That is science fiction!

I choose to believe Jesus is divine. I take my proof from scripture. You obviously believe scripture is not inspired and just a bunch of stories passed on in book form. Your belief is your belief. We have answered your questions, but it seems as if you want to discredit our faith as a bunch of non-sense. Even if it is non-sense, a bunch of posts on a message board isn't going to change our minds just like our answers are not going to change yours.

Good day.

First, a bunch of posts on a message board may begin to open someone's eyes. Information I read on forums certainly wasn't the only reason I decided I no longer believed, but it certainly played a part.

Second, belief can be harmful. Belief motivates some people to walk into a supermarket with a vest full of C4 and roofing nails strapped to their chest, or fly planes into skyscrapers or execute physicians who perform medical procedures with which they disagree or promote legislation banning certain medical treatment and research that could benefit thousands of people.

As for Christians being delusional, I would submit there is certainly evidence for that. There are many things in the bible that are demonstrably false. If one accepts the definition of delusional as maintaining belief in the face of invalidating evidence, then one could certainly make a case for that.

fundyvangelicalcatholic · 06-26-2012, 03:43 PM

So your mission is to open our eyes so we realize how delusional we are? Our delusion may cause us to walk into supermarkets with C4 and roofing nails strapped to our chest? Sorry, the Muslim extremist board is the next one over -Yeesh!

Your opinion on medical treatment is that those who disagree with you (especially based on our delusional faith) are against treatment that could benefit thousands of people. What you fail to mention is that I disagree that this treatment be brought about by murder. Is it right to murder in order to obtain samples that could benefit thousands? What does this even have to do with religion? You could argue this based solely on how you want to operate as a society and what value you place on human life.

Again, what do you plan to gain by questioning our faith? It is exactly that - faith. While you may take the leap that we are all delusional - that is fine. To take the next step that our faith will lead to mass murder and lack of medical research is as delusional as you feel we are!

oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest · 06-26-2012, 03:46 PM

(06-26-2012 02:56 PM)FmrMarine Wrote:
(06-26-2012 12:59 PM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote: IWhat is your angle? We have given you answers. You may think we are delusional or that our answers are lame, but they are answers none the less.

We hold that Jesus is divine. You seem to think that someone divine would not choose to communicate in the means of communication relevant to that age. Should Jesus have created broadband infrastructure, the internet and YouTube to broadcast his message? After all, he was supposedly divine.

Wouldn't a divine figure choose to manifest himself in the age we live in today? After all, we are more enlighted and have instant communication. We could instantly discredit all of this non-sense of "Messiah" with science since nobody has ever escaped a tortuous death and actually came back from the dead. That is science fiction!

I choose to believe Jesus is divine. I take my proof from scripture. You obviously believe scripture is not inspired and just a bunch of stories passed on in book form. Your belief is your belief. We have answered your questions, but it seems as if you want to discredit our faith as a bunch of non-sense. Even if it is non-sense, a bunch of posts on a message board isn't going to change our minds just like our answers are not going to change yours.

Good day.

First, a bunch of posts on a message board may begin to open someone's eyes. Information I read on forums certainly wasn't the only reason I decided I no longer believed, but it certainly played a part.

Second, belief can be harmful. Belief motivates some people to walk into a supermarket with a vest full of C4 and roofing nails strapped to their chest, or fly planes into skyscrapers or execute physicians who perform medical procedures with which they disagree or promote legislation banning certain medical treatment and research that could benefit thousands of people.

As for Christians being delusional, I would submit there is certainly evidence for that. There are many things in the bible that are demonstrably false. If one accepts the definition of delusional as maintaining belief in the face of invalidating evidence, then one could certainly make a case for that.

I have always had a hard time taking you seriously fmrmarine because you have exchanged one simplistic worldview for another. You still think like a fundy - black and white, generalizations, half truths, name calling. Come on. Sure there are abnoxious, misguided and downright dangerous religious people, but there are people of no religion like that too. And there are religious people who hae done much good in the world, and there are atheists that have done much good.

The fact is there are people much smarter and learned than me who are atheists and there are people much smarter and learned than you who are theists. I have found that the theists closest to atheism/agnosticism and the atheists/agnostics closest to theism are the most nuanced and thoughtful in their discussion. Perhaps it's because they are more seekers of truth than champions of their own cause.

fundyvangelicalcatholic · 06-26-2012, 03:47 PM

(06-26-2012 02:39 PM)Zadig Wrote:
(06-26-2012 07:02 AM)elfdream Wrote: Oral tradition was once the only means of communication both informal and legal simply because few people could read or write. A person's word and honestly was of such importance that a person could be thrown in jail or worse for breaking it. In fact the idea of documenting something by having it written down is a rather recent idea.

It was not a recent idea 2000 years ago to write something down otherwise the Library at Alexandria would not have been stacked wall to wall.

......the exception proves the rule?

FmrMarine · 06-26-2012, 03:58 PM

(06-26-2012 03:46 PM)oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest Wrote:
(06-26-2012 02:56 PM)FmrMarine Wrote: First, a bunch of posts on a message board may begin to open someone's eyes. Information I read on forums certainly wasn't the only reason I decided I no longer believed, but it certainly played a part.

Second, belief can be harmful. Belief motivates some people to walk into a supermarket with a vest full of C4 and roofing nails strapped to their chest, or fly planes into skyscrapers or execute physicians who perform medical procedures with which they disagree or promote legislation banning certain medical treatment and research that could benefit thousands of people.

As for Christians being delusional, I would submit there is certainly evidence for that. There are many things in the bible that are demonstrably false. If one accepts the definition of delusional as maintaining belief in the face of invalidating evidence, then one could certainly make a case for that.

I have always had a hard time taking you seriously fmrmarine because you have exchanged one simplistic worldview for another. You still think like a fundy - black and white, generalizations, half truths, name calling. Come on. Sure there are abnoxious, misguided and downright dangerous religious people, but there are people of no religion like that too. And there are religious people who hae done much good in the world, and there are atheists that have done much good.

The fact is there are people much smarter and learned than me who are atheists and there are people much smarter and learned than you who are theists. I have found that the theists closest to atheism/agnosticism and the atheists/agnostics closest to theism are the most nuanced and thoughtful in their discussion. Perhaps it's because they are more seekers of truth than champions of their own cause.

If you would kindly point out where I have ever called anyone a name, I would appreciate it. You'll have an awfully hard time though. I would definitely consider myself a seeker of truth and while I or anyone else may not have discovered it yet, that does not mean we can't say with certainty what is not true.

FmrMarine · 06-26-2012, 04:08 PM

(06-26-2012 03:43 PM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote: So your mission is to open our eyes so we realize how delusional we are? Our delusion may cause us to walk into supermarkets with C4 and roofing nails strapped to our chest? Sorry, the Muslim extremist board is the next one over -Yeesh!

Your opinion on medical treatment is that those who disagree with you (especially based on our delusional faith) are against treatment that could benefit thousands of people. What you fail to mention is that I disagree that this treatment be brought about by murder. Is it right to murder in order to obtain samples that could benefit thousands? What does this even have to do with religion? You could argue this based solely on how you want to operate as a society and what value you place on human life.

Again, what do you plan to gain by questioning our faith? It is exactly that - faith. While you may take the leap that we are all delusional - that is fine. To take the next step that our faith will lead to mass murder and lack of medical research is as delusional as you feel we are!

I would submit to you that an extremist carrying out a terrorist act has everything to do with religion to the extremist. And while your faith may not lead to mass murder, the same can not be said for all faiths. And yes, many people oppose valuable things like stem cell research which could have tremendous benefits based on faith. Many people oppose things like contraception which is truly needed in many parts of the world based on faith. These are situations where belief in a god is harmful to society as a whole.

oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest · 06-26-2012, 05:27 PM

(06-26-2012 03:58 PM)FmrMarine Wrote:
(06-26-2012 03:46 PM)oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest Wrote: I have always had a hard time taking you seriously fmrmarine because you have exchanged one simplistic worldview for another. You still think like a fundy - black and white, generalizations, half truths, name calling. Come on. Sure there are abnoxious, misguided and downright dangerous religious people, but there are people of no religion like that too. And there are religious people who hae done much good in the world, and there are atheists that have done much good.

The fact is there are people much smarter and learned than me who are atheists and there are people much smarter and learned than you who are theists. I have found that the theists closest to atheism/agnosticism and the atheists/agnostics closest to theism are the most nuanced and thoughtful in their discussion. Perhaps it's because they are more seekers of truth than champions of their own cause.

If you would kindly point out where I have ever called anyone a name, I would appreciate it. You'll have an awfully hard time though. I would definitely consider myself a seeker of truth and while I or anyone else may not have discovered it yet, that does not mean we can't say with certainty what is not true.

How about calling Christians delusional? I wouldn't call an atheist delusional because it is generally considered insulting.