Christianity (In a Nutshell)?

[2PhiloVoid]

I could also say.. Do not think that I've come to abolish the Law. Clearly if the LAW was used for righteousness, and if Paul is blameless as to the Law, then Paul was sinless.

And Christ clearly ignored the Law.

Mark 7: 17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Was pork clean under the Mosaic Law? So, you have two contradictory things about Christ. He allegedly didn't come to abolish the Law and yet, he ignore it and ultimately abolished it. I mean, you are not following it now, are you?

Oh, dear!

Have you ever read the book, Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus, by Lois Tverberg? If not, I suggest you start.

 

[Sanoy]

@com7fy8 The two faces of Cvanwey.

I grew up hoping it was real, tried to believe it to be real, but never was really convinced. At times, I may have 'thought' I was, but not truly... And when I finally decided to read the Bible cover to cover, I found too many claims which do not comport with 'reality'. Furthermore, when I placed all that to the side, and solely focused on the claim of a resurrection, I found the presented evidence for the claim severely lacking.

I was a staunch believer for decades. I went to church, was raised in Christianity, and I believed that the story of Christ was true, due to what I thought was overwhelming evidence to such a claim. It was as true to me as thinking the world is spherical or that gravity exists. Prior to 3 years ago, I studied the claims from the Bible like I've studied the claims of gravity. Meaning, I instead just trusted the authority around me that both the Bible and gravitational theory is/was sound.

If I was to die a few years back, I would had died thinking I was going to ascend to Heaven, as I was a believer, was baptized, prayed to Jesus, and thought it was true, (like the many scientific claims I have not also personally investigated).

You might be thinking that 1 is wrong and 1 is right. Well that would be reasonable anywhere else. Here however....here you're better off thinking they're both wrong.

 

[cvanwey]

@com7fy8 The two faces of Cvanwey.



You might be thinking that 1 is wrong and 1 is right. Well that would be reasonable anywhere else. Here however....here you're better off thinking they're both wrong.

LOL. Nice try man. Ever wonder why I used 'quotes'? Hence, the word 'thought'.

Yes, I truly thought I believed it. But now realize I never truly did. The best you could now argue is that I'm 'now' mistaken, and will soon realize I do believe. Okay, great. Give me evidence. Anyways, again, nice try.... But glad to know you keep a running journal of my every post. Quite flattering really

Care to join the discussion???

 

[Sanoy]

LOL. Nice try man. Ever wonder why I used 'quotes'? Hence, the word 'thought'.

Yes, I truly thought I believed it. But now realize I never truly did. The best you could now argue is that I'm 'now' mistaken, and will soon realize I do believe. Okay, great. Give me evidence. Anyways, again, nice try.... But glad to know you keep a running journal of my every post. Quite flattering really

Care to join the discussion???

Why would I want to join a discussion with someone who makes up whatever they want when it suits him? Can you think of a reason? I can't. That post was for com7fy8, so he isn't misled into wasting his time.

 

[cvanwey]

Why would I want to join a discussion with someone who makes up whatever they want when it suits him? Can you think of a reason? I can't. That post was for com7fy8, so he isn't misled into wasting his time.

Now you are calling me a liar. Furthermore, your attempt here is to assassinate my character, verses to instead simply acknowledge the points made in the OP (i.e) that belief is an amoral cognitive function, but God somehow deems as a 'sin' for attributing the 'incorrect' one. And also that sin is irrelevant, as stated in many posts.

Sad. If I'm as bad as all that, why bother following me so extensively? Weird. Almost scary really. It must mean that I present interesting points. You could spend your time anywhere. And there are certainly more than enough threads, even in this forum arena, to keep you quite busy.

Address the points, or address another thread(s). And besides, belief can always be proven wrong. Case and point, my prior 'thought' beliefs about Chrisitinity, and others subjects. The point being is that God smites those whom possess the incorrect one.

So please keep watching, and lurking in the background. Again, it's quite flattering

 

[Sanoy]

Now you are calling me a liar. Furthermore, your attempt here is to assassinate my character, verses to instead simply acknowledge the points made in the OP (i.e) that belief is an amoral cognitive function, but God somehow deems as a 'sin' for attributing the 'incorrect' one. And also that sin is irrelevant, as stated in many posts.

Sad. If I'm as bad as all that, why bother following me so extensively? Weird. Almost scary really. It must mean that I present interesting points. You could spend your time anywhere. And there are certainly more than enough threads, even in this forum arena, to keep you quite busy.

Address the points, or address another thread(s). And besides, belief can always be proven wrong. Case and point, my prior 'thought' beliefs about Chrisitinity, and others subjects. The point being is that God smites those whom possess the incorrect one.

So please keep watching, and lurking in the background. Again, it's quite flattering

I told you why I posted your two statements. I guess you aren't content with just making stuff up about yourself, and have moved forward with making stuff up about me. Your reply was a fantasy of which you are the sole resident.

 

[cvanwey]

I told you why I posted your two statements. I guess you aren't content with just making stuff up about yourself, and have moved forward with making stuff up about me. Your reply was a fantasy.

Every heard of the 'illusory truth effect'? I either experienced it then, or am now. Hence, the quotes in 'thought'. Again, this is the best (you) can argue. And again, God will smite me if my personal beliefs fall the wrong way, if He's real.

Keep 'watching' me. Or don't. But I have a sneaking suspicious you might... It's not a fantasy, I have proof i.e. you attaching archived posts, from over a year ago, confirm that I hope you did not use up too much effort, for someone you feel is a conman anyways You are trying to 'catch' me in a 'slip up'. Wishful thinking, again only to provide as a distractor to the points made in this thread.

 

[BigV]

Oh, dear!

Have you ever read the book, Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus, by Lois Tverberg? If not, I suggest you start.

I get the feeling it's another one of those 'in the context' expositions where "declaring all foods clean= sticking to the Mosaic dietary law"

 

[BigV]

You might be thinking that 1 is wrong and 1 is right. Well that would be reasonable anywhere else. Here however....here you're better off thinking they're both wrong.

Out of EVERYTHING in the BIble that you CAN harmonize you are stuck on those two quotes by @cvanwey ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I get the feeling it's another one of those 'in the context' expositions where "declaring all foods clean= sticking to the Mosaic dietary law"

Are you allergic to basic education or something?

 

[cvanwey]

Out of EVERYTHING in the BIble that you CAN harmonize you are stuck on those two quotes by @cvanwey ?

It demonstrates something very specific @BigV . He forages and weeds through the entire thread, very deep, mind you.... Finds something he thinks he can 'expose', and then goes for the 'kill'.

EVEN if he was correct, even if I'm just making 'stuff' up, being a 'fakie', you would think, at some point, >100 posts in, he might instead address the content of the thread. Because regardless of how 'fake' he thinks I am, what does @Sanoy think about my points? Which again have absolutely NO relevancy to my own personal story? And if I'm wrong about the 'fact' that if I earnestly disbelieve in a claimed story, I'm doomed - and that such a conclusion seems to be an amoral construct.

What say-you about any of that @Sanoy Do you have an opinion on the matter? The reason I ask you, is that I doubt you just happen to read one random post I provided, deep into this thread, and just happen to cross reference it with another post I made over a year ago.

Or do you wish to continue to remain silent, only to surface when you think you can present a 'gotcha' moment?

Thanks

 

[Sanoy]

Out of EVERYTHING in the BIble that you CAN harmonize you are stuck on those two quotes by @cvanwey ?

Out of two CONTRADICTORY testimonies you get stuck on the fact that I DON'T want to have a discussion with someone who makes up whatever is convenient to him?

 

[BigV]

Out two CONTRADICTORY testimonies you get stuck on the fact that I DON'T want to have a discussion with someone who makes up whatever is convenient to him?

Come on! As a Christian, haven't you learned to reconcile contradictions just yet?

 

[Sanoy]

Come on! As a Christian, haven't you learned to reconcile contradictions just yet?

Have you learned to make them? Seems you have not. But I commend you for confirming the OP's contradiction in your Tu quoque response.

 

[cvanwey]

Out two CONTRADICTORY testimonies you get stuck on the fact that I DON'T want to have a discussion with someone who makes up whatever is convenient to him?

I again ask, why are you still here? If I'm not worth your time, hang out elsewhere. Talk about contradiction.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Well then, if it's 'this easy', it would seem we are left with a trichotomy here... Why, because I tried to communicate with Him for decades in earnest, and nothing:

1. God chose not to 'meet me', after repeated attempts to draw Him in. - (At least I'm not aware of Him contacting me).
2. You are incorrect about such stated methods from the Bible.
3. Maybe there is no God, and the ones whom say God is 'meeting' them are instead mistaken.

Which one(s) appear(s) most logically correct?

I'm not sure I would say "it's easy", although I am more optimistic than you are. Some people however can get things easy so its good to encourage them in the event there is "low hanging fruit". But anyway there is a saying called "The Dark Night of the Soul" which describes what you are talking about. Which is something I also have dealt with in my own life etc.

Dark Night of the Soul - Wikipedia


For me even in my most pessimistic times I realized I was better off still being a Christian in spite of that. Essentially I was embracing a lot of Stoic values that are generally deemed to be beneficial. I'm talking about stuff like this. The named You-tube video below is something I recommend (there a little cussing in it so I'm not linking it just in case somebody complains. Anyway the positive aspects of the Christian- Stoic stuff let me punch through the other side, Existentially speaking.

But that was not an easy struggle. It lasted decades....


10 Stoic Teachings Of Marcus Aurelius We Desperately Need Today (Practical Stoicism)

 

[BigV]

You might be thinking that 1 is wrong and 1 is right. Well that would be reasonable anywhere else. Here however....here you're better off thinking they're both wrong.

Just look at the quotes in the context!

@cvanwey says he grew up hoping Christianity was real. This is what EVERY Christian does. No Christian I know of hopes Christianity is false. Many Christians experience doubt, while remaining Christians.

After the acrobatics of John 14:12, this is what you find confusing?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just look at the quotes in the context!

@cvanwey says he grew up hoping Christianity was real. This is what EVERY Christian does. No Christian I know of hopes Christianity is false. Many Christians experience doubt, while remaining Christians.

After the acrobatics of John 14:12, this is what you find confusing?

Just for the record, I'M THE ONE WHO provided my friend @Sanoy with the evidence that @cvanwey has been much less than consistent and, perhaps, even lacking in integrity, especially as he's moved in to CF and found what seems to be more or less a permanent ruse......I mean roost.

Just so you know, BigV, I'm also following your patterns as the "guest" that you are, and if you can't more fully engage various evidences or explanations that are given to you, then I guess you'll just find yourself without a discussion partner on these Apologetics forums.

As for myself, I'm placing you and cvanwey on my prayer list and this will be the last you hear from me. I'll probably place @InterestedAtheist stedAtheist on the same list unless he, or you or @cvanwey can comport yourselves more in a way that is at least one like @Moral Orel.

So, I wish you all well in this life and I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for, but one of those things won't be the further use of my time.

Peace.

2PhiloVoid

 

[BigV]

So, I wish you all well in this life and I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for, but one of those things won't be the further use of my time.

Thanks Sir. But... How many times have you said your goodbyes to me before returning?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

In post #116, you chopped the part which justifies my above attached statement:

(Person 1) Never believes and never murders, rapes, steals, or commits adultery - and their destination will be hell. Right?

(Person 2) does not believe, and does murder, rape, steal, and commits adultery. He/She later earnestly becomes a believer; which in turn may cause them to repent of their actions. Furthermore, since this is a human, regardless of their new lifestyle, will STILL fall short (i.e) continue to sin.

Thus, I ask you, WHAT is the dividing line between (person 1) and (person 2)? It starts with belief, an amoral action. All sin is 'bad' to God. And apparently, unbelief is considered a sin? Bazaar if you ask me...

What do you have to say about above?

Well there is the possibility of Pride in person 2.

Pride is something that should not be under estimated, because many of the Pharisees in the NT that were antagonistic to Jesus, looked good "on paper" as really good people according to the standards of the day/culture, but we know by how they treated people by virtue of wanting to stone the sinners, generally looked down on other "sinners" that they weren't. Because sin, isn't just about the obvious big sin actions we talk about, it also is our overall state as fall as "thought, word, and deed" and their are lots of nuances to these things etc. So we get into issues like what is called "being in Denial" in psychology and it is this reason why Christianity does enumerate character qualities "the Fruit of Spirit" Galatians 5: 22-23.
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control."