This is not a personal attack...just a point

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 09:07 AM lucaspa said this in Post #55



Creationists/Biblical literalists are worshipping a god that they invented.

Therefore, the answer to your question "are we all worshipping the same God" is "No."

Well, you dodged that question with true finesse.
and I have grown bored with the topic :)
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 09:13 AM lucaspa said this in Post #56

8th April 2003 at 12:23 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #13


You would do well to realize that and research evolution so that you understand it accurately before you try to argue against it.&nbsp; It would save you embarrassment for arguing against a strawman.




I have long since tired of that attack.
You all have to believe that I dont understand ToE or it makes it look bad that I reject it. Get over it. My decision doesnt affect you at all.

On another note, if you are ever looking into the different ''christian'' doctrines check out this book;

''Handbook of Denominations in the United States''
It brief but very informative.
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 09:16 AM lucaspa said this in Post #57



Why don't you answer the&nbsp;questions&nbsp;I ask?&nbsp;This seems to be a one-way street for you.

So, I'll put my simple questions again.&nbsp; Please do me the courtesy of an answer:

"And I know about 1 John 5:7.
I have studied extensively the different texts
.

In that case you know what happened. Why did you pretend differently? Why did you try to pass off the verse as genuine when your study of the texts told you it was an (innocent) interpolation?&nbsp;&nbsp;You throw the word "deceiver" at me a lot.&nbsp; How is what you did not deception?"

Three simple questions.&nbsp; Answer please.
I believe the verse to be genuine. That is why I felt no issue in presenting it. I firgured you probably would tho and use it as an arguement.
No deceptoin at all, I just figured you probably knew of the accusations agains 1
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 09:16 AM lucaspa said this in Post #57



Why don't you answer the&nbsp;questions&nbsp;I ask?&nbsp;This seems to be a one-way street for you.

So, I'll put my simple questions again.&nbsp; Please do me the courtesy of an answer:

"And I know about 1 John 5:7.
I have studied extensively the different texts
.

In that case you know what happened. Why did you pretend differently? Why did you try to pass off the verse as genuine when your study of the texts told you it was an (innocent) interpolation?&nbsp;&nbsp;You throw the word "deceiver" at me a lot.&nbsp; How is what you did not deception?"

Three simple questions.&nbsp; Answer please.
I believe the verse to be genuine.
That is why I felt no issue in presenting it. I figured you probably would tho and use it as an arguement.
No deception at all, I just figured you probably knew of the accusations agains 1 John 5:7 and would immediatley go on the attack.
Obviously my anticipations were correct as everyone here probably says the verse was added.
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 09:29 AM lucaspa said this in Post #58



You are desribing the Trinity vs Arianism fight.&nbsp; Trinity is 3 personas in one ousia, to use the Greek terms.

But dissension in the Christian ranks arose much earlier than this.&nbsp; This was simply the first time Christians wielded political power (Constantine made Christianity the state religion) and was therefore able to use the police power of the state to enforce one view over others.

Yeshu ben Joseph (the human) was never at all clear as to what his exact relationship with Yahweh was.&nbsp; Which is why Christianity has had such different Christologies through its history.&nbsp; Yeshu often referred to himself as "Son of Man" but, if that phrase had a particular meaning in 30 AD, it was lost by the time the gospels were written.&nbsp; So several different Christologies vied for acceptance in the early Church.

Saul, of course, never knew the historical Yeshu.&nbsp; All his information came from the vision of the risen Jesus.&nbsp; So his Christology differed significantly from that of the Jerusalem disciples.&nbsp; Since he preached to Gentiles unfamiliar with Judaism, he used an edited version of Judaism as his backdrop to Christianity.&nbsp; Saul, as Paul, essentially invented a new religion on the fly.&nbsp; And a religion that does not always correspond to the teachings of Yeshu.

One thing that still troubles Christianity is that people forget that you can disagree with Paul and some of his specific policies -- such as the role of women in church and homosexuality -- without disagreeing with Christ or Christianity.


:( :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
I follow these posts for the entertainment value and will admit to learning some things. I very seldom post just lurk.

I just have a question for FOC. Perhaps I missed the post but you frequently tell people what they are not. If you could explain what makes your interpretation of the bible perfect. I remember from Lit classes having reading comprehension drills and being amazed by the different understanding about what the author of a poem or passage of literature meant. I would think it must be a great comfort to you to be cloaked in your perfection.

I seem to remember something about do not judge lest you be judged, I assume I am mistaken. In the various theologies that I have read I gathered perfection rested with the triune followed closely in the knowledge race by the devil of the new testament.

I make no claim to perfection of my assumptions. I could be wrong. Enlighten me.

My 2cents worth...your exchange rate may differ.
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 12:44 PM damifino said this in Post #66

I follow these posts for the entertainment value and will admit to learning some things. I very seldom post just lurk.

I just have a question for FOC. Perhaps I missed the post but you frequently tell people what they are not. If you could explain what makes your interpretation of the bible perfect. I remember from Lit classes having reading comprehension drills and being amazed by the different understanding about what the author of a poem or passage of literature meant. I would think it must be a great comfort to you to be cloaked in your perfection.

I seem to remember something about do not judge lest you be judged, I assume I am mistaken. In the various theologies that I have read I gathered perfection rested with the triune followed closely in the knowledge race by the devil of the new testament.

I make no claim to perfection of my assumptions. I could be wrong. Enlighten me.

My 2cents worth...your exchange rate may differ.

The reason i have such a different point of view is that I do not read hundreds of other books and then come to the bible with the opinions of hundreds of different authors .

I read the Bible as true and every man a liar.

Youre right, It is not my place to judge.

It is my right as a Christian to discern everything through the lens of the Bible.
And to expose deeds of darkness.

I condemn noone. I will however point out their heresies if they refuse to stand by the sound doctrine as presented in the scriptures.

If you believe in God, then you should know that God inspired men to write.

Take the levitical law.
How would those men have known what TO do and what NOT TO do if not for the word of God?
Does everyone think God just inspired men to write out instruction and then decided that maybe it was a mistake?

Some of the Hebrews lost their lives when the went against the Law.
In this age of Grace, God does not so quickly execute His judgement, so many become relaxed and start believing that they are right to ignore His words.
Soon Grace will be gone.
And then those that refused His words will be judged by Him, not me.
 
Upvote 0
FOC
Thank you for your answers, although I disagree with each and everyone of your responses. I appreciate your effort to respond. I have to admit you are the first person I have seen that assumed everyone a liar. That tends to make for odd conversation.

I assume honesty until proven otherwise. I guess we have opposite default positions when it comes to livning with other people.

Sometime when you have the time, you might explain how you hold the bible so literal, since it is basically a volume of stories edited by the Catholic church for one during the 3rd and 4th century....more or less lets keep this book and lets see no I don't agree with this one let's leave it out and ofcourse the protestant reformation and other religions to this day continue to edit it. I would be interested in your explanations.

Sorry about the delay in responding, I had to go to a out of state horse sale.

You know I may start greeting everyone I meet ...Hello Liar....interesting concept.
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 12:11 PM damifino said this in Post #68

FOC
Thank you for your answers, although I disagree with each and everyone of your responses. I appreciate your effort to respond. I have to admit you are the first person I have seen that assumed everyone a liar. That tends to make for odd conversation.

I assume honesty until proven otherwise. I guess we have opposite default positions when it comes to livning with other people.

Sometime when you have the time, you might explain how you hold the bible so literal, since it is basically a volume of stories edited by the Catholic church for one during the 3rd and 4th century....more or less lets keep this book and lets see no I don't agree with this one let's leave it out and ofcourse the protestant reformation and other religions to this day continue to edit it. I would be interested in your explanations.

Sorry about the delay in responding, I had to go to a out of state horse sale.

You know I may start greeting everyone I meet ...Hello Liar....interesting concept.


The catholic church did not affect all of the texts.
Of course there had to be a way to distiguish what was inspired and what wasnt. to tell the truth, I would not want that type of responsibilty.

Check this out.
Even if the bible has some misinformation in it, how am I to blame for that?If God is as just as He claims, then He would not hold subsequent generations accountable for the errors of a preceding one.

Which is why, I go with the bible.
God has shown that He exists to me, so now all I can do is take the free gift of salvation He gave for us all and then try my best to live according to that which I DO have (the Bible).

Now, God has promised that His word would endure forever.
Does that mean the the Bible contains no errors? Not to offend some, but I have seen enough errors just in transciption to say no.


God has preserved the context of His word. The ideas and principles.
This is why I dont freak out anymore about why some of the accounts seem to differ.
They basically tell the same story, which is what matters.

To be honest, when I saw that there are a couple numerical errors in the Hebrew for the OT, I was kind of relieved.
Mainly because that shows that God uses plain old everyday human beings such as you and I to keep His word.
Not some glowing ring-headed guy. You and me.

Why. Because He loves us and wants us to feel like we are really part of the picture.



As for the liar comment.

''Let it not be! But let God be true, and every man a liar; even as it has been written... ''
(Romans 3:4 LITV)

Not that I believe that everything men say are lies, but that if I have to choose between mans word and Gods word, God wins by default. Understand :)

Thank you for being courteous.
I get riled up fairly easily and I enjoy having differences presented without the exchange of harshness.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Today at 02:59 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #69




The catholic church did not affect all of the texts.
Of course there had to be a way to distiguish what was inspired and what wasnt. to tell the truth, I would not want that type of responsibilty.

And what exactly is the test for "Divine Inspiration?"

Check this out.
Even if the bible has some misinformation in it, how am I to blame for that?If God is as just as He claims, then He would not hold subsequent generations accountable for the errors of a preceding one.

Uh, hello, Original Sin?

Christianity is founded on the notion that God holds subsequent generations accountable. The whole reason we "need" saving at all is because Adam and Eve couldn't keep their hands off the fruit. (which technically isn't their fault; the snake tricked them and they quite literally didn't know any better.)

Which is why, I go with the bible.
God has shown that He exists to me, so now all I can do is take the free gift of salvation He gave for us all and then try my best to live according to that which I DO have (the Bible).

Salvation from what, exactly?

Now, God has promised that His word would endure forever.

But he never promised what form that word would take.

Does that mean the the Bible contains no errors? Not to offend some, but I have seen enough errors just in transciption to say no.

Isn't that a little careless of a God to allow His words to get twisted? Assuming , of course, that the Bible is His word...

God has preserved the context of His word. The ideas and principles.
This is why I dont freak out anymore about why some of the accounts seem to differ.

"God's word isn't important as long as we get the general idea."

I hear the&nbsp;fundamentalists screaming from here...&nbsp;

To be honest, when I saw that there are a couple numerical errors in the Hebrew for the OT, I was kind of relieved.
Mainly because that shows that God uses plain old everyday human beings such as you and I to keep His word.
Not some glowing ring-headed guy. You and me.

Why. Because He loves us and wants us to feel like we are really part of the picture.

And making us feel better is more important than getting the message right?

As for the liar comment.

''Let it not be! But let God be true, and every man a liar; even as it has been written... ''
(Romans 3:4 LITV)

Not that I believe that everything men say are lies, but that if I have to choose between mans word and Gods word, God wins by default. Understand :)

I understand that you're still calling the Bible "God's word" ever after you admitted that it was written by men who made some mistakes in it... :scratch:&nbsp;

Just playing Devil's Advocate... :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Today at 04:15 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #70

And what exactly is the test for "Divine Inspiration?"

The test has always been the same, signs, wonders, miracles and an the ability to be able to perdict the future.

You would not think that it would be so difficult to perdict the future sense history often repeats itself. But false prophets are deceived and they&nbsp;usually do a very bad job of predicting the future.
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 04:15 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #70




Just playing Devil's Advocate... :)
No, what you are doing is the very thing that gets me to the point where i do nothing but say insulting things to folks.

Did what I say scare youthat much that you couldnt just make a comment or two and leave it at that?

Fine. I will not restrain myself from posting meaningless trash in every possible thread I find.
 
Upvote 0

Zadok001

Gli alberi hanno orecchie, occhi e denti.
Feb 5, 2003
419
8
Visit site
✟594.00
Follower of Christ:

I'm curious what you took exception to. Poe's statements seem rational and well thought-out. Yes, it is condescending, but I need look no further than our discussion on philosophy just a thread over to see that you are guilty of the same thing.

Why did you find so insulting about Poe's post that you've chosen to post a glib comment rather than attempt a rebuttal?
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Today at 11:14 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #72


No, what you are doing is the very thing that gets me to the point where i do nothing but say insulting things to folks.

You mean pointing out errors? You need to learn to accept some constructive criticism. :mad:

Did what I say scare youthat much that you couldnt just make a comment or two and leave it at that?

Nope. it's just that you made a lot of fallacious statements and I felt the moral need to refute each one of them.

You want to see less of me? Then be wrong less often. :idea:

Fine. I will not restrain myself from posting meaningless trash in every possible thread I find.

As opposed to what you've been doing so far? :p

Stop me before I use another smiley! :help:
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Yesterday at 11:40 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #73

Follower of Christ:

I'm curious what you took exception to. Poe's statements seem rational and well thought-out. Yes, it is condescending, but I need look no further than our discussion on philosophy just a thread over to see that you are guilty of the same thing.

Why did you find so insulting about Poe's post that you've chosen to post a glib comment rather than attempt a rebuttal?

Yes, of course to you it seemed well thought out...:(

Condescending would have been fine, I could not possibly care less about his opinion.
I have been trying to ignore certain folks here so I would not be interjecting so much garbage into a thread, but it seems that that is exactly what folks such a Nathan Poe want.

As I said, fine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Yesterday at 12:11 PM damifino said this in Post #68

FOC
Thank you for your answers, although I disagree with each and everyone of your responses. I appreciate your effort to respond. I have to admit you are the first person I have seen that assumed everyone a liar. That tends to make for odd conversation.

I assume honesty until proven otherwise. I guess we have opposite default positions when it comes to livning with other people.

Sometime when you have the time, you might explain how you hold the bible so literal, since it is basically a volume of stories edited by the Catholic church for one during the 3rd and 4th century....more or less lets keep this book and lets see no I don't agree with this one let's leave it out and ofcourse the protestant reformation and other religions to this day continue to edit it. I would be interested in your explanations.

Sorry about the delay in responding, I had to go to a out of state horse sale.

You know I may start greeting everyone I meet ...Hello Liar....interesting concept.

I responded to this post a page back (see post #69) if you want to read it.

Again, thank you for just presenting the fact that you disagree without going to the level of Nathan poe and Zadok001.

I apologize to you for seeming so short in other posts.
I keep forgetting how we all have to keep behaving as children in here because of a few people who seem to want to perpetuate the problem rather than just do as you have done and be adult about things.

I have allowed a couple loudmouthed folks to get me riled up and have responded badly but I will not continue to do so.
I will ignore those particular people and respond only to those who can disagree without being offensive.

So if we exchange posts again, you may have to dig thru many trash posts in order to find any response I may have presented.

One other thing. *********, among a few others, seem to think they know the bible and its entire history (all the different texts).
If they spout out something that you question, let me know in a PM and I will send you different sources to check so you can make your own judgements about it.
Judging from what I have seen they take texts like the Codex Vaticanus and apply its history to all Biblical texts and this is not the case.
 
Upvote 0

Zadok001

Gli alberi hanno orecchie, occhi e denti.
Feb 5, 2003
419
8
Visit site
✟594.00
Originally posted by Zadok001

Follower of Christ:

I'm curious what you took exception to. Poe's statements seem rational and well thought-out. Yes, it is condescending, but I need look no further than our discussion on philosophy just a thread over to see that you are guilty of the same thing.

Why did you find so insulting about Poe's post that you've chosen to post a glib comment rather than attempt a rebuttal?



Today at 01:55 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #75

Yes, of course to you it seemed well thought out...:(

Condescending would have been fine, I could not possibly care less about his opinion.
I have been trying to ignore certain folks here so I would not be interjecting so much garbage into a thread, but it seems that that is exactly what folks such a Nathan Poe want.

As I said, fine.

You didn't answer my question.&nbsp; What, specifically, about Poe's post ****ed you off?&nbsp; Was it really his tone, the way he went about responding - Or was it something in the response itself that you aren't sure how to answer?
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 10:39 AM Zadok001 said this in Post #77





You didn't answer my question.&nbsp; What, specifically, about Poe's post ****ed you off?&nbsp; Was it really his tone, the way he went about responding - Or was it something in the response itself that you aren't sure how to answer? [/B]
Did you even read the post?
It wasnt any kind of acceptable rebuttal or even informative.

When I made my very first post in here, it was very behaved and proper.
Verbal attacks from those such as Nathan, yourself and a couple others (one of which has been banned) were not much use for information, only your own baised opinions with little to no knowledge of scripture of which I refered.

The thing about myself is, I will admit that my opinion is biased.
I know it is. I am happy about it.

On the other hand, you all are convinced yours is not.

You admit evolution cannot be proven (and we all know this to be fact), yet you deny that your bias towards it is not based merely on faith/hope and possible circumstancial evidence that may or may not be refuted tomorrow.

You can believe if Nathan Poe or anyone presents an arguement against scripture or the history of the bible and it MANY texts (not just the ones you all choose), I am quite capable of dealing with it.

I just refuse to continue in this manner of responding to someone who is actually being polite, only to be harrassed again by someone not even presenting any valid arguement.

And your idea of a ''well thought out'' arguement and my idea of the same seem to be from 2 different universes.

When any one of you is man enough to admit that your opinion is as biased as mine, I will maybe respond to you again.
Till then I am ignoring some of the more offensive folks in here as I very well should have in the beginning.
 
Upvote 0

Zadok001

Gli alberi hanno orecchie, occhi e denti.
Feb 5, 2003
419
8
Visit site
✟594.00
You must be speaking to someone else. After all, whoever you're speaking to never would have said this:

Originally posted by Zadok001 on 12th April 2003 at 08:18 PM in THIS thread: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41936-10.html
Oh, I'm honest with myself. I've exceedingly biased, and relatively single-minded. As a result, I find INNUMERABLE flaws in the Bible.


After all, it's not possible that I would actually accept my own biased perspective. That's just not believable. So obviously that post was forged. Duh. Because only Follower of Christ is actually honest around here.

YES, I'm bias. That's obvious. I know that. You're bias too. We both know that. This is not in question. What IS in question is your statement that Nathan Poe's post does not qualify as a rebuttal. To reiterate:

You said: "Even if the bible has some misinformation in it, how am I to blame for that?If God is as just as He claims, then He would not hold subsequent generations accountable for the errors of a preceding one."

Nathan Poe responds with: "Uh, hello, Original Sin?

Christianity is founded on the notion that God holds subsequent generations accountable. The whole reason we "need" saving at all is because Adam and Eve couldn't keep their hands off the fruit. (which technically isn't their fault; the snake tricked them and they quite literally didn't know any better.)"


This seems to be a rebuttal by definition. You claimed God does not hold subsequent generations responsible for the errors of their ancestors. The phrase "Sins of the father" originated in the Bible, which implies that your statement was in error. This is almost a textbook example of what a rebuttal is!

Now, you have stated twice in succession that you do not believe Poe's post qualifies as a rebuttal. The above two quotes, I believe, show conclusively that it does. Hence, I ask again: What is your problem with Poe's post, since it does appear that it fits the common definition of rebuttal? And why do you choose not to respond to this point and the others raised in Poe's post?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 12:39 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #79

You must be speaking to someone else. After all, whoever you're speaking to never would have said this:



After all, it's not possible that I would actually accept my own biased perspective. That's just not believable. So obviously that post was forged. Duh. Because only Follower of Christ is actually honest around here.

YES, I'm bias. That's obvious. I know that. You're bias too. We both know that. This is not in question. What IS in question is your statement that Nathan Poe's post does not qualify as a rebuttal. To reiterate:

You said: "Even if the bible has some misinformation in it, how am I to blame for that?If God is as just as He claims, then He would not hold subsequent generations accountable for the errors of a preceding one."

Nathan Poe responds with: "Uh, hello, Original Sin?

Christianity is founded on the notion that God holds subsequent generations accountable. The whole reason we "need" saving at all is because Adam and Eve couldn't keep their hands off the fruit. (which technically isn't their fault; the snake tricked them and they quite literally didn't know any better.)"


This seems to be a rebuttal by definition. You claimed God does not hold subsequent generations responsible for the errors of their ancestors. The phrase "Sins of the father" originated in the Bible, which implies that your statement was in error. This is almost a textbook example of what a rebuttal is!

Now, you have stated twice in succession that you do not believe Poe's post qualifies as a rebuttal. The above two quotes, I believe, show conclusively that it does. Hence, I ask again: What is your problem with Poe's post, since it does appear that it fits the common definition of rebuttal? And why do you choose not to respond to this point and the others raised in Poe's post? [/B]

Well, again I have wasted 20 minutes typing out a response only to come to the conclusion that no matter what is presented, it wont matter. So it gets deleted with the others.

So guess what, I concede.
You win the issue (whatever it was :scratch: )

With you as well as Nathan Poe, I am no longer interested in presenting anything that gives you more ammunition for your pointless points.
You will be correct in your own eyes regardless of presentation, as the Bible will in mine.

So please go back to pondering whether or not you yourself exist (should keep you busy for quite some time. like a dog chasing its tail, pointless) and I will ignore your posts :)
 
Upvote 0