A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2012, 10:15 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Just a quick interjection here.

How is it possible to not quote scientists when discussing science? Or theologians when discussing theology? Or talking about discoveries in physics made by famous physicists when discussing discoveries in the field of physics?

You keep saying that everyone is so good at regurgitating info of other people, but isn't that kind of how shit like this works? I mean how can Mark talk about the history of the bible without talking about history and discoveries in history? He didn't make all of the discoveries so why not mention who did? I can't quite figure out what you are expecting of anyone on here.

I understand that you wanted to originally talk about scripture, but isn't scripture written by someone else other than yourself? So what knowledge do you have that only you have access to, that you can share with us?

I just don't get it. How would you like people to discuss, and what would you like to discuss? Lay out the terms in very clear and precise detail to avoid further confusion please.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lucradis's post
02-06-2012, 12:33 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Just a quick interjection here.

How is it possible to not quote scientists when discussing science? Or theologians when discussing theology? Or talking about discoveries in physics made by famous physicists when discussing discoveries in the field of physics?

You touch upon what may be the heart of the matter, lucradis, at least in part.

I will have to stick with this example...

Quote:Or theologians when discussing theology?

...because I am not really interested in discussing science or physics, it is just not as interesting to me.

You can talk about all of them, really, but when it comes to personal knowledge, it is best performed, the work that is, by yourself. Whether one believes scripture to be the inspired word of God or not, study of the Biblle is something that has to be accomplished by the individual, or, he is simply taking someone's word for it.

For example, Charismania teaches doctrine that is sometimes radical. It is rejected by one group, accepted by another, but how are those in both groups to know who is right? Ask their Pastor? Don't get me wrong, it is good to have a good Pastor that can from the Bible state the reason for the position he holds and teaches, but back to the individual...unless he looks at the actual teaching, he is simply taking the word of someone else.

And as sad as it is...that is how most people are. But if we shrug off the slothfulness, and examine the basis of our belief, then, we can say we have found out for ourselves.

There are many misconceptions, and among atheists, a prevalent misconception is that they were once...Christian. They will admit that they did not really know the Bible...but. They cannot tell you how one can be saved...but.

That is like saying, "I use to live in Germany but I've never been there."

So getting back to your example, it is a matter of, "Well, Dr. So-And-So teaches this, so it must be true...he is a really good teacher."



(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  You keep saying that everyone is so good at regurgitating info of other people, but isn't that kind of how shit like this works?

Not concerning scripture. Why do I attend the fellowship I do? Because according to my study, they are the closest to Biblical Doctrine that I can find.

Am I wrong in saying that a common atheist charge against "religious people" is that they are mindless sheep that blindly follow? Well, for most of the religionists of the world...this is true.

But please, just consider that among atheists there are those that do the exact same thing. Why? Because it better fits what they want to believe.

This is why people jump from fellowship to fellowship. Until he Pastor agrees with them...they haven't found the right one yet. lol

And that is just not how it works with faith and bible study and the aquisition of knowledge.


(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  I mean how can Mark talk about the history of the bible without talking about history and discoveries in history?

You should read the thread, quite interesting, if you ask me.

Mark challenged me to look at scripture. Asked me to pick a topic. I chose the New Covenant, and instead of responding, when it is he that challenged me, he turns to "Church History," making some unrealistic claims that even beginning Bible students would recognize to be in error, according to that which scripture actually teaches.

Now listen, lucradis, I have tried to be objective in looking at the scriptures. I have said it can be viewed as a fairy tale, but at the very least...lets look at what it actually says.

Not what wikipedia says. He boasts 10,000 hours of bible study, when in fact his ducking of a basic doctrine (and maybe I should not say basic, but well known) shows his hesitance to do that which he challenged me to.

Then...in order to enlighten me...I am directed to his site.

?

Mark can talk about Church History all he wants...I don't mind. But the context of the conversation concerned the New Covenant. Not Church History.

But let me ask you a question: how can one talk about Church History...and completely dismiss the history of the Bible? Because there is a link that proves that there were various sects? That is not news.


(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  He didn't make all of the discoveries so why not mention who did?

The question is...why is it that all of these discoveries are taken to be "gospel truth" from individual's who's integrity cannot be questioned?

That is one point that no-one seems to think reasonable, but I ask you...why not? Why is it that believers are idiots because they do not question that which is found in God's word, yet, atheists are superior in intellect and not consumed with fairy tales, when they are forced to take that which they see as truth to be embraced as inerrant.

And I am not talking about science itself, where we can discuss the scientists that have proven this or that, but the interpretation of certain discoveries, and the ignoring of others. Statements are made as fact, when others in the scientific community cast those "facts" in doubt. Such as certain documents being erroneously dated.

(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  I can't quite figure out what you are expecting of anyone on here.

I expect nothing.

While I would dearly love to look at scripture with anyone here, I try not to force anything on anyone. However, I was disappointed, to be challenged by an expert...only for it to end in two posts.

(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  I understand that you wanted to originally talk about scripture, but isn't scripture written by someone else other than yourself?

Yes. It was written by men long dead. However, the claims that "We do not have the original scriptures" is a false statement, meaning the intent of the scriptures. I do not accept the History Channel scholars that claim that we do not have that which God revealed to man. The preservation of the scriptures is internally promised to the believer.

Manuscript differences are many, but when it comes to the core doctrines...not one is affected. In other words, while there are copyist errors, for example, they do not change the doctrine that is essential.

That is just the first aspect to your question. The second, and equally important thing to keep in mind is that it is I myself that look at the scriptures, rather than merely being spoon-fed the beliefs I have. Don't get me wrong, I still adhere to many things I learned in my early walk, but at this point it is up to me to look at the scriptures, with the expectation that the promise of God will be kept, which is, His direct teaching, His instruction that I might understand scripture.

(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  So what knowledge do you have that only you have access to, that you can share with us?

Not one thing.

Let me say that again: not one thing. What I know is readily available to all men. My resource is often given out for free (but then, so is JW material...lol). What I know is there for the taking by any individual that has the gumption to stop being spoon-fed.

The writer of Hebrews calls those that were associated with Christianity babes, infants, and slothful. This was directed at Jews, those that he would have a hard time explaining Christ having come, because they were ignorant of the prophecy of Christ, called the first principles of the oracles of God.

So the knowledge is readily available, it is a matter of simply doing the work.

Now, if you mean personal knowledge from study, again, I will simply offer the Doctrine of the New Covenant for consideration. I have come to think that this is a great way to get an understanding of not just Christianity, but how salvation in Christ threads it's way from the Garden to Revelation, without contradiction.

(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  I just don't get it. How would you like people to discuss, and what would you like to discuss?

I do not set terms for how people talk, type, cuss...whatever...lol.

It's just discussion. Really. And while my nature cannot resist at times a facetious response to some of the more aggressive antagonists, I am fully aware that to think that I might change someone's mind is not my responsibility, nor is that within my power. If I change a mind, it is as likely someone else will change it back. Only God can change a heart, so, my goal is to simply discuss certain things with others, which is beneficial to me as well. Debating doctrine, even with atheists, is one of the best motivations for study.

(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Lay out the terms in very clear and precise detail to avoid further confusion please.

No terms. If someone wants to have a discussion, great. If not, that's okay too.

I do not think I have forced a discussion on anything, and I might be wrong about that, but, I simply comment on certain things and see where they go.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 01:07 AM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2012 03:45 AM by Jedah.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Just a quick interjection here.

How is it possible to not quote scientists when discussing science? Or theologians when discussing theology? Or talking about discoveries in physics made by famous physicists when discussing discoveries in the field of physics?

You keep saying that everyone is so good at regurgitating info of other people, but isn't that kind of how shit like this works? I mean how can Mark talk about the history of the bible without talking about history and discoveries in history? He didn't make all of the discoveries so why not mention who did? I can't quite figure out what you are expecting of anyone on here.

I understand that you wanted to originally talk about scripture, but isn't scripture written by someone else other than yourself? So what knowledge do you have that only you have access to, that you can share with us?

I just don't get it. How would you like people to discuss, and what would you like to discuss? Lay out the terms in very clear and precise detail to avoid further confusion please.

Dear bro:

You just dont get it, do you? Allow me to show u an example:

A skinhead went to a Jewish community forum and did these -

1. challenged everyone there never "really" read or understand scripture <<Mein Kampf>> or ideal, vision, and doctrine of God Great Führer.
2. Insisted only discuss contains of scripture <<Mein Kampf>>, claimed it ""proved"" how God's Nazi's doctrines make sense. On the other hand, he refused to do any kind of academic discussion.
3. When irritated people rebuked him, he replied something like "does my Aryan identity bother you?" "Aryan is not good to you guys, eh?" "How exactly should a good Aryan act?". And claimed he suffered from verbal abuse & persecution by majority.
4. Ended every posts with Heil Hitler.


Everyone in this forum (expcept a troll) is much much much knowledgeble than me. I gained so much from your posts since I joined this forum.
However, under this circumstance, you must be crazy to believe that he came here for some serious discussion.


P.S. in Chinese, we do have a perfectly suitable phrase (which I dunno how to properly translate in English) to describe such troll's actions: 嘴砲 (V. Vt. n.)

Life is too important to be taken seriously.
- Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jedah's post
02-06-2012, 05:52 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
嘴砲 - mouth cannon, google says. Sounds about right. Wink

[Image: %E5%98%B4%E7%A0%B2%E8%B2%93.jpg]

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
02-06-2012, 06:57 AM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2012 08:50 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(13-10-2011 07:48 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  something happened: my heart was broken. You might say that it was guilt. But it centered around, not necessarily the messages preached by the preacher, but it was as though my life was laid before me to examine, my heart was exposed, and I saw for the first time the person I was. And I was horrified. On this night, I was overcome by a desire to not be that person anymore, to be rid of him. I went forward when they gave an "altar call," sweating, scared to death, because I did not know Who God was, but I believed that if I went forward...God would meet me there.

The belief in God that I had from a child to the time of my conversion has changed. It is no longer just an acceptance of that knowledge, which can be a nominal contributor to my thoughts, but it is something by which every thought, every action, revolves around. Just as my life before revolved around drugs and alcohol, such as, I worked to supply my habit, even so now, I believe because of the knowledge of God.

All of that to answer the question, "Why do you believe in God." The truth is, I have always believed intellectually in God. But that belief was not a belief that was enough to affect who I was. Since my conversion, one of the greatest evidences that God has become part of my life is that the belief itself has not dimmed.

That God took addictions that had plagued me for years away in a very short time, apart from medical supervision (and anyone familiar with dependancy knows there are physical factors involved with this) was an "evidence" of God's work in my life, however, the joy I had to be free of drugs and alcohol was soon to be mingled with the same thing that turned my thoughts and heart toward God in the first place: my heart.

The condition of my heart was, and still is, the primary focus in my life.

It is the foundation for the Christian faith, and while their are many "faiths" which seem so different in doctrine, they must be measured according to the faith which is taught in scripture.

But, bottom line, I embrace the Christian faith, not the faith of other believers (and I am being honest when I say I am a source of irritation for other believers as well), but I seek to understand the faith that is found in the source of that faith. So you could say I believe in the Christian faith because I have a belief that God gave the Bible to man, that he might know God.


And there ya have it folks. Just exactly like Joseph Smith, and countless loonies before and after him, the gentleman asserts that he embraces THE Christian faith, and NOT the faith of others, and that his version is THE true version. He will no doubt assert that his god has done a personal "revelation" to him, (even while he is unable to even begin the discussion of what that might mean in psychological and neuro-biological terms). He descibes an emotional response, and has no clue how that arises in the human brain, or why, or where. He has replaced one addiction with another.

He says he wants to debate "doctrine". AND he wants to be able to do it apart from it's historical context, (because he knows no History, and that's just the way it's done in "bible-study"). He actually thinks that somehow "doctrine" exists sui generis, and complete, even while maintaining that revelation is a historical process, (which he does not know, and cannot explain why it started at a given historical point, and stopped at a given historical point ... and does not know what those points are). He wants to ONLY discuss Biblical texts, and not how they got there in the first place. He wants to do "bible study", and not study about the bible. he throws around terms like "the word" and does not know what that means, or where it came from, or what it implies.

He wants someone to spoon feed him a summary of what has gone on in lifetimes of work in a field of study which he has not an iota of knowledge. It's like saying "tell me, what happened in Physics in the last 175 years". While one can see Einstein's view, at the end of his life, "what do we really know about the universe anyway", for a Third Grader to ask that, is laziness.

He operates under the fallacious notion that there actually is a "doctrine", about anything, (even while maintaining that he does not care about the beliefs of other believers). In fact on any given text or "doctrine", there are countless views of any given, (supposed) "doctrine". Every single "doctrine" is the result of human controversy. There exists not one example of a "doctrine" where it was "revealed" in a full blown state. The process, in itself, refutes the claim. He, as usual, thinks there is no value to the historical, and literary context, for any given "doctrine", because he simply has no clue what that context is. An examination of the context, virtually 100% of the time, without any other work, refutes by itself, the supposed "doctrine". Take for example, the "virgin birth". First, as has been pointed out here before by others, many ancient cults used the concept for their divine beings, so right off the bat, it is suspect in context. Secondly this particular iteration, (the Christian one) is, on examination, a mistaken use of language, as I have pointed out in the past. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rgin+birth .

He asserts, just as does every other believer, that he is a "true believer", and that his version of his "doctrines" is the real one, even though he doesn't know what the "others" are, or how they came about.

Historically, if one "believes" in Christianity, it occured in groups. It comes in "communities of worshipers". The "rugged individualist" model is a recent modern American invention. It is not a Christian model, historically (It's also the reason Mormonism is not really "Christianity" BTW). Communities of worshipers accepted texts and documents, and used them for their worship events, and THAT is the historical process in which the gospels initially came to be accepted, (or rejected by use or non-use), into the growing cult. After that, the councils fought over the meanings, and the doctrines developed, (but there still was no unanimous agreement).

So there is no "doctrine" hanging out there, about any given subject. There are many views of any given subject.

Frequently the cult members cite "prophesy" as a reason to support belief. Again here it's a mistaken modern view of what the function even was. A prophet was not a fortune teller. A prophet was a "mouthpiece", or one who, (supposedly), was chosen to "speak truth to power", and usually confront the king, or political power OF THAT DAY, with a possible different path or understanding, or action. Thus the entire enterprise of establishing that "oh this proves that it's all true because he said it was going to happen", is an entirely misguided, and essentially non-biblical enterprise. But as usual, with no real biblical educations, the "bible study" crowd doesn't even know what their own traditions are. All they know is the Hollywood version, they got in bible-study.

BTW, for anyone who wants references other than the ones provided for beginners, (the Wiki references), I'll be happy to provide some. The supposed insulting "wiki education" cracks, in context of assertions by the gentleman that "you don't know me", are hilarious. Also, the implication of the Wiki insult was that the probability of a random walk through Wikipedia, and it's links is the same or higher than a directed one. So, in addition to the Chairmanship in Ancient History, we will be able to congratulate the gentleman on his new joint position in Math and Statistics at MIT, after he provides that proof.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-06-2012, 08:02 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 01:07 AM)Jedah Wrote:  
(01-06-2012 10:15 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Just a quick interjection here.

How is it possible to not quote scientists when discussing science? Or theologians when discussing theology? Or talking about discoveries in physics made by famous physicists when discussing discoveries in the field of physics?

You keep saying that everyone is so good at regurgitating info of other people, but isn't that kind of how shit like this works? I mean how can Mark talk about the history of the bible without talking about history and discoveries in history? He didn't make all of the discoveries so why not mention who did? I can't quite figure out what you are expecting of anyone on here.

I understand that you wanted to originally talk about scripture, but isn't scripture written by someone else other than yourself? So what knowledge do you have that only you have access to, that you can share with us?

I just don't get it. How would you like people to discuss, and what would you like to discuss? Lay out the terms in very clear and precise detail to avoid further confusion please.

Dear bro:

You just dont get it, do you? Allow me to show u an example:

A skinhead went to a Jewish community forum and did these -

1. challenged everyone there never "really" read or understand scripture <<Mein Kampf>> or ideal, vision, and doctrine of God Great Führer.

This is a great example, as this group also claims to base their doctrine upon scripture. One example would be their understanding of the "Lost Tribes of Israel."

I am sure that this person was dealt with by those that had a knowledge of their own scriptures, and hope that they were able to get through to this individual, and give him something to think about.

The excellent thing about Jewish believers of scripture is that they sincerely await the promises of God concerning Messiah.


(02-06-2012 01:07 AM)Jedah Wrote:  2. Insisted only discuss contains of scripture <<Mein Kampf>>, claimed it ""proved"" how God's Nazi's doctrines make sense. On the other hand, he refused to do any kind of academic discussion.

And he would have had to use secondary documentation to prove his case. Even those Jews that reject Christ Jesus as Messiah would be honest enough to admit that Hitler has no similarity to the Christ nor to the doctrine of Christ.

Those that claim Hitler was a Christian show they unfamiliar with the New Testament.

(02-06-2012 01:07 AM)Jedah Wrote:  3. When irritated people rebuked him, he replied something like "does my Aryan identity bother you?" "Aryan is not good to you guys, eh?" "How exactly should a good Aryan act?". And claimed he suffered from verbal abuse & persecution by majority.

How he acts is not the primary issue: what he teaches is the primary issue. And in order to examine his doctrine, one has to examine the basis of his doctrine. If he claims his doctrine is true and the basis is scripture, then it is scripture that should be examined.

Chances are, he was actually a very good Nazi...lol. You should not judge him because the Jews did not receive him.

However, you are not only free to judge his doctrine, you are encouraged to do so. You are also encouraged to judge my doctrine...that is something I invite.

(02-06-2012 01:07 AM)Jedah Wrote:  4. Ended every posts with Heil Hitler.

I wouldn't put to much into a post ending. It is usually just a familiar way to say adios, amigo.

(02-06-2012 01:07 AM)Jedah Wrote:  Everyone in this forum (expcept a troll) is much much much knowledgeble than me. I gained so much from your posts since I joined this forum.
However, under this circumstance, you must be crazy to believe that he came here for some serious discussion.

I guess this is directed at the intended viewers.

(02-06-2012 01:07 AM)Jedah Wrote:  P.S. in Chinese, we do have a perfectly suitable phrase (which I dunno how to properly translate in English) to describe such troll's actions: 嘴砲 (V. Vt. n.)


We have a similar concept in scripture:




James 3:6

King James Version (KJV)

6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.


GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 08:06 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Ah. So ST is a drug addict. And now God is his drug of choice. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 08:47 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 09:30 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Yep, just not going to be able to accomodate on general replies, as there is much that needs to be addressed. Sorry. Of course, the choice is yours to read my response, so, I cannot see how this might actually offend or irritate. I can see that the rules are a matter of convenience in some discussion, whereas one side is free to speak their mind and the other, if they say too much...are villians.

Now where did I put my black hat...


(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He operates under the fallacious notion that there actually is a "doctrine", about anything, (even while maintaining that he does not care about the beliefs of other believers).

Again a misrepresentation due to an inability, or more likely a refusal, to actually examine what one has said.

I do care about the beliefs of others, do not confuse that with I will accept the beliefs of others in order to make friends. Christ did not command to "go out and make friends," but disciples. And even you must admit that there is a Doctrine of Christ. And that can be viewed two ways: of the Christ Himself, as well as that which He taught.

But this is a general tactic of many in discussion, avoid an actual concversation, and just presume to know what the other believes. How convenient. And as long as one has cheerleaders, not only will they remain locked into that pattern, they will even begin to believe that which they create.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  In fact on any given text or "doctrine", there are countless views of any given, (supposed) "doctrine".

If we apply this to the scientific world, will you also say that the opposing views of scientists are all...correct?

So what you are telling me is that global warming is both true and false, for instance.

And I am accused of nonsensical reasoning...lol.


(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Every single "doctrine" is the result of human controversy.

So which is it? There is no single doctrine (a Doctrine) or there is, as a result of controversy.

Does controversy over the teaching of gravity in the past change the actual knowledge? Did the assertions of those that were in error in any way affect the actual knowledge?

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There exists not one example of a "doctrine" where it was "revealed" in a full blown state. The process, in itself, refutes the claim.

You simply have to consider our knowledge of man's structure to see this is hardly a refutation of progressive revelation. And as it progresses, the harmony of the knowledge, in that it does not contradict...is actually a verification.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He, as usual, thinks there is no value to the historical, and literary context, for any given "doctrine", because he simply has no clue what that context is.

Seeing that we have not actually discussed anything...how would you know? You make false statements, grounded in nothing other than a need to discredit.

If you do this in simple conversation, how much of this have you done in building the foundation of your own beliefs?

Have you truly examined the basis for your beliefs? Judging by the responses I have been given, I would venture a guess that, no, you have not. You have done the same thing in your own knowledge base as you do here. I challenge you to examine the basis of your beliefs, for your own sake...not mine.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  An examination of the context, virtually 100% of the time, without any other work, refutes by itself, the supposed "doctrine".

Exactly! Now we are getting somewhere.

A simple examination of scripture in context will refute supposed doctrine. And while we do not forego other elements of interpretation, on average, because scripture was given to man by God to be understood, most people can see what is written and understand scripture on a basic level.

Historical context is key concerning the book of Hebrews. It cannot be understood when it is placed in a general context of instruction for the Church. It was written to a specific people, and their history, not the history of the early Church.

This is why 95% of the commentary on this book is weak, leaving the student just as confused about it as they were before beginning study of it.

Great point!

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Take for example, the "virgin birth". First, as has been pointed out here before by others, many ancient cults used the concept for their divine beings, so right off the bat, it is suspect in context.

Imagine, if you will, for just a moment that scripture was true (and this is hypothetical, okay?). Is it that hard to view the fall of man leading to separation from God, which in itself was progressive.

That man had a clear relationship with God, and clear revelation from Him concerning His will for their lives.

That generation to generation, that separation process became more complete, as the instruction for parents to teach their children of God was more and more...departed from.

Why is it that there are so many religions that speak of a woman bringing forth a savior-child? Could it be that this knowledge was commonplace in the beginning, only to be corrupted by man as he sank further into his sin, separating himself from God more and more?

It is not surprising that man, as he created God and knowledge of Him according to that which he wanted to believe, that religion might suit his needs...would include information in that religion that had a source from ancient times.

Instead of seeing this as the root of Biblical knowledge and history, just consider that it is simply the distortion of that which was known by man from the beginning.

Concerning the Virgin Birth of Christ, the prophecy of the Old Testament may be called into question, but the New Testament makes it clear that Mary was a virgin, not a young maid. Be glad to discuss that with you.

Continued...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 10:04 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Secondly this particular iteration, (the Christian one) is, on examination, a mistaken use of language, as I have pointed out in the past. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rgin+birth .

And there are many people that will take what appears to be a scholarly work, a work of integrity that has assessed all of the data, and believe it.

However, there can be no mistake about the use of the language concerning New Testament teaching concerning the birth of Christ. Internally, the only conclusion one can make and still be honest is that, whether you believe it or not...scripture teaches a Virgin Birth. The only way to dismiss this is to examine the scripture itself, and show how a virgin birth is not in view.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He asserts, just as does every other believer, that he is a "true believer", and that his version of his "doctrines" is the real one, even though he doesn't know what the "others" are, or how they came about.

While I do not claim to have infallible doctrine, I can say that I am very familiar with many groups and their doctrine.

Can I just suggest that you apply what you say here to the conclusions you have drawn about me, and honestly say that you are not publicly demonstrating that which you condemn me for?

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Historically, if one "believes" in Christianity, it occured in groups. It comes in "communities of worshipers". The "rugged individualist" model is a recent modern American invention.

The "rogue christian" is by no means a new concept or practice, and it is not exclusive to Christianity.

Yet I would agree with this statement, as I believe we can see in scripture that this is a pattern we can find.

"Organized" Christianity does not reflect a biblical view of unity among the Body of Christ, the Church, in my opinion. In fact, some of the "organizations" have done more harm than good. And continue to do harm.

And I do not advocate a "rugged individualist model" despite this conclusion. Fellowship is an important part of growth for the believer, where they can learn of God, interact among other believers, and have a refuge from a world that they are no longer a part of.

And I know there is a tendency to read into some of what I say, rather than ask for clarification concerning my views, but I just ask that you ask me my views before presuming to know them, and to place them in some group orr another.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not a Christian model, historically (It's also the reason Mormonism is not really "Christianity" BTW).

And what do you base this judgment on? Are you saying that you understand the differences between Mormon Theology and that of the groups that reject their doctrine? Think about that. You cannot both say that "there is no single doctrine" and then say that a Mormon is not a Christian. You must first understand the doctrine of both sides before attempting to tand in the place of discernng between truth and error.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Communities of worshipers accepted texts and documents, and used them for their worship events, and THAT is the historical process in which the gospels initially came to be accepted, (or rejected by use or non-use),

I would in large part agree with this. Not because an archaeological discovery or historical accounts verify it, but because of the internal witness of scripture. On this we can agree.

There are "faiths" today that seek to replicate the Early Church, in a number of ways, condemning the practice of others because there are differences in practice. For example: one group meets in the home, sends out workers two by two, and condemns those that incur the expense of owning a building, seeing this as wasting money on a permanent structure rather than investing it in evangelical pursuits.

Are they right? Well, as far as I am concerned, a far more important issue is...what it is that they are teaching in their missionary activities. If they replicate the early Church in this regard, but are teaching a false doctrine concerning Christ, it becomes a matter of it doesn't matter how they base their operations.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  into the growing cult.

There is no question that their are cults, and the outcome is usually disastrous in the temporal, always disastrous in the eternal.

But to generalize and call Christianity a cult is like saying that all have the same political beliefs.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  After that, the councils fought over the meanings, and the doctrines developed, (but there still was no unanimous agreement).

Has it ever occurred to you that like today, the "Church" that was in the public eye was not in fact the Church, the Body of Christ? What do we see in the media today? Is that the Body of Christ? Are they representing Christ, and be called Christian?

The best way to know would be to understand the basis of Christianity, then comparing the doctrine and activity of those that actually are representative of Christ and sound doctrine and practice.

Is it thought that the media gives air time to Christianity? You do not notice that there is never news about missionary work, Christian persecution, or that a reputable Christian scholar is given any kind of media time?

But that is the nature of news today. The ones with the money get their propaganda in the headlines, while Christianity is never presented.

Why is that? Have you ever considered that?

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So there is no "doctrine" hanging out there, about any given subject. There are many views of any given subject.

Just like there are many views concerning scientific fact. I will use global warming again as an example. I view this as a typical ploy of governing bodies to manipulate the masses. Populations have always been controlled by one fear or another.

Global warming is a big-money enterprise, and it's adherents are a faithful bunch that take for granted that this is unquestionable truth.

There is sound doctrine, both biblically and scientifically speaking. All sides cannot be right.


Continued...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: