A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2012, 03:33 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(25-11-2011 03:46 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(23-11-2011 08:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Last I heard he was saved.

Saved from what? Lets hope it was from joining those Southern Baptists!Undecided

You can rest easy...I have a few issues with SB doctrine, but there are some sincere believers in that group.

(26-11-2011 12:00 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's really not cool, singling a person out like this.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

(26-11-2011 11:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(26-11-2011 12:00 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's really not cool, singling a person out like this.

Point taken Starcrash.
S.T. was/is always polite if not very clear in his meanderings.
I think believers of all persuasions can help with debate,Wink

Ditto.

(26-11-2011 11:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-11-2011 12:00 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's really not cool, singling a person out like this.

Dunno about that. Why not?

Well, for one thing, you may not have considered it but you are engaging in behavior that is railed against here all the time.

What...special rules for you...lol? Common decency is just over-rated.

(26-11-2011 11:46 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(26-11-2011 11:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Dunno about that. Why not?

Wheres your compassion G.M? S.T. was a harmless soul (probably?) Wink


Well, I try, but being in unredeemed flesh...I have my moments...lol.

(26-11-2011 11:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-11-2011 11:46 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Wheres your compassion G.M? S.T. was a harmless soul (probably?) Wink

Dunno whether S.T. was a harmless soul or not. And I don't know where my compassion is either. But I'm on it..... Yeah, think I got it.

Don't squish it...lol.

Hey guys, just to let you know, I appreciate this...it has been rather humorous.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2012, 03:41 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(27-11-2011 12:21 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  
(26-11-2011 11:30 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Point taken Starcrash.
S.T. was/is always polite if not very clear in his meanderings.
I think believers of all persuasions can help with debate,Wink

It wasn't meant to be disrespectful. I PM'd him and had an understanding.

This is great. I will assume this is sincere.

(27-11-2011 12:21 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Neither of us were polite in public and he was very backhandedly insulting many times and I called him on it too.

Please provide examples of this...I will gladly apologize.

(27-11-2011 12:21 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  This was an attempt to allow him to take a stab at sharing his faith as a person without quoting his holy book to do it and also a measure of reconciliation after I tore the hell out of him in other threads.

What was it Han Solo called...delusions of grandeur...lol.

I don't seem to recall this, but, I guess we all have different perspectives, right? Smile

(27-11-2011 12:21 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  He did well and I at least learned something from stripping away the gauss associated with the back and forth repeated nonsense we usually hear.

I think that I have raised some points that are not quite the norm around here. The question is...do you really give consideration to what is talked about, or is it just a game of pong?

(27-11-2011 12:21 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  The following responses got to be a gang up, some good intentioned some not.

No worries...I have not read anything I am not used to. Thick-skinned, usually...lol.

(27-11-2011 12:21 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  The same pattern of ganging up on theists has continued and that's power for the course I suppose.

Hmmm. Let me see if I have this right: the way to establish truth is to get a majority concern, and then persecute those that disagree.

I don't think that is a new concept.

(27-11-2011 12:21 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  As I understand it, he left to develop his own project. At least that is what he told me.

I did (thanks for asking...lol). Unfortunately, I have spent more time, as usual, on other forums.

When will I ever learn?

(27-11-2011 12:21 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Truth be told, I wouldn't do it again, but I'm also not upset it happened.

And that's a good thing, right?

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2012, 04:03 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Hey ST, you have always claimed you have some sort of secret understanding about scripture that you want to discuss. You say it is why you came here. Why don't you clearly and succinctly tell the world what it is?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2012, 04:24 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(27-05-2012 04:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey ST, you have always claimed you have some sort of secret understanding about scripture that you want to discuss. You say it is why you came here. Why don't you clearly and succinctly tell the world what it is?

Hello Mark, long time no see.

But again you misrepresent me. I have never claimed to have "sort of secret understanding about scripture," just a basic working knowledge of scripture.

And I have said from the beginning (of my time here...not the world...lol) that if you want to discuss scripture, I am glad to do so.

But, keep in mind that the usual response is a condemnation of pointing out context, mockery, and and a general agitation and reluctance to have a serious doctrinal discussion.

And as I have also stated (here, I am pretty sure), I will not force one to discuss something they don't want to.

But if you are interested, let me know. I have browsed through some of the threads, and believe me, it's like being a kid in a candy store...so much to respond to, so little time.

So I am content to let you guys direct the discussion.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 01:27 AM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2012 01:47 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Ok ST....I'll quote you....


"My hopes in coming here was that there was someone that actually had a little bit of knowledge of scripture outside of the refutations given by this website. That was one of the reasons I decided to come here. But rather than having civil conversation with someone about doctrine that is claimed to be "known better than Christians," I find a very similar group to what I am already use to. "


So...you want to discuss scripture....right? I'm not sure what website you are referring to, but it doesn't matter. I can discuss it with you. I must warn you though, I'm opinionated, and I have no respect for scripture, having made a very thorough examination over many years as to how it came to be.

There are many people on this forum who know a lot about it too, so you just pick something, maybe your favourite bit, post it, and let's discuss.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 05:12 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok ST....I'll quote you....


"My hopes in coming here was that there was someone that actually had a little bit of knowledge of scripture outside of the refutations given by this website. That was one of the reasons I decided to come here. But rather than having civil conversation with someone about doctrine that is claimed to be "known better than Christians," I find a very similar group to what I am already use to. "

Is this where I said I have a "secret knowledge of scripture?"

(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So...you want to discuss scripture....right? I'm not sure what website you are referring to, but it doesn't matter.

I am referring to this website. The claim I read was "We know scripture better than you," or something to that effect.

(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I can discuss it with you. I must warn you though, I'm opinionated, and I have no respect for scripture, having made a very thorough examination over many years as to how it came to be.

In return, I must warn you that I have not forgotten our earlier exchanges...lol. I am fully aware of the "respect" which has been forthcoming.

(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  There are many people on this forum who know a lot about it too,

Where are they?

There is a tendency not only to ignore context on the part of some here, but to villify it. It is made to seem that keeping something in it's proper context is ridiculous.

(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  so you just pick something, maybe your favourite bit, post it, and let's discuss.

I have many favorites, but I will choose one I have already asked you about, to which I believe no reply ever came. Once I post this I will try to find the other thread.

The topic: The New Covenant.

An especially important doctrine of the New Testament, the New Covenant is seldom discussed...by anyone. So what is your understanding of this doctrine?

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 04:09 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2012 06:12 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 05:12 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok ST....I'll quote you....


"My hopes in coming here was that there was someone that actually had a little bit of knowledge of scripture outside of the refutations given by this website. That was one of the reasons I decided to come here. But rather than having civil conversation with someone about doctrine that is claimed to be "known better than Christians," I find a very similar group to what I am already use to. "


Is this where I said I have a "secret knowledge of scripture?"

(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So...you want to discuss scripture....right? I'm not sure what website you are referring to, but it doesn't matter.


I am referring to this website. The claim I read was "We know scripture better than you," or something to that effect.

(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I can discuss it with you. I must warn you though, I'm opinionated, and I have no respect for scripture, having made a very thorough examination over many years as to how it came to be.


In return, I must warn you that I have not forgotten our earlier exchanges...lol. I am fully aware of the "respect" which has been forthcoming.

(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  There are many people on this forum who know a lot about it too,


Where are they?

There is a tendency not only to ignore context on the part of some here, but to villify it. It is made to seem that keeping something in it's proper context is ridiculous.

(28-05-2012 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  so you just pick something, maybe your favourite bit, post it, and let's discuss.


I have many favorites, but I will choose one I have already asked you about, to which I believe no reply ever came. Once I post this I will try to find the other thread.

The topic: The New Covenant.

An especially important doctrine of the New Testament, the New Covenant is seldom discussed...by anyone. So what is your understanding of this doctrine?

God bless.
Paul the Salesman


Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He had a vision to expand his particular interpretation of Judaism into the gentile world, and he was convinced he knew how to do it. He had a cunning plan to undermine all those dangerous Nazarene beliefs (i.e. the real beliefs of Jesus and his followers) that incited rebellion against Roman rule and, what’s more, required obedience to cumbersome dictates.


He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they all believe only his theology. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that he thought of Gentiles as an offering he would bring to God. He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) who were associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles”), although he didwrite to Jews too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of pagans because he thought he was one of the few god fearers who understood Gentile cultures.


Paul’s theology had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He was a salesman who knew his customers. His market was mainly, but not exclusively, gentile. He knew he needed a good product, something very different to traditional Judaism. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. One was required to believe in a xenophobic Yahweh, a rather thunderous and reputedly violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. One could only eat kosher food, marry someone Jewish, and had to stop all work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were to be regarded as superior to all others, and one was required to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. One was expected to believe Jews were destined to one day be the masters of the world. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these rules and beliefs as a type of slavery. He knew he had to jettison them, so he did.


All of a sudden, according to Paul, the "old covenant" was null and void. There was no need for circumcision and no need to stop work on the Sabbath or to obey the dietary kosher rules. He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple. He ignored the idea of a political messiah of Israel and replaced him with Christ, the savior of all humankind. The “kingdom of God” became a place in heaven, not one in Israel. He claimed Yahweh was such a decent chap he had sent his own precious son to earth. He affirmed gentiles should be considered descendants of Abraham too. He called the centuries-old Jewish Law a “curse.” He said all that was now required to achieve salvation was faith in his story about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.


Paul was one of history’s first examples of a power-hungry cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. The so-called “old covenant” of the Jews was replaced by Paul’s imaginary “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and dampen down Jewish messianic dreams.


To help achieve this metamorphosis of belief, he engineered the character assassination of Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry that he found himself competing with traditional Jews for people’s allegiance. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war mongering Jewish pillars were full of subversive fantasies about a character called Yeshua, but the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ, had been revealed to him by God! He, not them, was the bearer of the “good news.” He knew what the more flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God really wanted in those modern pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a lot more about selling a suitable religion to the people of the Empire than the anti-Roman, narrow-minded hicks from the backwater of Galilee!

ST...here you have...in a nutshell...the origin of the "New Covenant," a term Jesus never heard of (Paul was only around decades after Jesus was crucified) and something which Jews, even today, think is utter nonsense. It was invented by Paul!


ps apologies I misunderstood you...I thought you thought you had something new to say.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 04:43 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Wow, I'd forgotten I had written anything in here.

As for me saying what sounds like two things "I don't care what others believe so long as it doesn't affect..." thing, what I mean is, no matter what you believe it doesn't bother me personally so long as I don't have to accept it as truth.

There is a vast difference between belief and knowledge. I can believe in creation all I want, but does that change the evidence against it? Not at all. But I can still believe it. Should it be taught in schools because I believe it? Fuck no. What should be taught in school is what is proven via evidence. So I respect your right to your belief, until you try and force me to believe it. To follow it, and to trust it. If you want me to believe it and so on, prove it. Then I will. But you can believe anything you want. I don't care. People can go to church, worship god, any god, and enjoy themselves all they want. That's what church was invented for. But that's also where those beliefs should stay. At home, in your head, at church. School was invented to learn about proven things, not unproven beliefs. Unless you're learning mythology. That's just an example, as there are many examples of religious culture or belief trying to worm it's way into other facets of daily life.

I'm rambling.

The other post about indoctrination is more of an extreme example. Really for the most part people who indoctrinate their children into a belief system don't do any real damage (I have no statistics for this, it's just an assumption I've made based around knowing a lot of current and ex christians who are totally normal.) But there are other cases, mostly abroad, of some real damage being done to kids who are forced into a faith based lifestyle.

Should kids be taught good? To me this sentence makes little sense. good is represented mostly by societal norms and what we wouldn't want done to ourselves. Yes we should teach them the difference between good and bad, and let them become who they want to be. I don't think that only one side of an argument should be represented to your kid on any topic if it can be avoided. I'm in a strange bind at the moment because my kid is asking questions that I don't think she's ready for the answers to. She's only three and extremely inquisitive, but also impatient. I tell her all the time that she's not ready yet and to ask me again later. I don't see the purpose of explaining to her a concept she won't yet understand. It will just be information she discards or misunderstands. I've told my wife that if when my kid gets older and she decides she wants to experience church, I'll personally take her. I'll read the bible with her. Let her form her own opinions on the subject. I won't lie to her if she asks me if I believe in it. But I won't disown her if she decides to. She has to be ready to understand what she's hearing though, otherwise it will be misunderstood and difficult for her to make an informed decision.

I'm gibbering again, so sorry.

"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
28-05-2012, 05:46 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 04:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 05:12 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Is this where I said I have a "secret knowledge of scripture?"



I am referring to this website. The claim I read was "We know scripture better than you," or something to that effect.



In return, I must warn you that I have not forgotten our earlier exchanges...lol. I am fully aware of the "respect" which has been forthcoming.



Where are they?

There is a tendency not only to ignore context on the part of some here, but to villify it. It is made to seem that keeping something in it's proper context is ridiculous.



I have many favorites, but I will choose one I have already asked you about, to which I believe no reply ever came. Once I post this I will try to find the other thread.

The topic: The New Covenant.

An especially important doctrine of the New Testament, the New Covenant is seldom discussed...by anyone. So what is your understanding of this doctrine?

God bless.
Paul the Salesman


Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He had a vision to expand his particular interpretation of Judaism into the gentile world, and he was convinced he knew how to do it. He had a cunning plan to undermine all those dangerous Nazarene beliefs (i.e. the real beliefs of Jesus and his followers) that incited rebellion against Roman rule and, what’s more, required obedience to cumbersome dictates.


He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they all believe only his theology. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that he thought of Gentiles as an offering he would bring to God. He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) who were associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles”), although he didwrite to Jews too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of pagans because he thought he was one of the few god fearers who understood Gentile cultures.


Paul’s theology had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He was a salesman who knew his customers. His market was mainly, but not exclusively, gentile. He knew he needed a good product, something very different to traditional Judaism. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. One was required to believe in a xenophobic Yahweh, a rather thunderous and reputedly violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. One could only eat kosher food, marry someone Jewish, and had to stop all work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were to be regarded as superior to all others, and one was required to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. One was expected to believe Jews were destined to one day be the masters of the world. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these rules and beliefs as a type of slavery. He knew he had to jettison them, so he did.


All of a sudden, according to Paul, there was no need for circumcision and no need to stop work on the Sabbath or to obey the dietary kosher rules. He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple. He ignored the idea of a political messiah of Israel and replaced him with Christ, the savior of all humankind. The “kingdom of God” became a place in heaven, not one in Israel. He claimed Yahweh was such a decent chap he had sent his own precious son to earth. He affirmed gentiles should be considered descendants of Abraham too. He called the centuries-old Jewish Law a “curse.” He said all that was now required to achieve salvation was faith in his story about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.


Paul was one of history’s first examples of a power-hungry cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. The so-called “old covenant” of the Jews was replaced by Paul’s imaginary “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and dampen down Jewish messianic dreams.


To help achieve this metamorphosis of belief, he engineered the character assassination of Yeshua’s family and disciples behindtheir backs. He was surprised and angry that he found himself competing with traditional Jews for people’s allegiance. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war mongering Jewish pillars were full of subversive fantasies about a character called Yeshua, but the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ, had been revealed to him by God! He, not them, was the bearer of the “good news.” He knew what the more flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God really wanted in those modern pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a lot more about selling a suitable religion to the people of the Empire than the anti-Roman, narrow-minded hicks from the backwater of Galilee!

ST....here you have...in a nutshell....the origin of the "New Covenant," a term Jesus never heard of (Paul was only around decades after Jesus was crucified) and something which Jews, even today, think is utter nonsense. It was invented by Paul!
Once again your ignorance (and I mean that in a nice way...lol) and bitterness are astounding to me.
Would you like to try again? This time with something that actually can correlate to scripture?
I will you give you space, before I address your post, to google it again.
God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 06:14 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 04:43 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Wow, I'd forgotten I had written anything in here.

As for me saying what sounds like two things "I don't care what others believe so long as it doesn't affect..." thing, what I mean is, no matter what you believe it doesn't bother me personally so long as I don't have to accept it as truth.

There is a vast difference between belief and knowledge. I can believe in creation all I want, but does that change the evidence against it? Not at all. But I can still believe it. Should it be taught in schools because I believe it? Fuck no. What should be taught in school is what is proven via evidence. So I respect your right to your belief, until you try and force me to believe it. To follow it, and to trust it. If you want me to believe it and so on, prove it. Then I will. But you can believe anything you want. I don't care. People can go to church, worship god, any god, and enjoy themselves all they want. That's what church was invented for. But that's also where those beliefs should stay. At home, in your head, at church. School was invented to learn about proven things, not unproven beliefs. Unless you're learning mythology. That's just an example, as there are many examples of religious culture or belief trying to worm it's way into other facets of daily life.

I'm rambling.

The other post about indoctrination is more of an extreme example. Really for the most part people who indoctrinate their children into a belief system don't do any real damage (I have no statistics for this, it's just an assumption I've made based around knowing a lot of current and ex christians who are totally normal.) But there are other cases, mostly abroad, of some real damage being done to kids who are forced into a faith based lifestyle.

Should kids be taught good? To me this sentence makes little sense. good is represented mostly by societal norms and what we wouldn't want done to ourselves. Yes we should teach them the difference between good and bad, and let them become who they want to be. I don't think that only one side of an argument should be represented to your kid on any topic if it can be avoided. I'm in a strange bind at the moment because my kid is asking questions that I don't think she's ready for the answers to. She's only three and extremely inquisitive, but also impatient. I tell her all the time that she's not ready yet and to ask me again later. I don't see the purpose of explaining to her a concept she won't yet understand. It will just be information she discards or misunderstands. I've told my wife that if when my kid gets older and she decides she wants to experience church, I'll personally take her. I'll read the bible with her. Let her form her own opinions on the subject. I won't lie to her if she asks me if I believe in it. But I won't disown her if she decides to. She has to be ready to understand what she's hearing though, otherwise it will be misunderstood and difficult for her to make an informed decision.

I'm gibbering again, so sorry.

Hello lucradis, just wanted to say I appreciate your attitude toward your child, as well as your view as to what should or should not be taught in school.
I would like to say that one thing that scripture will teach the student is that while the upbringing of a child is one of the most important things we will undertake in life, as a student of scripture it is also true that this will not guarantee that the child will accept the teachings of the parents.
It is sad to say but in many cases, the influence of friends will have more impact concerning some of the things that children will usually "find out about for themselves."
While the chances are good that if you teach your child (and believers are commanded to raise up their child in the way they should go which includes teaching them about God and His will for man) that they will adhere to your beliefs, whether this be a certain religion or atheism. But...because of the unique character of every individual, as well as the things they are exposed to in their formative years, sometimes things do not go as we might hope.
Again, I appreciate your input, and pray God will bless you as you raise your child, and that you will be an excellent father to her. I have an idea that you will be.
God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: