Poll: What do you think Christianity is primarily about?
This poll is closed.
Good News: Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins and raised for our justification 62.50% 5 62.50%
Good Advice: practical & moral guidance in order to live a good life here & now 37.50% 3 37.50%
Total 8 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Good News vs. Good Advice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2012, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2012 07:08 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
(28-04-2012 04:59 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Monkeys fly.


Brett boy. Calm down. Apparently we have an an outbreak of Dunning-Kruger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect
And BTW, you're right.




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
28-04-2012, 07:10 PM
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
That scene still terrifies me.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 07:35 PM
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
The poll is misleading. It is both good news and a way of life. One of which most will not be able to accept and follow. Especially the 'Greeks' here at and Atheist forum. If we cannot give them what they need, which is proof of God, then everything we try to explain just becomes a nuisance. The Gospel is utter foolishness to those who are wise. But don't worry, proof is coming soon.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 08:05 PM
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
[font='Arial Unicode MS']good[/font]/gʊd/ Show Spelled [good] adjective, bet·ter, best, noun, interjection, adverb adjective 1.morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man. 2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health. 3. of high quality; excellent. 4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good. 5. well-behaved: a good child.
Having actually read the thing, I can’t see how the bible can fit with this word, unless… “This table is all wobbly, I’ll jam a bible under one of the legs, that’s all it’s good for”
[font='Arial Unicode MS']news[/font]/nuz,nyuz/ Show Spelled[nooz,nyooz] noun ( usually used with a singular verb ) 1.a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months. 2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television. 3. such reports taken collectively; information reported: There's good news tonight. 4. a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material. Compare copy ( def. 5 ) . 5.newspaper.
Hmmmm, nothing here ether as it is nether new, intelligent nor information.
[font='Arial Unicode MS']ad·vice[/font]/ædˈvaɪs/ Show Spelled[ad-vahys] noun 1. an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc.: I shall act on your advice. 2. a communication, especially from a distance, containing information:Advice from abroad informs us that the government has fallen. Recent diplomatic advices have been ominous. 3. an official notification, especially one pertaining to a business agreement: an overdue advice
Seriously? What bit of advice do you take from this bloodthirsty xenophobic pile of hatred?

Good News: Religion is dying, its days are numbered just like the belief in a flat earth.

Good Advice: Don’t be an arsehole.

Welcome to the forum.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Karl's post
28-04-2012, 08:19 PM
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
(28-04-2012 07:35 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  The poll is misleading. It is both good news and a way of life. One of which most will not be able to accept and follow. Especially the 'Greeks' here at and Atheist forum. If we cannot give them what they need, which is proof of God, then everything we try to explain just becomes a nuisance. The Gospel is utter foolishness to those who are wise. But don't worry, proof is coming soon.

Gary
Or... you could see it as a false dilemma, in which it is neither.

Yes, we need proof of God. You can't just come here and assume it, and you have to understand what constitutes evidence --- if it came from a Muslim as proof of the Q'uran and it doesn't convince you, then you really ought not to expect us to be convinced. I see quotes here from scripture to back up the scripture's authenticity, and I hope you can empathize with us and understand how little you'd care for a Muslim defending his belief with quotes from the Q'uran. We need scientific evidence, not faith and conviction.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
28-04-2012, 08:48 PM
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
(28-04-2012 08:19 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 07:35 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  The poll is misleading. It is both good news and a way of life. One of which most will not be able to accept and follow. Especially the 'Greeks' here at and Atheist forum. If we cannot give them what they need, which is proof of God, then everything we try to explain just becomes a nuisance. The Gospel is utter foolishness to those who are wise. But don't worry, proof is coming soon.

Gary
Or... you could see it as a false dilemma, in which it is neither.

Yes, we need proof of God. You can't just come here and assume it, and you have to understand what constitutes evidence --- if it came from a Muslim as proof of the Q'uran and it doesn't convince you, then you really ought not to expect us to be convinced. I see quotes here from scripture to back up the scripture's authenticity, and I hope you can empathize with us and understand how little you'd care for a Muslim defending his belief with quotes from the Q'uran. We need scientific evidence, not faith and conviction.
Absolutely empathetic to your plight. Thus the reason for my post. Did I not express that well enough to come acrossed? You rely upon 100% carnal (and I use carnal because the word is opposed to spiritual) logic to explain everything around you and life itself, therefore if something spiritual truly exists, you cannot determine it to be truth based upon the lack of tangeable evidence to support such a claim. For instance, if a wicked spirit took up residence in your body and a tumor developed as a manifestation of his spiritual presence in your body, you would study the tumor and how it formed and find a logical, but completely carnal explanation of how it came to be and in the end result understand that no God or spiritual entity was necessary to explain it. Spiritual things cannot be accepted by those who focus only on the carnal counter parts that are in our temporal realm. So I empathize and try not to get into lengthy debates that do nothing but frustrate your inability to understand spiritual things.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes gdemoss's post
28-04-2012, 09:25 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2012 12:37 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
(28-04-2012 08:48 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 08:19 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Or... you could see it as a false dilemma, in which it is neither.

Yes, we need proof of God. You can't just come here and assume it, and you have to understand what constitutes evidence --- if it came from a Muslim as proof of the Q'uran and it doesn't convince you, then you really ought not to expect us to be convinced. I see quotes here from scripture to back up the scripture's authenticity, and I hope you can empathize with us and understand how little you'd care for a Muslim defending his belief with quotes from the Q'uran. We need scientific evidence, not faith and conviction.
Absolutely empathetic to your plight. Thus the reason for my post. Did I not express that well enough to come acrossed? You rely upon 100% carnal (and I use carnal because the word is opposed to spiritual) logic to explain everything around you and life itself, therefore if something spiritual truly exists, you cannot determine it to be truth based upon the lack of tangeable evidence to support such a claim. For instance, if a wicked spirit took up residence in your body and a tumor developed as a manifestation of his spiritual presence in your body, you would study the tumor and how it formed and find a logical, but completely carnal explanation of how it came to be and in the end result understand that no God or spiritual entity was necessary to explain it. Spiritual things cannot be accepted by those who focus only on the carnal counter parts that are in our temporal realm. So I empathize and try not to get into lengthy debates that do nothing but frustrate your inability to understand spiritual things.

Gary

I am the Holy Spirit realized Gary, as are you. ... kinda goes along with the whole my own personal Jesus and whatnot.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 10:05 PM
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
(28-04-2012 03:00 PM)THEOtalk Wrote:  
Sure thing (I wasn't ignoring you but just got sidetracked with other discussions). My point is that the two paradigms (Good News vs. Good Advice) are antithetical to each other. One is historic, creedal and confessional; the other is modern, therapeutic, and american. What you called "convoluted" I would describe as the american flavor of Christianity that is predominantly Christ-less and Cross-less. It is entirely focused on having "your best life now," experiential, subjective, therapeutic, with a propensity to focus on moralism, socialism, and legalism. Obviously it is a very man-centered "gospel" where Jesus and the biblical narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation take a back seat to the practical, relevant, feel-good here & now message of most evangelical churches.

The other paradigm that is Good News is based on the apostolic doctrine that is found historically in the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedon Creed, and Athanansian Creed. The first of these creeds (the Apostles Creed) goes back to the second century which was formulated for the sole purpose of the unity of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. What is found in the AC derives from the New Testament, particularly 1 Cor 15:3-4; Phil 2:5-11; and 1 Timothy 3:16 which historians point to as the earliest creeds & confessions of the church. Therefore this paradigm of Christianity is God-centered and is focused on what God has done for us in Christ, namely the Gospel (which means "Good News") that Christ has defeated the power and penalty of sin on behalf of all who will believe and receive Him as Lord, God, Savior, and Christ.

One of the most remarkable sections of Scripture is 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 which says,

"In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."


Those verses summarize what true, authentic, orthodox, historic Christianity is about: through Christ God reconciles rebel & undeserving sinners, not counting their trespasses against them, giving them His perfect righteousness, and then turning them into His ambassadors who take this Message of Reconciliation to the ends of the earth.


That is what I mean when I say that Christianity is GOOD NEWS, its the best news anyone could receive. Yet Jesus also made it clear that those who think they are "well" have no need of physician but only those who know that they are "sick" need a physician. The proud scoff at Jesus, while the broken, humbled by the weight and guilt of their sin, throw themselves on the mercy of God offered in the Gospel of Jesus and they are the one's who actually become well.


"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."


I leave you with 2 Cor 5:21 and ask you this question:


IF what I am saying is true, why would you not want to receive the complete forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of God?

So you know the true meaning of Christianity because a few choice passages in scripture. This is going to be a typical road traveled...

I'll give you the typical rebuttal to those that hold scripture in the light hat you do...

What do you say of the violent passages in the bible? What do you say of Jesus' sermon of the mt, particularly the part where he says to give up your worldly possessions to those in need as you will be rewarded in heaven? Are you typing on a computer that you own? Is this not a luxury you should donate as per Jesus' request?

Also, let's not play the if game. Otherwise, I'll leave you with this ponderance:

IF Zeus is the real true God, why wouldn't you worship him?

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 11:54 PM
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
(28-04-2012 08:48 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 08:19 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Or... you could see it as a false dilemma, in which it is neither.

Yes, we need proof of God. You can't just come here and assume it, and you have to understand what constitutes evidence --- if it came from a Muslim as proof of the Q'uran and it doesn't convince you, then you really ought not to expect us to be convinced. I see quotes here from scripture to back up the scripture's authenticity, and I hope you can empathize with us and understand how little you'd care for a Muslim defending his belief with quotes from the Q'uran. We need scientific evidence, not faith and conviction.
Absolutely empathetic to your plight. Thus the reason for my post. Did I not express that well enough to come acrossed? You rely upon 100% carnal (and I use carnal because the word is opposed to spiritual) logic to explain everything around you and life itself, therefore if something spiritual truly exists, you cannot determine it to be truth based upon the lack of tangeable evidence to support such a claim. For instance, if a wicked spirit took up residence in your body and a tumor developed as a manifestation of his spiritual presence in your body, you would study the tumor and how it formed and find a logical, but completely carnal explanation of how it came to be and in the end result understand that no God or spiritual entity was necessary to explain it. Spiritual things cannot be accepted by those who focus only on the carnal counter parts that are in our temporal realm. So I empathize and try not to get into lengthy debates that do nothing but frustrate your inability to understand spiritual things.

Gary
Gary, I think you are patronising atheists by claiming we do not "understand spiritual things."

The truth is we understand them only too well, and our understanding surpasses that of the theist.

Theotalk clearly has almost no understanding of the real history of the development of Christianity. He started off by claiming there was good evidence for the existence of Jesus from secular sources, which is plainly wrong, as demonstrated by Bucky and ANY non evangelical commentary from competent historians. Having been machine gunned at his kneecaps he changed tack and quoted the gospels and Paul as evidence for Jesus, as if the gospel authors or Paul were writing real history! He then claimed that Jesus thought he died for our sins! Any historian worth his salt knows that ridiculous idea was invented by Paul, many years after the Jesus character had died. Theotalk then parroted the tired old Christian claim we all should accept this bizarre scheme to get into heaven. There were face palms in all corners of the globe on reading that and some understandable aggro. That stuff is for the stupid people, for those who need their pockets emptied.

Why can't you theists read some history? Seriously...its not that hard. A whole new world will open to you, and YOU will begin to understand "spiritual things". Start with Hugh Schonfield "Those Incredible Christians" or Douglas Lockhart "Jesus the Heretic" or James Tabor's "The Jesus Dynasty" or Peter Cresswell's "Jesus the Terrorist" or Thijs Voskuilen's "Operation Messiah". There is also an opinionated git called Mark Fulton who has a website and a book to come out soon. Also, to put it all in context, read a general text on the history of the ancient Jews. I guarantee you, you won't be sprouting Paul's evangelical tripe once you get your head around the real history. You'll be too embarrassed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2012, 01:01 AM
RE: Good News vs. Good Advice
(28-04-2012 11:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 08:48 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  Absolutely empathetic to your plight. Thus the reason for my post. Did I not express that well enough to come acrossed? You rely upon 100% carnal (and I use carnal because the word is opposed to spiritual) logic to explain everything around you and life itself, therefore if something spiritual truly exists, you cannot determine it to be truth based upon the lack of tangeable evidence to support such a claim. For instance, if a wicked spirit took up residence in your body and a tumor developed as a manifestation of his spiritual presence in your body, you would study the tumor and how it formed and find a logical, but completely carnal explanation of how it came to be and in the end result understand that no God or spiritual entity was necessary to explain it. Spiritual things cannot be accepted by those who focus only on the carnal counter parts that are in our temporal realm. So I empathize and try not to get into lengthy debates that do nothing but frustrate your inability to understand spiritual things.

Gary
Gary, I think you are patronising atheists by claiming we do not "understand spiritual things."

The truth is we understand them only too well, and our understanding surpasses that of the theist.

Theotalk clearly has almost no understanding of the real history of the development of Christianity. He started off by claiming there was good evidence for the existence of Jesus from secular sources, which is plainly wrong, as demonstrated by Bucky and ANY non evangelical commentary from competent historians. Having been machine gunned at his kneecaps he changed tack and quoted the gospels and Paul as evidence for Jesus, as if the gospel authors or Paul were writing real history! He then claimed that Jesus thought he died for our sins! Any historian worth his salt knows that ridiculous idea was invented by Paul, many years after the Jesus character had died. Theotalk then parroted the tired old Christian claim we all should accept this bizarre scheme to get into heaven. There were face palms in all corners of the globe on reading that and some understandable aggro. That stuff is for the stupid people, for those who need their pockets emptied.

Why can't you theists read some history? Seriously...its not that hard. A whole new world will open to you, and YOU will begin to understand "spiritual things". Start with Hugh Schonfield "Those Incredible Christians" or Douglas Lockhart "Jesus the Heretic" or James Tabor's "The Jesus Dynasty" or Peter Cresswell's "Jesus the Terrorist" or Thijs Voskuilen's "Operation Messiah". There is also an opinionated git called Mark Fulton who has a website and a book to come out soon. Also, to put it all in context, read a general text on the history of the ancient Jews. I guarantee you, you won't be sprouting Paul's evangelical tripe once you get your head around the real history. You'll be too embarrassed.
Mark, believe what you will. It doesn't make it true. You see me as patronizing. Why should I expect you to see me for what I really am? You think you understand spiritual things better than theists do. OK. What can I say? Nothing. You believe you can trust what men have written down and called history. OK. I believe what God moved men to write down and call his word. You think I am stupid. OK. What can I say? The bible told me you would say that. People have been bearing false witness of each other for thousands of years. Much of which has been written down and called history. Each of us must come to a point where we determine what we will or will not believe. Each of us had to determine what criteria must be used to come to that conclusion. You have chosen yours. I have chosen mine. We will each reap the reward of our efforts to come to and understand the knowledge of the truth.

If your the one who is correct and there is no God, then those of us who believe must be suffering from mental deficiencies beyond our control as I can't just turn this off and believe that what I believe has no merit or value just because you say it doesn't. So how is it that you think mentally unstable individuals should be handled?


Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes gdemoss's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: