Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2011, 10:36 AM
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
Quote: . . . in regards to the rapture, and the Return of Christ, from an objective view, with the study you have done, what view do you feel the bible leans more to, pre-trib, or post?

I'll let Mark answer that for himself, but might I suggest that this is not a fruitful line of questioning on a board titled "The Thinking Atheist"? We're not "pre-trib" or "post-trib" here, we're "no-trib."

I think this could be a valid question. I think what S.T. is asking is where we think the bible stands (pre or post) not what our personal opinions are. I've met far more atheists that are well studied in the bible than christians. So who better to ask about what the bible is saying than someone who understands it not as a pre-assumed truth, but simply as writing?

S.T. > I wouldn't count on people going easy on you here, but don't let that discourage you. Like Cuff said, we don't even go easy on each other. We will however, be honest with you. Honest about what we think, both about the bible and the many other topics we discuss. (Keep in mind that this forum is not only for discussion of atheism and theism. We enjoy discussing many topics, and you are welcome to join in on any of them!)

Membership to this club doesn't mean you are an atheist. You are as important a member as everyone else. It means what you say matters, but also that there won't likely be any "holding back" when it comes to discussion.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2011, 05:26 PM (This post was last modified: 30-08-2011 05:41 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  Hello S.T.,

I'll add my welcome too. If you've come here because you're genuinely interested in other points of view about religion, you're sure to be enlightened.

Thanks, Cufflink, it is appreciated.

And, I am genuinely interested. I feel I have no business discussing God with someone until they first explain what their own views are. It is not a matter of "Here I am to save the day!" But, it is really an ongoing pursuit in humility, as there are those whose pride fails to recognize that what the other guy believes...is of utmost importance!


(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(30-08-2011 07:22 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  As I said, I am unfamiliar with "Hal," and actually avoid extrabiblical literature for the most part.

You generally avoid extrabiblical literature? Oh dear. Huh

Well, I think we need to set up a reading program for you. Smile

I'll start by suggesting Bertrand Russell's classic, Why I Am Not a Christian.

Anybody else? What other books would you add to S.T.'s reading list?

It won't do any good...I am adamant about this. I know this will be viewed even as I view other "faiths" (which I reject because they actually depart from scripture) that really, in order to be faithful to their organization, will not read anything other than what they believe to be inspired. The difference is, I believe two things that I am firm about:

1-Scipture is God's revelation to man, and through study we can see harmony in God's word which we do not see in extrabiblical writings (and I know many here feel there are contradictions in scripture, but I feel there is just going to be things we do not understand). Along with this I will just say that the indwelling Holy Spirit is He that makes scripture understood, which man does not receive until being born again. Thankfully, God will impart understanding to the natural man, that they might be saved.

2-The "scripture" of certain faiths can be easily seen to be false because there are contradictions.

I appreciate the thought, though.

(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
Quote: So my first question . . . would follow more along the lines of "Why do you study the Bible?"

Why would an atheist read and study the Bible? Lots of reasons. Here are three:

1. Because for better or worse, the Bible permeates our language and our culture. You can't be considered an educated person if you don't have a basic familiarity with it. One of the best-known atheists of our time, Richard Dawkins, has said, "[A]n atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education."

Not to mention, if it was abolished...what would be left to criticize? lol


(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  2. Because the Bible is constantly thumped, waved in our faces, and shoved down our throats as being the Good Book, God's nifty Guide to Everything, which all decent people are supposed to believe and follow.

Who are these that constantly thump the bible, wave it in faces, and "shove it down your throats?"

Does this happen a lot to you?


(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  But we see that much of it--and maybe most of it--is anything but good.

I am sorry that you have not been exposed to what God's word does in the lives of His people.

I am also sorry that you have been exposed to those that have not learned what it is that scripture teaches.


(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  We study the Bible so we're able to recognize and expose the ignorance, cruelty, and primitive thinking it contains.


I would be glad to discuss this with you, I am curious, and become curiouser and curiouser.


(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  3. Because some things in the Bible are genuinely wise and beautiful and inspiring, and therefore worth reading. Dawkins calls Ecclesiastes "sublime." And some of the story-telling in the Bible, from the point of view of literature, is first-rate.

I am aware that some see it as a great work of literature, and no more.


(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
Quote: . . . in regards to the rapture, and the Return of Christ, from an objective view, with the study you have done, what view do you feel the bible leans more to, pre-trib, or post?

I'll let Mark answer that for himself, but might I suggest that this is not a fruitful line of questioning on a board titled "The Thinking Atheist"?

I look forward to it, seems to be a friendly person.

But, I would disagree as this being an unfruitful line of questioning based on the fact that this "Hal Lindsay" is being called into question with a charge of being harmful, which is a serious charge toward one I presume is a Christian.

If the charge is made, hey, I can understand the hostility, even as I have a great dislike for many of the false prophets that bilk people of their money for the sake of the money itself, not a love for God, not due to concern for those in this world (which, by the way, goes beyond an eternal sense fearing for their eternal destination, but is applied to the here and now...not all Christians are going to blast people about Hell).

The point is this: is it just to condemn all of Christianity because of one that calls himself a Christian? I am not saying that is what the post is saying, but, I am saying, at least be fair, lets place those who should be called out in the deserved category.

And finally, if one does not understand the catching away...how can it be said that Hal Lindsay is wrong. Now, if one even takes an approach that scripture is just great literature, one can, if he knows what that book contains, give a reasonable explanation for the described evemts, even as I could give, I think, excellent point of views on the Lord of the Rings, which I consider great literature.

In regards to the Rapture, I would have to know what this man teaches in order to make a decision as to whether his teaching was harmful. I think that goes both ways, though. In order for anyone to say he is "harmful" and should be held accountable, this person should have enough knowledge about the teaching to make this charge. If it could be shown that this man did harm in reality...hey, I will agree.

Agree, or no?


(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  We're not "pre-trib" or "post-trib" here, we're "no-trib."

I understand that, but, I think there are probably those here that will have an opinion about the subject, and I am intensely interested to what that might be.

And I hope I have time tonight to get to Mark's post.


(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
Quote:Okay, take it easy on me,

I don't know if we can guarantee that. We atheists and agnostics don't even take it easy on each other! Big Grin Just keep in mind that attacking someone's beliefs or ideas is not the same as attacking the person.


lol...yeah, I undertand. It is a shame that good debate is often spoiled by the biting and devouring that goes on. It is no different on Christian forums, and it is a public statement, I think, that would make the atheist glad he is an atheist.

Okay, thanks for the response, look forward to speaking with you again.

S.T.
(30-08-2011 10:36 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
Quote: . . . in regards to the rapture, and the Return of Christ, from an objective view, with the study you have done, what view do you feel the bible leans more to, pre-trib, or post?

I'll let Mark answer that for himself, but might I suggest that this is not a fruitful line of questioning on a board titled "The Thinking Atheist"? We're not "pre-trib" or "post-trib" here, we're "no-trib."

I think this could be a valid question. I think what S.T. is asking is where we think the bible stands (pre or post) not what our personal opinions are. I've met far more atheists that are well studied in the bible than christians. So who better to ask about what the bible is saying than someone who understands it not as a pre-assumed truth, but simply as writing?

I think you have a good point here, which was not an original point in view, but it does hit on what I am looking for.

The Rapture is a hotly debated issue that is cause in the minds and hearts of some for the breaking of fellowship.

This is insane to me, as I view this as an issue that falls in line with the controversy between Christians concerning whether salvation is a one-time event that has eternal results, which include a standing of being justified as well as a progressive sanctification process by which believers mature. Between you and me, the latter is not accomplished because the former is rejected, I believe.

As I said, I was looking for the view from the atheist which makes the claim that they know scripture, and if they do, they will have an opinion on this. The catching away is a doctrine found in scripture, but it is hotly debated, and even goes so far as to proclaim pre-trib believers as having fallen under deception by Satan himself.

I do not make too big of a deal about it, I am more interested in things soteriological.


(30-08-2011 10:36 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  S.T. > I wouldn't count on people going easy on you here, but don't let that discourage you.

No worries, it won't. What will probably bother me more is how slow some of the functions on this forum are. Is that just me, or do others find a slow response in the cursor?


(30-08-2011 10:36 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Like Cuff said, we don't even go easy on each other. We will however, be honest with you. Honest about what we think, both about the bible and the many other topics we discuss. (Keep in mind that this forum is not only for discussion of atheism and theism. We enjoy discussing many topics, and you are welcome to join in on any of them!)

Fair enough. Can't ask for more than that, and I would not. Kind of takes the fun out of debate if all sides are not honest, right?

But I do appreciate the welcome.



(30-08-2011 10:36 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Membership to this club doesn't mean you are an atheist. You are as important a member as everyone else. It means what you say matters, but also that there won't likely be any "holding back" when it comes to discussion.

That means more to me than you know. I would expect no less from those who seek to live decently in life, and, not bible thumpin' here, but that is the second greatest commandment given to man, to love his neighbor.

This is possibly the toughest for us, despite our beliefs, and, let it be known, I do read more into the title atheism than I do the title Christian. The world will look on and know what we are in word and deed (though that is not always a clear-cut identifier).

Really looking forward to some good discussion, and perhaps even some debate.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 12:04 AM
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
(30-08-2011 05:26 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(30-08-2011 09:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(30-08-2011 07:22 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  As I said, I am unfamiliar with "Hal," and actually avoid extrabiblical literature for the most part.

You generally avoid extrabiblical literature? Oh dear. Huh

Well, I think we need to set up a reading program for you. Smile

I'll start by suggesting Bertrand Russell's classic, Why I Am Not a Christian.

Anybody else? What other books would you add to S.T.'s reading list?

It won't do any good...I am adamant about this. I know this will be viewed even as I view other "faiths" (which I reject because they actually depart from scripture) that really, in order to be faithful to their organization, will not read anything other than what they believe to be inspired. The difference is, I believe two things that I am firm about:

1-Scipture is God's revelation to man, and through study we can see harmony in God's word which we do not see in extrabiblical writings (and I know many here feel there are contradictions in scripture, but I feel there is just going to be things we do not understand). Along with this I will just say that the indwelling Holy Spirit is He that makes scripture understood, which man does not receive until being born again. Thankfully, God will impart understanding to the natural man, that they might be saved.

2-The "scripture" of certain faiths can be easily seen to be false because there are contradictions.

I appreciate the thought, though.

I'm glad you appreciate the thought. But as long as you maintain your "adamant" refusal to read anything "extrabiblical," you're not going to learn anything.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
31-08-2011, 06:49 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2011 06:52 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
(30-08-2011 07:22 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(30-08-2011 06:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi S.T., welcome!

Your comment wasn't addressed to me specifically but I'll discuss the rapture with you if you're interested. I'm not a veteran here but have been around long enough to welcome you. You will find most people here have a very solid understanding of the Bible. Those who don't are deep thinkers and usually very intelligent and open to new ideas. You will probably find that most people on this forum are more interested in the merit of an argument than the authority of the writer, but if you are interested in my credentials I've been studying the history of the Bible for about 6 years. So...I open the door to you if you want....make a statement about the rapture/Hal. Don't worry too much about offending anyone! As long as you are genuine and honest and real you are very welcome. Mark

Hey Mark, I appreciate the welcome and invitation to converse.

I am just guessing, but I take it you are an athiest? My first question would be: you say you have been studying Bible history for six years, I would be curious as to whether this involves bible history primarily, or the actual doctrine derived from the bible. I should probably just say up front that as a believer, I accept only scripture (meaning the 66 books traditionally held as inspired) as something I use as a standard of measure, and include my own beliefs as subject to error...I don't consider myself to be without flaw in either thinking or doctrine.

Quote:So...I open the door to you if you want....make a statement about the rapture/Hal.

And I appreciate that. As I said, I am unfamiliar with "Hal," and actually avoid extrabiblical literature for the most part. I spend more time discussing the various beliefs concerning the Return of Christ, which, as a pre-trib believer, I view as a separate occurrence than the "catching away" of the Church.

So my first question (and this is difficult when discussing this with someone that may/may not reject this topic as well as Jesus Himself as being the Savior) would follow more along the lines of "Why do you study the Bible?"

I would think that it would be similar to that of believers that study what they consider false religions or cults, and the purpose is to discredit the topic of study.

Along with that question, would be, "How did you begin upon this study?"

And lastly, in regards to the rapture, and the Return of Christ, from an objective view, with the study you have done, what view do you feel the bible leans more to, pre-trib, or post?

Have to get to work, but I will also say that there is no need to address the actual term rapture, I understand it is a modern term representing the concept found in scripture.

Again, thanks for the welcome, I cannot guarantee the "merit" of my argument, as I honestly have no intention of arguing. I understand that I cannot change minds, and do not attempt to. It is said, "Whatever I can talk you in to, someone can talk you out of." And I believe that.

Okay, take it easy on me,

S.T.

Hi S.T., I suspect I'm in a different time zone to you, so if I don't reply on time I'll use that as an excuse LOL.

Gee, we got a lot of ground to cover. I'm a bit worried by some of your comments, but will address your questions and comments one by one.

Yes...I am a dyed in the wool atheist.

Re " I would be curious as to whether this involves bible history primarily, or the actual doctrine derived from the bible." Good question! I have been studying mainly the history, but also the doctrine. I have discovered that when one understands the history, one realises the doctrine is basically drivel ie it has no intrinsic value. Sure...it has screwed with a lot of people's heads, and it still does, so it is important to have an understanding of it, but it is of itself utter fabricated bullshit. Here is the challenge to you...do not write me off as a loudmouth because of what I just wrote. Cop it, digest it, and wonder why. I will share with you if you are interested and if I think you are sharing back.

Re "Why do you study the Bible?" Good question! Because it has had a profoundly immoral affect on the world and individuals and continues to do so. I care about my world, and I care about the people in it. I want to do my part to spare the children from evil Christianity. I am thoroughly pissed off that greedy power hungry churches poison people's minds with propaganda from the bible. I want to expose the bible for what it is....a pathetically flawed badly written propaganda tool.

Re "the purpose is to discredit the topic of study." I approached the topic with an open mind. As the years went by I realised how evil the bible and Churches are. So my agenda only emerged after a thorough examination of the topic.

Re "what view do you feel the bible leans more to, pre-trib, or post?" S. T., I couldn't care less. The whole stupid story is a complex mix of ideas that originated from Paul, an anti Jewish, petty, anxious, over imaginative control freak, "John" ...some anonymous dude who ate too many magic mushrooms on the Greek island Patmos, and a fucked up brainwashed 19th century preacher John Nelson Darby who imagined the history of the world revolved around his interpretation of the bible. I challenge you to give me one legitimate reason why I should think any of these characters had any legitimacy or relevance to reality.

S.T., you are polite and claim to be open minded. That's great! Our future conversations will reveal just how open minded you really are. I'll be frank with you about something. As cufflink so rightly said, you cannot possibly come here and claim to be open minded yet not be willing to read books written by atheists, agnostics and historians. If you read only the Bible, you have cut yourself off from thousands of fabulous resources. ( I will suggest some in next post if you are genuinely interested). Cognitive dissonance must be churning you up big time. Do yourself a favor. Genuinely, really, truly open your mind....don't just pay lip service to doing so. Be willing to be wrong. We are all wrong sometimes. Be real. Ask questions. Answer questions honestly. Leave your ego in your back pocket. I will do the same. It could be fun. Over to you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
31-08-2011, 07:21 AM
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
She mentioned the lord of the rings so it seems she does read things outside of the bible. Are you well versed in literature that is not focused on religion? Will you stop reading a story because it centers around a religion (even one invented for a race in the story?) And you said you read the 66 accepted books but what is so wrong with the others? The apocrypha and pygmata both carry many stories that were quite well enjoyed at the time that the canon was established, do you believe that a counsel of church officials is worthy of deciding what is the proper choice of literature? The reason that so many people follow the canon is due to the fact that during the dark ages it was demanded to be the only truth. Also, have you read the talmud, tanak, and tora? Many bible stories come from these books, and have been rewritten due to a change in religion. Wouldn't it be best to view gods word rather than a revised version? Or did god simply not imbue these stories with truth until the revelation? To that end it is also a good idea to look at the roots of the stories, as many jewish stories are adaptations of stories from other religions (civilizations) they interacted with (and often overthrew).

I'm not someone who has read the entire bible. Enough people on here seem to think I'm intelligent, so I guess we'll go with that category for me. When I'm discussing scripture I will look at the particular book as a whole and discuss the ideas and if someone gives correlation to other chapters I will search again. I do not think that the bible was well written (never been a fan of group writing).

I would have to say that primarily the bible is filled with a pre-trib focus similar to the foundation of the stories (judaism). Many parts of the new testament are still written with a jewish focus. However, the majority of scripture that seems most discussed is post-trib, so while I do see the bible as more focusing on this world it seems that the messages that matter most to people are about the after world. This I believe has to do with the book of Mark which demanded that every action on christianity's title character Jesus was to fulfill a prophecy from scripture. Due to this information christians became very focused on looking for possible prophecies of the future within the text, and saw it more as a guide to the future unlike the talmud which was a historical document.

I'm very good at discussing a wide range of things as you may notice as you get to know me, while this is not a topic of great interest to me I am perfectly happy to discuss what you are interested in. I hope that this does not sour your opinion of me. If I have made mistakes in my conclusions always feel free to inform me and I'll try to correct them.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lilith Pride's post
31-08-2011, 09:06 AM
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 09:40 AM
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
Great post, LP. And you too, Mark. You both have a lot more patience than I do.

(31-08-2011 07:21 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Also, have you read the talmud, tanak, and tora? Many bible stories come from these books, and have been rewritten due to a change in religion.

Let me just add a point of information about that. Might as well put my Jewish education to some use here. Smile

The Talmud is indeed quite different from the Bible--a later compilation of rabbinical discussion and commentary. But the Torah and Tanakh are not.

The Torah as a text is nothing more than the first five books of the Bible, also known as the Pentateuch: Genesis through Deuteronomy. When you see a Torah scroll in a synagogue, that's what it is: the first five books, laboriously handwritten in Hebrew on parchment. Traditional Jews consider the Torah the most sacred part of the Bible.

The Tanak (or more often, Tanakh, because of certain sound changes in Hebrew) is the Hebrew name for the entire Hebrew Bible. Is the Hebrew Bible the same as the Old Testament? Yes and no. Yes, because of its content: the books it contains are exactly the same as the books of the Christian OT. No, because the books are arranged in a somewhat different order than the books of the OT. Roughly speaking, the OT puts the prophetic books at the end; the Tanakh or HB puts them in the middle.

One more thing: the name Tanak itself is a kind of acronym:

T = Torah
N = N'bi'im [Prophets]
K = K'tubim [Writings]

Quote: I do not think that the bible was well written (never been a fan of group writing).

Love it! Cool

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 10:20 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2011 10:21 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 10:23 AM
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
Twice I haven't been able to see your posts, Ranger....

That's totally weird!

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2011 10:43 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: Time for a Hal Lindsey Apology Project?
Not sure why this response did not post, but I will try to get the reply in there.


[quote='S.T. Ranger' pid='43618' dateline='1314807614']
[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']
She mentioned the lord of the rings so it seems she does read things outside of the bible.
[/quote]

He...mentioned the Lord of the Rings. lol!

Hey, thanks for the response, this gets closer to the discussion sought. I will answer and comment best as I can.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']
Are you well versed in literature that is not focused on religion?
[/quote]

If it is asked if I am widely read, I have to say no. Concerning extrabiblcal literature I am sorry to say that my interests lean heavily to science fiction and fantasy (<--take note, I have set up a joke! lol).

Do I read fiction literature? From time to time. As a matter of fact, when the hurricane hit the other night, I put on my headlamp and revisited the Sword of Shannara, one of my personal favorites.

Sometimes I will do that.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

Will you stop reading a story because it centers around a religion (even one invented for a race in the story?)
[/quote]

Actually, no. Take the Shannara series, it presents a similar concept of good and evil, though it it is devoid of a Personal God (in the beginning at least) or a specific Savior. Unlike the Chronicles of Narnia, which was written by a Christian, supposedly.

Take the "force" of Star Wars. It is the new age concept of God, yet, I can read that without storing hatred in my Heart for George Lucas, or think that his concepts might lead people away from God. I am a firm believer that salvation is a one-time event in the life of a person, and while Christians may fall into sin, even unto death, I firmly assert that God saves completely, rather than "sets us on a path that might lead to salvation."


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

And you said you read the 66 accepted books but what is so wrong with the others?

The apocrypha and pygmata both carry many stories that were quite well enjoyed at the time that the canon was established, do you believe that a counsel of church officials is worthy of deciding what is the proper choice of literature?
[/quote]


I have actually read parts of the Apocrypha, and there are some fascinating stories to be found. Do I view them as inspired? Not really, but I will not despise the man or woman who does. My interest would be at looking at their doctrine, which will surely be influenced from viewing these books as inspired. Catholics do, and I can say, I do not hold Catholicism as teaching sound doctrine.

But understand this: nor do I believe that all catholics can be said to not have salvation or be in relationship with God. This is why it is crucial to understand the beliefs of others before assuming that they are not God's.

Lastly, and this is a bit of a cop-out, I admit: I have enough on my hands understanding the 66 books already! lol


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']
The reason that so many people follow the canon is due to the fact that during the dark ages it was demanded to be the only truth.
[/quote]

By who? This is one argument that is repeatedly put forth that is not really examined. Because the Catholic Church was the mainstream religion (and it is religion, make no mistake), they are thought to be true representatives of Christianity.

Even today, who is in the mainstreamn media? Catholics, Charismatics, and other highly publicized organizations that in my opinion, very much deserve the despising they get for the negative way in which they give witness to the Lord Jesus Christ.

If their doctrine is examined thoroughly and it is measured according to God's word, then they would be recognized as false witnesses.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

Also, have you read the talmud, tanak, and tora?
[/quote]

The Torah, yes. That is the first five books of the Bible. The Tanak, yes also, though in translation only.

The talmud, no. I put this on a par with modern commentaries or a better example would be extrabiblical literature of Catholicism. Let me clarify that I give no opinion on the latter beyond what has been offered here. I will just say that I do not view it as inspired scripture.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

Many bible stories come from these books, and have been rewritten due to a change in religion.
[/quote]


This is a belief of some, but I will just say, my belief follows more along the lines of this:

God revealed Himself to man in the beginning, man fell into sin and became separated from God, yet, they still retained knowledge of God, for God did not altogether abandon man, but made provision for them right from the beginning. An example of this provision would be sacrifice of animals for the covering of sin, which can be seen in the skins of animals given to Adam and Eve.

Also in the offering of Abel, as opposed to the works of Cain which, though we are not specifically told that animal sacrifice was a means of temporary respite from judgment, an overview of what scripture teaches does in fact teach this.

Scripture teaches that death is the wage of sin, and God provided a means that sin might be "covered," though until the death of Christ, which many see as first spoken of in Genesis 3, it was but temporary, as even the New Testament teaches.

Back to whether "bible stories originated from other cultures," I disagree. It is not strange that the cultures of history, and even those of today are a distortion of the truth revealed to man from the beginning. A distorted version of a savior associated with a woman can be seen in many cultures, so what is behind this? I suggest that the truth has been passed down from generation to generation, always with a faithful remnant.

So in my own belief, God's word reveals truth, whereas man in his rebellion to God distorts it. A modern example would be Mormonism. They, as well as other "faiths" that the world mistakes to be Christian had to supplement scripture with their own "sacred writings."

That those writings clearly contradict what God has previously revealed concerning Himself can be easily seen by even the casual bible student.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']
Wouldn't it be best to view gods word rather than a revised version?
[/quote]

First, we would have to determine if the 66 books I accept are in fact revised.

Take the LXX, for example, we see quotations from this translation from New Testament writers. There is a difference in wording in some cases, but the primary concept is not lost.

But yes, I agree: it is better to view God's word than a "revised version," which is what I view extrabiblical sources to be.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']
Or did god simply not imbue these stories with truth until the revelation?
[/quote]

The "revelation" must be first defined, because we have a couple different contexts which we can use this term for. I have to get to work, so I will not go into great detail.

To answer the question, we have to understand that scripture was written by men under the inspiration of God. God used men in their understanding to put to paper what He wished to reveal of Himself to man. This does not preclude that some of them did not leave their individuality in the writing, but neither does it mean that they wrote of "their own thoughts," but were directed in that which was written.

Yes, I believe that truth is found in scripture, though I also will say that God has revealed of Himself that which He intended man to know of Him, but that scripture does not give all there is to know about God. This is no excuse for man to fill in the details, though.

I try to stick to what has been revealed, and when I have a personal opinion, I will usually clarify this.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

To that end it is also a good idea to look at the roots of the stories, as many jewish stories are adaptations of stories from other religions (civilizations) they interacted with (and often overthrew).
[/quote]

Take the prior claim that scripture originated in a culture before the Hebrews. I agree, to the extent that certain theologies pre-existed the Hebrew culture. However, we have to remember that a knowledge of God was had by man from the beginning. That truth can evolve to fit man's interest can be seen, as I said, even today.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

I'm not someone who has read the entire bible.
[/quote]


I suggest topical study as opposed to sequential study, beginning first with soteriology.

To think that understanding can be had by a straightforward approach in not unreasonable, but, the time it will take to comprehend an understanding of the overview of scriptural teaching will require a phtographic memory, I believe.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

Enough people on here seem to think I'm intelligent, so I guess we'll go with that category for me. When I'm discussing scripture I will look at the particular book as a whole and discuss the ideas and if someone gives correlation to other chapters I will search again. I do not think that the bible was well written (never been a fan of group writing).
[/quote]


Is there a particular book that interests you? I would be glad to converse about that. It is not necessary that we be antagonistic or that we could not discuss scripture, even as we might discuss the Lord of the Rings.

[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

I would have to say that primarily the bible is filled with a pre-trib focus similar to the foundation of the stories (judaism).
[/quote]


Interesting. This is what I was curious to see: what conclusions are made from what scripture says.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']
Many parts of the new testament are still written with a jewish focus.
[/quote]


There is a reason for that. Judaism was a shadow (the same word is used by Christ which is translated parable) of salvation in completeness. The KJV translates this concept with the word "perfection," which in our day we think of differently than the biblical word, such as, "That was the perfect dinner, it had everything."

There are, however, many teaching that concern Gentiles, but, one of the underlying teaching is that God is creating a people for Himself, and Israel was an earthly picture of this creation.

This is a great discussion, and leads to the heart of scriptural teaching, and an understanding of this helps to explain many things that seem confusing to the bible student.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']
However, the majority of scripture that seems most discussed is post-trib, so while I do see the bible as more focusing on this world it seems that the messages that matter most to people are about the after world.
[/quote]


This is true. Post-trib doctrine is the primary belief, I believe, in modern Christendom (the visual "church" in all its great diversity, not to be confused with the true Body of Christ, which is made up of true believers who have been born again).

No-one has yet stated exactly what Hal Lindsay taught, but, thanks for your input.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']
This I believe has to do with the book of Mark which demanded that every action on christianity's title character Jesus was to fulfill a prophecy from scripture.
[/quote]

Could be. There is actually very few passages that actually address the rapture, and many passages are thought to do so. It is up to the student to determine context and rightly divide the word.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

Due to this information christians became very focused on looking for possible prophecies of the future within the text, and saw it more as a guide to the future unlike the talmud which was a historical document.
[/quote]

We have to discern between what is instruction and what is historical. It is true that many try to read today's events into scripture, rather than understanding today's events in light of scripture.

Eschatological issues have to be dealt with in their proper context, rather than trying to make every event fit a particular theology.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

I'm very good at discussing a wide range of things as you may notice as you get to know me, while this is not a topic of great interest to me I am perfectly happy to discuss what you are interested in.
[/quote]


I would first say that in light of this thread, unless a determined understanding of the rapture is held by one, it goes against the singular point I wish to make.

However, several issues have been mentioned that would make for great discussion, and always happy to talk about scripture. Also, if one wished to discuss the rapture views, I am also happy to do so, but I think in general that may give the impression that I am trying to push my beliefs on others, while the reverse is true, I am genuinely interested in the beliefs of others, and what they base it upon.

[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']

I hope that this does not sour your opinion of me.[/quote]


Not at all. I appreciate the reponse and applaud your kindness.


[quote='Lilith Pride' pid='43574' dateline='1314796866']
If I have made mistakes in my conclusions always feel free to inform me and I'll try to correct them.
[/quote]

I am not here to "set people straight." Believe it or not, there many that are not believers in Jesus Christ that I have a great love, concern, and respect for, and interact with on a regular basis.

I am here mainly just to talk with people, and discover the basis of belief. I interact likewise with Christians. We do not all hold to the same doctrine, and we do not all interact with people the same way. All people are diverse in belief and application of those beliefs, and for one to think themselves they that "have all the right answers" or that they "have arrived" actually defeat that which scripture teaches concerning man and how we are to live together.

Thanks for the response, hope I have not been too longwinded.

S.T.
[quote='S.T. Ranger' pid='43590' dateline='1314803161']

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Hi S.T., I suspect I'm in a different time zone to you, so if I don't reply on time I'll use that as an excuse LOL.

Gee, we got a lot of ground to cover. I'm a bit worried by some of your comments, but will address your questions and comments one by one.

Yes...I am a dyed in the wool atheist.

Re " I would be curious as to whether this involves bible history primarily, or the actual doctrine derived from the bible." Good question! I have been studying mainly the history, but also the doctrine. I have discovered that when one understands the history, one realises the doctrine is basically drivel ie it has no intrinsic value. Sure...it has screwed with a lot of people's heads, and it still does, so it is important to have an understanding of it, but it is of itself utter fabricated bullshit. Here is the challenge to you...do not write me off as a loudmouth because of what I just wrote. Cop it, digest it, and wonder why. I will share with you if you are interested and if I think you are sharing back.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Then the previous sentiment that I had a valid point has changed?

If the doctrine of the rapture has been studied, I have to ask, where was it studied? I ask for an honest answer on this, because this is the heart of argument, and it has been said that the argument is what is most important here.



[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


e "Why do you study the Bible?" Good question! Because it has had a profoundly immoral affect on the world and individuals and continues to do so.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

But is it the bible, or what man has done with God's word that is actually at fault?

We go back to this: in this thread, it has been repeatedly stated or implied that Hal Lindsay's doctrine has been harmful, and that he personally should be held accountable.

But...I see no logic in the argument, seeing that no-one has as of yet stepped forward to show how his doctrine is actually true biblical doctrine that an unbelieving audience can point a finger at and say, "This is what the bible teaches, and it is harmful, and therefore should be rejected."

First, what scripture actually teaches must be understood, then, finger-pointing can begin.

In order for a true discussion to take place, Hal's doctrine must be presented, and it would look something like this:

"Hal Lindsay teaches such (which is how I define most teaching concerning the catching away...lol), and the bible teaches this. He is therefore contrary to what scripture teaches, showing that he is in need of being exposed as a false teacher of scriptural doctrine, proving that a charge of being harmful is just, and the call for him to make reparation is reasonable.

No-one has done that yet, but, I hope the challenge will be answered.

Furthermore, the claim that scripture itself is to be held accountable for harm to this planet's inhabitants must also be more than the personal experiences of individuals that "experienced 'Christianity'."

They must first understand what scripture teaches that they might first judge the "Christianity" they experienced in light of true biblical doctrine.

I do not think that is an unreasonable concept.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I care about my world, and I care about the people in it. I want to do my part to spare the children from evil Christianity.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

As do I. Not all that is called "Christian" is actually Christian.

Watch TBN for examples.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I am thoroughly pissed off that greedy power hungry churches poison people's minds with propaganda from the bible. I want to expose the bible for what it is....a pathetically flawed badly written propaganda tool.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


We have gone from appealing to model atheist's opinion that it is a great work of literature to a personal view that it is....a pathetically flawed badly written propaganda tool.

Those who use God's word for filthy lucre will see wrath that far surpasses that of man.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Re "the purpose is to discredit the topic of study." I approached the topic with an open mind. As the years went by I realised how evil the bible and Churches are. So my agenda only emerged after a thorough examination of the topic.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

And who determined that the examination was "thorough?"

Could it be admitted that there might be more to understand than what is currently known?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Re "what view do you feel the bible leans more to, pre-trib, or post?" S. T., I couldn't care less. The whole stupid story is a complex mix of ideas that originated from Paul, an anti Jewish, petty, anxious, over imaginative control freak, "John" ...some anonymous dude who ate too many magic mushrooms on the Greek island Patmos, and a fucked up brainwashed 19th century preacher John Nelson Darby who imagined the history of the world revolved around his interpretation of the bible. I challenge you to give me one legitimate reason why I should think any of these characters had any legitimacy or relevance to reality.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


We all have opinions, but what is in view here goes beyond that.

Within this statement are several things that from scripture can be seen to be in contradiction to what scripture actually teaches, such as:

1-Paul was not anti-Jewish, he showed a great love for his countrymen.

2-Nowhere does scripture mention "magic mushrooms," this is obviously a component that is extrabiblical.

3-Scripture does not teach John Darby's doctrine, Darby taught John Darby's doctrine, which are conclusions he came from his study of scripture. The significance has much to do with this conversation, as first scriptural doctrine must be understood before those who claim to be teachers of it can be said to be God;s ministers.

As far as giving a reason to believe in Paul, John, or John Darby, I would not think of trying to convince anyone of "believing in them."

I have only a command to be a witness for Jesus Christ and His word.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

S.T., you are polite and claim to be open minded. That's great! Our future conversations will reveal just how open minded you really are.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


Well, if this means to say that openmindedness is conforming to the directives of an opposing position, this is the error of the religionist.

I do not think I have been here long enough for whether I am openminded can be determined, yet, this, and other things concerning my character and integrity have aready been called into question...because I reject the statement that I need to read extrabiblical literature in order to "come to the truth."

The corollary of the charge against Christians that they "cram scripture down the throats of unbelievers."

Think about that.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
I'll be frank with you about something. As cufflink so rightly said, you cannot possibly come here and claim to be open minded yet not be willing to read books written by atheists, agnostics and historians.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


But this is a personal belief of mine, and who is to judge that I am not openminded because I do not read books that speak against my beliefs?

Who here has truly studied God's word and come to their conclusions about God and scripture without the benefit of such books? Lets be honest.

I f personal experience with a church can be seen as a cause or motivation for not believing in God, can those experiences be looked at objectively, without emotion?

More imprtantly, can we find the connection between doctrine and application?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
If you read only the Bible, you have cut yourself off from thousands of fabulous resources.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

This cannot be said when scripture itself teaches that it is God's word that is reliable, not the doctrine of man, nor the results and effects and applications of the doctrine of man.

There are a great many men of God that I admire and respect, but I will not put them on a par with the inspired word of God for the very reason that they are...men.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

( I will suggest some in next post if you are genuinely interested).
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

As I said, for the most part I examine the revelation that I believe to be inspired, but...I am here to discuss personal belief of the individual, not necessarily the writings that have led them to their belief.

If one wishes to include quotes from these writings, I will examine them in light of my limited understanding of God's word and the teaching I believe that is found in them. If this immediately casts me in a light of not being openminded, and conversation and discussion can proceed no further, okay.

But, if one wishes to continue conversation keeping in mind that I am closeminded, that is okay too.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Cognitive dissonance must be churning you up big time.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Why should this be thought so?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Do yourself a favor. Genuinely, really, truly open your mind....don't just pay lip service to doing so.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

One scriptural teaching that is not applied in the lives of many Christians is the simple command of self control. Because I have a belief in the supernatural, I do not "open my mind" to anyone or anything, but keep as best as I can my thoughts in control.

Exposure to certain things can lead to serious results, and I am commanded to be conformed to the will of God, not the thoughts of men. All things are measured according to what he has said, not what men say He has said.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Be willing to be wrong.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

The implication being, I will not admit when I am wrong. Can that be said of me so soon? This conclusion cannot be based upon the discussion thus far, unless it is based on a judgment that I am closeminded because I do not need to go farther than scripture for a standard of measure by which to judge all things.

Just so that it is known...I am not here to say S.T. is right. S.T. is just a man who has only scratched the surface in understanding an Eternal God and His word.

To prove me wrong is an easily accomplished feat. Which is why I focus on scripture, and the claims that it is harmful to man.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

We are all wrong sometimes.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
Agreed.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Be real. Ask questions.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I have.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Answer questions honestly.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Is it thought I have not?

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Leave your ego in your back pocket. I will do the same. It could be fun. Over to you.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Is it thought that I have a high estimation of myself? This is true of everyone, but have given this impression already?

Or is this just a commonly held opinion of all who say they are Christians? It is not I that is the cause of this.

But, I agree, it could be interesting, and I hope our discussion can continue.

S.T.
[/quote]




[quote='S.T. Ranger' pid='43590' dateline='1314803161']

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Hi S.T., I suspect I'm in a different time zone to you, so if I don't reply on time I'll use that as an excuse LOL.

Gee, we got a lot of ground to cover. I'm a bit worried by some of your comments, but will address your questions and comments one by one.

Yes...I am a dyed in the wool atheist.

Re " I would be curious as to whether this involves bible history primarily, or the actual doctrine derived from the bible." Good question! I have been studying mainly the history, but also the doctrine. I have discovered that when one understands the history, one realises the doctrine is basically drivel ie it has no intrinsic value. Sure...it has screwed with a lot of people's heads, and it still does, so it is important to have an understanding of it, but it is of itself utter fabricated bullshit. Here is the challenge to you...do not write me off as a loudmouth because of what I just wrote. Cop it, digest it, and wonder why. I will share with you if you are interested and if I think you are sharing back.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Then the previous sentiment that I had a valid point has changed?

If the doctrine of the rapture has been studied, I have to ask, where was it studied? I ask for an honest answer on this, because this is the heart of argument, and it has been said that the argument is what is most important here.



[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


e "Why do you study the Bible?" Good question! Because it has had a profoundly immoral affect on the world and individuals and continues to do so.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

But is it the bible, or what man has done with God's word that is actually at fault?

We go back to this: in this thread, it has been repeatedly stated or implied that Hal Lindsay's doctrine has been harmful, and that he personally should be held accountable.

But...I see no logic in the argument, seeing that no-one has as of yet stepped forward to show how his doctrine is actually true biblical doctrine that an unbelieving audience can point a finger at and say, "This is what the bible teaches, and it is harmful, and therefore should be rejected."

First, what scripture actually teaches must be understood, then, finger-pointing can begin.

In order for a true discussion to take place, Hal's doctrine must be presented, and it would look something like this:

"Hal Lindsay teaches such (which is how I define most teaching concerning the catching away...lol), and the bible teaches this. He is therefore contrary to what scripture teaches, showing that he is in need of being exposed as a false teacher of scriptural doctrine, proving that a charge of being harmful is just, and the call for him to make reparation is reasonable.

No-one has done that yet, but, I hope the challenge will be answered.

Furthermore, the claim that scripture itself is to be held accountable for harm to this planet's inhabitants must also be more than the personal experiences of individuals that "experienced 'Christianity'."

They must first understand what scripture teaches that they might first judge the "Christianity" they experienced in light of true biblical doctrine.

I do not think that is an unreasonable concept.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I care about my world, and I care about the people in it. I want to do my part to spare the children from evil Christianity.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

As do I. Not all that is called "Christian" is actually Christian.

Watch TBN for examples.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I am thoroughly pissed off that greedy power hungry churches poison people's minds with propaganda from the bible. I want to expose the bible for what it is....a pathetically flawed badly written propaganda tool.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


We have gone from appealing to model atheist's opinion that it is a great work of literature to a personal view that it is....a pathetically flawed badly written propaganda tool.

Those who use God's word for filthy lucre will see wrath that far surpasses that of man.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Re "the purpose is to discredit the topic of study." I approached the topic with an open mind. As the years went by I realised how evil the bible and Churches are. So my agenda only emerged after a thorough examination of the topic.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

And who determined that the examination was "thorough?"

Could it be admitted that there might be more to understand than what is currently known?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Re "what view do you feel the bible leans more to, pre-trib, or post?" S. T., I couldn't care less. The whole stupid story is a complex mix of ideas that originated from Paul, an anti Jewish, petty, anxious, over imaginative control freak, "John" ...some anonymous dude who ate too many magic mushrooms on the Greek island Patmos, and a fucked up brainwashed 19th century preacher John Nelson Darby who imagined the history of the world revolved around his interpretation of the bible. I challenge you to give me one legitimate reason why I should think any of these characters had any legitimacy or relevance to reality.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


We all have opinions, but what is in view here goes beyond that.

Within this statement are several things that from scripture can be seen to be in contradiction to what scripture actually teaches, such as:

1-Paul was not anti-Jewish, he showed a great love for his countrymen.

2-Nowhere does scripture mention "magic mushrooms," this is obviously a component that is extrabiblical.

3-Scripture does not teach John Darby's doctrine, Darby taught John Darby's doctrine, which are conclusions he came from his study of scripture. The significance has much to do with this conversation, as first scriptural doctrine must be understood before those who claim to be teachers of it can be said to be God;s ministers.

As far as giving a reason to believe in Paul, John, or John Darby, I would not think of trying to convince anyone of "believing in them."

I have only a command to be a witness for Jesus Christ and His word.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

S.T., you are polite and claim to be open minded. That's great! Our future conversations will reveal just how open minded you really are.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


Well, if this means to say that openmindedness is conforming to the directives of an opposing position, this is the error of the religionist.

I do not think I have been here long enough for whether I am openminded can be determined, yet, this, and other things concerning my character and integrity have aready been called into question...because I reject the statement that I need to read extrabiblical literature in order to "come to the truth."

The corollary of the charge against Christians that they "cram scripture down the throats of unbelievers."

Think about that.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
I'll be frank with you about something. As cufflink so rightly said, you cannot possibly come here and claim to be open minded yet not be willing to read books written by atheists, agnostics and historians.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


But this is a personal belief of mine, and who is to judge that I am not openminded because I do not read books that speak against my beliefs?

Who here has truly studied God's word and come to their conclusions about God and scripture without the benefit of such books? Lets be honest.

I f personal experience with a church can be seen as a cause or motivation for not believing in God, can those experiences be looked at objectively, without emotion?

More imprtantly, can we find the connection between doctrine and application?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
If you read only the Bible, you have cut yourself off from thousands of fabulous resources.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

This cannot be said when scripture itself teaches that it is God's word that is reliable, not the doctrine of man, nor the results and effects and applications of the doctrine of man.

There are a great many men of God that I admire and respect, but I will not put them on a par with the inspired word of God for the very reason that they are...men.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

( I will suggest some in next post if you are genuinely interested).
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

As I said, for the most part I examine the revelation that I believe to be inspired, but...I am here to discuss personal belief of the individual, not necessarily the writings that have led them to their belief.

If one wishes to include quotes from these writings, I will examine them in light of my limited understanding of God's word and the teaching I believe that is found in them. If this immediately casts me in a light of not being openminded, and conversation and discussion can proceed no further, okay.

But, if one wishes to continue conversation keeping in mind that I am closeminded, that is okay too.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Cognitive dissonance must be churning you up big time.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Why should this be thought so?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Do yourself a favor. Genuinely, really, truly open your mind....don't just pay lip service to doing so.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

One scriptural teaching that is not applied in the lives of many Christians is the simple command of self control. Because I have a belief in the supernatural, I do not "open my mind" to anyone or anything, but keep as best as I can my thoughts in control.

Exposure to certain things can lead to serious results, and I am commanded to be conformed to the will of God, not the thoughts of men. All things are measured according to what he has said, not what men say He has said.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Be willing to be wrong.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

The implication being, I will not admit when I am wrong. Can that be said of me so soon? This conclusion cannot be based upon the discussion thus far, unless it is based on a judgment that I am closeminded because I do not need to go farther than scripture for a standard of measure by which to judge all things.

Just so that it is known...I am not here to say S.T. is right. S.T. is just a man who has only scratched the surface in understanding an Eternal God and His word.

To prove me wrong is an easily accomplished feat. Which is why I focus on scripture, and the claims that it is harmful to man.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

We are all wrong sometimes.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
Agreed.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Be real. Ask questions.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I have.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Answer questions honestly.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Is it thought I have not?

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Leave your ego in your back pocket. I will do the same. It could be fun. Over to you.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Is it thought that I have a high estimation of myself? This is true of everyone, but have given this impression already?

Or is this just a commonly held opinion of all who say they are Christians? It is not I that is the cause of this.

But, I agree, it could be interesting, and I hope our discussion can continue.

S.T.
[/quote]



[/quote]


[quote='monkeyshine89' pid='43621' dateline='1314807810']
Twice I haven't been able to see your posts, Ranger....

That's totally weird!
[/quote]

Totally! lol

Not sure what is going on, but if it is okay, I will try to put it in this post. Thanks.


[quote='S.T. Ranger' pid='43590' dateline='1314803161']

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Hi S.T., I suspect I'm in a different time zone to you, so if I don't reply on time I'll use that as an excuse LOL.

Gee, we got a lot of ground to cover. I'm a bit worried by some of your comments, but will address your questions and comments one by one.

Yes...I am a dyed in the wool atheist.

Re " I would be curious as to whether this involves bible history primarily, or the actual doctrine derived from the bible." Good question! I have been studying mainly the history, but also the doctrine. I have discovered that when one understands the history, one realises the doctrine is basically drivel ie it has no intrinsic value. Sure...it has screwed with a lot of people's heads, and it still does, so it is important to have an understanding of it, but it is of itself utter fabricated bullshit. Here is the challenge to you...do not write me off as a loudmouth because of what I just wrote. Cop it, digest it, and wonder why. I will share with you if you are interested and if I think you are sharing back.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Then the previous sentiment that I had a valid point has changed?

If the doctrine of the rapture has been studied, I have to ask, where was it studied? I ask for an honest answer on this, because this is the heart of argument, and it has been said that the argument is what is most important here.



[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


e "Why do you study the Bible?" Good question! Because it has had a profoundly immoral affect on the world and individuals and continues to do so.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

But is it the bible, or what man has done with God's word that is actually at fault?

We go back to this: in this thread, it has been repeatedly stated or implied that Hal Lindsay's doctrine has been harmful, and that he personally should be held accountable.

But...I see no logic in the argument, seeing that no-one has as of yet stepped forward to show how his doctrine is actually true biblical doctrine that an unbelieving audience can point a finger at and say, "This is what the bible teaches, and it is harmful, and therefore should be rejected."

First, what scripture actually teaches must be understood, then, finger-pointing can begin.

In order for a true discussion to take place, Hal's doctrine must be presented, and it would look something like this:

"Hal Lindsay teaches such (which is how I define most teaching concerning the catching away...lol), and the bible teaches this. He is therefore contrary to what scripture teaches, showing that he is in need of being exposed as a false teacher of scriptural doctrine, proving that a charge of being harmful is just, and the call for him to make reparation is reasonable.

No-one has done that yet, but, I hope the challenge will be answered.

Furthermore, the claim that scripture itself is to be held accountable for harm to this planet's inhabitants must also be more than the personal experiences of individuals that "experienced 'Christianity'."

They must first understand what scripture teaches that they might first judge the "Christianity" they experienced in light of true biblical doctrine.

I do not think that is an unreasonable concept.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I care about my world, and I care about the people in it. I want to do my part to spare the children from evil Christianity.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

As do I. Not all that is called "Christian" is actually Christian.

Watch TBN for examples.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I am thoroughly pissed off that greedy power hungry churches poison people's minds with propaganda from the bible. I want to expose the bible for what it is....a pathetically flawed badly written propaganda tool.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


We have gone from appealing to model atheist's opinion that it is a great work of literature to a personal view that it is....a pathetically flawed badly written propaganda tool.

Those who use God's word for filthy lucre will see wrath that far surpasses that of man.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Re "the purpose is to discredit the topic of study." I approached the topic with an open mind. As the years went by I realised how evil the bible and Churches are. So my agenda only emerged after a thorough examination of the topic.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

And who determined that the examination was "thorough?"

Could it be admitted that there might be more to understand than what is currently known?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Re "what view do you feel the bible leans more to, pre-trib, or post?" S. T., I couldn't care less. The whole stupid story is a complex mix of ideas that originated from Paul, an anti Jewish, petty, anxious, over imaginative control freak, "John" ...some anonymous dude who ate too many magic mushrooms on the Greek island Patmos, and a fucked up brainwashed 19th century preacher John Nelson Darby who imagined the history of the world revolved around his interpretation of the bible. I challenge you to give me one legitimate reason why I should think any of these characters had any legitimacy or relevance to reality.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


We all have opinions, but what is in view here goes beyond that.

Within this statement are several things that from scripture can be seen to be in contradiction to what scripture actually teaches, such as:

1-Paul was not anti-Jewish, he showed a great love for his countrymen.

2-Nowhere does scripture mention "magic mushrooms," this is obviously a component that is extrabiblical.

3-Scripture does not teach John Darby's doctrine, Darby taught John Darby's doctrine, which are conclusions he came from his study of scripture. The significance has much to do with this conversation, as first scriptural doctrine must be understood before those who claim to be teachers of it can be said to be God;s ministers.

As far as giving a reason to believe in Paul, John, or John Darby, I would not think of trying to convince anyone of "believing in them."

I have only a command to be a witness for Jesus Christ and His word.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

S.T., you are polite and claim to be open minded. That's great! Our future conversations will reveal just how open minded you really are.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


Well, if this means to say that openmindedness is conforming to the directives of an opposing position, this is the error of the religionist.

I do not think I have been here long enough for whether I am openminded can be determined, yet, this, and other things concerning my character and integrity have aready been called into question...because I reject the statement that I need to read extrabiblical literature in order to "come to the truth."

The corollary of the charge against Christians that they "cram scripture down the throats of unbelievers."

Think about that.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
I'll be frank with you about something. As cufflink so rightly said, you cannot possibly come here and claim to be open minded yet not be willing to read books written by atheists, agnostics and historians.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


But this is a personal belief of mine, and who is to judge that I am not openminded because I do not read books that speak against my beliefs?

Who here has truly studied God's word and come to their conclusions about God and scripture without the benefit of such books? Lets be honest.

I f personal experience with a church can be seen as a cause or motivation for not believing in God, can those experiences be looked at objectively, without emotion?

More imprtantly, can we find the connection between doctrine and application?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
If you read only the Bible, you have cut yourself off from thousands of fabulous resources.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

This cannot be said when scripture itself teaches that it is God's word that is reliable, not the doctrine of man, nor the results and effects and applications of the doctrine of man.

There are a great many men of God that I admire and respect, but I will not put them on a par with the inspired word of God for the very reason that they are...men.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

( I will suggest some in next post if you are genuinely interested).
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

As I said, for the most part I examine the revelation that I believe to be inspired, but...I am here to discuss personal belief of the individual, not necessarily the writings that have led them to their belief.

If one wishes to include quotes from these writings, I will examine them in light of my limited understanding of God's word and the teaching I believe that is found in them. If this immediately casts me in a light of not being openminded, and conversation and discussion can proceed no further, okay.

But, if one wishes to continue conversation keeping in mind that I am closeminded, that is okay too.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Cognitive dissonance must be churning you up big time.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Why should this be thought so?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Do yourself a favor. Genuinely, really, truly open your mind....don't just pay lip service to doing so.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

One scriptural teaching that is not applied in the lives of many Christians is the simple command of self control. Because I have a belief in the supernatural, I do not "open my mind" to anyone or anything, but keep as best as I can my thoughts in control.

Exposure to certain things can lead to serious results, and I am commanded to be conformed to the will of God, not the thoughts of men. All things are measured according to what he has said, not what men say He has said.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Be willing to be wrong.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

The implication being, I will not admit when I am wrong. Can that be said of me so soon? This conclusion cannot be based upon the discussion thus far, unless it is based on a judgment that I am closeminded because I do not need to go farther than scripture for a standard of measure by which to judge all things.

Just so that it is known...I am not here to say S.T. is right. S.T. is just a man who has only scratched the surface in understanding an Eternal God and His word.

To prove me wrong is an easily accomplished feat. Which is why I focus on scripture, and the claims that it is harmful to man.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

We are all wrong sometimes.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
Agreed.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Be real. Ask questions.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I have.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Answer questions honestly.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Is it thought I have not?

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Leave your ego in your back pocket. I will do the same. It could be fun. Over to you.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Is it thought that I have a high estimation of myself? This is true of everyone, but have given this impression already?

Or is this just a commonly held opinion of all who say they are Christians? It is not I that is the cause of this.

But, I agree, it could be interesting, and I hope our discussion can continue.

S.T.
[/quote]

[quote='monkeyshine89' pid='43621' dateline='1314807810']
Twice I haven't been able to see your posts, Ranger....

That's totally weird!
[/quote]

Apparently something doesn't want my posts...posted.


I noticed that I have had some strange things happening to my computer since coming here.

I will try once more. Perhaps moderation is editing?


[quote='S.T. Ranger' pid='43590' dateline='1314803161']

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Hi S.T., I suspect I'm in a different time zone to you, so if I don't reply on time I'll use that as an excuse LOL.

Gee, we got a lot of ground to cover. I'm a bit worried by some of your comments, but will address your questions and comments one by one.

Yes...I am a dyed in the wool atheist.

Re " I would be curious as to whether this involves bible history primarily, or the actual doctrine derived from the bible." Good question! I have been studying mainly the history, but also the doctrine. I have discovered that when one understands the history, one realises the doctrine is basically drivel ie it has no intrinsic value. Sure...it has screwed with a lot of people's heads, and it still does, so it is important to have an understanding of it, but it is of itself utter fabricated bullshit. Here is the challenge to you...do not write me off as a loudmouth because of what I just wrote. Cop it, digest it, and wonder why. I will share with you if you are interested and if I think you are sharing back.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Then the previous sentiment that I had a valid point has changed?

If the doctrine of the rapture has been studied, I have to ask, where was it studied? I ask for an honest answer on this, because this is the heart of argument, and it has been said that the argument is what is most important here.



[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


e "Why do you study the Bible?" Good question! Because it has had a profoundly immoral affect on the world and individuals and continues to do so.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

But is it the bible, or what man has done with God's word that is actually at fault?

We go back to this: in this thread, it has been repeatedly stated or implied that Hal Lindsay's doctrine has been harmful, and that he personally should be held accountable.

But...I see no logic in the argument, seeing that no-one has as of yet stepped forward to show how his doctrine is actually true biblical doctrine that an unbelieving audience can point a finger at and say, "This is what the bible teaches, and it is harmful, and therefore should be rejected."

First, what scripture actually teaches must be understood, then, finger-pointing can begin.

In order for a true discussion to take place, Hal's doctrine must be presented, and it would look something like this:

"Hal Lindsay teaches such (which is how I define most teaching concerning the catching away...lol), and the bible teaches this. He is therefore contrary to what scripture teaches, showing that he is in need of being exposed as a false teacher of scriptural doctrine, proving that a charge of being harmful is just, and the call for him to make reparation is reasonable.

No-one has done that yet, but, I hope the challenge will be answered.

Furthermore, the claim that scripture itself is to be held accountable for harm to this planet's inhabitants must also be more than the personal experiences of individuals that "experienced 'Christianity'."

They must first understand what scripture teaches that they might first judge the "Christianity" they experienced in light of true biblical doctrine.

I do not think that is an unreasonable concept.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I care about my world, and I care about the people in it. I want to do my part to spare the children from evil Christianity.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

As do I. Not all that is called "Christian" is actually Christian.

Watch TBN for examples.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I am thoroughly pissed off that greedy power hungry churches poison people's minds with propaganda from the bible. I want to expose the bible for what it is....a pathetically flawed badly written propaganda tool.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


We have gone from appealing to model atheist's opinion that it is a great work of literature to a personal view that it is....a pathetically flawed badly written propaganda tool.

Those who use God's word for filthy lucre will see wrath that far surpasses that of man.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Re "the purpose is to discredit the topic of study." I approached the topic with an open mind. As the years went by I realised how evil the bible and Churches are. So my agenda only emerged after a thorough examination of the topic.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

And who determined that the examination was "thorough?"

Could it be admitted that there might be more to understand than what is currently known?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Re "what view do you feel the bible leans more to, pre-trib, or post?" S. T., I couldn't care less. The whole stupid story is a complex mix of ideas that originated from Paul, an anti Jewish, petty, anxious, over imaginative control freak, "John" ...some anonymous dude who ate too many magic mushrooms on the Greek island Patmos, and a fucked up brainwashed 19th century preacher John Nelson Darby who imagined the history of the world revolved around his interpretation of the bible. I challenge you to give me one legitimate reason why I should think any of these characters had any legitimacy or relevance to reality.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


We all have opinions, but what is in view here goes beyond that.

Within this statement are several things that from scripture can be seen to be in contradiction to what scripture actually teaches, such as:

1-Paul was not anti-Jewish, he showed a great love for his countrymen.

2-Nowhere does scripture mention "magic mushrooms," this is obviously a component that is extrabiblical.

3-Scripture does not teach John Darby's doctrine, Darby taught John Darby's doctrine, which are conclusions he came from his study of scripture. The significance has much to do with this conversation, as first scriptural doctrine must be understood before those who claim to be teachers of it can be said to be God;s ministers.

As far as giving a reason to believe in Paul, John, or John Darby, I would not think of trying to convince anyone of "believing in them."

I have only a command to be a witness for Jesus Christ and His word.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

S.T., you are polite and claim to be open minded. That's great! Our future conversations will reveal just how open minded you really are.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


Well, if this means to say that openmindedness is conforming to the directives of an opposing position, this is the error of the religionist.

I do not think I have been here long enough for whether I am openminded can be determined, yet, this, and other things concerning my character and integrity have aready been called into question...because I reject the statement that I need to read extrabiblical literature in order to "come to the truth."

The corollary of the charge against Christians that they "cram scripture down the throats of unbelievers."

Think about that.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
I'll be frank with you about something. As cufflink so rightly said, you cannot possibly come here and claim to be open minded yet not be willing to read books written by atheists, agnostics and historians.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']


But this is a personal belief of mine, and who is to judge that I am not openminded because I do not read books that speak against my beliefs?

Who here has truly studied God's word and come to their conclusions about God and scripture without the benefit of such books? Lets be honest.

I f personal experience with a church can be seen as a cause or motivation for not believing in God, can those experiences be looked at objectively, without emotion?

More imprtantly, can we find the connection between doctrine and application?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
If you read only the Bible, you have cut yourself off from thousands of fabulous resources.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

This cannot be said when scripture itself teaches that it is God's word that is reliable, not the doctrine of man, nor the results and effects and applications of the doctrine of man.

There are a great many men of God that I admire and respect, but I will not put them on a par with the inspired word of God for the very reason that they are...men.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

( I will suggest some in next post if you are genuinely interested).
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

As I said, for the most part I examine the revelation that I believe to be inspired, but...I am here to discuss personal belief of the individual, not necessarily the writings that have led them to their belief.

If one wishes to include quotes from these writings, I will examine them in light of my limited understanding of God's word and the teaching I believe that is found in them. If this immediately casts me in a light of not being openminded, and conversation and discussion can proceed no further, okay.

But, if one wishes to continue conversation keeping in mind that I am closeminded, that is okay too.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Cognitive dissonance must be churning you up big time.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Why should this be thought so?


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Do yourself a favor. Genuinely, really, truly open your mind....don't just pay lip service to doing so.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

One scriptural teaching that is not applied in the lives of many Christians is the simple command of self control. Because I have a belief in the supernatural, I do not "open my mind" to anyone or anything, but keep as best as I can my thoughts in control.

Exposure to certain things can lead to serious results, and I am commanded to be conformed to the will of God, not the thoughts of men. All things are measured according to what he has said, not what men say He has said.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Be willing to be wrong.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

The implication being, I will not admit when I am wrong. Can that be said of me so soon? This conclusion cannot be based upon the discussion thus far, unless it is based on a judgment that I am closeminded because I do not need to go farther than scripture for a standard of measure by which to judge all things.

Just so that it is known...I am not here to say S.T. is right. S.T. is just a man who has only scratched the surface in understanding an Eternal God and His word.

To prove me wrong is an easily accomplished feat. Which is why I focus on scripture, and the claims that it is harmful to man.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

We are all wrong sometimes.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']
Agreed.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Be real. Ask questions.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

I have.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Answer questions honestly.
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Is it thought I have not?

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Leave your ego in your back pocket. I will do the same. It could be fun. Over to you.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Is it thought that I have a high estimation of myself? This is true of everyone, but have given this impression already?

Or is this just a commonly held opinion of all who say they are Christians? It is not I that is the cause of this.

But, I agree, it could be interesting, and I hope our discussion can continue.

S.T.
[/quote]



One last attempt to get this post in.

[quote='S.T. Ranger' pid='43590' dateline='1314803161']

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43573' dateline='1314794950']

Hi S.T., I suspect I'm in a different time zone to you, so if I don't reply on time I'll use that as an excuse LOL.

Gee, we got a lot of ground to cover. I'm a bit worried by some of your comments, but will address your questions and comments one by one.

Yes...I am a dyed in the wool atheist.

Re " I would be curious as to whether this involves bible history primarily, or the actual doctrine derived from the bible." Good question! I have been studying mainly the history, but also the doctrine. I have discovered that when one understands the history, one realises the doctrine is
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: