Was banned for asking...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2011, 11:08 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  I am just amazed of how ignorant bible defenders are of their own scriptures.

When it comes to what we see on forums, I agree. But, has it occurred to those who take a hateful approach to those who are in disagreement about their beliefs (and this applies to both sides) that the primary issue is not so much what is disputed, it is the internal conflict in the heart of the opponents?

What I mean is this: if we take this approach (hateful), are we not, on both sides, doing exactly what we accuse the other of doing?


(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  I get condemned by people for asking questions.

I can relate.


(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  I guess since 'Eve' ate something from the tree of knowledge (sic), that she is supposed to pass on how wrong it was to the world. What bullshit!

It is strange that something being passed on to children would be questioned. However, I can understand dismissal of something spiritual in nature, as man has not been able to tap into this "science." Man's attempt to understand all things is still a work in progress...a work that I believe will never reach it's end. I do not believe that man will ever be able to give answers for everything, or that he has even scratched the surface in his understanding concerning the things of this world, much less things of the supernatural realm.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  But regardless, I was actually being polite. I mean, I don't go knocking on people's doors with anti religion papers saying how my religion isn't the true one.

Going to leave this one alone. To be polite.

(03-09-2011 04:17 PM)Sines Wrote:  Not terribly surprised. How many people on that forum tried to talk honestly and thoughtfully with you though? Unless it was a real fundie shit-hole, I'm sure there were some people there who tried to be nice and answer your questions, even if their answers were the same old apologist non-sense.

As a "fundie," just wanted to say thanks.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  Oh, and ST, you're a christian right? How about you offer your explanations for the conundrums in place. Or do you agree with everything he proposed? In that case, if you agree that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, how should such contradictory passages be taken, and why are they in the bible?

First, whether the bible is to be taken literally or not is one point which leads to erronous conclusions for those who are not serious students of scripture.

I do take scripture literally unless the passage shows in the context that something is symbolic, and this will be identified with phrases such "It was like unto," "Like as," et cetera.

Second, as I said when first responding, answers to these questions will not bring about repentance from opposition to teachings found in the Bible. It doesn't matter what is said, the response will be something along the lines of, "Well, that is just your interpretation."

I do not think that scripture is filled with contradictions, I think that the one suggesting this has just not investigated these claims from a sound hermeneutical approach, but rather, parrots the "findings" of someone else, denying any validity that they have approached understanding sciptural doctrine in a scientific manner.

Bible interpretation is a science that has many aspects. However, the common man can gain understanding by simply reading scripture as literal instruction. Which is good news for common men such as myself.

First rule of interpretation is that the passage is to be taken literal, unless otherwise noted in the text.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  3 out of 31. A big ratio. It was a pretty big shithole though, but I was attempting to satisfy a bet.

It is a bet that ultimately be lost, and I do not say that glibly. It is heartwrenching.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  In the Old Testament, the contradictions and inconsistencies get even worse.

I will briefly address the "contradiction" in view shortly.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  Does God repent for his mistakes or wrong doings??? Does God make mistakes period????

Those who believe that God is omnipotent do not believe that He is "caught off guard," nor does He make mistakes. That is just a little difficult for God, since He knows history from start to finish, and knew this before history began.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  Ezekiel 24:14 � I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent�

The word in the original language is nacham. It simply means that God will not, through sorrow caused by the actions of those in this context who will be judged...change His mind about what is about to befall those who will be judged.

The limited amount given here is sufficient to pick up the context and meaning as defined by the statement "it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare," and then He says, "Neither will I repent," which is actually what translates the single word nacham.

Now we go on to the next passage that seeks to show God contradicting Himself:


(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  VRS.
Exodus 32:14 �And the Lord repented of the evil he thought to do unto his people�

First, it is clear that Moses beseeches God to turn away from the wrath that has brought the people in danger of judgment. We have to find out, first, is God asked to change His mind about this judgment, and second, what is the "evil" Moses hopes to avoid?

The first question is easily answered: the people had fallen into disbelief and idolatry.

The second is easily enough understaood as well: "evil" is ra, and is translated with these words in the AV:

AV — evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34

The reason it is translated by so many words is that there are so many contexts which deal with different issues.

In the case of this passage, the context is one of temporal death, which is not only the fate of those who rebel against God in the Old Testament, it can also be the fate of believers...in the New Testament.

Moses averts the temporal destruction of these idolaters by fulfilling an intercessary role for the people, and we see this is a constant theme in scripture.

So God "repents" and does not destroy the children in the wilderness, but this in no way justifies a position that because God does repent at times, and does not at others...that this is a contradiction.

We now go to the next example, and, as in this verse, we again have nacham:


(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  Genesis 6:6-7 �And the Lord that he had made man on earth�And he said �I will destroy man whom I have created, for I repent that I have made them�

One thing has been left out of the example:

Genesis 6:6
King James Version (KJV)


6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

...it grieved Him at his heart.

It caused Him sorrow, that He had made man.

Even parents can be grieved by their children, and it is not unreasonable to think that there have been parents that were grieved to have had a child at all.

This is what is in view here. Eisegesis is committed when the context is not kept, and one reads into this that God somehow "didn't see this coming." Even as parents may know that their child will be rebellious in their teenage years, it is not until this time that a parent is grieved.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  Which is it?

Depends on the context. What is is not, though, is contradiction.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  If we read this book in a literal sense, we read contradictory statements about the Omnipotence of God and the instructions he gives us.

I can understand how one might feel this way, and would like to look at these contradictions with those who feel this way.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  You can explain these contradictions away by citing many things. Such as�.�Yes that is what it says, but it needs to be out of context to get the real message�.

And it is statements like this that show a faulty basis for the charges levied: this is not something taught as a means of proper interpretation. It is a statement that is made in order for one to strengthen their own argument, and it is false. It shows the lengths that will be gone to perpetuate a belief system...despite facts.


(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  Now that�s not literal is it?

No, it is an argument that is either made up (which means that lying is an option) or that it comes from talking to those who do not represent scriptural teaching.

Which is it?

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  I can provide thousands of contradictory statements (some of which shake the very foundation that supports the Christian community).

Quite a boast. I would recommend a couple things: find out how sound interpretation is done and by who scripture says this can be accomplished (and it might surprise some how scientific the process is when getting to a scholarly level; learn what context means before making such statements.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  Ask, and you shall receive.

This is true.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  I feel that in order to appreciate the message and truth behind the Bible, WE MUST NOT READ IT IN A LITERAL SENSE.

Isn't this what was just stated as a faulty approach by "bible defenders?" And it now being said "this is the way to understand scripture?"

Now that is what I see as not only a contradiction, but a double standard.

(03-09-2011 11:44 PM)Monk Wrote:  Or else we will be sacrificing cows as God commanded in Leviticus.

If scripture is understood, it would be known that there is no sacrifice other than that of the Son of God that is acceptable for the atonement of sin. Taking passages out of context will inevitably bring "thousands of contradictions" into the view of the one that is seeking to prove there is contradiction in scripture.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes S.T. Ranger's post
06-09-2011, 12:24 PM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2011 12:56 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: Was banned for asking...
(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi S.T.

Hello Mark.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re "I would suggest revisiting the record of scripture." Why? What is your point?

As I have said many times, I wish to look at "the basis of belief" in the various belief systems, and that includes the belief system of the atheist.

First, for the atheist to discredit Christianity, they should have a firm grasp upon the basis of Christianity, which is scripture. So far I have not seen anyone come forward that has been able to show that they have even the slightest inkling as to what scripture teaches, therefore I have not actually seen a good defense for the belief system of atheism.

Neither have I seen a good defense for hatred of Christians. All I have witnessed is very much the same thing that disapooints me in Christian forums, and that is both an ignorance of what scripture teaches, as well as a failure to apply even the most basic principles which God's word teaches to man.

Very disappointing, really, and not just from a Christian perspective, but from a human perspective as well.

It seems to be forgotten at times that both groups wish to convince the world that their way is one of superiority, but those on the sidelines can look at both (inept defenders) and say, "I want nothing to do with that group."

Admittedly I am far more offended by the actions of those who name the name of Christ when they behave in such a manner, and I can say I have done so myself. But, they at least, should know better.

My point is this: before saying this is what scripture teaches...find out what scripture teaches.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re "Christ spent most of His time with, and among the people...not the religious."
Sorry S.T. , I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, and you are wrong. Jesus associated with his fellow Jews, who were intensely religious. Their religion gave them an identity and a purpose. His closest companions and his family ( mother, 4 brothers and 2 sisters ), were Nazarenes, members of a fundamentalist Jewish sect. The crowds in the Galilean countryside were mainly non sectarian, but had all been indoctrinated with Judaism. To suggest they were not "religious" proves you have a poor understanding of the life and times of Jesus.

Again, revisit scripture. While I agree that the Hebrew culture is "intensely religious," intense religion has to be defined in light of scripture and the events within it's pages.

Jesus was blasted by the religious leaders for the very reason that He associated with publicans and sinners. His interaction with those who were appointed as "spiritual leaders" can lead only to the conclusion that the tradition of men is frowned upon by God, and man's application of His word is not open to private interpretation, which was the case of these leaders.

Here is a point in this statement that can clearly be seen to be in error:

"His closest companions and his family ( mother, 4 brothers and 2 sisters ), were Nazarenes, members of a fundamentalist Jewish sect."

Prove this by scripture. I can save you the time...this is a statemnent of error, showing the lack of familiarity with the events.

His closest companions were fishermen, a tax collector, and a zealot...which some believe Simon to have been a member of the sikaari (have not looked at this a while so my spelling may be off), which was basically a terrorist group in the habit of assasinating Roman soldiers.

Not exactly what I would call "intensey religious people."


(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re.."I would agree that Christ did not teach universal love and tolerance. That is a myth." I MUST GENUINELY CONGRATULATE YOU FOR ADMITTING THIS. Well done!


Thanks.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Now imagine a world where "Jesus" had preached:
"Listen everyone, we all come from different cultures. We should not condemn others because they happen to have a different belief system to ours.


This itself is in contradiction to one very basic Bible truth that is taught throughout the different Ages: God is One God, and there is no other...HEAR HIM.

Jesus first role is as Prophet to the Nation of Israel. That the religious leaders of His day were in error did not begin when He was born, but can be seen to be a pretty much constant trait in the history of Israel.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The important thing is to respect your fellow man no matter what his religious affiliations are." What a peaceful world we would have!

Don't believe it. Man in his natural state will always find something to fight about.

Religion is not always the cause for war.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Have a think about this. Most Christians can't simply accept the outsider.

And this is stated by a thorough knowledge of Christians, right? And of what scripture teaches is to be the characteristics of Christians?

This is my primary point. Because what scripture teaches about salvation is not known, how to identify who is a Christian and who is not is impossible.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They don't want mosques on their street corner.

While there may be those who protest such things, I yself do not. Not only am I a Christian, I am an American that believes that all should have the right to believe and worship as they desire.

I will, as an American, defend the rights of atheists as strongly as those of all believers. I am not one who believes in mob rules or forced submission.

True Christianity cannot be lumped in with aggressive religion, because this is just not taught in scripture.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They don't want gays in their churches.

Now wait: who are you to speak for me? I am a Christian and I have no problem with gays in my church.

But, this is the basis of belief, founded not on facts, but on assumption.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They don't want atheists (shock, horror) teaching their kids.

I have no fear that the children I have had a hand in raising are suitably educated in scripture as to be able to withstand not only atheistic instruction, but the instruction that is found throughout our culture. I am not worried about them.

This is nothing but made up argument that would seek to discredit those that seek to live peacably among men.

We hold to a very basic principle: raise up a child in the way they should go, and when they are old, they will not depart from it. Now the results of the diverse manners of instruction will ultimately be determined by the soundness of the knowledge of the instructors (the parents), so, if the instructors are in error in both doctrine and application, this promise will not be realized.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They don't want women in leadership roles.

Says who? Would you care to show me how I do not believe women should be in leadership roles?

Do you get that? You don't even know what I believe, yet, you assume to speak for me.

Scripture carefully explains the leadership roles women have, and if you care to know my personal views on this...just ask. But please don't presume to speak for me.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ask yourself why.

First find out what I believe before assuming to set me straight.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The answer is they have been taught to be intolerant of others since the cradle (usually).

This is simply ridiculous.

In my own life, I was not saved until I was 25.

Furthermore, we have to examine what is being taught in order to discredit the result. If the foundation is wrong, it is no mystery as to why the structure is wrong.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That intolerance has its genesis in the bible in the words of Jesus, Paul and others.

There are things that we are taught to be intolerant of, but we have to keep it all in context. For instance. Teaching that is not sound is not to be tolerated in the Church (the Body of Christ). Sin is not to be tolerated in our lives. Disobedience by Children is not to be tolerated towards parents.

But could you please show the scriptural basis that "gays are not to be tolerated in the church?"

You claim that we do not tolerate such, and I challenge that charge: you just don't have the knowledge base of scripture or Christians to make such a general statement.



(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The fundamental Christian agenda is to make the whole world Christian.

Again, unfamiliarity with scripture leads to statements such as this. The bible student is well aware that "the whole world is not going to become Christian."

In fact, scripture teaches of a many(lost)/few(saved) ratio, and that those who are saved are to be separated from the world system. This is just a false basis in order to justify a position, and thankfully not all atheists take this approach.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They want everyone to be just like them.

Wrong. We want everyone to be like Christ.

We are to make disciples of Christ, not of Paul, nor of Apollos, nor of Peter...

And this is the promise concerning salvation, God will finish the work He has begun in the life of the believer, conforming him to the image (likeness) of Christ.

I will be the first one to say, "You don't want to be like me."

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They dream about this in heaven...a place where all the Islamists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, gays and loud women won't be allowed entry. No one different, no one causing offence.

Again...wrong.

Jesus taught that would be many that were not "of this fold" (Israel/Jews), but would come from all over...and that there would be one fold.

Where does this stuff come from? Certainly not from studying scripture.

And at this time, I will reiterate one thing: we have to get away from what others tell us to think, and start thinking for ourselves, if it our understanding that we wish to share.

Otherwise, we will merely parrot the teachings of others, rather than our own. This is a danger for all, including "christians." Believe what you believe because you have found it to be true, not because someone else says it is.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I hope you don't think like them S.T.

I get the impression how I think is of little significance.

As is who I am as a person...not just a Christian.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re..."And it is bad form to condemn those one has never met." Um...are you referring to me condemning "Jesus?" Or are you referring to the way "Jesus" badmouths people he hadn't met?

One can "condemn Jesus" all they like. This, He said, would be forgiven. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand...will not be.

Care to tell me what this means?

The point in view, though, was until you have met all of the Christians in the world, who are you to judge them? Go to a local "fundie" church and get to know some of the people. This will go a long ways as to knowing how God works in the lives of His people.

You will meet some who are bigoted, ignorant, immature, I am sure. But you will also meet some who by the very instruction of God's word are going to love you unconditionally, and welcome you into their presence.

But unless one wishes to see things based on fact, rather than seek out facts to justify and perpetuate what they want to believe, they will not do this.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I have made a serious attempt over the years to understand the real historical Jesus.

Keep it up...it is not time wasted. I would just ask, how does one go about this? Who are the sources appealed to, if this is a serious statement. Just atheistic literature and point of view? Or does one get to know God's people, speak to those who have a sound grasp of scriptural teaching?

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  He was not the man portrayed in the gospels, of that I am absolutely positive.

You mean "of that you are convinced."

He is the man portrayed in the Gospels, that is just a fact that need not be argued. Could I say, "Gandalf is not the man portrayed in the Hobbit?"

No, because the record is given to illustrate Who He was.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The "Christ" of Christianity is a mythical mascot.

I would alter this to say "The christ of many religions is not the Christ of scripture."

For example, I do not view the Christ of the Mormons as the Christ of scripture, for their teaching is contradictory to scripture.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If we, for academic interest, assume there is an afterlife, Jesus will shout me a beer because I took the trouble to try to understand who he really was and restore some of his dignity.

He will "give you a beer" for calling Him a "mythical mascot?" Whether it wants to be admitted or not, THE Christ of CHRISTIANITY is not mythical, nor is He a mascot, He is the KING OF KINGS and LORD of LORDS (not shouting, that is how scripture puts it) to Whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is LORD.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So if you claim my criticism of "him" is in bad form, you misunderstand why I say the things I do.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of why these things are said, it is simply my desire to cause you to examine the very things you say themselves.


continued...

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Sorry S.T., I just can't let you get away with these ridiculous assertions.

When examined, will the "ridiculous nature" of all arguments be examined and admitted, when they are shown to be ridiculous?

But, okay...an't say I blame you. After all, we are talking about something that is a core issue in the lives of all involved, right?

Now, on to the ridiculousness:

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re..."What is the mystery? Christ Who was God manifest in the flesh also had a body of flesh. When the Son of God took on this form, He did so for the intent purpose of going to the Cross, taking upon Himself the penalty of man's sin."

OK...you've demonstrated in other posts you can be a little open minded.

Not sure that is complimentary, but thanks.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Digest this...

- Jesus was a Jewish zealot who tried to start a war with Rome, and he failed because the Romans got to him first.
-15-30 years later, Paul, who had never met him, claimed Jesus was the son of God who died for everyone's sins. Jews (including Jesus and his genuine disciples) never thought God had a son, and they never thought one's sins could be forgiven by having faith in a third party, and they still don't. PAUL MADE THIS UP. PAUL WAS TRYING TO UNDERMINE JUDAISM BY CLAIMING THEIR MESSIAH HAD ALREADY BEEN AND GONE. PAUL WAS AN AGENT OF THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT, A GOVERNMENT THAT WAS SICK OF JEWISH WANNABE MESSIAHS STARTING INSURRECTIONS AND WARS. HENCE "BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES" ETC

Now we get to the heart of the issue here: on what are these assertions based on? I can answer that, they are based upon reliance on what someone else said.

Deny that.

All in all, I will stick with what God said, over what man says.

Jesus did say that God had a Son, and did so over and over.

The basic principle that only God is to be worshipped shows that the disciples did indeed believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

Revelation 1 shows that Jesus is God. He is the Alpha and Omega...the First and the Last.

While one may wish to believe the assertions above, one will ot validate the ridiculous nature of the statements themselves with the basis for Christian's belief...the word of God.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  WOW! DO YOU GET THAT S.T.? MAKES SENSE DOESN"T IT!


Worse than "makes sense," it is not even a very good argument. Is this supposed to mean something to someone?

Where do these assertions come from, please post the source.


(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  -Read this:

And now we are given what I assume is supposed to be proof, as is implied by the last comment made in this post.

Again I ask: is this the thoughts of the poster, conclusions derived by personal examination of the facts? Or is this simply a copy and paste of someone else's thoughts?

If the former, the assertions in the following staement can by scripture show just how far off base the conclusions are with what scripture teaches, and if it is the latter...is that what we base our eternal destiny upon?

What someone tells us? Even believers are exhorted to base their belief, not on the words of men (which is to measured according to scripture) but on the word of God.


(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The Sacrificial Death of Jesus
Crucifixion was a dreadful and shameful death reserved for the worst criminals. The Romans used it to get rid of the worst criminals and as a warning to others that if you messed with Rome you paid the price. So people regarded anyone who had been crucified as a trouble causer. It was not something Paul was proud to advertise had happened to the key figure of the religion he was promoting. He couldn’t deny Jesus had been crucified, so needed a way to make his gentile audience think of it as something more than the punishment of a troublesome Jew. The idea that Jesus was crucified to save people from their sins was his rather odd explanation. A lot of people have since accepted this unusual idea as the truth. Why?

Having the son of God become human and relieve man of the burden of his sins was an attractive story. God was no longer the distant God of the Old Testament, the god of the Jews, but was someone who had become a human in the person of Jesus. This Jesus then took on the burden of man’s punishment. That turned him into a great guy, everybody’s best friend.

Paul said that all that was needed was an unquestioning belief that this was how things were to gain a free pass to salvation. Churches have since saturated people’s minds with these ideas such that they have been stated as fact so often and for so long that today’s Christians have just rather passively accepted them.

Yet in my opinion, these are irrational arguments. Why would the Son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why should any thinking person accept Paul’s ideas about sin?

I will answer one question that is asked here:

"Why would the Son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father?"

The answer is in scripture. The atonement of sin. Because man could not atone for his sin, except by paying for it with his life.

This is what scripture teaches. The assertions above have to have come from a source other than the study of scripture.

And again I ask, have we considered the basis for our belief?

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Sin


Original sin is one of the most insidious and psychologically damaging outcomes of conservative Christian teaching. Even though “God is love” and “Jesus is the good shepherd,” people are never loved unconditionally. They are told they are intrinsically bad, weak, needy, and incomplete—all because they were unlucky enough to be born.

Most people consider sin to be a deliberate action that results in harm, usually to another person, and it is, therefore, something immoral. Yet Paul claimed sin can be something one is born with, like a birth defect. I think a newly born baby cannot deliberately cause harm and, therefore, cannot sin.

If for the sake of the argument we accept the Jewish assumption that sin offends God, surely God didn’t need the death of Jesus, or for that matter the death of innocent animals, to forgive. He could just be benevolent.

Paul, who had been brought up as a traditional Jew, did not imagine a benevolent god. He thought God was a rigid character who demanded a sacrifice before he’d grant forgiveness. That was, after all, how many of the ancient Jews imagined God to be.

Today’s Christian might wonder whether people trying to buy some mileage out of Jesus’ death might in fact annoy their God?

Paul thought of sin only as an act that offended God. Yet sin harms our fellow humans, or sometimes the perpetrator himself. For sin to be forgiven, it should be the victim who does the forgiving, if possible, because that usually means the sinner comes to terms with why he behaved badly, maybe compensates the victim, and promises he won’t sin again. When he is forgiven, he learns from his mistakes and society benefits. Paul, however, claimed that sin could be forgiven by having faith in an unrelated third party, Jesus, which leaves the consequences of sin unaddressed. The victim is uncompensated, the perpetrator may not be genuinely repentant, and there is still a danger of a repeat offence. Paul turned Jesus into a sacrifice, and also sacrificed common sense and ethical behavior to promote his manufactured agenda.
The consequence is that fundamentalist Christianity engenders a shame-based, fear-based belief. It often makes people hate themselves.

Again we have statements made that have nothing to do with bible doctrine, but are merely...opinion.

We see that the God and Christ of scripture is rejected based upon personal opinion of what God and Christ sholud be, rather than what scripture reveals Them to be.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Are you still with me S.T.?

But of course. However, I will have to be going, and it is going to be a busy week, so I will get back to you when I can.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I hope this clears up a few issues for you.

It does, but not for the reason you hope.



(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If you can digest the above, the real agenda behind Christianity will start to make sense to you.

Actually, I would love to talk with you about the "Agenda of God," rather than someone's opinion of the agenda of Christianity.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I will provide more evidence for my claims if you or anyone else is interested.

And I ask: how is this supposed to be "evidence?"

Since when do opinions become evidence? What evidence has been given? All I have seen is what can be considered faulty exposition that inevitably leads to erronous conclusion.

Is this the basis of belief that is wished to be offered?

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 03:15 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(03-09-2011 06:10 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Would it matter if I gave a reasonable response? Would you then repent (change your mind)?

I think you missed the point, ST Ranger. I'm pretty sure the question isn't "what do these questions mean". Why are there 3 contradictory statements given as Jesus' last words on the cross? This is one contradiction listed among many on this very site.

Of course you don't see this as a contradiction. I had your faith in my youth and I know how I would've responded, too. But I also would've been just as sure that the Q'uran was completely false and contained contradictory statements, but you're aware that the contradictions that have already been pointed out haven't ruined the faith of Muslims, either. They give the same excuses - you can't question Allah, he knows better than you... if you think you've found a contradiction, it's because you don't understand the passage. So even if we point out clear violations of logic (such as the age when Ahaziah began to reign... there's no logical way a person can start their reign at both 22 and 42) I know it isn't going to crush your faith.

But your faith is what keeps you ignorant. You'll never learn anything new if you keep assuming that the bible is inerrant. After all, the Muslims start with the same assumption about their holy book, and that's why they're just as stubborn and unable to see the truth right in front of their eyes.

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
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
06-09-2011, 07:13 PM
 
RE: Was banned for asking...
Monk, can I ask what forum it was? There's a question I've always wanted to ask someone who takes the Bible literally but I don't know anyone who does haha.
Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2011, 12:49 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(06-09-2011 12:24 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi S.T.

Hello Mark. HI ST, THANKS FOR REPLYING. PLEASE DON"T INTERPRET MY "CAPS LOCKED" AS ME "SHOUTING" AT YOU. I STILL DON"T KNOW HOW TO QUOTE YOU>

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re "I would suggest revisiting the record of scripture." Why? What is your point?

As I have said many times, I wish to look at "the basis of belief" in the various belief systems, and that includes the belief system of the atheist. "ATHEISM" DOESN'T HAVE A "BELIEF SYSTEM!".

First, for the atheist to discredit Christianity, they should have a firm grasp upon the basis of Christianity, which is scripture. I AGREE. So far I have not seen anyone come forward that has been able to show that they have even the slightest inkling as to what scripture teaches, YOU ARE NOT OPEN MINDED ENOUGH TO READ WHAT MANY OF US HAVE SAID. I HAVE QUOTED SCRIPTURE SCORES OF TIMES IN MY POSTS. I HAVE BEEN STUDYING THE DAMN THING FOR SIX YEARS. TO SUGGEST WE DON"T HAVE THE "SLIGHTEST INKLING" IS VERY DISMISSIVE OF YOU. JUST BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM DON"T AGREE WITH YOUR ALLEGED SUPERIOR UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE DOES NOT MEAN YOUR OPINION OF IT IS MORE "RIGHT" OR KNOWLEDGEABLE. OK? therefore I have not actually seen a good defense for the belief system of atheism. SEE ABOVE

Neither have I seen a good defense for hatred of Christians. I DEFINATELY DON"T "HATE CHRISTIANS", NOR DO ANY OF THE ATHEISTS ON THIS FORUM. All I have witnessed is very much the same thing that disapooints me in Christian forums, and that is both an ignorance of what scripture teaches, NO ST, NOT IGNORANCE, JUST A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION TO YOURS, OK? as well as a failure to apply even the most basic principles which God's word teaches to man.THAT COULD MEAN ANYTHING, SO MEANS NOTHING

Very disappointing, really, and not just from a Christian perspective, but from a human perspective as well.

It seems to be forgotten at times that both groups wish to convince the world that their way is one of superiority, but those on the sidelines can look at both (inept defenders) and say, "I want nothing to do with that group." I'M SURE THIS GENERALISATION IS SOMETIMES TRUE.

Admittedly I am far more offended by the actions of those who name the name of Christ when they behave in such a manner, and I can say I have done so myself. But, they at least, should know better. OK...GOOD.

My point is this: before saying this is what scripture teaches...find out what scripture teaches. SO YOU KEEP SAYING AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DOES NEARLY EVERY OTHER PREACHER. SO HAS EVERY OTHER PREACHER FOR THE LAST 500 YEARS. WE HAVE ALL READ THE BLOODY BIBLE AND THOUSANDS OF INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT VARIOUS VERSES MEAN AND DON"T MEAN AND WE"RE SERIOUSLY UNIMPRESSED.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re "Christ spent most of His time with, and among the people...not the religious."
Sorry S.T. , I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, and you are wrong. Jesus associated with his fellow Jews, who were intensely religious. Their religion gave them an identity and a purpose. His closest companions and his family ( mother, 4 brothers and 2 sisters ), were Nazarenes, members of a fundamentalist Jewish sect. The crowds in the Galilean countryside were mainly non sectarian, but had all been indoctrinated with Judaism. To suggest they were not "religious" proves you have a poor understanding of the life and times of Jesus.

Again, revisit scripture. I DON"T NEED TO. I KNOW WHAT "SCRIPTURE" SAYS. I HAVE AN INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOSPELS. HERE IS WHAT I THINK YOU NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD AROUND. SCRIPTURE IS OFTEN "WRONG" IN THE SENSE IT IS NOT A DEPICTION OF TRUTH. GET IT? While I agree that the Hebrew culture is "intensely religious," intense religion has to be defined in light of scripture and the events within it's pages. NO IT DOESN"T. IT HAS TO BE READ IN ITS CORRECT HISTORICAL CONTEXT. THAT IS WHAT 99% OF PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM KNOW. WE ARE INTELLIGENT AND INTUITIVE AND ARE SEEKERS OF REAL TRUTH, SO WE REFUSE TO BE TOLD THAT TRUTH IS DEFINED BY SCRIPTURE.

Jesus was blasted by the religious leaders for the very reason that He associated with publicans and sinners. His interaction with those who were appointed as "spiritual leaders" can lead only to the conclusion that the tradition of men is frowned upon by God, and man's application of His word is not open to private interpretation, which was the case of these leaders. PROPAGANDA WRITTEN BY ANONYMOUS EVANGELICAL GOSPEL AUTHORS TRYING TO CONVINCE SUPERSTITIOS SIMPLE PEOPLE TO JOIN A CULT.

Here is a point in this statement that can clearly be seen to be in error:

"His closest companions and his family ( mother, 4 brothers and 2 sisters ), were Nazarenes, members of a fundamentalist Jewish sect."

Prove this by scripture. I COULD ACTUALLY, BUT IT WOULD TAKE MANY PAGES. I can save you the time...this is a statemnent of error, showing the lack of familiarity with the events. NO S.T., I HAVE SPENT MANY YEARS STUDYING THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES, SO I FEEL QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE ALLEGED EVENTS. YOU, HOWEVER, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION HAVE ONLY STUDIED THE BIBLE, WHICH YOU HAVE DECIDED TO CALL "GOD'S WORD."

His closest companions were fishermen WRONG, a tax collector ABSOLUTELY WRONG, and a zealot CORRECT...which some believe Simon to have been a member of the sikaari (have not looked at this a while so my spelling may be off), Sicarriwhich was basically a terrorist group in the habit of assasinating Roman soldiers.WRONG

Not exactly what I would call "intensey religious people." S.T, YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL RESOURCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS CALLED THE INTERNET. WHY DON"T YOU LOOK UP WHO THE NAZARENES WERE? HUGH SCHONFIELD DEVOTED 60 YEARS OF HIS LIFE TO STUDYING THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS; PERHAPS THIS QUOTE MAY WHET YOUR APPETITE...
"“It is to the Nazarene records that we ought chiefly to look for our knowledge of Jesus, and we must regard Nazarenism as the true Christianity. As the Nazarenes throughout the period of personal recollection and down to the third generation, that is to say at least seventy five years after the death of Jesus, denied his deity and his virgin birth, we must recognize that these are alien doctrines subsequently introduced by a partly paganized Church, as Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century more or less admits. The Church which received them had no other course open than to belittle the Nazarenes and denounce them as heretics. The historian here has no difficulty in detecting the real heretics.”
(Hugh Schonfield)



(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re.."I would agree that Christ did not teach universal love and tolerance. That is a myth." I MUST GENUINELY CONGRATULATE YOU FOR ADMITTING THIS. Well done!


Thanks.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Now imagine a world where "Jesus" had preached:
"Listen everyone, we all come from different cultures. We should not condemn others because they happen to have a different belief system to ours.


This itself is in contradiction to one very basic Bible truth that is taught throughout the different Ages: God is One God, and there is no other...HEAR HIM.


Jesus first role is as Prophet to the Nation of Israel. That the religious leaders of His day were in error did not begin when He was born, but can be seen to be a pretty much constant trait in the history of Israel. IF YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE PROPAGANDA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The important thing is to respect your fellow man no matter what his religious affiliations are." What a peaceful world we would have!

Don't believe it. Man in his natural state will always find something to fight about. MAYBE, BUT HIS AGGRESSION IS FUELLED BY HIS BELIEF IN HIS, AND ONLY HIS, GOD.

Religion is not always the cause for war. TRUE, BUT IT VERY FREQUENTLY IS!!!

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Have a think about this. Most Christians can't simply accept the outsider.

And this is stated by a thorough knowledge of Christians, right? CORRECT! LOL, ALTHOUGH MY COMMENT IS A GENERALISATION. And of what scripture teaches is to be the characteristics of Christians? WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE ! LOL! JUST CHOOSE YOUR FAVORITE BIT OF SCRIPTURE.

This is my primary point. Because what scripture teaches about salvation is not known, how to identify who is a Christian and who is not is impossible.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They don't want mosques on their street corner.

While there may be those who protest such things, I yself do not. GLAD TO HEAR IT!Not only am I a Christian, I am an American that believes that all should have the right to believe and worship as they desire. GLAD TO HEAR IT. THAT"S NOT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS THOUGH.

I will, as an American, defend the rights of atheists as strongly as those of all believers. I am not one who believes in mob rules or forced submission.

True Christianity cannot be lumped in with aggressive religion, because this is just not taught in scripture. WRONG! SCRIPTURE IS VERY INCONSISTENT. THERE ARE 100's OF BIBLICAL TEXTS PROMOTING AGGRESSION.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They don't want gays in their churches.

Now wait: who are you to speak for me? GLAD TO HEAR YOU ARE NOT HOMOPHOBIC. I am a Christian and I have no problem with gays in my church.

But, this is the basis of belief, founded not on facts, but on assumption. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING QUOTES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT;

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders… will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6 9-10, NIV).
"That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their men folk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion." (Romans 1:26-28).

LOOKS TO ME LIKE "GOD" DOESN'T LIKE GAYS.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They don't want atheists (shock, horror) teaching their kids.

I have no fear that the children I have had a hand in raising are suitably educated in scripture as to be able to withstand not only atheistic instruction, but the instruction that is found throughout our culture. I am not worried about them. I AM LOL

This is nothing but made up argument that would seek to discredit those that seek to live peacably among men.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law. A man’s enemies will be those of his own household. Anyone who prefers father or mother to me is not worthy of me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to me is not worthy of me. Anyone who does not take his cross and follow in my footsteps is not worthy of me. Anyone who finds his life will lose it; anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NJB).

We hold to a very basic principle: raise up a child in the way they should go, and when they are old, they will not depart from it. Now the results of the diverse manners of instruction will ultimately be determined by the soundness of the knowledge of the instructors (the parents), so, if the instructors are in error in both doctrine and application, this promise will not be realized.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They don't want women in leadership roles.

Says who? THE BIBLE;
“For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” (1 Corinthians 11:8-9 NKJ).
“Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives to their husbands, in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-25 NJB). If any women readers are feeling their blood boil, be warned it gets worse.
"As in all the churches of the saints, women are to remain quiet at meetings since they have no permission to speak; they must remain in the background as the Law itself lays it down. If they have any questions to ask, they should ask their husbands at home: it does not seem right for a woman to raise her voice at meetings."
“Similarly, I direct that women are to wear suitable clothes and to be dressed quietly and modestly, without braided hair or gold and jewellery or expensive clothes; their adornment is to do the sort of good works that are proper for women who profess to be religious. During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I am not giving permission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. A woman ought not to speak, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing, provided she lives a modest life and is constant in faith and love and holiness.” (1 Timothy 2:9-15 NJB).


Would you care to show me how I do not believe women should be in leadership roles? I'M PLEASED TO HEAR YOU DONT BELIEVE YOUR BIBLE

Do you get that? You don't even know what I believe, yet, you assume to speak for me. WELL...I WAS MAKING GENERALISATIONS ABOUT CHRISTIANS. I HAVE ALSO ASSUMED THAT YOU LIVE BY THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE YOU HOLD SO DEAR. I AM GLAD YOU ARE NOT MISOGYNISTIC AND HOMOPHOBIC. MAKE SURE YOU CUT THOSE BITS OUT OF YOUR BIBLE WHEN YOU FEED IT TO YOUR KIDS SOTHEY GROW UP LIKE YOU AND NOT LIKE MANY OTHER CHRISTIANS!

Scripture carefully explains the leadership roles women have, and if you care to know my personal views on this...just ask. But please don't presume to speak for me. OK.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ask yourself why.

First find out what I believe before assuming to set me straight.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The answer is they have been taught to be intolerant of others since the cradle (usually).

This is simply ridiculous.

In my own life, I was not saved until I was 25. OK. I HEAR IT THAT YOU WEREN'T INDOCTRINATED IN YOUR YOUTH. I AM NOT PERSONALLY ATTACKING YOU. YOU ARE A NICE PERSON AND I LIKE YOU. I JUST DON'T LIKE THE IMMORALITY THAT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CHRISTIAN THINKING, OK?

Furthermore, we have to examine what is being taught in order to discredit the result. If the foundation is wrong, it is no mystery as to why the structure is wrong. BINGO!

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That intolerance has its genesis in the bible in the words of Jesus, Paul and others.

There are things that we are taught to be intolerant of, YES, LIKE GAYS, STRONG WOMEN, SCIENCE, PEOPLE IN OTHER RELIGIONS AND ATHEISTS, but we have to keep it all in context. For instance. Teaching that is not sound is not to be tolerated in the Church (the Body of Christ). Sin is not to be tolerated in our lives. Disobedience by Children is not to be tolerated towards parents.

But could you please show the scriptural basis that "gays are not to be tolerated in the church?" PLEASE SEE ABOVE...AND THAT'S JUST THE NEW TESTAMENT! LOL

You claim that we do not tolerate such, and I challenge that charge: you just don't have the knowledge base of scripture or Christians to make such a general statement.



(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The fundamental Christian agenda is to make the whole world Christian.

Again, unfamiliarity with scripture leads to statements such as this. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING QUOTES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT

"For you, my brothers, have been like the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judaea, in suffering the same treatment from your own countrymen as they have suffered from the Jews, the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that can not please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race, because they are hindering us from preaching to the pagans and trying to save them.” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 JB).

“No one who believes in him will be condemned; but whoever refuses to believe is condemned already because he has refused to believe in the name of God’s only son.” (John 3:18 NJB).

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...woe to you, blind guides...You blind fools!...You blind men!...You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matthew 23:13-34 NJB).

“Well then, just as the darnel is gathered up and burnt in the fire, so it will be at the end of time. The Son of Man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that provoke offences and all who do evil, and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth.” (Matthew 13:40-43 NJB).

“Next he will say to those on his left hand ‘Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’’’ (Matthew 25:41 NJB)


The bible student is well aware that "the whole world is not going to become Christian."

In fact, scripture teaches of a many(lost)/few(saved) ratio, and that those who are saved are to be separated from the world system. This is just a false basis in order to justify a position, and thankfully not all atheists take this approach.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They want everyone to be just like them.

Wrong. We want everyone to be like Christ. WHICH AMOUNTS TO EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

We are to make disciples of Christ, not of Paul, nor of Apollos, nor of Peter...WHICH AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING.

And this is the promise concerning salvation, God will finish the work He has begun in the life of the believer, conforming him to the image (likeness) of Christ.

I will be the first one to say, "You don't want to be like me."

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  They dream about this in heaven...a place where all the Islamists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, gays and loud women won't be allowed entry. No one different, no one causing offence.

Again...wrong.

Jesus taught that would be many that were not "of this fold" (Israel/Jews), but would come from all over...and that there would be one fold. YEAH MAYBE...BUT HE ALSO DAID ALL UNBELIEVERS WILL BE BURNT IN HELL.

Where does this stuff come from? Certainly not from studying scripture. "ALL THIS STUFF" COMES FROM THE STUDY OF REAL HITORY BY THOUSANDS OF ACADEMICS OVER THE LAST FEW CENTURIES...INFORMATION YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN. YOU SHOULD NOT BADMOUTH INFORMATION YOU HAVE NOT STUDIED.

And at this time, I will reiterate one thing: we have to get away from what others tell us to think, and start thinking for ourselves, if it our understanding that we wish to share. HALLELUJAH!!!

Otherwise, we will merely parrot the teachings of others, rather than our own. This is a danger for all, including "christians." BINGO!!! Believe what you believe because you have found it to be true, not because someone else says it is. YEP!!!!

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I hope you don't think like them S.T.

I get the impression how I think is of little significance. ABSOLUTELY NEVER!

As is who I am as a person...YOU ARE UNIQUE AND VALUABLE!not just a Christian.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re..."And it is bad form to condemn those one has never met." Um...are you referring to me condemning "Jesus?" Or are you referring to the way "Jesus" badmouths people he hadn't met?

One can "condemn Jesus" all they like. This, He said, would be forgiven. YEAH...HE DID SAY THAT...ONCE....HE ALSO SAID IT WOULDN"T BE FORGIVEN. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand...will not be.

Care to tell me what this means? IT MEANS SOME ANONYMOUS AUTHOR OF MATTHEW"S GOSPEL WAS TRYING TO FRIGHTEN HIS READERS.

The point in view, though, was until you have met all of the Christians in the world, who are you to judge them? I CAN PASS GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THEM, THE SAME AS I CAN ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT. Go to a local "fundie" church and get to know some of the people. This will go a long ways as to knowing how God works in the lives of His people. YES, I"VE DONE THAT. I HAVE ALSO HAD TO TREAT HUNDREDS OF PATIENTS OVER THE YEARS WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN EXACCERBATED BY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS. SEE http://www.markfulton.org/the-psychologi...ristianity IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.

You will meet some who are bigoted, ignorant, immature, I am sure. OH YES! But you will also meet some who by the very instruction of God's word are going to love you unconditionally, and welcome you into their presence. SURE...THERE ARE NICE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.

But unless one wishes to see things based on fact, rather than seek out facts to justify and perpetuate what they want to believe, they will not do this. WELL...I HAVE. PERSONALLY I DON'T FIND HAPPY CLAPPY SING SONGS MY CUP OF TEA NO MATTER HOW NICE THE PEOPLE ARE.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I have made a serious attempt over the years to understand the real historical Jesus.

Keep it up...it is not time wasted. I would just ask, how does one go about this? Who are the sources appealed to, if this is a serious statement. Just atheistic literature and point of view? Or does one get to know God's people, speak to those who have a sound grasp of scriptural teaching? I THINK I'VE ADDRESSED THIS QUESTION. THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY KNOW ABOUT HISTORY ARE RARELY FOUND IN CHURCHES. THEY HAVE MOVED ON. I HAVE A PILE OF TEXTS AS HIGH AS THE CIELING WRITTEN BY CHRISTIANS AND OTHER HISTORIANS, AND I CORRESPOND WITH AUTHORS ALL OVER THE WORLD. I FIND THAT 99% OF THOSE WHO CLAIM TO HAVE A "SOUND GRASP OF SCRIPTURAL TEACHING" ARE NOT INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING REAL TRUTH IN THE SENSE OF REAL HISTORY...THEY ARE MORE INTERESTED IN REINFORCING THEIR OWN DELUSIONS BY PREACHING TO OTHERS.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  He was not the man portrayed in the gospels, of that I am absolutely positive.

You mean "of that you are convinced." OK.

He is the man portrayed in the Gospels, that is just a fact that need not be argued. AH ...YES IT DOES....BECAUSE THERE IS BEAUTY AND VALUE AND POWER ONLY IN TRUTH...NOT IN FABRICATED MUMBO JUMBO. IF SOMETHING IS NOT TRUTHFUL IT IS FLAWED AND HAS LITTLE VALUE. Could I say, "Gandalf is not the man portrayed in the Hobbit?" GOOD EXAMPLE. GANDALF IS A FICTIONAL CREATION. IS THERE ANY VALUE IN PRAYING AND WORSHIPPING GANDALF? NO...IT ONLY 'WORKS' FOR THOSE WHO SELL LORD OF THE RINGS MOVIES AND BOOKS.

No, because the record is given to illustrate Who He was.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The "Christ" of Christianity is a mythical mascot.

I would alter this to say "The christ of many religions is not the Christ of scripture."

For example, I do not view the Christ of the Mormons as the Christ of scripture, for their teaching is contradictory to scripture. YEP....THERE ARE A FEW OTHER REASONS THE MORMONS ARE A BIT DELUDED BUT LETS NOT GO THERE LOL

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If we, for academic interest, assume there is an afterlife, Jesus will shout me a beer because I took the trouble to try to understand who he really was and restore some of his dignity.

He will "give you a beer" for calling Him a "mythical mascot?" YOU MISUNDERSTAND ME. THE CHRIST OF CHRISTIANITY IS A MYTHICAL MASCOT. JESUS, IF HE IS IN HEAVEN, WILL HAVE A LAUGH WITH ME ABOUT CHRISTIANS. Whether it wants to be admitted or not, THE Christ of CHRISTIANITY is not mythical, nor is He a mascot, He is the KING OF KINGS and LORD of LORDS (not shouting, that is how scripture puts it) to Whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is LORD. WELL...YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION, BUT OPINIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE DON'T SCORE. YOU DON'T BELIEVE MOHAMMED WAS A PROPHET JUST BECAUSE A BILLION PEOPLE WAIL TO HIM EVERY DAY, DO YOU, NO MATTER HOW LOUD THEY WAIL OR HOW FIRMLY THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY DO?

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So if you claim my criticism of "him" is in bad form, you misunderstand why I say the things I do.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of why these things are said, it is simply my desire to cause you to examine the very things you say themselves. HUH?


continued...

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Sorry S.T., I just can't let you get away with these ridiculous assertions.

When examined, will the "ridiculous nature" of all arguments be examined and admitted, when they are shown to be ridiculous?

But, okay...an't say I blame you. After all, we are talking about something that is a core issue in the lives of all involved, right? YEP

Now, on to the ridiculousness:

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re..."What is the mystery? Christ Who was God manifest in the flesh also had a body of flesh. When the Son of God took on this form, He did so for the intent purpose of going to the Cross, taking upon Himself the penalty of man's sin." PROVE IT!

OK...you've demonstrated in other posts you can be a little open minded.

Not sure that is complimentary, but thanks. I ABSOLUTELY MEANT IT AS A COMPLIMENT

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Digest this...

- Jesus was a Jewish zealot who tried to start a war with Rome, and he failed because the Romans got to him first.
-15-30 years later, Paul, who had never met him, claimed Jesus was the son of God who died for everyone's sins. Jews (including Jesus and his genuine disciples) never thought God had a son, and they never thought one's sins could be forgiven by having faith in a third party, and they still don't. PAUL MADE THIS UP. PAUL WAS TRYING TO UNDERMINE JUDAISM BY CLAIMING THEIR MESSIAH HAD ALREADY BEEN AND GONE. PAUL WAS AN AGENT OF THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT, A GOVERNMENT THAT WAS SICK OF JEWISH WANNABE MESSIAHS STARTING INSURRECTIONS AND WARS. HENCE "BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES" ETC

Now we get to the heart of the issue here: on what are these assertions based on? I can answer that, they are based upon reliance on what someone else said.

Deny that. I CAN'T.

All in all, I will stick with what God said, over what man says. GOD HAS NEVER TALKED TO YOU.

Jesus did say that God had a Son, and did so over and over. NOT THE HISTORICAL JESUS. JEWS THOUGHT IT BLASPHEMOUS TO SAY GOD HAD A SON. PAUL MADE THAT UP.

The basic principle that only God is to be worshipped shows that the disciples did indeed believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. SEE ABOVE COMMENT

Revelation 1 shows that Jesus is God. He is the Alpha and Omega...the First and the Last. WHO WROTE REVELATIONS, WHEN AND WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS THE WORD OF GOD?

While one may wish to believe the assertions above, one will ot validate the ridiculous nature of the statements themselves with the basis for Christian's belief...the word of God. mY STATEMENTS APPEAR RIDICULOUS TO YOU BECAUSE I AM GUESSING YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD THEM BEFORE. YOU'VE NEVER HEARD IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER RESEARCHED THE TOPIC.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  WOW! DO YOU GET THAT S.T.? MAKES SENSE DOESN"T IT!


Worse than "makes sense," it is not even a very good argument. Is this supposed to mean something to someone? YES. THE TRUTH ALWAYS MEANS SOMETHING. I UNDERSTAND IT MEANS NOTHING TO YOU BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING OF EXTRA BIBLICAL HISTORY OF THE TIMES, AND IT NTHEREFORE SEEMS TOO OUT THERE TO BE TRUE. MANY OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM FOR EG MR WOLF AND CUFFLINK HAVE SUGGESTED YOU STRT DOING SOME READING BUT I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF YOU MAKING A START AS YET.

Where do these assertions come from, please post the source. OK....HERE'S A START. GOOGLE DOUGLAS LOCKHART, JOHN SCHONFIELD, BURTON MACK, BISHOP SPONG, PHIL HARLAND, DON CULPIT, PETER CRESSWELL, JAMES TABOR.


(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  -Read this:

And now we are given what I assume is supposed to be proof, as is implied by the last comment made in this post.

Again I ask: is this the thoughts of the poster, conclusions derived by personal examination of the facts? Or is this simply a copy and paste of someone else's thoughts? BOTH. THSES ARE SOME OF THE RESULTS OF MANY YEARS HARD WORK.

If the former, the assertions in the following staement can by scripture show just how far off base the conclusions are with what scripture teaches, and if it is the latter...is that what we base our eternal destiny upon? THIS IS THE SAME THEME AGAIN. YOU NEED TO LOOK BEYOND SCRIPTURE.

What someone tells us? Even believers are exhorted to base their belief, not on the words of men (which is to measured according to scripture) but on the word of God.


(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The Sacrificial Death of Jesus
Crucifixion was a dreadful and shameful death reserved for the worst criminals. The Romans used it to get rid of the worst criminals and as a warning to others that if you messed with Rome you paid the price. So people regarded anyone who had been crucified as a trouble causer. It was not something Paul was proud to advertise had happened to the key figure of the religion he was promoting. He couldn’t deny Jesus had been crucified, so needed a way to make his gentile audience think of it as something more than the punishment of a troublesome Jew. The idea that Jesus was crucified to save people from their sins was his rather odd explanation. A lot of people have since accepted this unusual idea as the truth. Why?

Having the son of God become human and relieve man of the burden of his sins was an attractive story. God was no longer the distant God of the Old Testament, the god of the Jews, but was someone who had become a human in the person of Jesus. This Jesus then took on the burden of man’s punishment. That turned him into a great guy, everybody’s best friend.

Paul said that all that was needed was an unquestioning belief that this was how things were to gain a free pass to salvation. Churches have since saturated people’s minds with these ideas such that they have been stated as fact so often and for so long that today’s Christians have just rather passively accepted them.

Yet in my opinion, these are irrational arguments. Why would the Son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why should any thinking person accept Paul’s ideas about sin?

I will answer one question that is asked here:

"Why would the Son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father?"

The answer is in scripture. The atonement of sin. Because man could not atone for his sin, except by paying for it with his life. ST....YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY PAUL.

This is what scripture teaches. The assertions above have to have come from a source other than the study of scripture. NOW YOU'RE THINKING!

And again I ask, have we considered the basis for our belief? YOU BET I HAVE....AND YOU HAVEN'T!

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Sin


Original sin is one of the most insidious and psychologically damaging outcomes of conservative Christian teaching. Even though “God is love” and “Jesus is the good shepherd,” people are never loved unconditionally. They are told they are intrinsically bad, weak, needy, and incomplete—all because they were unlucky enough to be born.

Most people consider sin to be a deliberate action that results in harm, usually to another person, and it is, therefore, something immoral. Yet Paul claimed sin can be something one is born with, like a birth defect. I think a newly born baby cannot deliberately cause harm and, therefore, cannot sin.

If for the sake of the argument we accept the Jewish assumption that sin offends God, surely God didn’t need the death of Jesus, or for that matter the death of innocent animals, to forgive. He could just be benevolent.

Paul, who had been brought up as a traditional Jew, did not imagine a benevolent god. He thought God was a rigid character who demanded a sacrifice before he’d grant forgiveness. That was, after all, how many of the ancient Jews imagined God to be.

Today’s Christian might wonder whether people trying to buy some mileage out of Jesus’ death might in fact annoy their God?

Paul thought of sin only as an act that offended God. Yet sin harms our fellow humans, or sometimes the perpetrator himself. For sin to be forgiven, it should be the victim who does the forgiving, if possible, because that usually means the sinner comes to terms with why he behaved badly, maybe compensates the victim, and promises he won’t sin again. When he is forgiven, he learns from his mistakes and society benefits. Paul, however, claimed that sin could be forgiven by having faith in an unrelated third party, Jesus, which leaves the consequences of sin unaddressed. The victim is uncompensated, the perpetrator may not be genuinely repentant, and there is still a danger of a repeat offence. Paul turned Jesus into a sacrifice, and also sacrificed common sense and ethical behavior to promote his manufactured agenda.
The consequence is that fundamentalist Christianity engenders a shame-based, fear-based belief. It often makes people hate themselves.

Again we have statements made that have nothing to do with bible doctrine, but are merely...opinion. YES...THAT'S RIGHT...I VALUE MY OWN INTELLECT!

We see that the God and Christ of scripture is rejected based upon personal opinion of what God and Christ sholud be, rather than what scripture reveals Them to be. BINGO!

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Are you still with me S.T.?

But of course. However, I will have to be going, and it is going to be a busy week, so I will get back to you when I can. OK,

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I hope this clears up a few issues for you.

It does, but not for the reason you hope.



(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If you can digest the above, the real agenda behind Christianity will start to make sense to you.

Actually, I would love to talk with you about the "Agenda of God," rather than someone's opinion of the agenda of Christianity.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I will provide more evidence for my claims if you or anyone else is interested.

And I ask: how is this supposed to be "evidence?"

Since when do opinions become evidence? What evidence has been given? All I have seen is what can be considered faulty exposition that inevitably leads to erronous conclusion.

Is this the basis of belief that is wished to be offered?

S.T.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2011, 05:21 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
S.T. Ranger

You're attempting to justify a bunch of obvious flaws in dogma by using the tiresome 'context' argument. You obliviously are missing the entire point of my original suggestion. First and foremost, The 'bible' is a collection of 'books' that were supposedly 'holy' in origin, ie: without error. So, with that being said, anything without error shouldn't have multiple stories that differ between gospels. Not logical. There's even talk of an earthquake in 1 gospel that didn't occur in the others the day Jesus rose from the dead. So that means what exactly? You cannot take the bible in a literal sense. This is not interpretation or any context nonsense. It's not a translation error. If translation was really important to not do in the first place, the bible would've never been translated and bible supporters would have to learn to speak an ancient language. If the bible was truly holy, it wouldn't have different accounts of what happened to Jesus, etc. I will not mention how there are other books missing from the bible either.

I am a person of logic, and math. If I took the bible literally, I'd be doing this

12am: Deuteronomy wants me to go stone someone for being raped..... So I have to get an angry christian mob to help me
4pm: Leviticus wants me to sacrifice cows and pour the blood over my child's head. (Direct instructions from God mind you.)
9pm: Genesis wants me to go have intercourse with my two twin daughters and have a child with them....

How can you expect to put nonsense like that in the bible, then accuse skeptics of taking it out of context? What exactly is the message those passages send to people? That incest is acceptable, and it's OK to douse your child with the blood of a cow? And it's not bad to stone a rape victim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Monk's post
07-09-2011, 11:17 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(07-09-2011 05:21 AM)Monk Wrote:  I am a person of logic, and math. If I took the bible literally, I'd be doing this

12am: Deuteronomy wants me to go stone someone for being raped..... So I have to get an angry christian mob to help me
4pm: Leviticus wants me to sacrifice cows and pour the blood over my child's head. (Direct instructions from God mind you.)
9pm: Genesis wants me to go have intercourse with my two twin daughters and have a child with them....

Where does the Bible command you to do any of these things?

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2011, 03:39 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(07-09-2011 11:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(07-09-2011 05:21 AM)Monk Wrote:  I am a person of logic, and math. If I took the bible literally, I'd be doing this

12am: Deuteronomy wants me to go stone someone for being raped..... So I have to get an angry christian mob to help me
4pm: Leviticus wants me to sacrifice cows and pour the blood over my child's head. (Direct instructions from God mind you.)
9pm: Genesis wants me to go have intercourse with my two twin daughters and have a child with them....

Where does the Bible command you to do any of these things?

Go pick up your handy dandy KJV1611 and read through them, I don't have the verses off the top of my head.

Lot got shitfaced drunk and had sex with his twin daughters in Genesis, but I guess I am taking that out of context. I am not sure how someone sleeping with his daughter means in the terms of context, there's only one context, incest.

Look at the mind acrobatics someone has to play to justify blatant mistakes! Truly the bible was written by ignorant men living in the bronze age.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Monk's post
07-09-2011, 11:03 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul, who had been brought up as a traditional Jew, did not imagine a benevolent god. He thought God was a rigid character who demanded a sacrifice before he’d grant forgiveness. That was, after all, how many of the ancient Jews imagined God to be.

That is presumably why the Romans designed their form of Christianity to be more palatable when forced upon the masses of people in their Empire and gave "god" a makeover in the form of Jesus; kind and loving instead of the nasty old Yahweh creature who could do things like kill Aaron's 2 sons for lighting the sacrificial fire incorrectly, or killing a man for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. Not a good look!

"To think of what the world has suffered from superstition, from religion, from the worship of beast and stone and god, is
almost enough to make one insane."

Robert G. Ingersoll
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2011, 10:45 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
I think you went out of your way looking for trouble. Though I know you had good intentions, you simply won't change someones opinion who they themselves didn't arrive at the opinion through diligent research. ( might have heard this here) The best way to prove to the religious that it's all fictional is to ask them to read the bible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: