Part 25 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

You're just spewing out doltish biased opinions. So consequently they are nugatory in my view.

 

How can Good Christians be against that which was allegedly created by a Creator and declared good, such as potentially seed bearing plants like marijuana; Shouldn't it be, Only "original sinners" who complain about it?

 

Short answer. You, are NOT, a christian.

 

So who are the Christians here if not me, Mitt, Incorporeal and others?
Are you, trev, Margot, Gorn Cap, AboveA, tecoy, AlphaO, The Wyrd of G etc. is what you consider to be Christians?

Again you are contradicting yourself you can't seem to know or differentiate Christians from none Christians everybody else here know we are Christians except you.
That is why we agree with your statement that you seem to disagree on your own statement?

Quote Originally Posted by dairyair View Post
Lest ye not forget.
Satan is very clever and is a deceiver and deceives those who seek for truth outside the Bible.

 

You set it up... because it was YOU and Mitt who decided early on that people who don't take a literalist view or believe in futuristic Revelation are not Christians.

 

The reason why many posters are ignorant about Christianity is because they are against Christianity it would seem no amount of historical facts and events will ever educate them about Christianity.
If they are against the world does this mean they are against the communist, Islamic world. Hindi, atheist, etc.also or just the Christian world?
Again I agree with you many posters are ignorant about Christianity that is why we are here to share the truth about Christianity and its history.

- - - Updated - - -

So are you a Christian?
If you are a Christian do you believe and worship Jesus Christ?
What is the literalist view that is Christian?
Futuristic view is what we understand as Scientology isn't it?

 

Yes, I am a Christian... and I have no use for fundamentalism or rapture ready ideology.. or much of the doctrine invented by various churches.

I don't worship Jesus.. I worship God in Jesus name.

 

It's pretty hard for MittRyan to put himself up on his self-created throne of "King Of All Tough Questions About Christianity"....

when he clearly "plays favorites" and will allow "friends" to LIE about the Bible and he won't criticize or even correct them.

Thus showing, really, any of his "answers" to "tough questions" are suspect...since he has no actual "love of the Truth"....just love of his own agenda, his own ego, and defending "buddies" even when they are BLATENTLY wrong.

 

Margot, do you realize by the standard set by WanRen....and endorsed tacitly by MittRyan...

if you do NOT believe that the Bible says Barabbas was a "rapist"?.....you are not a "real" Christian.

 

LOL.. Yes, I know.. but he is very poorly educated so he makes things up pretty consistently.. I am guessing he's evangelical and perhaps a recent convert.

 

Ironically, he's doing the exact OPPOSITE of what evangelism is about.

In showing that he will just make up things about the Bible...then deny it...then defend it again....he's actually doing a great job of showing how Christianity does NOT "change a person" to the better nor that Christians are "more honest and truthful."

And MittRyan's defense of WR, does that as well......they are both agents that go against Christian evangelism.

After all, if you were "on the fence" about Christianity...would you want to become a Christian after reading the stuff MR and WR do on this forum and in these threads??? Or would you say "If Christianity means being like those guys?...count me out!"

 

On the other hand quotation marks can be used to indicate irony, which I suggest Giftdone is doing about your attitude, rather than quoting anything.
But that is only my opinion.

 

I have always thought that this type of Christian drove people away from Christianity... because they are essentially saying that you have to park your brain at the door, reject science and embrace the supernatural.

 

Every principle in life says, as Paul does, don't give a novice a place of authority. It can have the effect of producing a sense of pride, or it can destroy confidence. We all start at the bottom and build a firm foundation before we venture out.
That's why I question Mitts authority and WarRens strange ideas. One has to constantly use Gotquestions and the other uses 'heaven knows what'. Their refusal to accept outside influences shaped the Bible is one of their failings.
Sometimes there are things we don't know. Then we have to admit it and learn. The most knowledgeable person does not know all and to ignore other opinions give a one-sided, bigotted view.

Anyway I thought Catholic Evangelists were called 'Inquisitors'. Oooops.

 

Worse than that....they're saying it's okay to lie and make stuff up if you want...even about the Bible.

A non-Believer sees that and thinks "So a 'Bible-believing Christian' can just make crap up ABOUT THE BIBLE....and defend it....and his buddy who is also a 'Bible-believing Christian' doesn't even try to correct him????"

Throw in the usual personal insults from "Bible-believing Christians"....who deliberately ignore Paul's Epistle to Titus 3:2....or make up excuses for being able to violate it...constantly.

Why would anybody want to join that religion???

 

Dairy was just mimicking you. Nice try at projecting your issues on to others.

You are the one that claims to know things about Satan. You are the one that makes up claims and then says they are in the Bible when they are not in an attempt to deceive.

Do you not think that Satan is the deceiver ?

 

Is WR projecting his beliefs onto others again ? He did this to me as well.

If WR seeks to justify baby killing in the name of evil - he will soon be accusing you of being for baby killing

WR was trying justify the persecution, torture, and killing of Jews by Christian Church. I posted that the Pope himself had apologized for "2000 years of violence an persecution"

The next think you know WR was accusing me of being anti Semite.

WR will do anything to avoid ideas or facts that conflict with his beliefs ... make up false stories, make false accusations against the messenger (demonizing the messenger) and so on.

These types of thought stopping mechanisms (in severe form) are often present in those who have been subjected to sophisticated mind control techniques used by cult leaders such as the likes of Moon.

- - - Updated - - -

What claim have I made that is wrong ?

Where in the Bible is it claimed that Satan deceives those who seek for truth outside the Bible ?

 

This is not about the Bible claiming the Devil is a deceiver. This is about the claim that those who seek knowledge outside the Bible are deceived by the Devil.. Big difference.

Do you not understand this difference ?

The second obvious issue is this: If the Devil is the "Great Deceiver", and has the power to meddle in the affairs of humans and thus has power over the Earth.

Why then would the Devil not use the Bible as a tool of deception ?

While we are on the topic of "obvious". Is it not obvious that someone who tries to justify the killing of babies (in the name of fighting evil / name of God) has been deceived by the Devil or some other with evil intent.

 

Inquisitors as evangelists.. now there a subtle comparison.

Reading the Bible in light of the history and politics of the time.. and in conjunction with archeology is far more interesting to me than epic fairy tales which were really intended as teaching narratives in the ancient world.

 

Scripture did not originally have any ascension. This was added to scripture many decades if not centuries after the death of Jesus.

Mark ends with an empty tomb. The physical resurrection was not in Mark. The story of Jesus ends with the reader left to question what happened to Jesus.

The physical resurrection story in todays version of Mark was not added until at least after 350-400 AD as we have copies of Mark from Bibles produced during that time and they contain no physical resurrection.

Paul does not know of any ascension. He does not know of any physical resurrection. He likens the resurrection stories to his vision. Visions of Jesus after his death are not a physical resurrection where Jesus actually interacts physically in the flesh with people after his death.

The author of Matt uses Mark as a source document. Matt edits out things he does not like and adds things to the story.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

The above is from the Catholic Encyclopedia and you can read more details in the link provided.

So the physical resurrection is not in the original story that the author of Matt used nor do we know whether or not this story was even in the original Matt.

Clement I (Pope around 95 AD) speaks at length about the promise of resurrection after death but he does not know of any physical resurrection. Clement quotes a few phrases from what we now know as Matt (these collections had not yet been titled in Clements time).

We do not know the content of these early gospels during Clements time other than a few passages quoted. What we do know is that Clement did not know of any physical resurrection.

Dating for Matt (80-100 AD) is given on the basis of quotes from the likes of Clement but because Clement does not know of any physical resurrection it is unlikely that this story was even in this early Gospel or perhaps the Gospel was only being written around Clements time.

Either way the physical resurrection story is a later addition.

Luke is writing even later and borrows from previous stories so this is of no help

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

Luke was not a Jew and was a follower of Paul and so obviously had no first hand knowledge of any ascension or physical resurrection.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html

The author John was written after Matt and Mark and Luke, is a Pauline/ Hellenist fusion work and we are getting so far removed from the events that this account is not even worth serious consideration. .

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm

 

100% agree. The only distinction I make is that while he defends his buddies, regardless of what they say, he has not yet made the same inane claims himself which shows perhaps a glimmer of hope.

 

True, he's trying to retain SOME tiny bit of credibility. He KNOWS that WR just made up "Barabbas was a rapist" out of whole cloth.....he'd never claim that himself, certainly not defend it....

but he won't criticize or correct WR for making up stuff about the Bible.....which shows he has no real allegience to even "Biblical truth"...just his own agendas.

 

Can one be a christian and think jesus in NOT god?

 

Well I'm a Judeo Christian Islamic agnostic with leanings to the philosophies Hegel, Hume and some Kant thrown in. Does that help.

Cicero quote 'There are many questions in philosophy to which no satisfactory answer has yet been given. But the question of the nature of the gods is the darkest and most difficult of all…. So various and so contradictory are the opinions of the most learned men on this matter as to persuade one of the truth of the saying that philosophy is the child of ignorance…

God? Who knows.

 

Well that's the typical kind of post coming from gawd, nothing that has any biblical support for it. He just makes things up...lol He has no credibility whatsoever! It's just a smear agenda he has, it's his way of denying what's written in the Scriptures of the Holy Bible.

Scripture doesn't tell us what age Mary was at the time when she bore Jesus and so you are assuming she was a child. Who knows maybe she was a young adult at age 21. We just can't say what age she really was.