- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump’s belief that men can be women is an automatic disqualifier
Posted on 7/6/23 at 10:42 am to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 7/6/23 at 10:42 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:The key word here is "bodies". You seem to be equating a "spiritual body" with simply being a spirit (without a physical body). "Spirit" or "spiritual" refers to the type or quality of physical body that Christ has and that which we will have.
Paul’s pretty clear on fleshy vs spiritual bodies. Flesh on earth, spirit bodies in heaven. Pretty simple.
If Paul was talking merely about an appearance of a body (Jesus being merely a spirit), then he wouldn't have put such an emphasis on Christ being raised from the dead at all. The Gnostic view was that the physical was bad and the spiritual was good, which is why they either believed that Jesus wasn't actually divine, or that He didn't take on real flesh. The Docetists were a subset of Gnostics who believed that Jesus didn't have a physical body at all (during His earthly life and ministry), but only appeared to have a physical body.
So if Paul took more of a Docetist view of Christ, he wouldn't have focused on the resurrection at all, but how Jesus was a spirit being, period. Instead, Paul talks about our (physical) bodies being raised as Jesus' (physical) body being raised. What, then, is the primary quality of our "spiritual" body? "What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power" (vv. 42-43), and "this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality." (v. 53). In other words, our weak and perishable/mortal bodies must be "changed" (vv. 51-52) into glorious and imperishable/immortal bodies, as Christ's is.
Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 5 that to be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord (v. 8), meaning that our spirits are with Christ when we die. Here Paul is contrasting the (physical) body with the spirit, which fits the rest of his teaching on the subject, and aligns with the rest of the NT teaching (like Luke and John, which you quote), against what you are saying.
In 1 Peter 3, we (Christians) are the ones who will be put to death in the flesh and being made alive in the spirit. The context of verse 18 is suffering for righteousness. Peter then goes on in verse verses 21 and 22 to say that Jesus was resurrected (which was a resurrection of the body) and is in Heaven even now (with His resurrected body).
So no, Paul and Peter weren't teaching some Gnostic teaching that you are promoting.
This post was edited on 7/6/23 at 1:13 pm
2
Posted on 7/6/23 at 10:47 am to FooManChoo
Can yall shut the frick up?
Posted on 7/6/23 at 10:51 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Not at all. The only truth is that which ultimately comes from God, through nature or especially through revelation, which culminated in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate word of God.
Your “truth” of reality is the same “truth” that a man can don a wig and become a woman.
You have no basis for objective truth because you reject the truth of the biblical God that makes objective truth possible.
quote:Again, I can make sense of logic and "facts" because I believe in a God that upholds the universe He created in such a way that I can expect it to operate consistently. Logic reflects the very mind of God, and therefore I can use logic confidently knowing that its immaterial, universal, and unchanging nature comes from a God who is immaterial, unchanging, and omnipresent.
You cannot seem to grasp basic logic and basic facts about nature.
You are the one who can't make sense of logic and facts in your own worldview. You have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to deny the Christian position, which means your position is self-refuting and actually authenticates my position.
quote:I would say the same thing about you, as you deny your creator and reject the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ against all evidence.
You believe things without evidence, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I can make sense of it. Evidence is not brute but must be interpreted, and you have a paradigm that cannot properly understand the evidence presented because of your rejected of your creator due to your sinful heart. You cannot understand the truth on your own because you are predisposed to pervert and suppress the truth and twist the evidence in your unrighteousness (Rom. 1), and so your problem isn't intellectual, but moral.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 10:52 am to Beef Supreme
quote:Go lobby for a religion board that you don't have to visit.
Can yall shut the frick up?
At least I'm trying to keep this argument contained to a single thread.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 11:31 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:While you make a good argument for why we should listen to Paul in his writings, your downfall (again, as always) is your inability to let Scripture interpret Scripture (the "analogy of faith").
You are right. He didn’t predict it. He was stating to Thessalonians what was going to happen as he had heard the Gospel of God directly from the mouth of Jesus during hallucinations. He had not learned the gospel through any man (same as with the other apostles, Jesus appeared to them in visions only… the Jesus on earth stories weren’t yet invented). Paul had heard from Jesus about the metamorphosis of the living and the dead to be given spiritual heavenly bodies by God and that they’d all get swept up into heaven to meet Jesus. From his vantage point it wasn’t his own prediction. Jesus told him what was going to happen, and he shared that information with his church.
So you are wrong about the part about speaking as if it could happen. Paul was telling them definitively what was going to happen.
Paul also taught in Philippians 1 that he could die, and he even said he desired it so that he could be with Christ. That isn't the talk of someone who thought he would not, or could not die prior to Christ's return.
It seems clear to me that Paul wasn't saying that Jesus will return prior to his own death, but that he hoped that he would return soon (recall that Jesus said that no one but the Father knows the time of Christ's return), and the larger point being that Christ will return.
quote:I find it strange that you accuse me of not using evidence or logic while you make entirely false claims while ignoring evidence and logic.
I could go on. Point being is that he learned of the gospel, the “truth” about God and Jesus (yes, they are separate… there’s no evidence Paul was trinitarian… that was fabricated through hundreds of years of later arguments od church fathers using mental gymnastics to overcome contradictions in the Bible they had smashed together).
Paul was certainly trinitarian in his teaching. As a strict Jew, he gave Jesus the title (Lord) given to the Father in the Old Testament. He said that Jesus created all things (strange for a monotheistic Jew that supposedly only thought that the Father created all things from the beginning). He taught that justification (salvation) was accomplished not just by the Father (as would be thought by a unitarian), but by the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
When you look at the orthodox Christian teachings of the Trinity, you find support for those very things within the texts of Scripture written by the hand of Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit of God.
Paul was spreading his truth. Paul believed absolutely that he was not going to die, but rather be transformed into a spiritual being and swept up into heaven. To him it was not a prediction.
quote:Doesn't sound familiar at all. The Essenes were an apocalyptical cult. Paul was of the Pharisee tradition of the Jews.
Guess who else thought the same thing though? The Essene community at Qumran. We have their writings. The Qumran sect wore white robes and believed they would shed their flesh and be wisked away into heaven when the messiah comes. Sound familiar?
This post was edited on 7/6/23 at 11:41 am
Posted on 7/6/23 at 12:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Go lobby for a religion board that you don't have to visit.
At least I'm trying to keep this argument contained to a single thread.
No you're the one wanting to discuss religion. You lobby for that shite. You've derailed this topic.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 12:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Paul was certainly trinitarian in his teaching.
Except that you have no evidence of such a claim. All you have is evidence of him talking about three (and more) divine heavenly beings. Hupsistos the father, Jesus the incarnate of Kyrios, the (female) holt spirit, and angels and so on. The very part of the Trinity that makes the Trinity - being that they are one and the same single being or essence - is absent. Because of this absence, for 400 years the church fathers bickered amongst themselves as docetism, Arianism, Marcionism, tritheism, and moralism vied for the top view. Trinitarianism “won” due to politics and power. If it was “clear” as you say it is, they wouldn’t have fought about it for 400 years… and still to this day really.
quote:
As a strict Jew,
There were different groups of Jews. They had different beliefs. Even within the groups there was diversity of thought. Sometimes people’s views changed. Paul persecuted Christians (which were a sect of Jews at the time). Paul’s views changed (by hallucinating Jesus). He became an apocalyptic Enochian Jewish Christian which very much aligned with the beliefs of earlier groups (which may have still existed in Paul’s time) like the Enochian Jewish Essenes.
Why don’t you try not being a retard for once.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 1:01 pm to Beef Supreme
quote:Religion touches on all aspects of life, especially politics. We talk about policy decisions, legislation, and court rulings that are influenced by morality, which inevitably are influenced by or have an impact on religious morality and practice.
No you're the one wanting to discuss religion. You lobby for that shite. You've derailed this topic.
Since there is no religion board, these discussions can turn into religious discussions with no outlet to keep it going. There isn't even a method of taking it "offline" through direct messaging.
So I'll continue to discuss the things that I feel like discussing until either told to stop by the admins or until I have a better outlet for such discussions.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 1:55 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I summarized the evidence for you. I'll say it again since you didn't bother to refute it:
Except that you have no evidence of such a claim.
As a strict Jew, he gave Jesus the title (Lord) given to the Father in the Old Testament. He said that Jesus created all things (strange for a monotheistic Jew that supposedly only thought that the Father created all things from the beginning). He taught that justification (salvation) was accomplished not just by the Father (as would be thought by a unitarian), but by the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
If it will help you for me to provide the specific verse citations, I'm happy to do that.
quote:Those three beings are the one God of the trinity. Paul doesn't speak of other divine beings in relation to the Father, Son, or Spirit as being equal to God, in essence or in function. Only the Father, Son, and Spirit are said by Paul to be involved in justification of God's people.
All you have is evidence of him talking about three (and more) divine heavenly beings. Hupsistos the father, Jesus the incarnate of Kyrios, the (female) holt spirit, and angels and so on.
As I said, the doctrine of the Trinity is supported by Paul's writings.
quote:Paul consistently talks about "God" and "our God" in the singular, as the writers of the Old Testament did. Paul constantly referred to "our Lord Jesus Christ", using the same title for Christ as the writers of the Old Testament used for God.
The very part of the Trinity that makes the Trinity - being that they are one and the same single being or essence - is absent.
Here is a passage where Paul speaks of the singular God with the three persons of the Trinity acting in salvation.
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. -Gal. 4:4-7
He even says that we are hears thropugh God, even though we are heirs through the redemption and adoption as Sons by Christ's obedience. So, we are made heirs through Christ--which Paul reiterates in Ephesians 1:5--who is God, as Paul says in verse 7; "Through God" = "through Christ".
Then there's the equating of Jesus as "God" in Titus, as I mentioned previously. But, to flesh it out a bit more:
"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior; To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." (Titus 1:1-4)
Here we have Paul greeting Titus with words regarding God. In this short section, Paul calls both "God the Father" and "Christ Jesus" "our Savior". Both are our Savior, because Jesus is God (the 2nd person of the Trinity) and works together with the Father in salvation (thus being called "Savior").
He carries this theme over to chapter two, where Paul continues discussing God being our Savior and Christ being our Savior, working together as God (singular) in salvation:
"so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works." (2:10-14)
I could go on, but this should suffice as evidence enough.
quote:It's quite clear that Jesus had a physical body, yet that was also in dispute by some for quite a while. Sin causes division and misunderstanding. That's a problem with us, not with God's word, which teaches that there is one God in three persons. It took a while to clarify the details of what that actually looks like in the Scriptures due to false teachers that were teaching false views of God.
Because of this absence, for 400 years the church fathers bickered amongst themselves as docetism, Arianism, Marcionism, tritheism, and moralism vied for the top view. Trinitarianism “won” due to politics and power. If it was “clear” as you say it is, they wouldn’t have fought about it for 400 years… and still to this day really.
quote:Paul said that he was of the tradition of the Pharisees. He said he was a Pharisee (Phil. 3:4-6) who studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Paul wasn't an Essene. His views were changed by the truth of Jesus Christ, which is what happened with Peter, John, and the other disciples who also were not Essenes but believed the promises of the OT.
There were different groups of Jews. They had different beliefs. Even within the groups there was diversity of thought. Sometimes people’s views changed. Paul persecuted Christians (which were a sect of Jews at the time). Paul’s views changed (by hallucinating Jesus). He became an apocalyptic Enochian Jewish Christian which very much aligned with the beliefs of earlier groups (which may have still existed in Paul’s time) like the Enochian Jewish Essenes.
This post was edited on 7/6/23 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 7/6/23 at 1:58 pm to FooManChoo
What kind of person gives a shite about such a stupid issue?
Posted on 7/6/23 at 2:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
reject the true Gospel of Jesus Christ
quote:
Catholics
frick you, cock sucking Baptist count.
true gospel...yea im sure yours from over 1400 years later is the true gospel.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:14 pm to Jimmy Montrose
quote:The truths espoused by the Scriptures are literally the difference between (eternal) life and death. I think it's pretty important.
What kind of person gives a shite about such a stupid issue?
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:19 pm to Beef Supreme
quote:
No you're the one wanting to discuss religion. You lobby for that shite. You've derailed this topic.
It's all he does. He's the online version of the weirdos who yell at cars from the curb on Sundays.
Best to treat him the same as you treat those idiots.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:21 pm to lsu777
quote:I'm actually Presbyterian.
frick you, cock sucking Baptist count.
You seem pretty defensive about my statement, which I didn't mean to be an attack, per se, but an expression of my belief about the Gospel as it relates to some recent Republican candidates (Romney and DeSantis, specifically).
quote:If you're referring to the Reformation, the word, itself, is about "reforming", not "creating". The Gospel of the Reformation is the Gospel of the Scriptures, and that's what the Reformers stated.
true gospel...yea im sure yours from over 1400 years later is the true gospel.
I believe the Scriptures teach a faith alone in Christ alone Gospel where Christ died to save His people, and provides the gift of faith to His people and seals them by His Spirit. Any gospel that requires man to contribute his own works, or that man can not know if he has peace and reconciliation with the Father is not "good news".
Posted on 7/6/23 at 7:54 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
As a strict Jew, he gave Jesus the title (Lord) given to the Father in the Old Testament
He did not. He gave Jesus the title of Yahweh. Yahweh is not the father, as I previously explained to you.
quote:
Those three beings are the one God of the trinity. Paul doesn't speak of other divine beings in relation to the Father, Son, or Spirit as being equal to God, in essence or in function. Only the Father, Son, and Spirit are said by Paul to be involved in justification of God's people.
5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
quote:
Paul consistently talks about "God" and "our God" in the singular, as the writers of the Old Testament did. Paul constantly referred to "our Lord Jesus Christ", using the same title for Christ as the writers of the Old Testament used for {YHWH}.
There, fixed it for you.
quote:
(Titus 1:1-4)
Paul did not write Titus. It’s called a pseudepigrapha. It was written by someone, in a different writing style, with differently shaped Greek letters, opposing the views of authentic Pauline epistles. “Forgery”, the the lay person such as you.
quote:
It's quite clear that Jesus had a physical body, yet that was also in dispute by some for quite a while.
No it’s not. For that there is no proof. No proof of Jesus’ existence. That’s a hotly debated topic among scholars. Read On the History of Jesus by Carrier to get a view into the mind of what you consider your enemy.
Still, among ancient Christians and even modern Christians it’s hotly debated. Not every Christian is trinitarian despite your ignorant comments. Some believe that Jesus existed in a spiritual body that only appeared real. Some ancient Christians believed that Jesus was killed in heaven by demons and never set foot on earth. Why would some think that? It’s all there in the Bible. There’s enough contradictory material for some to “pick and choose” what to believe, exactly what you do.
quote:
Paul said that he was of the tradition of the Pharisees. He said he was a Pharisee (Phil. 3:4-6) who studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3)
Maybe he started as a Pharisee. Regardless, he adopted Enochian Jew beliefs in line with the Essenes. He didn’t say anything about studying under Gamaliel… maybe he actually did study under him, but Paul was king dead when Acts was written. All you have of the “truth” of that is the text itself which is unverifiable. You have your faith though - you can believe something with no supporting evidence despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Good for you with your blind faith. Hope it makes you happy.
What’s a common thing amongst New Testament scholars or Biblical scholars in general? The vast majority started as Christians. They went to Bible school, to divinity school, to seminary. They actually learned about the Bible in detail and realized that it is all a myth. These were eager Christians wanting to devote their lives to God and Christ. They didn’t want to “reject God” or “sin”. But a book of obvious myth did it to them. If that text is “divinely” inspired, then your “God” is a fool.
I mean come on…
They re-wrote Samuel through Kings with many changes and corrections, called it Chronicles, and yet somehow copies of the older texts survived… and they kept it all! Idiots!
And the Catholic Church kept the 4 gospels, 2 of which were directly plagiarized from the first. Word for word plagiarism. With many changes and contradictions. “It’s all the truth” even when they oppose one another.
Alrighty… suppertime. We’ll talk tomorrow.
Posted on 7/7/23 at 8:07 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
The truths espoused by the Scriptures are literally the difference between (eternal) life and death. I think it's pretty important.
I'm fine with that. Christians gonna Christian and push their views on others. I'd like to think that most people outside of that group (and happily, most self-proclaimed Christians I know understand that the formation of the Bible makes literalism a dubious foundation) are a bit more live and let live, and don't really have the time or inclination to worry about the the behavior of others, to the extent they even are exposed to this overt behavior in others.
Posted on 7/7/23 at 1:00 pm to FooManChoo
Squirrel and Foo need to get a room at this point.
Posted on 7/7/23 at 1:27 pm to Jon Ham
I'm sure this will cause some cognitive dissonance with people who don't think Trump is a politician but that's really all this is. Politicians change their view on things depending on polling and strategizing what will get them in office. It's almost impossible to be electable without being a bit of a hypocrite.
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:47 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I've already shown to you several times that your interpretation of the OT is completely wrong. Your fanciful interpretation is based on data outside the Bible, not what the text, itself, says, based on its own interpretative framework.
He did not. He gave Jesus the title of Yahweh. Yahweh is not the father, as I previously explained to you.
So yes, Paul did give Jesus the title of Lord, which was the personal covenant name of God, the Father.
quote:Read it again. Jesus submitted Himself and took on humble flesh. It doesn't say that Jesus didn't believe Himself to be equal with the Father or Spirit in power or glory, but that He "counted" equality with God as something not to be grasped, or reached for (sought after).
5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped
Read the context: it's talking about Christian humility and Christians not thinking themselves more highly than others, but acting in humility, serving one another. It says that Jesus humbled Himself and became a servant. In order for Jesus to do that, He had to have been in an exalted state prior to His humiliation, and then the Father exalted Jesus as a reward for His humiliation.
This doesn't say that Jesus isn't God. You just have to read the context, which you rarely seem to do.
quote:Paul certainly wrote Titus and its contents are authentic.
Paul did not write Titus. It’s called a pseudepigrapha. It was written by someone, in a different writing style, with differently shaped Greek letters, opposing the views of authentic Pauline epistles. “Forgery”, the the lay person such as you.
The differently shaped Greek letters? Can you cite your source for that? We don't have any original manuscripts from the Bible, so all we have is copies. Are you claiming one of the copies had differently shaped Greek letters? Either way, Paul wrote it and was known and accepted by many if not most of the church by the middle of the 2nd century.
I do find it interesting that when you have no response to the text, itself, you simply try to discredit and discard it. This argument is about what the canon of Scripture says. If you want to argue about what other non-biblical writings say, then go for it, but when we're talking about the Bible, it doesn't work to just throw out everything you don't like. You don't determine canon; God does.
quote:Yes it is. There is non-Christian evidence and accounts of the existence of Jesus. Even atheist "scholars" accept the existence of the historical Jesus.
No it’s not. For that there is no proof. No proof of Jesus’ existence. That’s a hotly debated topic among scholars. Read On the History of Jesus by Carrier to get a view into the mind of what you consider your enemy.
In terms of the evidence of Jesus' physical body in the Scriptures, those abound. From the accounts of Him being physically beaten, bloodied, and hung on the cross, to the accounts of the disciples touching Him (Thomas even touched His wounds), and His blood relatives accounting Him as their blood relative (as opposed to a spirit), to the account of His physical resurrection from the dead. The only dispute is whether or not people believe the Bible or not, because anyone who reads the Scriptures cannot come away from it thinking that it teaches of a Jesus without a physical body.
quote:Debate doesn't mean there is no clarity. The Scriptures are clear that homosexuality is sinful and that hasn't been very much debated for 2,000 years, and yet it is hotly debated today because so many "Christians" have a low view of the Scriptures and seek to justify sin according to anti-Biblical presuppositions. The problem of debate is not the Bible, but the sinners doing the debating.
Still, among ancient Christians and even modern Christians it’s hotly debated. Not every Christian is trinitarian despite your ignorant comments. Some believe that Jesus existed in a spiritual body that only appeared real. Some ancient Christians believed that Jesus was killed in heaven by demons and never set foot on earth. Why would some think that? It’s all there in the Bible. There’s enough contradictory material for some to “pick and choose” what to believe, exactly what you do.
And no, there isn't "contradictory material" to draw such a conclusion. You have no idea what the Scriptures teach and refuse to look at it as a collection and a whole rather than an assortment of words to pick and choose from like a buffet according to your own whims, so of course you think it is contradictory. When you read the Bible in its own context, those "contradictions" are easily cleared up. You refuse to see that because you don't want to see that. If you had to admit the Bible is true, then you'd have to admit that you will one day be judged by an omnipotent and holy God, and you wouldn't measure up.
quote:You're going to dispute his own words because...? You want him to be an Essene?
Maybe he started as a Pharisee. Regardless, he adopted Enochian Jew beliefs in line with the Essenes.
I've refuted your assertions that he preached an Essene view of God, but you refuse to accept it and continue with your unfounded claim in spite of Paul's own words. Paul repeatedly provided his own credentials but strangely never claimed adherence to the Essene party or faction of Jews. The early Fathers of the faith didn't say he changed his views, either (to my knowledge), and yet you make the claim based on what? Your terrible, contextless interpretation of his words? I continue to provide the context of Paul's words to you to show that you are wrong and you just make an assertion that Paul was an Essene because of your bad interpretations of his words.
You have to do better than say he was an Essene when the evidence is strongly against that claim.
quote:Acts was likely written in the early to mid 60's AD due to several clues within the text itself, as well as notable absences of facts regarding Christian persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem, and even the death of Paul, who is seen as one of the primary actors in the writing. In it, Paul says he studied under Gamaliel.
He didn’t say anything about studying under Gamaliel… maybe he actually did study under him, but Paul was king dead when Acts was written.
Again, instead of arguing the text, you want to dismiss and discard the text because you don't like what it says.
quote:I can say (and essentially have said) the same thing about you. You are trying to make biblical arguments and then when you are refuted, you reject the Bible.
All you have of the “truth” of that is the text itself which is unverifiable. You have your faith though - you can believe something with no supporting evidence despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Good for you with your blind faith. Hope it makes you happy.
If you want to stick to extra-biblical claims, then go for it, but don't try to start a debate about what the Bible says if you're just going to avoid the biblical text after being refuted.
I've run out of characters to continue, so I'll just say again, repent.
This post was edited on 7/8/23 at 7:48 am
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:51 pm to Jimmy Montrose
quote:I'm sure this seems great to someone who rejects their Creator and Lord, but to Christians who have spent any time in study of the Bible, Christianity isn't a passive religion of "live and let live". It's a religion that believes certain truth claims that drastically change the purpose of life and how we go about living it, as well as how we interact with others in this life.
I'm fine with that. Christians gonna Christian and push their views on others. I'd like to think that most people outside of that group (and happily, most self-proclaimed Christians I know understand that the formation of the Bible makes literalism a dubious foundation) are a bit more live and let live, and don't really have the time or inclination to worry about the the behavior of others, to the extent they even are exposed to this overt behavior in others.
From our perspective, the world has a cancer with only one cure, and we're the only ones who have knowledge of that cure. We offer it to the world and are told to mind our own business and stay out of everyone's lives because we are too exclusive with our claims of having the only true knowledge of the cure.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News