Jump to content

Apostolic Epistles from prison


webmdave
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

Kent Hovind, the self anointed, evangelical apostle of Young Earth Creationism, is currently in prison for tax evasion. For a long time he has been pointing his followers toward the writings of an imprisoned tax dodger named Irwin Schiff as well as promoting the Citizens Rule Book, a popular standard in the Christian Patriot movement. Using these fringe teachings, Hovind has been encouraging Christians to stop paying taxes and assuring his followers that they can't be prosecuted for refusing to pay. The teaching is too convoluted to encapsulate here, but rest assured that anyone who elects to follow these odd ball ideas are likely to also land in jail.

 

From his prison cell, Hovind is blogging to his flock, preaching from behind bars, sharing his holy adventures of bold evangeliztion and discipling of the prison population. At the close of each epistle, he writes, "Remember my bonds."

 

OK, so what! We all know Hovind is a whack-job fanatic. Who cares?

 

Frankly, I don't care. What caught my attention wasn't his usual inane blathering, or the fawning comments posted by his faithful sycophants, it was his signature: "Remember my bonds."

 

When I read that, I wondered if Hovind imagines that he's being persecuted for his faith, and envisions his present circumstances as the mark of martyrdom, comparable to Paul the Apostle, perhaps. It seems clear to me that Hovind?s imprisonment has nothing to do with his religious beliefs, but rather with his quirky, quasi-patriotic tax evasion. There is nothing I know in the Bible that can be interpreted as a mandate to avoid paying taxes. In fact, I think the opposite could be effectively and easily argued from statements attributed to both Jesus and Paul concerning rendering to Caesar and obeying the government.

 

Well, arguing about anything with someone who thinks the universe is only 6,000 years old is probably a complete waste of time, anyway, so I prefer to leave Hovind and his minions to their delusions. However, I have to thank him for signing the way he did, because it opened up something for me.

 

His admonition to be remembered brought me back to when I was a Christian and I would read Paul's writings, and would read the words "Remember my bonds" (Colossians 4:18). Back then my mind would be filled with romanticized images of a great man who was suffering unjustly for the sake of Christ; he was under persecution for his relationship with the risen Jesus Christ. Now, thanks to Hovind, I?m thinking something completely different: Could it be possible that Paul wasn?t imprisoned because of his apostolic faith, but for something else altogether? Could it be that Paul wasn?t being persecuted for being a Christian at all, but for something much more innocuous, such as disturbing the peace?

 

Well, OK, disturbing the peace might be an understatement. Paul's reported actions were more akin to inciting riots. Think about a riot for a minute. Doesn?t law enforcement primarily focus on quelling a riot when it occurs and capturing any culprits who might have instigated or encouraged the violence? Do they say, "Well, this is a religious riot, so we should let it alone."? Quickly scanning through the New Testament, I find Paul stirring up strife everywhere his feet take him. He even picks fights with the original disciples of Jesus, even with Jesus' own brother! Paul's not just preaching the Gospel, he's annoyingly disruptive. He gets beat up in the middle various scenes of anarchy he's stirred up. He's subsequently imprisoned, and then he asks everyone to "Remember me in my bonds." He also goes on a tirade about all the suffering and sacrifices he's made for the cause of Christ, claming to have labored "More abundantly than they all" (1 Corinthians 15:10).

 

Maybe Hovind and Paul have more in common than I originally realized. I wonder if we will soon be reading that Hovind is rejoicing that he in his being called to suffer and that he is laboring "more abundantly than they all" for HIS name's sake.

 

What do you think?

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/12...rom-prison.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I think the apostle Paul was no saint (pun intended)! :wicked: I believe what we see in the NT about Christ is Paul's version that he pushed upon the early Christians, being totally driven by ego very much like Hovind, trying to find his marketing edge to make himself stand out. Rush Limbaugh is another who puffs his chest out to get a lot of attention for being the biggest on the block. If Limbaugh were religious, he would be like Paul.

 

Hovind however is a little clown underneath the Big Top. He is a somewhat successful clown, though to a lesser degree than his mentors like Bozo and Ronald MacDonald, but only because his extreem stupidity works for him to make himself stand out from the rest of the pack of average idiots. Dino the Clown is smart enough to see the angle in his given situation to try to continue his ego-masturbating while in prison (as he fends off sneak attack from behind, however :wicked: ).

 

I see the Apostle Paul as a master of self-promotion. He used his internment behind bars to further fan the flames of self-promotion. "I seek nothing among you but to see Christ glorified". Yeah right!! Translated: "You see how humble of a soul I am? Hey! Don't listen to those other guys! I'm the humble one, damn it!"

 

The key to the truth of the Apostle Paul is stripping away the romanticism of his self-promotional spinnings and seeing the raging ego behind it all. The key to seeing the truth about Dino the Clown is, well.... it's pretty obvious. He's just an idiot with a huge ego, but not at all smart like the Apostle Paul was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul also said about his bonds, that Christ was magnified, by hook or by crook (the Duderonomy Translation), because His name was mentioned and discussed. I've read Paul, and I've never found 'romanticism' in his writings.

 

Antlerman, I'm glad that you have your own translation;

 

So then, does might make right, or is right enough on it's own? And what if Paul was really saying what he really meant?

 

As for Hovind, I think that he's a dink. Paul? Cut him some slack. Paul might be wrong also, but it will take a long time to prove that. How can anyone among us compare Paul the Apostle with Kent Hovind? Did Jesus point to where the tax money could be found? Yes. Hovind? What does he have to do with the truth of the scripture?

 

Sorry, guys, but you can't hope to compare the Apostle Paul, with the bullshit of Hovind. You know better, and I see this thread as another way of blaming God because of the ignorance of those who claim to follow Him, or those that cling to Him because it makes them feel important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

OK Dude, whatever.

 

What’re you so mad about? Are you a Christian? What’s the deal?

 

Now, please show me from your Bible that Paul was imprisoned for his religion as opposed to being imprisoned for being a rabble-rousing asshole. That was the point of the rant, not taxes.

 

Anyway, this rant was supposition to provoke discussion -- it wasn’t intended to be doctrine for life, and if you feel driven to salivate after and mindlessly defend pseudo-faith in a pseudo-god of your own making, well then by all means continue to do so. However, when you disagree with people on this board, I recommend you change your tone a bit. Frankly, my level of patience with your immature attitude and approach toward everyone has run out.

 

Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul also said about his bonds, that Christ was magnified, by hook or by crook (the Duderonomy Translation), because His name was mentioned and discussed. I've read Paul, and I've never found 'romanticism' in his writings.

 

Antlerman, I'm glad that you have your own translation;

I'm reading the same translation as you, but I take off the glasses of romanticism which you seem to enjoy having on. My reference to romanticism, was not Paul's writings, but viewing him as some sort of purely selfless saint. That's romanicizing him, and what you appear to be doing here.

 

Here's a little look at some research that's gone into who Paul was and what motivated him: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulvpeter.html and http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jerucouncil.html and http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/antioch.html Personally, I don't believe the Bible is "God's word", so I don't start with a biased, rose-colored pair of goggles covering my eyes when I look at Paul. I look at him as a human being. When I read about his conflicts with James and the Church of Jerusalem, and his subsequent going it alone in the gentile world, I see a man driven by ego to be "the big man". I've seen plenty of charsmatic preachers like this, and have no reason to see him as any different. Here's some more pretty main-stream views of the man Paul to shed some more light on him for you, if you are willing to be objective and not such a helpless romantic: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...t/missions.html and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...gregations.html

 

So then, does might make right, or is right enough on it's own? And what if Paul was really saying what he really meant?

And what if he wasn't? What if God really exists? What if Allah is God? What if I am God? What if, what if, what if. What for?

 

As for Hovind, I think that he's a dink. Paul? Cut him some slack. Paul might be wrong also, but it will take a long time to prove that. How can anyone among us compare Paul the Apostle with Kent Hovind? Did Jesus point to where the tax money could be found? Yes. Hovind? What does he have to do with the truth of the scripture?

I was actually generous to Paul by saying that he was much smarter than Hovind. However, I see no reason based on what we read about him to view him as anything more than a man driven by his ego.

 

Sorry, guys, but you can't hope to compare the Apostle Paul, with the bullshit of Hovind. You know better, and I see this thread as another way of blaming God because of the ignorance of those who claim to follow Him, or those that cling to Him because it makes them feel important.

I'm not blaming God (I'd have to acknowledge him to blame him). I'm just not accepting that Paul was some sort of mythical saint. Paul was a man and I see him being driven by ego to be the big fish. Funny thing too really, is that the sucess of Christianity ultimately wasn't because of him.

 

P.S. Sound's like we struck a nerve there with this view of Paul. Could it be because you've had a romaticized image of him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul also said about his bonds, that Christ was magnified, by hook or by crook (the Duderonomy Translation), because His name was mentioned and discussed. I've read Paul, and I've never found 'romanticism' in his writings.

 

Antlerman, I'm glad that you have your own translation;

I'm reading the same translation as you, but I take off the glasses of romanticism which you seem to enjoy having on. My reference to romanticism, was not Paul's writings, but viewing him as some sort of purely selfless saint. That's romanicizing him, and what you appear to be doing here.

 

Here's a little look at some research that's gone into who Paul was and what motivated him: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulvpeter.html and http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jerucouncil.html and http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/antioch.html Personally, I don't believe the Bible is "God's word", so I don't start with a biased, rose-colored pair of goggles covering my eyes when I look at Paul. I look at him as a human being. When I read about his conflicts with James and the Church of Jerusalem, and his subsequent going it alone in the gentile world, I see a man driven by ego to be "the big man". I've seen plenty of charsmatic preachers like this, and have no reason to see him as any different. Here's some more pretty main-stream views of the man Paul to shed some more light on him for you, if you are willing to be objective and not such a helpless romantic: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...t/missions.html and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...gregations.html

 

So then, does might make right, or is right enough on it's own? And what if Paul was really saying what he really meant?

And what if he wasn't? What if God really exists? What if Allah is God? What if I am God? What if, what if, what if. What for?

 

As for Hovind, I think that he's a dink. Paul? Cut him some slack. Paul might be wrong also, but it will take a long time to prove that. How can anyone among us compare Paul the Apostle with Kent Hovind? Did Jesus point to where the tax money could be found? Yes. Hovind? What does he have to do with the truth of the scripture?

I was actually generous to Paul by saying that he was much smarter than Hovind. However, I see no reason based on what we read about him to view him as anything more than a man driven by his ego.

 

Sorry, guys, but you can't hope to compare the Apostle Paul, with the bullshit of Hovind. You know better, and I see this thread as another way of blaming God because of the ignorance of those who claim to follow Him, or those that cling to Him because it makes them feel important.

I'm not blaming God (I'd have to acknowledge him to blame him). I'm just not accepting that Paul was some sort of mythical saint. Paul was a man and I see him being driven by ego to be the big fish. Funny thing too really, is that the sucess of Christianity ultimately wasn't because of him.

 

P.S. Sound's like we struck a nerve there with this view of Paul. Could it be because you've had a romaticized image of him?

 

Where to start? I guess by saying that I'm responding to both Webmaster and Antlerman.

 

James the Lord's brother? Didn't James at one time think that his brother was nuts? Didn't Mary and the Lord's brothers at one time wish to speak to Him, and He ignored that and went into a tirade about 'Who is my Mother? Who is my brother'? The verse escapes me now, but I do believe that there are passages in the Gospels that show that Jesus' own family didn't believe in Him.

 

If you will re-read my post, you'll find that I'm not defending Paul or the Bible, and no, I am no longer a Christian. My response mentioned taxes because the OP mentioned taxes four or five times.

 

I mentioned Antlerman's 'own translation' because I had just given my own 'translation' of scripture. No offence intended, see?

 

I think it's reprehensible that Hovind lifts a saying of Paul's from the Bible and claims it as his own, that's why I said that I think (among other reasons) that Hovind is a dink, and I said that Paul may not be right either. The point is, I believe that (if there was an Apostle Paul, even if he was wrong), he had more integrity and sincerity than Hovind, or a thousand Hovinds.

 

Now, Webmaster, you wanted me to show you in my Bible where Paul was in prison for his religion and not because he was a rabble rouser. Well, this is what I would refer to...

 

Jesus speaking (after Paul's vision on the road to Damascus in the book of Acts...you choose which version of the story, because there are two of them in Acts)...

 

 

Delivering thee from the people, and [from] the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

 

 

Act 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

 

 

Paul speaking...

 

Act 26:19 ¶ Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

 

 

Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

 

 

Act 26:21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill [me].

 

 

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

 

 

Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, [and] that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

 

 

Act 26:24 ¶ And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

 

 

Act 26:25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

 

 

Act 26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

 

 

Act 26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.

 

 

Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

 

 

Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

 

 

Act 26:30 And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:

 

 

Act 26:31 And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.

 

 

Act 26:32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

 

 

You see, all we know of Paul is from the Bible (that I know of, although I'll follow the links, thanks Antlerman). And with that in mind, we know that Paul was nearly killed by his own group (Jewish Pharisees) for preaching Jesus, and had to appeal to the SECULAR LAW to save his own life. As a Roman citizen, Paul had the right to trial, and I see that he, bonds and all, was taken into a sort of protective custody by a secular state until his trial could begin.

 

At the end of his trial and testimony, you'll see that those required to keep the peace of the Roman empire said that Paul had done NOTHING worthy of death OR OF BONDS. Doesn't sound like a rabble rouser to me.

 

Riots may have broken out over Paul's preaching and teaching, but so did they break out in the sixties because of Martin Luther King Jr.'s preaching and teaching. No one would call Martin Luther King Jr. a rabble rouser, and from what I see in the Bible, no one should say that about Paul, either. This isn't an argument from or claiming authority, merely a comparison.

 

Antlerman, what if Allah or you or (perish the thought) I am God? That's not what I was saying. I was saying that I believe that Paul was sincere in his beliefs, followed what he thought was his mission, and like Jesus, never would have advocated tax-evasion-by-the-authority-of-his-God. Paul, in fact believed in law, and government (Romans 13).

 

Hovind, on the other hand, I think is a faker, who uses people and uses the Bible for his own gain. Paul? Maybe, but I'm not so sure. If he really was there, then, and existed, I have to believe from his 'epistles' that he was at least sincere and true to his own belief, and not a user. As I said, he may have been wrong too, but just because I 'stick up' for Paul by comparison, does that make me the bad guy?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Webmaster, I admit, as I have before to you in a PM, that I sometimes attack the person and not the argument, and I am trying to improve my writing skills so I won't do that anymore. I took your advice literally. If you want to call me out in public, that's your right. I'm tired of defending myself against those that don't understand me, while at the same time, I'm supposed to understand them. It's your website, and it's your Lion's Den, and I suspect that the words 'expect heated responses' are yours too. I hope that what I just posted is a good explanation of what I posted before, but should I have to explain?

 

If it comes down to freethought, then let me have mine. It might turn out to be little different from your own, or those of other recovering Christians. If it comes down to name calling, consider those that have here called me every name in the book, because I didn't fit the Ex-Christian mold as they saw it.

 

 

My 'tone' may not be appropriate, true, but does that make my thoughts and ideas of no effect? Do you want a Lion's Den of puppets and also rans?

 

Duder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Honestly, dude, do you really think there is a single person on this board feels like a puppet or an also-ran?

 

The point I'm trying to make in calling you out here, is that since we are all ex-Christians, the implication is that we are on the same side. It just appears that too often you see everyone as your enemy, unless they completely agree with you on every single detailed point. You tend to resemble a fundamentalist with a different colored coat.

 

The people who have called you names, in most cases, are less than half your age, and in the majority of those cases, they responded aggressively after being provoked by you. There may be exceptions to that, but at our age do we really want to be saying, "He called me names, that's why I did that"?

 

Anyway, you are of course free to post your ideas -- I love a good war of words on ideas. And when a ridiculous fundie comes along, I will even condescend to occasionally give him or her a verbal slapping. I'm just asking that you try and keep in mind that in this overwhelmingly evangelical Christian society we both live in, finding ex-Christian allies is nearly impossible. Many of the people who come here, come here for refuge and support -- not to be beat up by so-called friends.

 

In other words, the anger you undoubtedly feel might serve better if confined to lashing out at fundamentalist Christianity.

 

You have differing ideas and thoughts on all kinds of topics? Spout away! You have blood-pressure-raising anger? For the most part, leave it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
No one would call Martin Luther King Jr. a rabble rouser,

 

Someone thought MLK was a rabble-rouser and assassinated him.

 

Using much from the Acts of the Apostles might be a bit weak, since it was obviously written as an apologetic work to support Paul's mission to the Gentiles. However, you did answer my question to show where from the Bible it could be shown that Paul was persecuted for his beliefs. Still, reading those passages again, it is apparent to me that his beliefs really had nothing to do with his persecution. It was his evangelical rabble-rousing in the middle of fanatics from another faith that stirred up the violence, not just because he held differing beliefs.

 

If I go to Iran and start preaching the gospel and get persecuted, to what would you attribute the persecution -- my beliefs, or my stupidity? This is what Paul repeatedly does: he finds the place where he can make the biggest noise, and when things go to shit, he runs the flag of "persecuted for the cause" up the pole.

 

I also find it interesting that only Paul felt the message of the Kingdom was intended for non-Jewish people. Those that actually ran with Jesus apparently felt under no compunction to leave Israel. I think Paul was preaching a different Jesus. Check out Antlerman's links. They are excellent.

 

Now, I agree that Paul was probably quite sincere in his beliefs, but I think Hovind is equally sincere in his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James the Lord's brother? Didn't James at one time think that his brother was nuts? Didn't Mary and the Lord's brothers at one time wish to speak to Him, and He ignored that and went into a tirade about 'Who is my Mother? Who is my brother'? The verse escapes me now, but I do believe that there are passages in the Gospels that show that Jesus' own family didn't believe in Him.

I’m not sure what that has to do with the issues between Paul and the church leaders of Jerusalem? Are you suggesting that James was somehow not as believing as Paul because of issues that are spoken about as having happening while the Jesus character was still in the development stage of the plot in Mark’s Odyssey? Following the story to that day, I do believe James was now a fully converted believer, and him and Peter and the others in Jerusalem had issues with Paul’s Christian message.

 

I have seen the same sorts of things happen in churches today, where charismatic leaders gather followings around them and break away from the main churches doctrines and go it alone. I suspect that underneath the gloss of history as recorded in Acts and in Paul’s own explainations of what happened, you will see a church in it’s earliest forms struggling to defend itself against this phenomenon that happens to this day, and you are only hearing one side of the story in Paul’s words – the side that makes him look good.

 

Essentially, I see this as possible that Paulianity was the first major denomination arising, and James and Peter were struggling to deal with the dynamic of what was happening, without the benefit of experience or knowledge of history in dealing with these sorts of things. Paul had the upper hand. He was well experienced in religious organization and politics. My feeling is that most “true to form” Christianity died with James and the church at Jerusalem and what we have today is Paulianity (which contains some of the original in itself, being a spin-off of it).

 

This is why, in part, that I see Paul being driven by ego. In fact, I half suspect that the reason Paul had his “vision” and adopted Christianity in the first place had at its heart a deep dissatisfaction with his relationship within his group of Pharisees. What motivated him to be so zealous to go after the Christians in the first place, a love for “truth and righteousness”? I don’t buy it. That’s the gloss someone tells themselves.

 

We all want to consider ourselves having pure intentions and integrity. But the cold reality of it is that at the heart of everything we do lays a benefit to ourselves. No one anywhere is selfless. That’s a myth told to motivate us towards that ideal goal, but no one will ever achieve that because we are human. Paul was human also. Paul’s words are words of his own and at their heart are what he wants others to see.

 

Let’s compare Hovind to Paul. I would look at Hovind and say that he is a charlatan. But then, does Hovind “know” what he says is a lie, or does he sincerely believe it? Hovind takes what someone else teaches about the “right” to not pay taxes and attaches himself to it. You can say, “He should know better. He has no excuse”. But let’s compare that to Paul for a minute.

 

Imagine you grew up in a culture where your dietary laws and circumcision were as much a reality and expected practice of everyone, as paying taxes is to you in your life today. Along comes Paul and says, “No, I’ve had a direct revelation from God on high that it’s OK to not do this now!! In fact, we can bring people to God and not follow the rules of the religion anymore! Praise His name!” How is this any different than not paying your taxes in today’s society?

 

Was Paul insincere? I’m sure he convinced himself as much as Hovind did that this was OK. There was a definite falling out between Paul and the main church and Paul set out in the following years to establish his theology in the gentile world, beating away all would be “spies” sent in to his churches to try to bring them in line with the Jerusalem church’s teachings. But what motivated Paul? What motivates Hovind?

 

Again the real difference between Paul and Hovind is intelligence and skills. Paul had both. Hovind’s tools are pretty dull by comparison, and his motives become much more glaringly obvious to us. He’s playing the clown without having to try much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The point I'm trying to make in calling you out here, is that since we are all ex-Christians, the implication is that we are on the same side. It just appears that too often you see everyone as your enemy, unless they completely agree with you on every single detailed point. You tend to resemble a fundamentalist with a different colored coat."

 

Leaving the 'coat of many colors' aside,

 

How many times have I said here, or in P.M.'s, or in apologies that I know this, and it's a leftover of my fundie upbringing? I'm trying to not be so pissy, but at the same time, I have so many scriptures running through my head still, that I have to question any post that I feel doesn't take the Bible as it is written, including this one. I won't take any learned opinion for granted.

 

We can all bash Jesus, Paul, and the Bible itself, but I feel the need to challenge sometimes the prevailing wisdom, because I know that there are 'lurkers' that read these posts, and many of them with a fundamentalist POV. You don't need me to name names or nics.

 

Why is the fact that my coat is colored different than your coat such an issue? Isn't this about Freethought? Isn't this the Lion's Den? My coat might be angry and gay. My coat might be full of bitterness. My coat might be looking for a place to belong. Mine might be a coat of many colors that was made for me.

 

You are damned right. Unless 'they' agree with me on every single detailed point, they might be wrong. Not always, but might be.

 

 

 

My whole point is that Paul was serious, and that Hovind is a user. Whatever motivated Paul back then, is not the same as what motivates Hovind now.

 

I mentioned Jesus pointing to a fish, and etc. in an earlier post on this thread. They had no trouble paying taxes to the government because of their catch. Render unto Ceaser, and all.

 

Hovind? He has no comparison to the 'Apostle Paul' under any circumstances. Or Jesus, or any one of us that pays taxes.

 

So excuse me for sticking up for the 'Apostle Paul' more than Hovind.

 

Duderonomy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to Hovind. Right now he's in a county jail and the difference between a county jail and prison is like purgatory and hell. I wonder how upbeat he will be when he becomes Bubba's bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Hovind thinks he's being persecuted. Most Xians who get in hot water do; they've been so brainwashed to think the whole world hates them for their religious choices and wants nothing more than to kill and oppress them. Hovind probably thinks he's enduring the same thing as the mythical Saul/Paul of Tarsus - and I say mythical, because there is no evidence (to the best of my knowledge) that this joker ever lived. Just like his god, he's nothing more than words in a book rife with errors and contradictions and without any other corroborating evidence.

 

If fundy Xians couldn't cry "persecution!" at every turn, they'd have far less to do with their time, and many would probably drop dead of boredom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
My whole point is that Paul was serious, and that Hovind is a user.
I can agree that Paul was serious, but from everything I've read, so is Hovind. Hovind is as serious about his beliefs as Paul was about his.

 

Unless you want to argue that James and Peter weren't nearly as serious as Paul, that they were users too.

 

I'm not debating the relative quantity or quality of any of these men's products -- what we are discussing is their demonstrated sincerity.

 

Hovind is sincere. He is wrong.

 

And so was Paul.

 

We are also discussing whether Paul was actually persecuted for preaching the gospel, or for inciting riots. Even the Bible accounts say Paul entered this coliseum, or went to this public location, or got in the middle of things at some other major gathering place. It was always at those times that he got thrown behind bars. He doesn't get arrested at a quiet church meeting in someone's house. He was never arrested for sharing his faith at his tent mending stand in the market.

 

Paul's message wasn't against the law, apparently, but he had stirred up so much dissension against himself over the course of several years, all across the Roman Empire, that there was nothing for the Roman leadership to do but get rid of him. Laws being what they were back then, stirring up mobs, for any reason, was bound to get a person in trouble. And disorder, riots and chaos is what would get the Roman leadership removed from office, along with their heads from their shoulders. Roman leaders were to keep order, period.

 

Anyway, I could be wrong on some point in this or any topic, but I don't think religious nonsense is worth getting all upset about, because Paul is nothing but a long dead historical figure, shrouded in myth. He won't mind at all that I think he was a kook.

 

 

Remember my bonds! -- Paul and Hovind, real True Christians
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, at one time Paul was my greatest human hero.

 

After reading and re-reading, I have to admit that I have changed my mind. I see the point of the O.P. and although I could argue the point just from stubborness, there is no way I could logically support my view or morally hold onto it any longer.

 

I do have to say though, that I think Paul, as I saw him presented in the Bible, at least had the courage of his convictions, while Hovind is a user of the 'Christian' system/community to feed his hubris. I guess that was my whole point in piping up here. I've been thinking about this for a few days now, and I have to admit that there are also verses I remember where Paul was self-promoting. Maybe he felt (again, as seen in the Bible) that the end justified his means. Wrong? Yes, but sincere in wanting Christ to be preached. Hovind on the other hand, is only sincere about Hovind. I guess what I'm saying is that after hearing a debate between the Infidel Guy and Hovind, and in reading about Hovind (here and elsewhere) and seeing him on TV, I don't think that Dr. Dino is at all sincere in his beliefs. He may have convinced himself, but it's only because of ego and money money money.

 

I will remember Hovind's bonds...and a bit gleefully, if he doesn't mind.

 

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
I will remember Hovind's bonds...and a bit gleefully, if he doesn't mind.

 

:-)

 

Likewise!

 

:-')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, at one time Paul was my greatest human hero.

 

After reading and re-reading, I have to admit that I have changed my mind. I see the point of the O.P. and although I could argue the point just from stubborness, there is no way I could logically support my view or morally hold onto it any longer.

The point where faith and denial meets reason and rationality :grin:

 

I do have to say though, that I think Paul, as I saw him presented in the Bible, at least had the courage of his convictions, while Hovind is a user of the 'Christian' system/community to feed his hubris. I guess that was my whole point in piping up here. I've been thinking about this for a few days now, and I have to admit that there are also verses I remember where Paul was self-promoting. Maybe he felt (again, as seen in the Bible) that the end justified his means. Wrong? Yes, but sincere in wanting Christ to be preached.

I can't help but come back to that question I asked before. What motivated Paul to be so passionate about persecuting Christians before his conversion to it? You see, I have to ask is this a "love for Christ" that motivates men like Paul? Was "God" inspiring Paul to persecute Christians before his conversion, or was this just his personality that he carried over into Christianity, with his "love for God" having nothing to do with it in either instance?

 

What exactly was Paul's "infirmity" anyway? Could it possibility have been impotence, like those who drive around in hopped-up SPCV's today (Small Penis Compensation Vehicles)? :wicked: I know I'm being a bit harsh here, but I am deeply cynical of "righteous" charismatic evangelists like Paul was.

 

Hovind on the other hand, is only sincere about Hovind. I guess what I'm saying is that after hearing a debate between the Infidel Guy and Hovind, and in reading about Hovind (here and elsewhere) and seeing him on TV, I don't think that Dr. Dino is at all sincere in his beliefs. He may have convinced himself, but it's only because of ego and money money money.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the Apostle Paul in a debate with an atheist like this, instead of just reading his version of the story? I wonder if your opinion of him might sink as low as it is of Hovind, hearing him rationalize away solid arguments and pulling all manner of similar disingenuous arguments typical of apologists today? Again, I agree Hovind is a complete imbecile. But to me that is what sets him apart from Paul, not his ego, but his utter stupidity.

 

I will remember Hovind's bonds...and a bit gleefully, if he doesn't mind.

 

:-)

Absolutely agreed! :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman said...

 

 

"I can't help but come back to that question I asked before. What motivated Paul to be so passionate about persecuting Christians before his conversion to it? You see, I have to ask is this a "love for Christ" that motivates men like Paul? Was "God" inspiring Paul to persecute Christians before his conversion, or was this just his personality that he carried over into Christianity, with his "love for God" having nothing to do with it in either instance?"

 

It's just this kind of blasphemous rhetoric that leads me to...get your point, and change my mind.

 

I can't disagree. Thinking about it, I know people that will stir up strife just to be 'right' or to try to open a hole in an argument that they can then run through, and then say "AHA!"

 

I can name one, in fact. I won't mention names, but his initials are Duderonomy.

 

My only lasting disagreement would be this, concerning sincerity. Whatever was in Paul's heart, and I know this sounds like I'm recanting, but I'm not, Paul at least thought that he was in the right. Hovind, I still maintain, know's that what he preaches/teaches is bullshit. Hovind takes advantage of the weak. Paul was looking for converts to what he believed in, as Saul, or as the converted 'Paul'. Saul or Paul might have been about self promotion and power, but to him it was never about money. Hovind is using Christians while knowing that all they are good for is money money money. He will be a fundie young earth creationist as long as it pays the big bucks.

 

I guess in the long run, it doesn't matter much, but for God's sake (pun intended) can't we let Paul die an easy death, and without comparing him to Hovind? Can't I let Paul slip away slowly? Please don't compare the one named as the writer of Romans and Galatians and Ephesians, to a Hovind? OK?

 

And to whomever said that I have a romantic version of Paul, Fuck You. Thank you, but Fuck You. And if you don't all get my point, I'll have to include the horse you rode in on. :-)

 

Duder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to whomever said that I have a romantic version of Paul, Fuck You. Thank you, but Fuck You. And if you don't all get my point, I'll have to include the horse you rode in on. :-)

Well, that would be me. So I'm hoping your meaning this string of obscenities in some sort of "friendly ribbing" way, or that you have legitimate psychiatric issues with some form of tourettes syndrome at your keyboard while you're typing. If otherwise, you should probably consider not participating in public forums and speaking to members like me. This sort of behavior is definitely not appreciated.

 

(BTW, I was correct that you had a romanticized view of Paul)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

 

Antlerman, you can quit beating me now.

 

First, you'll have to prove that only two 'fuck-you's' constitutes a stream of obsenities. Trust me, I know enough about cussing that I could go on for about three minutes straight without repeating myself. I learned it in computer school. You might not know what " :-) " means. That's fine, don't worry about it.

 

Second, I can't believe that you seem to think that you can stand up for all 'members' of all 'public forums'. Talk about self promotion!

 

Third, Of course it's friendly ribbing. In all of your education, don't forget human feelings and thoughts, and don't be so quick to judge.

 

Fourth, Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

 

Fifth, I'm not sure which part of agreeing with you and thanking you for the links isn't appreciated...will you please elaborate?.

 

 

 

Sixth; You were right in saying that I had a 'romantic' view of Paul. Didn't I already say that? And that I am/have gotten over that?

 

Feel free to stroke yourself to the tune of beating me by post because you just don't get what I'm saying/have said.

 

I'm so happy for you that "This sort of behavior is definitely not appreciated." What sort of behavior?

 

You being right and me agreeing?

 

Suddenly, the horse you rode in on? I don't care.

 

Antlerman, sometimes you remind me of a bully on the playground.

 

 

 

 

Duder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

AM, click here: Link

 

Or perhaps its that forums and alcohol don't mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AM, click here: Link

 

Or perhaps its that forums and alcohol don't mix.

Thanks. :grin: Yes, I try to avoid heavy drinking and forum posting. It leads to some pretty disconnected thoughts that may make sense to me in my state of euphoria, but leaves everyone scratching their heads and playing connect the dots. Maybe we should market a biometric security device for PC's that uses a breathalyzer to check sobriety before allowing you to log on? :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

 

Can you show me, point by point, what was wrong with my last post? Why you would call me 'drunk' or 'cuckoo'?

 

Duder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

 

Can you show me, point by point, what was wrong with my last post? Why you would call me 'drunk' or 'cuckoo'?

 

Duder

Antlerman, I'm glad that you have your own translation;

 
And to whomever said that I have a romantic version of Paul, Fuck You. Thank you, but Fuck You. And if you don't all get my point, I'll have to include the horse you rode in on. :-)

 

Duder

 
Wow.

 

Antlerman, you can quit beating me now.

 

First, you'll have to prove that
only two 'fuck-you's'
constitutes a stream of obsenities. Trust me, I know enough about cussing that I could go on for about three minutes straight without repeating myself. I learned it in computer school. You might not know what " :-) " means. That's fine, don't worry about it.

 

Second, I can't believe that you seem to think that you can stand up for all 'members' of all 'public forums'.
Talk about self promotion!

Third, Of course it's friendly ribbing. In all of your education, don't forget human feelings and thoughts, and don't be so quick to judge.

 

Fourth, Don't hate me because I'm beautiful
.

 

Fifth, I'm not sure which part of agreeing with you and thanking you for the links isn't appreciated...will you please elaborate?.

 

 

 

Sixth; You were right in saying that I had a 'romantic' view of Paul. Didn't I already say that? And that I am/have gotten over that?

 

Feel free to stroke yourself
to the tune of beating me by post because you just don't get what I'm saying/have said.

 

I'm so happy for you that "This sort of behavior is definitely not appreciated."
What sort of behavior?

 

You being right and me agreeing?

 

Suddenly, the horse you rode in on? I don't care.

 

Antlerman, sometimes you remind me of a bully on the playground.

 

 

 

Duder

It speaks for itself. If none of this stands out to you and you can't see this, that indicates a problem somewhere with you. What can I say? You speak offensively to others without cause. Knock it off. If you can't, then that makes the point of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman,

 

Did you say that " that makes the point of this"?

You aren't speaking offensively to me without cause, now are you?

 

Again, what part of 'you are right, and thank you' do you take me to task for?

 

Duder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman,

 

Did you say that " that makes the point of this"?

You aren't speaking offensively to me without cause, now are you?

 

Again, what part of 'you are right, and thank you' do you take me to task for?

 

Duder

I'll make one more attempt here... I was taking you to task for what I highlighted in red above. Saying "you are right, and thank you" in the context of what is in red above carries a meaning of contradiction and insincerity. That is what you are being called to task on. I have a hard time taking the tone of what I hightled above as being in good nature. Maybe you just can't control yourself and these thoughts just come out? I don't know. And no, I am not speaking offensively to you. I'm speaking factually. If I were speaking offensively it would be pointedly clear. I probably won't do that to you, as I think somewhere in there you mean well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.