Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[currentchristian]

mwc

 

 

Don't tell You Know Who I just bowed to you, but that last post was amazing.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

By any chance did his freshness date expire on the Ides of March?

 

mwc

 

Oh, that's just around the corner. I always tread carefully on the Ides of every month, but especially that one! You never know who the Brutus in your life is!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Now I get your theory. Thank you for coming at it again and again.

Oops, I hope you don't feel I was beating a dead horse, that wasn't my purpose. Actually I think in the discourse of this thread some things became a bit clearer for me too.

 

Are you calling me a dead horse? Well, I neeeeever....

 

-CC

[Dave]

...The NT is supposed to represent the word of a god. ...

This is what most Christians will tell you, but I see it otherwise.

I don't go by the taken out of context and rationalizations the christians tell me. I go by what the book itself says. The book claims to be the word of a god. All of the NT authors were very fond of preceding much of what they said with; "I tell you the truth....." Then there's Luke 11:28 "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." He claimed to be preaching the word of his god. That's just one I pulled out of my hat. I'm sure you could find more without searching too hard.

[Dave]

"You lost me when you went from the real to the imaginary/spiritual."

 

You didn't disagree with me Dave. You plainly stated you were lost....

 

You lost my interest. I was not lost in that I did not understand.

[mwc]

"You lost me when you went from the real to the imaginary/spiritual."

 

You didn't disagree with me Dave. You plainly stated you were lost....

 

You lost my interest. I was not lost in that I did not understand.

Are you this way in real life or do you just shove that stick up your ass when you sit down to type your messages?

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot you're a bit of a half-wit. D-o y-o-u j-u-s-t s-h-o-v-e t-h-a-t s-t-i-c-k u-p y-o-u-r a-s-s w-h-e-n y-o-u s-i-t d-o-w-n t-o t-y-p-e y-o-u-r m-e-s-s-a-g-e-s-?

 

Yes, Dave, this is an insult aimed at Y-O-U-! I hope you didn't get L-O-S-T in any of its many forms.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Are you calling me a dead horse? Well, I neeeeever....

Hmm... I think you're making way to much noise to be a dead horse.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

Are you this way in real life....

 

Do you really need to be that way? I don't read past the first insult so the rest of what you had to say went unread. It seems that you're just interested in a flame war that I will not participate in, so I'll just move on.

[Ouroboros]

Do you really need to be that way? I don't read past the first insult so the rest of what you had to say went unread. It seems that you're just interested in a flame war that I will not participate in, so I'll just move on.

Well I'm at loss what you guys are fighting over...

[mwc]

Are you this way in real life....

 

Do you really need to be that way? I don't read past the first insult so the rest of what you had to say went unread. It seems that you're just interested in a flame war that I will not participate in, so I'll just move on.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Do you really need to be that way? I don't read past the first insult so the rest of what you had to say went unread. It seems that you're just interested in a flame war that I will not participate in, so I'll just move on.

Well I'm at loss what you guys are fighting over...

Fight? No fight. Dave just likey to then claims to not . Gets all upset when he gets a little back. It's a habit in many threads he visits.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Fight? No fight. Dave just likey to then claims to not . Gets all upset when he gets a little back. It's a habit in many threads he visits.

 

If the sticks seems to be the problem, maybe we just need to get rid of the sticks then?

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

Well I'm at loss what you guys are fighting over...

So am I.

[Dave]

If the sticks seems to be the problem, maybe we just need to get rid of the sticks then?

They'd still find something to whine about. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not an agreement forum. Some just cannot handle being, politely, disagreed with.

[mwc]

They'd still find something to whine about. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not an agreement forum. Some just cannot handle being, politely, disagreed with.

True enough Dave.

 

Like we'd disagree over the definition of the word "lost" for example.

 

Or, perhaps, we'd get insulted when an apology gets an insult in return.

 

Maybe it's the word "politely" that's the problem?

 

Could it be "discussion" when you have nothing to contribute?

 

So many possibilities and no answers...not from Dave.

 

Let me refresh your memory to when you first arrived and Skeptic of Bible kindly informed YOU that YOU had HIS avatar. YOU told HIM that you simply chose the one that looked like you. Basically, "Hey, I know Skeptic of Bible that you were here first, but tough shit, I'm Dave, and I'll do what I please." As the newbie you should have changed your avatar.

 

In this very thread I apologized for my remarks and you simply came back with yet another snide remark. So what did I learn? That apologizing to Dave is like sticking my finger up old Dave's ass. It makes Dave feel good but it makes me feel dirty and my finger stinks.

 

Perhaps I'll join in with RubySera, and the growing bunch of "others," that seek your removal from the board? It's obviously US since it simply can't be YOU, right?

 

If manage to pull an original thought out and actually participate in these "discussions" you claim oh so much that you wish to participate in, then maybe, just maybe, I'll change my opinion...but don't bet on it. Your behavior on this site has become little more than a nuisance.

 

mwc

[Dave]

They'd still find something to whine about. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not an agreement forum. Some just cannot handle being, politely, disagreed with.

True enough Dave.

 

Like we'd disagree over the definition of the word "lost" for example.

Is your only interest in a flame war?

[mwc]

They'd still find something to whine about. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not an agreement forum. Some just cannot handle being, politely, disagreed with.

True enough Dave.

 

Like we'd disagree over the definition of the word "lost" for example.

Is your only interest in a flame war?

You like those words: "flame war." You use them in so many threads.

 

But you're absolutely right. I'm going to set all this aside once again...there. I'm doing this because I'm curious to see how you plan on discussing 2000 year old religion without the use of metaphor, analogies, the supernatural, the "spiritual" or anything of the kind while claiming to understand the mindset of those who wrote these stories.

 

The floor is yours Dave. Please, go ahead and get out whatever it is that you've been dying to say on the topic before I so rudely side-tracked it all by responding to your passive aggressive comment in regard to being "lost." As I recall we left off with you not believing in the "spiritual" and GO: <This is where you join in the discussion -- The floor is, as I said, yours>

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

If the sticks seems to be the problem, maybe we just need to get rid of the sticks then?

They'd still find something to whine about. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not an agreement forum. Some just cannot handle being, politely, disagreed with.

 

I don't think anyone here minds being disagreed with. It's the manner in which the disagreement is presented that sometimes leaves much room for improvement.

 

-CC

[Dave]

I don't think anyone here minds being disagreed with. It's the manner in which the disagreement is presented that sometimes leaves much room for improvement.

Openly, and in public?

[mwc]

Well, I'd like to take this time, as we're waiting for Dave to take the floor and enlighten us, to apologize to everyone in this thread (sans Dave since, as I'm sure you've all read my stance on apologizing to him ever again) for derailing the topic.

 

I had been enjoying the discussion up until that point and so, hopefully, we can get things rolling along again.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Openly, and in public?

Since your disagreement was apparently with what I said why don't you make your objection to me? Obviously I am not getting it so why don't you try to re-phrase it in a manner that perhaps I will understand?

 

That is, unless, you are going to simply take the floor and present your theory or theories instead? It is open for you do to so after all.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

I don't think anyone here minds being disagreed with. It's the manner in which the disagreement is presented that sometimes leaves much room for improvement.

Openly, and in public?

 

You are a very smart guy, Dave, and you know that is not what I was referring to.

 

Your answer, however, demonstrates very well why some have a hard time conversing with you.

 

Think about it.

 

-CC

 

P.S. Not that we all aren't hard to talk to sometimes.

[Dave]

I don't think anyone here minds being disagreed with. It's the manner in which the disagreement is presented that sometimes leaves much room for improvement.

Openly, and in public?

You are a very smart guy, Dave, and you know that is not what I was referring to.

 

Your answer, however, demonstrates very well why some have a hard time conversing with you.

 

Think about it.

I know exactly what you were referring to. Some here just cannot accept being disagreed with. And those that believe they have a hard time conversing with me... well.... they reap what they sow. Address me as an adult and act like an adult, and you'll get the same respect back from me. Treat me like an idiot, and you'll get that right back.... although I am learning to not respond to those that cannot treat others with respect.

[mwc]

Alrighty, since Dave seems to be able to visit the thread but does not wish to take the floor I figured I'd just hit the old "rewind" button and go back to the last "real" posting by him so that we might be able to get this thing moving forward again. If this isn't what he wishes to discuss he is always free to jump right in and tell me in greater detail what issue(s) he had with my post(s) and/or take the floor and present his ideas. Until then...

 

...The NT is supposed to represent the word of a god. ...

This is what most Christians will tell you, but I see it otherwise.

I don't go by the taken out of context and rationalizations the christians tell me. I go by what the book itself says. The book claims to be the word of a god. All of the NT authors were very fond of preceding much of what they said with; "I tell you the truth....." Then there's Luke 11:28 "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." He claimed to be preaching the word of his god. That's just one I pulled out of my hat. I'm sure you could find more without searching too hard.

Well, I have to agree with Dave...in part. The NT itself is a collection of books and so it can't claim anything as a result. Just as a public library doesn't claim a position based on the books it contains. Now some of those books claim to be the word of their god and by extension people try to make the entire collection the official word of this god (had it contained different books then they would be covered by the same umbrella as the ones that are there now).

 

But, the fact that a character in the book says that he is speaking on behalf of his god does not make that book, or the collection of books, the absolute word of that god. It makes those words the word of that god. Paul says he speaks on behalf of a god (supposedly the same god) but he also has sections where he says he speaks solely for himself. This would remove these sections from the "umbrella" so to speak.

 

I'd have to check but I wouldn't be surprised if more than the NT authors used statements like "I tell you the truth" and whatnot. It seems the logical thing to do when making a point and could be just a stylistic or translation issue (like some people say "Honestly" or "Truthfully" when speaking even though there's no need).

 

mwc

[mwc]

I don't think anyone here minds being disagreed with. It's the manner in which the disagreement is presented that sometimes leaves much room for improvement.

Openly, and in public?

You are a very smart guy, Dave, and you know that is not what I was referring to.

 

Your answer, however, demonstrates very well why some have a hard time conversing with you.

 

Think about it.

I know exactly what you were referring to. Some here just cannot accept being disagreed with. And those that believe they have a hard time conversing with me... well.... they reap what they sow. Address me as an adult and act like an adult, and you'll get the same respect back from me. Treat me like an idiot, and you'll get that right back.... although I am learning to not respond to those that cannot treat others with respect.

 

mwc