Discussion With Wishful

[Ouroboros]

My religion - the Christian religion, is based on the Holy Bible.

So have you sold everything you own and given to the poor? Do you stone your unruly kids?

 

And if we are talking about God, the standard or the reference that should be used is the Holy Bible.

Which part? Old Testament version of God, or New Testament (and quite absent or vague) version of God?

 

If you do not believe in God and the Holy Bible as the Word of God which is the truth, there's nothing that we should talk about or our discussion would be endless and useless. Thanks a lot and may God bless you.

Good. That means we don't have to ban you. Bye bye!

 

It's a very interesting statement you make there though. You say "if you don't believe in MY God as I interpret the Bible ... then we shouldn't discuss." Basically you only discuss existence of God with people that agree with YOU! You only "prove" to believers that God exists. What's the point!?

[Jun]

It's a very interesting statement you make there though. You say "if you don't believe in MY God as I interpret the Bible ... then we shouldn't discuss." Basically you only discuss existence of God with people that agree with YOU! You only "prove" to believers that God exists. What's the point!?

 

This is a common trait among Philos - believe their interpretation of the bible or get lost. They have all these hundreds of little prayer groups that are all in variance with one another on doctrine and interpretation of the bible. They are quick to say hello and act all polite, but the minute you turn your back......................

 

The Philo community in Sydney that I was a part of for so long has divided itself into three separate groups that pretty much go all out to prove themselves better than the other. They are divided over one thing - "God" and what should or should not be done in church.

[arseniajoaquin]

My religion - the Christian religion, is based on the Holy Bible.

So have you sold everything you own and given to the poor? Do you stone your unruly kids?

 

And if we are talking about God, the standard or the reference that should be used is the Holy Bible.

Which part? Old Testament version of God, or New Testament (and quite absent or vague) version of God?

 

If you do not believe in God and the Holy Bible as the Word of God which is the truth, there's nothing that we should talk about or our discussion would be endless and useless. Thanks a lot and may God bless you.

Good. That means we don't have to ban you. Bye bye!

 

It's a very interesting statement you make there though. You say "if you don't believe in MY God as I interpret the Bible ... then we shouldn't discuss." Basically you only discuss existence of God with people that agree with YOU! You only "prove" to believers that God exists. What's the point!?

 

When the serpent talked to Eve, he said words that God did not utter. You did similar to me. That's up to you. Just ban me. Thanks.

[arseniajoaquin]

It's a very interesting statement you make there though. You say "if you don't believe in MY God as I interpret the Bible ... then we shouldn't discuss." Basically you only discuss existence of God with people that agree with YOU! You only "prove" to believers that God exists. What's the point!?

 

This is a common trait among Philos - believe their interpretation of the bible or get lost. They have all these hundreds of little prayer groups that are all in variance with one another on doctrine and interpretation of the bible. They are quick to say hello and act all polite, but the minute you turn your back......................

 

The Philo community in Sydney that I was a part of for so long has divided itself into three separate groups that pretty much go all out to prove themselves better than the other. They are divided over one thing - "God" and what should or should not be done in church.

 

I just want to make it clear that I am not one of the Philos you are referring to. What you quoted is not what I said. Thanks.

[arseniajoaquin]

My religion - the Christian religion, is based on the Holy Bible. And if we are talking about God, the standard or the reference that should be used is the Holy Bible. If you do not believe in God and the Holy Bible as the Word of God which is the truth, there's nothing that we should talk about or our discussion would be endless and useless.

 

Then, ask you I do, Why are you here?

 

Thanks a lot and may God bless you.

 

Maraming salamat po, and may Satan bless you.

 

While I was surfing I came across a subject matter which I wanted to react to but my reply did not register as I am not a member of the forum so I joined but I could no longer find what I wanted to reply to. I replied to some, and here. That's why I am here.

[Jun]

Ha ha! Satan Bless! She's back again!

[Ouroboros]

My religion - the Christian religion, is based on the Holy Bible.

So have you sold everything you own and given to the poor? Do you stone your unruly kids?

 

And if we are talking about God, the standard or the reference that should be used is the Holy Bible.

Which part? Old Testament version of God, or New Testament (and quite absent or vague) version of God?

 

If you do not believe in God and the Holy Bible as the Word of God which is the truth, there's nothing that we should talk about or our discussion would be endless and useless. Thanks a lot and may God bless you.

Good. That means we don't have to ban you. Bye bye!

 

It's a very interesting statement you make there though. You say "if you don't believe in MY God as I interpret the Bible ... then we shouldn't discuss." Basically you only discuss existence of God with people that agree with YOU! You only "prove" to believers that God exists. What's the point!?

 

When the serpent talked to Eve, he said words that God did not utter. You did similar to me. That's up to you. Just ban me. Thanks.

You say your religion is the Christian religion based on the Bible, and Jesus tell you to sell everything you own and give to the poor. Have you?

 

You also claim that Bible has a standard for how God is defined, but the God in the Old Testament does not have the same attributes as the God of the New Testament. So the Bible is not coherent or uniform in its definition of God.

 

The serpent didn't lie in the garden. Maybe he spoke things God didn't say, but he was right, their eyes would open and they did. God lied. And God set them up. God fixed the game. If anyone is evil, it's God and not the Devil.

 

Tell me, do you know how many people God killed in the Old Testament, compared to how many Satan killed?

[Ouroboros]

I just want to make it clear that I am not one of the Philos you are referring to. What you quoted is not what I said. Thanks.

That's right, Jun didn't quote you but me. And I made a comment based on following statement from you:

 

If you do not believe in God and the Holy Bible as the Word of God which is the truth, there's nothing that we should talk about or our discussion would be endless and useless. Thanks a lot and may God bless you.

 

You say here: "if you do not believe in God and the Holy Bible as the Word of God...there's nothing that we should talk about..." Which only means: you only talk to people who believe in God and the Holy Bible as the Word of God. So I was right. You only talk and discuss with people that agree to your version of God! That's what I said, and you say that's a lie, and yet above here is the quote from you that proves it. You consider it a waste to discuss with people who do not believe in God... then again... why the heck do you?

[R. S. Martin]

It's a very interesting statement you make there though. You say "if you don't believe in MY God as I interpret the Bible ... then we shouldn't discuss." Basically you only discuss existence of God with people that agree with YOU! You only "prove" to believers that God exists. What's the point!?

 

This is a common trait among Philos - believe their interpretation of the bible or get lost. They have all these hundreds of little prayer groups that are all in variance with one another on doctrine and interpretation of the bible. They are quick to say hello and act all polite, but the minute you turn your back......................

 

The Philo community in Sydney that I was a part of for so long has divided itself into three separate groups that pretty much go all out to prove themselves better than the other. They are divided over one thing - "God" and what should or should not be done in church.

 

Isn't this interesting. All communities have their own way of in-fighting. Seems to be the human condition. In North America Christians fight about being the One True Church or True Believers TM, etc. So the Philos fight about the same things but use other vocabulary--prayer groups instead of denominations. Europe has, or had, its state churches. When I took a religious studies course on Buddhism I was struck with the fact that Buddhists fought and split over doctrinal differences just like the Mennonites have always done and continue to do to this day.

 

So yeah, even the contemplative religionists will take up the sword against their bretheren and the pacifists will fight and devour each other.

[Jun]

It's a very interesting statement you make there though. You say "if you don't believe in MY God as I interpret the Bible ... then we shouldn't discuss." Basically you only discuss existence of God with people that agree with YOU! You only "prove" to believers that God exists. What's the point!?

 

This is a common trait among Philos - believe their interpretation of the bible or get lost. They have all these hundreds of little prayer groups that are all in variance with one another on doctrine and interpretation of the bible. They are quick to say hello and act all polite, but the minute you turn your back......................

 

The Philo community in Sydney that I was a part of for so long has divided itself into three separate groups that pretty much go all out to prove themselves better than the other. They are divided over one thing - "God" and what should or should not be done in church.

 

Isn't this interesting. All communities have their own way of in-fighting. Seems to be the human condition. In North America Christians fight about being the One True Church or True Believers TM, etc. So the Philos fight about the same things but use other vocabulary--prayer groups instead of denominations. Europe has, or had, its state churches. When I took a religious studies course on Buddhism I was struck with the fact that Buddhists fought and split over doctrinal differences just like the Mennonites have always done and continue to do to this day.

So yeah, even the contemplative religionists will take up the sword against their bretheren and the pacifists will fight and devour each other.

 

Yep, that's human nature it seems.

[Ouroboros]

And now with the article about Harris et.al. divided regarding the label "atheist". It seems that it is normal to disagree.

[Jun]

And now with the article about Harris et.al. divided regarding the label "atheist". It seems that it is normal to disagree.

 

Harris seems to have his nickers in a knot over a simple word.

[SWIM]

When the serpent talked to Eve, he said words that God did not utter. You did similar to me. That's up to you. Just ban me. Thanks.

 

 

In other words, I can't take the heat, so I am gettin out of the kitchen...

 

Chicken shit! LOL

[Jennywocky]

Where has Arsenia disappeared to--this woman who knows it all? Why didn't she do her research before she made her omniscient promises? Had she done some survey of what we know and need, she would hardly have made her blanket statements. Unfortunately, all some people need to see is an indication that here's a batch of people who are not Christians and these exist for only one purpose: to be converted. After all, the bible says so. They sat in great darkness.

 

I don't have an issue with the problems that were rightly raised by people here... but, gee, even not being in opposition to the arguments being made, *I* felt intimidated by the slew of aggressive posts.

 

Y'all sorta avalanched her, you know? And I don't even think English was her first language.

 

If your point is to sandbag someone, feel free... but if you want to dialog, you really need to build an interchange of ideas, little by little... not just dump on someone. Even if she was amenable to answering as honestly as she could, the sheer volume and [dubious] time investment was enough to scare her off.

 

You're free to do what you like, but what y'all are doing is heading off any real discussion before it occurs. Does that make sense?

 

Personally, I don't think she could have answered some of these questions anyway. Her only expertise was in translation, so all she can tell you is why a particular phrase/passage/word might be translated a particular way, and how far back that translation might run "accurately." (For example, we've got the timing of the Dead Sea Scrolls to compare later translations to, and see the accrual rate of any transmission errors.)

 

But the problem is that just because something was accurately translated back 1000-2000 years has no real bearing on whether the details and stories themselves are factually correct and/or true.

 

For that, you'd have to quiz a history expert.

 

Honestly, you won't find a ton of Christians out there who know a lot of this stuff. They either never had the interest, or they didn't have the time, or they didn't have the temperament. Realistically, you wouldn't expect someone in modern society to be an expert on ancient culture, language, and history unless they had a PhD... and the only reason I guess it is an issue here is because people are placing faith in and creating restrictions around the accuracy of these texts...

[Grandpa Harley]

IF one is going to build your life around the myhts of Bronze age savages, then try and sell the idea like it's a good one, you'd better be better read than the people you're selling to. Here, there is a demographic bump of people of ARE well read. If I started mouthing off about the Luminiferous Aether on a physics enthusiasts board, I'd expect to be handed my arse every third post. To sell something as 'historically accurate' you have to havew a solid ground in what IS the history in the first place. Push it like it's real, then expect to be challenged...

 

TBH, I've yet to see many Christian who've arrived here with anything to 'discuss'... 'discussion' is lower on their list of interests than the condition of the last stool I passed (BSFT Class 6 for the interested...) Generally, they're just fruit cakes who won't leave.

[Jennywocky]

IF one is going to build your life around the myhts of Bronze age savages, then try and sell the idea like it's a good one, you'd better be better read than the people you're selling to. Here, there is a demographic bump of people of ARE well read. If I started mouthing off about the Luminiferous Aether on a physics enthusiasts board, I'd expect to be handed my arse every third post. To sell something as 'historically accurate' you have to havew a solid ground in what IS the history in the first place. Push it like it's real, then expect to be challenged...

 

I actually do want to see challenges here, because I learn best by listening to two sides argue. (Each side is very good at knowing the weaknesses of the other position.)

 

I just also know that if you want to prolong a conversation, you have to approach it with some respect and a control over the information flow, rather than simply trying to succeed by crushing the opposition by sheer ill-will or drowning them in too much information. It's like removing a brain tumor with a mallet -- you kill the tumor... along with everything else.

 

Maybe there just aren't enough professing Christians showing up here who have the right knowledge to engage in a long fact-based discussion...? I have no idea.

 

TBH, I've yet to see many Christian who've arrived here with anything to 'discuss'... 'discussion' is lower on their list of interests than the condition of the last stool I passed (BSFT Class 6 for the interested...) Generally, they're just fruit cakes who won't leave.

 

Well, I would agree that lots of Christians go trolling... whether to try to "take a stand for God" or just to stir the nest, I have no idea. And all they usually have to offer is quoting from a book that the other side doesn't give credibility to. So it's misguided from the start.

[Guest N.T.Wrong]

I'm kinda new to this blogging thing. Nevertheless, I wish to comment.

 

I've been pretty skeptical about the reliability of the bible. After researching it a bit though it looks accurate. That is, the N.T. writers wrote down what they believed to be true. Whether the miracles happened or not, they believed they did.

 

Also, I found that there are some 5,400 ancient greek manuscripts of the N.T. and some go back to the first century. 1corinthians was wriiten at about 55 AD not leaving much room for developement of legends and myths. So, even if I don't believe that jesus rose from the dead, doesn't mean that a wrighter like Luke wasn't a historian. So if the greeks write about greek mythology we still consider those writers reliable and accurate.

[dr_funkenstein]

I've been pretty skeptical about the reliability of the bible. After researching it a bit though it looks accurate. That is, the N.T. writers wrote down what they believed to be true. Whether the miracles happened or not, they believed they did.

Believing in something does not make it true.

 

Also, I found that there are some 5,400 ancient greek manuscripts of the N.T. and some go back to the first century. 1corinthians was wriiten at about 55 AD not leaving much room for developement of legends and myths. So, even if I don't believe that jesus rose from the dead, doesn't mean that a wrighter like Luke wasn't a historian. So if the greeks write about greek mythology we still consider those writers reliable and accurate.

 

I see. So are we to accept the truth of the story of Hercules then? No. It's mythology, not history. Just like the Jesus story.

[Dhampir]

55 AD not leaving much room for developement of legends and myths.

That assumes that a. the story was written about 1 man, b. That one man, Jesus, was a historical figure, and c. that the story about a man born somewhere between 6 b.c. and 6 a.d. actually concerned man who lived that close to the time the story was written, as opposed to 100, 200, or even 500+ years prior.

[centauri]

1corinthians was wriiten at about 55 AD not leaving much room for developement of legends and myths.

 

That's about 25 years after Jesus was supposed to have died.

The legends surrounding U.S. military personnel Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were developed virtually overnight.

25 years is plenty of time to grow a legend into a whopper of a story.

[Ouroboros]

I'm kinda new to this blogging thing. Nevertheless, I wish to comment.

 

I've been pretty skeptical about the reliability of the bible. After researching it a bit though it looks accurate. That is, the N.T. writers wrote down what they believed to be true. Whether the miracles happened or not, they believed they did.

 

Also, I found that there are some 5,400 ancient greek manuscripts of the N.T. and some go back to the first century. 1corinthians was wriiten at about 55 AD not leaving much room for developement of legends and myths. So, even if I don't believe that jesus rose from the dead, doesn't mean that a wrighter like Luke wasn't a historian. So if the greeks write about greek mythology we still consider those writers reliable and accurate.

What do you know about the cargo cult?

 

If you don't know what it is. Look it up. It's a cult that developed, with myths and beliefs, on a far, remote, island, only in 50 years or so after WWII.

 

It does happen. And it can happen. And what do you know about the new religion called Raelians. The founder is still alive, and claim to have met aliens, and there's a whole slew of books and ideas and theories now. In less than 30 years. So nah, I don't buy into the ideas that it takes at least 500 years for myths to develop. It's just religious propaganda to stave off criticism.