Hit And Run Xtians

[agnosticator]

I think you may have also picked up some patience too, of which I myself have lost in this thread.

I'm still waiting for LNC to prove he's a true Christian by drinking poison and surviving but he's apparently ignoring me in my own thread. The bloody coward.

 

That's because he's a "pick and choose" responder.

[Justin]

L4A, wow! He'll have trouble sitting down for days after that ass whoopin!

[Pandora Moon]

You can't really blame LNC for cherrypicking the bible since the bible contradicts itself many times over

[Ouroboros]

You can't really blame LNC for cherrypicking the bible since the bible contradicts itself many times over

True.

 

The only two ways of making sense of the Bible is to either take the religious believers path of cherry-picking, or the outsiders look seing it as the work of humans and evolving ideas of "God."

[LNC]

If you read the passages in question, you will find that in each case where Pharaoh had promised to let the Israelites go, god stepped in an hardened Pharaoh's heart. It was the hardening of Pharaoh's heart that caused Pharaoh to change his mind.

 

More importantly, we need to go back to the beginning of the story. After Moses meets god at the burning bush he is told to go and tell Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go. However, god made sure to tell Moses ahead of time that Pharaoh would not. Why? Because god would first harden his heart. Why? Because god desired to show himself mighty among the Egyptians. So god hardened Pharaoh's heart because it was a part of god's plan to show himself mighty in the midst of Egypt.

 

Pharaoh did not have a choice in the matter.

 

So, what is your understanding of what it means that God "hardened his heart"? That is the key issue. Can you show me that it nullifies Pharaoh's free choice? We could also explain that God knew that Pharaoh would not let the people go because he foresaw that Pharaoh's heart would be hardened by the actions that God performed (plagues). So, in that sense, God hardened Pharaoh's heart by bringing the plagues; however, in the same sense, Pharaoh chose tho harden his heart because of his hatred for the Israelites. But, you cannot say that Pharaoh did not have a choice in the matter, that is not coming from the text, but from your reading that into the text.

 

I can make a person angry by my actions, but it is still their choice to get angry. So, in one sense I could say that I made the person angry, but in the other sense, the person still chose to get angry. I didn't force them to get angry, but my actions may have made it easier for them to make that choice.

[LNC]

No, Samson did not. Again, you show your ignorance of the Bible that you claim to be so true. The nazarite vow was THRUST on Sampson while he was still in the womb. The angel that met with Manoah and his wife said the following to Manoah's wife when he first met her:[\quote]

 

But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean [thing]: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.- Judes 13:7

 

Samson had no choice. And when Samson did not do as per the vow that was thrust upon him (tried to exercise his supposed free will) he paid a heavy price for it ... eyes gouged out, enslaved and, ultimately, the loss of his life.

 

Let me give you the background of the Nazirite vow so that you will be better informed.

 

1And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2"Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, 3he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. 4All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.

 

5"All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.

 

6"All the days that he separates himself to the LORD he shall not go near a dead body. 7 Not even for his father or for his mother, for brother or sister, if they die, shall he make himself unclean, because his separation to God is on his head. 8All the days of his separation he is holy to the LORD. Numbers 6:1-6

 

And he told her all his heart, and said to her, "A razor has never come upon my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. If my head is shaved, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak and be like any other man." Judges 16:17

 

The reason that I include this is to show that Sampson participated in the Nazirite vow. The Nazirite vow couldn't be made by someone else, it had to be made by the person directly. Sampson's mother committed to keep him pure in his youth so that when he was old enough to make the commitment himself, he would still qualify. You really need to be more careful when accusing someone for not knowing the Bible when all you have is a cursory understanding of it yourself.

[LNC]

But you are making an assumption that what is written in the book of Acts is true. When was the book of Acts written in relation to the actual events? Where did Luke get his information? Many theologians surmise that Luke, at some point, began to travel with Paul as one of his companions. This is drawn from a change in the text of the book of Acts where the use of the group term changes to "we" indicating that Luke was now a part of the group (as opposed to words like "they"). However, Luke, if he is even the actual writer of the book of Acts, had to have gotten the stories from somewhere. Possibly even Paul (assuming that he did indeed travel with him). So he hears these words from Paul. Does that make it true?

 

According to Paul's teachings in the Bible, he was privately tutored by Jesus himself at one point. It is rather interesting (to me, at least) that no one else saw this in order to validate what Paul says. Personally, I think that Paul was running into a bit of trouble with people accepting his radical teachings and, as a result, he had to validate them by claiming that Jesus himself taught Paul. This is really not a far stretch when we see that many movements have started by the same claim (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc).

 

The Book of Acts was written before 70 A.D. according to the best scholars as it did not record the death of Paul (one of the main characters) or the fall of Rome, possibly as early as 62 A.D. The accounts recorded go from the early to mid 30s to the early 60s A.D. Luke got his information from his own experience (he spoke in the first person in the later chapters) and from second and third hand eyewitnesses. Paul's teachings were completely in line with the other Apostles (see Galatians 1) and if they weren't, they wouldn't have been so widely accepted by the rest of the church. His handling history has been considered impeccable by modern historians. Nothing that you have said would give reason to doubt the accounts.

 

The big difference between Christianity and, e.g., Mormonism, Islam, etc. is that we have multiple attestations to the same events. In Mormonism and Islam you have one recipient of the revelation with no second hand witnesses to that event, or no additional recipients to confirm the veridical nature of the revelation. The NT was written by 9 different people who all agree on the events and doctrine. Paul was no radical or lone ranger; he was completely in line with the other eight authors.

[Ouroboros]

The reason that I include this is to show that Sampson participated in the Nazirite vow.

There's no "Sampson" in the Bible. The person you're referring to is Samson. Šimšon, meaning "of the sun." (just an FYI) Wiki

 

Even the movie was called: Samson and Delilah. Wiki

 

Unless you have some special translation where "p" is added?

[Lady Wolf]

Alright then LNC. If you say so. I don't see being swallowed by a fish, spit out from near death, a choice.

Jonah choose to be swallowed by the fish, because he was naughty. God likes to play with people like that.

 

But I find it quite amazing that some people think this story to be true. Just think about it, a man swallowed by a fish, surviving for three days without drowning, without food or drinkable water, and embedded in digestive juices. It's obviously another fairy tale.

 

Hmmm it does say that God PREPARED a fish. To me this denotes that He may have even created a special type of fish that Jonah could survive in. If God is the creator of the universe, than He can make any kind of creature that He wants to, as well as use any type of substance to do so. I wonder if this "fish" was actually a submarine like object?? To Jonah and the Bible writers, it would be described as a fish, as that is the only thing they would have to compare it to...just some supposition here for discussion. Please carry on;)

[Dhampir]

Alright then LNC. If you say so. I don't see being swallowed by a fish, spit out from near death, a choice.

Jonah choose to be swallowed by the fish, because he was naughty. God likes to play with people like that.

 

But I find it quite amazing that some people think this story to be true. Just think about it, a man swallowed by a fish, surviving for three days without drowning, without food or drinkable water, and embedded in digestive juices. It's obviously another fairy tale.

 

Hmmm it does say that God PREPARED a fish. To me this denotes that He may have even created a special type of fish that Jonah could survive in. If God is the creator of the universe, than He can make any kind of creature that He wants to, as well as use any type of substance to do so. I wonder if this "fish" was actually a submarine like object?? To Jonah and the Bible writers, it would be described as a fish, as that is the only thing they would have to compare it to...just some supposition here for discussion. Please carry on;)

...Yeah, that could be. OR, it never happened. Ever. See how my explanation requires no follow ups? Occam's Razor. So sharp you can almost literally cut physical objects with it.

[Ouroboros]

I know! It was Nemo who picked up Jonah in his submarine, Nautilus. Simple. And it makes perfect sense. Nemo was sent by God to talk to Jonah, and try to convince him. So on their way to Nineveh, they talked and talked, until Jonah saw the importance of the project. Since Mr Deity had a interest in the wine production in Nineveh, and they had not paid enough protection money lately, so Jonah had to go there to convince them to pay. He was just afraid they would come after him with pitch-forks and shovels. That's why he was running away. But never try to cross the Godfather, never... he'll find ya' and make you do what he wants...

[Abiyoyo]

But never try to cross the Godfather, never... he'll find ya' and make you do what he wants...

 

Maybe Hans.

[Abiyoyo]

...Yeah, that could be. OR, it never happened. Ever. See how my explanation requires no follow ups? Occam's Razor. So sharp you can almost literally cut physical objects with it.

 

I read somewhere that it could have been a Great White Shark.

[Ouroboros]

I read somewhere that it could have been a Great White Shark.

Considering that people were a lot smaller back in those days, yeah, maybe he could have fit.

 

Or...

 

Maybe the white shark chewed him up into pieces, and then when he got to Nineveh, God magically put the pieces together again after the shark was stranded from a big wave.

[Neon Genesis]

The big difference between Christianity and, e.g., Mormonism, Islam, etc. is that we have multiple attestations to the same events. In Mormonism and Islam you have one recipient of the revelation with no second hand witnesses to that event, or no additional recipients to confirm the veridical nature of the revelation. The NT was written by 9 different people who all agree on the events and doctrine.

So, are you going to prove you're a true Christian by drinking poison and surviving or not?

[Abiyoyo]

So, are you going to prove you're a true Christian by drinking poison and surviving or not?

I did last night Neon, still here. Do you believe me?

[Neon Genesis]

I did last night Neon, still here. Do you believe me?

Why don't you go do it on live international TV and win a Nobel Prize then?

[Justin]

I can make a person angry by my actions, but it is still their choice to get angry. So, in one sense I could say that I made the person angry, but in the other sense, the person still chose to get angry. I didn't force them to get angry, but my actions may have made it easier for them to make that choice.

 

Actually, anger is pretty much involuntary. People have said or done things to me and before i knew what hit me i was angry. Who waits a second and says to themselves, "ok, should i get angry at this or not?". If you even have to ask yourself this question, then you are angry. You might as well say if you took a knife and stabbed someone in the arm that it is their choice whether or not to feel the pain. Or if you say something hurtful to them that it's their choice whether to get hurt or not. What a person does with that anger is their choice, but emotions are not chosen.

 

I think this is yet another example of moronic christian reasoning. Finding sin in areas and places were it cannot be helped and pretty much wanting people to apologize for being human.

[LNC]

I center my 'doctrine' around the premise of Jesus as the center, not Paul. Why did Paul carry on? Good question. How many miracles did Paul perform? You do know Paul was considered a Hellenistic Jew?

 

Yes, Jesus was the center of the NT and the long expected one of the OT. We do know that Paul performed miracles as Luke records in Acts 19:11, "God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul." In fact, I read about one of those miracles tonight with my family as recorded in Acts 13 when Paul condemned Elymas and blindness fell upon him. Paul also healed a lame man in Lystra and performed miracles in Iconium (Acts 14), healed demon possesed girl in Philippi (Acts 16), healed people in Ephesus (Acts 19), restores he life of Eutychus (Acts 20), heals the father of Publius and heals the sick in Malta (Acts 28). To that could be added is recovery from being stoned (Acts 14) and his survival of a snakebite on Malta (Acts 28), but those might be explained away by some. So, here are 8-10 occasions and some of those invovled mutiple events. I wonder why you ask this?

 

Yes, it is apparent that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew. He was from the tribe of Benjamin and a pharisee (Phil. 3:5) and was taught under Gamaliel (Acts 22:30). Paul was a Roman citizen by birth (Acts 22) and that got him out of at least one beating. He was born in Tarsus of Cilicia. Of what significance is it that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew?

[Abiyoyo]

Yes, it is apparent that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew. He was from the tribe of Benjamin and a pharisee (Phil. 3:5) and was taught under Gamaliel (Acts 22:30). Paul was a Roman citizen by birth (Acts 22) and that got him out of at least one beating. He was born in Tarsus of Cilicia. Of what significance is it that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew?

 

If he was Hellenistic, then he most likely was taught Greek philosophy, which shows in his writings, the difference between his writings and others. Probably why Peter and him had disagreements.

[LNC]

No. I feel Paul was trying to establish Judaism through the new concept of Jesus Christ, just as a Hellenistic Jew would do. Don't get me wrong, I think Paul is extremely important to the history and culture of Christianity, but his ways by his letters are implemented in modern church doctrine, and causes the diversity.

 

The thing is, his ways were different for each church he wrote, trying to help them with their specific problem areas.

 

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, "He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they glorified God because of me. Gal. 1:12-24

 

Again, I am not saying Paul was not for Jesus, just he had his own methods of establishing his churches. Hence, 300 years later, we have the Counsel of Nicaea because of different doctrines.

 

Sorry, I didn't read this post before posting the last post. I don't believe that the original intention of Paul or the rest of the early Apostles was to establish a new religion as they saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT prophesies. However, I see no reason that a Hellenistic Jew would seek to establish something different just because he was a Hellenistic Jew. The fact is that Paul was set out to persecute the church and to rid the land of them until he had his personal encounter with Jesus. Paul was in complete alignment with the rest of the leaders of the early church which is why he and Barnabas were sent out with the letter from the Jerusalem Council to go to Galatia to deliver it.

 

I don't see that Paul's letters differ in doctrine; however, he may be addressing specific areas of application with different churches as they had different questions or problems that he needed to address. However, if you compare, for example, the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, there is great similarity between them. The same could be said with Galatians and the later written, and more detailed letter to the Romans. However, I see no variations or contradictions in doctrine.

 

To say that Paul had a different method for establishing churches from Jesus would be correct as Jesus never directly established churches during his life. The church was established in Acts 2 and then various churches spread out from there. The passage that you refer to above is one snippet after he spent three years in the wilderness; however, right after Paul's conversion he went to Jerusalem (Acts 9:29) and spent time with Barnabas, where by the way, he disputed with the Hellenists. So I don't think you are quite on target with his Hellenistic background influencing his ministry. It seems that his teaching under Gamaliel had more impact. Anyway, from Jerusalem he went to Tarsus and we don't know how long he was there before his wilderness experience, nor what happened in the wilderness. So I think you are making an argument from silence here.

[LNC]

As I keep telling you, it's the other way around. So long as you worship a dictator like your god, you don't have freewill. The bible itself says you're a slave to Christ, so how can you have freewill as a slave for Jesus? If a kidnapper puts a gun to your head and tells you to do whatever he says or die, how is that free choice? Now replace the kidnapper with God and the gun with hell and explain to me how you xtians have free choice.

 

That is a nice ad hominem, but you still haven't explained in what way you could have free will as an atheist. Please explain.

 

Through quoting the verses you did, you just proved Paul had no direction from Jesus or the church leaders at all. In verse 12, Paul himself says no one taught him the gospel, he just received it from a "revelation" for which there is no evidence for occurring. And in verse 19, it says he saw none of the apostles expect James, the brother of Jesus, who wasn't even one of the original 12 apostles and didn't go out with Jesus during his ministry at all. Why didn't Paul see Peter, who was supposed to be the rock Jesus said he would be build his house on, not Paul? Or even one of the other two James who were the original apostles? But no, Paul decides to get a second hand account about Jesus from an apostle who wasn't even with Jesus during his ministry at all. And you want us to believe Paul's words are reliable? And tell me, where in the bible does Jesus say he approves of everything Paul preaches? And I don't want a quote from Paul or one of the apostles. I want one from Jesus himself.

 

Acts 9, Paul has a personal encounter with Jesus. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." (vs. 5, 6) OK, so Paul says that he had a direct revelation, which means that no human taught him, not that no one taught him. So, why does it matter that James wasn't one of the original 12, he still met the requirements of an apostle as he saw the risen Jesus (as did Paul who was also considered an apostle). You do not understand Scripture when you say that Peter was the rock that Jesus would build his house upon, that is actually Roman Catholic teaching, not Biblical doctrine. It was Peter's testimony that Jesus was the Christ that was the rock and Paul was testifying that same message. Again, when you say that Paul got a second had account means that you have either not read Acts 9 or you have not understood it. Here is what Paul heard on the road to Damascus, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." Paul received the gospel directly from the mouth of the risen Jesus. You can't get more first hand than that.

 

Acts 9 tells me that Jesus approves of what Paul preaches since he personally appointed him not only to eternal life but to preach the gospel. There, now you have your quote directly from the mouth of Jesus. Any other questions that you have?

[LNC]

Who's Job is it?

 

That would be the job of the Holy Spirit.

 

7Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. John 16:7-11

 

And God, the Father.

 

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved Ephesians 2:4

[LNC]

Will you please try to put these together in a way the makes some logical sense?

 

It's confusing: God the ALMIGHTY saves whom he intends to save. If he intends to save Joe, but Joe chooses not to put his trust in him, then God does not save whom he intended to save.

 

On the other hand by implication there must be those that God does not intend to save. He intends them to be damned. What if some of those choose to trust God? Oops, sorry fella but you don't have a ticket to ride. These people must be the umm Ex-Christians eventually.

 

Could be that God has chosen us for damnation, and that we disobeyed him by being Christian or trying rather. Therefore upon de-conversion we submitted to the perfect will of God i.e. to be the fuel for the fires of hell, so that y'all might understand what a good deal you got. Therefore by being the evil reprobates that we are, we are probably more perfectly abiding in the will of God than all you Christians that can't stop sinning.

 

We have freedom to sin and will be held accountable for that. However, in regard to salvation, as it says in Ephesians 2:1, we are dead in trespasses and sins, and dead people can't do anything about their situation. However, those whom God has chosen he makes alive in him (2:4) and once we are alive, we wouldn't want to choose anything else but to trust in him. No one will desire salvation apart from being made alive; however, we have enough information to know that God is alive and will be held accountable to that and we willingly choose to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and will be held accountable to that as well (both in Romans 1). We have chosen our own rebellion; however, God rescues some from the punishment as an act of love and mercy. He is not under any obligation to rescue any as we all deserve hell; yet, he lovingly rescues some anyway.

 

No one is in God's will by rebelling against him, sorry.

[LNC]

Then why aren't they all saved? I did not choose to not accept God. I accepted God. God proved to me by his absence that he was always absent and never present. Reluctantly I had to conclude that I am is really I am not.

 

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?" Well Brother LNC, I would have settled for a stone.

 

"Accepting God" is really a later concept that was created probably in the Charles Finney era. The Bible doesn't call on us to "accept" God or to "accept" Jesus. We are called upon to repent of our sins and to trust in Jesus and in his death and resurrection as a covering or payment for our sins. All are not saved as all have rebelled against God and God has only chosen to make some alive. We are all deserving of death, but God has lovingly chosen to save some from the punishment that we all deserve as a free act of grace, mercy and kindness.

 

I am not sure what you mean by your stone comment, please explain.