Jump to content

Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
17 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Will you knock it off with that crap already.

I dont know. Have you asked point blank? I sincerely apologize for missing it if you have but after all this time you still accuse me of dodging and playing games. Games are over. I have no reason to dodge. 

So ok...I believe a most consistent Christianity is Reformed. "Calvinist" bears an unfair connotation. 

 

But still, concise Creeds of Christianity are necessary. What is wrong with distilling the revealed doctrines of scripture down to organized points?

 

Well, I asked in several threads just for the sake of addressing the "real christian" issue. We can't get in to if we don't know from  what platform you're coming from. 

 

So whatever, fair enough. The answer is before us now to consider in any case. Here and in the debate now. 

 

I've been reading through the content. I want to understand it. I know it may seem to you like we're just hammering anything you say and that you're wrong by default all the time. But for crying out loud, what in the world else are we supposed to think? All of this content, every bit of this confessional content depends on the very apriori assumptions that we're debating. You literally have to take the underlying assumptions at face value because they are not supported by evidence outside of the belief that the bible proves the claims within the bible. 

 

And then, believing that the bible proves the bible, comes these "confessions" that you are calling so "organized." 

 

They may be organized points, but so what? What does that mean? I could organize a well structured set of doctrines and organized points based on taking Star Wars literally and at the end of the day not one bit of it happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. None of it means the force really exists. How do you not see this objectively? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 620
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I take it that "eat it" is Christianese for "fuck you."

I prayed to Jesus for 10 years.                                                                         William prays to Jesus now and I guess for quite a while now.  Jesus gave me a false pastor

Luth:  jesus is real   Ex-c chorus:  prove it   Luth:  I don't have to.  The bible already proved it.   Ex-c chorus:  so prove the bible is true.   Luth:  I don

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, Griffin said:

 

Great translation! If all Christians understand written words as such, my queries regarding how Christians think and understand things have been answered in one clear concise post. If I answer your question, what do you need to know next? What goes on in my bedroom? Perhaps a full confession so you can heal me with baby-talk?

You used words but didn't say anything.

Thus the equivalent of gibberish. Sad I had to explain that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
16 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Will you knock it off with that crap already.

I dont know. Have you asked point blank? I sincerely apologize for missing it if you have but after all this time you still accuse me of dodging and playing games. Games are over. I have no reason to dodge. 

So ok...I believe a most consistent Christianity is Reformed. "Calvinist" bears an unfair connotation. 

 

But still, concise Creeds of Christianity are necessary. What is wrong with distilling the revealed doctrines of scripture down to organized points?

 

Hmm I did do a double take here, because on one hand you are saying look at the Westminster COF as guidance as to what you think a Christian is, then you say you are a reformist? Am I understanding that right?

 

My understanding is that the Westminster creed is orthodox. To me reformist would by definition not agree with orthodoxy - hence the reformist part?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

You literally have to take the underlying assumptions at face value because they are not supported by evidence outside of the belief that the bible proves the claims within the bible. 

Not true. They take the historical evidence that you deny. The people and events are verifiable. This is why Confessions are by committee and not individuals telling us what they think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
8 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Not true. They take the historical evidence that you deny. The people and events are verifiable. This is why Confessions are by committee and not individuals telling us what they think. 

 

History is a strong suite around here. One of the main points about history, in and of itself, is that it's largely based on uncertainty. 

 

I dare you to go there and present the evidence that you assume at face value is so certain.  We were headed there anyways so you may as well do the honors....

 

We're over 5,000 views in the side gallery. Only 2,000 views in the debate. Compare that to every other recent thread in the Den. This thing is hot and I assume people want to see more action! And they'll get their wish by the looks of things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Hmm I did do a double take here, because on one hand you are saying look at the Westminster COF as guidance as to what you think a Christian is, then you say you are a reformist? Am I understanding that right?

 

My understanding is that the Westminster creed is orthodox. To me reformist would by definition not agree with orthodoxy - hence the reformist part?

 Not reformist. Reformed. Products of the Protestant Reformation. The Reformed Creeds and Confessions. Yes we say they are Calvinistic.

What was the nature of the Reformation? Why was it necessary? It seems you can recognize orthodoxy exists. If it does, there must be the Unorthodox which can be identified.  The false against the true.

Isn't  that what is denied here left and right? Nobody knows for sure , bibles not clear, yada yada yada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

We're over 5,000 views in the side gallery. Only 2,000 views in the debate.

I apologize for that too. Seriously, the discussion with you is my primary concern. All my research material is home and that's where I engage with you. However, I allowed myself to get sucked into other threads during the day on my phone over work breaks and this Side Gallery where I told you I refused to go. But there is soooo much misrepresenting and confusion, IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Griffin said:

 

Typical. If Christianity is true, then Christianity is false. Rome did a bunch of councils by committee too. If they didn't hold those councils there would be no Bible. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of people didn't fair well after that.

More oob gooba joob.

Revisionist at best; uninformed at worst.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
8 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

More oob gooba joob.

 

Actually the last three sentences are all true.

 

The early Church and bible was largely decided by the Council of Nicea 325 AD...? around then anyway.

 

And yep, the heretic burnings, witch hunts, crusades, wars... all resulting from the Christian religion of the time. Pretty sure that meets the criteria of people not faring well.

 

And don't bother giving not true Christians crap. I'm pretty sure the people back then thought they were doing the good lords work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

The early Church and bible was largely decided by the Council of Nicea 325 AD...? around then anyway.

The Council of Nicea was not was not was not to the purpose of forming scripture.

5 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

And yep, the heretic burnings, witch hunts, crusades, wars... all resulting from the Christian religion of the time. Pretty sure that meets the criteria of people not faring well.

Some bad; some good. But to you its only bad bad bad. ALL people did not fare well? Much of society was blessedly enhanced. But im sure yiu refer to only a tiny tiny sliver of time and geography to demand your maliced point. You would be Muslim today. The USA would not exist.

 

6 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

And don't bother giving not true Christians crap. I'm pretty sure the people back then thought they were doing the good lords work.

Those responsible for making the "church" a political engine? Absolutely not. 

"The people back then" WHO????

Regular society? Those working quietly and peaceably with their hands, caring for their families etc? Or the ruling Pope(s) and their political machine in the name of God? The usurpers of authority in overstepping the bounds of Christisnity. 

Don't bother giving me YOUR crap.

Get your facts straight. That's supposed to be a priority around here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Actually the last three sentences are all true.

 

The early Church and bible was largely decided by the Council of Nicea 325 AD...? around then anyway.

 

And yep, the heretic burnings, witch hunts, crusades, wars... all resulting from the Christian religion of the time. Pretty sure that meets the criteria of people not faring well.

 

And don't bother giving not true Christians crap. I'm pretty sure the people back then thought they were doing the good lords work.

     The Council of Nicea was because of Arias.  It was to settle the controversy of the nature of jesus.  This is where we now have the Nicene Creed (it has been changed a little a couple of times since then).  Anyhow, Arias was booted from the church but was allowed back later-on though while he was travelling back he died (I believe he was poisoned but I can't recall off-hand).  A number of Arians were in the court of Constantine and continued teaching things that were similar to what was counter to the Nicene decision and these things were spread among the barbarian nations.  So not only did Arianism survive in Rome for the next century but it survived outside Rome for well over 1500 years (and even returns sporadically but not with the same sort of energy).

 

          mwc

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mwc said:

     The Council of Nicea was because of Arias.  It was to settle the controversy of the nature of jesus.  This is where we now have the Nicene Creed (it has been changed a little a couple of times since then).  Anyhow, Arias was booted from the church but was allowed back later-on though while he was travelling back he died (I believe he was poisoned but I can't recall off-hand).  A number of Arians were in the court of Constantine and continued teaching things that were similar to what was counter to the Nicene decision and these things were spread among the barbarian nations.  So not only did Arianism survive in Rome for the next century but it survived outside Rome for well over 1500 years (and even returns sporadically but not with the same sort of energy).

 

          mwc

Yayyyyyyy!🙆‍♂️ 

I sure hope you won't be in trouble for correcting a couple of your own. But it's appreciated here!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
32 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Yayyyyyyy!🙆‍♂️ 

I sure hope you won't be in trouble for correcting a couple of your own. But it's appreciated here!

 

I am going to personally hunt MWC down and poke him to death with a toothpick.

.

.

.

But no, we don't get 'in trouble' for correcting people. My mistake, clearly my memory and knowledge wasn't up to the task. I had recalled from my studies that it was at Nicea they formed the first official creed (hence the early church) and largely decided on the cannon bible. 

 

 

Oh just re reading your statement about Nicea. I never thought they were about forming scripture. I thought they were the ones that decided as to what writings were.. hmm how do we put it... inspired to be included as canon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

Some bad; some good.

 

There is no part where burning people alive because they disagree with you can ever be "good".

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

But to you its only bad bad bad.

 

I was pointing out some very specific atrocities committed in the name of God. But yeah, I think that "religion poisons everything".

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

ALL people did not fare well?

 

All? Did I say "all"? Please go back and check, by I could swear that I was specifically referring to people killed by the church not faring well. Maybe we simply have a difference of opinion and that its possible for a person burned alive to be, how you say? "Blessed".

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

Much of society was blessedly enhanced.

 

Here we disagree. We'll never know what could have been, but humanity would be better off without the horror of religion. Everything good in religion can also be provided in the absence of religion, but for all the bad of religion, it can only be in the presence of religion. I'm talking both practically and philosophically here. In order to determine if society was in fact blessed we'd have to run a parallel society with the same people in the same time and see which one was "blessed". The one with religion, and the one without. Of course it's impossible to run such an experiment.

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

But i'm sure you refer to only a tiny tiny sliver of time and geography to demand your maligned point. You would be Muslim today. The USA would not exist.

 

No, pretty much atrocities have been committed in the name of God pretty much for 2000 years. People still do terrible shit because they think God is on their side. Thankfully no on as large a scale as they used to.

 

Without Christianity we don't even know if Islam would have ever arose. 

 

And we don't know if the USA would have existed in a different form, or a better form.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

Yayyyyyyy!🙆‍♂️ 

I sure hope you won't be in trouble for correcting a couple of your own. But it's appreciated here!

     It seems that LF is going to poke at me with a toothpick.  I'm not sure if that's better or worse than death by a thousand paper cuts.  Other than that who knows what might happen?

 

     Constantine did order bibles sent to his new capital so he may have played a role in the canonization process through this order (while not actually setting canon).  As far as I know the only source for this is Eusebius and there are no known surviving copies of these bibles so there's no way to know exactly what they contained or how they compare to our current versions.  All we have are a number of early codices but they can't be shown to have been produced by this order.  It wasn't until Trent that they set the canon (I don't always remember this).

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

It's funny how many..."

Maybe but don't include me in that group. I'm not telling you that.  Never have

You included yourself in that grouo through your actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
7 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Oooby gloob. Jooba oob gloob. Ooma jooby jooby gloob. And furthermore,  mumba umba jummy joo joo. 

Are you a pentecostal calvinist?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
7 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I apologize for that too. Seriously, the discussion with you is my primary concern. All my research material is home and that's where I engage with you. However, I allowed myself to get sucked into other threads during the day on my phone over work breaks and this Side Gallery where I told you I refused to go. But there is soooo much misrepresenting and confusion, IMHO.

 

7 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Nobody knows for sure , bibles not clear, yada yada yada.

 

Or is it, Yoda, Yoda, Yoda? 

 

image.jpeg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Oh just re reading your statement about Nicea. I never thought they were about forming scripture. I thought they were the ones that decided as to what writings were.. hmm how do we put it... inspired to be included as canon.

That's what I meant...forming the canon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
1 minute ago, LuthAMF said:

That's what I meant...forming the canon.

 

Just an aside, if you like interacting with everyone go ahead. You're not limited to just the debate. That's what I meant about 5,000 views. People are watching the side gallery. I'm guessing that christians are contributing to the view spikes. Probably christforums members? Squaring off with the ex christians (dammed, lost, unelect, etc., etc.) must be entertaining. 

 

Let the games continue as I see it. Here, there, and where we allow this sort of thing. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Just an aside, if you like interacting with everyone go ahead. You're not limited to just the debate. That's what I meant about 5,000 views. People are watching the side gallery. I'm guessing that christians are contributing to the view spikes. Probably christforums members? Squaring off with the ex christians (dammed, lost, unelect, etc., etc.) must be entertaining. 

 

Let the games continue as I see it. Here, there, and where we allow this sort of thing. 

 

 

"You're not limited to just the debate."

No, but I was trying to be. 

 

"I'm guessing that christians are contributing to the view spikes."

From what I can see, there's no identifiable Christians here to spike punch. Who and where are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Griffin said:


I've always said we teach what we know. Thanks again for the refresher course in baby-talk.

Then why are you attempting to teach something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Griffin said:

 

Everybody is a teacher and a student. Everybody. Infants teach their parents and parents teach their infants. It cannot be any other way. I feel your immature replies really  don't do you or your posts, cause, whatever you want to call it, any favors. If you are evangelizing for Christianity, you need to know you're not doing a very good job - but you do go a long way to make Christians look, well, you figure it out.

Well, don't think I've encountered you here before but this is the pattern. A discussion goes rolling along and then someone, whether it's me or you, pops off with a smart aleck comment and it becomes a target. So you popped off with

"

  14 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I let John 3:16 be my answer. 

 

I once believed in Santa Clause but now I know he isn't real.

 

Now I think (But who cares what I think, right?) that what you wrote is a common and really, really REALLY ridiculous comparison. To me, you may as well have said "Ooob gooba..." well you figure it out.

 

Now that we got the formalities out of the way, we can end the sarcasm.

 

So please...say something sensible 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.