Very religious equals not very Christian.

ejmaztec

Canis Lupus wrote: »

It really gets on my nerves when atheists are now branded as 'know it alls' etc simply because we question the existence of a god. However, throwing insults won't make us go away

I didn't insult anyone, I just offered sound advice.

I also haven't branded anyone, and haven't even mentioned atheists.

Porkchop McGee

Esel wrote: »

Do Christians believe all the stuff in the Old Testament as well? If not, why not? Can you really pick and choose?

You can't, realistically. It's either truth or it's fiction. As we move on, our knowledge of the past increases and, with that, more and more of it is exposed as fabrication. Some choose to cling to the threads of what they believe and conveniently ignore what they used to believe, some accept reality and move on.

kylith

Porkchop McGee wrote: »

You can't, realistically. It's either truth or it's fiction. As we move on, our knowledge of the past increases and, with that, more and more of it is exposed as fabrication. Some choose to cling to the threads of what they believe and conveniently ignore what they used to believe, some accept reality and move on.

Some Christians would have you believe that some of it is truth, some is fiction, some is both, and all of the above depends on context, whatever point they're trying to make, and how stupid that particular verse makes them look.

BrensBenz

OP,
2.1 billion Christians and you've checked 3(?) cranky wrinklies. When I try to calculate that sample size as a percentage, my Argos calculator gives me a very long number with an "E" at the end. You may have to add a few more Christians to your sample before the opinion-forming and solidifying processes.
Sadly, your children may be too young to grasp the arithmetical concept - they might assume that all wrinklies are cranky. I know several wrinklies: they're not cranky - therefore no wrinkly is cranky.
In fact, 98.3873107% of concrete-clad opinions expressed by boardies, regarding, say, gender-based behaviour; cities; drivers; parents, cars, etc. are based on similarly sized samples. This was also calculated on my Argos calculator. Admittedly, the buttons are small and my fingers are a little fat - therefore all Irishmen have fat fingers. Right?

housetypeb

It always strikes me as odd how Christians say that they have a "personal" relationship with Jesus, and at the same time every Christian will admit,and feel guilt about,the fact that they have fallen short of the ideals set by him even though they're trying their best.
They actually put themselves willingly into an imaginary abusive relationship.

krudler

housetypeb wrote: »

It always strikes me as odd how Christians say that they have a "personal" relationship with Jesus, and at the same time every Christian will admit,and feel guilt about,the fact that they have fallen short of the ideals set by him even though they're trying their best.
They actually put themselves willingly into an imaginary abusive relationship.

This, original sin is an abhorrent concept.

TwoShedsJackson

It seems we have once again passed the 'Philologos Horizon' (c) where he ignores the thread for all eternity and rehashes the same malarkey next time around.

dpe

Getting back to the OP, I took the family to a protestant church in Dublin a couple of weeks ago (for reasons too long and complicated to go into - going to church isn't my thing as a rule) and couldn't have had a more different experience to the OP. Everyone in the congregation (and the vicar) was delighted to see my little boy (10 months) and couldn't have been more welcoming. Frankly I think the OP was just unfortunate to find a church full of dicks, doesn't mean anything about the niceness (or otherwise) of religious people in general.

Leftist

dpe wrote: »

Getting back to the OP, I took the family to a protestant church in Dublin a couple of weeks ago (for reasons too long and complicated to go into - going to church isn't my thing as a rule) and couldn't have had a more different experience to the OP. Everyone in the congregation (and the vicar) was delighted to see my little boy (10 months) and couldn't have been more welcoming. Frankly I think the OP was just unfortunate to find a church full of dicks, doesn't mean anything about the niceness (or otherwise) of religious people in general.

maybe he was unlucky but I've had a similar experiences in catholic mass before.

the last time was in rathmines about 2 years ago. Some auld one berated a bunch of us just before kick off because we wouldn't immediatly volunteer to dish those wicker money baskets about when she barked over at us. Right nasty one. She was probs the kind of bag to be outside a church telling everyone an accused/convicted priest was a 'good man' because he gave her the time of the day.

Lay people are creepazoids.

Duggy747

When I was a kid, I once got a hard slap at the back of the head by an aul, half-dust, wench of a hag for not blessing myself as I left the church.

She called me a little brat for not respecting God's house to which the rest of her collection of old witches starting tutting and clucking to each other about me

gbee

Duggy747 wrote: »

When I was a kid, I once got a hard slap .............

Noon, me a kid too, middle of town, Cork, it was busier than it is today back then, more industry, more people living over shops and factories etc.

Anyway, I saw my favourite comic book being delivered to the shop across the street, so I rush down stairs, out the door and race across the junction as the Angelus rings out.

I am grabbed by a ninety year old man, already on his knees with rosary beads and he demanding that I kneel, horse and motor traffic is stopped, drivers kneeling beside their cargoes, most people already kneeling and looking at me as if I'm the Antichrist [hmmmm. maybe they were right?] Disbelief turned to shudders and limb hands as I told him to F/O and I wrenched my arm away and shouted abuse at the others and crossed the road to get my comic.

otto_26

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I answer all posts directed at me actually

No sorry you never gave me the money trail... an unanswered post. which was followed by steps 4 and 5 by you which I claimed earlier.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I will not do however is go back and reply to a post that was just you taking my own post and copy and pasting it back at me because you are unable to write a post of your own. The Moderators already pulled you up on that one, warned you about it, and asked you not to do it again.

As you ask unanswerable questions wanting proof I simply change the wording and send the post back to you... Instead of making a point and answering the post you simply complain that I copied and pasted your post back to you. You do this instead of answering because you also cannot answer the post I sent you because you also cannot give me any proof..

So actually I'm well able to write my own posts thank you! If you need any further proof!! just have a read of the great post by me you replied too on this thread!!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have a policy of replying to every post directed my way if and when possible. So your accusation above is just spurious.

Well your policy needs reviewing as you never gave me a money trail and also ignored my posts requesting such. So my accusation above is very much accurate.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just making stuff up now aren't you. There are 1000s of threads on boards of a spiritual and religious nature. Claiming I post on EVERY SINGLE one of them is a wild claim and you are going to have a hard time backing that one up.

nozzferrahhtoo when you back up your claims and show me the money trail ill gladly back that up for ya! or were you just making stuff up!!!! Or did you read about the magical money trail in your bible! You know when you read and hear stuff that supports your beliefs you take it as the gospel truth!!

philologos

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

It seems we have once again passed the 'Philologos Horizon' (c) where he ignores the thread for all eternity and rehashes the same malarkey next time around.

I work every weekday. It's incredibly unlikely that I'll be able to address your posts thoroughly in the window from 9 - 6.

Part of what working means for me as a Christian is that I work as hard as I can for my boss, and glorify God in every single thing that I do (Titus 2:9, Colossians 3:23-24).

If you feel that I've missed a post that you really want a response to. PM me with the link to the post.

I won't probably be able to get around to every post, but I will get around to as much as I can. As for reasons why I believe and trust in Jesus and the Gospel, I've given you one already (which hasn't been once satisfactorily addressed since I posted it 3 years ago) and I can give you more. Addressing each one at a time is the best way to do this from my perspective.

My ground rules at their most basic involve the discussion occurring with respect and with good manners.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

Whats this "we" business? God basically condemned mankind because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat some magical fruit, then sent his son, who is also himself, to die so he could bend his own rules a bit. Thats Christianity in a nutshell.

God created the world with standards for our own benefit. What's surprising about this?

krudler wrote: »

Sin is a man made concept, nothing more, nothing less.

What's man made about wrongdoing other than that man often does it? -Are you honestly telling me that you've never done anything wrong in your life?

krudler wrote: »

Why wouldn't I turn my back on god if he actually existed? He's a bullying, child slaughtering genocidal asshole of the highest order, demanding worship and servitude like a spoilt child demands its parent's attention.He's let countless unspeakable acts be done in his name and stood idly by while sheer lunacy is carried out to appease him. Do I reject god? absolutely I do.

If we compare man's attitude to God, to what God did for us through Jesus - it becomes rather clear. I think without Biblical passages being provided I can't address what you're claiming God has actually done.

Just curious, do you think the judge and the State would be acting like a child if you broke the law and were punished rightly for it? Or is this only an objection to God's sovereignty?

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't know why you bother wasting your time on this, you're clearly outnumbered by the angry nouveau religious persecutors on here.

I post here for two very simple reasons.

1) That misconceptions about the Gospel and about Jesus would be clarified and that God's holy name would be glorified.

2) That other people who read this will see that there is really a debate on these issues and that they would consider this further in their own time.

The Bible tells us that Christians will be outnumbered. I have no issue with this. God will have the last word.

kylith wrote: »

Firstly the gospels were written not in English, obviously, but probably in Greek, then translated into Latin, then into Middle English, and translated on from there. Although it could have gone Hebrew-Greek-Latin-Etc, or even Aramaic-Hebrew-Greek-Latin-Etc. There is no way for you to know that the gospel in your bible is textually the same as the original gospel unless you a) are able to read 2000 year old Greek and b) can convince the pope to let you have a look at them. Of course, I guess that you're taking the same 'proof' that the bible hasn't been altered from the original text as you do for the existence of god, i.e. someone said that it hasn't been altered. Of course, don't forget that the translations were done by hand, and it wasn't unheard of for simple misspellings to creep in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Considerations_for_a_new_version

Obviously it was written in Greek and Hebrew. Obviously translations are not perfect. This has nothing to do with Biblical authenticity. What I am referring to is analysis of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament carried out by Biblical scholars using historical criterion. Quite a lot of people do read the Biblical Hebrew and the Biblical Greek, and thankfully there are a variety of good concordances that can be used for one who doesn't have a good knowledge of either.

The fact of the matter is that the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament when they are compared show that no significant changes have been made since the first century.

Please actually read my signature posts 'Why trust the Bible?' if you want to actually understand what I'm arguing.

kylith wrote: »

Secondly; The emperor Constantine, I think it was, was the one to decide that all the various biblical stories should be gathered together in a book. This was some time in the 4th century. It's largely accepted that the various books of the NT were originally sometime between 45CE and 90CE, at least 12 years after the alleged death of Jesus. How reliable would you consider an eye witness account of an even 17 years ago? Even if we accept that the bible hasn't been changed since Constantine collected those 1st century writing, how reliable is a copy of a copy of a copy of eyewitness testimony from 300 years ago?

This is a poor argument. Although the Biblical canon was codified at the Council of Nicea the New Testament texts were all verifiably used and actively quoted in the Christian church from the first century. We know this from church fathers who wrote after the Apostolic period. The criteria for the canonisation of the Bible was quite simple. It was based on time period, active usage in the church, and if New Testament texts were written by Apostles in the church and were based on eyewitness testimony.

From a previous post:

If you see what I've argued concerning Galatians and the historicity of Paul and his conversion to Christianity it becomes rather difficult to argue that the Gospels are forgery considering that:
1) Paul was a convert to Christianity and received the Gospel from others,
2) His timeline leaves us (54 - (17 + years between the events he describes and Galatians being written). Subtracting that time from the commonly accepted date for the authorship of Galatians leaves us with very little time for a Gospel to be concocted.
3) Galatians and other writings of Paul including 1 Corinthians affirm the Gospel.
4) Therefore we must conclude that central teachings of the Gospel were established long before Paul was converted, and soon after Jesus returned to the Father.

So structurally we have something like this:

33 (Jesus crucified) + X (time from Jesus until Paul converted) + 17 (from Paul's conversion to the events he described) + Y (time from these events until Galatians was written) = 54.

Considering the Christian church was actively preaching for several years before Paul, this leaves very little time for the Gospel to have been cobbled together as fiction.

kylith wrote: »

Thirdly: The missing gospels. There are dozens of gospels that didn't make it into the bible. Why didn't they make the cut? What do they say that those men in ~300CE didn't want people to know? Gospels written by everyone from Peter (seriously, the first pope's gospel didn't make the final cut?) and Mary Magdalene, to Judas himself (Judas says that Jesus asked him to call the Romans, btw).

This argument is also poor. The reason why these texts weren't selected was because all of them were written down centuries after Jesus and there is no way that eyewitnesses could have contributed to them. This isn't true in the case of the New Testament.

kylith wrote: »

So there you have it; We can't know that the gospel today says what it originally said due to multiple retranslations over time, the gospels were apparently written between 12 and 60 years after the events they purport to document, and dozens of gospels were disregarded by Constantine's bishops in the 4th century because they did not fit with the story these guys were putting together.

There I have what exactly? You've not made an argument yet. If you read my signature you'd see that there is a good argument considering that the first New Testament texts were written by a convert that the beliefs that were later communicated in the Gospel were believed from before Paul. If we look to Galatians we see that Paul gives an extensive timeline which takes us back to His conversion.

kylith wrote: »

And my favourite bit: The Wicked Bible, which has a wonderful typo commanding people that they "shalt commit adultery". Kind of a shame they caught that one, it could have made Christianity a lot more fun, in a hippie love-in kind of way.

See first paragraph. I'm talking about the Greek manuscripts.

Can you please read my signature link before responding to this? This one deals with translations.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

God created the world with standards for our own benefit. What's surprising about this?



What's man made about wrongdoing other than that man often does it? -Are you honestly telling me that you've never done anything wrong in your life?


Just curious, do you think the judge and the State would be acting like a child if you broke the law and were punished rightly for it? Or is this only an objection to God's sovereignty?

Course I've done wrong, everyone has, but you're talking about sin from birth, which is a ludicrous notion. Mankind is forever doomed to get back on gods good side because he was outsmarted by a talking snake. A talking snake. Although this is the same god who chooses to communicate to single individuals via flaming shrubbery instead of appearing en masse so proof of his actual existence could be a bit more valid, so hey.

nozzferrahhtoo

otto_26 wrote: »

No sorry you never gave me the money trail... an unanswered post. which was followed by steps 4 and 5 by you which I claimed earlier.

No it was you that made the claim that she spent the money on good things. You were asked to back this up. You did not show the money trail. You yourself admitted there was none to follow. That is why we called you on the claim. If you are going to lie, try not to be this transparent about it.

otto_26 wrote: »

I simply change the wording and send the post back to you...

If you can not write your own words and posts that is your problem not mine. The mods warned you about it and I said I would happily reply to you when you wrote a post in your own words. You failed to. So I did not reply. The offer is still open, as is the thread. So any time you are ready to step back in I am there for you. I will not hold my breath that you have the guts though. Why you need to derail someone elses thread to cover your fear of going back to that thread though is beyond me. But it is not fair on the OP.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

Course I've done wrong, everyone has, but you're talking about sin from birth, which is a ludicrous notion. Mankind is forever doomed to get back on gods good side because he was outsmarted by a talking snake. A talking snake. Although this is the same god who chooses to communicate to single individuals via flaming shrubbery instead of appearing en masse so proof of his actual existence could be a bit more valid, so hey.

Am I? Why don't you ask me first before assuming things about me and what I believe?

This isn't what the Gospel teaches. Biblically, we've all fallen short of God's glory by our own sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that I am guilty of Adam's sin. Rather that all humanity is inclined towards sin as a result of the fall.

We've all consciously done what is evil rather than what is good. That's what sin is Biblically.

otto_26

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No it was you that made the claim that she spent the money on good things. You were asked to back this up. You did not show the money trail. You yourself admitted there was none to follow. That is why we called you on the claim. If you are going to lie, try not to be this transparent about it.

Lies Lies and more Lies.... You are the one that claimed she mishandled her charity money not me...I asked you for the money trail which you could not do... You were called on your claims she mishandled her money and now your following your steps 4 and 5. Complaining and using lies as excuses...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you can not write your own words and posts that is your problem not mine.

WOW you really need to concentrate more please... I thought I told you if you needed proof about my brilliant posts to refer to the first post you replied to from me within this thread?? but then you post the above :rolleyes: which further adds to my claims of you following yours steps 4 and 5 when you get called....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The mods warned you about it and I said I would happily reply to you when you wrote a post in your own words. You failed to. So I did not reply.

Lies Lies and more Lies please show me where the mods warned me about copying and pasting others posts? :eek: They certainly did nothing of the sort to me ... Reading your bible again??!!

You did not reply because you got called out on your claims i.e money trail so again you followed your steps 4 and 5.....:rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The offer is still open, as is the thread. So any time you are ready to step back in I am there for you. I will not hold my breath that you have the guts though. Why you need to derail someone elses thread to cover your fear of going back to that thread though is beyond me. But it is not fair on the OP.

Look when you beat someone in a thread the way I did to you and they try and try again to get you to reply to them within that thread like the way you have above....Its just boring for me I need a new challenge.... you were called and followed steps 4 and 5... and then 6.... I called you on your post within this thread do you reply to it step by step and answer each call......No you follow your steps 4 and 5 and next week prob in a new thread step 6!

Please nozzferrahhtoo my face is going red out of embarrassment for you....

nozzferrahhtoo

Again I am not about to derail this thread because you ran away from another one. If you want to go back to that thread and post your claims about Agnes then do so. I am there for you if you are not too scared. Apologies to the other users for the derailment of this thread. If you are so sure about your claims about agnes then simply slink back into the thread you slinked out of and post a post in your own words. I am offering to reply to your post if you do so but you wont. Chicken?

otto_26 wrote: »

Lies Lies and more Lies please show me where the mods warned me about anything? :eek: They certainly did nothing of the sort to me

Now who is lying. Why lie when the truth is there in black and white for all to see? It just makes you look silly.

LOL Nozz I love the way he did a QUICK edit the second he realised you called him on the lie and changed the text. Nice.

otto_26

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I am not about to derail this thread because you ran away from another one. If you want to go back to that thread and post your claims about Agnes then do so. I am there for you if you are not too scared. Apologies to the other users for the derailment of this thread. If you are so sure about your claims about agnes then simply slink back into the thread you slinked out of and post a post in your own words. I am offering to reply to your post if you do so but you wont. Chicken?

Ha ha like I said nozzferrahhtoo I'm embarrassed for you! Sorry I am sure of all my claims and all I wanted for you to win was proof of your claims (Money Trail)!! which you couldn't! and followed steps 4 and 5!!

I know your desperate nobody like to lose in a thread but I just beat you fair and square I need a new challenge but thanks.... Oh and hey keep the chin up you really did give it a good effort..

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Now who is lying. Why lie when the truth is there in black and white for all to see? It just makes you look silly.

Lies Lies and more Lies I'm really embarrassed for you now!!! You claimed the mods warned me of copying and pasting posts from other people as seen below????????

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you can not write your own words and posts that is your problem not mine. The mods warned you about it and I said I would happily reply to you when you wrote a post in your own words.

Now nozzferrahhtoo this is your moment to shine this is the moment you are going to win a thread with me!!! Here it is all you have to do is show me where a mod warned me for what you claimed: "If you can not write your own words and posts that is your problem not mine. The mods warned you about it". You have been called!!! Do it this is to win???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just provide the proof to my call....

nozzferrahhtoo

The mods warned you about your posting style. You are the one that lied and said " show me where the mods warned me about anything? They certainly did nothing of the sort to me". Didnt warn you about "anything"? But they did. So you lied.

Again there is nothing above that is on topic for this thread. I have told you I will reply to you about Agnes if you post in the right thread. You are too scared to. I will reply to you about the topic of this thread too if you write anything about it.

Micky Dolenz

What a cluster fcuk.

To save me having to hand out cards and bans, it's best we should lock this.

Please don't take your squabbling to another thread.