|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Because I have a book "sitting" on my coffee table and I don't consider it biologically alive.
"Sitting" suggests biological aliveness to me, not sure why it doesn't to you. Faith writes:
You experience Jesus' presence without actually reading something he wrote?
You experience Shakespeare's presence? Without actually reading something he wrote?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Yes, I'm determined to get people to look at things in different ways.
But I'm tired of this semantic nonsense ringo, you seem to be determined to twist whatever anyone says. Faith writes:
That has nothing to do with anything I said. As I understand it, most Christians don't think Jesus is biologically alive today; I was just trying to clarify whether or not you do.
Christians experience the actual presence of God at times and you apparently don't want to know about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Yes, he was biologically alive after the resurrection but only until the ascension. It doesn't make much sense to me that he would still be eating and sleeping today.
He said He's not a spirit, He ate a fish in His resurrection body, how much more biological can you get?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
What lengths? He was hungry so he ate a fish. What makes you think he was trying to prove anything?
Why would He go to such lengths to prove He could eat a fish in His resurrection body if He was not going to continue the practice after His ascension?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Job said nothing about "bodily" or "flesh". And his redeemer would not have been Jesus.
Nothing about eating and sleeping but a clear image of a bodily Redeemer, whom Job would have understood to be God Himself in the flesh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I'm no Hebrew scholar but the word goel, according to Wikipedia, means something like "next of kin". There's no reason, other than Christian propaganda, to associate the word with Jesus.
Whom praytell would it have been, then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You're looking at it backwards. You've decided that Jesus is "The Redeemer" so you're concluding that Job must have been referring to Jesus. What you should be doing is trying to figure out what the authors meant by the word they chose. You should also consider the possibility that the translators had their own spin to add by translating it as "redeemer".
How could our "next of kin" redeem us from anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Mal writes:
Like any other source of information, we test it against reality. We accept what matches and discount what doesn't.
If the Bible contains errors, falsehoods, contradictions, and irrelevancies as you say, then why believe anything that is in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Mal writes:
Of course THEY don't. That's why WE call THEM the Christian Cult of Ignorance.
I am not convinced that many people do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
I think Peter said practically the opposite:
Even the prophets didn't understand all the implications of what they were writing down of what God was telling them (Peter says this in the NT).quote:Prophecy isn't of much use if people don't understand it. In fact, the prophets were mostly telling people what they already knew but didn't want to hear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Are you suggesting that Peter changed his mind between his first epistle and his second? Otherwise, I'd say that "no private interpretation" trumps "searching diligently".
That isn't the passage I had in mind, but this one: 1 Peter 1:10 -12 Faith writes:
Even your own example doesn't say anything like that.
They had to "search diligently" to get a basic understanding of their own prophecies, the coming of Christ, the timing of His coming and the meaning of His salvation, which they could see was given to a people in the far future and not themselves. Faith writes:
The problem is that the foreshadowing you claim just isn't there.
That's true of their indictment of the Israelites for their failures to keep God's Law, but not of their foreshadowings of future events. Faith writes:
I know you'd like to think that you know more than the people in the New Testament did, but there's no evidence that you do.
It is very clear in the New Testament how little was understood by the majority, and even the disciples didn't fully grasp the prophecies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
So, when Jesus called the Pharisees a "generation of vipers", do you include yourself in that generation? At what point do you ignore what He actually said?
If the author and/or artist is long since gone, the determination is made by us ourselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The point is: How do you decide whether you're being offered a shoe? Do you go down the street yanking people's shoes off to see if they fit you?
If the shoe fits....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Jesus was talking TO Jews but He was talking ABOUT everybody. What part of "all nations" is confusing?
If Jesus preached to Jews, why do you take matthew 25 as being for everyone?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024