quote:
I wonder what you'll all think if the Rapture does occur and you can see some prominent leader "confirming a covenant" for seven years, probably with Israel, probably promising a protection of some sort.
I wouldn’t see any of those as a reason to change my interpretation of Daniel. Why would I ?
quote:
I suppose there will be many theories about how it was the wicked people who were taken away not the true Christians, well that's pretty much guaranteed to be forcibly promoted, because of course there will be a lot of "Christians" still on the earth, and they will be much more likeable than some who were taken, such as myself.
You are wicked and you aren’t a true Christian. That’s really obvious. You aren’t likeable because of your sins - your ridiculous false pride, your love of hate and slander and all the rest. I know that you don’t like those being mentioned even though you insist on displaying them here for all to see - but you chose to make them relevant.
...whereas ringo was so objective that he never allowed faith to grow..
You still have it backwards. There's never an excuse for not being objective. Faith is only a backup plan in case objectivity doesn't produce useful results. It's you believers who are so faithful that you don't allow objectivity to grow.
Phat writes:
he now has to explain the evidence that led him to abandon using faith at all.
Backwards again. The problem is the lack of evidence for your claims. "Communion" with God doesn't make believers better people. If it makes them different at all, they seem to have a tendency to be ornery, arrogant, vindictive, etc. If they're learning something special from God's own lips, it's something I'm glad I don't have.
Phat writes:
Perhaps, though I would add this: "be skeptical of unbelievers attempting to explain what the Bible actually means".
You should know better than that too by now. Who better to understand what the Bible means than somebody who doesn't swallow hook-line-and-sinker what some goober tells him it means?
I obviously couldn’t tell if it was only the wicked, but in your case it’s definitely true. You’ve even attributed your sins to Jesus which any real Christian would call blasphemy.
I don't claim a "special" understanding of the Bible, I claim I have the traditional orthodox understanding, which happens to be correct and very different from most of the stuff I find here at EvC.
And I couldn't possibly have compared myself to Jesus like that. Jesus was absolutely sinless and I'm far from it, although most of your adccusations are false.
And you totally misunderstand the idea of God's changing His mind. It's all about relenting about judgment when a nation changes from unrighteousness to righteousness, certainly has nothing to do with prophecy.
quote:
I don't claim a "special" understanding of the Bible, I claim I have the traditional orthodox understanding, which happens to be correct and very different from most of the stuff I find here at EvC.
Not understanding what prophecy is rather undercuts even that. And then there’s all your boasting about having a regenerate mind.
quote:
And I couldn't possibly have compared myself to Jesus like that. Jesus was absolutely sinless and I'm far from it, although most of your adccusations are false.
Don’t underestimate your ability to spout nonsense,
quote:
And you totally misunderstand the idea of God's changing His mind. It's all about relenting about judgment when a nation changes from unrighteousness to righteousness, certainly has nothing to do with prophecy.
If God sends a message that he is going to do something that IS prophecy. If God doesn’t do it, the prophecy failed. And Jeremiah says that God can change his mind and not do what he said he’d do. (And as I noted that is problematic for even the idea of Omniscience, let alone Calvinist ideas of God’s Sovereignty)
Those who are saved have a regenerate mind which means the ability to understand spiritual things. It's not perfect in this life but it is possessed by all believers.
I have the traditional orthodox understanding of prophecy too.; You have a modern revisionist reading.
I would not compsre myself with Jesus. And since you don't produce any evidence you are way way out of line to make such an accusation.
No it is not prophecy for God to say He is going to bring judgment against a nation for its sins, it is merely a warning that what His law decrees will be carried out unless they repent. You really have that ALL wrong.
quote:
I have the traditional orthodox understanding of prophecy too.; You have a modern revisionist reading.
Oh yes, the Bible is a modern revisionist work and obviously inferior to your orthodox understanding.
quote:
No it is not prophecy for God to say He is going to bring judgment against a nation for its sins, it is merely a warning that what His law decrees will be carried out unless they repent. You really have that ALL wrong.
A lot of prophecy is God speaking of blessings or disasters that he is going to send. Try reading the Bible sometime.
My ongoing argument sought to showcase the thought process of our basic two sides. As I said before, "One group believes that a communion and inner understanding of Gods guidance is possible and that one who seeks it finds it.
And that group is allowed to believe anything they damn well like.
The other group logically asks how this is even possible and continually pushes such an idea out of their head.
The second simply asks for evidence before they accept a daft idea.
but if we had to place given people into one group or the other, which group would the early church fathers be placed in and why?"
Given that 2000 years ago science didn't exist, you'd place them in the superstitious, believe anything that takes your fancy group because nobody actually knew any better or had any way to decide between fact and fiction.
My understanding grows as our discussions and arguments develop.
It really doesn't Phat. You still say the same stuff you did when I joined years ago. These days you position it with the reasonable sounding 'on the one hand this on the other that' but you don't mean it or accept to equivalent postions. You actually think that the two positions - science and belief - are not equivalent becaause evidence can't change you mind. You have a higher 'reason', god talks to you so nothing can get through.
I call bullshit on that but none of you - repeat none of you - are prepared to explain that.
Keep in mind that as a self-proclaimed member of the first group I am not seeking to derail what I believe
Of course you don't. All this debate and argument is utterly pointless, why do you do it? Is it just so that you can feel that you're right to believe what you believe? Or is there a nagging doubt?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
It's not a matter of bias but rather honesty and accepting the reality of what is actually written instead of the Fundamentalist position of first creating the conclusion and then willfully ignoring reality.
I think that the issue, in general, is more complex.
jar writes:
The issue is that Christian Dogma over the ages has tried to force fit the desired conclusion into unrelated proof texts.
So essentially you are taking on all of the Christianity that I have been exposed to. Here are some questions to get things started:
Are all or even most of the apologists,Pastors,teachers, and preachers simply wrong? I cannot believe this to be true. It does neatly seperate our two groups a bit more directly, however.
Why is the idea that Jesus rose from the dead and is alive today so troublesome to you personally when you have admitted that you are a cradle creedal Christian? Does not the Nicene Creed suggest that this theology may be true?
jar writes:
There are many many Messiahs in the Old Testament but Jesus is not one of them. The whole concept of the Messiah as marketed in Christianity is a post-Judaic creation that developed over time. Jesus is not to be found in the Old Testament writings.
That's quite an extreme position, and though you have offered reasonable scriptural support for such a position, I hardly think that all of the apologists have failed to do so. You are taking on quite a large group of Christians...not some mere cult of ignorance from a few racist and ignorant backwater churches.
jar writes:
And the Apologists have continued to revise the story because and only because they NEED to support and excuse the fact that most prophecy in the Bible stories simply failed or were forced and faked fulfillment.
Which would indicate that they were either lying, ignorant, or both. Again...quite an accusation for such a large percentage of the membership of a religion.
Tangle writes:
Why would you think a believer has a worthwhile opinion?
Because believers are as human as you, and have as good of minds as anyone else. Their only apparant crime is in claiming that Jesus can become personal...which is why they defend what they believe. Granted some of us are dogmatic, willfully ignorant, and prone to reading what we are biased towards, but I would argue that these traits can also be found in non-believers.
ringo writes:
Things that are "well written" are usually edited. The quality of the final result doesn't necessarily tell us much about the author.
Again, I'm more concerned with the motive behind the writing. It would lead more credence if the authors were familiar with Jesus personally and/or alive shortly after His death. Motive is the game changer in my mind. Not too many people get boiled in oil or thrown in prison simply for trying to make a buck.
jar writes:
...most chapters of Club Christian realized hundreds of years ago that the stories in the Old and New Testament were only attributed to the person named as author and that in fact they were written and edited and redacted and modified by unknown people at unknown times.
Not sure I believe this to be true. Can we trace your source to this information? I suspect that the redactors and editors are themselves the revisionists and that the motive is to discredit the belief. In any case, I dont believe that the Bible was allowed to be changed that much.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
Because believers are as human as you, and have as good of minds as anyone else. Their only apparant crime is in claiming that Jesus can become personal...which is why they defend what they believe. Granted some of us are dogmatic, willfully ignorant, and prone to reading what we are biased towards, but I would argue that these traits can also be found in non-believers.
Anyone who says he believes is a terrible source of facts about what they believe. When you say you *know* that god exists and nothing will change your mind or when Faith says that when the bible says something it is by definition true regardless of reality, you must see why you can't be trusted to be objective about it.
You're not objective, you just believe stuff. People believe all kinds of stuff. People can and do believe almost anything - the Jesus stuff is just what you've learned to believe. If you'd been born in India you'd be telling us all that Vishnu was alive and walking amongst us. Somehow you can't take in this point but it must be true, it couldn't be otherwise.
You say Jesus is alive, I say great produce him. You then talk nonsense about being here in spirit or can only be seen by those who want to believe etc etc. It's not real, it's all imaginary, you're an unreliable witness.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
It would lead more credence if the authors were familiar with Jesus personally and/or alive shortly after His death.
Well, yes, it would, wouldn't it? At least it would add more credence for the credulous. So the authors certainly would have had a motive for claiming/suggesting that they were eyewitnesses.
Phat writes:
Not too many people get boiled in oil or thrown in prison simply for trying to make a buck.
Stop saying that. It's a lie. You've been shown many times.
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
™ Version 4.2