Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8937 total)
33 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,875 Year: 16,911/19,786 Month: 1,036/2,598 Week: 282/251 Day: 10/43 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
Faith
Member
Posts: 32935
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 256 of 2241 (738592)
10-12-2014 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by arachnophilia
10-12-2014 6:57 PM


Re: 3 in one
Yes, I have a relative who is Oneness Pentecostal and just as stubborn as anyone here about rejecting the Trinity. He believes Jesus is God at least so I hope for his salvation.

I don't see that analogy as representing modalism, though, if that's what you are saying. It is merely imperfect as a representation of the Trinity, and one could even say that the sun's light is the sun's light and no other light, and sun's heat the sun's heat and so on to patch it up a bit. But I'd prefer to go back to Patrick's three-leafed clover which is clearly one clover made up of three clover lobes.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by arachnophilia, posted 10-12-2014 6:57 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by arachnophilia, posted 10-12-2014 9:10 PM Faith has responded
 Message 263 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2014 10:10 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32935
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 257 of 2241 (738594)
10-12-2014 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by dwise1
10-12-2014 6:00 PM


Re: 3 in one
Very odd logic there. False religions, cults, the ponderings of single individuals with an axe to grind all interpreting the Bible for themselves, against the long history of the understanding of the best of the best being validated by hundreds of churches before it's made dogma, all that testifies that there is no one right and true theology? The devil pokes a few unstable people in the ribs and says "invent a religion" and that's all it takes to defeat the true religion. Unfortunately that is exactly what has happened, you got that right.

Yes, that's right. You have described Christianity to a "T". So what's your point? That somehow your own cult is different from the rest?

Mainstream Doctrinal Christianity is what I'm defending, no cult, and I'm sure you know that. It has the long history I mention next, of doctrine hammered out, principally in the earliest centuries but it endured down to the Reformation and beyond.


... the long history of the understanding of the best of the best being validated by hundreds of churches before it's made dogma, ...

When did that ever happen? The history of all Protestant churches...

My focus is on the hammering out of doctrine against various heresies that was the main work of the Church fathers of the earliest centuries, that was validated by other church leaders and by various Councils made up of the leaders of the other churches. They laid the groundwork which the Protestant Reformers later made use of.

...The history of all Protestant churches (bar perhaps a few possible exceptions, none of which I'm aware of) is that they split off from another church for any number of reasons, including disagreement over some doctrinal point.

Have you read any of the Reformers? Spent any time on Luther or Calvin? You sound utterly ignorant of the true causes for the Reformation and the struggles Luther in particular went through before he understood the doctrines he eventually embraced. The reason for splitting from the Roman Church was originally what he perceived to be violations of basic doctrine, which he enumerated in his 95 Theses, predominantly the selling of Indulgences to get people out of Purgatory which was nothing but fleecing the flock with a false promise since you can't buy your way out of eternal punishment. Luther was sure the Pope would agree with him but the Pope rejected his arguments and eventually excommunicated him. That came as quite a shock to faithful Luther, and as he continued to develop his understanding of scripture and discovered that the RCC taught a false view of salvation he began to understand that the papacy was the actual Antichrist described in the scriptures. It took some time before he was able to see that the whole institution was rotten. He'd had no desire to break with it at all, but the reactions of the papacy showed him that the corruptions were far deeper than he'd had any idea.

You seem to have a very sour version of Revisionist history about the Reformers.

You have quite an imagination. The Reformation took more time to develop than you seem to have any notion of for one thing, and other priests were also leaving the RCC in those years having discovered its false doctrine of salvation. In the exposition of the scripture passages about salvation, particularly the letters to the Romans and Galatians, Luther taught the truth to his church that the RCC had suppressed, the truth of salvation by faith in Christ alone without works, without all the ridiculous and sublime works that had been imposed on the people by the RCC, from absurd penances to indulgences. And that truth of salvation by faith alone through God's grace alone without works became the basis for the entire Reformation as it was the pivotal point of the RCC's apostasy that all the Reformers came to recognize.

Even in the first few centuries of Christian history, congregations formed and split and generated a plethora of different forms of Christian doctrine, each with its own copy of "Scripture" that supported its own doctrine.

Stuff and nonsense. What history are you reading for this absurd idea? Are you conflating one or two examples into hundreds or what?

And out of that mess one religion was formed by committee,

What you keep disingenuously referring to as a "committee" was a convention of the leaders of all the churches who sat to hear arguments about important theological questions and arrived at a judgment of their truth based on scripture.

one which was held together by force

I have no idea what you are talking about. The church leaders would have gone back to their churches and taught the doctrines from scripture, where's the force?

Rome was certainly prone to use force in many ways for many objectives, but to enforce the doctrines of the Councils? Where and when? And again, the Bishop of Rome had no power over any of the churches but his own until 606 AD, when Emperor Phocas conferred on him primacy over the other bishops, and then he had to fight to maintain and accumulate more power after that, including by making use of forged documents that convinced the poor illiterate people of his right to rule them. So what ARE you talking about?

Again I had the earliest developments of doctrine in mind that were validated by the many churches through the Councils. You are now skipping centuries, during which the RCC grew in power and persecuted and martyred millions of Bible believers among others until the Reformation came along and dampened their murderous inclinations. There was no splintering going on at all in those years, just the RCC murdering anybody who thought differently from its pagan superstitious utterly nonChristian dogmas, most especially those who had the effrontery to translate the scriptures into the languages of the poor people that Rome was exploiting in its endless grab for wealth and power..

Luther was an Augustinian Monk. Augustine himself had spelled out the doctrines of salvation by grace years before and Luther was able finally to make use of his work as he bit by bit saw through the deceptions of the Roman Church. He also came to recognize that the dissenting groups that had been outside the RCC for centuries, that the RCC had persecuted, murdered and martyred, such as the Waldensians, had faithfully held to the doctrine of salvation by faith from the earliest times.

Your view of a jumble of doctrines is simply false. There are basically the two, salvation by a complex pagan nightmare of ridiculous and blasphemous works, and salvation by God's grace through faith alone. The latter had been lost to Romanism as it fell away from the Bible and resumed the trappings and practices of the old pagan priesthood of Rome, though it, the true gospel, continued to exist in the dissenting groups, and it also existed in the earliest teachings and very clearly in the scriptures themselves despite the accretions of Romanist nonsense.

Only the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches had any opportunity to conduct that long process of "validation by hundreds of churches before it's made dogma", but even there the dogma was established from the start.

Even during the development of the power center of Rome there were faithful churches and faithful pastors who were apart from its deceits and taught true doctrine which informed the basic theology of the churches down the centuries. There were no doubt also many simple Catholics, principally from those faithful churches, who knew nothing of the theological nightmare of Rome and who had a sincere love of Christ based on what bits of the gospels were available to them. I don't know at what point we can say all that stopped and the superstitious paganism of Rome took over, it was a gradual process, but even then there were true streams of the gospels among the Catholic priests and laity, wherever the scriptures were known at all, which was still permitted to the priests in Luther's time. It was his knowledge of the gospels and other parts of scripture on which Luther based his objection to indulgences. There had to be enough truth left in the RCC for the Reformation to develop at all, muddied though it was by pagan blasphemies which made it hard for the Reformers or anybody to see through it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2014 6:00 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2014 10:23 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31282
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 258 of 2241 (738595)
10-12-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
10-12-2014 7:14 PM


Re: Truth?
So you say. Yet none of the New Testament made it into the Samaritan Canon that includes only those books that might have been canonized at the time of Jesus.

And there were a whole bunch of Gospels floating around, not just the four. The Epistles were written to specific parties and there is no evidence I know of that they were widely circulated.

The Gospels came very late, the earliest at least 60 years after Jesus death.

Faith writes:

You keep insisting on this absolute nonsense. The Trinity could not possibly have existed before the scripture verses from which it is derived.

Learn to read Faith. I have never said that the Concept of the Trinity was developed before the scriptures.

God is one and the three are separate is fine. God is one and three is contradictory.

Bring on your list of verses and just as with all the claimed prophecy we will take a look at it in context line by line.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 7:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 9:36 PM jar has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 259 of 2241 (738596)
10-12-2014 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
10-12-2014 7:20 PM


Re: 3 in one
Faith writes:

I don't see that analogy as representing modalism, though, if that's what you are saying.

no, it's definitely modalism. three different aspects of a single thing is modalism.

But I'd prefer to go back to Patrick's three-leafed clover which is clearly one clover made up of three clover lobes.

that's a closer analogy, but still imperfect.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 7:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 3:44 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32935
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 260 of 2241 (738597)
10-12-2014 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by jar
10-12-2014 8:50 PM


Re: Truth?
And the obviously highly limited Samaritan Canon is some kind of representation of what?

And the other "Gospels" were Gnostic fictions which the true Church recognized right away and ejected, keeping the inspired four. Really, the differences from the inspired gospels are so obvious it's ridiculous to even mention the gnostics in the same breath. They will of course continue to entertain the apostates.

Your constant refrain about the Trinity being formulated before the canon has no purpose if it wasn't to say it isn't based on the scriptures but if you had some other purpose you really should explain.

God is one and the three are separate is fine. God is one and three is contradictory.

Which is why it is so hard to grasp it, but it is based solidly on the many scripture references and you just have to allow your mind to be stretched to accommodate it because it is there. And the Church would not have affirmed it if it wasn't there. God is One in uniqueness of character and being. There is nothing and no one else like Him. And there are three who all express that uniqueness of character and being. There is no other way to characterize these facts than that God is Three Persons in One God, whether your mind can handle it or not.

Bring on your list of verses and just as with all the claimed prophecy we will take a look at it in context line by line.

Go ahead. I've posted it twice already but why not three times:
HERE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by jar, posted 10-12-2014 8:50 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 10-12-2014 9:38 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31282
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 261 of 2241 (738598)
10-12-2014 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
10-12-2014 9:36 PM


Re: Truth?
That is not a list of verses it is commentary.

Try again.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 9:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 9:40 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32935
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 262 of 2241 (738599)
10-12-2014 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by jar
10-12-2014 9:38 PM


Re: Truth?
It is a list of verses with an index to them at the top. You can skip the commentary in between.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 10-12-2014 9:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by jar, posted 10-13-2014 9:10 AM Faith has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3712
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 263 of 2241 (738600)
10-12-2014 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
10-12-2014 7:20 PM


Re: 3 in one
But I'd prefer to go back to Patrick's three-leafed clover which is clearly one clover made up of three clover lobes.

quote:
"In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Shamrock."
(from Nuns on the Run with Eric Idle, Robbie Coltrane, and Rose Tyler's mum)

So then my right hand is a five-in-one Godhead?

In some object-oriented programming (OOP) educational material for C++, two kinds of relationships are defined between classes (data and function aggregates, such that a class defines a particular type of object which has certain properties (ie, data fields, such as a person would have an age, height, weight, etc) and methods (eg behaviors) ): "has-a" and "is-a".

In the "has-a" case, a class has certain other objects; eg, a car has objects called "wheels", an engine, a body, which itself "has-a" several other objects which themselves have have methods and properties, some of which can themselves be objects with their own methods and properties.

In the "is-a" case, we are working with inheritance. We can define a class as being a special case of another class. So we create a base class of Animal which has certain properties and certain methods (AKA "behaviors", such as moving, eating, etc). Then we can derive from that base class other classes such as Bird or Reptile or Mammal. A Mammal "is-a" Animal and as such inherits the properties and methods of the Animal class, while it also adds its own properties and methods; sometimes -- OK, often -- it can replace its base classes behavior with its own behavior.

In object-oriented programming, you cannot ever afford to confuse "is-a" with "has-a" relationships. If you do, then you have a real mess to have to clean up.

The shamrock analogy confuses "has-a" with "is-a". It does not work.

Yes, I know, logic has no meaning when it comes to faith. But logic is all that theology can possibly have going for it. Science can go beyond logic, because it can empirically test an idea regardless of what logic says. But theology cannot test anything at all, so all it has to rely on is logic. Without logic, what else does theology have to work with? Just making shit up? Well, certainly we've seen that being done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 7:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 10:34 PM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3712
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 264 of 2241 (738601)
10-12-2014 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Faith
10-12-2014 8:14 PM


Re: 3 in one
Mainstream Doctrinal Christianity is what I'm defending, no cult, and I'm sure you know that. It has the long history I mention next, of doctrine hammered out, principally in the earliest centuries but it endured down to the Reformation and beyond.

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Oscar?

To begin with, many fundamentalist and other extreme Christian "denominations" bear all the markings of cults. I'm sure that many, if not most, "mainstream Christians" would view Calvinists in such a light, especially with regards to extremist doctrine that none of them could agree to.

Second, "mainstream Christianity" does not exist as one entity, but rather is an abstraction of the commonalities shared by most non-extremist Protestant denominations. It does not actually exist, no more than the abstract Geological Column actually exists. True, both abstractions could yield valuable information, but that still does not mean that you could ever find them existing in nature.

You very specifically described a procedural process in which ideas were worked by hundreds of different churches and did not become dogma until after they had gone through that procedural process. But wouldn't that have required those hundreds of different churches in nearly as many different denominations to have coordinated their efforts in that procedural process? In reality, no such procedural process ever existed and no such communication between disparate churches over specific theological ideas ever took place. Nor did any individual denomination wait for concurrence from any other denominations before implementing a theological idea as dogma.

If you disagree with that, then present us with the history and the minutes of such procedural deliberations! Otherwise, I'm calling "bullshit!" on your claim.

DWise1 writes:


When did that ever happen? The history of all Protestant churches...


My focus is on the hammering out of doctrine against various heresies that was the main work of the Church fathers of the earliest centuries, that was validated by other church leaders and by various Councils made up of the leaders of the other churches. They laid the groundwork which the Protestant Reformers later made use of.

The Church Fathers? And what churches did they pass their writings through? And how many? "Hundreds"? Could you please get me an actual count? Or are we back in the Nam dreaming up counts of enemy killed?

And what about the extra-Scriptural teachings that those Church Fathers added? There was a lot going on pre-Nicea, which is why I always suggest strongly that everyone research into their beliefs and where those beliefs come from. In some cases (eg, fundamentalism, dispensationalism) those beliefs are only 100 or 200 years old. In others, you need to go back somewhat further. Of course, in such exercises the truth is ideally supposed to win out, but dogma usually derails the process.

DWise1 writes:

one which was held together by force


I have no idea what you are talking about. The church leaders would have gone back to their churches and taught the doctrines from scripture, where's the force?

It's called Constantinian Law, which enforced religious beliefs. In particular, anyone born Christian who then converted to another religion was subject to the death penalty. Just like Sharia Law concerning apostates who leave Islam. You complain mightily against that aspect of Sharia Law, but you are silent about the exact same aspect of Constantinian Law? A famous medieval or Renaissance Italian rabbi had converted from Christianity to Judaism, but had to keep it a secret to escape capital punishment for it; ironically, when he emigrated to Palestine, he was killed by an Arab. It was in that context that my Rabbinic Literature prof, Rabbi Kalir, had informed the class about Constantinian Law, which remained in effect from the reign of Emperor Constantine (yes, that Emperor Constantine) and the mid-nineteenth century.

"What force" indeed!

You are now skipping centuries, during which the RCC grew in power and persecuted and martyred millions of Bible believers among others until the Reformation came along and dampened their murderous inclinations. There was no splintering going on at all in those years, just the RCC murdering anybody who thought differently from its pagan superstitious utterly nonChristian dogmas, ...

No, that was exactly what I was talking about. Before Constantinian Law which the RCC took over enforcing, we saw a divergence of many different theologies. Once Constantinian Law was formed and enforced, any divergence from the committee-proclaimed norm, being termed "heresy", was dealt with quickly and surely, not allowing any divergence. It was only with the Reformation that Christian churches were able to form and to splinter into innumerable forms as was happening pre-Nicea.

So what are you imagining that you are disagreeing with?

Faith, you just want your own cult to be true. No different from any other believer. But the truth is that yours is no different from any of the others. Get used to it. Sure, you can believe that you're the special one, but please don't expect to be able to convince anybody else about it.

Edited by dwise1, : concluding paragraph

Edited by dwise1, : convincing others


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 8:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 10:41 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32935
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 265 of 2241 (738602)
10-12-2014 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by dwise1
10-12-2014 10:10 PM


Re: 3 in one
Analogies are meant to clarify. If they don't work for that, which is obviously the case here, drop them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2014 10:10 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2014 11:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32935
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 266 of 2241 (738603)
10-12-2014 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by dwise1
10-12-2014 10:23 PM


Re: 3 in one
You always make the mistake of assuming motive precedes belief, in all these cases. No, in my own experience and my observations of historical fact, belief follows persuasion by the evidence. Your reversal of the reality of course is a handy fiction of unbelievers to try to make believers look stupid.

Nothing could be more orthodox than Calvinism, it's even held by churches that don't know it's Calvinism. It's just that we are today witnessing a proliferation of false churches, Bible-twisting and Bible-denying churches which are eventually going to make up the One World Apostate Church, watch for it, which you mistake for the orthodox mainstream.

I don't know if there's anything else to answer in your post, but I have to be away for a while and may come back to it later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2014 10:23 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by NoNukes, posted 10-12-2014 11:50 PM Faith has responded
 Message 270 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2014 11:53 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32935
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 267 of 2241 (738604)
10-12-2014 10:59 PM


I don't know where people get their ideas of what mainstream Christianity consists in but in my experience it is still the majority of churches out there despite the many deviant bodies that have sprung up in recent years, and just for a representative sample take a look at Sermon Audio with its thousands of churches represented:\

http://www.sermonaudio.com/main.asp

I can't claim they are all solidly orthodox of course. In perusing sermons by topic I've found some klunkers and certainly some pastors who have what could be called a rather flabby grasp on doctrine, but overall the site aims to get good sound orthodox preachers and I think they've succeeded at getting a good sample of those.


    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3712
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 268 of 2241 (738606)
10-12-2014 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
10-12-2014 10:34 PM


Re: 3 in one
Analogies are meant to clarify. If they don't work for that, which is obviously the case here, drop them.

But you still need to learn that they do not work or else you'll just keep using them.

But then, if we just wait 30 minutes or so, then you will forget that they don't work and will continue to use them anyway. You may not know what you are doing, but at least everybody else will know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 10:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 2241 (738609)
10-12-2014 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
10-12-2014 10:41 PM


Re: 3 in one
my observations of historical fact

How do you do this. Are you using a time machine?

How often to we catch you misquoting history; denying that things you don't like ever happened.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 10:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 12:30 AM NoNukes has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3712
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 270 of 2241 (738610)
10-12-2014 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
10-12-2014 10:41 PM


Re: 3 in one
No, in my own experience and my observations of historical fact, belief follows persuasion by the evidence.

No, you just want to believe that is the case. As is so very often the case with creationists and "true Christians", you find your "evidences" so convincing only because you are already convinced.

Nothing could be more orthodox than Calvinism, ...

First you talk about being main-stream and now you're talking about being orthodox. And then in the next message you switch around and try to be main-stream again! Make up your mind already!

But seriously on the question of where Trinitarianism came from, we really do need to trace that back. Some of the early churches taught it, while others didn't. Early Scripture that taught it were created by the churches that taught it, while the Scripture that didn't teach it were created by those who didn't; some Scripture was selected by committee and some were not, mainly based on how well they complied with the "One True Faith" that they had come up with. But even before then, the idea itself had to have come from somewhere; I only mentioned the Hindu idea because it's a very well-known example.

Certainly there has to have been some kind of research on this question. But it would be better to look at non-Christian research. It's just that Christian research, or rather what passes for research among Christians, has a very bad reputation for lying through their teeth. We see it all the time in "creation science". And we see it in their revisionist American history. Indeed, Faith, you yourself fell victim to their outright lies when you posted all those "Founding Father quotes", all of which turned out to be complete and utter lies.

Half a century ago, I attended a Protestant church and Sunday School and Vacation Bible School. We were taught that lying is a sin. And now apparently lying is de rigueur for "true Christians". How very sad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 10:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 1:54 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019