|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ray Comfort on The Atheist Experience | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Phat writes: Truth is not inclusive. Yes, those that claim exclusivity make such absurd claims yet what does the Biblical evidence show? Should I go over what is actually written and attributed directly to Jesus about that yet again? Do you really not remember what is actually written and attributed directly to Jesus and that we have gone over many times before? Look again at Luke 4:
25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; 26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. Look at the story of "The Good Samaritan". It's comforting to think that "Truth is not inclusive" and that "YOU" hold it but it is also the ultimate expression of arrogance and vanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
I even quoted the part from Luke for you.
Again, it is the basics that so often don't seem to get taught. "But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon" Sidon was not a Hebrew area and a peoples that believed in the Hebrew God, yet in the tale God sent a major prophet to them. "And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian" Naaman, a Syrian was the one cured not lepers in Israel. There is far more in the story of Naaman that I have also pointed out to you many times; how when he asks about going with his master to worship the God Rimmon if it was okay to kneel with his master and the answer was "Sure".
2 Kings writes: 18 In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing. 19 And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way. The Good Samaritan was NOT a believer. Yet it was that unbeliever that helped. And think of the quote you often use from Paul about the Gentiles that hold God in their hearts yet don't know the law or of Jesus. Why try to limit where wisdom and love and mercy and bounty can be found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
"Beat ME!" said the masochist.
"No!" said the sadist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Actually the world got a lot better as Christianity spread in the early days because what it spread was a love of humanity that did not exist in the pagan empires. Sorry but Christianity remained a small pointless cult throughout the early days and it only began to grow beyond a fringe niche cult when it became a Nation Religion and was spread by sword and coercion. There is no evidence it was ever as peaceful as most of the so called pagan religions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Pointless? Excuse me? The Man gave His life. It was not taken from Him. Yes Phat, Christianity was simply another tiny irrelevant cult until it became the State Religion. Sure there were small bodies and had been since the mid Roman expansion but it was simply not significant until it became the State Religion and once it became the State Religion it was spread by sword and coercion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: This is why I think that acknowledgment of the Source is more important than simply doing the content. Sorry, you say stuff like the above but never actually explain why it is important to acknowledge the source. If Satan says take this medicine and it will cure your inability to know what is good and bad and the medicine works does it matter that the source was Satan? AbE:
Phat writes: First, do you see any evidence that the early Christians were extreme proselytes More than the Jews since Jews do not proselytize.
Phat writes: Second, if they merely kept to themselves and attempted to live out the message by helping their neighbors, would this be why Christianity spread slowly and uneventfully before Constantine and also through fear of the hostile culture? Sure. The message really offered few reasons to adopt. You yourself have said that to live Jesus message is not an attractive alternative.
Phat writes: Finally, do you see the establishment of Christianity as stae religion and state policy a license for the evil of the dominant culture to *use* Christianity for nefarious ends? Not exactly. A State Religion carries out State Policies. Those policies can be good or bad. Christianity did many horrific things but seldom nefarious since they were legal by definition. Whether they were wicked depends on the point of view of the person judging. Edited by jar, : see AbE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: It would matter only in that the source I listened to defied the source that commanded me not to do it. Unless that is all meant to be part of the plot twist. Stop and think. We have been through this many times. If you do not have the capability to know right from wrong you do not have the ability to even understand the concept of "obey".
Pht writes: If satan says to be inclusive and God says that truth is exclusive, would I do well to listen to satan? You test the content Phat and in the Bible Jesus says to be inclusive. Sure other places have the author claiming exclusivity but in what is actually written both Jesus promotes being inclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Of course, you have a point in that Eve could not have possibly known how to do that. So in that sense, the Fall was foreknown. There is no "fall" in Genesis 2&3! Period. Read what is written. Far from a fall God says that the humans became more like him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Catholics do mass, Christians do not. Nonsense Faith. Even Protestant Christian churches have mass. There is even a Rite of Communion. From the Book of Common Prayer (interestingly even older than the KJV).
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Yeah, all Catholic offshoots, not Protestant. Sorry Faith but once again as usual reality says you are wrong. The Anglican Communion and Lutherans and Methodists and the others are most definitely Protestants despite what your cult might believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet the fact remains that several major Protestant denominations include a Mass as a major sacrament.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The fact remains that Anglicans and Lutherans and many Methodists all celebrate Mass and they along with the others mentioned are Protestant denominations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: As for the Roman Catholics, however...the main way they got off track is by not disciplining their people in the power of the Holy Spirit and Living presence of Christ. Absolute nonsense and word salad. What does that even mean Phat?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
To Roman Catholicism. It was a purely political split and had almost nothing to do with theology. It was simply about who got to make political decisions.
There were quite a few other extent Christian movements like the Eastern Orthodoxy and Ethiopian Orthodoxy and Greek Orthodoxy which were also all catholic but not acknowledging that absolute power of the Roman Catholic Popes. Protestantism was a break only from the direct rule and authority of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024