Summations Only

Tradition isn't evidence. Millions and millions of people have believed things that weren't true for very long periods of time. For most of humanity's time on Earth we have believed that most natural phenomena like lightening and earthquakes had supernatural causes. It used to be believed by almost everyone that the Earth was flat, and that the sun orbited the Earth. What millions of people have believed for thousands and thousands of years is not evidence and means nothing. All it actually shows is that in the absence of evidence people will make up explanations. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. Well, this isn't true at all. You're just making stuff up again. The contradictions and inconsistencies were noticed and explanations contrived long before any modern analytical approaches were developed. Since ancient writers wouldn't have invented explanations for contradictions and consistencies that didn't exist, they must in reality very much exist. What's really a marvel is how evidence-free all your accusations are. Has it somehow escaped your notice that all you're doing is making baseless claims and issuing derogatory remarks?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Maybe if people are into another flood discussion someone could propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics?--Percy

The Flood that didn't happen as well as the heliocentric solar system and the Conquest of Cannan and Exodus that never happened are important to this thread since it was those facts that began the modern criticism of inerrancy. These are all settled issues so there is nothing really to discuss unless Faith actually wishes to present some evidence instead of just asserting that it exists. Should she wish to finally present evidence for examination a new thread would be great but for the purpose of this thread I believe it is sufficient to just point out that they were the original evidence that the Bible is not inerrant.None of this is new or revelation and there is solid evidence for each of those facts going back hundreds of years.Edited by jar, : left out a not

Right, exactly. Faith can reiterate that for her these are not settled issues, but there's no need to get into the details. They're better discussed in other threads.--Percy

So the Protestant Reformation was really a cult? Imagine that, I would have thought it was the recovery of pristine Christianity myself, as it is normally understood to be by the biggest names in Christianity.

I don't read EFT, read enough at one time to know we're on the same side and that's it. Seems to me you should do the inviting.

Yeah, and the Catholics are totally the coolest, according to the biggest names in Catholicism.

That's fine but it doesn't change anything I said.abe: The Protestant Reformation is still one of the biggest events in western history and dominated the west politically and culturally until very recently as well as being the reason for the diminishment of Rome's political power in the west.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to be implying that the Protestant Reformation was a good thing.Two other "of the biggest events in western history and dominated the west politically and culturally until very recently" would be the Rise of World Communism and National Socialism (AKA "Nazi-ism"). I doubt that you would find very many people willing to argue that those were good things.Now, I have seen it argued that the Protestant Reformation indirectly led to the Enlightenment and to the growth of humanism and secularism. In that way, it would have been a good thing.Of course, a bad thing about diminishing Rome's political power was the removal of any way to curb the excesses of a tyrant, which led to King James' abhorrent "Divine Rights of Kings". But the Enlightenment and the rise of humanism put an end to that particular Protestant madness.

"pristine Christianity"? Really? Just like the more recent batch of neo-Pagans think that they are the ones who are actually reconstructing the ancient pagan religions, whereas the previous generation of neo-Pagans (late 19th to first-half 20th century) had over-romanticized everything and had gotten everything wrong. Or like the dance communities (eg, Lindy Hop) who try to reconstruct old dance forms.The Romantic Era (mid-19th Century, give or take a few decades), was based partially on the conceit that folk tales had been passed down unchanged over several generations -- the Brothers Grimm were linguists who only collected their fairy tales as part of their linguistic research. In reality, those stories and traditions only went back a few generations at most. For anyone to have tried to reconstruct ancient ideas and practices stretching back for millennia based on those folk tales would have been false and grossly mistaken.The Protestant Reformation hit at about 1500 CE. That would have been about 1500 years after the founding of "pristine Christianity". One and a half millennia of time. After 1500 years, what exactly was the pristine database that they had to draw from? Lindy Hop was from the late 1930's to the end of WWII. After a mere half-century, nobody can completely agree to what Lindy Hop actually was and, in its reconstructed incarnation, should be? Just the Big Apple, which is based on Whitey's Lindy Hoppers' performance in Keep Punchin', is filled with controversy, based entirely on a particular dancer's performance in that particular part of the video.OK, 1500 years later. What has survived? What is understood about Christianity? After 1500 years, what could have possibly survived that had not been influenced by the Catholic Church? If "pristine Christianity" has since died out, how could it have been passed on to the illuminaries of the Reformation? Has "pristine Christianity" not died out? How could it have not possibly died out in all that time?So then, just how the hell were these illuminaries of the Protestant Reformation ever supposed to have gotten their grubby hands on this "pristine Christianity" of which you speak? How specifically was that transmitted over the multiple centuries?And there are your many lessons on how to properly read Scripture. What the Bible actually says is unimportant, but rather what is important is what we must infer the Bible to say. Wasn't that your entire argument in support for the Trinity?And in further examples, what the Bible actually says is unimportant, but rather what is important is what you have been carefully taught that the Bible must be saying.So to the Protestant Reformation, what the Bible actually says is of no importance, but rather what Protestantism demands that the Bible must say.And as for "pristine Christianity", if anybody were to ever discover what that was supposed to be, he would need to be exterminated before anybody could possibly learn the truth.

I have no idea what affiliation you are. It doesn't matter. The cult thinking is the same in all of them. The ability to accept bunk, while ignoring logic and evidence, but thinking you're special.
You could be Mormon, JW, Extreme Muslim etc. you would be an outstanding member of any of them.

I have, though not recently, and not with any luck. I once even made an offer of co-moderation. It was met with silence.But since you think the assistance of someone knowledgeable would be helpful to you, why don't you give it a try?Since just a few messages ago you complained about how people treat your messages, for the record let it be noted that I wrote a 600 word message configuring several issues into ten paragraphs, and you replied to just the last sentence.--Percy

That you claim such nonsense is simply more proof that the Bible is not inerrant and it most certainly not clear from scripture that man is fallen. The idea of "The Fall" is great marketing but most definitely the creation of man and not scripture. An even stronger case but not as profitable for clergy and the salvation salesmen is that according to the Bible man has risen. Calvin and the Papacy are the two best carny barkers trying to peddle that product and both have been very successful but it is the modern evangelical "Born Again" con man that has really reaped the biggest profits.If you actually bother to read what is written in Genesis 2&3 the God character in the story even says that man was not diminished, not fallen but "22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

I got into the truest of true cults the old fashion way. I was fortunate to be born to the correct parents, in the correct geography. Ended up as an obviously correct Catholic.
My friend, a former Hindu, he got into it the old fashion way too. He was born in the fortunate area New Delhi. He got the correct parents and was Hindu. The most obviously correct one.
You vetted through all cults, and in an unbiased manner:-))))) ended up with the correct one. Unfortunately, you probably didn't know there was another option among the hundreds of cults. That is, don't join one. Use logic and evidence. But that likely didn't appear in the option list.
So you got the most obviously true of any religion, the top of truism, by another way. The Stockholm Syndrome way. After receiving enough bunk over enough time, then we empathize with members, agree and become a member.
That also works well.

That's right. The Protestant Reformation was about political power.