A Christian Theocracy

squinney wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

It's amazing that through the years we have been able to recognize good ideas from the bad ones. It's almost as though civilization has progressed...

Our ability to judge the teachings of the bible and decide which ideas are good and which are bad are completely contrary to biblical teachings.....a real catch 22.....if, as you say McGentix, that's progress then it has to be by it's own virtue blasphemy as well.

It is not our job to cherry pick the teachings of an omniscient God for ourselves but rather to follow them in complete and contrite belief.....without question...He demands it......

PS This is Bi-polar Bear speaking....I just realized I posted under squinney's name by mistake.....

How extraordinarily interesting, blatham. Yet I fail to see the connection between Jesus' teachings that Larry was referring to, and the recitations in the letter to the OT, since the latter came under the prior covenant, and the prior under the new covenant.

Can you edify?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Christianity could easily have arisen without Jesus...but without Paul...there would be no Christianity.

Anyone who thinks Jesus founded Christianity is dreaming.

I can't tell if you're being serious. But since your atheist/agnostic, I assume you are.

Explain to me how we could have Christianity without Jesus Christ.

Frank wrote:

The citations in Blatham's post were from Leviticus..."the Law."

Jesus expressedly stated that he was not here to change "the Law"...not one word of it...not one letter of one word of it...not one stroke of one letter of it.

Not until Heaven and Earth both shall pass!

That's pretty strong stuff.

Of course, the religion Paul founded didn't really give much more than lip service to what Jesus taught.

Citations, man! I need citations.

agnostic is a subset of atheist

Ticomaya wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Christianity could easily have arisen without Jesus...but without Paul...there would be no Christianity.

Anyone who thinks Jesus founded Christianity is dreaming.

I can't tell if you're being serious. But since your atheist/agnostic, I assume you are.

Explain to me how we could have Christianity without Jesus Christ.

...

Somebody else could have come along...and Paul could have "created" a religion based on what that person taught.

Manny Christ! Rodney Christ! Barry Christ! Marty Christ!

It'd still be Christianity.

Jesus...it turns out...is a fairly minor player in Christianity.

If you don't accept that...try this test:

Ask one of your fellow Christians damn near any question about modern morals...and why it is important...and 9 out of 10 times, you will get a quote from Paul. Almost never will you get a quote from Jesus.

...

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.
17 When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Einherjar wrote:

agnostic is a subset of atheist

Horseshyt.

It is no more a subset of atheism than it is of theism.

And please...don't give me that Thomas Huxley lecture!

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Christianity could easily have arisen without Jesus...but without Paul...there would be no Christianity.

Anyone who thinks Jesus founded Christianity is dreaming.

I can't tell if you're being serious. But since your atheist/agnostic, I assume you are.

Explain to me how we could have Christianity without Jesus Christ.

...

Somebody else could have come along...and Paul could have "created" a religion based on what that person taught.

Manny Christ! Rodney Christ! Barry Christ! Marty Christ!

It'd still be Christianity.

Jesus...it turns out...is a fairly minor player in Christianity.

If you don't accept that...try this test:

Ask one of your fellow Christians damn near any question about modern morals...and why it is important...and 9 out of 10 times, you will get a quote from Paul. Almost never will you get a quote from Jesus.

...

Paul's role in undeniable, and he was an Apostle, but the Great Commission went to the 11 disciples, not to Paul. Paul was converted later.

Matthew 28:

Quote:

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.
17 When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Mark 16:

Quote:

14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Einherjar wrote:

agnostic is a subset of atheist

Horseshyt.

It is no more a subset of atheism than it is of theism.

And please...don't give me that Thomas Huxley lecture!

I suppose it is a question of definitions. I define atheism as absence of theism (that is faith in some sort of god). If you ask me, that is what the word sugests: a-theism = non-theism = lack of theism.

Christianity could easily have arisen without Jesus...but without Paul...there would be no Christianity.

Anyone who thinks Jesus founded Christianity is dreaming.

Somebody else could have come along...and Paul could have "created" a religion based on what that person taught.

How did we get off on this tangent? And why did McG roll his eyes at me and leave? And what's fer supper?

Frank wrote:

Christianity could easily have arisen without Jesus...but without Paul...there would be no Christianity.

Anyone who thinks Jesus founded Christianity is dreaming.

You ask what the Great Commission has to do with what we were discussing. With the Great Commission, Jesus founded Christianity. The 11 disciples set about discipling converts to Christianity. See the book of Acts. The disciples wrote the books of the Gospel (well, Luke wrote Luke) about the teaching of Jesus.

Paul came along later. Christianity was already founded by Jesus. Paul was converted by God (you don't believe this, I understand) and began preaching the Gospel.

Frank wrote:

Somebody else could have come along...and Paul could have "created" a religion based on what that person taught.

Paul didn't preach about Manny, Rodney, Barry, or Marty. He preached about the Son of Man. He preached about Jesus Christ.

Ein...

...in a sense, I agree.

I will agree that atheism has two major subdivisions.

Some atheists express their atheism thusly:

I do not believe in God!

The other main group:

I believe there are no gods.


The former...any agnostic would feel comfortable with.

The latter...is a belief system...and no agnostic worthy of the name would associate him/herself with it.

Perhaps the definitional considerations should be with the word "agnostic."

For me...and this is only for me (although many, perhaps most, agnostics are of like mind):

I do not know if there is a God...

...I do not know if there are no gods...

...and I do not see enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful, reasonable guess.

Very few atheists I've ever met can agree with that...or would consider that to be a subset of atheism.

We may have to agree to disagree on this.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ein...

...in a sense, I agree.

I will agree that atheism has two major subdivisions.

Some atheists express their atheism thusly:

I do not believe in God!

The other main group:

I believe there are no gods.


The former...any agnostic would feel comfortable with.

The latter...is a belief system...and no agnostic worthy of the name would associate him/herself with it.

Perhaps the definitional considerations should be with the word "agnostic."

For me...and this is only for me (although many, perhaps most, agnostics are of like mind):

I do not know if there is a God...

...I do not know if there are no gods...

...and I do not see enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful, reasonable guess.

Very few atheists I've ever met can agree with that...or would consider that to be a subset of atheism.

We may have to agree to disagree on this.

How about we agree to agree?

We'll both agree that it if atheism is defined as an absence of theism, agnosticism is a subset of atheism, and that if atheism is defined as faith in the assertion that no gods exist, it is not.

How did we get off on this tangent? And why did McG roll his eyes at me and leave? And what's fer supper?