2
   

Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:06 pm
It seems these christians still don't understand the simple fact that the stories related in the bible comes from other cultures and mythologies. They just don't want to learn the truth, and continue believing in the fictions related in the bible - as god's word.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:07 pm
Oh, so you can prove that statement, can you? You can absolutely prove it is not God's word?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:08 pm
Laughing good morning! About a thousand pages ago neo very politely asked me to post some references to where Paul did not claim to be spreading the word of Jesus. Let me interupt here to answer his request.

I generally do not quote scripture but since you demanded... taken from the NSRV.

From the earliest dated letter circa 50 C.E. Thessalonians 2:8 "So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us." It's interesting to note the salutation in Thessalonians which does not claim any apostolic authority.

circa 54 C.E. Philemon is clearly written by Paul, from Paul. The salutation claims to be from a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother. Also circa 54 C.E. Philippians is from "Paul and Timothy, servants (Greek slaves) of Christ Jesus.

The later letters to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans claim an apostolic authority not seen in the earlier letters and might come from disagreements he had with the twelve original apostles, particularly Peter (see below).

Independent of Paul's claim, the author of Luke/Acts claims there were 12 apostles and when Judas was replaced by Matthias to fulfill the scripture and bringing the number of apostles back to 12 (Acts 1:20-26). Luke/Acts refers to the apostles and to Paul but not to Paul as an apostle - a status he claims for himself and feels compelled to justify in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, "For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them - though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether than it was I or they, so we proclaim and show you have come to believe.

By the last letter with undisputed authorship (Romans, circa 56-57) he was in full glory claiming to be "set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures...to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name". He has clearly separated himself from the Jews and Jewish Christians.

With regard to teaching a message that was not Jesus' look to the rivalry between Peter and Paul. Peter did not approve of Paul's eating openly with those who did not keep kosher, or with Paul's assertion that Christians need not be circumcised. Paul felt that gentiles should nnot be forced to live like Jews in order to become Christian. Peter represents a closer connection to Jesus. Peter was a close companion cand confidnat of Jesus until his arrest, Paul, in all probability, never met Jesus other than through his vision. Paul apparently remained alienated from 'the twelve' or super-apostles and felt the sting of perceived inferiority, which he strikes back at in 2 Corinthians 11 and 12.

In Galatians 1 and 2, Paul takes on his differences between himself and 'the twelve', Peter in particular, claiming personal revelations, and no help from 'the others'. The animosity between Paul and the original apostles seems to have continued. Some scholars feel that the formation of the canonical Gospels during the 4th century, which exclude Paul's message, was intentional and gave greater weight to the canonical four, even though they appear to be written later.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:12 pm
MA, You fail to understand anything about logic. Go back to school.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:18 pm
Right. You cannot absolutely prove it is not God's word anymore than I can absolutely prove it is. You keep making the statements it is not God's word, etc., you said if someone makes a claim it is up to them to provide back up for it.

Just asking you to stick to what you said.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:20 pm
MA, It's you who keep declaring it's god's word. Prove it.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:22 pm
Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:
It seems these christians still don't understand the simple fact that the stories related in the bible comes from other cultures and mythologies. They just don't want to learn the truth, and continue believing in the fictions related in the bible - as god's word.


I have provided my evidence of it in plenty of posts. You have yet to flat out prove your point either.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:22 pm
If you admit you can't prove it's god's word, why do you continue to believe in it? You not only can't prove it's god's word, but even deny the biblical scholars that claim god is not homophobic - like you.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:25 pm
I have faith that it is God's word, C.I. I never claimed to have proof it was. I have faith.

And I am not homophobic and I'm getting sick of you calling me names. I am reporting you to the moderators. I have taken it long enough.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:27 pm
Momma A, You have faith in the NT as the divine word of God. I don't have any issue with your faith even though it differs from mine. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow and spring will come again, but I have no proof. Faith takes on all forms. When faith gets clouded beyond how you live your own life and takes on a justification on how you treat others or how you would have them live their lives then I have something to say.

You've stated that you felt homosexuality was wrong before you found your faith and your feelings are not a result of your faith. Fine, I have no problem with that. Having found your faith in the NT and the love of Jesus can you imagine a time that you might open yourself to a greater understanding of his message and his practices? I agree with Lash, Jesus would not have us judge homosexuals and pass laws that prevent them from fully participating in society. I do not accept the premise that the bible is protected from the workings of man, but I do find a great message in the teachings of Jesus.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:29 pm
J_B wrote:
Laughing good morning! About a thousand pages ago neo very politely asked me to post some references to where Paul did not claim to be spreading the word of Jesus. Let me interupt here to answer his request.

I generally do not quote scripture but since you demanded... taken from the NSRV.

From the earliest dated letter circa 50 C.E. Thessalonians 2:8 "So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us." It's interesting to note the salutation in Thessalonians which does not claim any apostolic authority.

circa 54 C.E. Philemon is clearly written by Paul, from Paul. The salutation claims to be from a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother. Also circa 54 C.E. Philippians is from "Paul and Timothy, servants (Greek slaves) of Christ Jesus.

The later letters to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans claim an apostolic authority not seen in the earlier letters and might come from disagreements he had with the twelve original apostles, particularly Peter (see below).

Independent of Paul's claim, the author of Luke/Acts claims there were 12 apostles and when Judas was replaced by Matthias to fulfill the scripture and bringing the number of apostles back to 12 (Acts 1:20-26). Luke/Acts refers to the apostles and to Paul but not to Paul as an apostle - a status he claims for himself and feels compelled to justify in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, "For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them - though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether than it was I or they, so we proclaim and show you have come to believe.

By the last letter with undisputed authorship (Romans, circa 56-57) he was in full glory claiming to be "set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures...to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name". He has clearly separated himself from the Jews and Jewish Christians.

With regard to teaching a message that was not Jesus' look to the rivalry between Peter and Paul. Peter did not approve of Paul's eating openly with those who did not keep kosher, or with Paul's assertion that Christians need not be circumcised. Paul felt that gentiles should nnot be forced to live like Jews in order to become Christian. Peter represents a closer connection to Jesus. Peter was a close companion cand confidnat of Jesus until his arrest, Paul, in all probability, never met Jesus other than through his vision. Paul apparently remained alienated from 'the twelve' or super-apostles and felt the sting of perceived inferiority, which he strikes back at in 2 Corinthians 11 and 12.

In Galatians 1 and 2, Paul takes on his differences between himself and 'the twelve', Peter in particular, claiming personal revelations, and no help from 'the others'. The animosity between Paul and the original apostles seems to have continued. Some scholars feel that the formation of the canonical Gospels during the 4th century, which exclude Paul's message, was intentional and gave greater weight to the canonical four, even though they appear to be written later.
Wow! the thread moves so fast. I wanted to post this right after yours J_B, But . . .

Paul was a sinner just as everyone else. But he did have a commission different from some of the others. He even outshone many of the apostles who are scarcely mentioned after the gospels. Does this make them any less or him any more of a Christian? This is how Luke described the vision of Ananias regarding Paul: "But the Lord said to him: "Be on your way, because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel." (Acts 9:15) Paul may not have been one of the twelve, but he was every bit an 'apostle to the nations'.

So, what did he teach that was in contradiction to Jesus' teachings?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:29 pm
Well, I'm sick of your ignorance - in your attempts to enforce your misguided religious' beliefs on others in this country.
You are a homophobic bigot of the worst kind.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:31 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Well, I'm sick of your ignorance - in your attempts to enforce your misguided religious' beliefs on others in this country.
You are a homophobic bigot of the worst kind.
Sheesh! CI. Go have some coffee.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:35 pm
neo, I already had my morning coffee. Wink
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:36 pm
neo, I don't tolerate any kind of bigot well.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:42 pm
Not even religious ones, C.I.?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:44 pm
religious, bigot=redundant
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:53 pm
J_B,

I understand what you are saying. But, I do not think that Jesus would want me to vote for (and thereby condone) something He says is wrong.

Just because I believe it is wrong and I will vote against it, does not mean I hate anyone. It just means I do not agree with it. It means I don't think it should be legal.

Like I said, I have two friends that are lesbians that live together. They know how I feel and I know how they feel. We are very good friends and they don't have a problem with the way I believe or the way they are treated by me.

That's brilliant, dys, just brilliant.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:56 pm
From my unpublished work, Defenestrated Definitions, a multiple choice question:

8] BIGOT: N.
A) Very large tap for water
B) Friend who taps you for a quarter
C) One who hates all different others
D) Largest one of several brothers
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 01:58 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
I understand what you are saying. But, I do not think that Jesus would want me to vote for (and thereby condone) something He says is wrong.


So now you are saying Jesus was a homophobe too? Whatever gave you that idea?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 11:21:26