Abortion is here to stay . . . . thank Prochoice Bush . . .

[sebastiansdreams]

I disagree. I believe it was only kept out because it did not reflect well on the mythology. The basis for that is simple, there are plenty of inconsistencies that haven't been edited out, for starters:

I'd love to copy and paste the whole thing... but that would be about 5 or 6 posts.

Firstly, just a brief scan through these shows that none of these "inconsistancies" contain any context what-so-ever. Futhermore, a lot of them use false logic to assume there is an inconsistancy where there is not. And then some go so far to actually change the words of the verse to fit the inconsistancy. The other thing that I saw a large amount of is time or number inconsistancies. But anyone with any knowledge of Ancient Eastern culture knows that numbers and time where symbolic and really of importance at all outside of gaging a perhaps.

Shuamort, I am not unfamiliar with the fact that their are inconsistancies in the Bible. This was a very bad example of them, because the vast majority of them are not actually insonsistancies, but you didn't need to show me that there are inconsistancies. But these inconsistancies have to do with time or place or minor story line, or even various attitudes or understandings of God or situations. The differences between the Gospels that were kept and the Gospel of Thomas are quite large though, in comparrison. Also, you must take into consideration that their were plenty of other qualifiers used by the Council of Nicaea. Like the aggreement betwenen the manuscripts themselves, and the value that the book has towards the message that God has for the world, the relaibility of the sourcs, among others. To suggest that the only reason it was left out was to conceal some sort of conspiracy is quite frankly over the top.

 

[shuamort]

Firstly, just a brief scan through these shows that none of these "inconsistancies" contain any context what-so-ever. Futhermore, a lot of them use false logic to assume there is an inconsistancy where there is not. And then some go so far to actually change the words of the verse to fit the inconsistancy. The other thing that I saw a large amount of is time or number inconsistancies. But anyone with any knowledge of Ancient Eastern culture knows that numbers and time where symbolic and really of importance at all outside of gaging a perhaps.

Shuamort, I am not unfamiliar with the fact that their are inconsistancies in the Bible. This was a very bad example of them, because the vast majority of them are not actually insonsistancies, but you didn't need to show me that there are inconsistancies. But these inconsistancies have to do with time or place or minor story line, or even various attitudes or understandings of God or situations. The differences between the Gospels that were kept and the Gospel of Thomas are quite large though, in comparrison. Also, you must take into consideration that their were plenty of other qualifiers used by the Council of Nicaea. Like the aggreement betwenen the manuscripts themselves, and the value that the book has towards the message that God has for the world, the relaibility of the sourcs, among others. To suggest that the only reason it was left out was to conceal some sort of conspiracy is quite frankly over the top.

To suggest that any of it is real is over the top. And it was not solely the Council of Nicaea but also the Council of Carthage in 397, which published the decree of Pope Damasus, establishing the official canon of Sacred Scripture as that listing of books which we presently have. (There are eleven O.T. books which the Catholics regard to be inspired which the Protestants do not.) That same listing was confirmed by the Council of Trent in 1545.

As for the Apocrypha, it refers to the 73 books the Church does not consider as inspired. Examples: Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Paul . Protestants call these the Pseudepigraphia . To make matters more fun, the Catholic bible contains the OT books, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. These are not found in the Protestant bible. The Jewish OT was revised also with some books being dropped sometimes around the first century AD. Excerpts from the Gospel of Thomas suggests a more special relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdelene than what is mentioned in the conventional NT.

The earliest revered works that were considered scriptural were the five books of the Law/Torah/Pentateuch. This occurred by about the sixth century BCE. By the second century BCE, the Prophets (which includes a number of works that Christians call Historical as well as Isaiah and company) were being treated as Scripture (i.e., being read during religious services, etc.). Many other religious works were written throughout that period. Of those works, quite a few were used as inspirational and were sometimes included in services. At the end of the first century CE, the Jewish nation had suffered the catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish religion was in conflict with the heretical Christians. The decision was made to declare a closed canon of those works that were truly to be considered Scripture. The criteria was that the work had to have survived 500 years and it must have been originally written in the Hebrew language. Later literary criticism has shown that some of the selected works were not actually as old as they seemed and that some sections of those works had been written in languages other than Hebrew, but the judgment stands.

The Christian canon came about in a similar way. One of the earliest heresies faced by Christianity (outside Gnosticism) was the virulently anti-Jewish thought of Marcinion. He set up a list of "acceptable" works that excluded any writing that he considered to have been written for a Jewish audience. In response, the early Church convened several councils in which they defined their canon--deliberately including the "Jewish" works. The actual process took several hundred years.

Two results of this process are that some people believe that the NT was written over several hundred years (it was more like 60) and that other people think that some secret cabal of church fathers were "hiding secrets" from the rest of the faithful (every rejected book can be found and read, although some do not stay in publication in English for long periods).

Now, back to the Council of Nicaea, you've got a small group of regular folk put in charge of editing the texts. They're voting as to what's included and what's removed and considering what's holy and what's not divinely inspired. If you find that an accurate basis of belief and agree that those men can define what's accurate without prejudice or motive, well, I guess you just have to take that on faith.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Now, back to the Council of Nicaea, you've got a small group of regular folk put in charge of editing the texts. They're voting as to what's included and what's removed and considering what's holy and what's not divinely inspired. If you find that an accurate basis of belief and agree that those men can define what's accurate without prejudice or motive, well, I guess you just have to take that on faith.

All of that to say this? You know I am aware of all of that. In my three years at college I've taken 2 classes in OT one on the NT one philosophies of the Bible course, and ancient History. All of which spent a good deal of time on this. Furthermore, I've read various books on my own accord regarding this from authors such as Gamble, Strobel, Sanders, Pagels... So I'm not in need of a history lesson. I know the events that took place and I know the various conspiracy theories and suggestions. I know what the Gnostic Gospels contain and I know why the reasons why a good number of them were not chosen. Now, back to the Council of Nicaea, you have a small group of men, gathered together with a passion to share the glorious message of God's love and Sacrifice to the world. But there are various texts and manuscripts that all have to do with Christ. So they, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in reverence, deside what is important to the message and what is supplimental or simply not credible. You're right. I do have faith that these men were acting under the will of God, and therefore, were able to convey God's message the way God intended it. I do have faith in the Holy Spirit, and I do have faith that a Just God would give us His message, His circumstances, if He were going to offer heaven and hell. And through the Bible, He did so.

 

[shuamort]

Now, back to the Council of Nicaea, you have a small group of men, gathered together with a passion to share the glorious message of God's love and Sacrifice to the world. But there are various texts and manuscripts that all have to do with Christ. So they, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in reverence, deside what is important to the message and what is supplimental or simply not credible.

Was it for the love of the message or for the fear of the church crumbling away? You're skipping over some of the main points of Council's convening. Emperor Constantine wanted to make sure that the fractions wouldn't destroy the religion he was beginning to use to control his masses. The now-deemed-heretic-by-the-Catholic-Church Arius and the thoughts behind the arianism movement that followed showed that the fracture over what was voted was definitely not unanimous and that the books were not agreed upon. As that split between the Catholic and Orthodox church still remains (although, there have been whispers of attempts to reconcile with the new Pope in power, who can say). The one good thing that came out of the first council of Nicaea? The prohibition of self-castration. There are some things we can all agree on.

. You're right. I do have faith that these men were acting under the will of God, and therefore, were able to convey God's message the way God intended it. I do have faith in the Holy Spirit, and I do have faith that a Just God would give us His message, His circumstances, if He were going to offer heaven and hell. And through the Bible, He did so.

Penn and Teller did a great thing on an episode of Bullsh!t! They had a rabbit and each of them took a piece of paper and voted on the sex of the rabbit. They then showed the votes but explained that whatever their votes may be, it doesn't change the actual sex of the rabbit. Get my point?

 

[shuamort]

(Apologies to anyone that thought this would be a thread about abortion.)

 

[sebastiansdreams]

(Apologies to anyone that thought this would be a thread about abortion.)

I agree, I don't have time to respond this evening, but let's move this elsewhere. If you can find an appropriate thread, we'll move it there, and if not, I'll start one if you like.

 

[Shamgar]

How old are you? Stop acting like a child and communicate. Answer the questions and leave out the silly distracting insults. It makes you seem like an idiot.

Old enough to know that if anyone publicly displays that he/she loves to smoke pot then I will use that info to my advantage each and every time. . . . . oh your unrighteous judgment makes me sad . . . . hahahahaha.

Do you really think that women should not be allowed to speak in church? I've been to many churches and women tend to break the hell out of this rule in every single one of them. Are they God Haters?
I agree that abortion is wrong. We see eye to eye on that. I just don't see how feminst=God Hater.

Oh there are sorts of your kind in the churches promoting abortion . . . especailly females who claim to be Christian and yet suppport or particiapte in abortion . . . .

 

[Shamgar]

(Apologies to anyone that thought this would be a thread about abortion.)

Tranlsation: God haters will use any opportunity to derail a topic on Christianity to promote their hate.

 

[Shamgar]

So I'm supposed to hide that I smoke weed? I think not, because although I smoke weed, I can still communicate without cartoons, which seems to be an ability you lack, so how does that feel, not being able to communicate as well as a pothead? What does that say about you?

Sounds like pothead "logic" to me . . .

What about being christian makes it so you can't support the right to choose. We differ in our opinions of when life begins. It has nothing to do with our respective faiths. It's an opinion. Come on, say it with me, O-P-I-N-I-O-N. Get it? Christians disagree on all sorts of things, and the bible's message isn't as black and white as you try to make it seem, that's why people go to SCHOOL TO STUDY THE BIBLE! Do you remember that thing, school? It goes past 8th grade, you know.

Yup . . . it sure does sound like pothead "logic" . . . .

 

[jpwright]

Sounds like pothead "logic" to me . . .

Why don't you try actually debating instead of attacking the user next time?

 

[Shamgar]

Why don't you try actually debating instead of attacking the user next time?

What is the saying "Those who can't do . . .teach"? Ah . . . thanks for the "lesson" . . .

 

[MikeyC]

What is the saying "Those who can't do . . .teach"? Ah . . . thanks for the "lesson" . . .

You should take that lesson to heart. Attacking peopel in debate makes you weak. You still haven't answered anyone's questions in any way except by calling them God-haters...

 

[jpwright]

What is the saying "Those who can't do . . .teach"? Ah . . . thanks for the "lesson" . . .

Interesting how "teaching" people how to debate instantly removes my credibility to debate. Besides, you still haven't responded to what I said, opting to take a potshot at me instead. Ironic.

 

[Shamgar]

You should take that lesson to heart. Attacking peopel in debate makes you weak. You still haven't answered anyone's questions in any way except by calling them God-haters...

Oh the kettle is calling the pot black . . . . Oh but God haters such as your self have used the "hate" paint brush to paint anyone who is antiabortion or antihomosexual etc as "haters" . . . .and now the tables are turned since you are the real hate gorup since you hate God's words . . . .

 

[Shamgar]

Interesting how "teaching" people how to debate instantly removes my credibility to debate. Besides, you still haven't responded to what I said, opting to take a potshot at me instead. Ironic.

Yeah I find the "teachers who can't do" run around saying "ironic" all the time and nothing else . . . .

 

[MikeyC]

Oh the kettle is calling the pot black . . . . Oh but God haters such as your self have used the "hate" paint brush to paint anyone who is antiabortion or antihomosexual etc as "haters" . . . .and now the tables are turned since you are the real hate gorup since you hate God's words . . . .

I like and respect most Christians. I just find the ones who promote one of the greatest evils of this world, intolerance, to be unreasonable. Think about it, what major world conflict hasn't been the result of intolerance?
1)Conquests of Alexander the great- Intolerant of other rulers right to rule
2)Rome- Pretty much same reason as Alexander
3)Muslim Empires- Intolerant of other forms of Islam
4)Crusades- Intolerant of the Muslim's control of Jerusalem and Holy Land
5)WWI- Intolerance of nations to allow other nations to gain power
6)WWII- Germany's intolerance of all other races
7)Vietnam War- Intolerance of communism



I don't hate God's words since I see no evidence that God has ever spoken to us. To me, the Bible's accounts of God's words seem no more credible than some guy in Iowa who claims to have been abducted by aliens. And there certainly are a lot of those type of accounts. I find it unreasonable that an omnpotent being and Creator of the universe has interfered directly in our lives. Being anti-homosexual does make you a hater, a hater of homosexuals. You have only reinforced this with debate by calling the homosexuals God-haters and telling them they are not entering the kingdom of heaven. BTW, I don't hate people who are against abortion. I can definitely see the reason behind that issue both ways and actually I used to be pro-life (Though it was Bush's stance on pro-life side of debate so to you I was still pro-choice).

 

[jpwright]

Yeah I find the "teachers who can't do" run around saying "ironic" all the time and nothing else . . . .

That might be true for some other subject, but in debate anything you say in response to someone else's message can be considered debate. So we'll debate. Either way, you still don't get it: every post of yours is an attack towards someone else, myself included. That's still not "honest" debating.

Oh the kettle is calling the pot black . . . . Oh but God haters such as your self have used the "hate" paint brush to paint anyone who is antiabortion or antihomosexual etc as "haters" . . . .and now the tables are turned since you are the real hate gorup since you hate God's words . . . .

Interesting choice of cliche, but you're still wrong in your key assumptions. First of all, you accuse us of wrongfully calling you a "hater" when you have already admitted to hating homosexuals. How is this wrong? You are filled with hate, admit it. Either way, I can hate the sin of hating others without personally hating the sinner.

And I challenge you to provide one specific example of where anyone in this topic said that they specifically hated God's words or God himself. You are simply generalizing us as a bunch of God-haters only because we disagree with you on unrelated issues such as abortion. That is the true meaning of hate.

 

[Shamgar]

That might be true for some other subject, but in debate anything you say in response to someone else's message can be considered debate. So we'll debate. Either way, you still don't get it: every post of yours is an attack towards someone else, myself included. That's still not "honest" debating.

Anything? It appears "off point" comments and unsubstantiated claims appear to be "debate material" according to your defintion . . . no surprise there since you are on the side of "honesty". . . .

Interesting choice of cliche, but you're still wrong in your key assumptions. First of all, you accuse us of wrongfully calling you a "hater" when you have already admitted to hating homosexuals. How is this wrong? You are filled with hate, admit it. Either way, I can hate the sin of hating others without personally hating the sinner.

Oh but God called you a hater . . . and He doesn't lie . . . .

And I challenge you to provide one specific example of where anyone in this topic said that they specifically hated God's words or God himself. You are simply generalizing us as a bunch of God-haters only because we disagree with you on unrelated issues such as abortion. That is the true meaning of hate.

All you have to do is go to anyone's post who defends any form of abortion . . . . as they are all God haters. . . . .since they hate life . . . and they hate God who gives life . . .

 

[jpwright]

Anything? It appears "off point" comments and unsubstantiated claims appear to be "debate material" according to your defintion . . . no surprise there since you are on the side of "honesty". . . .

That makes no sense. That's almost like suing someone for fighting back in self defense when you're the one holding the smoking gun the whole time. Maybe I'd have to make less "unsubstantiated claims" (when did I make a claim in the first place?) and "off point comments" (pardon using the word again, but... ironic). I support honest debate, which is entirely different from just self-honestly alone.

And yes, anything in response. See this? This is a debate. Your posts towards MikeyC were not debate material, they were irrelevant personal attacks.

Oh but God called you a hater . . . and He doesn't lie . . . .

Prove it. You tell me where in your Bible, where God said it specifically that jpwright is a hater. Or is God generalizing again and dooming me to hell based on my beliefs? No, he is not, if he exists. You are twisting the words of your own God to spread messages of hate. Your God loves everyone, no matter what their beliefs are, because we are human and are capable of doing good in our lifetimes. You seem to be forgetting this. No matter how much "sin" I have committed, your God still loves me for who I am.

Besides, prove that your God is uncapable of lying as well. Even if you can prove that your God has never lied in the past, that does not make him ultimately omnipotent... nothing can be proven to be omnipotent, no matter how much good or truth your God has spread.

I want to you to try responding again, and this time to this specific part of the post:

First of all, you accuse us of wrongfully calling you a "hater" when you have already admitted to hating homosexuals.

You hate homosexuals, and you claim God hates homosexuals. Therefore, you are a hater. Even if you win the argument that I'm a hater, that doesn't change the fact that you are quite the hypocrite. Even more so, you discriminate based on genetics (these people are born homosexual from birth) whereas your accusation of my non-existant hate for your God and Christians comes from hate over choice. You chose to be a Christian. Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.

Bottom line: I don't hate, and even if I did, you're still the one at fault here.

All you have to do is go to anyone's post who defends any form of abortion . . . . as they are all God haters. . . . .since they hate life . . . and they hate God who gives life . . .

Interesting logic... but that's like saying if you hate the child, you hate the parents because they "gave" the child. Even still, since I do not know whether or not your God exists, I cannot hate him. I do not know whether or not he gives life therefore I do not associate life with him unless proven otherwise.

I've seen this one before, and it's incredibly sexist.

 

[ShamMol]

I've seen this one before, and it's incredibly sexist.

Yes it is. But, in the eyes of Christian leaders, entirely accurate.

 

[Shamgar]

And yes, anything in response. See this? This is a debate. Your posts towards MikeyC were not debate material, they were irrelevant personal attacks.

Hardly since clearly identifying someone is not a personal attack . . .and that is what I have proved . . . .

Prove it. You tell me where in your Bible, where God said it specifically that jpwright is a hater. Or is God generalizing again and dooming me to hell based on my beliefs? No, he is not, if he exists.

"if he exists" is proof enough . . your own words condemn you. . . .

Psalms 14: 1 To the chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They have corrupted themselves, they have done abominable works: there is none that doeth good.

Besides, prove that your God is uncapable of lying as well. Even if you can prove that your God has never lied in the past, that does not make him ultimately omnipotent... nothing can be proven to be omnipotent, no matter how much good or truth your God has spread.

Hebrew 6: 18 that by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us,

You hate homosexuals, and you claim God hates homosexuals. Therefore, you are a hater. Even if you win the argument that I'm a hater, that doesn't change the fact that you are quite the hypocrite. Even more so, you discriminate based on genetics (these people are born homosexual from birth) whereas your accusation of my non-existant hate for your God and Christians comes from hate over choice. You chose to be a Christian. Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.

Funny God only loves the former homosexuals . . .the ones that that repent and are allowed into the kingdom . . . .

1 Cor 6: 9 Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous ones, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And some were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

. . . not the vessels for common use . . . the homosexuals born that way . . . .

Romans 9: 21 Or has not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour? 22 And if God, minded to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; 23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared for glory,

Bottom line: I don't hate, and even if I did, you're still the one at fault here.

Bottom line you: are a liar . . . and a God hater since you support abominations that God will not allow in the kingdom of heaven . . . .

Romans 1: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I've seen this one before, and it's incredibly sexist.

Sounds like a God hater comment . . . then you should "enjoy" this one also . . .

 

[jpwright]

Hardly since clearly identifying someone is not a personal attack . . .and that is what I have proved . . . .

You identified him as a God-hater, with no proof, no substantial backing. It was a person attack.

"if he exists" is proof enough . . your own words condemn you. . . .

Psalms 14: 1 To the chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They have corrupted themselves, they have done abominable works: there is none that doeth good.

1. That doesn't prove that God hates me, it only proves that I have corrupted myself, which is irrelevant.

2. My statement doesn't imply that God doesn't exist, it only implies that I do not know whether or not he exists, which is not something your God would hate me for.

3. Once again, your God doesn't hate people based on one singular action... I could easily repent tommorrow and go to Heaven the next day. Why would God hate me now and then retract his statement later?

4. ... you still don't have any specific links to God hating jpwright, so your logic disappears, you can't prove that God hates me.

Hebrew 6: 18 that by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us,

Haha. Funny. So God has just told me he is omnipotent, and I am supposed to believe him? In that case, I'm omnipotent as well, I am incapable of error. Try using a source other than the Bible... oh wait, you can't.

Funny God only loves the former homosexuals . . .the ones that that repent and are allowed into the kingdom . . . .

1 Cor 6: 9 Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous ones, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And some were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

. . . not the vessels for common use . . . the homosexuals born that way . . .

Romans 9: 21 Or has not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour? 22 And if God, minded to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; 23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared for glory,

But he still hates homosexuals who don't repent. And you hate them as well. That means you are a hater. Are you missing something, or do I need to spell it out for you more clearly?

Bottom line you: are a liar . . . and a God hater since you support abominations that God will not allow in the kingdom of heaven . . . .

Romans 1: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Once again, the Bible is not a reputable source for this sort of thing... this is like God trying to tell me that I hate him. I decide whether I hate God or not, and I'm telling you, I don't. Regardless of whether or not I support abortion.

Sounds like a God hater comment . . . then you should "enjoy" this one also . . .

Sounds like a God hater comment? You're kidding, right? You generalize women as being stupid and ignorant, and then claim that "the world will end" when women have power over men. Tell me that's not sexist.

 

[Shamgar]

You identified him as a God-hater, with no proof, no substantial backing. It was a person attack.

I guess I should have just continued to ignore you since God haters love to "stack the deck" and ignore reality . . .. .

 

[MikeyC]

I guess I should have just continued to ignore you since God haters love to "stack the deck" and ignore reality . . .. .

Ignore reality? Can you prove that the words of the Bible are the words of God? Seems like all these mystical stories that defy laws of physics happened thousands of years ago when we didn't understand these laws and mistook common something as being a miracle. Strange that God hasn't spoken or sent angels to people lately...At least he could put on some sort of miracle show to prove to the world that he interferes in our lives.

 

[Shamgar]

Ignore reality? Can you prove that the words of the Bible are the words of God? Seems like all these mystical stories that defy laws of physics happened thousands of years ago when we didn't understand these laws and mistook common something as being a miracle. Strange that God hasn't spoken or sent angels to people lately...At least he could put on some sort of miracle show to prove to the world that he interferes in our lives.

Thanks for proving my "stacking the deck" assertion . . . .