Greetings From The Bible Belt

[Revelation In Space]

Hello everyone, I'm David, formerly an atheist of 27 years who became a believer upon beginning a careful study of the Bible. I like discussing religion and especially the Bible. My interpretation of the Bible is unique in that it has removed the pagan influence so prevalent in modern day apostate Christendom. I'm looking for a forum where rational discourse is possible, in teaching and learning.

 

[Aqueous Id]

While you're busy denouncing the millions of Christians who are pagan-influenced, I'll be busy denouncing the hypocrisy of basing such denouncements on a system of belief developed from the influence of "pagan" enemies of the early Hebrews, most notably the Babylonians, from whom they borrowed the Golden Rule (Code of Hammurabi) and of course the Flood Myth (Epic of Gilgamesh). The concept of angels and demons (the Devil) and Heaven and Hell is a late innovation, appearing after the conquests of Alexander the Great, in conjunction with influx of Persians into the Levant and Anatolia, absorbed into the cults of Hellenized Hebrews from "pagan" Zoroastrianism and cults of Mithra. And so on. And of course the history leading to the notion that Orthodox Christians are apostates is one of French, German and English "pagan" influences upon Roman Catholicism, which ignores all of the African, Middle Eastern and Oriental versions of Christian tradition that preceded the tradition that evolved in Northern Europe. Mostly I will be denouncing the logic which attacks the Roman Catholics as apostate, inasmuch as they are the cult which compiled, edited and curated the texts which you hold sacred as literal truth. So when it comes to rational discourse, I will of course be reminding you of the many egregious errors of pretending to have purified a system which was never more than a loose collection of myth, legends and fables in the first place.

And I'll be reminding you of the roots of the English version of the Protestant Reformation, which was nearly entirely founded on Henry VIII's personal issues with producing an heir and of course his problems with fidelity. That becomes the basis for a new religion that starts the legacy you follow, beginning with the dark era of paranoid misogyny of the Puritans, who, after they became ignorant yokels of the American frontier, re-invented the notion of "salvation by faith alone" which they manifested as the simplest of fallacies conceivable, the strict adherence to the literal interpretation of the Anglicized version of the text invented by their apostate parents, the Catholics.

So while you are busy denouncing the apostates, I'll be denouncing the enemies of science, academia and social progress who are of course most often fundamentalists.

 

[Revelation In Space]

While you're busy denouncing the millions of Christians who are pagan-influenced, I'll be busy denouncing the hypocrisy of basing such denouncements on a system of belief developed from the influence of "pagan" enemies of the early Hebrews, most notably the Babylonians, from whom they borrowed the Golden Rule (Code of Hammurabi) and of course the Flood Myth (Epic of Gilgamesh). The concept of angels and demons (the Devil) and Heaven and Hell is a late innovation, appearing after the conquests of Alexander the Great, in conjunction with influx of Persians into the Levant and Anatolia, absorbed into the cults of Hellenized Hebrews from "pagan" Zoroastrianism and cults of Mithra. And so on. And of course the history leading to the notion that Orthodox Christians are apostates is one of French, German and English "pagan" influences upon Roman Catholicism, which ignores all of the African, Middle Eastern and Oriental versions of Christian tradition that preceded the tradition that evolved in Northern Europe. Mostly I will be denouncing the logic which attacks the Roman Catholics as apostate, inasmuch as they are the cult which compiled, edited and curated the texts which you hold sacred as literal truth. So when it comes to rational discourse, I will of course be reminding you of the many egregious errors of pretending to have purified a system which was never more than a loose collection of myth, legends and fables in the first place.

And I'll be reminding you of the roots of the English version of the Protestant Reformation, which was nearly entirely founded on Henry VIII's personal issues with producing an heir and of course his problems with fidelity. That becomes the basis for a new religion that starts the legacy you follow, beginning with the dark era of paranoid misogyny of the Puritans, who, after they became ignorant yokels of the American frontier, re-invented the notion of "salvation by faith alone" which they manifested as the simplest of fallacies conceivable, the strict adherence to the literal interpretation of the Anglicized version of the text invented by their apostate parents, the Catholics.

So while you are busy denouncing the apostates, I'll be denouncing the enemies of science, academia and social progress who are of course most often fundamentalists.

Well. Good. It sounds as if it might be more interesting than I had thought possible. You do that. But first you might have started with hello. Or Welcome.

Hello, Aqueous, I look forward to our discussions.

 

[leopold]

So while you are busy denouncing the apostates, I'll be denouncing the enemies of science, academia and social progress who are of course most often fundamentalists.

why would you believe DLH is an "enemy of science", and why are you making such a comment in a thread he started?

is your panties too tight again?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Howdy....hello.
Looking forward to the discussions.

Sometimes we get new people on here role playing.
I hope you are 100% genuine in your beliefs.
Where do you stand on the "age of the earth" question?

 

[Revelation In Space]

Howdy....hello.
Looking forward to the discussions.
Where do you stand on the "age of the earth" question?

Hello, Captain. Science has changed it's estimate on the age of the Earth over the years, but from my Biblical perspective there is no reason to object to any such estimation. Put simply the Bible doesn't indicate any age.

The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

In verse 5 the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8 / Proverbs 25:13 / Psalm 90:4 / Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15)

The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding were indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18)

 

[Revelation In Space]

why would you believe DLH is an "enemy of science", and why are you making such a comment in a thread he started?

is your panties too tight again?

Hello, leopold. I don't think Aqueous indicated I was an enemy of science, but that the fundamentalists were. Surely Aqueous would have the decency to reserve such a loathsome nomenclature for only those obviously deserving it. Fundamentalists (shudder), I mean really! I did notice though, in his/her rambling atheist propaganda as if by rote, no mention was made of the pagan origins of baptism. About the only one I would have figured to be relevant.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Well. Good. It sounds as if it might be more interesting than I had thought possible.

I doubt it. If you had any interest in intelligent discussion you wouldn't have disparaged (Orthodoxy, we must infer) as apostasy.

You do that.

Yes, I do.

But first you might have started with hello. Or Welcome.

You might have started without throwing down on apostates. That set the tenor.

Hello, Aqueous, I look forward to our discussions.

And I look forward to you observing the site rules against preaching.

why would you believe DLH is an "enemy of science"

What I posted is based in fact, not belief.

and why are you making such a comment in a thread he started?

Direct that question to the persons making the inappropriate comments. To wit:

is your panties too tight again?

At least if you are going to pretend to attack my masculinity, try to make the post look like an adult wrote it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

his/her rambling atheist propaganda as if by rote, no mention was made of the pagan origins of baptism.

Yes, it's a Greek word, which indicates that Christianity had its roots in many enemy religions and cultures.

But since it's down to splitting hairs, let's be sure to understand what the word "pagan" even means before we try to pretend it has a patina of literacy attached to it:

late 14c., from Late Latin paganus "pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant" noun use of adjective meaning "of the country, of a village," from pagus "country people; province, rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE root *pag- "to fix" (see pact). As an adjective from early 15c.

Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.​

 

[Revelation In Space]

Yes, it's a Greek word, which indicates that Christianity had its roots in many enemy religions and cultures.

But since it's down to splitting hairs, let's be sure to understand what the word "pagan" even means before we try to pretend it has a patina of literacy attached to it:

late 14c., from Late Latin paganus "pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant" noun use of adjective meaning "of the country, of a village," from pagus "country people; province, rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE root *pag- "to fix" (see pact). As an adjective from early 15c.

Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.​

Very good. Put simply it is applied to those outside of. The villagers were outside cities and therefore difficult to preach to, and also often would incorporate outside teachings with what they were taught. There is nothing inherently evil about anything pagan. Jewish names were often changed to pagan names when Jews were, for example, among the Babylonians or Greeks. The Jewish calendar is full of "pagan" influence, as is our own. The tombstone, wind chime, wedding ring are all pagan. The baptism is also pagan in origin. A public proclamation adopted by early Christians. Hell, the trinity, the immortal soul, the cross and holidays and the rapture are pagan, but differ from baptism in two important ways. Firstly the latter are specific religious teachings or practices of a pagan nature and secondly they are unsupported by, and in conflict with the Bible.

 

[Revelation In Space]

I doubt it. If you had any interest in intelligent discussion you wouldn't have disparaged (Orthodoxy, we must infer) as apostasy. . . . You might have started without throwing down on apostates. That set the tenor.

Yes - that is interesting in that all I had done at that point was to differentiate my Bible beliefs with modern day apostate Christendom. I can only assume that you are no defender of Christendom, but what a curiosity! Why such an objection? Because of some arrogance on my part to suggest mine is the true truth or, less likely and far more subtly because it merely suggest some validity to any possible truth which may be contrary to your own. Fascinating, isn't it?! At this point I have no idea. Interestingly, the people here, your contemporaries, may in fact be well aware of what that is.

Your manner has clearly been remarked upon. You've made something of yourself here, haven't you. An enemy. Anything else?

And I look forward to you observing the site rules against preaching.


What I posted is based in fact, not belief.

You have nothing to fear but fear itself. You most likely know as well as I that, not unlike with fact and belief, there is a fine line between preaching and teaching, drawn in the sand it is on forums all over the world wide wasteland where the opposition is systematically dismantled leaving those who formerly claimed to look for a good debate to talk to themselves. It's a phenomenon!

 

[Dr_Toad]

Because of some arrogance on my part to suggest mine is the true truth..

There is is the infinite arrogance of the religious. Protection from fact and faith in one fell swoop.

I hope your fantasy of an afterlife isn't more than an enkephalin fantasy, 'cause you surely don't have a real life. Good luck with all that..

 

[dumbest man on earth]

You might have started without throwing down on apostates. That set the tenor.

Actually, DLH started by identifying himself as an apostate with his opening line in the OP :

Hello everyone, I'm David, formerly an atheist of 27 years who became a believer upon beginning a careful study of the Bible.

Any "throwing down" seems to have taken place in Post #2.

And I look forward to you observing the site rules against preaching.

Do tell?
The rules on Preaching or Proselytizing FOR any stance/position, apply equally on Preaching or Proselytizing AGAINST any stance/position.

 

[Dr_Toad]

So, what's your point, DMOE?

 

[Revelation In Space]

So, what's your point, DMOE?

I thought it was pretty obvious.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Obvious is physics, obscure is preaching or politics. So far you're on the scoreboard for obscure, and trolling.

Go eat some Jesus tomorrow and get better at what you preach.

 

[Revelation In Space]

Actually, DLH started by identifying himself as an apostate with his opening line in the OP :

Any "throwing down" seems to have taken place in Post #2.

Do you mean as an atheist I identify myself as apostate? That wouldn't be the case, because you can't be apostate as an atheist unless you were formerly a believer.

 

[Revelation In Space]

Obvious is physics, obscure is preaching or politics. So far you're on the scoreboard for obscure, and trolling.

Go eat some Jesus tomorrow and get better at what you preach.

Your starting to run out of steam, aren't you, little britches? By trolling I suppose you mean the standard Internet defintion: "1. disagreeing with repeatedly without substance." When in Rome. This isn't my first Rodeo. I've been reading y'all for some time and it seems to me the self evaluation is working against the prosecution. When you rise above it I can switch seamlessly.

 

[Revelation In Space]

Apologies: Double post.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Do you mean as an atheist I identify myself as apostate? That wouldn't be the case, because you can't be apostate as an atheist unless you were formerly a believer.

: : someone whose beliefs have changed and who no longer belongs to a religious or political group

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostate

DLH, you introduced yourself as "someone whose beliefs have changed and who no longer belongs to a religious or political group"...i.e., "formerly an atheist of 27 years who became a believer".
You no longer "belong to a religious or political group" known or identified as "atheists".
Ergo, an apostate.