actually if you examine my posts, you will see that they do focus on your method of discussion, as opposed to you, per se ...
The Viral "Sinner" Mentality
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
actually if you examine my posts, you will see that they do focus on your method of discussion, as opposed to you, per se ...
Scientology managed quite well as did jedi. However, that's neither here nor there.
The thing is, in your last post you were telling me that there was no such scripture saying people could drink poison and survive if they believed and if there was it was some whack jobs version of an interpretation. As such I went out of my way and showed you the relevant verse that does indeed state such a thing. As a response to that you tell me something that has no scriptural basis whatsoever, but is as far as I can tell simple make believe on your part - and amusingly enough wont even make the effort to actually provide any relevant scripture should it exist.
Debate among christians heh? A moment ago you were telling me that if anyone interpreted it that way, (and they dont), then they're not christians. Now you seem to have changed your mind. Now it's not whacky interpretation and is now perfectly fine as that scripture is some 'non-essential can ignore that passage' garbage.
Now now, that's not how it works. I await the verses.
Snakelord
“
“
actually compared to the greater influence of christianity, jedi and scientology are practically non-entities, so try again
hence there exist (in all fields of knowledge) greater and lesser foundations - ignorance of them constitutes "whackiness"
even in science there are standards of essential and non-essential
As we're actually discussing an issue..
As was stated on my last post this is neither here nor there. It is however worth noting that neither jedi nor scientology have had 2000+ years to become popular and I think it's safe to say that at no time in history have either of these beliefs led to extreme deaths of those that don't believe in them. If you're going to argue popularity, these things must be taken into account. The minute you come up with the scientology version of the inqusition I'll take your comments on board.
I'm truly pleased. Alas I can't work out its relevance to me asking the other poster to be decent enough to quote the scripture he claims goes against my post. Maybe you can? Or maybe you'd just like to continue posting irrelevant garbage? Whatever satisfies you.
Most certainly is I'm sure, alas I cannot work out its relevance to me pointing out the other persons contradictions.
I can see it was well worth taking you off ignore.... /end sarcasm mode... add back to ignore again.
As was stated on my last post this is neither here nor there. It is however worth noting that neither jedi nor scientology have had 2000+ years to become popular and I think it's safe to say that at no time in history have either of these beliefs led to extreme deaths of those that don't believe in them. If you're going to argue popularity, these things must be taken into account. The minute you come up with the scientology version of the inqusition I'll take your comments on board.
I'm truly pleased. Alas I can't work out its relevance to me asking the other poster to be decent enough to quote the scripture he claims goes against my post. Maybe you can? Or maybe you'd just like to continue posting irrelevant garbage? Whatever satisfies you.
Most certainly is I'm sure, alas I cannot work out its relevance to me pointing out the other persons contradictions.
I can see it was well worth taking you off ignore.... /end sarcasm mode... add back to ignore again.
Agreed.
I also hate this concept of 'sinning' as if making a mistake in life automatically makes you an evil person. It's so ridiculously monochromatic. All people make mistakes, they're not 'sins', they're just part of being human.
Snakelord
:shrug:
then it's not clear why you insist that they share the same qualities, since unless we wait 2000 years there's no way to validate or invalidate your claim - it's yet another post dated cheque
it deals with the broader issue of you trying to pass off whacky spins
ditto above
:shrug:
I've no idea what you're talking about with relevance to anything that has been said over the last couple of posts.
Me asking someone else to provide the passages that they claim exist which undermine the passages I showed that do exist are "broader issues and wacky spins"? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying with relevance to anything said prior to this.
Indeed.
:bugeye:
your attempt to draw indubitable connections between chrsitianity and jedi/scientology
Indeed it is a pointless affair - all because you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between foundational and peripheral knowledge.
It doesn't matter what the topic of discussion is, if a person can't distinguish between foundational and peripheral knowledge, calling for more data is a waste of time - and at a guess, I would say that is the reason why Revolvr never bothered to provide anything more detailed
Umm..
I provided a clear piece of scripture detailing the ability given to people that believe. The person that responded, (other than you with simple irrelevant nonsense), claimed there were passages that stated these abilities were only gifted for the first few years of christianity.
I have yet to see these claimed passages even though I have asked. You for some reason feel like waffling on with irrelevant pointless bullshit. If you want to provide those passages feel free. If not, stfu.
Do you understand?
I am simply suggesting that they are not responding because no matter what references are supplied, you still feel comfortable with whacky (and occasionally obnoxious) interpretations
:shrug:
Ok, show that to be the case. Explain to me where the whacky interpretation of Mark comes in to play and what "references" were supplied.
Thanks.
(Take into account that this is still entirely irrelevant to the posts you are responding to which ask someone else to support their claims. Now you have a chance to support your claims.)
Thanks.
(Take into account that this is still entirely irrelevant to the posts you are responding to which ask someone else to support their claims. Now you have a chance to support your claims.)
Ummm, Jedi is not a religion, it is a fictional script from a movie. No one believes Jedi's exist. And in 2000 years it will all be quite forgotten. Christianity will still exist, if humanity does.
It is you who are taking verses out of context, and criticizing Christianity by giving these verses meanings that Christians generally don't have. If you had bothered to read the Bible instead of mindlessly quoting verses or finding them from equally ignorant anti-Christian web sites, you would know the truth. Since you demonstrate no real interest in learning or understanding the truth, I see no reason to find the verses for you.
I am telling you what Christians believe. Sorry it doesn't conform to your pre-conceived notions. Since you find the truth to be "irrelevant garbage" I really cannot offer you anything.
Like the Jedi who can feel the presence of "The Force", the Christian can feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. If it were just a book of words, Christianity would never have survived and grown. I wish you the best in your search for the truth. But you will never find it by ignoring and rejecting it.
around post 60
YOU - In the context of testing whether someone is a true christian or not, that person should be just as familiar with faith - and thus, if they are a true christian, will be able to survive drinking poison. To test whether they actually have love for everyone or not is somewhat more complicated a task.
I find it quite interesting that you omit to mention scientology in your rebuttal. You will find with some research that no other religion has spread as far or fast in its timescale as scientology. All of this without the ability to drink poison.
Yes this is still quite worthless in the grand scheme of things and is merely mentioned because you tried to make a big deal of christianity while avoiding the actual passage in question - which you conveniently still do.
Apparently so, and yet you have offered nothing of substance here. You made a couple of claims that you still fail to provide and that's it. Do you have anything other than you simply saying it is so?
Bad start. I havce probably read it more times than you have, indeed I have studied it in depth. Having said that I am still unaware of this supposed scripture that says christians only had these powers for a few years as you claimed. If you would be kind enough to provide it for me. Failing that you could just continue along your current lines..
Yeah, you're telling me many things, you're showing me nothing. Come on, this is primary school bullshit. Try harder.
Why not?
-----
Apologies, I don't see how this is even relevant. Where does any of this show that the ability to drink poison is a "whacky interpretation"? and what references do you refer to?
Hello?
then maybe we can cut to the car chase and have you explain why there is no need to address text critical issues in scripture?
Hint - There are very good reasons why the jewish communities in NYC are neglecting the scriptural injunctions for the maintenance of camels these days ....
I have offered plenty of substance, and in good faith and good cheer. Since you are so well studied in the bible, this should be a trivial exercise for you. It is for me. But you can't. You are making my point without any effort on my part. Clearly you are not studied in the Bible at all.
The 'car chase' as you put it is you explaining to me how the Mark passage is a "whacky interpretation" as you claim it to be, and provide the "references" that you claim were provided. Failing to do that means we have nothing to discuss.
------
My apologies, you're right. I know nothing, absolutely nothing. Hell I know less than nothing. As a result of me knowing nothing, I would be very grateful if you could provide these passages that you claim exist. Thank you very much.
I will openly and happily state it.. I know nothing. I'm not studied whatsoever. I'm thick as two short planks. Kindly provide the relevant scripture.
Ahhhhh Grasshopper, I see we are finally able to agree on something. Before I answer you, you must first spend 40 days and nights in contemplation. After the 40 days, return and perhaps you will find what you're looking for.
Good night and have a pleasant weekend!
-- The Rev
the explanation is that ALL knowledge has greater and lesser foundations - specifically dealt with in the case of scripture under the banner of "text critical issues"
I provided one link which addressed your whackiness
And light the fuse Ehrman did, exploding his book to the New York Times Bestseller's list! Wallace is right, and his article is worth reading in full. Mark 16 and John 8 are two of the more notorious passages, but rather than just give the church a fish (i.e., teach them response for these two specific cases) I agree with Wallace that we should teach the church to fish (i.e., educate the church about text critical issues in general).
source
I provided a further example as to the strangeness of determining all scriptural injunctions as sharing an equal footing - namely the lack of obedience to the injunctions for camel maintenance by the present day jewish communities in downtown NYC
If you think that knowledge (lets put it in neutral philosophical language and say "any knowledge", outside of any specific issues of religion) does not have inherent issues of greater and lesser foundations, please try and provide some examples because it would surely help your (whacky) case
I see. The extremely long winded way of saying "I can't, I made it up".
Got ya.
------
How so? Other than the word "Mark", it says nothing of the actual passage. It says nothing of drinking poison, handling snakes, healing the sick, or speaking in tongues. Good try nonetheless.. Wait, no it wasn't.
Once again: Do you have specific argument against the passage seen in Mark? Let's forget camels for a second lg, lets forget downtown NYC and any other utterly irrelevant verbal manure you can conjure up and concentrate please on the passage in Mark. Do you have an argument about that actual passage? Do you have an alternate intepretation of that passage in Mark?
Yes or no? I am starting to wish I never took you off ignore. Consider this your last chance.
Last edited: