U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-04-2016, 01:10 AM
 
Location: USA
3,081 posts, read 1,066,890 times
Reputation: 886

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I'm just saying that if you are convinced Christianity is nonsense, and are sick of it, you must just be a glutton for punishment.
Just doing my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
And how's that working out for you? How many Christians have you convinced to give up their faith by "exposing it for the nonsense that it is"?
No belief at all is in fact currently the fastest rising position in the U.S. It has risen from about 5% of the population since the turn of this century, to almost a quarter of the population today. Not that I can take credit for that. But people are rapidly beginning to question the assumptions that they were raised to accept without question. America’s Changing Religious Landscape | Pew Research Center

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Nobody has ever been able to actually disprove anything I believe, but I'll be sure to let you know when that happens. I have noticed, though, that atheists are very quick to declare that something which cannot be proven is "nonsense." Personally, I'm more about live and let live. That's why I don't hang out on the atheism forum trying to convert people to my belief system. Consequently, I have a pretty good relationship with most of the atheists on the forum.
No one has every been able to disprove that Santa Claus does not have a team of flying reindeer either. But if you can get people to stop and think about it, they begin to realize that they have never ACTUALLY seen a flying reindeer either. Flying reindeer are just about as rare as corpses which come back to life and then fly away.

Nonsense n.
1. something absurd or fatuous

This definition dovetails very nicely with the story of the earth arresting it's rotation for about 24 hours before starting up again (Joshua 10:12-13); hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem (Matt. 27:52-53); a man riding around in the belly of a large fish for several days before being deposited on dry land (Book of Jonah); and that flying reanimated corpse story.

Now, notice that I have not been unfriendly to you. I have simply contradicted you.

Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 05-04-2016 at 01:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2016, 07:51 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,460,663 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
This sort of obvious self deception is why believers are so often derided by non believers. There is no real chance that Paul met with and talked with the years dead Jesus. You can declare it to be true. You can even conspire to believe it yourself. But there is nothing you can do to make such a claim obviously true. It's a ridiculous and obviously unrealistic claim on the face of it, and there is nothing you can do to change that fact.

Typically, if the dehydration does not kill you, you do recover from it. There can be lasting effects though.
Actually it is you who is self deceived.
In the historic account, Paul actually did speak with the risen Christ. I have history on my side. You only have your own personal say-so.
In fact, Christ is coming back to set up the 1000 year kingdom in Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
You don't know that. That is just your say-so. It could have occurred in Winter when it was cold outside.


Quote:
This is what it says in all three of my Bibles, as well as the online Bible. What does it say in your Bible? And I notice that people need water in the winter as well. Three days without water is a extremely life threatening situation.

Acts 9:
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.


Bible, King James Version


He did go three days without food and water. You believe that historic account. Why don't you believe the historic account of him meeting the risen Christ?
People have gone 8 to 10 days without water.

Quote:
Written by Administrator
US Army Survival Manual

In any extreme situation you cannot survive for more than:

3 minutes without air - 3 hours without shelter
3 days without water - 3 weeks without food.
Home INFORMATION
Obviously Paul wasn't in extreme conditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2016, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
58,608 posts, read 31,995,277 times
Reputation: 9427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
Acts 9:
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.


Bible, King James Version
He didn't eat or drink AFTER the encounter.

Acts 8-9 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2016, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Chicago Area
7,585 posts, read 3,893,811 times
Reputation: 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
If you want the strongest proof that God certainly does NOT respect man's free will look no further than the story of Paul, a total and complete apostate who wanted nothing to do with Christianity and Jesus Christ except to kill Christians. Instead, God totally overruled Paul free will and literally forced him to become his apostle according to the story.


if Jesus/God does it for Paul then why doesn't He overrule ALL our free wills and make us Christians if Christianity is the true religion? Actually, Paul having his free will overruled and the rest of us NOT having our free will overruled---I mean this silly idea that God only wants us to come to Him of our own free will and if we don't want to He doesn't force us--is a totally bogus conjecture and proves that the story of Paul is nothing more than a myth constructed by early Christians.
I gotta disagree with you there. Apparently, God also appeared to and spoke to Cain -- probably before and certainly after he murdered his brother Abel. Both Cain and Saul have a very similar experience. They both see God or Christ who calls them on the carpet for their misdeeds. Cain didn't change and actually lied to God's face. On the other hand, Saul changed. Another example: The Israelites were led by Moses through the parted Red Sea and saw a long list of miracles, yet they continued to sin and rebel against God.

Radical 180 degree turnarounds are incredibly rare. Truth is, most really bad people would fall right back into being really bad people if an angel or God himself appeared to them. Angels or God appearing does not force anyone to change against their free will. They still have to choose it. Apparently, God knew something about Saul or he wouldn't have done it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2016, 10:40 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,460,663 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
I gotta disagree with you there. Apparently, God also appeared to and spoke to Cain -- probably before and certainly after he murdered his brother Abel. Both Cain and Saul have a very similar experience. They both see God or Christ who calls them on the carpet for their misdeeds. Cain didn't change and actually lied to God's face. On the other hand, Saul changed. Another example: The Israelites were led by Moses through the parted Red Sea and saw a long list of miracles, yet they continued to sin and rebel against God.

Radical 180 degree turnarounds are incredibly rare. Truth is, most really bad people would fall right back into being really bad people if an angel or God himself appeared to them. Angels or God appearing does not force anyone to change against their free will. They still have to choose it. Apparently, God knew something about Saul or he wouldn't have done it.
Of course we all make choices. But what *causes* us to choose what we do. After all, our choices are not causeless. If they were causeless our wills would be free. What Saul/Paul got that Cain did not was the baptism in the holy spirit and God's grace, mercy and love overwhelming Paul. That makes all the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2016, 02:09 PM
 
Location: USA
3,081 posts, read 1,066,890 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Actually it is you who is self deceived.
In the historic account, Paul actually did speak with the risen Christ. I have history on my side. You only have your own personal say-so.
The "historic" account also details the story of a corpse which came back to life and then flew off up into the clouds. Who wrote this "historic" account? Well, since Acts was written anonymously no one really knows. Acts is traditionally attributed to "Luke, the beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14) by Christians. The fact is however, there is absolutely NOTHING to connect the author of Acts to "Luke, the beloved physician" except for the tradition that Acts was written by someone named Luke, and that fact that Paul happens to mention someone named Luke in one of his letters. The fact remains however, that Acts was written anonymously.

Wikipedia
Acts of the Apostles
Acts and the Gospel of Luke make up a two-part work, Luke–Acts, by the same anonymous author, usually dated to around 80-90 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles is an important issue for biblical exegetes who are attempting to produce critical scholarship on the origins of the New Testament. Traditionally, the text is believed to have been written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). However, the earliest manuscripts are anonymous, and the traditional view has been challenged by many modern scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page


Wikipedia
Luke-Acts: unity, authorship and date
See also: Authorship of Luke–Acts
The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts.[13] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus.

The author is not named in either volume.According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).) He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately. He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles


One of the few things that Christians and historians are in agreement on, is that Acts and the Gospel of Luke were written by the same person. Otherwise, there on no real information on just who that person was. Christians have simply declared it to have been "Luke, the beloved physician" as a matter of convenience for no better reason then that an individual named Luke who was a physician is mentioned in Paul's letters.

What actual historical analysis does tell us however is that both Acts and the Gospel of Luke were anonymously written fifty or sixty years AFTER the execution of Jesus by an unknown individual who had no claim to personal eyewitness authority on the events in question. Claimed events which are EXTRAORDINARILY questionable by their very nature. The author of Acts did not personally witness the "risen" Jesus, nor did he personally witness Jesus lifting up off of the ground and flying off into the clouds. These are stories that he heard from others.

By the same token, the author of Acts was not with Paul on his epic journey to Damascus. Paul himself is the source for the story of what occurred on the road to Damascus. And Paul was the afflicted man. Paul was sick, delirious and blind at the time. There is no reason to suppose that Paul did not believe that his memory of the events was not accurate. There is every reason to suppose that Paul's own account is not accurate however. Why? First, as mentioned, Paul was suffering for a life threatening state of dehydration. Anyone who has gone three days without drinking will be out of their head in delirium by default. And second, Paul's account contends that he met with and talked with A DEAD MAN. A classic delirium induced hallucination which has no realistic chance of being true.

So why should Paul have had such a hallucination in the first place? Consider the fact that he was being cared for and prayed for BY A CHRISTIAN MAN during his illness, and it suddenly makes perfect sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
He did go three days without food and water. You believe that historic account. Why don't you believe the historic account of him meeting the risen Christ?
People have gone 8 to 10 days without water.
Under the right conditions of temperature and humidity a healthy person might go longer that 3 days without water and survive. But not without suffering serious permanent damage to their organs. I daresay you could scarcely go 24 hours without any intake of fluids at all. Test it for yourself.

I have no reason to doubt that something occurred during Paul's journey to Damascus which subsequently changed his life. Details such as speaking to a dead man there is every right and reason to question however. Why? Because it is an unbelievable and unrealistic story which there is EVERY REASON to suppose simply is not true. At least not all of it.

Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 05-04-2016 at 02:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2016, 02:12 PM
 
Location: USA
3,081 posts, read 1,066,890 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
He didn't eat or drink AFTER the encounter.

Acts 8-9 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
As I pointed out to Eusebius, this is Paul's memory and version of events. Paul was the afflicted man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2016, 02:48 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,460,663 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
The "historic" account also details the story of a corpse which came back to life and then flew off up into the clouds. Who wrote this "historic" account? Well, since Acts was written anonymously no one really knows. Acts is traditionally attributed to "Luke, the beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14) by Christians. The fact is however, there is absolutely NOTHING to connect the author of Acts to "Luke, the beloved physician" except for the tradition that Acts was written by someone named Luke, and that fact that Paul happens to mention someone named Luke in one of his letters. The fact remains however, that Acts was written anonymously.

Wikipedia
Acts of the Apostles
Acts and the Gospel of Luke make up a two-part work, Luke–Acts, by the same anonymous author, usually dated to around 80-90 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles is an important issue for biblical exegetes who are attempting to produce critical scholarship on the origins of the New Testament. Traditionally, the text is believed to have been written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). However, the earliest manuscripts are anonymous, and the traditional view has been challenged by many modern scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page


Wikipedia
Luke-Acts: unity, authorship and date
See also: Authorship of Luke–Acts
The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts.[13] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus.

The author is not named in either volume.According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).) He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately. He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles


One of the few things that Christians and historians are in agreement on, is that Acts and the Gospel of Luke were written by the same person. Otherwise, there on no real information on just who that person was. Christians have simply declared it to have been "Luke, the beloved physician" as a matter of convenience for no better reason then that an individual named Luke who was a physician is mentioned in Paul's letters.

What actual historical analysis does tell us however is that both Acts and the Gospel of Luke were anonymously written fifty or sixty years AFTER the execution of Jesus by an unknown individual who had no claim to personal eyewitness authority on the events in question. Claimed events which are EXTRAORDINARILY questionable by their very nature. The author of Acts did not personally witness the "risen" Jesus, nor did he personally witness Jesus lifting up off of the ground and flying off into the clouds. These are stories that he heard from others.

By the same token, the author of Acts was not with Paul on his epic journey to Damascus. Paul himself is the source for the story of what occurred on the road to Damascus. And Paul was the afflicted man. Paul was sick, delirious and blind at the time. There is no reason to suppose that Paul did not believe that his memory of the events was not accurate. There is every reason to suppose that Paul's own account is not accurate however. Why? First, as mentioned, Paul was suffering for a life threatening state of dehydration. Anyone who has gone three days without drinking will be out of their head in delirium by default. And second, Paul's account contends that he met with and talked with A DEAD MAN. A classic delirium induced hallucination which has no realistic chance of being true.

So why should Paul have had such a hallucination in the first place? Consider the fact that he was being cared for and prayed for BY A CHRISTIAN MAN during his illness, and it suddenly makes perfect sense.

Under the right conditions of temperature and humidity a healthy person might go longer that 3 days without water and survive. But not without suffering serious permanent damage to their organs. I daresay you could scarcely go 24 hours without any intake of fluids at all. Test it for yourself.

I have no reason to doubt that something occurred during Paul's journey to Damascus which subsequently changed his life. Details such as speaking to a dead man there is every right and reason to question however. Why? Because it is an unbelievable and unrealistic story which there is EVERY REASON to suppose simply is not true. At least not all of it.
Some of your reasons are so overboard that to deal with them would require a lot of my time. And I have found out in responding to you that nothing I have said to you has made any difference. So, believe what you want. One day you will see when Christ returns just how wrong you are.
Like I've said to you before, you believe Paul went without water for three days but you don't believe the other parts of his story. To me that is extremely strange. You just are not thinking right. I don't mean that in a way to upset you either.

And since when does Paul going without water for three days have anything to do with the topic "Universal Salvation Assured"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2016, 04:16 PM
 
Location: USA
3,081 posts, read 1,066,890 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Some of your reasons are so overboard that to deal with them would require a lot of my time. And I have found out in responding to you that nothing I have said to you has made any difference.
Eveything you have said to me I have already considered carefully over the course of my entire lifetime. Does it seem to you that I am NOT already fully familiar with this subject?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
So, believe what you want. One day you will see when Christ returns just how wrong you are.
Christians have been making this claim for the last 2,000 years. After 2,000 years of empty claims and complete futility this assertion has ZERO credibility. It was never credible to begin with, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Like I've said to you before, you believe Paul went without water for three days but you don't believe the other parts of his story. To me that is extremely strange. You just are not thinking right. I don't mean that in a way to upset you either.

The portions of the story which could be true, might be true. The portions that are clearly nonsense we can dismiss with cause. Notice that because I doubt the validity of the truth of a story of one man meeting with and talking to another man who had been dead for several years, I am the one who is "not thinking right."

If you read any anger or pain in anything I have said, you are simply misreading the words and giving them your own connotation. Everything I have said has been completely matter-of-fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
And since when does Paul going without water for three days have anything to do with the topic "Universal Salvation Assured"?
Yesterday, April 3, you wrote" "Saul/Paul wanted nothing to do with Christ and took part in the murder of Stephen and other Christians. Christ intercepted Saul who became Paul on the road to Damascus. Do you think Christ had to hold a sword to Saul's throat to go against Saul's will?"

Which caused us to undertake our present discussion concerning Paul and the story of his experience while on the road to Damascus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2016, 08:15 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,460,663 times
Reputation: 989
1 Timothy 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(5) For [or the reason why this is so that God will have all mankind to be saved is] there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Now then, if your version states that "God desires all mankind to be saved," then we are assured of this:

Isa_46:10 Telling from the beginning, the hereafter, and from aforetime, what has not yet been done. Saying,
`All My counsel shall be confirmed, and all My desire will I do.'"

So there is no getting around it. God really will have all mankind to be saved because
  • there is only one God, so there are no other gods who can thwart His will in this matter.
  • there is only one mediator between God and humans, the man Christ Jesus. So He has mediated the matter to bring this about.
  • Christ gave himself a ransom for all. Since all have been ransomed, all must be freed from slavery to sin and death and freed into God's salvation.


Anything which contradicts the above cannot be the truth. You can go to Saviour of all Fellowship, universal reconciliation, salvation of all mankind to read more on this matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top