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.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50653
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
What does that all mean?
I'm quite certain you're pulling my leg, and this "huh? I don't get it" act is wearing a little thin.
If you're truly not understanding analogies and that very simple on the surface post you just quoted, I'm sorry that I've just been rude to you and thought you were continuously joking that you're not comprehending. Maybe you're being sincere, and have comprehension struggles you haven't stated on the board. Except, of course, to show many examples of it.
People who called themselves Christians certainly did a GREAT deal of persecuting.
I don't recall any Christians that Jesus was supervising doing anything horrible? His disciples? His followers who followed him from town to town?
I can't really be responsible for how people have behaved who have misunderstood the teachings of my Messiah.
That's one of the fairest posts you've made.
Well, while those close to Jesus didn't persecute people (as far as I can remember), I do remember at least one of them breaking a commandment.
But here's where I have a problem with what you said. Christians, when pressed on certain things, often fall back on the phrase "real christians", and while you didn't use that term, you talked about "people who called themselves christians"...same idea. On the other hand, while y'all dismiss a lot of people who self-identify as christians as not being "real christians" or people who "called themselves christians", y'all also brag about how many christians there are in this country (Ozzy has done it repeatedly just today). So what do you think. Of the 75% of Americans who self-identify as christians...what do you think the real percentage is? I mean maybe real christians make up less than half of the population.
I think in part, he was dog whistling over the Roman Guards and the pharisees, and religious leaders at the time who surely would have killed him even sooner if they could figure out what it was he was saying, exactly. That's also why when challenged, he often answered in the form of a question, getting the questioner to answer so he couldn't be quoted as saying some of the messages he was passing on.
BUT, I think there's more than that. Somewhere in the first half of the book of Mark, and I can't find it right now is a troubling passage about this message of salvation isn't intended to be understood by everyone. And my Bible study class had a really hard time with it. Maybe it will come to me.
And this idea, that some are intended not to perceive and follow is a hard one to swallow. It would be less difficult if there was just a heaven and no hell. Sorry, you didn't listen, you don't get heaven. But it's hard to imagine a hell in that situation where others weren't supposed to hear.
I can imagine it being hard to swallow. Does God want only certain people to hear the message, and therefore dooms the ones who can't to hell through no fault of their own? Is there no hell at all? Why preach at all if God only lets certain people hear anyways?
So many things wrong with it, and people just write it off as, "Well, it's hard to swallow, but the Bible says it so I have to believe it!" This is my main issue with religion in general.
You struggle terribly with analogies, phetaroi. And not understanding what's being said doesn't flatter you.
You wouldn't have been very successful in understanding the parables, either.
Which may explain why you don't understand Christianity.
You know, the whole "ears to hear" thing. And I'll answer ahead the question you're about to ask - no, I'm not saying you're earless.
Because analogies are often weak attempts to put things in a more positive light, rather than the strong light of truth. Just as I notice you responded to the joke, but not the substance of the post. And your posts are way to full of analogies and cliches.
I'm quite certain you're pulling my leg, and this "huh? I don't get it" act is wearing a little thin.
If you're truly not understanding analogies and that very simple on the surface post you just quoted, I'm sorry that I've just been rude to you and thought you were continuously joking that you're not comprehending. Maybe you're being sincere, and have comprehension struggles you haven't stated on the board. Except, of course, to show many examples of it.
You said you're down in the trenches regarding gay rights. As I gay person, I doubt that.
This is one I was interested in because 'Paul's escape from Damascus' is an episode I like.
The vid points out some very good reasons to see the account of the conversion of Saul as a fabrication. It makes good points about how sparse in Paul is any real information of the kind heaped on us by the gospels.
I got an impression that Paul got his doctrines, not from the apostles but from two sources. A visit of two to heaven to talk with Jesus (Cor. 2) or so that passage implies, and worked out using his own head and the OT. (Romans). That was the only mention he makes of any vision of Jesus. So when he refers to himself as the last of the apostles to have a vision of Jesus, it is surely that and not a vision on the way to Damascus that he refers to.
But I wanted to mention the escape from Damascus. Paul says that it was to escape the Nabatean army sent by Aretus. Luke (in Acts) ignores the Nabateans and says that it was a Jewish plot to kill Paul. I won't go into how this contradiction discredits Luke yet again, or even how Paul's absurd claim that the king of Nabatea wanted to grab him, but the video claim that the Nabateans were nowhere in the area and had nothing to do with this.
No either this fellow has not done his research or I've been totally misled, as I am sure that Josephus supports this Nabatean seizure of Damascus in connection with Aretas' war with Heron Antipas, and taking advantage of the death of Tiberius. Aretas grabbed Damascus, 36/7 and stayed until Gail was killed and Clausius succeeded and Rome took Damascus back.
Now, perhaps I am quite foxed, but Paul fleeing Damascus (never mind his absurd reason) seem justified by history.
He agrees the death of Tiberius halting the attack by Rome on Nabatean, the defeat of Antipas by Aretas, and the reason (or pretext) for the war. But this was when Aretas was supposed to have taken Damascus.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-06-2019 at 02:24 PM..
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50653
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
You said you're down in the trenches regarding gay rights. As I gay person, I doubt that.
I'm not quite sure why you think I'd make something like that up.
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.
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.
