Your Vote, Your Reasons

[2centsworth]

He duped the Catholic Church?

How stupid are they?

Anyway, dumbass, you wanted a history book, I gave it to you.

You're so blind, you can't help but play the part of the fool.

you trollish prick, you're trying to convince people Hitler killed millions of Jews and Christians in the name of Catholism. You're a freakin joke.

[ElNono]

I am not afraid- at all. I assure you.

I am aware of the very real spiritual realities that are constantly at work in and have always existed in this world.

There is God who loves us and there is Satan who is out to destroy us all.

Your life on earth will either be spent in God's hands with His blessings or without help under the relentless attack of Satan.
Which of the two occurs is up to you to choose, as is the destination of your eternal soul.

Oh, you are. You can fool yourself, but not me. You are fearful of a person that stated clearly he's a christian, that has read and profess the very same scriptures that you love to quote. There's no other motive. And it's irrational.
You no longer think or speak for yourself. Those scriptures you keep on bringing up over and over are what do the thinking and talking for you. You are no longer yourself. You're fully submitted. Why would your god gives us such a powerful and incredible mind if he wanted us to be mindless as you are? You know what I just did? I had a personal thought. You probably don't even know what that is anymore. You truly are a disgrace.

[ElNono]

The World needs Jesus. We all do. Those of you who do not yet know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior I am praying that you accept Him soon.

What the world needs is less mindless sheep like you and more people able to actually educate and think by themselves.

you, and your lord jesus.

[Extra Stout]

I think a rational observer of the Christian faith would come to the conclusion that it is for the most part based on fiction. I don't want to sound dismissive, but there is no evidence to suggest to me that the stories in the Bible are anything more than a fairytale. Jesus may have existed historically, but we have zero evidence or proof that he was the Son of God or anything of the like. What was written in the Bible was written many many years later by men, and further what exists in the Bible today was decided by a Council of men. They purposefully threw out texts that didn't agree with the image of God they wanted to portray. This just doesn't strike me as the way God would go about revealing himself to the world.

I suppose you're talking about the New Testament. A rational naturalist has to dismiss the NT prima facie because it speaks of miracles and of a bodily resurrection. I freely and fully admit that such occurrences are not permissible given what we know of the natural sciences. In Paul's letters, especialy 1 Corinthians, he comes right out and says that these claims are ridiculous to educated people. They were ridiculous to educated Greeks and Romans in the first century. Modern skeptics are not arriving at new conclusions.

So, indeed, if you cannot accept the possibility of such things, move along. Enjoy your life. Paul himself says that Christianity is a waste of time if you don't believe in a literal resurrection.

The orthodox case for the historicity of the miracles and the resurrection these days is the example of the apostles. What they suffered through to tell their story makes zero sense if they are just charlatans on a power play. They believed that what they were professing actually happened. Perhaps they all just were overcome by a powerful group delusion. I suspect many of the non-religious believe that's the best explanation for people like me anyway, who otherwise appear to be lucid.

Nevertheless, there will be no "proof" that Jesus is the Son of God. According to Jesus' words, there isn't supposed to be proof: "blessed are those who believe without seeing."

Fifty years ago, there were theories that most of the NT had to have been written centuries after Jesus' alleged lifetime. There was doubt that he historically existed. This was during a period when the Bible was discounted as a source, while other ancient sources, even non-Christian religious ones, were accepted. It also was before first-century papyri of Scripture were discovered.

The idea about the "excluded works" is misleading. In popular discourse, it is made to sound as though Christianity was some disorganized soup with lots of different and contradictory texts until Constantine and some other guys came along and defined orthodoxy for everyone.

This is totally wrong.

You want to know what the disputed works were? Not the Gospel of Thomas. Not the Gospel of Judas. The Gnostics were their own splinter group with their own texts. They survived on their own until the Muslims came along and convinced them with swords that Islam was much better. The four canonical Gospels were affirmed by essentially the entire Christian Church by the early second century. The books that barely "made it in" the canon are 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The ones that barely "missed" are 1 Clement, the Didache, Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

There are Syriac Christian churches in the East that still consider 5 books of the NT (2 Pt, 2-3Jn, Jd, Rv) as only deuterocanonical.

The Council of Carthage in 397 is often cited as the meeting that "defined" the canon. This is totally Eurocentric. That council only applied to the Roman church. It did not apply to Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, yet they all had the same New Testament canon -- not because some bishops decided that's what it would be, but rather because everyone was using those books.

Further if the word of God exists in the Bible, explain to me why this piece of text is in there?

The proper traditional Christian reading of the Old Testament is Christological. There were two hermeneutical schools of thought in the early days of Christianity. Both used the Old Testament as a symbol pointing to Jesus Christ. One, centered in Antioch, sought to understand the historical context of the Old Testament accounts in order to apply them to Christian theology. The other, in Alexandria, read the texts entirely as allegory. The modern, hyper-literalist treatment, whether invoked by fundamentalists or by skeptics, involves the superimposition of a contemporary worldview on an ancient text. In the traditional treatment of this passage, the question of whether God is championing slavery of foreigners here would be irrelevant.

From a historical context, in an ancient tribal civilization, selling oneself or one's children into slavery was an alternative to starving. Impressing military captives into slavery was the merciful alternative to slaughtering them. Enlightment-vintage notions of egalitarianism never entered people's minds. In that world, if you were a slave, it meant you probably got to eat on a regular basis, which was relatively awesome back then.

We superimpose American politics, such as racial guilt over black chattel slavery, on the biblical text, so far as even to mistranslate verses, such as 1 Corinthians 7:21, which in Greek tells slaves not to seek their freedom even if they can buy it. American evangelical translations into English sometimes say the exact opposite.

[Extra Stout]

nada

[BacktoBasics]

Modddds!!!!

[Jelly]

What the world needs is less mindless sheep like you and more people able to actually educate and think by themselves.

you, and your lord jesus.

this is nice. I think you've probably succeeded in persuading Angel and those who share her beliefs to open their minds a little.

[MannyIsGod]

I would vote for Angel Luv before Viva. Thats how ing stupid he is.

[2centsworth]

Notice he said "hope". Obviously, those hopes were dashed before the end of the first page.

...13 pages later...

I started reading with all intentions of posting a reasoned explanation of why I'm voting for _______.

[ElNono]

Interesting thread

As "different" as Angel's take by me, she's far from alone in that stance. There are going to be millions of votes caste during the election following similar logic. Whether it is people who think Obama is really the anti-christ or really a terrorist sent to infiltrate our government, this is an inescapable truth.

And really, I'm fine with people voting for whatever reasons seem right to them. Angel stood up to the fire in this thread and if she still feels the same way, she should be able to vote how she wants. Freedom of thought in America is one of the best aspects of this country. Without it, a true democracy doesn't exist. You can call her crazy if you want but to say she shouldn't vote is more Un-American than anything she has said in the thread.

What's the problem bringing up our opinions? I think she's wacko, period. I don't have a problem with religious people. I have a problem with lying, irrational, extremist religious people.

[MannyIsGod]

Agreed. Can I get a restart on this, timvp?

Call this thread what you want...like, "AntiChrist: Now or Never?" or some .

I started a thread a couple of weeks back with the same line of thought as you. You may want to search for it and check out the responses.

[Extra Stout]

Ah, the great dodge.

I can at least respect consistency of the Bible thumpers who unequivocaly state that the "never heards" are all burning in .

So I guess you only respect people who confirm your preconceived notions about what you want to believe about Christianity.

Was Thomas Aquinas into the "great dodge" as well?

[ElNono]

this is nice. I think you've probably succeeded in persuading Angel and those who share her beliefs to open their minds a little.

I'm not attempting to persuade somebody that it's completely irrational. Just making it clear to them that no matter what amount of praying they do, I don't subscribe to their ideology.

[Extra Stout]

That's convenient.

Hey, if you are bound and determined you want to burn in , there's really nothing I can do to stop you. Just don't use the poor unreached bushmen as an excuse. They'll be held accountable for what they know.

[Findog]

Wow! Can't believe Sullivan reads Spurstalk. I love that guy!

He doesn't read Spurstalk. I sent it to him because he posted a link that reminded me of this thread:

[MannyIsGod]

Wow - Spurstalk's political forum hits Andrew Sullivan's blog. Niceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! Love that guy.

[Findog]

Wow - Spurstalk's political forum hits Andrew Sullivan's blog. Niceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! Love that guy.

he could've at least given me, what's that called, a 'hat tip.'

[Jelly]

I'm not attempting to persuade somebody that it's completely irrational. Just making it clear to them that no matter what amount of praying they do, I don't subscribe to their ideology.

I don't subscribe to it either. In fact, it really scares the out of me that so many Americans believe the kinds of things that Angel has expressed in this thread (no offense, Angel). I just think this country is at a point where we really, REALLY need to try changing some very closed minds and we can't get there by screaming insults at people. But then again, I know how hot this forum can get.

[peewee's lovechild]

you trollish prick, you're trying to convince people Hitler killed millions of Jews and Christians in the name of Catholism. You're a freakin joke.

No you stupid .

It's a fact that the Catholic Church enabled him.

If you don't like facts, then there's no reasoning with your stupid ass.

[ElNono]

I don't subscribe to it either. In fact, it really scares the out of me that so many Americans believe the kinds of things that Angel has expressed in this thread (no offense, Angel). I just think this country is at a point where we really, REALLY need to try changing some very closed minds and we can't get there by screaming insults at people. But then again, I know how hot this forum can get.

You need to understand that she's a person that is beyond any hope of changing, or being rational anymore. I actually asked her once if she would still believe in god if there were irrefutable evidence that god did not create us... She avoided the question and when pressed didn't answer.

[peewee's lovechild]

Hahahaha, we made it on The Daily Dish.

[ratm1221]

I already told you that I cannot prove my strong su ions about Obama. Only time will tell if I am right or wrong.

I hate singling you out Angel, but I've been reading your posts and you are eat up with the dumbass.

The question I have is who the is going to drive you to vote, because I can't see anyone trusting you with a drivers license?

Oh, and I think you are a terrorist because you look like one of those A-rabs. I can't prove it but time will tell.

[peewee's lovechild]

Hahahaha, we made it on The Daily Dish.

And the readers of The Daily Dish will see how stupid Viva is.

[Findog]

And the readers of The Daily Dish will see how stupid Viva is.

it's a shame whottt wasn't here for this one. His views definitely deserve wider exposure than just on Spurstalk.

[MannyIsGod]

Whottt's been really quiet as of late. Someone in Austin should go by and check on him. Maybe his denial has progressed to depression.