Your Vote, Your Reasons

[ElNono]

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.

I thought he was past depression and already moved into anger...

[2centsworth]

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.

likewise

[MannyIsGod]

I thought he was past depression and already moved into anger...

Maybe he moved back? Then again its Whottt. He could just be on a week long peyote bender.

[Bartleby]

I thought he was past depression and already moved into anger...

Anger is a permanent state for Whottt.

[DarrinS]

Just to play Obama's advocate, did anyone prove Obama wasn't he anti-Christ?

[ElNono]

Just to play Obama's advocate, did anyone prove Obama wasn't he anti-Christ?

Well, as hard as I google, I can't find anywhere that says he eats babies for breakfast...

[DarrinS]

By the way, does Peewee's lovechild suffer from Tourette syndrome?

[Bartleby]

Just to play Obama's advocate, did anyone prove Obama wasn't he anti-Christ?

That's unnecessary. It's already been proven that Michael Jordan is the anti-Christ.

[Findog]

This thread has definitely reached classic status.

[DarrinS]

That's unecessary. It's already been proven that Michael Jordan is the anti-Christ.

I think it's quite possible that Ryan Seacrest is the anti-Christ.

[ElNono]

This thread has definitely reached classic status.

"What happens in Spurstalk, stays in Spurstalk"(tm)

[MannyIsGod]

Just to play Obama's advocate, did anyone prove Obama wasn't he anti-Christ?

By the way, does Peewee's lovechild suffer from Tourette syndrome?

You're on fire today.

[timvp]

This thread is awesome.

[timvp]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4241

Holy mother of Angel_Luv's God.

[TheMadHatter]

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.


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.

You're trying to rationalize the irrational. You've deluded yourself into believing a fairytale has more meaning than it does because you've lived your whole life believing in that fairytale. To reject it means rejecting yourself.

Listen to what you just wrote. What kind of God would deem slavery acceptable in any way, shape, or form regardless of the time period? Not the God you claim exclusivity to. If there is an omnipotent and benevolent creator he would be ashamed of what Christianity has become and how Christians like yourself have distorted his message. If anyone is burning in , it is you.

[MannyIsGod]

I just want to know when Senator Obama showed up at the mall with a bunch of dollar bills buying a gift card.

[SpursFanFirst]

I just cannot believe some people in this thread/site.

I admit I didn't read this whole thread, but the pages and responses I read were plenty.

Why is it there are people on this forum that are incapable of posting a response without the use of swear words and name calling?
Do you think that by using this tactic, you are somehow making your responses more valid?

I've read some of Angel's comments in this thread, and I've read her comments on this forum plenty in the past.
She doesn't use vulgarities to make her points - even if she disagrees with you.
Can't you show her (and others) the same respect?

[ElNono]

I just cannot believe some people in this thread/site.

I admit I didn't read this whole thread, but the pages and responses I read were plenty.

Why is it there are people on this forum that are incapable of posting a response without the use of swear words and name calling?
Do you think that by using this tactic, you are somehow making your responses more valid?

I've read some of Angel's comments in this thread, and I've read her comments on this forum plenty in the past.
She doesn't use vulgarities to make her points - even if she disagrees with you.
Can't you show her (and others) the same respect?

you too

[SpursFanFirst]

you too

Charming.

[timvp]

Most users ever online was 6,611, Today at 05:20 PM.

Props to this thread for setting a SpursTalk record.

[ElNono]

Charming.

Vulgarities are allowed in the forum. If you can't take them, you came to the wrong place.

[Bartleby]

Props to this thread for setting a SpursTalk record.

Hmmmm, this thread could turn out to be a game-changer.

[SpursFanFirst]

Vulgarities are allowed in the forum. If you can't take them, you came to the wrong place.

I understand people will swear, but some people take it to the extremes.
Is it that impossible to make a point without completely offending people?

[peewee's lovechild]

Holy mother of Angel_Luv's God.

[FromWayDowntown]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3485 (20 members and 3465 guests)