Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on October 22, 2013, 09:43:17 AM
-
A sheer cliff in Bolivia with over 5000 dinosaur footprints in it, apparently over several eras.
This is the kind of thing I like to point to when people go all "we've got to do something!" about stuff like climate change. Sorry, you can't stop the bulldozer that is Mother Nature. She'll just up end you :)
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/cal-orcko-300-feet-wall-with-over-5000.html
-
Ok, how did dinosaurs go and walk up a sheer cliff?
Oh, nevermind!
-
That is awesome.
-
Ok, how did dinosaurs go and walk up a sheer cliff?
Easy... ropes. Except for T-Rex; he was SOL.
-
The answer is obvious.
When He created the earth 5,000 years ago, God put those markings (not footprints) on the perfectly formed rock formation as a test of faith and to identify the heathen and athiests who reject His word.
Either that or he was just drunker than a skunk.
-
So somebody put up a wall to keep the dinosaurs in/out ???
-
So somebody put up a wall to keep the dinosaurs in/out ???
Well, it didn't work. They just walked up the wall. =)
-
The answer is obvious.
When He created the earth 5,000 years ago, God put those markings (not footprints) on the perfectly formed rock formation as a test of faith and to identify the heathen and athiests who reject His word.
Either that or he was just drunker than a skunk.
Didn't you know humans and dinasaurs lived together? =D
-
Yes, but that was a dinosaurs-only beach.
They weren't quite egalitarian in their belief as to who was superior... Looks like the comet showed who was superior, you snobby proto birds!
-
Ah, always nice to get the morning started with some egregious bashing of the religious.
-
Didn't you know humans and dinasaurs lived together? =D
and the dinosaurs buried their food, that is why you find bones in the rock.
-
enjoy!
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1493
-
Well, it didn't work. They just walked up the wall. =)
Some could climb higher up the wall than others. That explains why there are different dinosaur footprints at different heights.
-
Ah, always nice to get the morning started with some egregious bashing of the religious.
Egregious my ass.
It's hilarious!
And, just FYI, while I don't adhere to the strictly literalist interpretation of the Bible, I do very much consider myself to be a believer. I'm just not psychotic about it. I also have absolutely no problem at all reconciling religion AND science. In fact, I feel that they very nicely compliment each other in a way that far more people (on both sides) could see, and accept, if they'd simply get their heads out of their obstinate asses and think for themselves.
-
I don't think it helps to keep bringing up the stupid faith-testing theory of fossil remains.
-
I was taught "creation" was actually a restoration. God created the heavens and the earth (including life) at some point in eternity past. We don't know when. Some unknown time later, it was made dark and all that. So that means I don't believe the earth or all life that ever existed on earth is only 6000 years old. Basically saying the first two verses are stand alone separate events that occured at different times. That seems to me to be very consistent with these modern findings (or the other way around).
-
I was taught "creation" was actually a restoration. God created the heavens and the earth (including life) at some point in eternity past. We don't know when. Some unknown time later, it was made dark and all that. So that means I don't believe the earth or all life that ever existed on earth is only 6000 years old. Basically saying the first two verses are stand alone separate events that occured at different times. That seems to me to be very consistent with these modern findings (or the other way around).
Sounds a lot like Tolkienism.
-
Sounds a lot like Tolkienism.
Never heard of that. For me it is more of a big "I don't know". You might as well ask if the Bible says aliens exist. It really doesn't say anything at all. All I was saying is two verses are separte events and not one. It opens up a lot of speculative possibilities that are largely meaningless to my spriritual life.
That said, the wall is pretty cool. I remember seeing the Tyrannasaur footprints up in North Texas when I was a kid. You sometimes see TV shows about early myths and legends and people wonder where this immagination came from. Well, here is a good example. I recall seeing a show pointing out that Greece used to have fossils and old bones all over the place which helped give rise to many of their legends. I recall a teacher saying that her and her husband walked out into sands dunes in West Texas and found a skeleton. They grabed one piece and carried it back, but they were not able to find the spot again. Just a story I guess.
-
You suppose they scaled those walls to escape the flood waters as the Ark floated by? >:D
-
Egregious my ass.
It's hilarious!
And, just FYI, while I don't adhere to the strictly literalist interpretation of the Bible, I do very much consider myself to be a believer. I'm just not psychotic about it. I also have absolutely no problem at all reconciling religion AND science. In fact, I feel that they very nicely compliment each other in a way that far more people (on both sides) could see, and accept, if they'd simply get their heads out of their obstinate asses and think for themselves.
So you believe in the Bible, but not "believe" in the sense that it's actually an account of things that actually happened. Got it. I'm a huge "believer" in Stephen Crane's poetry and the Game of Thrones series, myself.
-
I was taught "creation" was actually a restoration. God created the heavens and the earth (including life) at some point in eternity past. We don't know when. Some unknown time later, it was made dark and all that. So that means I don't believe the earth or all life that ever existed on earth is only 6000 years old. Basically saying the first two verses are stand alone separate events that occured at different times. That seems to me to be very consistent with these modern findings (or the other way around).
I don't know that I can say that's necessarily wrong, only that such an interpretation is not suggested by the text.
-
I don't know that I can say that's necessarily wrong, only that such an interpretation is not suggested by the text.
Yeah, I know. It was referring to a possible interpretation of the original language. I need to dig up the book he wrote that included that. I think all I have is the mp3.
-
The Bible is a combination of historical fact, oral tradition, legend, parable, and likely flat out fiction. The importance of the Bible is in its overarching lessons on faith and personal interactions with others and ourselves, not in the concept that every word is an absolute, irrevocable utterance from the mouth of God to various scribes.
That is what I believe. If that differs from your belief system, so be it.
-
I was taught "creation" was actually a restoration. God created the heavens and the earth (including life) at some point in eternity past. We don't know when. Some unknown time later, it was made dark and all that. So that means I don't believe the earth or all life that ever existed on earth is only 6000 years old. Basically saying the first two verses are stand alone separate events that occured at different times. That seems to me to be very consistent with these modern findings (or the other way around).
Sounds a lot like Tolkienism.
Ive seen dispensationalists teach tat. They (some) see a big gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, a historical hole big enough to pour almost anything in.
-
. . . You might as well ask if the Bible says aliens exist . . .
Some say there's an account of an alien encounter in Ezekiel . . .
The Bible is a combination of historical fact, oral tradition, legend, parable, and likely flat out fiction. The importance of the Bible is in its overarching lessons on faith and personal interactions with others and ourselves, not in the concept that every word is an absolute, irrevocable utterance from the mouth of God to various scribes.
Not to mention millenia of cumulative translation/transcription errors and deliberate editing & rewriting. (GOD needs an EDITOR? :facepalm: )
-
Dinosaurs weren't killed by asteroids; they were killed by thread drift. And a religion war.
-
Dinosaurs weren't killed by asteroids; they were killed by thread drift. And a religion war.
The Sauron gods are angry!
-
"Not to mention millenia of cumulative translation/transcription errors and deliberate editing & rewriting. (GOD needs an EDITOR?)"
Then you've got fun things like documents that are apparently contemporaneous of the writings of the New Testament, but which differ in significant ways and which never made it into the Bible, either by accident or by purposeful omission.
Probably the best example of that is the Gospels of Thomas.
Fascinating reading, and which formed part of the back story for that awful Stigmata movie.
-
The Bible is a combination of historical fact, oral tradition, legend, parable, and likely flat out fiction. The importance of the Bible is in its overarching lessons on faith and personal interactions with others and ourselves, not in the concept that every word is an absolute, irrevocable utterance from the mouth of God to various scribes.
That is what I believe. If that differs from your belief system, so be it.
Well, the Bible itself tends to disagree with that position. I'm not trying to argue you out of your position, but it does seem inappropriate to describe yourself as a "believer" or member of a religion when your take on it is "It's just a bunch of nice stories that tell us we should be nice to each other." Sort of like that lady heading up one of the mainline denominations (Methodists? Episcopals? I can't recall) who wasn't comfortable describing herself as a theist. :facepalm: Now, if you don't believe in the actual existence of a God but like (what you believe to be) the overarching themes and messages of the religion then hey that's fine. But it's not truthful to claim to represent or be a part of the group that actually hold those views.
-
"Not to mention millenia of cumulative translation/transcription errors and deliberate editing & rewriting. (GOD needs an EDITOR?)"
Then you've got fun things like documents that are apparently contemporaneous of the writings of the New Testament, but which differ in significant ways and which never made it into the Bible, either by accident or by purposeful omission.
Probably the best example of that is the Gospels of Thomas.
Fascinating reading, and which formed part of the back story for that awful Stigmata movie.
א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
Every time I try to mention that there are other Gospels then the 4, I get called a heretic or something worse. Then because I am Roman Catholic, my bible is wrong also because it came from the wrong ancient library and contains too many books compared to King James Version.
-
Honest question: are you familiar with why the books that are in the Bible were chosen, and why the other "gospels" were excluded? And not via a Dan Brown book.
-
Honest question: are you familiar with why the books that are in the Bible were chosen, and why the other "gospels" were excluded? And not via a Dan Brown book.
I'm familiar with how the books of the Roman Catholic Bible were chosen.
-
Dinosaurs weren't killed by asteroids; they were killed by thread drift. And a religion war.
Some died for lack of exercise .. .... [tinfoil]
-
Obviously, the dinosaurs fell off the wall :P
-
"Not to mention millenia of cumulative translation/transcription errors and deliberate editing & rewriting. (GOD needs an EDITOR?)"
Then you've got fun things like documents that are apparently contemporaneous of the writings of the New Testament, but which differ in significant ways and which never made it into the Bible, either by accident or by purposeful omission.
Probably the best example of that is the Gospels of Thomas.
Fascinating reading, and which formed part of the back story for that awful Stigmata movie.
No wonder the others were not included.
-
Stigmata picked up on a claim that has been made throughout the years, that the early Christian church essentially buried the Gospels of Thomas because they would have the potential to significantly undercut the growing power of the church heirarchy.
True or not I don't think anyone will ever know, but when you read some of the material, it really points towards a self-directed relationship with God, not a church-directed interventional relationship.
-
Honest question: are you familiar with why the books that are in the Bible were chosen, and why the other "gospels" were excluded?
I am not, and I would like to learn. Any pointers to links or references would be appreciated.
-
Stigmata picked up on a claim that has been made throughout the years, that the early Christian church essentially buried the Gospels of Thomas because they would have the potential to significantly undercut the growing power of the church heirarchy.
True or not I don't think anyone will ever know, but when you read some of the material, it really points towards a self-directed relationship with God, not a church-directed interventional relationship.
Jumping in here, but I don't think the books considered canon (even by the RCC) point to a church-directed relationship with God.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the Church is ordained by God, but the importance of being right with God *on your own* is pretty clearly taught. Churches are also taught...but not slavish obedience thereto. At least in my Bible :P
-
Honest question: are you familiar with why the books that are in the Bible were chosen, and why the other "gospels" were excluded? And not via a Dan Brown book.
It was a long and adaptive process over the span of a number of centuries. Not all religions have the exact same version of the Bible, either. Their faiths, for whatever reason, chose differently at different times.
The exact reasons why some were chosen, and others were not, are in many cases now lost to time. Others are recorded in church records.
In all cases, however, what we now call the Bible was chosen by men, based on their own belief systems and interpretations of how the various liturgical texts were relevant in their lives and in the lives of the members of their community.
This site discusses the selection process: http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/7/
I find this passage to be particularly interesting...
" Some of the churches were using books and letters in their services that were definitely spurious. Gradually the need to have a definite list of the inspired Scriptures became apparent. Heretical movements were rising, each one choosing its own selected Scriptures, including such documents as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas.
Gradually it became clear which works were truly genuine and which mixed truth with fantasy. By the end of the fourth century the canon was definitively settled and accepted."
Uhm... OK. I find that to be a particularly... interesting... statement.
-
Jumping in here, but I don't think the books considered canon (even by the RCC) point to a church-directed relationship with God.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the Church is ordained by God, but the importance of being right with God *on your own* is pretty clearly taught. Churches are also taught...but not slavish obedience thereto. At least in my Bible :P
I would agree with the first.
On the second, I was always taught that the local Church was called for, but the Religous Organizations set up to support local Churches are not.
-
Dinosaurs weren't killed by asteroids; they were killed by thread drift. And a religion war.
According to a Ren and Stimpy episode I saw one time, the dinasaurs died because they all Hiccuped, Sneezed, and Farted (or was that burped?) at the same time and exploded. Of course, their tour guide at the museum later claimed credit for killing them all himself.
Then there is Gary Larson sketch that blamed it all on cigarrettes.
-
"Jumping in here, but I don't think the books considered canon (even by the RCC) point to a church-directed relationship with God."
You misunderstand me.
I'm not saying that the Bible says you need the church to direct your relationship with God, that is the position taken by the early Catholic Church and held through a lot of its history, and the Gospels of Thomas undermined that position.
As I said, I don't know whether that's true or not, but it is a valid POSSIBLE interpretation for why the Gospel of Thomas was excluded.
After its discovery, many biblical scholars argued that the Gospel was a forgery by an early separatist movement (first church schism?), while others have argued that it could be the earliest record of Jesus' teachings, taken before the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were recorded.
In any case, they present a very different picture of Jesus and his teachings.
-
My understanding is that the early Catholic Church starting saying they knew better than anyone else in reaction to the spread of the Gnostic Gospels. My pastor always said the Gnostic gospels were a bunch of cultish trash, but the Catholic Church made exactly the wrong decision and set up the genesis of all the problems (political and religious) that occured over the next 1000 or more years.
I guess at some point, you have to read for yourself what you can and decide what makes consistent sense (in the right frame of mind at least).
-
Jumping in here, but I don't think the books considered canon (even by the RCC) point to a church-directed relationship with God.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the Church is ordained by God, but the importance of being right with God *on your own* is pretty clearly taught. Churches are also taught...but not slavish obedience thereto. At least in my Bible :P
You obviously would not get along in the Orthodox Church ;)
-
The most spectacular track, however, is a 347 meters long line of prints belonging to a baby Tyrannosaurus Rex nicknamed “Johnny Walker” by researchers.
:laugh:
That's just glorious.
-
:laugh:
That's just glorious.
One of my sister's best friends had a baby boy a few months back. Their last name is Walker. My sister and I kept trying to convince her that she should name him Johnny. For some reason she wouldn't go for it. :(
We also tried to get her to name him "Luke Sky" but she didn't like that one either. ;/
-
א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
Every time I try to mention that there are other Gospels then the 4, I get called a heretic or something worse. Then because I am Roman Catholic, my bible is wrong also because it came from the wrong ancient library and contains too many books compared to King James Version.
You should inform those people that the King James Version includes the Apocrypha, even if their personally-owned copies omit it (most do). Of course, the apocrypha doesn't include the alleged gospels. You are welcome to believe that the other "gospels" are legitimate. That doesn't mean others should agree with you. Doesn't make you a heretic, either, of course.
-
It doesn't help that many different branches (and even just individual churches) preach a "just believe what we tell you, and that our Bible is the absolute be-all end-all. No need to think for yourself". Tends to muddy the waters
Had a friend of my dad's tell me point blank that free will is the work of the Devil, and that questioning what is said in his copy of the Bible is rankest heresy. Same guy took the time at mom's funeral to tell me the preacher at the service "had it all wrong" (came VERY close to punching him there).
Remember that you have a LOT of people muddying the waters where theology is concerned. And not all of them are all that bright or virtuous
-
It doesn't help that many different branches (and even just individual churches) preach a "just believe what we tell you, and that our Bible is the absolute be-all end-all. No need to think for yourself". Tends to muddy the waters
Yeah, but you have to warn people about the Catholic plot to put out all these "modern versions." What the Catholics are supposed to accomplish by this, I don't know, but I'm sure it's something. [tinfoil]
-
Yeah, but you have to warn people about the Catholic plot to put out all these "modern versions." What the Catholics are supposed to accomplish by this, I don't know, but I'm sure it's something. [tinfoil]
Dude, you call it a 'papist plot.' That way you spit more to illustrate the urgency of the danger.
-
You should inform those people that the King James Version includes the Apocrypha, even if their personally-owned copies omit it (most do). Of course, the apocrypha doesn't include the alleged gospels. You are welcome to believe that the other "gospels" are legitimate. That doesn't mean others should agree with you.
I never said that those gospels are legitimate, also who gives a *expletive deleted*it if they are or not. I just said that they were there. Some people are so blinded by their "faith" cult that anything other than what they know is crap. I like to ask them why they hate Catholics so much, usually I get they you worship Mary/Pope or I get the blank dumbfounded stare.
Did you know that there were hundreds of different Christian churches in the 1st couple centuries AD?
-
The original 1600s versions of the King James versions of the bible (based on the 1500s Martin Luther bible), included the Apocrypha.
After that time, numerous versions began dropping the Apocrypha, and since the early 1820s virtually no versions of the King James bible include the Apocrypha.
Obviously, different people at different times chose what was to be in their Bibles based on different sets of beliefs.
Funny, but that sounds exactly like what I said in the messages that kicked this entire thing off.
-
It's amazing to me (IOW IMO) that the mere mention of fossilized remains of ancient terrestrial life forms causes theological debate on this board . . . every time.
-
It's amazing to me (IOW IMO) that the mere mention of fossilized remains of ancient terrestrial life forms causes theological debate on this board . . . every time.
I think it started out with some kidding how some flavors of Christianity have their own unusual ideas about the dinosaurs, then it escalated from there.
-
I think it started out with some kidding how some flavors of Christianity have their own unusual ideas about the dinosaurs, then it escalated from there.
Why yes it did, right here, and right with me!
-
Wait a sec...
It's Mike's fault, not fistful's?
-
The Gnostic Gospels were (and are) excluded from canon because they directly contradict the rest of canon. My favorite part is where Mary has to be turned into a man so she can goto heaven. :laugh:
I never said that those gospels are legitimate, also who gives a *expletive deleted* if they are or not. I just said that they were there. Some people are so blinded by their "faith" cult that anything other than what they know is crap. I like to ask them why they hate Catholics so much, usually I get they you worship Mary/Pope or I get the blank dumbfounded stare.
Did you know that there were hundreds of different Christian churches in the 1st couple centuries AD?
So, people who disagree with you are in cults, and you can tell because they're ignorantly uncivil about your faith. Got it.
-
The Gnostic Gospels were (and are) excluded from canon because they directly contradict the rest of canon. My favorite part is where Mary has to be turned into a man so she can goto heaven. :laugh:
So, people who disagree with you are in cults, and you can tell because they're ignorantly uncivil about your faith. Got it.
whatever, read it anyway you want too.
-
"So, people who disagree with you are in cults, and you can tell because they're ignorantly uncivil about your faith. Got it."
Or they go out of their way to take extreme offense when you express your opinion...
-
The Gnostic Gospels were (and are) excluded from canon because they directly contradict the rest of canon. My favorite part is where Mary has to be turned into a man so she can goto heaven. :laugh:
So, people who disagree with you are in cults, and you can tell because they're ignorantly uncivil about your faith. Got it.
Also here is a definition of a cult
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
-
Well, by that definition, I'm a member of a cult.
A cult of very devoted dog owners.
-
Well, by that definition, I'm a member of a cult.
A cult of very devoted dog owners.
Me too, a cult of devoted duck hunters. :)
-
"So, people who disagree with you are in cults, and you can tell because they're ignorantly uncivil about your faith. Got it."
Or they go out of their way to take extreme offense when you express your opinion...
Disagreeing with you is "extreme offense" now? If you're reading that into my comments I'd suggest it's coming from your perception of tone rather than my content.
-
No, I'm saying that it appears to me that you are actively looking for ways to be all arsehurt and offended.
-
It's difficult to speak of Catholicism without implicitly also speaking of arsehurts . . .
-
And we have a winner of the internets for the day. :facepalm:
-
No, I'm saying that it appears to me that you are actively looking for ways to be all arsehurt and offended.
Yeah, still reading too much into my comments. Unless your numerous vitriolic rants on far less important matters here and elsewhere are you "actively looking" etc.
-
I never said that those gospels are legitimate, also who gives a *expletive deleted* if they are or not. I just said that they were there.
Do you seriously think that the people who take offense are of the belief that the Gnostic writings referred to as gospels don't exist? Calling them "other gospels," implies that they are, well, gospels. It implies that they are as reliable/inspired/sacred/etc as the canonical gospels. (However reliable/inspired/sacred/etc you may judge them to be.) If you wanted to say that other writings exist, which claim to be gospels, fine. Even hard-core KJV-only-ists can't get offended by that.
Did you know that there were hundreds of different Christian churches in the 1st couple centuries AD?
What do you mean, and how do you find this significant?
-
Do you seriously think that the people who take offense are of the belief that the Gnostic writings referred to as gospels don't exist? Calling them "other gospels," implies that they are, well, gospels. It implies that they are as reliable/inspired/sacred/etc as the canonical gospels. (However reliable/inspired/sacred/etc you may judge them to be.) If you wanted to say that other writings exist, which claim to be gospels, fine. Even hard-core KJV-only-ists can't get offended by that.
What do you mean, and how do you find this significant?
Significant? Means that there also 100's of different forms of Christianity.
Also are you just badgering to be a turd in the punchbowl or what?
-
Also are you just badgering to be a turd in the punchbowl or what?
I didn't badger you. I didn't say you were a heretic. I didn't say your Catholic Bible is wrong. I'm discussing the issues with you. How is that bad?
Significant? Means that there also 100's of different forms of Christianity.
We have hundreds (or thousands) of sects and denominations in the present day. Some of whom are more doctrinally correct than others. Some of whom are so far off-track that they can't (logically) be considered followers of the same Christ that everyone else is claiming to follow. This was also true way back then.
-
Ooh, ooh, what did I win!?!?!?!?!?
I hope it's a pony!!! (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://wildgoddesslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pony.jpg&imgrefurl=http://wildgoddesslife.com/he-gets-a-pony/&h=945&w=1280&sz=214&tbnid=MfWKNVi8jzJtTM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=132&zoom=1&usg=__7wDKFwqq8Fxm8MUOAFu7dmqTXzI=&docid=_ijCIon6vasJWM&sa=X&ei=Is5pUrf3BMXJ4AO6kYCwBA&ved=0CEIQ9QEwAg)
-
Yeah, still reading too much into my comments. Unless your numerous vitriolic rants on far less important matters here and elsewhere are you "actively looking" etc.
Two way street much? You came into the thread sure I was trashing your religious beliefs, ands apparently haven't moved away from that. Whatever.
-
What makes one gospel cannonical, and another not, is groups of men got together and decided that yeah, this gospel supports their interpretation of their religious beliefs.
What is cannonical to one group can well be heresy to another.
-
' some if whom are more doctrinally correct.'
So, what... God comes down every Tuesday and passes judgement on which groups are correct and which are not?
Every group claims to go have the inside track on the path to religious truth. Who are you to pass judgement on them? What makes your particular version of religion truer than the rest?
-
I didn't badger you. I didn't say you were a heretic. I didn't say your Catholic Bible is wrong. I'm discussing the issues with you. How is that bad?
We have hundreds (or thousands) of sects and denominations in the present day. Some of whom are more doctrinally correct than others. Some of whom are so far off-track that they can't (logically) be considered followers of the same Christ that everyone else is claiming to follow. This was also true way back then.
Using the term "gospel" is not wrong in the way I use it. I did not refer to other gospels as the canonicals, I just said that their were other gospels.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel):
A gospel is an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The most widely known examples are the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the term is also used to refer to apocryphal gospels, non-canonical gospels, Jewish-Christian gospels, and gnostic gospels.
I mentioned the hundred of different Christian churches that were in existence shortly after the death of Christ, because it was hundreds of different versions of worshiping Christianity. Somewhere in the 300's the bible as we know it was becoming assembled and it took another 900 or so years after that where it was canonized as we get it today.
What exactly is doctrinally correct and what it not? Has anyone alive communed with Apostles or Christ and her them say, well this is actually the correct way, or you know your doing it all wrong. I also get frustrated with many organized Christian churches because Christ told us not to judge, but it was reserved for God to judge, but there are lot of Christians and sects of Christianity that are pretty judgmental of other people, even quite vocal that they are not going to heaven because of their behaviors. Passage from KJV Matthew 7:1–5.
-
Ooh, ooh, what did I win!?!?!?!?!?
I hope it's a pony!!! (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://wildgoddesslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pony.jpg&imgrefurl=http://wildgoddesslife.com/he-gets-a-pony/&h=945&w=1280&sz=214&tbnid=MfWKNVi8jzJtTM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=132&zoom=1&usg=__7wDKFwqq8Fxm8MUOAFu7dmqTXzI=&docid=_ijCIon6vasJWM&sa=X&ei=Is5pUrf3BMXJ4AO6kYCwBA&ved=0CEIQ9QEwAg)
Nope! You win a velicoraptor! Just don't feed it after midnight zip!
-
Christ told us not to judge
A myth, actually.
-
What makes one gospel cannonical, and another not, is groups of men got together and decided that yeah, this gospel supports their interpretation of their religious beliefs.
Also a myth.
-
' some if whom are more doctrinally correct.'
So, what... God comes down every Tuesday and passes judgement on which groups are correct and which are not?
Every group claims to go have the inside track on the path to religious truth. Who are you to pass judgement on them? What makes your particular version of religion truer than the rest?
Untwist your panties. I didn't say I knew who was naughty and nice, did I? Some versions of Christian doctrine hew more closely to the actual teachings of Christ. That's just the way it is, regardless of how you or I feel about it.
-
Well if they are myth's enlighten us.
-
Well if they are myth's enlighten us.
If you want to know what Jesus actually said about judging, read past the second word of the passage you cited. And read the rest of the Gospels. We've hashed this out a number of times on this forum, so there's no need for me to go at it again. Simply put, He just pointed out that you shouldn't judge anyone by a standard you weren't willing to meet, yourself.
As for the all the tin-foil-hattery about the canon being manipulated by sectarians (or Constantine ;/ ), we've gone over that a hundred times, as well.
-
Two way street much? You came into the thread sure I was trashing your religious beliefs, ands apparently haven't moved away from that. Whatever.
1. I'm not a young earther so your bashing has nothing to do with my personal beliefs.
2. You were mocking certain legitimate religious beliefs in a thread not really related to religion or to them, I pointed that out. If that's all it takes to qualify in your mind as extreme offense etc I really have to question your myriad vitriolic rants over far smaller perceived slights. Cornbread anyone?
3. I never said anything about the legitimacy of your beliefs, merely pointed out that your characterization of yourself as a believer is inaccurate based on what you've said.
Let me demonstrate before the po-mo "you can't tell me what's really Christianity!" spiel. Someone says "I'm a Buddhist monk." You respond "Oh that's interesting! What exactly is it that Buddhists believe, I've never really chatted with one?" He says "Buddhists believe that there is one God in three Persons, the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Mankind was created perfect but fell into sin after being tempted by Satan, and Jesus had to be born and then sacrificed in our place to atone for the blood guilt of our sin."
That man isn't a Buddhist, he's a Christian calling himself a Buddhist for some weird reason. Similarly, it's not truthful to claim to be a believer in the Bible (ie a Christian) when you think the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales but you like the moral of the stories. Well, most of them anyway. That's somewhere between moralistic therapeutic deism and atheism that goes to church for the community. I'm not trying to argue you out of your beliefs, but there's a pretty clear directive to oppose it when folks claim to be representative of Christianity but espouse false teaching. Jude 1:3-16 is one of the clearest, 2 Timothy 4:1-2, 2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:7, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 Peter 2:1, Romans 16:17-18, Colossians 2:8 etc etc
I'm not attacking you or your beliefs, just asking that you don't claim to share mine when you in fact do not.
-
If you want to know what Jesus actually said about judging, read past the second word of the passage you cited. And read the rest of the Gospels. We've hashed this out a number of times on this forum, so there's no need for me to go at it again. Simply put, He just pointed out that you shouldn't judge anyone by a standard you weren't willing to meet, yourself.
As for the all the tin-foil-hattery about the canon being manipulated by sectarians (or Constantine ;/ ), we've gone over that a hundred times, as well.
1 Peter 5:8
-
1 Peter 5:8
And?
-
Romans 14:17
-
THE DINOSAURS ARE ANGRY!
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F02011%2Fdinosaur_2011182b.jpg&hash=0a14c39218c0c132a2e5dc70e65c9eda8838e430)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2011%2F04%2F06%2Farticle-1373836-09B2E95B000005DC-584_468x356.jpg&hash=26acd1e360c4c44f232748a0c352aebaa46e955d)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Folc.spsd.sk.ca%2Fde%2Fwebquests%2Fdino%2Fdinosaur1.gif&hash=4ecc32e32cf8409fa347a8a10ea0fa170913e347)
-
1 Peter 5:8
8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
^^ Which would seem like a good reason to oppose false teaching (frequently described as demonic).
Romans 14:17
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
^^ Which (in context, gotta have context) is about how Jewish food laws are no longer in effect, but it's better to forgoe something that isn't per se sinful if it would harm your fellow brothers in Christ.
I'm confused by what point you're trying to make?
-
[popcorn]
Dang I love these threads. Makes it so much easier to decide who gets to be in the tree fort.
=D =D
-
Balog
The numerous years I spent in parochial schools, we would use bible passages to convey thought as messages, sort of like passing notes.
1 Peter 5:8 means I called fistful an adversary (non demonic)
Romans 14:17 is a verse that has been used to say, lets agree to disagree.
Read it however you want.
-
[popcorn]
Dang I love these threads. Makes it so much easier to decide who gets to be in the tree fort.
=D =D
Dinosaurs? Can dinosaurs be in the fort?
RAWRR!
Dinosaurs!
-
Just the little ones and no velociraptors.
-
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
-
[popcorn]
Dang I love these threads. Makes it so much easier to decide who gets to be in the tree fort.
=D =D
Live with a man for forty years. Then start to discuss religion, and you will learn who he really is.
- Shun You
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0155Ppvd8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo
-
Although the Apocrypha are considered verboten to us Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, I still managed to get my hands on a version of the Bible that had them as Inter-Testamental books.
I made the mistake of showing this trophy to my theology professor, whose face turned a vivid shade of red. That alone was worth it! =D
(I'm the only one in my graduating class who is not a Lutheran pastor, makes for awkward reunions but hey!)
-
Balog
The numerous years I spent in parochial schools, we would use bible passages to convey thought as messages, sort of like passing notes.
1 Peter 5:8 means I called fistful an adversary (non demonic)
Romans 14:17 is a verse that has been used to say, lets agree to disagree.
Read it however you want.
I am curious how the Romans passage is used for that. Interesting. To me it points out that being a Christian has nothing to do with any actions you might take, but with state of mind and mental attitude. The Jewish law had become so ironclad and detailed that following the law outwardly was more important than actually believing in the one true God.
But don't know that verse or Romans well enough to say.
-
I am curious how the Romans passage is used for that. Interesting. To me it points out that being a Christian has nothing to do with any actions you might take, but with state of mind and mental attitude. The Jewish law had become so ironclad and detailed that following the law outwardly was more important than actually believing in the one true God.
But don't know that verse or Romans well enough to say.
Basically bickering over what laws is Christian canon/rite/etc is not what Christianity is but we agree that Christianity is about belief in Christ and the good things associated living Christ like.
So in a nutshell, we are arguing over the petty details but we know the bigger picture of being a Christian.
In school we used as saying we agree to disagree. In school using bible passages was like our code to communicate and learn scripture at the same time.
-
It rather boils down to secondary vs primary issues. Some things are matters of disagreement and that's ok. Some matters are fundamental enough that changing them changes what religion you're practicing.