Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma

Recommended Posts

Guest Paul
"YES I AM COMING SOON"  Rev 22:20

And that "soon" thing --- apparently that's a relative term. Isn't there a statement in the Bible, attributed to Jesus, that his second coming would occur before all those then living had died?

Do you guys ever actually read the Bible except in little snippets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you mean His last words on the cross,

Yes.

in that case they would be:

"It is finished."  John 19:30

Oh? So by what criteria have you judged John 19:30 true but Luke 23:46 and Matthew 27:46 false? Is one of the gospels less divinely-inspired than the others? :lol:

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." --Luke 23:46

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" --Matthew 27:46

Its nice to see you have some interest in the Bible Strife.

Just showing you that I know the Bible better than you think.

P.S. Interestingly enough, the Gospel of Mark, which biblical scholars agree is the gospel from which the other canonical gospels are derived, contains NO distinct last words at all. The most likely explanation for the disparity between the commonly derived gospels is that the writers were making it up as they went along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
See, here's another perfect example of making up a story and imagining that it reprsents reality. You may tell your family what you wish, but if you tell them that story, you'll just upset them. And if you kill yourself with a gun, and your family contacts me, I won't take the case.

So you just wrote and published something about me that isn't true, and you did it without the slightest reason to believe it was true. Where is your integrity? Unlike you, I have good reason to ask the question. Do you have an answer? If not, and since I know you don't, an apology would be appropriate.

You have a good point about responsibility in our society, but doesn't it also apply to corporations that manufacture harmful products? Why is it that so many people put the hammer down on the average person without hesitation, but are so forgiving of the worst abuses by corporations? Does it have something to do with not respecting people of your own class? Not respecting the average person? Not wanting someone at your level to get a dime that you didn't get --- but it's OK for the wealthy to make a boodle because if you ever get there, that's what you want? Why the double standard?

And why is it so important for you to have a villain? It's OK, you don't have to answer that one, but you really should apologize to me.

Why should I apologize? Does the truth hurt? I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine it would be very difficult to be a successful one without doing a little dealing with the devil. Similar to a politician, it's very hard to remain clean and be effective.

What would make you say that I'm forgiving of the worst abuses by corporations? I said I was all for people taking responsibilty for their actions. What I don't respect is people that act irresponsibly, get a lawyer to find someone to blame, and then receive a payday. It damages the rest of society.

Gun manufacturers, drug companies, tobacco companies, etc. all make products with potential risks invovlved in using them. Does that mean that an industry should exist to help every bonehead that claims "I didn't know 30 years of inhaling smoke was harmful" to hit the lottery.

Maybe you and your firm are the only clean ones out there. Is there a way I can read some of the cases you've handled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Why should I apologize? Does the truth hurt? I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine it would be very difficult to be a successful one without doing a little dealing with the devil.  Similar to a politician, it's very hard to remain clean and be effective.

What would make you say that I'm forgiving of the worst abuses by corporations? I said I was all for people taking responsibilty for their actions.  What I don't respect is people that act irresponsibly, get a lawyer to find someone to blame, and then receive a payday.  It damages the rest of society.

Gun manufacturers, drug companies, tobacco companies, etc. all make products with potential risks invovlved in using them.  Does that mean that an industry should exist to help every bonehead that claims  "I didn't know 30 years of inhaling smoke was harmful" to hit the lottery.

Maybe you and your firm are the only clean ones out there.  Is there a way I can read some of the cases you've handled?

He told you why. You made a false statement about him, and published it on the internet, and it's about his livelihood. So unless you know for a fact that he would take your hypothetical case, you owe him an apology.

You write in complete sentences, so you're obviously smart enough to get the point, which is rather obvious. Sadly, though, the rest of your comments demonstrate an anger and a bias, and tell us why you won't apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are links to a video from a baptist church.

In all fairness, Paul, just about every Baptist church in this country has dissociated themselves from the WBC (and for good reason)--they're technically an "independent" church, whatever that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are links to a video from a baptist church. If this doesn't chill you to the bone, something is very wrong. Pay particular attention to the ending. Then please, think about what you're doing to your kids and the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQjLLPoxbKk

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1326,n,n

Oh, and also, the youtube link doesn't have "the ending" you're referring to--in fact, it ends right before it. The second link has what you're talking about, though, in case anyone else is (temporarily) confused by the (at least compared to the rest of it) not-unusual ending of the youtube upload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bewildered
Why should I apologize? Does the truth hurt? I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine it would be very difficult to be a successful one without doing a little dealing with the devil.  Similar to a politician, it's very hard to remain clean and be effective.

What would make you say that I'm forgiving of the worst abuses by corporations? I said I was all for people taking responsibilty for their actions.  What I don't respect is people that act irresponsibly, get a lawyer to find someone to blame, and then receive a payday.  It damages the rest of society.

Gun manufacturers, drug companies, tobacco companies, etc. all make products with potential risks invovlved in using them.  Does that mean that an industry should exist to help every bonehead that claims  "I didn't know 30 years of inhaling smoke was harmful" to hit the lottery.

Maybe you and your firm are the only clean ones out there.  Is there a way I can read some of the cases you've handled?

The potential risk of gun manufacturers is that the gun may be misused, i.e., to commit a crime. They have no control over what the gun owner does. There is no inherent evil in guns.

Drug companies weigh the potential risks of a drug with the potential benefits. They now issue warnings about side-effects, reactions with other drugs, and directions to follow in case of an overdose.

Tobacco products pose not a potential risk. Using tobacco is inherently harmful. You cannot misuse tobacco, except for underage smoking. Tobacco causes all sorts of harm to a person and to those around him/her. This information was deliberately kept from the general public. Tobacco companies used to talk about the benefits of smoking. They deliberately lied. The risk of tobacco use is not potential; it is real. You cannot smoke a cigarette safely. Many people became addicted to tobacco before the truth was known about the effects of smoking. After they started smoking they were continually being show advertisements showing how pleasureable smoking was. I remember commercials on TV showing an actor playing a doctor saying how great his brand of cigarettes were. Tobacco companies deliberately made and promoted harmful products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

Oh? So by what criteria have you judged John 19:30 true but Luke 23:46 and Matthew 27:46  false? Is one of the gospels less divinely-inspired than the others? :)

Another perfect illustration of skeptical ineptitude.

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." --Luke 23:46

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" --Matthew 27:46

Just showing you that I know the Bible better than you think.

Uh--not so much.

In Luke's account, what does Luke write that assures the reader that nothing else was said after "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"?

Likewise the account from Matthew?

P.S. Interestingly enough, the Gospel of Mark, which biblical scholars agree is the gospel from which the other canonical gospels are derived, contains NO distinct last words at all. The most likely explanation for the disparity between the commonly derived gospels is that the writers were making it up as they went along.

Apparently Strife feels that Luke and Matthew do offer a distinct set of last words? On what basis?

By the way, the priority of Mark is probably the most popular view, but it may not even be majority view among scholars.

We may offer our own somewhat more detailed and explicit summary of Sanders-Davies' survey of the present state of the Synoptic Problem:

(1) Although Sanders and Davies never go so far as to say so, their analysis suggests that the Two-source theory in its conventional form can hardly be said to be technically possible. The main problem is the extensive amount of agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. These extensive agreements are most simply explained by Luke's use of Matthew, thus paving the way for dispensing with Q as well as the priority of Mark.

http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic-l/FARMER.HTM

There's more. Feel free to read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Red-Letter Edition
And that "soon" thing --- apparently that's a relative term. Isn't there a statement in the Bible, attributed to Jesus, that his second coming would occur before all those then living had died?

Do you guys ever actually read the Bible except in little snippets?

Yes Paul, we do. In fact, a rather famous quote among us fundamentalists is "context is king." What we mean by this is verses have to be interpreted by their context. Context includes the paragraph as well as the overall message of the book they are found in. In answer to the question you pose concerning Jesus' second coming, the Bible does not say it would occur before all those then living would die. What it does say is this,

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away untill all these things have happened." Jesus in Mathew 24:34

Chapter 24 is about the events of the "end times" before Jesus' second coming. These Events include:

Nations rising against nation

Famines

Earthquakes

Christians persecuted

Christians hated by the nations

The Gospel of the Kingdom preached to all nations as a warning

An abomination standing in the Holy Place of the temple (This requires the temple to be rebuilt)

Great distress unequaled since the beginging of the world

False Christs and false prophets

The sun being darkened and the moon not giving its light.

Stars falling from heaven

Heavenly bodies being shaken

The context of Mathew 24:34 dictates that the "generation" that sees these catrastrophic events will see Christ's return. To date, these things haven't happened, at least I can't remember the sun and moon being darkened and stars falling, or the heavenly orbs shaking. They are yet future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The video shows both men leaning in toward each other. Obviously the handshake was voluntary on both parts. You're obviously blinded by your anger, and obviously have an axe to grind to support Paszkiewicz, so why should anyone accept your interpretation of it?

The other point here is that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The bigger point is that an overture was made to do something even more significant, namely, sit down together and work together to heal the community. You completely ignore the bigger point. Why?

The issue was actually PAULS deliberate MISREPRESENTATION of the event. Paul made it seem as if he reached out to an unwilling Mr. P. Paul didn't meet him at the stairs and shake his hand, P had to walk across the hall to extend his hand. Again, thank goodness for CBS news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Red-Letter Edition
That's a prophecy, doofus. That's supposed to be a vision of what Jesus WILL say, not something he said already.

I'm talking about his last words before dying on the cross. What were they?

Actually Strife, although Revelation is full of prophecy, Jesus's admonition, "Yes, I am coming soon" is given to John as His last word to the churches. You weren't clear and the guest obviously thought you meant Jesus's last words in the Bible.

By the way, "doofus?" That's soooo 1980's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Red-Letter Edition
Yes.

Oh? So by what criteria have you judged John 19:30 true but Luke 23:46 and Matthew 27:46  false? Is one of the gospels less divinely-inspired than the others? :)

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." --Luke 23:46

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" --Matthew 27:46

Just showing you that I know the Bible better than you think.

P.S. Interestingly enough, the Gospel of Mark, which biblical scholars agree is the gospel from which the other canonical gospels are derived, contains NO distinct last words at all. The most likely explanation for the disparity between the commonly derived gospels is that the writers were making it up as they went along.

Strife, this is a very old, out of date, attempt to discredit the Gospels. The Gospels are four separate books giving an account of Jesus's ministry. With regard to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, each records the same events, only different writers highlight different aspects of the events. The most accurate depiction of the original events is seen when the four are viewed together. They don't contradict each other, they compliment each other. Its much like four witnesses of a car accident today, depending on their vantage point, they are going to recall different aspects of the same event. Police examine all four accounts in order to put together the full picture. About the Gospel of Mark, no one argues the date of Mark. Its the earliest of the four Gospels. Mathew and Luke probobly used it as source material. Its no secret that many writers of Scripture had sources (See Luke 1:1-4), this does not mean they are not true however. About making things up, this is quite a stretch. I highly doubt that, people tend to frown upon being martyred for made up stories that could easily have been refuted if they were untrue. For example, anyone could have walked over to that tomb in Jerusalem that Jesus supposedly didn't resurrect from and showed the world the body. They didn't however, because it wasn't there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
In all fairness, Paul, just about every Baptist church in this country has dissociated themselves from the WBC (and for good reason)--they're technically an "independent" church, whatever that means.

Fair enough. My interest is in what they were doing and why they were doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
He told you why. You made a false statement about him, and published it on the internet, and it's about his livelihood. So unless you know for a fact that he would take your hypothetical case, you owe him an apology.

You write in complete sentences, so you're obviously smart enough to get the point, which is rather obvious. Sadly, though, the rest of your comments demonstrate an anger and a bias, and tell us why you won't apologize.

Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About the Gospel of Mark, no one argues the date of Mark.  Its the earliest of the four Gospels.

Actually, there are serious arguments among Bible scholars for regarding Matthew as the original gospel work, in accord with the canonical tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
The issue was actually PAULS deliberate MISREPRESENTATION of the event. Paul made it seem as if he reached out to an unwilling Mr. P.  Paul didn't meet him at the stairs and shake his hand, P had to walk across the hall to extend his hand.  Again, thank goodness for CBS news.

One of the most galling things about you fundamentalists is that you have absolutely no respect for other people's points of view. I recall reaching out to Mr. P as he was coming down the stairs. To my eye, he was headed toward the hallway to leave when I reached out, but I never suggested that he was unwilling to shake my hand and say hello. I have no problem accepting that I put my own interpretation on the event, as we all do. But you presume to know my mind and dismiss that, apparently because you can't live in this world if I'm not evil incarnate. And then you wonder why we think this idea of hell is a bad and destructive one. It's pretty obvious what kind of thinking it came from.

The bigger issue, though, is that if Mr. Paszkiewicz wants to help heal our community, the door is open. You are so completely disrespectful of that, you don't even acknowledge that it was said. How do you defend that? You don't, you just pretend it isn't there. "Lalalalalala! I'm not listening." You fundamentalists do that all the time. It's not right and it's not nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The potential risk of gun manufacturers is that the gun may be misused, i.e., to commit a crime.  They have no control over what the gun owner does.  There is no inherent evil in guns.

Drug companies weigh the potential risks of a drug with the potential benefits.  They now issue warnings about side-effects, reactions with other drugs, and directions to follow in case of an overdose. 

Tobacco products pose not a potential risk.  Using tobacco is inherently harmful.  You cannot misuse tobacco, except for underage smoking.  Tobacco causes all sorts of harm to a person and to those around him/her.  This information was deliberately kept from the general public.  Tobacco companies used to talk about the benefits of smoking.  They deliberately lied.  The risk of tobacco use is not potential; it is real.  You cannot smoke a cigarette safely.  Many people became addicted to tobacco before the truth was known about the effects of smoking.  After they started smoking they were continually being show advertisements showing how pleasureable smoking was.  I remember commercials on TV showing an actor playing a doctor saying how great his brand of cigarettes were.  Tobacco companies deliberately made and promoted harmful products.

That's the point. Did you need someone to hold your hand and tell you these things.

Warnings have been on cigarettes for 30+ years. Yet people are making money off of tobacco lawsuits today.

I don't know how the Framers would view the current state of the "wall of seperation", but I'm sure they'd be appalled by the lack of common sense that has taken over the legal profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strife, this is a very old, out of date, attempt to discredit the Gospels.  The Gospels are four separate books giving an account of Jesus's ministry.  With regard to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, each records the same events, only different writers highlight different aspects of the events.  The most accurate depiction of the original events is seen when the four are viewed together.  They don't contradict each other, they compliment each other.

Three different sets of last words are not a complement, they are a contradiction. Saying that they aren't doesn't make it true.

Its much like four witnesses of a car accident today, depending on their vantage point, they are going to recall different aspects of the same event.

Except that these excerpts of these three accounts are of the same aspect, the same moment in time.

Police examine all four accounts in order to put together the full picture.

And if they heard three very different reports of the last words, they would conclude that at least two of those reports must be inaccurate.

There is no getting around it--all three of them can't all be correct.

About the Gospel of Mark, no one argues the date of Mark.  Its the earliest of the four Gospels.  Mathew and Luke probobly used it as source material.  Its no secret that many writers of Scripture had sources (See Luke 1:1-4), this does not mean they are not true however.

When there are contradictions, every side can't be true at the same time, no matter how much you claim they can.

About making things up, this is quite a stretch.

Not when you look at the big picture. There is zero written about Jesus's life during it, despite the fact that if someone was going around performing fantastic miracles, common sense would dictate that not only would there be contemporary evidence (of which there isn't any), but that there would be tons of it compared to other figures of the time. Put that together with the fact that the first person to actually write about him (Saul of Tarsus) speaks with NO knowledge of any of the supposed events of Jesus's life except from the crucifixion onward, and even THEN places the events not on Earth, but in a mythical realm, and THEN suddenly there is the Gospel of Mark, where all of these details about Jesus's life just pop up out of nowhere. Also, the gospel is an anonymous work (in fact, it was only in the 2nd century that it was first attributed to Mark, and this Mark was a disciple of Peter's, so he was an eyewitness to NOTHING himself even if it was written by this Mark (but there's no real evidence of that--it was simply Papias's attribution). Even less could be said about the other gospels, which are derivative of that gospel and therefore even further hearsay.

In fact, when you're able to look at the actual situation objectively, it is much more "quite a stretch" to take anything in the gospels as historical/literal as opposed to the kind of 'storytelling' used to convert people that one would expect from someone writing a gospel, after all.

I highly doubt that, people tend to frown upon being martyred for made up stories that could easily have been refuted if they were untrue.  For example, anyone could have walked over to that tomb in Jerusalem that Jesus supposedly didn't resurrect from and showed the world the body.  They didn't however, because it wasn't there!

Except that:

1. The body could easily have been moved.

2. The location of this tomb could have already been a mystery by this time, because the gospels were written several decades after Jesus's alleged death, and it would be hard to find the tomb/body (in the first place) of someone who they just made up, so if that's the case, then it would be pretty easy for them to 'set up.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Uh, excuse me, but it's your burden of proof to prove prophecies RIGHT, not mine to prove them false.

No, intellectual laziness and deliberate dodging is you shifting the burden of proof. :lol:

Don't be cute. It's a summary of the Bible's general message. It asserts its own authority, and circular logic lies at the root of that authority--it's the word of god because it's written in there that it's the word of god, and you accept that the writing is valid because it was written by god, and you know it was written by god because it says in the Bible, etc...

I am not afraid of your holy book's baseless threats.

[/quote'

"Its your burden to prove prophecies, not mine..." Come on Strifey, we all know that you have no idea what you are talking about. How about give it a try, at least you won't look so dumb! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
In all fairness, Paul, just about every Baptist church in this country has dissociated themselves from the WBC (and for good reason)--they're technically an "independent" church, whatever that means.

The word "independent" can be found in a dictionary, if you don't know what it means, check it out...By the way, it is in the i section of the dictionary, it is the letter that comes after H and before J. Maybe that will help you! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Strife, this is a very old, out of date, attempt to discredit the Gospels.  The Gospels are four separate books giving an account of Jesus's ministry.  With regard to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, each records the same events, only different writers highlight different aspects of the events.  The most accurate depiction of the original events is seen when the four are viewed together.  They don't contradict each other, they compliment each other.  Its much like four witnesses of a car accident today, depending on their vantage point, they are going to recall different aspects of the same event.  Police examine all four accounts in order to put together the full picture.  About the Gospel of Mark, no one argues the date of Mark.  Its the earliest of the four Gospels.  Mathew and Luke probobly used it as source material.  Its no secret that many writers of Scripture had sources (See Luke 1:1-4), this does not mean they are not true however.  About making things up, this is quite a stretch.  I highly doubt that, people tend to frown upon being martyred for made up stories that could easily have been refuted if they were untrue.  For example, anyone could have walked over to that tomb in Jerusalem that Jesus supposedly didn't resurrect from and showed the world the body.  They didn't however, because it wasn't there!

Strife was probably searching his"atheist websites" found this and got so excited..."Uh, I am going to write something people don't know about it. I am going to impress Paulie." Come on Strifey, you have some research to do. This one is "kinda" old! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
That's the point.  Did you need someone to hold your hand and tell you these things.

Warnings have been on cigarettes for 30+ years.  Yet people are making money off of tobacco lawsuits today. 

I don't know how the Framers would view the current state of the "wall of seperation", but I'm sure they'd be appalled by the lack of common sense that has taken over the legal profession.

It's 40+ years, but the tobacco companies have known about the devastating health effects of smoking for 60+ years and tried to hide it from the public and even lie about it. So why shouldn't they be punished? You're only addressing one side of the equation. What about the other side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Strife, this is a very old, out of date, attempt to discredit the Gospels.  The Gospels are four separate books giving an account of Jesus's ministry.  With regard to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, each records the same events, only different writers highlight different aspects of the events.  The most accurate depiction of the original events is seen when the four are viewed together.  They don't contradict each other, they compliment each other.  Its much like four witnesses of a car accident today, depending on their vantage point, they are going to recall different aspects of the same event.  Police examine all four accounts in order to put together the full picture. 

That is a rank admission that these are not divinely inspired writings and not inerrant. If they were, they wouldn't suffer from this problem. You can't have it both ways, but if you don't have it both ways you can't defend your position. Your point would make sense, except that the nature of your claim is that the Bible is perfect down to the last jot and iota. You can't just drop that position in those moments when it doesn't suit your purposes. Ergo your position is indefensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...