# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  If we only had Paul, what would we know of Jesus?

## Ronin Truth

*If we only had Paul, what would we know of Jesus?
*
http://www.barriewilson.com/pdf/If-We-Only-Had-Paul.pdf

----------


## TER

St. Paul's letters were written to people who were already baptized members of the Church, having renounced their lives, this temporal world, and in fact risking their very lives in becoming enemies of the State by doing so.  _They already knew who Jesus was and His life and teachings_, you antiChristian persecutor of the Church.  This has already been explained to you but in your blind zeal to attack Christ and His Church, you continue to instigate and post valueless posts.

St. Paul was giving them letters of instructions on how to contend in this world as a Church and deal with enemies like you.

----------


## acptulsa

Oh, I think it's possible to attack a Christian church without attacking Jesus.  If I say snake handlers are more adrenaline junkies than devoted Christians, that's no reflection on God or Jesus.

And I think it' a mistake to assume St. Paul's words are just exactly as blessed or inspired as those of Jesus.  I've never heard of the Holy Spirit so taking complete control of any mortal that they became perfect.  It really is no wonder that the wisdom of Jesus is more clear and less prone to controversy that that of a man who was not born of God and a virgin.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be on a pedestal.  I'm just saying that if your Paul pedestal is even one fourth as tall as Jesus', it's way, way too tall.

Paul is worthy of respect.  But some dogmas seem to call for him to be worshipped, and seem to say to speak ill of him is blasphemy.  That's a line I shall never personally cross for any man.  Jesus told us the truth, and we've been trying to wrap our heads around it ever since.  Paul might have been one of the first at it, and even one of the best.  But he was just another one of us.  It's too much to expect of him to get every bit of it right.  Especially with Martin Luther adding words fifteen hundred years later.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> St. Paul's letters were written to people who were already baptized members of the Church, having renounced their lives, this temporal world, and in fact risking their very lives in becoming enemies of the State by doing so. _They already knew who Jesus was and His life and teachings_, you antiChristian persecutor of the Church. This has already been explained to you but in your blind zeal to attack Christ and His Church, you continue to instigate and post valueless posts.
> 
> St. Paul was giving them letters of instructions on how to contend in this world as a Church and deal with enemies like you.


Which of the commands of Jesus to YOU are you planning to just disregard and ignore today?

----------


## TER

> Oh, I think it's possible to attack a Christian church without attacking Jesus.


Persecuting the Church, the Body of Christ, _is_ attacking Jesus Christ.  That is why on the road to Damascus Christ asked Saul, who was persecuting the members of the Body, "Why do you persecute _Me_?"

----------


## TER

> Which of the commands of Jesus to YOU are you planning to just disregard and ignore today?


Hopefully not too many until the trash is taken out.  I make no claims at being a saint.

----------


## acptulsa

> Persecuting the Church, the Body of Christ, _is_ attacking Jesus Christ.  That is why on the road to Damascus Christ asked Saul, who was persecuting the members of the Body, "Why do you persecute _Me_?"


Critiquing someone's dogma and out-and-out persecution can both be called attacks, but they are not the same thing.

In Matthew 25, Jesus says, 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.'  He doesn't seem overly concerned with what you do to someone's dogma.  Sticks and stones count as persecution.

Besides, you can't tell me that we have ever developed a perfect system of dogma.  Sorry, and no offense to your church, but every denomination has something as silly as purgatory in there somewhere.  Humanity has yet to complete the endeavor that could not be improved upon.  Must be why the Bible says to have faith in God, not man.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Paul was writing to churches he had started himself and already delivered the gospel to.   There is no reason that he would have to repeat everything in his letters to them years later.

This argument has been debunked countless times.

----------


## TER

> Critiquing someone's dogma and out-and-out persecution can both be called attacks, but they are not the same thing.
> 
> In Matthew 25, Jesus says, 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.'  He doesn't seem overly concerned with what you do to someone's dogma.  Sticks and stones count as persecution.
> 
> Besides, you can't tell me that we have ever developed a perfect system of dogma.  Sorry, and no offense to your church, but every denomination has something as silly as purgatory in there somewhere.  Humanity has yet to complete the endeavor that could not be improved upon.  Must be why the Bible says to have faith in God, not man.


The Bible also says to listen to your teachers, of which St. Paul is one of the greatest, much greater and illuminated than you or me.  

And no one said that the Church is perfect, being that it is both a Divine-human entity.  But just because it is not perfect on account of fallible men in it doesn't mean we can therefore pick and choose what we individually may think is important and cast away other things we individually may not think is important, and go against the consensus of the God-inspired Saints and the confirmation of the entire Church.  Otherwise, we are not faithful members of Christ's Church, but of our own created one.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

The letters of Paul actually were probably written significantly earlier than the four gospels included in the standard New Testament, and than any of the other books in the New Testament.  So, in a way, they are a closer source to the original Jesus.  The gospels were written later.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The letters of Paul actually were probably written significantly earlier than the four gospels included in the standard New Testament, and than any of the other books in the New Testament.  So, in a way, they are a closer source to the original Jesus.  The gospels were written later.


That is true.  And the Carmen Christi or "Hymn To Christ" in Philippians 2 was used by Paul as a sermon illustration.  It was something that the church in Phillipi was already singing....meaning that the belief that Jesus was Yahweh was the VERY earliest belief of Christians.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The letters of Paul actually were probably written significantly earlier than the four gospels included in the standard New Testament, and than any of the other books in the New Testament.  So, in a way, they are a closer source to the original Jesus.  The gospels were written later.


True.  Mark, the first recorded synoptic Gospel, dates to 70 A.D.  Paul's epistles start in the early to mid 50's A.D. or so.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Is anyone going to even try to read the OP PDF, and then post something *ON TOPIC*?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ON+TOPIC

----------


## Ronin Truth

> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ON+TOPIC


Does that suggest or imply that you read it?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Hopefully not too many until the trash is taken out. I make no claims at being a saint.


Impure heart, eh?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does that suggest or imply that you read it?


Coming from the person who doesn't read anyone's posts in reply to yours....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Coming from the person who doesn't read anyone's posts in reply to yours....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

[URL="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#18839059"] [QUOTE=[/URL]Sola_Fide;5895934]Coming from the person who doesn't read anyone's posts in reply to yours....[ QUOTE]

----------


## acptulsa

> The Bible also says to listen to your teachers, of which St. Paul is one of the greatest, much greater and illuminated than you or me.  
> 
> And no one said that the Church is perfect, being that it is both a Divine-human entity.  But just because it is not perfect on account of fallible men in it doesn't mean we can therefore pick and choose what we individually may think is important and cast away other things we individually may not think is important, and go against the consensus of the God-inspired Saints and the confirmation of the entire Church.  Otherwise, we are not faithful members of Christ's Church, but of our own created one.


The Disciples called Jesus 'Teacher'.  I am not saying listen to no one.  I am saying that when scientists hear a theory that does not fit the experimental data, they have sense enough to reject it, but theologians don't always reject those dogmas that don't strictly agree with what my Lord and Savior said.

Well, that's not true.  More fair:  That's how you tell good scientists from bad ones, and that's how you tell good theologians from bad ones.

Ensure that doesn't happen and you can make sure God walks with your church by making sure your church walks with God.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Persecuting the Church, the Body of Christ, _is_ attacking Jesus Christ.  That is why on the road to Damascus Christ asked Saul, who was persecuting the members of the Body, "Why do you persecute _Me_?"


Saul wasn't "persecuting the members of the Body" --- there wasn't any "Body of Christ" when Saul had his breakdown. His job was sentencing people to death - probably some friends and family members too. The agonizing guilt from killing loved ones coupled with the mental and emotional turmoil from wrestling with his own sexual identity, topped off with a drug and alcohol problem to drown the pain would cause anyone to have a nervous breakdown. Paul is no exception.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Saul wasn't "persecuting the members of the body" --- there wasn't any "body of Christ" when Saul had his breakdown. He was sentencing people to death - probably some friends and family members too. The agonizing guilt from killing loved ones coupled with the mental and emotional turmoil from wrestling with his sexual identity, topped off with a drug and/or alcohol problem to drown the pain would cause anyone to have a nervous breakdown. Paul is no exception.


Are you drunk?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Are you drunk?


nope. Why do you ask?

----------


## TER

> Saul wasn't "persecuting the members of the body" --- there wasn't any "body of Christ" when Saul had his breakdown. He was sentencing people to death - probably some friends and family members too. The agonizing guilt from killing loved ones coupled with the mental and emotional turmoil from wrestling with his sexual identity, topped off with a drug and/or alcohol problem to drown the pain would cause anyone to have a nervous breakdown. Paul is no exception.


Lol, I giggled when you said his conversion experience was a mental breakdown.  Not carrying any supposed presuppositions, are we?

His raison d'être on the road to Damascus was to crush the Church there, and to bring them before the Jewish authorities.  That is what the Scriptures tell us.  You instead offer your opinion on his psychological status and determined intent with no evidence of proof other than your own speculations.  Can we at least use the written texts as some sort of proof and standard, or do we have to insist that your fantasizing is now God's word?

The Church is the Body of Christ, that is the apostolic and biblical teaching, and the teachings handed down by the early baptized.  By persecuting the baptized members of this Body (the Church), Saul was persecuting Christ Himself Who indwells in His Saints.  That is why Christ said that Saul was persecuting Him, because the Church is His Body.

As long as you refuse to accept what is plainly written in the Scriptures as being more authoritative proof then what you imagine, then you will always hold this distorted and blasphemous view of what happened on the road to Damascus.  It was a blessed event that changed the world forever afterwards, to bring the Christian Faith to the entire world.  You wish to offer another, unsubstantiated narrative.  But I cannot accept your interpretations to be the gospel truth nor you to be the pillar and foundation of the truth, when it is the Church which has that authority, according to His word.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> nope. Why do you ask?


Because you made a string of assertions that only a person who was drunk, insane, or completely clueless of things could make.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Because you made a string of assertions that only a person who was drunk, insane, or completely clueless of things could make.


Read the Bible and study the Bible with your feet on the ground instead of your head in the clouds and you will come to the same conclusions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Read the Bible and study the Bible with your feet on the ground instead of your head in the clouds and you will come to the same conclusions.


Where in the Bible does it say Paul was a homosexual or a drug addict?  Is that Romans somewhere?

----------


## TER

> Read the Bible and study the Bible with your feet on the ground instead of your head in the clouds and you will come to the same conclusions.


This is an unfortunate response.

----------


## TER

> The Disciples called Jesus 'Teacher'.  I am not saying listen to no one.  I am saying that when scientists hear a theory that does not fit the experimental data, they have sense enough to reject it, but theologians don't always reject those dogmas that don't strictly agree with what my Lord and Savior said.


That is why we have a Church, to protect us from those who would distort the teachings of Christ and His Apostles.  The scientists of the Church are the theologians, in the true definition of the word, namely a person who meditates and prays upon the logos of God.  When controversies arose within the Church spread far and wide, it was these holy men who the churches sent to come together in a concillliar way to express the teachings as they were handed down to them, and through dialogue, discussion, debate, and above all prayer, they proclaimed what those catholic and orthodox teachings are. 




> Well, that's not true.  More fair:  That's how you tell good scientists from bad ones, and that's how you tell good theologians from bad ones.


I know, my brother, and that is why He established the Church.  Those great ones the believers have called Saints of God, not because they made them Saints, but because God did and their fruits were quite evident, enough so that the world continues to remember them through the prayers of the Church.




> Ensure that doesn't happen and you can make sure God walks with your church by making sure your church walks with God.


 and that is why the role of the laity and the clergy is both synergistic and necessary, for it is not the proclamations of one man (such as St. Paul) that confirms the truth, but the acknowledgment and agreement and amen of the entire Church.  The reason why St. Paul's letters were cherished from the beginning is because the Church (in its laity and clergy) spread far and wide knew him to be a holy servant and apostle of God, proclaiming Christ' gospel. 

The function and ministry of the Church cannot be severed from its correct ecclesiology, and I think that is what is missing much here in the Western Christian world.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Does that suggest or imply that you read it?


Who knows?  It's kind of hard to derive meaning from a Google results page, as you apparently were not aware of but are now figuring out.

----------


## euphemia

> Paul's epistles start in the early to mid 50's A.D. or so.


That is not too hard to trace.  By comparing the events in the Acts of the Apostles, it is not hard to tell the order in which the epistles were written and give an approximate date.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> This is an unfortunate response.


yeah, that was lame. On an airplane thumbing on my phone lol

If you guys could study mainstream religion the same way you study mainstream politics, i think you would see what i see.

Religion *WAS* politics back in the day. Why treat them differently today?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> yeah, that was lame. On an airplane thumbing on my phone lol
> 
> If you guys could study mainstream religion the same way you study mainstream politics, i think you would see what i see.
> 
> Religion *WAS* politics back in the day. Why treat them differently today?




*"Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be. 

BTW, the ends do NOT justify the means."*

----------


## acptulsa

> Are you drunk?


You'd have a nervous breakdown if you came face to face with Jesus.  Who wouldn't?  Why should Paul be different?  You don't even believe in sainthood, but you insist on acting like the guy was Superman.  He took the trash out, too.  Probably lost teeth and hair.

You don't believe in sainthood but you are worshipping this human.  Seriously.  Bad idea.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *"Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be. 
> 
> BTW, the ends do NOT justify the means."*


I don't find that telling people to do what God says is a very effective way of controlling people.  If I am the only one who knows what God says, then yes, I can control people, but if I say the Bible is the word of God and I did not write it, then it's not a very effective tool for me to control anyone.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I don't find that telling people to do what God says is a very effective way of controlling people.  If I am the only one who knows what God says, then yes, I can control people, but if I say the Bible is the word of God and I did not write it, then it's not a very effective tool for me to control anyone.


Telling people to do what God says is not the way it's done.  It's done by creating a culture of fear.

*How to create a Culture of Fear
*
If you don't do _____________ and/or don't believe ____________  you will go to Hell
* Fill the pulpits with charismatic fire-n-brimstone preachers
* Fill the interwebz with secret-agent, black-ops posters who preach the same (optional)
.If we don't do ___________ the radical terrorists will kill us
* Fill the news and airwaves with images of people that look like radical terrorists doing evil things 
Lather, rinse, repeat.

----------


## otherone

> "Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be. 
> 
> BTW, the ends do NOT justify the means."


_Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful._
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

----------


## Jamesiv1

> The letters of Paul actually were probably written significantly earlier than the four gospels included in the standard New Testament, and than any of the other books in the New Testament.  So, in a way, they are a closer source to the original Jesus.  The gospels were written later.


That is true but we are comparing two completely different types of literature.

Paul's letters are epistles addressed to a very specific audience.

The four gospels are compilations of stories about a man that began circulating orally during his lifetime and were not compiled and written down until much later.

Which makes the gospels much closer to the source.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't find that telling people to do what God says is a very effective way of controlling people.  If I am the only one who knows what God says, then yes, I can control people, but if I say the Bible is the word of God and I did not write it, then it's not a very effective tool for me to control anyone.


Well, you could burn every copy in any other language but Latin.  Of course, that was much easier a thousand years ago than now.

Or you could just tell everyone that no human can decipher a parable (clearly a lie) and tell people what you want them to think Jesus was saying.  Which will work well enough for the gullible, especially if you can brainwash them with that stuff while they're very young.

Organized religion has traditionally been almost as good at directing people away from Jesus' wisdom as toward it.  Which is why so many of us constantly advocate for an attitude of remembering that only Jesus is the Ultimate Source, and anyone and everyone else is suspect.  Not because they're evil, necessarily, but just because we're all fallible.

----------


## TER

> Well, you could burn every copy in any other language but Latin.  Of course, that was much easier a thousand years ago than now.
> 
> Or you could just tell everyone that no human can decipher a parable (clearly a lie) and tell people what you want them to think Jesus was saying.  Which will work well enough for the gullible, especially if you can brainwash them with that stuff while they're very young.
> 
> Organized religion has traditionally been almost as good at directing people away from Jesus' wisdom as toward it.  Which is why so many of us constantly advocate for an attitude of remembering that only Jesus is the Ultimate Source, and anyone and everyone else is suspect.  Not because they're evil, necessarily, but just because we're all fallible.


What is more likely to be fallible?  One person on their own, or a group of of people coming together, to deliberate, discuss, and debate?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What is more likely to be fallible?  One person on their own, or a group of of people coming together, to deliberate, discuss, and debate?


They are equally fallible, and fallible people in large groups are far worse than one fallible person.

----------


## acptulsa

> What is more likely to be fallible?  One person on their own, or a group of of people coming together, to deliberate, discuss, and debate?


Really?

Which of those options is most likely to turn into a lynch mob?

Humans are fallible alone.  Humans are fallible in echo chambers.  Humans are fallible.

----------


## TER

> Really?
> 
> Which of those options is most likely to turn into a lynch mob?
> 
> Humans are fallible alone.  Humans are fallible in echo chambers.  Humans are fallible.


So should there only be one person on a jury?  Is it better to have a one person jury of our peers or twelve?

----------


## Terry1

> Saul wasn't "persecuting the members of the Body" --- there wasn't any "Body of Christ" when Saul had his breakdown. His job was sentencing people to death - probably some friends and family members too. The agonizing guilt from killing loved ones coupled with the mental and emotional turmoil from wrestling with his own sexual identity, topped off with a drug and alcohol problem to drown the pain would cause anyone to have a nervous breakdown. Paul is no exception.


Seriously? Lol

----------


## TER

> They are equally fallible, and fallible people in large groups are far worse than one fallible person.


Actually, they are not.

----------


## acptulsa

> So should there only be one person on a jury?  Is it better to have a one person jury of our peers or twelve?


There are times when it's better to leave it to the judge.  It depends on the judge, doesn't it?  When you stand before Jesus on the Judgement Day, would you trade Him for a jury of your peers?  Not a fair comparison, I know.  He was only human on His mother's side, which makes Him much more infallible than any human or group of humans.  But I have never been one to board a ship of fools just because the boat is big.  I prefer a kayak to that.  Even if it doesn't have a shuffleboard court.

I have found that God speaks softly, and is easier to hear if the ambient noise is cut out.  You may find that doesn't work for you, and I'm glad.  The world needs a you a lot more than it needs a second, redundant, carbon copy of me.

----------


## TER

> There are times when it's better to leave it to the judge.  It depends on the judge, doesn't it?
> 
> I have found that God speaks softly, and is easier to hear if the ambient noise is cut out.  You may find that doesn't work for you, and I'm glad.  The world needs a you a lot more than it needs a second, redundant, carbon copy of me.


  Let me rephrase it.  Is it better (in general) to have a jury with one person on it or twelve?  (We can get to the judge part next, which is also important)

----------


## acptulsa

> Let me rephrase it.  Is it better (in general) to have a jury with one person on it or twelve?  (We can get to the judge part next, which is also important)


Why is the state of my soul a matter of what is better _in general_?  I thought it a rather specific subject.

This is a libertarian website, my friend.  One size does not fit all, and we are here to proclaim this truth.

This is not to denigrate the teachers I have had.  I don't want to do that.  This is just to say a committee is not always the best thing for just everyone.

----------


## TER

> Why is the state of my soul a matter of what is better _in general_?  I thought it a rather specific subject.
> 
> This is a libertarian website, my friend.  One size does not fit all, and we are here to proclaim this truth.


So is your truth that a jury of one person is better then a jury of twelve?  Is that a libertarian position?

----------


## Ronin Truth

Sadly, as expected and predicted in another recent thread, ~95% off topic and crap posts here so far too. 

I must have hit pretty close to a nerve, for the Paulinists. 

Of course they probably did learn all that they needed to know about hijacking, by reading and learning from Paul.

----------


## acptulsa

> So is your truth that a jury of one person is better then a jury of twelve?  Is that a libertarian position?


Maybe I'm stuttering.

For the third time, I'm saying that sticking to the absolutes is tying your own hands.

Most people prefer to have company when they eat.  But each person digests his or her own dinner alone.

The truth requires the blessings of no committee to be the truth.

----------


## TER

> Maybe I'm stuttering.
> 
> For the third time, I'm saying that sticking to the absolutes is tying your own hands.
> 
> Most people prefer to have company when they eat.  But each person digests his or her own dinner alone.


It is a simple question, and I find it odd that it is so difficult for you to give an answer.  It is not a trick question.  

According to your truth, IN GENERAL, is a jury of one person better than a jury of twelve?

----------


## acptulsa

> It is a simple question, and I find it odd that it is so difficult for you to give an answer.  It is not a trick question.  
> 
> According to your truth, IN GENERAL, is a jury of one person better than a jury of twelve?


It's difficult.  There is no easy answer.  It really is a trick question.

In general, we put a dozen people on a jury not because one good person is not enough.  We put a dozen people on a jury because we hope that gives us good odds that one of those twelve will be conscientious and smart enough to do the job properly, and that he or she will drag the other eleven up to his or her level.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on any human or humans in the end.  Meanwhile, if people are good at helping you prepare yourself for heaven, surround yourself with them.  If other people aren't good at that, avoid them.

----------


## TER

> It's difficult.  There is no easy answer.  It really is a trick question.
> 
> In general, we put a dozen people on a jury not because one good person is not enough.  We put a dozen people on a jury because we hope that gives us good odds that one of those twelve will be conscientious and smart enough to do the job properly, and that he or she will drag the other eleven up to his or her level.


It is not a trick question.  It is a simple answer and you gave it with your second paragraph above.

Now, tell me how your answer is different to this which you objected to earlier in this thread?

What is more likely to be fallible? One person on their own, or a group of of people coming together, to deliberate, discuss, and debate?

----------


## acptulsa

> It is not a trick question.  It is a simple answer and you gave it with your second paragraph above.


Did I?

And did the one smart, conscientious person on that jury figure out how to drag the other eleven up to his or her level while in quiet contemplation, alone?

If the smartest, most conscientious person in your Fellowship Hall tells you he or she wants to contemplate something quietly before answering your question, do you begrudge that person this and demand a pat answer on the spot?

You seem to want a simple, absolute answer.  I don't have one.  But I don't see how the job can be done without both input and time for contemplation.

Everyone's a cook at the pot luck supper, but we each digest it alone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually, they are not.


Yes, they are.  Men are fallible.  God is not fallible.  Men words are erroneous.  God's Words are truth.

It doesn't matter how many fallible people you have together in a group, they are still fallible compared to God.

What you've done is to deify fallible men in a church.  That is an egregious error.

----------


## TER

> Did I?
> 
> And did the one smart, conscientious person on that jury figure out how to drag the other eleven up to his or her level while in quiet contemplation, alone?
> 
> If the smartest, most conscientious person in your Fellowship Hall tells you he or she wants to contemplate something quietly before answering your question, do you begrudge that person this and demand a pat answer on the spot?
> 
> You seem to want a simple, absolute answer.  I don't have one.  But I don't see how the job can be done without both input and time for contemplation.
> 
> Everyone's a cook at the pot luck supper, but we each digest it alone.


I think the misunderstanding we are having with one another is a symptom of the much greater problem, which incidentally is magnified in a forum such as this where there is a strong libertarian streak.

The West over the past several centuries has lost the idea of community and unity in favor of individualism.  Individual rights of course is not a bad thing in itself, in fact it is an extremely important and necessary thing, and I am not advocating communism of some sort of socialism otherwise I wouldn't have been a delegate for Ron Paul or spent countless hours here over the past many years.  However, individualism _to the extreme,_ just as everything to the extreme, is fraught with problems, and we see that everywhere in the relativism and moral decay of our western civilization.

It is astounding to me that I have to justify or explain in minutia why it is better in general to have a jury of 12 people rather than a jury of 1 person.  Honestly, I think a first grader can understand the logic of why the former is better then the latter (and I just asked my first grader, and she confirmed it, though that is a sample size of only one).  It is precisely _because_ people are fallible that it is a better system. Is it the best system possible?  No.  Is it a flawless system?  No.  It is, however, a much better system for the vast majority of the time.  

This takes me to the topic of religion, whereby we see so many people who have made themselves the arbiter and decider of what is important and what is true.  To the extreme, we get people like Sola who has in effect created his own church whereby he is his own pope and he gets to decide what is the correct interpretation of this or that, and what the Christian life is supposed to be.

But this is in so stark a contrast to what the Christian Faith is about, that it shivers the mind to think what will come next in this post-Christian world.  This extreme individualism and relativism is destroying our civilization and it is because it is destroying our very notion of what it means to be a human being.

For the early Church, the faithful who accepted Christ and were baptized into the community of believers, did not seek to re-interpret or individually determine what the teachings are which were handed down to them, putting themselves as it were to be of greater authority or more spiritually illuminated than those before them.  Rather, in humility and obedience, they sought the wisdom and consensus of the Church.  Neither did they seek to find salvation as individuals, but rather, _as members of a Church_.  As members of one body, they renounced this temporal world, even their very families and personal safety to become united to this body.  And not merely spiritually, but physically through the Divine Eucharist, sharing together the Body and Blood of Christ.  They understood that man's very ontological existence and true personhood is in communion and union with both God _and others_.  This is the trinitarian pattern which is in the image of God which transforms us to truly be a human being and gives us true and eternal life.

Yes, of course, we are individual with individual rights, and our lives will be judged solely on the things we have done or haven't done, but our entrance into the Kingdom will not be as mere individuals, but rather united as members of one body, one bride, namely one Church. 

Scripturally, this too is apparent, for Christ Himself established an organized structure for His ministry in choosing the Twelve Apostles and later the Seventy.  This was not by accident , but by divine will, so that when St. Peter messed up, St. Paul would correct him, and vice versa.  And when Judas betrayed them and was casted out of this heirarchal structure, another was chosen to fill his position, in order to continue the organization and structure started by the Lord.

The Apostles themselves and their divinely ordained successors, following the teachings of Christ and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, continued this ecclesial organizational pattern, this body of feet and hands and ears and mouth, namely in the ordained bishops, diaconate, and presbyters serving the laity.  We see the importance of this forming ecclesiastical structure within the writings of the early saints of the first centuries.  It is this structure, this organizational pattern of a heirarchal clergy,  with Chirst as Head, which defended the Church through the years of persecutions and heresies.  This started with the Council in Jerusalem as described in the Scriptures when the leaders of the Church came together to deliberate and discuss in prayerful concillliar synod how to confront the challenges faced by the Church, in order to protect the flock entrusted to them by God.  There was not one individual who decided what the correct Christian understanding and teaching is, but many who came together, and the many they represented, and above all, the Holy Spirit, Who guides us to all truths.

Christ said "where there are two or three gathered, I am there" because the truth is that alone we have no personhood, no true being, let alone communion with God.  Rather, it is in our communion with one another, that we find God and truth.  Christ prayed on the night of His crucifixion to the Father that all may be one, united as one, because our very ontological being and salvation is dependent upon such unity.

When we seek out on our own to define truths apart from the body, using our limited personal experiences to be of more authority and more value than that of the rest of the body, then we separate ourselves both from the body and from God, for Christ is present where there are two or three gathered.  For this reason, the papacy is wrong.  For this reason, the extreme individualism of post Reformation Christianity is wrong.  And we see the fruits of this everywhere, and it is destroying our civilization.

Anyway, I've babbled enough.  I am not picking on you acptulsa, I am merely venting because I am in a sad mood about Phillip's untimely death and had a long and stressful day at work.  Thanks for letting me release a little.

----------


## ReformedObserver

> I think the misunderstanding we are having with one another is a symptom of the much greater problem, which incidentally is magnified in a forum such as this where there is a strong libertarian streak.
> 
> The West over the past several centuries has lost the idea of community and unity in favor of individualism.


So this makes Libertarians wrong?





> individualism _to the extreme,_ just as everything to the extreme, is fraught with problems, and we see that everywhere in the relativism and moral decay of our western civilization.


How?  How do you imagine biblical "individualism" ever leading to extreme "relativism and moral decay?"







> This takes me to the topic of religion, whereby we see so many people who have made themselves the arbiter and decider of what is important and what is true.  To the extreme, we get people like Sola who has in effect created his own church whereby he is his own pope and he gets to decide what is the correct interpretation of this or that, and what the Christian life is supposed to be.


Be honest here, TER.  YOU are the one who advertises and promotes YOUR own interpretation and criteria of the one, supposedly, "true" church.  SF simply witnesses to his faith in the saving grace of God, that supercedes and encompasses more than any one's personal and temporal "church" association.




> But this is in so stark a contrast to what the Christian Faith is about, that it shivers the mind to think what will come next in this post-Christian world.  This extreme individualism and relativism is destroying our civilization and it is because it is destroying our very notion of what it means to be a human being.


*
There is no such thing as a "post-Christian" world;* nor is there any teaching of "individualsm or relativism" in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Just because you see such things in that way, does not give you basis to pin such concepts on SF or any Reformed believer.  These thoughts and visions come out of your mind, not ours.




> For the early Church, the faithful who accepted Christ and were baptized into the community of believers did not seek to re-interpret or individually determine what teachings were handed down to them, or seek to find salvation as individuals, but rather, _as members of a Church_.  As members of one body, they renounced this temporal world, even their very families and personal safety to become united to this body.  And not merely spiritually, but physically through the Divine Eucharist, sharing together the Body and Blood of Christ.  They understood that man's very ontological existence and true personhood is in communion and union with both God _and others_.  This is the trinitarian pattern which is in the image of God which transforms us to truly be a human being and gives us true and eternal life.


Where do you think Reformers differ from this?




> Yes, of course, we are individual with individual rights, and our lives will be judged solely on the things we have done or haven't done, but our entrance into the Kingdom will not be as mere individuals, but rather united as members of one body, namely the Church.


Every individual will be judged according to whether his works evidence he has been redeemed and brought into Spiritual union with Jesus Christ, which is the very definition of the spiritual and invisible wife/church/eternal/body and bride of God.

----------


## otherone

> individualism _to the extreme,_ just as everything to the extreme, is fraught with problems, and we see that everywhere in the relativism and moral decay of our western civilization.


What does that mean?  Either the individual has primacy, or he does not.

----------


## TER

> What does that mean?  Either the individual has primacy, or he does not.


God has primacy.  Our goal in life is to find Him, walk to Him, reach Him, and commune with Him, and we do this through the love of our neighbor.

----------


## otherone

> God has primacy.  Our goal in life is to find Him, walk to Him, reach Him, and commune with Him, and we do this through the love of our neighbor.


Is "our goal" to find him against the will of the individual?  As a "group"?

----------


## TER

RO, thank you for your post.  I am going to give you the last word in this thread.  This is a time to reflect on BuddyRey and pray for him and his family.   It is also a time to reflect on how fragile life is and how quickly we might come before our Maker and Judge.  These tragedies shod serve as a time of remembrance for many things, and I am going to take a little break.

 My post was quite clear, I thought, and I think explains my beliefs adequately, and I give you the last word.

Good night and God bless all my RPF brothers and sisters, may the Lord forgive us and grant us together with Philip forgiveness and eternal life.

----------


## TER

> Is "our goal" to find him against the will of the individual?  As a "group"?


No, it is not. It requires self-renunciation, self-giving, and self-sacrifice, in the image of the Suffering Servant Jesus Christ.  It requires humility, obedience, forgiveness, and mercy, in the image of Christ our God.

Goodnight otherone.  I give others a chance to answer.  I'm taking a break.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Telling people to do what God says is not the way it's done.  It's done by creating a culture of fear.
> 
> *How to create a Culture of Fear
> *
> If you don't do _____________ and/or don't believe ____________  you will go to Hell
> * Fill the pulpits with charismatic fire-n-brimstone preachers
> * Fill the interwebz with secret-agent, black-ops posters who preach the same (optional)
> .If we don't do ___________ the radical terrorists will kill us
> * Fill the news and airwaves with images of people that look like radical terrorists doing evil things 
> Lather, rinse, repeat.


The problem is, you can't just fill in the blank with anything because we actually have the Bible.  Don't you think it would be much more effective to just leave the Bible out of it and say "You will go to hell if ______ because I said so?"  

Instead, you have to weasel around the words in the Bible to make it seem like it's saying something it may or may not actually be saying when it would be much easier to control people by saying, "I am the authority on what God things and I am telling you ______", but you actually have to make it seem like it's compatible with what the Bible says, so it's not very effective.  The Catholic church tried to do that, but thankfully, we had Martin Luther to dispel the myth that the church was the only way to communicate with God.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> _Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful._
> Lucius Annaeus Seneca


Lol, there you go getting on your high horse again.  

"I'm better, wiser and more good-looking than you because I don't believe in your fairy tales."

When you actually look at how the state operates today, you can see that it's just not true at all.  The state doesn't use religion, at least not directly, unless you think somehow the churches and the government are in cahoots with each other, which would be kind of ridiculous because the churches don't all have a unifying statist bent.

Your bias against religion causes you to think this way, but when you actually look at the way governments operate these days, there's a reason why every single Communist regime is and was an atheistic one and even in the United States, politicians never directly refer to the Bible as an excuse to carry out an agenda.  Because people would know they were bullshitting if they actually said "You have to support this political cause or you're going to hell."  Religion is a very inefficient way to control people because you first have to get around what the Bible actually says and then you have to pose as some kind of authority on what the Bible says, but as you can see, no politician does that.  What they actually do is brainwash the people to think that they need the state for something, which is obviously what they're doing, and not "using religion" because religion isn't very useful to their ends.

----------


## ReformedObserver

> RO, thank you for your post.  I am going to give you the last word in this thread.  *This is a time to reflect on BuddyRey* and pray for him and his family.   It is also a time to reflect on how fragile life is and how quickly we might come before our Maker and Judge.  These tragedies shod serve as a time of remembrance for many things, and I am going to take a little break.


If you think this is good advice for you to follow, do so.  I have no idea how the death of Buddy Rey impacts your previous arguments, but if grieving for him helps you in some way, please do pray to your total satisfaction.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, you could burn every copy in any other language but Latin.  Of course, that was much easier a thousand years ago than now.
> 
> Or you could just tell everyone that no human can decipher a parable (clearly a lie) and tell people what you want them to think Jesus was saying.  Which will work well enough for the gullible, especially if you can brainwash them with that stuff while they're very young.


Exactly.  If you tell people they can't decipher what Jesus was saying and they have to rely on you, they'll know you're lying.  It would be much more effective if you could set yourself up as the authority via the state, and that is what we are seeing right now.  Politicians give the impression of belief just to appease the religious, but they don't actually *use* religion to control people.  Instead, their dogma revolves around state worship and "the state needs to do this for you or else it would be chaos".  Politicians don't actually tell us that God told us to do this, unless you're an idiot like George Bush and you think that might actually help some people support you, but by and large, politicians don't use God or the Bible as an excuse to do something because people who believe in the Bible and study it will know they're bullshitting, even if they happen to agree with the politician on the interpretation.  It's not effective at all.




> Organized religion has traditionally been almost as good at directing people away from Jesus' wisdom as toward it.  Which is why so many of us constantly advocate for an attitude of remembering that only Jesus is the Ultimate Source, and anyone and everyone else is suspect.  Not because they're evil, necessarily, but just because we're all fallible.


Quite true, actually.  The Ultimate Source doctrine is what keeps the rulers from using religion to their benefit.  They don't do it because they know they're going to piss someone off and expose themselves as snake oil salesmen who just want you to believe a particular interpretation in order to support their political cause.  In reality, religion is not useful to the rulers at all.  The era of the church meshed with the state is long gone and people have realized that it doesn't work.  That's why the US has a "separation of church and state" doctrine (not really in the Constitution, but in principle) and every single Communist government (China and Russia, for example) are expressly atheistic.

----------


## otherone

> When you _actually_ look at how the state operates today, you can see that it's just not true at all.  The state doesn't use religion, at least not directly, unless you think somehow the churches and the government are in cahoots with each other, which would be kind of ridiculous because the churches don't all have a unifying statist bent.
> 
> Your bias against religion causes you to think this way, but when you _actually_ look at the way governments operate these days, there's a reason why every single Communist regime is and was an atheistic one and even in the United States, politicians never directly refer to the Bible as an excuse to carry out an agenda.  Because people would know they were bullshitting if they _actually_ said "You have to support this political cause or you're going to hell."  Religion is a very inefficient way to control people because you first have to get around what the Bible _actually_ says and then you have to pose as some kind of authority on what the Bible says, but as you can see, no politician does that.  What they _actually_ do is brainwash the people to think that they need the state for something, which is obviously what they're doing, and not "using religion" because religion isn't very useful to their ends.



Brevity is the soul of wit.
Tucked among the "actuallys" (in red) is what Seneca was speaking of.
The state manipulates it's people through their religiosity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Brevity is the soul of wit.
> Tucked among the "actuallys" (in red) is what Seneca was speaking of.
> The state manipulates it's people through their religiosity.


Explain.  What "actuallys" amend my point?

The fact that their is _some_ room for interpretation, as with any text, doesn't change the fact that people are going to see through the motives of government officials claiming to speak on God's behalf.  It's so transparent it's not even funny.  It also doesn't change how inefficient it would be to take that route when it would be way easier and achieve way more to foster a belief in state-worship as opposed to God-worship.

Not to mention the fact that some interpretation does not necessarily open the door to unlimited interpretation, and it certainly doesn't justify fostering a belief in an absolute Scripture that must then be "interpreted."  That would be kind of like making a road, building a wall in the middle of it, and then putting a ladder on the wall for more "efficient" transportation.  The road here is state worship.  You don't need a ladder for the wall of interpreting Scripture if you just leave it out of the equation in the first place.  

All of these points deal with the theoretical application of a religion that would be _useful_ for the ruling class.  Never mind that we don't even see that happening in practice at all.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sadly, as expected and predicted in another recent thread, ~95% off topic and crap posts here so far too. 
> 
> I must have hit pretty close to a nerve, for the Paulinists. 
> 
> Of course they probably did learn all that they needed to know about hijacking, by reading and learning from Paul.


Yeah, because this one is so much more convincing than the 99% of your other troll threads.  The others were flops, but _this one_ finally struck a nerve.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think the misunderstanding we are having with one another is a symptom of the much greater problem, which incidentally is magnified in a forum such as this where there is a strong libertarian streak.
> 
> The West over the past several centuries has lost the idea of community and unity in favor of individualism.  Individual rights of course is not a bad thing in itself, in fact it is an extremely important and necessary thing, and I am not advocating communism of some sort of socialism otherwise I wouldn't have been a delegate for Ron Paul or spent countless hours here over the past many years.  However, individualism _to the extreme,_ just as everything to the extreme, is fraught with problems, and we see that everywhere in the relativism and moral decay of our western civilization.
> 
> It is astounding to me that I have to justify or explain in minutia why it is better in general to have a jury of 12 people rather than a jury of 1 person.  Honestly, I think a first grader can understand the logic of why the former is better then the latter (and I just asked my first grader, and she confirmed it, though that is a sample size of only one).  It is precisely _because_ people are fallible that it is a better system. Is it the best system possible?  No.  Is it a flawless system?  No.  It is, however, a much better system for the vast majority of the time.  
> 
> This takes me to the topic of religion, whereby we see so many people who have made themselves the arbiter and decider of what is important and what is true.  To the extreme, we get people like Sola who has in effect created his own church whereby he is his own pope and he gets to decide what is the correct interpretation of this or that, and what the Christian life is supposed to be.
> 
> But this is in so stark a contrast to what the Christian Faith is about, that it shivers the mind to think what will come next in this post-Christian world.  This extreme individualism and relativism is destroying our civilization and it is because it is destroying our very notion of what it means to be a human being.
> ...



Why are you here on this website TER?   Why are you trying to force your collectivist Eastern Orthodox religion on people who believe in individualism and liberty? 

Why have people here not called you out on your collectivism in the past?

----------


## otherone

> Explain.  What "actuallys" amend my point?
> 
> The fact that their is _some_ room for interpretation, as with any text, doesn't change the fact that people are going to see through the motives of government officials claiming to speak on God's behalf.  It's so transparent it's not even funny.  It also doesn't change how inefficient it would be to take that route when it would be way easier and achieve way more to foster a belief in state-worship as opposed to God-worship.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that some interpretation does not necessarily open the door to unlimited interpretation, and it certainly doesn't justify fostering a belief in an absolute Scripture that must then be "interpreted."  That would be kind of like making a road, building a wall in the middle of it, and then putting a ladder on the wall for more "efficient" transportation.  The road here is state worship.  You don't need a ladder for the wall of interpreting Scripture if you just leave it out of the equation in the first place.  
> 
> All of these points deal with the theoretical application of a religion that would be _useful_ for the ruling class.  Never mind that we don't even see that happening in practice at all.


Of course we do.  The majority of this nation considers America to be a Christian nation.  It has been, and will continue to be important to Americans what faith the president is, for example.  People want to be believe that God blesses America, and will continue to.  People believe that our role in the Mideast is Godly.  Not everyone, certainly, but the majority do.  People believe that cheating on taxes is sinful.  They believe that helping the poor is righteous.  People believe that authority has been given to our rulers by God.   Can you see this?  Can you see how this could be useful to rulers?

----------


## acptulsa

> Why are you here on this website TER?   Why are you trying to force your collectivist Eastern Orthodox religion on people who believe in individualism and liberty? 
> 
> Why have people here not called you out on your collectivism in the past?


Perhaps because he sells it, and never comes across as shoving stuff down people's throats by force?

What's the matter?  Is his honey attracting more flies than the vinegar is?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Perhaps because he sells it, and never comes across as shoving stuff down people's throats by force?
> 
> What's the matter?  Is his honey attracting more flies than the vinegar is?


Do you buy his collectivism?

----------


## acptulsa

> Do you buy his collectivism?


Did you sleep through our whole conversation?

This is the internet.  The whole conversation is right there.  You don't need me to personally do an instant replay for you.

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Did you sleep through our whole conversation?
> 
> This is the internet.  The whole conversation is right there.  You don't need me to personally do an instant replay for you.


If this is a "no", then I give you props for that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

....

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sorry about that post, you guys. Someone must have stolen my password.
> 
> Worth considering though....


Hmmm.  What do you mean by this?

----------


## otherone

> Hmmm.  What do you mean by this?


He means he lost all credibility for future posts.

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I mean six weeks ago my brother shot himself in the head, in my house, and I found him. The first few weeks I got a lot of comfort and support, but the past couple of weeks have been filled with self-doubt and guilt.
> 
> I should really just stay out of here for a while as I work through this rollercoaster of emotion. Instead, I feel like trolling.
> 
> My apologies.


Really?  That's horrible man.  I'm sorry.

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do me a favor Sola and delete your post with my quote in it, will ya?  That was an offensive, ugly post and I would rather it not be there.


I'll delete it, but truly, I wasn't offended at all man.  It's okay.  Actually those ideas about Paul have been advanced by John Shelby Spong and some others.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I'll delete it, but truly, I wasn't offended at all man.  It's okay.  Actually those ideas about Paul have been advanced by John Shelby Spong and some others.


Thanks man.

It's all good. I believe God doesn't give us more than we can handle. But these "opportunities for growth" can be painful.

Everyone's on their own journey. What the hell do I know?  Judge not....

Have a good Sunday. I'm gonna try to lay low for a while. Cheers.

----------


## moostraks

> Thanks man.
> 
> It's all good. I believe God doesn't give us more than we can handle. But these "opportunities for growth" can be painful.
> 
> Everyone's on their own journey. What the hell do I know?  Judge not....
> 
> Have a good Sunday. I'm gonna try to lay low for a while. Cheers.


*~Hugs~*...hope you can find some peace over what happened. So sorry you had to go through that experience. If you need an ear or shoulder just pm me.

----------


## Terry1

> Originally Posted by *Jamesiv1* 				 I mean six weeks ago my brother shot himself in the head, in my house, and I found him. The first few weeks I got a lot of comfort and support, but the past couple of weeks have been filled with self-doubt and guilt.
> 
>  I should really just stay out of here for a while as I work through this rollercoaster of emotion. Instead, I feel like trolling.
> 
>  My apologies.


James, I am so sorry for the loss of your brother and in such a way.  I never saw this post of yours before Sola's reply to it.  Such a tragedy and I imagine it has been very difficult to deal with emotionally.  You're in my prayers brother and your brother is at peace now.  May the Lord give you comfort in the days ahead.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Of course we do.  The majority of this nation considers America to be a Christian nation.  It has been, and will continue to be important to Americans what faith the president is, for example.  People want to be believe that God blesses America, and will continue to.  People believe that our role in the Mideast is Godly.  Not everyone, certainly, but the majority do.  People believe that cheating on taxes is sinful.  They believe that helping the poor is righteous.  People believe that authority has been given to our rulers by God.   Can you see this?  Can you see how this could be useful to rulers?


For a guy who likes brevity, you make a lot of sweeping generalizations.  "People want" this or that.  Which people?  I've already addressed the point that many people seem to care what faith the president is.  That's really quite irrelevant because, while presidents give the outward appearance of belief, they never actually say anything about God or the Bible when making policy decisions.  "People" believe that our role in the Mideast is Godly?  Which people?  A majority?  Really?  I doubt that.

There may be some, but that's a far cry from saying their religion was a tool to foster that belief.  Rather, the politicians try to appease them by putting on that outward appearance, but they never refer to the mission in such a way.  Notice how that dialogue has been especially absent since the war became unpopular.  

Have you ever considered that "people" have these beliefs, not because they were mindfucked into it by our government, but because they actually believe them?  If the government had its way, the Sola Scriptura doctrine wouldn't exist, but it does.  I can see why the government would want to control religion, but that's because it's an obstacle for them that can cause problems if it's not kept subdued.  People support these things because they 1) believe in God and 2) believe in the state.  There is no causal relationship between (1) and (2).  The state caused them to believe in the state and their cognitive dissonance did they rest.  They had to reconcile those two beliefs.  Nowhere do we see any actual endorsement of religious ideas from government or politicians.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course we do.  The majority of this nation considers America to be a Christian nation.  It has been, and will continue to be important to Americans what faith the president is, for example.  People want to be believe that God blesses America, and will continue to.  People believe that our role in the Mideast is Godly.  Not everyone, certainly, but the majority do.  People believe that cheating on taxes is sinful.  They believe that helping the poor is righteous.  People believe that authority has been given to our rulers by God.   Can you see this?  Can you see how this could be useful to rulers?



I don't agree with any one of these points.

And on the flipside,  the majority of atheists believe it's wrong to cheat on taxes,  and the majority of atheists think our role in the middle east is right and just.

Until you acknowledge the nuances in belief among "Christians", I won't acknowledge the nuances in beliefs among atheists.   I'll just generalize like you are doing.

Here we have again the idea that libertarian atheists put out there that all or most atheists are liberty oriented.   That is most certainly NOT the case.  The majority of atheists in this country are statists.

----------


## otherone

> Rather, the politicians *try to appease them by putting on that outward appearance,* but they never refer to the mission in such a way.


 Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, _and by the rulers as useful._
Lucius Annaeus Seneca




> * presidents give the outward appearance of belief,* they never actually say anything about God or the Bible when making policy decisions.


 Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, _and by the rulers as useful._
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

----------


## otherone

> I don't agree with any one of these points.
> 
> And on the flipside,  the majority of atheists believe it's wrong to cheat on taxes,  and the majority of atheists think our role in the middle east is right and just.
> 
> Until you acknowledge the nuances in belief among "Christians", I won't acknowledge the nuances in beliefs among atheists.   I'll just generalize like you are doing.
> 
> Here we have again the idea that libertarian atheists put out there that all or most atheists are liberty oriented.   That is most certainly NOT the case.  The majority of atheists in this country are statists.


WOW. agreed.
What percent of America is atheist?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> WOW. agreed.
> What percent of America is atheist?


I have no idea.   But I always read polls of how atheism is growing by leaps and bounds nowadays.  Also, I believe many so called religious people are functionality atheistic anyway.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't agree with any one of these points.
> 
> And on the flipside,  the majority of atheists believe it's wrong to cheat on taxes,  and the majority of atheists think our role in the middle east is right and just.
> 
> Until you acknowledge the nuances in belief among "Christians", I won't acknowledge the nuances in beliefs among atheists.   I'll just generalize like you are doing.
> 
> Here we have again the idea that libertarian atheists put out there that all or most atheists are liberty oriented.   That is most certainly NOT the case.  The majority of atheists in this country are statists.


You don't believe that its righteous to help the poor? 

Or do you mean government aid.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> WOW. agreed.
> What percent of America is atheist?


Too many.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, _and by the rulers as useful._
> Lucius Annaeus Seneca
> 
> 
> 
>  Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, _and by the rulers as useful._
> Lucius Annaeus Seneca


Right.  The atheistic statism of Mao and Stalin was very useful to them.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Right.  The atheistic statism of Mao and Stalin was very useful to them.


You don't even have to resort to the biggest mass killer atheists to see the idiocy in someone quoting the tutor of Emperor Nero, aka the guy who set fire to Rome in order to stoke an Antisemitic reaction in the populous, to make some point about religion being used to control people.

Equally of note is that one of the most well regarded atheist intellectuals of the recent past Christopher Hitchens, while not out there war-mongering and excusing some mass killings that suited his fancy, also suggested (rightly in my opinion) that the current president is an atheist (on this video), and said atheist president has killed more people with his drones than died in the entire Spanish Inquisition.

Skepticism seems the preferred mode of thought for killing machines, particularly within the past 250 years.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, _and by the rulers as useful._
> Lucius Annaeus Seneca


Trying to appease the religious does not make religion useful to them.  It just means it's something they have to deal with despite their best wishes.  




> Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, _and by the rulers as useful._
> Lucius Annaeus Seneca


You seem to have a warped definition of *useful.*  Presidents give the outward appearance of belief, not because they want people to believe, but because the people want them to believe.  In no way does that suggest that religion is a good thing for the rulers, which is what you have to demonstrate if your quote by Lucius Annaeus Seneca is true.  You have to demonstrate that there is some reason the rulers would rather the people believe than not believe.

Case in point, every Communist regime in the last century has been atheist.  There's a reason for that, no?

----------


## otherone

> You don't believe that its righteous to help the poor? 
> 
> Or do you mean government aid.


When the people believe that it's righteous to help the poor, government can create a welfare state.  When the people are told of godless atheist regimes, the people believe it is righteous to go fight them.  When people believe that the existence of Israel is righteous, they will protect it.
This isn't a new idea, as evidenced by Seneca.  It predated him, and continues today.  

_Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it._
Dwight D. Eisenhower

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> When the people believe that it's righteous to help the poor, government can create a welfare state.  When the people are told of godless atheist regimes, the people believe it is righteous to go fight them.  When people believe that the existence of Israel is righteous, they will protect it.
> This isn't a new idea, as evidenced by Seneca.  It predated him, and continues today.  
> 
> _Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it._
> Dwight D. Eisenhower


When was the last time we fought a "godless atheist regime"?  WW2 vs the nazis?  You should really be careful about declaring the usefulness of an entire religion to the political rulers based on the political tendencies of a certain sect of its adherents.  For one, you have not established any causal link between the beliefs in Christianity and beliefs in statism.  Were the statist tendencies of this sect _caused_ by their religiosity?  Doubtful.  Even more doubtful is the idea that the state somehow encourages these religious ideas specifically to give rise to latent statist ones.  

Your claims just aren't backed up by anything except your own biased preconceptions.  It's just as baseless and conceited as the arrogant notion that the "wise" reject religion.

----------


## erowe1

> Is anyone going to even try to read the OP PDF, and then post something *ON TOPIC*?


No.

If you want to post something on the topic in your own words, I'll reply to it. But don't expect me to spend a half hour composing a response to you spending 5 seconds copying and pasting a link.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When was the last time we fought a "godless atheist regime"?  WW2 vs the nazis?  You should really be careful about declaring the usefulness of an entire religion to the political rulers based on the political tendencies of a certain sect of its adherents.  For one, you have not established any causal link between the beliefs in Christianity and beliefs in statism.  Were the statist tendencies of this sect _caused_ by their religiosity?  Doubtful.  Even more doubtful is the idea that the state somehow encourages these religious ideas specifically to give rise to latent statist ones.  
> 
> Your claims just aren't backed up by anything except your own biased preconceptions.  It's just as baseless and conceited as the arrogant notion that the "wise" reject religion.


Technically Vietnam, though we were godless too

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No.
> 
> If you want to post something on the topic in your own words, I'll reply to it. But don't expect me to spend a half hour composing a response to you spending 5 seconds copying and pasting a link.


Well said.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Technically Vietnam, though we were godless too


Haha, exactly.  Thanks for bringing that up.  

We're not exactly what you would call a "Christian nation" to begin with.  The president having to appear to believe in something doesn't really matter because there are several other reasons for that other than religion being useful to the rulers.  The important fact to consider is that the US government, itself, is very secular and behaves in a secular manner.  Very rarely is religion even mentioned, much less used as an excuse for direct action.  We saw a religious state with the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages and there's a reason we no longer have that.  It's not an efficient way to rule.

I didn't even have to bring up all of the expressly atheistic Communist regimes of the last century.  It would appear that atheism is actually far more useful to the rulers than religion.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Paul's letters are epistles addressed to a very specific audience.
> 
> The four gospels are compilations of stories about a man that began circulating orally during his lifetime and were not compiled and written down until much later.
> 
> Which makes the gospels much closer to the source.


No, in fact, it does not make them closer to the source.  See definition "closer."  It does make them much more relevant... if they're authentic.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Haha, exactly.  Thanks for bringing that up.  
> 
> We're not exactly what you would call a "Christian nation" to begin with.  The president having to appear to believe in something doesn't really matter because there are several other reasons for that other than religion being useful to the rulers.  The important fact to consider is that the US government, itself, is very secular and behaves in a secular manner.  Very rarely is religion even mentioned, much less used as an excuse for direct action.  We saw a religious state with the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages and there's a reason we no longer have that.  It's not an efficient way to rule.
> 
> I didn't even have to bring up all of the expressly atheistic Communist regimes of the last century.  It would appear that atheism is actually far more useful to the rulers than religion.


I am very for a religious (Christian) state, but the US wasn't really that since the Puritans (who unfortunately didn't understand economics but otherwise were rock solid.)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ON+TOPIC
> 
> 
> Does that suggest or imply that you read it?


Wow, are you that humorless?  Or maybe I am, since nobody else seemed to laugh either.

Oh well, I enjoyed my own joke, so I guess the journey was its own reward.

I did read through your article, by the way, Ronin.  What would you like to discuss?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am very for a religious (Christian) state, but the US wasn't really that since the Puritans (who unfortunately didn't understand economics but otherwise were rock solid.)


Unfortunately, I don't think any system, whether religious or secular, is going to be satisfactory.  We will, as long as we differ on such things as religion, be in a state of unrest and turmoil, constantly shaking the earth and spawning new revolutions for future generations, but we will never be satisfied.  No system can ever do that for us as long as we are imperfect in the way that we are now.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Wow, are you that humorless?  Or maybe I am, since nobody else seemed to laugh either.
> 
> Oh well, I enjoyed my own joke, so I guess the journey was its own reward.
> 
> I did read through your article, by the way, Ronin.  What would you like to discuss?


I laughed, and replied.  Nobody seemed to get that either, though. 

ETA:Oh, except I got 1 +rep

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I did read through your article, by the way, Ronin.  What would you like to discuss?


So..... nothing, I take it?

----------

