Theology of Paul from a Christian Deist

[Sola_Fide]

Mostly just ignoring and running from the REAL thread topic. From my repeated observations that has come to be the most typical Paulinista Mafia distraction and diversion tactic.

Notice how wacko it makes them when others do the same to them. Great role model there Saul/Paul, I think I'll just stick with Yashua for this branch of my spiritual investigations.

You don't stick with Jesus. You reject His claim of divinity. You reject Jesus at the most fundamental level.

Typical Roninist tactic.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

When is there any serious debate in here?

"You reject what Jesus said because you don't believe he is god"? What the hell does that even mean, other than preconceived notions interjected into discussion of fundamental research.

 

[Sola_Fide]

When is there any serious debate in here?

"You reject what Jesus said because you don't believe he is god"? What the hell does that even mean, other than preconceived notions interjected into discussion of fundamental research.

What's there not to understand about that? There are certain propositions that have to be taken as true in order for "accepting Jesus" to have any meaning and be non-contradictory.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

What's there not to understand about that? There are certain propositions that have to be taken as true in order for "accepting Jesus" to have any meaning and be non-contradictory.

Bullshit. That's one of the main points @Ronin is trying to make, is that you can believe Jesus without all of the Paul/Saul hyperbole. You can just take some of the scriptures that are used to justify "another way" at their word. Like the "virgin birth" which was actually a prophet taking a virgin and impregnating her with Priests verifying that he went in to her, and the resultant child being as was prophesied (you will be free from your enemies before the child is old enough to say daddy or mommy).

 

[hells_unicorn]

Bullshit. That's one of the main points @Ronin is trying to make, is that you can believe Jesus without all of the Paul/Saul hyperbole. You can just take some of the scriptures that are used to justify "another way" at their word. Like the "virgin birth" which was actually a prophet taking a virgin and impregnating her with Priests verifying that he went in to her, and the resultant child being as was prophesied (you will be free from your enemies before the child is old enough to say daddy or mommy).

The virgin birth is not unique to Paul's epistles, it's all over the entire New Testament via the accounts of Matthew and John, and is likewise noted in the epistles of Peter and John. There is being a Christian, and then there is Ronin's preferred hobby of seeking out what are essentially really brutally bad "fan fiction" or "what if comic book" versions based on the imaginations of people who are either mentally ill or ideologically driven. It's a matter of simple logic.

But just to throw you a little bone here, I'm sure Ronin is quite happy to have another tinfoil hat wearing nut to validate his antics.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The virgin birth is not unique to Paul's epistles, it's all over the entire New Testament via the accounts of Matthew and John, and is likewise noted in the epistles of Peter and John. There is being a Christian, and then there is Ronin's preferred hobby of seeking out what are essentially really brutally bad "fan fiction" or "what if comic book" versions based on the imaginations of people who are either mentally ill or ideologically driven. It's a matter of simple logic.

But just to throw you a little bone here, I'm sure Ronin is quite happy to have another tinfoil hat wearing nut to validate his antics.

Well that's cute. (that was sarcasm in case it escapes you, which looks like it could very well)

These accounts that you refer to, are they trustworthy? Do you know of anyone that can verify them? Or, are you taking things for granted because that is how you have been taught, you grew up being told these things are true. Do you ever examine what you have been told and/or have believed?

You see, there are many that see your view of the bible as the "fan fiction" and "comic book" fantasy.

There is a thing called "discussion" that sometimes can help clarify where one stands on issues, but there are also many who don't want to examine the basis for a belief that makes them uncomfortable with what they hold dear. And, that's fine. But don't enter into those areas of discussion and think that you are going to create that same sort of discomfort in those that are seeking answers to their questions.

 

[erowe1]

Bullshit. That's one of the main points @Ronin is trying to make, is that you can believe Jesus without all of the Paul/Saul hyperbole. You can just take some of the scriptures that are used to justify "another way" at their word. Like the "virgin birth" which was actually a prophet taking a virgin and impregnating her with Priests verifying that he went in to her, and the resultant child being as was prophesied (you will be free from your enemies before the child is old enough to say daddy or mommy).

I'd love to see Ronin actually try to make that point.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I'd love to see Ronin actually try to make that point.

It's easy to gather that from the type of religious posts that he makes. I believe I even saw him state it in one of the threads here.

Another point that he's trying to make, is that he can post interesting topics without having to defend the content, just as others post topics that they didn't write in other areas of the forums, but people still give their points of contention or agreement, depending on their views on the subject.

Instead, when he posts controversial topics he becomes the focal point of those in contention with the article(s). Perhaps, in his search for truth, he would like to see others discuss the content of the articles that he posts, to see how others view it. There are many times that getting to the root of a subject is very difficult, especially when it is left to "history" that may or may not be correct. Even "authorities" are not all in agreement on these subjects. The "science" is not settled.

 

[erowe1]

Perhaps, in his search for truth

The problem is, he's not searching for truth. He's not interested in accurate information. He's only interested in whatever reaches his preconceived unfounded conclusions. He makes himself the focal point of his threads by approaching them this way.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Well that's cute. (that was sarcasm in case it escapes you, which looks like it could very well)

Being butt-hurt is fine, just try not to mistake it for an argument, Ronin's been struggling with figuring that one out for as long as I've seen him posting on this topic.

These accounts that you refer to, are they trustworthy? Do you know of anyone that can verify them? Or, are you taking things for granted because that is how you have been taught, you grew up being told these things are true. Do you ever examine what you have been told and/or have believed?

You're talking to an ex-atheist sweet cheeks, I looked into all this stuff prior to dumping my former beliefs in Darwin's pseudo-science and Hitchens' pseudo-philosophy. I was not rigorously trained in religion as a kid, and I got a load of secular humanist rubbish while attending public school and getting my bachelor's degree. The amount of source material and scholarship that has gone into this subject is exhaustive (I'm still at study with regards to the early post-apostolic church period), and barring a few quacks like Bart Ehrman and some people who talk to Martians and have websites, the biblical canon is sound. Whether or not one believes what it states is naturally another matter, but that wasn't the subject, nor has that ever been the subject of Ronin's constant troll threads. He has some bizarre obsession with Paul's epistles that borderlines on OCD, yet can't seem to force himself to admit that nothing he stated contradicts either the other apostles or the Gospel accounts.

You see, there are many that see your view of the bible as the "fan fiction" and "comic book" fantasy.

Why should I care? The original source material has been vetted to the point of sheer ridiculousness. The fact that people are obstinate in refusing to see the truth is not a cause for doubt, though it often becomes a cause for mockery, which I am all too happy to oblige with sufficient motivation.

There is a thing called "discussion" that sometimes can help clarify where one stands on issues, but there are also many who don't want to examine the basis for a belief that makes them uncomfortable with what they hold dear.

Having a discussion and being a condescending jackass are 2 different things, and this statement just put you into the latter camp. You have zero respect for the orthodox position regarding scripture, and I see zero reason to give equal grounds to those who like to play amateur historian and cite dubious sources to make outlandish claims.

And, that's fine. But don't enter into those areas of discussion and think that you are going to create that same sort of discomfort in those that are seeking answers to their questions.

I can pretty well surmise, based on the tone of your response here, that I've already accomplished a level of discomfort in you. Whether it's equal to some sort of discomfort that I'm allegedly feeling based on your clairvoyant estimation is not really a concern of mine, nor that you are feeling any yourself. You're helping to prop up an admitted troll who can't tell the difference between biblical exegesis and bull-baiting, and I don't feel the need to desist in pointing this out.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

@hells_unicorn,
I'm going to leave you to your own devices, because they are many. Never the less, let it be known to you that I will not be intimidated by rhetoric.

I find that the very same psychologies are used on every topic from every angle, whether religion, atheism, politics, or any other subject to subject the masses to the will of the state. Every "ology" and "ism" is controlled from every side of the argument. The open air panopticon is the one of the greatest achievements in abstract slavery. And, as well, the abstract psychological constraints placed on the minds of mankind, from his birth, has limited his ability to seek anything and find an answer to it with any certainty.

Have fun, in there. I'm out. There is little to be gained by anyone bouncing around in that madness.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The problem is, he's not searching for truth. He's not interested in accurate information. He's only interested in whatever reaches his preconceived unfounded conclusions. He makes himself the focal point of his threads by approaching them this way.

How do you know what he is looking for?

When you start to see that your world is not what it seems to be, you need to find a grounding point, a "point of view" that gives some consistent answers. At first, it does seem to be jumping around like a chicken with your head cut off, because that's kind of what it is like (having your foundations torn out from under you).

It's not hard to see, these days, that things aren't right. They're not "in order". Who do you believe when no one is beyond reproach? Can you even believe your own eyes, at all times? Especially when you only see part of what is going on around you depending on where you are at any given time.

For those that "believe" that they are standing on solid ground, it might appear as though that those that are searching for solid ground are running amok, while not perceiving that they themselves are standing on a spinning rock.

I would suggest that "love" and "understanding" might be an approach to determining what another is really after, or else at least help in determining whether they are after nothing good at all if it is so.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I'd love to see Ronin actually try to make that point.

In a sense I have. Repeating, Rome hijacked Jesus and stole his movement and it's name. The resulting state institution, became a Satanic pagan abomination of the Empire. To a very significant degree, it and it's descendants still are. Where's the Jesus in Christianity? It's very easy to see the Paul.


Has anyone bothered to attempt to count the actual ON TOPIC posts in this thread? They're noted obvious absense speaks for itself, as usual.

Truly pathetic. Defending the indefensible is inexcusable.

 

[Ronin Truth]

What's there not to understand about that? There are certain propositions that have to be taken as true in order for "accepting Jesus" to have any meaning and be non-contradictory.

'Accepting' is your word and criterion, it has NEVER been mine, nor will it be. Screw it. This is largely because of almost all of the "Christians"(so called) that I've met and needed to deal with throughout my life. Their fruits have become very predictable and now expected. Many just like you.

I truly understand and sympathize with why Jesus is coming back pissed. You'd better hide out.

 

[moostraks]

@hells_unicorn,
I'm going to leave you to your own devices, because they are many. Never the less, let it be known to you that I will not be intimidated by rhetoric.

I find that the very same psychologies are used on every topic from every angle, whether religion, atheism, politics, or any other subject to subject the masses to the will of the state. Every "ology" and "ism" is controlled from every side of the argument. The open air panopticon is the one of the greatest achievements in abstract slavery. And, as well, the abstract psychological constraints placed on the minds of mankind, from his birth, has limited his ability to seek anything and find an answer to it with any certainty.

Have fun, in there. I'm out. There is little to be gained by anyone bouncing around in that madness.

I know you cannot hear me, but trust me if possible, I am applauding your posts. When alternative discussion or theorizing is shamed into silence, it creates a narrowminded echo chamber where mediocrity becomes revered.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I know you cannot hear me, but trust me if possible, I am applauding your posts. When alternative discussion or theorizing is shamed into silence, it creates a narrowminded echo chamber where mediocrity becomes revered.

There is nothing at all wrong with shaming anyone or anything that sets itself up against the mind of Christ.

 

[Sola_Fide]

'Accepting' is your word and criterion, it has NEVER been mine, nor will it be. Screw it. This is largely because of almost all of the "Christians"(so called) that I've met and needed to deal with throughout my life. Their fruits have become very predictable and now expected. Many just like you.

I truly understand and sympathize with why Jesus is coming back pissed. You'd better hide out.

Well, did you act nuts and talk about coming from other dimensions and aliens and everything with them? No wonder you didnt like the fruit the "Christians" you talked to had. They probably thought you were nuts, like I do.

 

[Ronin Truth]

This is totally disingenuous. When people make on topic posts, you refuse to engage them.

Where and how is that required? Is it in the forum guidelines. Did I sign a obligatory contract?

When will you make an on topic post?

#1 by definition, whenever you decide to address it. Though actually I can almost address your pattern replies verbatim WITHOUT you.
So you can just go ahead and never mind.

//

 

[Ronin Truth]

Well, did you act nuts and talk about coming from other dimensions and aliens and everything with them? No wonder you didnt like the fruit the "Christians" you talked to had. They probably thought you were nuts, like I do.

I was just having some fun. You were being your typical OFF TOPIC stupid.

 

[euphemia]

I know you cannot hear me, but trust me if possible, I am applauding your posts. When alternative discussion or theorizing is shamed into silence, it creates a narrowminded echo chamber where mediocrity becomes revered.

I don't mind the alternative discussion every now and again, but the OP here is the one who is trying to prove one side without having done his homework on the other side. Some of us have been studying the Bible (and it's background, etc) for decades. We are fully capable of reading articles, but the OP will not read the Bible itself and discuss from a fully informed position. Reading about the Bible is not the same as reading the Bible.

What the OP calls info bombs are really just scuds. It's a waste of time. If I were evaluating this from a teacher's point of view, the OP would fail because he only reads what he wants to read and assumes those conclusions are true. He does not prove his point by his own reading and logic. Trust me, teachers do not like pages and pages of quotes. We want the student's own work.