Theology of Paul from a Christian Deist

[Ronin Truth]

Not without evidence.

So, just to be clear, what you're saying is that all these threads where you complain about other people not discussing the thread topic, you also don't want them to discuss the thread topic with you, because you're not willing to discuss it yourself?

You have 10 more chances to make it clear. I'm betting you won't make it.

 

[moostraks]

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

Yes, it is clear your opinion as to shaming others who you hold in contempt, and it is also clear that you don't mind lying about others to achieve your goals.

Know them by their fruits we are told~~~

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, it is clear your opinion as to shaming others who you hold in contempt, and it is also clear that you don't mind lying about others to achieve your goals.

Know them by their fruits we are told~~~

Right. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Part of apologetics is exposing and shaming the foolish so-called wisdom of this world. It also includes shaming religions that set themselves up against Christ, such as paganism.

We know them by the fruits of their doctrine...

 

[euphemia]

If I thought RT had the slightest bit of compassion about the eternal consequences of what I believe, it might be worth talking to him. As it is, he is the one doing the shaming of people who believe what has been accepted as standard orthodoxy for centuries. He cares not one whit about me. He brings no scholarship to his posts, and it is just a big, fat, waste of time to try to talk to him.

 

[Ronin Truth]

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.

You come to that conclusion based on what definitive evidence, specifically? Your assumptions are unwarranted, and your premises invalid.

Some of us have been studying the Bible (and it's background, etc) for decades.

Oh really, which of the epistles of Paul(so called) were actually written by Paul? Why doesn't the RCC ever obey the commands of Jesus?

We are fully capable of reading articles, but the OP will not read the Bible itself and discuss from a fully informed position.

I've read the Bible, probably more and before you were born. Discussion from a fully informed position is nowhere in my RPF job description. I've checked.

Reading about the Bible is not the same as reading the Bible.

Can't argue with that, Captain Obvious.

What the OP calls info bombs are really just scuds.

FWIW, some other folks here like them too.

It's a waste of time.

How so? You're not reading them, so whose time is being wasted?

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.

And we're all very happy that you are not. We're not in school, have you noticed? Luckily you're not the teacher handing out homework assignments.

He does not prove his point by his own reading and logic.

An Internet forum is NOT a formal debate venue nor a logic symposium, just in case you haven't bothered to notice.

Trust me, teachers do not like pages and pages of quotes.

Are you trustworthy? How are we to know? Can you prove it categorically?

With your opinions and 50 cents I can manage to get a can of pop in some pretty seedy places.

We want the student's own work.

Is any of this going to be on the final exam?

//

 

[moostraks]

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.

I think there seems to be a great deal of conjecture about the op floating around because he throws stuff up that others would prefer not be out there. I don't make guesses about the extent of his experiences or exposure to things based on his links. I know of the Paul argument and I know why some feel as they do. When I find a thread that compels me, especially when it is someone so deeply invested in the issue, I do not expect a response but I share an alternative position when so compelled and hope that those who have need will find it useful.

I don't understand why the threads in this subforum are being held to a different standard in that somehow when one posts things it means they are making a statement of faith and they then must stand in place of the authors of the work being shared and somehow defend every revelation contained within. I must have missed where we had signed up to that contractual obligation here. I have seen quite a few discussions where people have made a reasoned argument from their own extensive research but I still think they are full of hot air and it is irrelevant how much of a person's soul has been divulged.

Quite frankly imo this subforum could do with some fresh threads instead of the continual bickering over the same issues that have not been resolved for centuries and won't be. I don't get the insecurity about reading the particular alternative viewpoints being posted but then again my faith has gone through the fire and it is what it is, a life in progress. I like to see the way others look at the glass and get perspective or dust off the files on some things I put to bed years ago. When someone does info bombs, I usually skip over it, as I do my much of my own research as the Spirit inspires me. When some has a particular theme going I will read or ignore depending on the extent of the recent threads, or material, previously provided.

Sad thing about some of these recent threads is that I am not seeing some of the folks' links who I might lurk through a thread in search of for balance to the discussion. If those who feel they have posted them way back when would consider copy/paste, it might come in handy.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I think there seems to be a great deal of conjecture about the op floating around because he throws stuff up that others would prefer not be out there. I don't make guesses about the extent of his experiences or exposure to things based on his links. I know of the Paul argument and I know why some feel as they do. When I find a thread that compels me, especially when it is someone so deeply invested in the issue, I do not expect a response but I share an alternative position when so compelled and hope that those who have need will find it useful.

I don't understand why the threads in this subforum are being held to a different standard in that somehow when one posts things it means they are making a statement of faith and they then must stand in place of the authors of the work being shared and somehow defend every revelation contained within. I must have missed where we had signed up to that contractual obligation here. I have seen quite a few discussions where people have made a reasoned argument from their own extensive research but I still think they are full of hot air and it is irrelevant how much of a person's soul has been divulged.

Quite frankly imo this subforum could do with some fresh threads instead of the continual bickering over the same issues that have not been resolved for centuries and won't be. I don't get the insecurity about reading the particular alternative viewpoints being posted but then again my faith has gone through the fire and it is what it is, a life in progress. I like to see the way others look at the glass and get perspective or dust off the files on some things I put to bed years ago. When someone does info bombs, I usually skip over it, as I do my much of my own research as the Spirit inspires me. When some has a particular theme going I will read or ignore depending on the extent of the recent threads, or material, previously provided.

Sad thing about some of these recent threads is that I am not seeing some of the folks' links who I might lurk through a thread in search of for balance to the discussion. If those who feel they have posted them way back when would consider copy/paste, it might come in handy.

Kudos!

 

[euphemia]

I just don't see these discussions as being a search for truth. They don't exist to give believers or nonbelievers anything to chew on.

People who want to discredit the Bible, it's authorship, and scholarship are a dime a dozen. The only reason people can read their books/articles now is because the internet provides free space for them and a lot of people with nothing better to do spend a lot of time looking for something to affirm their own lack of faith. I say that totally without malice.

Having worked in libraries, including theological libraries, I know scoffers are out there. Very rarely does something of the nature of the OP go through more than one small printing, if that. Many of those never sold more than a few copies of first editions and were donated to free up space for things that scholars want to read.

One of the big tricks in the academic world is to quote and requote each other. These days you would have a hard time looking in the bibliography of a standard textbook and find a single source dated before 1965. The academic world is like the blogging world. They all go around quoting and requoting each other looking for validity. Academics and bloggers are the most insecure, affirmation-seeking people on the planet. The best most of them can hope for is to find someone to buy into their arguments and post to some niche forum like this one. Some of them pay people to post in places like this, otherwise they would be published by serious academic/theological journals and posting on big time academic/theological forums. A year from now nobody will remember what they say and they will be replaced by the next new thing.

[That last bit was just for you, moostracks. I seem to recall you home school. This was something I discovered when I was teaching and then home schooling.]

 

[euphemia]

As to the other part of your concern, moostracks, I think the reason you find the same discussions over and over in theology is because a lot of what is taught and practiced in church has been classified as orthodox theology and has been settled in the minds of believers.

The general forum here has a lot of diversity in membership. We have anarchists, minarchists, and on and on. We have a few things we solidly agree on, and that's why you see it in our general discussions. Just not here in the religious subforum.

I hold a degree in Bible/Theology from a conservative institution and studied under people who have been on Bible translation committees. I'm different than the hardcore Calivinists, and that would explain why I spend more time talking about what the Bible says and how it applies than I do on whether it should be civil law.

Hope that helps.

 

[Ronin Truth]

If I thought RT had the slightest bit of compassion about the eternal consequences of what I believe, it might be worth talking to him. As it is, he is the one doing the shaming of people who believe what has been accepted as standard orthodoxy for centuries. He cares not one whit about me. He brings no scholarship to his posts, and it is just a big, fat, waste of time to try to talk to him.

Don't worry, Jesus loves and forgives us both. Paul, not so much.

 

[Ronin Truth]

As to the other part of your concern, moosetracks, I think the reason you find the same discussions over and over in theology is because a lot of what is taught and practiced in church has been classified as orthodox theology and has been settled in the minds of believers.

The general forum here has a lot of diversity in membership. We have anarchists, minarchists, and on and on. We have a few things we solidly agree on, and that's why you see it in our general discussions. Just not here in the religious subforum.

Hope that helps.

If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)

 

[Paulbot99]

He does not prove his point by his own reading and logic.
An Internet forum is NOT a formal debate venue nor a logic symposium, just in case you haven't bothered to notice.

Logic is not needed to form a conclusion and defend it? Seriously?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Don't worry, Jesus loves and forgives us both. Paul, not so much.

If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)

Is this your "philosophy"? Man, you are deep. You really know how to drive a point home with sound argumentation.

 

[moostraks]

As to the other part of your concern, moostraks, I think the reason you find the same discussions over and over in theology is because a lot of what is taught and practiced in church has been classified as orthodox theology and has been settled in the minds of believers.

The general forum here has a lot of diversity in membership. We have anarchists, minarchists, and on and on. We have a few things we solidly agree on, and that's why you see it in our general discussions. Just not here in the religious subforum.

I hold a degree in Bible/Theology from a conservative institution and studied under people who have been on Bible translation committees. I'm different than the hardcore Calivinists, and that would explain why I spend more time talking about what the Bible says and how it applies than I do on whether it should be civil law.

Hope that helps.

The same discussions keep getting repeated as though some how, now is the time and these particular participants are the ones, who will resolve the same issues people have been fighting for centuries.

Sadly, a small, vocal group hound other conversations so one cannot participate in a discussion about other less mainstream positions.

 

[euphemia]

The same discussions keep getting repeated as though some how, now is the time and these particular participants are the ones, who will resolve the same issues people have been fighting for centuries.

Oh, I know, but when people have resolved the foundational truths of their faith, what else are they going to argue about?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm different than the hardcore Calivinists, and that would explain why I spend more time talking about what the Bible says and how it applies than I do on whether it should be civil law.
Hope that helps.

Well, I'm different than that too. There's nothing uniquely "reformed" about that view. Most Reformed people are not Reconstructionists (I'm not trying to use an argument from popularity here...just the truth).

 

[moostraks]

Oh, I know, but when people have resolved the foundational truths of their faith, what else are they going to argue about?

I wish the format here was a bit different in that the bickering and insults detract from being able to digest the discussions. Not everyone has resolved their foundations and some who may have resolved their foundations also enjoy learning of others' traditions and yet this sub forum is so difficult to weed through for any gain.

 

[euphemia]

I understand what you mean moostracks. On Sundays I want to come home from church and spend some time talking with other believers about what blessed me that day. It's just too hard to have a sane discussion because a lot of posters do not seem to be able to express their doctrine without denegrating the doctrine of others. It's a real shame.

I also apologize for misspelling your username. Somehow my fingers go faster than my new glasses let me read. I have fixed the misspellings. Could you please fix where you quoted me?

 

[hells_unicorn]

@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.

Informing the ignorant is my chief end here sonny, the only people who are intimidated by truth are the dishonest. Get some thicker skin.

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.

If my accusations of you toting a tin-foil hat were inaccurate, you might do well not to talk like you are actually wearing one. I know people tied in with The Venus Project that sound more rational than this word salad.

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.

Very intriguing, throw in some Science Fiction plot line and you'll have yourself a splinter sect of Scientology.

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

Indeed, do have fun and run along now. But do keep in mind that there is a reason why people tend to think of madness in terms of being "out there", as opposed to being "in there". Just some food for thought, since you seem a bit starved on it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I wish the format here was a bit different in that the bickering and insults detract from being able to digest the discussions. Not everyone has resolved their foundations and some who may have resolved their foundations also enjoy learning of others' traditions and yet this sub forum is so difficult to weed through for any gain.

That's ridiculous. There is no way you can learn without division. You must have the contrast in order to learn. If there was a forum full of Lindsey Graham supporters' posts, you would never know the truth.