Can I get a round of applause for disunity?
C’mon! Put your hands together!
Discord makes life fun and interesting.
There would be no sports without it.
Imagine two teams on the field trying to foster cooperation and agreement.
Nobody wants to see that! After the coin toss, it would be hours of team captains saying, “No! You pick! Do you want to kick or receive! I’ll go with whatever you decide!”
What’s the point of Tug-of-War when everyone pulls on the same side of the rope?
So let’s stop making unity and inclusiveness the ultimate goal of mankind.
Let’s stop making inclusiveness the ultimate goal of Christianity.
WHAT?!!
HOW DARE YOU?!!!
HOW DARE YOU!!!?
Here’s how dare I. I’m reading articles like this where it says:
“I love that in John 3:16, God uses the word “whoever.” There are no conditions to that word.”
And I need to champion the cause of disunity.
I need to make a humble plea for exclusivity.
John 3:16 says:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that [whoever] believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”
See the condition?
Whoever ***BELIEVES*** in him…
Christianity is not ALL INCLUSIVE.
If this shocks you…
…I’m guessing you haven’t read much scripture.
Because Jesus didn’t preach inclusiveness.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father,and a daughter against her mother,and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.”
– Matthew 10:34
If everyone is part of God’s big, happy family…
…what’s the fighting about?
…any guesses?
IT’S THOSE WHITE, EVANGELICAL TRUMP SUPPORTERS!
No.
It’s Tug of War.
Team A is everyone who chooses to follow Christ.
Team B is everyone who chooses not to follow Christ.
We can argue about which team is the best.
But it is stupid to suggest that Team A should include ‘whoever’ from Team B.
Coming over to Team A means you can’t keep pulling for Team B.
That’s not hateful.
That’s not racist.
But it is divisive.
So NOW can I get a round of applause for disunity?
C’mon! Put your hands together!
Exclusivity is how we know which team jersey to wear.
173 Responses
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I have no idea what point you’re making.
I’m so glad we had this talk. Lol.
Dare I say, this round goes to Team A? 😉
Yeah methinks so
Our quarterback is much better
Amen. 🙂
Christianity….is EXCLUSIVE……..but not EXCLUSIONARY.
That about sums it up I think.
Pick your team…and play.
Normally, I despise sports analogies (yes, even the ones Paul used), but the bit about “it’s how we know which jersey to wear,” actually works quite well.
Confusing “whoever believes” with “EVERYONE WHO EVER LIVED EVER” is one of the banes of modern Christendom. If we keep allowing culture creep to infect the church, we will soon find ourselves completely indistinguishable from the rest of the world, as opposed to current conditions wherein we are merely hard to tell apart.
Right.
Exclusiveness cannot be avoided. The question we all must answer is, “Which group do I want to identify with?”
Fascinating!
A small bunch of disgruntled 1st century Jews make up a new end times religion with a somewhat confused pseudo pacifist as a leader and end up screwing the pooch.
Then it takes a corrupt Roman Emperor and a corrupt church Father to come up with a Brand New Vitamin Enhanced Religion, with Added Doctrine, called Christianity.
It takes a further 400 years or so of bullshitting before Theodosius decides to make it the one and only in all the land, tra la la and Christians have been fucking themselves over ever since.
Truly, you couldn’t make this shit up.
And all because of a make believe god.
It seems there are times when human credulity knows no bounds.
Unity through disunity!
*Smile* .
You got that right, Branyan and with more and more splinter groups appearing on the horizon every year and even more people leaving your precious faith, a world of secular humanism is looming.
And Ark makes three…
So far, none of the atheist contingency has been able to grasp the point of this article. But you at least conceded that I’m right.
Kudos!
As a rule you don’t usually make a coherent point.
But this post quite clearly suggests that the only thing of any import in your religion is belief in the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.
This will ensure passage to eternal bliss in Heaven, sans virgins, but probably lots of shuffleboard and ringside seats to gloat at all the poor suckers who didn’t make the cut.
The problem is that doctrine has always got in the way, has it not?
That is what the church that invented your religion tried to solve.
Unfortunately for the misguided such as you, threats and indoctrination is the only way to keep you in the kennel.
Now all you can do is gnaw at your leash and yap at all those who pass within barking distance.
If you can summarize the point of this post, we can discuss its merits.
Right now, you’re just rattling.
It was summarized. Or did you miss it?
As you seem to think I am off the mark explain exactly where and I will correct your misunderstanding.
You summarized that this post “…quite clearly suggests that the only thing of any import in your religion is belief in the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.”
That is not what this post is about.
If you can’t understand what the point is, there is no reason to argue with me about it.
And I need to champion the cause of disunity.
I need to make a humble plea for exclusivity.
And….
Because Jesus didn’t preach inclusiveness.
Yes.
Do you disagree with the idea that Jesus didn’t preach inclusiveness?
Please stop trying to be obtuse and rephrase the question in the positive.
It will make for easier reading.
Thanks.
My apologies!
Do you agree that Christianity is exclusive?
According to your orthodox doctrine: yes.
Then there isn’t anything to argue about.
Who’s arguing?
Your religion is all man-made and your central characters are all narrative constructs.
If you wish to champion a fiction then go for it.
Wait…what?!!
You think my religion is fictional?!!!
I had no idea you felt that way!!!!!
Just start calling me names, Ark. That’s all you have to contribute to these conversations.
A conversation is an exchange of ideas with the goal (one would hope) of reaching a mutually satisfying conclusion.
You are an indoctrinated Christian who continually displays extremely limited critical thinking skills who seems to believe that he has some sort of spiritual mission to convey the message of a narrative construct as part of his mission to gain entrance to heaven and eternal life.
Maybe if you were to suspend your indoctrination for a short while, and ditched the flippant faux humorous delivery style we might be able to have an actual conversation.
How about it?
Too long.
A brief, personal attack on my person. That’s all we need from you.
Then simply read the definition I provided of conversation.
Blech.
That’s terrible ad hominem.
Remember I’m a pro.
And we’re back to the nonsensical and obtuse.
However, I agree, you are definitely a pro in this regard.
There you go!
That’s better!
So, no conversation then?
Surely it can’t actually decrease your chances of getting into heaven?
We agreed on the topic of this post.
What do you want to talk about?
How abut the veracity of the character Jesus of Nazareth?
Again?
OK.
Point me to the published historical scholars who we are going to discuss.
I thought we might just chat to begin with.
Is your belief in the veracity of the character based on anything beside faith?
Yes.
It’s based on historical documents.
Which historical documents verify the character, Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the bible?
New Testament.
Josephus.
Tacitus.
New Testament is unreliable and has been show to be fallacious on a great many areas and no contemporary documentation verifies the accounts of this character.
Josephus and Tacitus refer to Yeshua and Chrestus,respectively not the miracle working came back-from-the-dead god man character as featured in the gospels.
Looks like faith from here.
So we’re done chatting I guess.
Now go ahead and send me the scholarship you’re referencing. Or do I just accept your word on faith?
Are you truly suggesting that Josephus and Tacitus confirm the existence of the god-man of the gospels, the supposed creator of the universe, Jesus of Nazareth?
No.
I’m suggesting that you give me some scholarship that demonstrates the New Testament is unreliable history.
Remember, you wanted to talk about this…
No, I wanted to have a conversation regarding the evidence that you have that confirms the character, Jesus of Nazareth is who you claim; that such belief is not solely based upon faith .
If we can find this evidence then we might be on to something.
And this can only be a good thing, surely?
As I mentioned to Amanda, I am okay with your belief being based solely upon faith.
However, if you state there is verified evidence then I am interested in checking it out.
After all, we are talking about someone coming back from the dead, claims of being a deity and the possibility of eternal life, are we not?
That’s pretty high stakes, don’t you agree?
The new Testament is evidence.
Unless you have scholarship that demonstrates it is unreliable, then you are the one who is relying solely on faith.
Of course it is evidence. But evidence of what,specifically, John?
Can we verify Jerusalem exists. After all it is mentioned in the bible.
Yes we can!
How about Pilate or Augustus or Herod?
And there are hundreds, if not thousands of similar things that can be verified.
I have no problems with this whatsoever.
However, there is no evidence that your god-man came back from the dead, walked on water and created the universe.
Those things to me are simply unsubstantiated claims and have no non-biblical evidence to support them; much like Harry Potter riding around on a broomstick while he plays Quiddich.
But you believe the biblical claims about the character Jesus of Nazareth are true and providing this is merely a question of a faith claim and not an evidentiary claim then we are good.
Okay. We have reaffirmed your Atheism.
Good talk, Ark!
And that was a conversation was it?
I thought you had verified sources to back your claims?
Or are you affirming that your beliefs are simply based on faith?
The new Testament is verified history. You choose to reject the claims about Jesus. I get it.
Good talk. Really.
It is not verified history at all.
No non christian sources outside the bible make any such claims .
The majority of the world rejects Christian claims about Jesus, not just atheists, John.
Surely you are aware of this?
If you are so convinced of your position then why not simply provide the evidence to support your claims.
I mean, I am okay with it all being based upon faith, but you are the one stating there is evidence to back the faith.
So let’s have it.
The New Testament is verified history until you provide a source (other than your personal opinion) that demonstrates it is unreliable.
You made the claim that it is unreliable. Where did you get that idea?
It’s okay if you want to admit that you are just using faith.
Hmm, how about the claimed census at the time of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth?
Source?
Josephus for one.
You can start ad hominem now.
You’ve got nothing if substance to offer.
Nothing if substance?
Sorry, what does this mean?
You do not accept Josephus?
What about Josephus?
You asked for a source I provided one.
A source about what?
I don’t understand what Josephus is supposed to prove.
Are we not discussing the census of Quirinus as ordered by Augustus that is mentioned in Luke?
What about it?!!
The biblical account of the census is wrong.
Oh.
Wrong how?
(Feel free to give a full explanation so I don’t have to keep asking questions.)
Will you accept the Josephus account as it in dispute with the account written in the Gospel of Luke?
In.
Dispute.
How?
Will you accept the account from Josephus, yes or no?
I don’t know what Josephus account is. Why not just tell me?
And will you accept the Josephus account of the census over the account written in the gospel of Luke, Yes or No?
You’re asking me to accept an account I don’t know.
Then research it …
No.
Then faith it is …
No.
You have no faith, John? I am shocked! But deep down I suspected you were simply doing this for shots and giggles.
You’re wrong.
Really? Well I probably am about a great many things, I’m sure. Anything specific you had in ,mind?
Research it.
No
He went from “let’s chat” to “YOU go do research.”
Lol.
If Josephus and Tacitus confirmed the miracles (including resurrection), then their testimonies would have been made part of the cannon. The 67th and 68th books of the Bible would have been “Josephus” and “Tacitus.” And then pseudo-intellectuals like you would reject them purely for being part of the collection.
Your system for determining truth is flawed.
Give him a minute!
He’s going to present the scholarship that justifies his skepticism! I’m sure he’s not just watching YouTube videos.
It’s worse than that actually–because he ONLY watches the YouTube videos posted by people who agree with him…
Whenever I recommend a video outside his comfort zone, he refuses to watch on the basis that he has nothing to learn from brainwashed Christians.
THAT CAN’T BE TRUE!
ARK IS AN INTELLECTUAL! HE’S WILLING TO PONDER ALL POSSIBILITIES IN HIS QUEST FOR TRUTH!!
… And I think you’re mistaken about Tacitus and Josephus being Canonical. I don’t think either qualifies because they didn’t actually meet Jesus.
I’m saying IF they had met Jesus and testified about the miracles, then they would have been made part of the canon.
I’m trying to help him understand how utterly stupid it is to demand sources outside the Bible–when the Bible is just a collection of testimonies from people who were the most knowledgeable about the subject.
Oh.
So it’s unreasonable to expect non-biblical sources to read exactly like the Bible?
From what I understand, that’s not how a good historian would determine fact from fiction.
Actually, it would be kind of suspicious if Jewish and Roman sources sounded like they were written by Christ’s closest friends.
I do not consider myself an intellectual of any kind, merely a bloke who knows how to read.
Your little tantrum demonstrates how grasping at straws is all part and parcel of indoctrination when faced with evidence that refutes your claims. When confronted with such truths you simply rant and throw your toys out of the cot.
In actuality, there is no evidence whatsoever for the claims you make regarding the character, Jesus of Nazareth, and all you have is faith.
This is fine by me.
However, maybe you apply the same ”logic” (sic) to the fact that the walls of Jericho fell down because of trumpets?
I missed the historian you got your information from. Is there a name in there somewhere?
What information was that?
What have you been reading, Ark?
Terry Pratchett mostly.
What have you been reading that qualifies you to talk about the character of Jesus?
Ah, sorry.
The bible, for one.
And I hope we are talking about the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth and not some 1st century eschatological rabbi who quite possibly got himself crucified by the Romans for sedition?
You picked the topic and you made the claims.
Remember?
You said: “The Bible is unreliable and has been shown to be fallacious in a number of areas.”
You said it.
Where did you read it?
Crikey! That’s a toughie. Are you asking for every source?
Or will one or two references suffice?
WHERE DID YOU GET THE CLAIM THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS UNRELIABLE?
Why the tantrum?
I can read, you know, I’m not blind.
Again how many sources/ references are you asking for?
Will one suffice or do you need more?
You’re stalling, Ark.
It’s painfully obvious.
I’ve got five sources that say Jesus rose from the dead. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.) And one of them said there were actually HUNDREDS of other witnesses who could provide their own testimony that they saw a man who had been crucified, walking and talking days later.
So what sources do you have that prove them wrong?
Smile.
And there I was thinking you might just be slightly intelligent and what do you do but fall back on indoctrinated apologetics.
I was actually trying to have a reasonable conversation with the organ grinder. I did not actually invite his monkey to join in.
There you have it, folks.
Ark doesn’t have sources.
That´’s right. It must be true as Amanda says it!
Jesus walked on water and the Dead Saints went walkabout in downtown Jerusalem.
I don’t remember “Amanda” being one of the sources?
But there were two “Mary”s. There was a “Thomas.” There was a “Simon-Peter.” They all saw the risen Christ.
What’s the name of your source which says they were wrong?
Smile
My dog can play rachmaninoff’s 3rd piano concerto.
Do you have any reason to suspect I made this up or am lying and if so please produce your source.
Do you have hundreds of people who will verify that claim?…
Maybe fifty or sixty.
Is this enough?
Yes, if I can talk to 50 or 60 people who will verify that your dog can play a concerto, that will be enough.
Fair enough. I do not require a face to face with anyone who claims that the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead but I will compromise and accept a non biblical secular account from a contemporary witness.
Just one.
No, that’s not a compromise.
By definition, as “secular” source will not agree with what the Bible says… And, as I already explained to you: if a “secular” source said something like, “Jesus rose from the dead and was God,” then it would be included with all the other testimonies which are collected in the Bible.
If Josephus agreed completely with the other disciples, he would have BEEN a disciple, and his writing would be part of the New Testament.
Do you understand?
How can a secular source maintain any degree of honesty if it is going to deny evidence?
You do not take the written testimony of JK Rowling about Harry potter flying on a broomstick so why should I accept your claim that the gospels claim the character, Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, walked on water, created the universe.
Compared to this Harry Potter claims seem a lot more plausible.
You’re rambling. I know you think the Harry Potter analogy is a good one, but you’re off topic again.
First, if 500 people testified that they saw Harry Potter flying on a broomstick, then skeptics would have some explaining to do. Magic trick? Mass Hallucination? We’re talking about EYE WITNESS TESTIMONIES. You can’t just ignore it. You have to explain it.
Historians agree Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified under Pontias Pilate. The only question is: was he alive again after that?
Dozens and dozens of people claimed that he was.
Magic trick? Mass hallucination? You can’t just ignore it. You have to explain it.
Not rambling at all.
Truth should,be able to stand on its own merits.
Historians agree Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified under Pontias Pilate. The only question is: was he alive again after that?
Dozens and dozens of people claimed that he was.
Not all historians, Amanda, and the question of Nazareth is still wide open with a number of them.
Someone wrote that dozens and dozens saw the character Jesus of Nazareth alive after his supposed crucifixtion.
There are no non biblical accounts to verify this claim and most importantly no contemporary accounts.
So for now, we will simply have to go with faith,I’m afraid.
Oh, goody! Now you’re going to share the names of those sources, right?…
and which sources and for what would you like , Amanda?
I said: “Historians agree Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified under Pontias Pilate…”
You said: “Not all historians…”
I’d like to know which ones disagree with that statement. Since you’re a bloke who knows how to read, that shouldn’t be too hard.
Richard Carrier is one example.
Marcus Borg: Jesus’ execution is “the most certain fact about the historical Jesus.”
Pinchas Lapide: Jesus’ death by crucifixion is “historically certain.”
Paula Fredriksen: “The single most solid fact about Jesus’ life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around PAssover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion.”
Bart Ehrman: “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.”
I put my faith in those four scholars, rather than Richard Carrier.
Excellent. Unfortunate we had to go around the garden and the block to get to this point, but you are a stubborn one and at least we are now on the same page.
So, as I hope you understand a little how history works you will now provide similar testimony corroborating the 500 witnesses that are claimed to have seen Jesus of Nazareth alive after his crucifiction.
Let’s see how red hot you are on this, Amanda, shall we?
Most of the 500 probably couldn’t write, Ark.
But at least five of them could…
Five people telling me your dog can play the piano would be enough.
And five people telling me they saw the resurrected Jesus is enough for me, too.
Do you not understand the term contemporary?
I already told you why that’s a stupid demand to make. The Bible is a collection of five sources. If other reliable sources existed, then the Bible would be a collection of more sources.
To exclude the Bible is stupid. Unless you have a reason why I shouldn’t trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul?
Do you know something I don’t about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul?
The biblical accounts of the post resurrection appearances are in conflict. As you must surely be aware.
And as far as I remember the gospels make no mention of 500 witnesses.
So, if you wish to continue to claim veracity for this particular tale then please explain the differences in the accounts in 1 Corinthians and Acts.
Off you go.I am fascinated to see how you piece together a plausible answer.
But if you struggle, especially as the accounts in the bible sound like a crock, I will accept you believe them based on faith.
No–off YOU go.
You’re the one who is supposed to be explaining why Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul are untrustworthy.
I put my faith in them for the same reasons I put my faith in those four historians. They’re the best I’ve got.
But the accounts are in conflict so which one do you put your trust in?
Phew, that took a while didn’t it?
But we got there in the end. Faith it is.
Excellent!
Yes, faith in the testimonies of people who are most qualified to speak on a subject.
But not eyewitnesses, merely copying from each other and maybe from Quelle.
As I have been telling you all along. Faith, but not evidence.
Best of luck with that. You are going to need it!
Ark, you still haven’t proven that you know what you’re talking about.
What YouTube video did you watch which told you that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John copied from each other? Obviously, I’ll need to go read or watch it myself, since you didn’t understand it well enough to explain it to me.
So you believe they are all independent eyewitnesses? Hilarious!
You are the most ridiculous Crispyian I have encountered in a long time.
There are over 600 verses in Matt alone that feature in Mark and some are pretty much verbatim.
Have you never read the bible, Amanda?
Or did you simply think they were best pals and cribbed a bit?
Or ( more likely) you didn’t even notice did you?
Come on, tell the truth.
Name of a historian? Textual critic? Anyone?
Hilarious! I did ask if you have actually read the gospels and now you doubt that Matthew contains over 600 verses found in Mark.
Please, you are cracking me up down here.
I truly find it hard to believe you really are so ignorant.
Please, let’s call it quits for the day and you can go and read the two gospels in question and then get back to me tomorrow okay?
That way you can save a little face.
No–I’m not doubting that they have the similarities. I’m trying to figure out whether they “contradict” or whether they “copied each other.”
Which is it?
Are they copies, or do they disagree?
Well in this instance I reckon you can use your intelligence a little and work it out for your self, don’t you?.
Again, I suggest you start by reading the gospels; Mark and Matt will do for now.
Maybe if you have two bibles you can place the side by side and compare texts?
That might help you.
If you still arrive at the conclusion they are fully independent accounts then maybe you will be able to explain this?
Have fun.
I am going to bed.
And remember, Mark is the first gospel and Matthew is the second. Okay?
Ark, I’ve read the Gospels. They don’t disagree. Whoever told you they contradict each other was wrong. Get better sources.
By the way, if you think all of this is really funny, then you’ll really crack up when I admit this:
Drum roll.
I believe Anne Frank’s diary is literal history, too. And there are ZERO non-diary sources which can corroborate all of her stories. NONE!
I have faith that she knows what happened to her better than any one else. And, if her siblings all wrote diaries which contradicted in some places but mostly agreed, I would put even more faith into their testimonies…even if it seemed hard to believe.
So you believe the raising of the dead saints at the time of the crucifiction do you?
That they all went for a walkabout in Downtown Jerusalem?
Oh, really?
Smile.
You and Geisler would get on like a Maison en flambe.
Though I expect you might not see eye to eye with Licona.
Seriously, stay away from sharp objects Amanda.
Essentially, you’re supposed to make Ark’s point for him. He’s going to bed.
Right.
Unfortunately for him, I CAN make his point better than he does… I’ve read stuff from Richard Carrier. And Bart Ehrman. And (though they’re still wrong) they do a much better job explaining themselves than Ark…
So, yes, I can make his point for him and THEN refute it. And the whole “talk” would be much more interesting than this one has been. 🙂
How can a secular source maintain any degree of honesty if it is going to deny evidence?
You do not take the written testimony of JK Rowling about Harry potter flying on a broomstick so why should I accept your claim about the gospel claims about the character, Jesus of Nazareth: that he rose from the dead, walked on water, created the universe.
Compared to this Harry Potter claims seem a lot more plausible.
And, as I already explained to you: if a “secular” source said something like, “Jesus rose from the dead and was God,” then it would be included with all the other testimonies which are collected in the Bible.
And why do you believe the bible should be judged differently than other sources claiming something as fact?
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize there were 500 people testifying that the story of Harry Potter really happened…?
Well then, as this is claimed to be a factual event, there should be plenty of witnessess – contemporary too, I expect – who will have backed the biblical claims.
Please tell me of at least one contemporary account.
Thanks.
Ark–I really, honestly can’t tell whether you’re still stalling, or if you’re honestly not getting this.
All of the reliable sources were collected and turned into what we now call the “Bible.”
You can’t ask for a non-biblical source. That’s unreasonable, bordering on nonsense. It’s like asking for non-diary evidence of Anne Frank’s childhood. Can we find a birth certificate or maybe a reference to her in concentration camp logs or something? Yeah, probably. But, if you want the specifics, you have to read the first-hand testimony.
You’re saying, “Give me a source other than Matthew and Mark and Luke and John and Paul…” And you’re saying, “Give me a non-Christian source which will agree with Christian doctrine.”
It’s nonsense. As soon as Josephus started agreeing with Paul, he would have been a Christian. And then you would have thrown out his testimony.
Asking for contemporary accounts or simply a non biblical/secular account of a supernatural yet physical event claimed to have been witnessed by at least 500 people is not unreasonable.
Refusing to acknowledge this request,however, is unreasonable.
Accepting the bible account of this and other similar tales at face value is simply a matter of faith.
There is no evidence to support this story.
And I am fine with you believing it.
That is what your religion is all about.
Faith.
He isn’t doing better with the organ grinder either…
It’s the exact same conversation…
Yep.
He possesses a solid faith.
Obtuse is suggesting that saying “Jesus was exclusive” is somehow different than “Jesus wan’t inclusive.”
It actually doesn’t make a bit of difference. But, then, I’m talking to someone who thinks disbelief in God is different from believing there is no God. So…
It’s no wonder these comment threads get bogged down in semantics every. single. time.
Subtly has never been your strong suit, I take it?
Nope.
🙂
Exactly. Nobody made up the Truth. It’s called “Evolution,” and humans have been moving toward it since time began. If Secular Humanism is the true religion, it will reign supreme one day. Team B will prove victorious!…
The Truth will out.
I feel like part of my job description around here should be to re-post the important parts of your original post, to remind readers what the topic was after some of our Atheist friends muddy the waters.
(NOTE: forms of government–including Theocracy–have nothing to do with the conversation today.)
Can anyone spot the thesis sentence?
What age are kids supposed to be able to read and summarize?
Roughly 1 in 4 of them won’t learn how to do it at all… (There are 32 million functionally illiterate adults in the United States. Makes me wonder how many are in Brazil.)
There is at least one down there.
Poor thing. He saw the word “Trump” and immediately launched into his Questions to Ask Christians About Government.
It’s like a tic.
Are these the same ones who view diversity as an important goal? My head is spinning.
John,
Makes me think of how opposite of modern ways Jesus was in His preaching.
Many churches today seem to see success in the size of the congregation, as if the filling of seats brings God’s blessing. If that were true, the Lord is well pleased with a capacity crowd at Mile High Stadium (of course, we all know that the Denver Broncos are God’s favorite team, right?).
But Jesus, who, sadly has not followed the ways of the megachurch, did some odd things when crowds gathered around Him. He taught in parables, or gave hard teachings. That had the effect of making the crowds go away, or say that he was crazy. Driving away the masses with hard teachings seemed to be His habit.
It is in those hard teachings that we see the exclusivity of Christ, and why we also must combat inclusivity in our doctrine.
As a cook, if I am intending to make a bechamel sauce, I have a list of ingredients I need to include. They are few. Flour, butter, milk, bay leaf, onion, cloves, salt, nutmeg, and white pepper. Another cook may say that they include in theirs tomato paste and anchovies, but what they have made is not bechamel, and probably would make me gag. Their inclusivity has obscured and changed the intended sauce into something that can’t be used as bechamel. They can call it a bechamel if they like, but that does not make it so.
Same thing with Biblical Christianity. There are things that are exclusive to the faith that must not become inclusive. We are saved by faith, and faith alone. To include works, of any kind, makes it a useless non-bechamel. To try to widen the gates to heaven when God does not is a bad idea. We could become so desirous to include others that we make them feel warm, fuzzy, and welcome on their way to perdition. We may have not served them, but we sure did fill those pews and made them feel good about themselves. Gave them their best life now…
So I will cheer you on and join in with your desire for disunity as presented, and yet still pray for that final unity where we all gather at the Great White Throne and praise our Maker for eternity.
Dave
Ephesians 4:11-13 (ESV) – And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,
So you want to live in a theocracy, do you?
Really?
Tell me, what would a Christian theocracy look like?
Would there be freedom of speech, research, and a free media in a Christian nation?
What would a Christian nation’s education and legal systems look like?
What would a Christian nation’s science policy look like?
What would a Christian nation’s health and social welfare system look like?
What would a Christian nation’s foreign policy look like?
Would a Christian Nation have a standing army, and if so, would it be expeditionary in nature?
Would clerics sit on the Supreme Court, and if so, which Christian denomination would they come from? (Who would decide?)
John’s right you know jz. Christianity, as is any fundamentalist belief system, is inherently binary and foundationally divisive. There is no room for any other options other than in or out… saved or damned, right or wrong (we’re right, everyone else is wrong by definition), believer in Christ or atheist (because all other gods are idols and satanic)
But alas, there is no point arguing with JB. He’s very much like I was. Unable to see, think or reason outside of the bounds of his particular binary box.
I don’t know what it will take for him, but for me… I wasn’t made ready until I was ready myself.
I find myself now in the strangest predicament of being ‘that’ person who used to believe, yet no longer does, who remains evangelical, but now in the opposite of what I once was.
Christians need Division to Unify the rest of the world under Christ. There literally is no other way in there minds that the world can be as one.
Is your new religion all-inclusive, KIA?
my new religion? what a strange question. Sorry, none of your beeswax
Can I be part of your group and still be Christian as well?
I have no group. You can be whatever you’d like to be
Of course you have a group.
Your new group excludes the beliefs of the Christian group you left behind after your enlightenment.
Your group, like Christianity, is defined by division.
Some readers may be interested in knowing whether you are “pulling” for Team A or Team B…. you know, since you commented under an article talking about Christianity.
If you’re not interested in having a conversation about an all-inclusive religion which is better than Christianity (Team B), then you’re being just as divisive as you were when you were an Evangelical Christian…but you’re doing it for no reason.
That’s not an improvement, Pastor Mike.
Mikey won’t tell what team he’s on because he doesn’t know.
At least he admitted he’s still “evangelical.”
He had to comment, though, because you struck a nerve. Did you realize you pressed his guilt button when you used the Bible verse about dividing families?
He blames that verse for the poor way he treated his mother before she passed away.
Back when he just thought he knew everything. Now that he does know everything, he has regrets.
Hope you had a good thanksgiving with the family.
I did, thanks. And it was my birthday on Sunday. November is one of my favorite months.
Happiest of birthdays.
I appreciate it, KIA.
But, you know, tossing out well-wishes after hijacking a thread doesn’t erase people’s memories.
We still know that you showed up here to be disagreeable, and then backed away instead of answering questions…as usual.
The post was about two groups of people: those who put their faith in Christ and those who don’t. Did you have a point you wanted to make about that topic?
I guess it’s my mistake.
Maybe I shouldn’t have assumed that you were being disagreeable and obnoxious when you wrote, “[JB is] unable to see, think, or reason outside of his particular binary box.”
I should have known you’ve moved past us/them divisions and binary thinking, when you called out all fundamentalist belief systems and compared their old views with your new, presumably more enlightened set of beliefs…
And I shouldn’t have assumed you wanted to actually TALK about this new, non-fundamentalist, presumably inclusive way of viewing ideas. When you said, “[I am] that person…who remains evangelical, but now in the opposite of what I once was,” you weren’t interested in actually explaining yourself.
Obviously, your new evangelism is none of our beeswax. Team A and Team B can keep bickering while you stand in a neutral non-lettered, non-group. And the only reason you stopped by was to wish me happy holidays.
Nobody said anything about a Theocracy.
Have you decided whether or not YHWH exists?
Does Yhwh exist? Of course he does. He’s on the pages in a book. It says he created the universe and a flat, unmoving earth.
So, no messing around on this thread, huh. Straight into the thoroughly predictable John Branyan Diversion Song & Dance.
Avoid, at all costs, defending what you’ve written.
Okay… Let me know when you want to answer the questions put to you.
The point of this post is that it would be impossible to have a Theocracy and Communism at the same time. One form of government means excluding another form.
Now, if Yhwh doesn’t exist except in your imagination, how can he possibly be the source of all evil?