[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
How many Christians would Jesus not recognise as Christians if he tripped over one?

The Son of God would never trip! Burn, heretic!



Oh yeah, no, not a Christion. Close to being one for a small time and then veered off in another rather different direction entirely. Sorry to clutter your thread, voodoo.

--Josh

[I Have Questions]

Originally posted by boardsurfer:

Saying that the LDS church isnt an orthodox christianity is just wrong. Yes, we teach that our church is the only true church on the earth, and I believe that.

Mormonism does not believe in the ancient creeds of the Church as interpreted throughout the centuries. That is the definition of orthodox, so by definition, Mormonism is not orthodox Christianity.

Also, to teach that your church is the only true church by definition excludes orthodox Christianity from being true from the Mormon perspective. There is no other logical way to explain that fact.

Originally posted by boardsurfer:
We accept the standard works as word of God (Old Testament, New Testament) and we also have an additional book that tells of Jesus' time on the American continent. (Translated by Joseph Smith in 1829).

Another example of discontinuity between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity. Again, you are making my points for me.

Originally posted by boardsurfer:
So in closing, yes, we are christians in every sense of the word.

Not in the sense that you believe what the billions of people professing to be Christians from the time of the death and resurrection of Christ until the time that Joseph Smith said he was visited by angels believed. Mormonism is a separate religion that was formed by Joseph Smith and his followers. I'm not saying that he wasn't right, just that Mormonism isn't Christianity as expressed from AD 33 - AD 1829.

I suppose that my only question would be this: If the Mormon church is the only true church, then were there any true Christians until Joseph Smith came along? If so, then how, because they certainly didn't believe what Mormons believe... i.e. God was a man on some other planet, that people can become a god of their own universe somewhere, that people are married for eternity and can have spirit children in their afterlife to populate their own universe somewhere, and most importantly, that Jesus is not a person of the Trinity, of the same essence of God possesing the same character, or was pre-eternal, but rather was created by God as the first of his spirit children.

[El Pre$idente]

How long did Jesus spend in America according to Moroni?

[Steve]

Chalk up another Christian for your count!

Undenominational, but I lean more towards the baptist and protestant beliefs.

[MindFad]

Tactful post number one.

[voodoo]

Tact, Mind Fad.

Look it up.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Tact, Mind Fad.

Look it up.

Hey, what do ya know -- I didn't have to look it up. But I take the hint kindly. Here's to a small dose of respect from me. Apologies.

Sarcasm duly noted, though.

[Tigerabbit]

Originally posted by Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason:
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

[Zimphire]

Thomas Pain seems to love making knee-jerk responses.

He should really study things before me makes himself look silly.

[Tigerabbit]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Thomas Pain seems to love making knee-jerk responses.

He should really study things before me makes himself look silly.

You really should watch whom you're calling black, Pot. Fortunately for you, that Kettle died in the 1809.

Since your education has lacked in critical thought, now your chance for you to get the moral and intellectual fiber you've been missing. Read it for yourself.

Editor's Intro
Part 1
Part 2

[Zimphire]

More knee-jerks, from what I read in your out of context quote, he doesn't seem to see that those things usually happened to the evil, sinful, and rebelious.

[Tigerabbit]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
More knee-jerks, from what I read in your out of context quote, he doesn't seem to see that those things usually happened to the evil, sinful, and rebelious.

Usually?!?! Does your Jehovah run on a "two out of three ain't bad" system?

Like I have to tell middle-schoolers who want me to read their books and write their book reports:

READ IT FOR YOURSELF

What was evil, sinful, and rebellious about the original owner of the land of Canaan? Was it so bad that their "transgressions" forced your blood-thirsty Jehovah into ordering genocide?

Ninevah got a chance for redemption in the Book of Jonah. Where was Sodom's? Gomorrah's? Instead, Jehovah sneaks in someone to round up Lot's family and destroys both cities without giving anyone a chance to change. Did Jehovah become more forgiving, or is he the same yesterday as today as tomorrow?

2 Peter 2:7 :
and delivered righteous Lot, very distressed by the lustful life of the wicked

Yet Genesis 19:16 indicates that Lot didn't want to leave.

Genesis 19:16 :
But he lingered; and the men laid hold on his hand, and on the hand of his wife, and on the hand of his two daughters, Yahweh being merciful to him; and they took him out, and set him outside of the city.

While we're on the subject, any "god" that calls someone who gets drunk and rapes and impregnates his own daughters "righteous" is a demon that I will have nothing to do with. You can read Genesis 19:31-38 for yourself.

Your faith requires the Bible to be the infallible word of your "god", right? Then reconcile the differences between Matthew 1 and Luke 3. How can Jesus have two different direct patrilineal lineages from the same person? And the differences are not just the names, but differences in the numbers of generations. How can they BOTH be correct?

[Zimphire]

More knee jerkness from someone who doesn't, or wont understand.

[thunderous_funker]

I somehow sensed this would eventually derail into people arguing who gets allowed in the club or not. Pretty sad.

I'll stick to my earlier definition. You're a Christian if you believe Jesus of Nazareth was The Messiah (Christ). Period.

If you actually try and model your life after JC's example, then you're a good Christian. If you ignore JC's example, you're a bad Christian (or at least an apathetic one).

Even the argument over Faith vs Works or the details of how you get saved have really nothing to do with the question at all. Those are the deatils that divide the sects. The real questions upon with all other questions is simply, "Is Jesus of Nazareth The Messiah?"

That is the foundation question upon which all other questions are based in Christianity. You're free to argue about the rest of it if you enjoy that sort of thing.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Tigerabbit:


Like I have to tell middle-schoolers who want me to read their books and write their book reports:

READ IT FOR YOURSELF........

I think I've addressed some of these points in other threads to the extent that what appears to us as inconsistencies are merely different facets of the same being which is perhaps too complex for us to understand fully.

but to pull back on a macro level, we have endless onslaughts in this forum against religion and specifically christians, and even this thread which only asked the question "how many christians are here" gets bogged down in this vitriol. (admittedly from both sides if you count zim)

Let's just accept as a given that there is a great deal of emotional baggage for some when it concerns religion, accept that all of us being imperfect therefore have imperfect understandings, accept that those who profess a faith do so because they sincerely believe the underpinnings of their avocacy is based on solid truths based on their understanding, and accept that those who do not profess a faith do so because they sincerely believe that there is no solid truth contained in a faith....and all the subtle gradations of that bell curve from both extremes....ARE valid within the confines of the person who retains that world view because it is their own world view. To resurrect something I posted before:

Posted on : 08-25-2002 12:27 AM __
------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Xaositect:
Lerk, I'm going to play devil's (christ's?) advocate - if I believe, through personal experience, that my orange yardstick is right (I've seen it work to many times not to be right, and I've been taught it is right), would I not then see all other yardsticks as false, and rightly so? How can I believe something different is right if I know my way is right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I don't think my answer is likely going to be one you want.

If you are using my analogy to determine which yardstick is the true yardstick, then you've bypassed my entire point.
My yardstick analogy has nothing to do with determining truth, only with how to interact with others with respect.

The green yardstick may indeed be the truth, or they all may be truth, but even so, that is irrelevant to what I'm trying to get across.

how about I codify it some more....maybe that will help.

LERK'S RULE OF YARDSTICKS

Preface: Everyone has some yardstick by which they personally measure the big questions, like faith or non-faith, God or no god, the right way and the wrong way...etc. For the sake of clarity, lets assign everyone a different color yardstick, with varying forms of measurement for each.

1. Your green yardstick cannot be used to judge your neighbor. He already has an orange yardstick. He will not accept your measurement of him.
2. Your green yardstick cannot be used to judge your neighbor's orange yardstick, because he has already accepted the orange yardstick's standard of measurement as true, or else he would not be using it.
3. Your green yardstick cannot be used to pummel your neighbor or break his orange yardstick. He would just make another orange yardstick.
4. You cannot proclaim your green yardstick is the only true measurement, even if it is, because your orange neighbor will simply ignore you or hate you for trying to dislodge his orange yardstick.
All these things lead to disharmony with your orange neighbor. And if it was your goal to change his orange yardstick to green, that will not happen.

However...
1. If you accept your orange neighbor's orange yardstick, even if you disagree with him, you may have gained a friend, though not a convert.
2. If you frame all your discussions on measurement with relativity....by saying things like "It was 3 green inches long, or on the orange yardstick, 4 inches" you may have achieved synthesis of two colors, arriving at a third, or at least are speaking in a language that can be understood by your orange neighbor. Even if he does not accept your green yardstick, he at least can understand your point.
3. If you borrow your orange neighbor's yardstick to measure something, you might better understand him. And, he will be more likely in return to borrow your green yardstick to better understand you.

Conclusion:
The Purpose of personal yardsticks is to measure only ourselves. To see if we measure up to our own standards, and if not, to make adjustments to do so. We cannot forcibly make another use our yardsticks, however they may be impressed with how well we measure up to our own standards and ask to borrow ours.
To each of us, our own yardstick is our own truth. There is nothing that says We or our neighbor cannot readjust either ourselves or our yardsticks with new information or enlightenment, but those adjustments can only be made to ourselves and from within ourselves. When we accept THIS truth, we can be more happy with our own yardsticks, and others can be more happy with theirs.
Because ultimately, whichever yardstick is THE yardstick, doesn't matter. We will all make our own standards. When the time comes to calibrate our yardsticks with the great yardstick in the sky, the Lord is not likely going to come to us and say, "hey, your orange neighbor, what do you think of his yardstick?" He is more likely to say "hey, well done with your green yardstick, lets see how you measured up, shall we?"
The bottom line is, if indeed, as I believe, there is a God, spending time worrying about our neighbor's orange yardstick is time wasted when we could have been trying harder to measure up to our own. Better to get your own house in order than to have run around like a chicken with your head cut off trying to force other people to get their houses in order. They won't thank you and you won't help them and you won't even get to put in your own two cents when judgement day comes. God does not need advisors or informants, so why fritter away doing the equivalent of that with the amazingly short time we have?


my two cents.

[Lerkfish]

Now that I've addressed some macro points, let me throw in my two cents on some minutiae:

Originally posted by Tigerabbit:
What was evil, sinful, and rebellious about the original owner of the land of Canaan? Was it so bad that their "transgressions" forced your blood-thirsty Jehovah into ordering genocide?

The grain of salt you must use here is understanding chronistic culture. Although tempting, we cannot always apply 21st century ethics to ancient biblical times. As I read the lay of the land at that time, it was incredibly bloodthirsty, with philistines, jebusite, amorites, etc, constantly warring in near-suicidal feudal or clannish states that literally lived by the sword. It was very much conquer or be conquered, as the Isrealites just led out of generations of slavery would be well aware. The question is if they established a peace-loving hippie commune at that time, would it have survived as well as a one-time conquering tribe that gained a turf and held it?
Its easy for me right now to say sure, be pacifists (since I am one), but if you want a real world simulcrum, look at the arab states and think what happens when any of them avocate peace in the middle east. They usually become targets themselves. I'm just saying in any complex society there are a myriad of socio-econominc and political considerations that have to be taken into account, and the scriptures, whose intent is not to be a societal primer, is not nearly complete enough of a picture to clearly ascertain WHY god directed as he did, only that it worked. The rest of the world was hell-bent on eliminating the Isrealites, and yet, they survived. Who is to say had they gone a different path they might not have.

Originally posted by Tigerabbit:
Ninevah got a chance for redemption in the Book of Jonah. Where was Sodom's? Gomorrah's? Instead, Jehovah sneaks in someone to round up Lot's family and destroys both cities without giving anyone a chance to change. Did Jehovah become more forgiving, or is he the same yesterday as today as tomorrow?

Again, there may be multiple facets of the same being, he can be the same but be righteously vengeful one day and forgiving the next, just as we can.
However, While Ninevah is a success story (though ironically Jonah got angry because God DIDN"T destroy it) of redemption, I think you're glossing over the chances that Sodom and Gomorrah were given. If you bactrack those scriptures you see that first God tells the prophet that if there are 500 (guessing at numbers here without the scripture right in front of me) righteous men, the city will be saved, and the prophet says well, how about 100? 50? 5? It comes down to that there is NO righteous person there except Lot and his family, which is why the angels come down to take him out. You may consider that as not giving them a chance, or you may consider that as the chances had already been given and failed....I can't tell.

Originally posted by Tigerabbit:
While we're on the subject, any "god" that calls someone who gets drunk and rapes and impregnates his own daughters "righteous" is a demon that I will have nothing to do with. You can read Genesis 19:31-38 for yourself.

If you're referring to Noah and his daughters, I don't think you can fairly use the word "rape", since they disguised themselves to fool him, got their father drunk and then got pregnant on purpose . More of a seduction. I don't have a bible right in front of me now, so if you're referring to something else I apologize.
HOWEVER, if you look at ANY of the biblical figures that God loved or supported as righteous, they ALL sinned in one way or another: David manipulated the war to get Bathsheba's husband killed, on down the line, yet David was the "apple of God's eye". Does this mean God is evil, or that God in his wisdom looks at the totality of the man's life and not the imperfections that we all have. He requires repentance of his greatest leaders, but if they had done nothing wrong where would the repentance be?

Originally posted by Tigerabbit:
Your faith requires the Bible to be the infallible word of your "god", right? Then reconcile the differences between Matthew 1 and Luke 3. How can Jesus have two different direct patrilineal lineages from the same person? And the differences are not just the names, but differences in the numbers of generations. How can they BOTH be correct?

What, did you suddenly turn into Ca$h?
Your criticism essentially is against fundamentalist interpretations of the scripture, then its wrapped in an indictment that the interpretations aren't fundamental ENOUGH....I suppose.
The lineage is, as has been brought up before, the product of a verbal history. What's interesting about the lineage is that normally the Jewish religion is patriarchial, and listed without women, yet Ruth is mentioned as well as at least one other woman. So, therefore, it is not a true archival lineage but rather a sports highlight lineage....in other words, there were likely other begats in there somewhere but since the AUDIENCE would be aware of the ones that were listed, that is why they were, I"m presuming.
At any rate, if this is the reason for trashing a religion, its essentially just bad bookeeping. What about the message?

[Kitschy]

I'm a Christian.

I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I don't subscribe to a particular denomination. However, I adhere to the historic Christian Faith.

I believe Christ came from heaven to earth and died for my sins. He became a mere man yet remained 100% God. He is part of a Trinity: One "What" and three "Whos". He is perfect love and perfect justice. After death, He rose and ascended to heaven with a promise to return. And He will return again. Those who put their trust in Him will be eternally with Him. Those who do not, will be eternally separated from Him.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
I'm a Christian.

I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I don't subscribe to a particular denomination. However, I adhere to the historic Christian Faith.

I believe Christ came from heaven to earth and died for my sins. He became a mere man yet remained 100% God. He is part of a Trinity: One "What" and three "Whos". He is perfect love and perfect justice. After death, He rose and ascended to heaven with a promise to return. And He will return again. Those who put their trust in Him will be eternally with Him. Those who do not, will be eternally separated from Him.

OKay I wasn't going to post here. I had to leave home for the weekend due to isadore and I thought this thread woul have died by the time I got back but here it is! Yay

Yep, I'm a Christian, and kudos to Kitschy.

[MindFad]

Or maybe it's just a book, a story. Maybe. *Shrug*

Some people don't care enough either way to argue about it.

[MusicMan]

LERK'S RULE OF YARDSTICKS

Preface: Everyone has some yardstick by which they personally measure the big questions, like faith or non-faith, God or no god, the right way and the wrong way...etc. For the sake of clarity, lets assign everyone a different color yardstick, with varying forms of measurement for each.

Lerk, I like your yardstick analogy. But you missed a very important point. Taking the assumption that there is a benevolent God who rules the universe, it stands to reason that He would have His own red yardstick. Like you said, we shouldn't go beating each other over the head with our orange and green yardsticks. But combining colors from eacher other's yardsticks will only result in making everything the color of mud. If we try to calibrate our yardsticks as closely as possible to God's, then we'll be on the right track.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Or maybe it's just a book, a story. Maybe. *Shrug*

Some people don't care enough either way to argue about it.

but they care enough to make a post, apparently.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MusicMan:


Lerk, I like your yardstick analogy. But you missed a very important point. Taking the assumption that there is a benevolent God who rules the universe, it stands to reason that He would have His own red yardstick. Like you said, we shouldn't go beating each other over the head with our orange and green yardsticks. But combining colors from eacher other's yardsticks will only result in making everything the color of mud. If we try to calibrate our yardsticks as closely as possible to God's, then we'll be on the right track.

yes, but the purpose of the analogy is not to find the right track, but to be more tolerant of everyone else's "right track". So, I didn't miss the important point, you missed mine.

[cjrivera]

I am a Christian.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Tigerabbit:
While we're on the subject, any "god" that calls someone who gets drunk and rapes and impregnates his own daughters "righteous" is a demon that I will have nothing to do with. You can read Genesis 19:31-38 for yourself.

OK, this appears to be referring to the daughters of Lot (not of Noah).

I suggest you read the passages you referenced. You'll note that it was the daughters who conspired to have sex with him, not the other way around. They then proceeded to get him drunk, apparently so much so that he didn't even remember the events, and then took advantage of him in that state. If there was any rape involved at all (which we can debate all day if you really want), they raped him. Not the reverse.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


but they care enough to make a post, apparently.

Posting and arguing. Two different things. Apparently.

[Danometer]

Porsche (Tigerabbit) has had issues with religion ever since Ive known her (1992). The best remedy is not to let her get started. Porsche is one to argue debate laugh joke etc but she will not stand to be ignored. Repeatedly saying that her opinions are "knee-jerk reactions" without elaboration was the equal of saying that she was not worthy of debate. Not the thing you want to tell any woman.
Back to Genesis 19,
36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
37 The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.
38 The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.
The passage starting at verse 31 was meant as a cheap shot against two contemporary rival nations by stating that they were the result of incestuous unions. This type of insult exists to this day eg Your parents were related werent they?
I will bring up one counterpoint to "they seduced him". If this were real life the likelihood of the daughters seducing their own father is virtually non-existent. I would doubt that even one in ten million father-daughter acts are initiated by the daughter. If this is not an insult to the Moabites and the Ammonites ie if the acts actually happened then I would serious doubt the writers credibility in his almost certain misreporting of the incident.
On the genealogy issue Luke 3 has all listed as "was the son of". Matthew 1 does list Rachab Ruth and "her that had been the wife of Urias". But much of the Bible had been verbal history at one point or the other so how many flaws could have crept in? The New Testament spend it first century as a verbal history so it may be the most accurate verbal-to-written history translation in existence but it may still contain errors. The Dead Sea Scrolls might tell us but so far the result havent been released. Maybe the Scroll version of the Bible is so radically different that it is nearly unrecognizable as the Bible and those with something to lose ie the current religious hierarchies.
Zimphire: your reaction of More knee jerkness from someone who doesn't, or wont understand. is a very apt self-description. Are you afraid that you might lose your faith if you read The Age of Reason? Shes read your book and judging from your lack of reaction knows it better than you. Maybe you should read hers.
Back to lurking�

Dan

[Tigerabbit]

Dan, I neither want nor need an apologist.

[Kitschy]

Sweet! Three Norman people!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Danometer:
Repeatedly saying that her opinions are "knee-jerk reactions" without elaboration was the equal of saying that she was not worthy of debate.

Not that SHE isn't worthy, she just acts like she was the first to being such sillyness to this discussion.

Zimphire: your reaction of More knee jerkness from someone who doesn't, or wont understand. is a very apt self-description. Are you afraid that you might lose your faith if you read The Age of Reason? Shes read your book and judging from your lack of reaction knows it better than you. Maybe you should read hers.
Back to lurking�

Dan

Naw I am hardly worried about "losing faith"

Read above.

[chris_h]

well I must say that tiggerrabbit (or porche, or helena, or whatever your name is) is starting to grow on me.
You post things so I don't have to... tag team!

And i must note that I believe the cosmos nearly caved in on itself when Zimphire said "He should really study things before me makes himself look silly." about thomas paine. It's too funny to even laugh at.

Zimphire, you really rub me the wrong way... i think it's the combination of refusing to respond to questions, and general arrogance. Either way, pull the stick out your bum.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chris_h:

And i must note that I believe the cosmos nearly caved in on itself when Zimphire said "He should really study things before me makes himself look silly." about thomas paine. It's too funny to even laugh at.

There is a difference in studying the Bible in a worldly scholarly sense, and doing so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Of course Thomas should have known that.

Zimphire, you really rub me the wrong way... i think it's the combination of refusing to respond to questions,

I respond, maybe not in a way you are expecting me to, or want me to. I am not going to play "The game"

and general arrogance. Either way, pull the stick out your bum.

I am not really arrogant. But as far as religious knowledge goes, I do have knowledge in that area.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There is a difference in studying the Bible in a worldly scholarly sense, and doing so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Of course Thomas should have known that.

ooooh, so that's how you ignore all the contradictions and such.

cool.

in all seriousness, please explain what the hell you could possibly mean by that. unless I was spot on.

[SteveO57]

Originally posted by chris_h:
Zimphire, you really rub me the wrong way... i think it's the combination of refusing to respond to questions, and general arrogance. Either way, pull the stick out your bum.

First of all "Bum" is used in england for butt, not here in the U.S of A, so unless you live in England STFU with that sh_t.

Secondly, I've been lurking here for a while and observed your posts. I'm just wondering what value your posts bring to this forum? Can you tell me? No? I didn't think so. Why? Because all your posts smell like ass.

Please leave now or be removed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chris_h:


ooooh, so that's how you ignore all the contradictions and such.

cool.

in all seriousness, please explain what the hell you could possibly mean by that. unless I was spot on.

Knowledge is one of the fruits of the spirit.

Stop being silly.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There is a difference in studying the Bible in a worldly scholarly sense, and doing so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit...

you wouldn't be talking about this type of guidance, would you?

[chris_h]

Originally posted by SteveO57:


First of all "Bum" is used in england for butt, not here in the U.S of A, so unless you live in England STFU with that sh_t.

I didn't realize it would offend you so.

Originally posted by SteveO57:

Secondly, I've been lurking here for a while and observed your posts. I'm just wondering what value your posts bring to this forum? Can you tell me? No? I didn't think so. Why? Because all your posts smell like ass.

Please leave now or be removed.

hahaha
hahahaha.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Knowledge is one of the fruits of the spirit.

Stop being silly.

okay, now i really can't tell if you're pulling my leg or not.
if so... well played.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deekay1:


you wouldn't be talking about this type of guidance, would you?

rotten should start charging you for bandwidth use.

I have een you post that now how many times?



Time to get a new act sugar pants.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chris_h:


okay, now i really can't tell if you're pulling my leg or not.
if so... well played.

Go read.

Scat, hurry along.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I have een you post that now how many times?

well, i guess that depends on what kind of "dope" you are on.

but actually this is the first time i have posted it

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deekay1:


well, i guess that depends on what kind of "dope" you are on.

but actually this is the first time i have posted it

Ah sorry, I must have seen it about 10x in the forum in the past week.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Go read.

Scat, hurry along.

scat? you're either a 60 year old woman, or japanese.

anyway, my point is that you made no sense.

you said "There is a difference in studying the Bible in a worldly scholarly sense, and doing so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

well sir, what is that difference?
are you seeing stuff that i'm not?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Scat

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chris_h:


scat? you're either a 60 year old woman, or japanese.

anyway, my point is that you made no sense.

you said "There is a difference in studying the Bible in a worldly scholarly sense, and doing so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

well sir, what is that difference?
are you seeing stuff that i'm not?

I said go read the bible if you wanted to know the difference.

From someone that makes allot of anti-Bible comments, you don't know it very well to be criticizing it. You mean to tell me you have never heard of the fruits of the spirit?

Hurry, go do a google search.

[SteveO57]

Originally posted by chris_h:
hahaha
hahahaha.

On top of your posts being meaningless, your'e also an arrogant little prick.

Just GTFO thanks.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deekay1:

Sounds like a fecal nightmare.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


I said go read the bible if you wanted to know the difference.

From someone that makes allot of anti-Bible comments, you don't know it very well to be criticizing it.

Oh it is on now, bitch!

Not really, but that seemed an appropriate thing to say.

FYI, I've read the bible cover to cover 3 times in my life... twice from the KJV, and once from skepticsannotatedbible.com (annotated KJV).

Since you brought it up, how many times have you read it?

[Zimphire]

Oh it is on now, bitch!

Not really, but that seemed an appropriate thing to say.

FYI, I've read the bible cover to cover 3 times in my life... twice from the KJV, and once from skepticsannotatedbible.com (annotated KJV).

Since you brought it up, how many times have you read it?

And what kind of answer is that?

I've read it plenty, haven't kept score.

I read it enough to know about the fruits of the spirit.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by SteveO57:


On top of your posts being meaningless, your'e also an arrogant little prick.

Just GTFO thanks.

[Tigerabbit]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Knowledge is one of the fruits of the spirit.

You give the appearance to be a Bible scholar, but you actually barely know anything about it. You speak in vague terms using dogmatic expressions ("fruits of the Spirit"), and you cannot quote the Bible to explain your position.

The term for you is "lukewarm", and we all know what is said of the Lukewarm, don't we? But you don't, do you?

You've lost a lot of respect around here because we all, both Christians and non-Christians, now see you for the poser that you are.

Try reading the WHOLE Bible, not just blinding accepting the words of an inflitrating agent of the Sanhedrin in his epistles designed to ensure the separation of Christianity from Judaism. But once again, your lack of knowledge prevents you from knowing of what I speak. Even an atheist knows that there's more to being a Christian than merely attending the worship service. Try attending the Bible classes, so that you may put on the Full Armor of God.

But you don't know what that is either�

Steve 057:

The "You all suck" posts were old back in 1993. Crawl back into alt.lame where you belong.