noblefada: Well I guess this guys will stop at nothing to discredit the faith. For xtians reading this let me tell you guys something, when I started studying the scriptures long while back I wondered why the bible was written the way it was and why somethings which I thought were not necessary was even penned down! but this past few weeks I've come to understand now. People will stop at nothing in their quest to deceive others and pervert the scriptures. But thanks be to God the foundations of God standenth sure.
I heard it a long time ago, The three cardinal points to destabilize and discountenanant the Christian believes
1. Discredit the bible, say its stories are made up
2. Discredit Jesus Christ say he never died that it was all make believe
3. Finally discredit the biggest NT apostle, Paul not because he wrote most of the NT but because of the content, Paul taught more about grace and the truth that you only have to believe the gospel to be saved.
Going thru this thread I guess its no longer a myth or hearsay but now staring us in ur face.

Let's take Paul for instance. You call Paul a great New testament writer

Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says." (1 Cor 14:34)

^^^
Do you agree wirth Paul's sexism here?

Logicboy03:



Let's take Paul for instance. You call Paul a great New testament writer

Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says." (1 Cor 14:34)

^^^
Do you agree wirth Paul's sexism here?

@logicboy pls read that verse in context by reading the pretext and post-test. That command was to the Corinthian church which was a very canal church and Paul said it to bring calm and order in church and was not a general command bt specific to d church and@ Corinth that's why you can find in other Paul's writings and he said clearly in Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

noblefada:

@logicboy pls read that verse in context by reading the pretext and post-test. That command was to the Corinthian church which was a very canal church and Paul said it to bring calm and order in church and was not a general command bt specific to d church and@ Corinth that's why you can find in other Paul's writings and he said clearly in Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Does your explanation still make the verse alright?

Whether the instruction was meant for one church oor all churches, it is still very wrong.


Pulling another verse from Psul saying the opposite makes it worse because it is then clear that he waqs cpntradicting himself

noblefada:

@logicboy pls read that verse in context by reading the pretext and post-test. That command was to the Corinthian church which was a very canal church and Paul said it to bring calm and order in church and was not a general command bt specific to d church and@ Corinth that's why you can find in other Paul's writings and he said clearly in Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I am in love with this explanation! This is what some Christians fail to realize...

striktlymi:

I am in love with this explanation! This is what some Christians fail to realize...

Of course, you are in love with silly rationalizations.

Morning LB,

Logicboy03:


Of course, you are in love with silly rationalizations.

...and why is it silly?

noblefada:

@logicboy pls read that verse in context by reading the pretext and post-test. That command was to the Corinthian church which was a very canal church and Paul said it to bring calm and order in church and was not a general command bt specific to d church and@ Corinth that's why you can find in other Paul's writings and he said clearly in Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

interesting! When a clear verse comes up you hear them saying context, history, translations etc.
Maybe the galatians you quoted was specifically for the church in galatia and had nothing to do with everybody.
How about we all acknowledge that in fact all the letters were written to specific churches and they had nothing to do with 21st century people?

Logicboy03:

Does your explanation still make the verse alright?

Whether the instruction was meant for one church oor all churches, it is still very wrong.


Pulling another verse from Psul saying the opposite makes it worse because it is then clear that he waqs cpntradicting himself

@LB you see if u were a xtian it would've bin much easier to explain somethings to u; u see the early church grew in revelation knowledge and did nt just know everything after they received the holy ghost. Paul's letter are for us to learn from, you see the Corinthian church despite the fact they demonstrated so many gifts of the spirit, they were very canal and had issues. That's why it is only the church @ corinth that Paul wrote to correct some issues such as marriage, dressing, food offer to idol, water baptism, orderliness during church service etc. The issue is that since the were not matured in the things of the spirit, Paul had to do this to bring order back into the church. That's why he said he fed them in milk and not with strong meat.

Mr Troll: interesting! When a clear verse comes up you hear them saying context, history, translations etc.
Maybe the galatians you quoted was specifically for the church in galatia and had nothing to do with everybody.
How about we all acknowledge that in fact all the letters were written to specific churches and they had nothing to do with 21st century people?

Paul's letters were written for admonition, for learning, to answer question asked and to correct some issues in the church. They're for us to learn from them another example is the letter to the galatians where he specifically address the issue of the law and grace.

Logicboy03:
Lol.....
1) Luke 1;1-4 is only stating that he gathered information from eye witnesses and others who had works on the faith.

Lol, are you serious? What did you expect an intention to write history to look like?

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4

Compare with

1. To bequeath to posterity a record of the deeds and characters of distinguished men is an ancient practice which even the present age, careless as it is of its own sons, has not abandoned whenever some great and conspicuous excellence has conquered and risen superior to that failing, common to petty and to great states, blindness and hostility to goodness. But in days gone by, as there was a greater inclination and a more open path to the achievement of memorable actions, so the man of highest genius was led by the simple reward of a good conscience to hand on without partiality or self-seeking the remembrance of greatness. Many too thought that to write their own lives showed the confidence of integrity rather than presumption. Of Rutilius and Scaurus no one doubted the honesty or questioned the motives. So true is it that merit is best appreciated by the age in which it thrives most easily. But in these days, I, who have to record the life of one who has passed away, must crave an indulgence, which I should not have had to ask had I only to inveigh against an age so cruel, so hostile to all virtue. (Writen by Tacitus Agricola Book 1:1)

Writing History is simply giving an account of things as they happened so that people will know how the events took place. Did both Luke and Tacitus declare this intent? Yes they did!

Perhaps you are requiring that every historian should come out and announce "Hey guys I wanna write history!" before you will believe it is history.

Logicboy03: 2) An excellent point was made in the wikipedia article I read on luke as a historian;

Beautiful. It is funny how you failed to notice this

A medieval Armenian illumination, by Toros Roslin.
Most scholars understand Luke's works (Luke-Acts) in the tradition of Greek historiography.[10] The preface of The Gospel of Luke[11] drawing on historical investigation identified the work to the readers as belonging to the genre of history.[12] There is some disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate, and others taking a more critical approach.
Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." It should be noted, however, that Ramsay makes no claims about the events described by Luke.[13] Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."[14] New Testament scholar Colin Hemer has made a number of advancements in understanding the historical nature and accuracy of Luke's writings.[15]
On the purpose of Acts, New Testament Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has noted that "Luke's account is selected and shaped to suit his apologetic interests, not in defiance of but in conformity to ancient standards of historiography."[16] Such a position is shared by most commentators such as Richard Heard who sees historical deficiencies as arising from "special objects in writing and to the limitations of his sources of information."[17] However, during modern times, Luke's competence as a historian is questioned, although that depends on one's a priori view of the supernatural. A materialist would see a narrative that relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc., as problematic as a historical source. And it is understood that Luke did not intend to record history. His intention was to proclaim and to persuade. Many see this understanding as the final nail in Luke the historian's coffin.[18] Robert M. Grant has noted that although Luke saw himself within the historical tradition, his work contains a number of statistical improbabilities such as the sizable crowd addressed by Peter in Acts 4:4. He has also noted chronological difficulties whereby Luke "has Gamaliel refer to Theudas and Judas in the wrong order, and Theudas actually rebelled about a decade after Gamaliel spoke (5:36-7)'[10

The part I've highlighted in red is really where the problem lies. It is not Luke as a historian that is the issue rather it is your materialist presuppositions that is the issue.

Let clarify an issue raised earlier about Luke favouring Paul over the other apostles and the sudden appearance of James in acts 15.
First of all Luke was a disciple of Jesus although not among the 12 and later became a disciple of Paul, that's why the latter part of the book of acts were all abt Paul.
James the brother of John was killed by Herod in acts 12:1-2, because there has always bin a circle of 3 apostles has leaders and pillar since the time of Jesus; they chose James the brother of Jesus to join Peter & John. because Peter & John were always traveling to other areas to preach, James became the leader of the church at Jerusalem which of course was very large and then he wrote the book of James (which is the first book written in the NT). And that's why we see him in acts 15 giving a verdict.
It will interest you to note that Paul taught Peter, James, John and some of the early apostle the word of grace, Gal 2:1-2 KJV 1: Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2: And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
He explain to them from the scriptures salvation by grace and grace alone. But unfortunately by this time James has already written the book thats why it may look contradictory to Paul's teachings.

noblefada:

@logicboy pls read that verse in context by reading the pretext and post-test. That command was to the Corinthian church which was a very canal church and Paul said it to bring calm and order in church and was not a general command bt specific to d church and@ Corinth that's why you can find in other Paul's writings and he said clearly in Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

If your assertion is true then why not say that the message in Galatians was only for the church in Galatians. . .By the way the injunction for women not to speak in public and usurp the authority of men was repeated by Paul in his letter to Timothy. . .

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 1 Timothy 2:12

Or are you going to come with the excuse that the letter was addressed to Timothy alone?. . .If that is the case then why not just jettison everything written in the bible because it was addressed to specific people and never addressed to any body in the 21st century. . .

mazaje:
Sure, we can trust that every thing that tacitus wrote about Ceacer Augustus is true. . We CAN'T. . .We know Ceaser Augustus ruled Rome because we have his coins, bust and other things, so you are streaching things too much here. . .We can not trust everything written about him by people that were not around him. . Same with the bible. . .We can not trust what was written in the bible about Jesus because the writers did not know him or have meet him and they wrote very long after he died. . .

In other words you are saying that we simply can't trust any events of history before the invention of the radio and television because all history before then was based on 'hearsay'. You are taking a very irrational position

We can NOT trust ancient history completely, most hgistorians AGREE to this. . .Ancient history can not be trusted completely because of many reasons. . .Most things were written long after the happened, oral traditions are mostly changed over time and embellished etc. . .That is a fact. . .Historians go though and try to seperate the embellishments from the real or plausible events. . .But that is not the point the point here is that major events are recorded by multiple sources and that is how historians accept their veracity. . .If the story of Jesus is true as reported in the gospels, then they extra biblical sources should corraborate them. . .That's my point. . .

But then, here lies the problem with your thinking and the difference between you and actual historians. Actual historians compare writings against other writings on the same issue. For instance the person of
1. Pontius Pilate can be reconstructed from comparing texts of Josephus, Luke, Tacitus etc. Some will say more about him while others will say less about him.
2. The person of Socrates can be reconstructed by comparing writings of Aristotle, Plato and Xenophon again, some will say less about him and some more about him.
3. The person of Jesus Christ can be reconstructed by comparing texts like Mark, Josephus, John, Acts of the Apostles e.t.c. Again some will say more and some less.

The only thing that happened with Christ is that a number of those texts were combined into one volume called the bible. In a similar way, one could just as well have combined ancient Greek texts into one volume.

You see your argument that "extra-biblical" stories must talk in the same detail as biblical stories is simply naive. It is just like saying extra-greek sources should talk about Socrates in the same detail that Greek sources do.

Now assuming that the church decided to add Josephus' writings into the bible as some sort of Jewish history document similar to Chronicles. I am sure you will be here denouncing the work of Josephus and demanding other "extra-biblical" sources to be provided. See the problem with your argument now?

Sure, who is Mark?. . .I am talking about the book ascribed to Mar not Mark the individual. . .Yopur evidence to show that Mark the individual wrote the book of Mark is what?. . .Where did he claim authurship in the book?. . .

Again this shows more naivete because you assume that for a book to be authentic the writer must name himself. But then you forget that many of the writings we have from ancient history are anonymous some are even reconstructions of sparsely scattered bits and pieces of parchments copied and recopied by many scribes, some ancient texts are even written by people in the name of other people. It is from texts like these that we form the narrative we call ancient history.
Now I'm not saying that it is Mark who definitely wrote that gospel however, the fact that there is no name claiming authorship does not make the text false by historical standards.

I am more interested in the vericity of the claims of the Jesus story, so far all the story is nothing but fiction written by people based on hear say, people that do not know him or have ever meet him. . .

By saying this, you have condemned all history written before the invention of the TV and radio to fiction because all of them are equally 'hearsay' by the same standards. Are you sure you are really interested in the veracity of anything at all?

For the Sanhedrin I was just going by what was reported in the story not its veracity. . .

Ok. However, you didn't meet any of my other challenges to your claims

mazaje:
Sure the gospels are not authentic because NOBODY knows who actually wrote them. . .If the early church fathers decided to ascibe the name of Peter to the gospel of Matthew, it would have been know as the gospel of Peter instead of Matthew. . .You can't trust a book if you don't even know who wrote it. . .Authouship is very impoartant. . .Even books with known authurs can not be trusted talk more of books whose authours remain unknown. . .

I have shown why this doesn't necessarily hold true for historical documents.

As for Paul's letters, they are nothing but embellished propaganda. . .By the way he did not claim authorship to all of the letters ascribed to him. .

I have asked you over and over again and you have repeatedly dodged the question. Which of Paul's works do you think are authentic? Do you accept that the ones where Paul claims authorship are his letters? Perhaps we can start from there.

You are not bringing any evidence any where. . .You are just trying to defend a theological position. . .

This is just funny. All you have done so far is claim that the evidence I have provided is not evidence.

The church fathers are all biased and are not fair arbiters. . .They all had their own interest. . .Christianity as we know it today is their own handiwork. . .

This too shows your naivete. ancient Roman historians were also all biased towards promoting the glory of the empire. What we know of ancient Rome today is their handwork. Yet that doesn't mean that therefore the events they recorded are false.

Are you sure you want to seriously have a discussion or are you only interested in screaming "they are all liars" until your face turns blue?

mazaje:

If your assertion is true then why not say that the message in Galatians was only for the church in Galatians. . .By the way the injunction for women not to speak in public and usurp the authority of men was repeated by Paul in his letter to Timothy. . .

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 1 Timothy 2:12

Or are you going to come with the excuse that the letter was addressed to Timothy alone?. . .If that is the case then why not just jettison everything written in the bible because it was addressed to specific people and never addressed to any body in the 21st century. . .

Again read in context from verse 9, Paul was instructing Timothy who was travelling to oversee churches founded, on how women should behave and how they should be quiet and submissive in church meetings and not to argue with men over doctrinal issues, of course calling to remembrance the experience in the corinth church, but today they teach and even own ministries.
I know of a prominent ministry that donot allow women mount the alter but can serve in other places and even head home cells. When When I inquire why, I was told that some women were using the opportunity to contend with their husbands at home, so the GO put a temporal suspension on women, but his wife could still minister. I think he must have learnt from 2 Tim 2. There must be order in church.

noblefada:
Paul's letters were written for admonition, for learning, to answer question asked and to correct some issues in the church. They're for us to learn from them another example is the letter to the galatians where he specifically address the issue of the law and grace.

noblefada:

Again read in context from verse 9, Paul was instructing Timothy who was travelling to oversee churches founded, on how women should behave and how they should be quiet and submissive in church meetings and not to argue with men over doctrinal issues, of course calling to remembrance the experience in the corinth church, but today they teach and even own ministries.
I know of a prominent ministry that donot allow women mount the alter but can serve in other places and even head home cells. When When I inquire why, I was told that some women were using the opportunity to contend with their husbands at home, so the GO put a temporal suspension on women, but his wife could still minister. I think he must have learnt from 2 Tim 2. There must be order in church.

you're very funny. go take some lessons in bible twisting. You're doing a very poor job.

Mr anony:
Lol, are you serious? What did you expect an intention to write history to look like?



Compare with



Writing History is simply giving an account of things as they happened so that people will know how the events took place. Did both Luke and Tacitus declare this intent? Yes they did!

Perhaps you are requiring that every historian should come out and announce "Hey guys I wanna write history!" before you will believe it is history.



Beautiful. It is funny how you failed to notice this



The part I've highlighted in red is really where the problem lies. It is not Luke as a historian that is the issue rather it is your materialist presuppositions that is the issue.

Writing an account of things is now enough to give someone the title of historian?


Must you Anonynize every definition? Guy Luke was never a historian. That is a christian falsehood. Lukes intention was to evangelize. Not document history for all people

Mr anony:
In other words you are saying that we simply can't trust any events of history before the invention of the radio and television because all history before then was based on 'hearsay'. You are taking a very irrational position

It is NOT an irrational position because notable historians themselves have said it. . .Ancient history is mostly reconstructed inbtelligently. . . .You can NEVER trust oral history or hear say stories, especially ones recorded as theological books made for religious belief . . .It is always embellished . . .I gave an example of such embelishment even in the bible. According to Mark the first gospel that was written when the ladies enetered the empty tomb of Jesus they saw a man who told them Jesus had risen , by the time Matthew was written the man had turned to an angle and he told them that Jesus had risen, in Luke it was two men they saw who told them that Jesus had risen . .By the time John the last gospel was written they man in Mark had turned into two angles who told the woman Jesus had risen . .So even there you can see the tradition of embelishment. . .In the first gospel written it was one man by the time the last one was written many years later the man turned into two angles. . .Hear say stories are NOT to be trusted. .

oBut then, here lies the problem with your thinking and the difference between you and actual historians. Actual historians compare writings against other writings on the same issue. For instance the person of
1. Pontius Pilate can be reconstructed from comparing texts of Josephus, Luke, Tacitus etc. Some will say more about him while others will say less about him.
2. The person of Socrates can be reconstructed by comparing writings of Aristotle, Plato and Xenophon again, some will say less about him and some more about him.
3. The person of Jesus Christ can be reconstructed by comparing texts like Mark, Josephus, John, Acts of the Apostles e.t.c. Again some will say more and some less.

The only thing that happened with Christ is that a number of those texts were combined into one volume called the bible. In a similar way, one could just as well have combined ancient Greek texts into one volume.

You see your argument that "extra-biblical" stories must talk in the same detail as biblical stories is simply naive. It is just like saying extra-greek sources shuld talk about Socrates in the same detail that Greek sources do.

Now assuming that the church decided to add Josephus' writings into the bible as some sort of Jewish history document similar to Chronicles. I am sure you will be here denouncing the work of Josephus and demanding other "extra-biblical" sources to be provided. See the problem with your argument now?

I have told you that the gospels are NOT historical accounts, they were written primarily as a theological document. . .No body considers the oddessy as a historical document . . .No body considers the verders as historical documents. . .They are religious documents that are NOT to be regarded historical . . .Their primary aim is to evangelize and not to report history . . .

Again this shows more naivete because you assume that for a book to be authentic the writer must name himself. But then you forget that many of the writings we have from ancient history are anonymous some are even reconstructions of sparsely scattered bits and pieces of parchments copied and recopied by many scribes, some ancient texts are even written by people in the name of other people. It is from texts like these that we form the narrative we call ancient history.
Now I'm not saying that it is Mark who definitely wrote that gospel however, the fact that there is no name claiming authorship does not make the text false by historical standards.

Sure, for a book to be considered worthy the writer MUST identify himself and state his sources so that we can know if he is lying or telling the truth . . .That is why i said the bible is not a religious document and needs not be taken seriously since no one knows who wrote most of the gospel stories . . .They were anonymous documents floating around until some fathers decided to attach name to them to give them credibility, even the fathers knew that no one will consider an anonymous document credible that was why they decided to attach names to them. . . I have told you that historians themselves have admitted that ancient history is not to be trusted because of how difficult it is to verfy things based on the tradtion used at that time. . .How can you expect a person that was not a witness to an event to tell you exactly how it happened like 50 year after the event happened?. . .Even now with our ability to use sophisticated cameras and report live enents we still mixc things up talk more of some one reporting an event he never witnessed 50 year before he was born. . . Ancient history is not very credible. . .I am an Hausa guy and most of our history was tranmitted using oral traditions but most people do not give it credence because it is mostly false just by listening to it. . .

By saying this, you have condemned all history written before the invention of the TV and radio to fiction because all of them are equally 'hearsay' by the same standards. Are you sure you are really interested in the veracity of anything at all?

I have answered, most ancient history is not to be trusted, most are embellised. . .the tradition they use which is the oral tradition is not credible. . .Most of the stories get changed. . .

[/quote]Ok. However, you didn't meet any of my other challenges to your claims

And what is your challenge?

noblefada:

Again read in context from verse 9, Paul was instructing Timothy who was travelling to oversee churches founded, on how women should behave and how they should be quiet and submissive in church meetings and not to argue with men over doctrinal issues, of course calling to remembrance the experience in the corinth church, but today they teach and even own ministries.
I know of a prominent ministry that donot allow women mount the alter but can serve in other places and even head home cells. When When I inquire why, I was told that some women were using the opportunity to contend with their husbands at home, so the GO put a temporal suspension on women, but his wife could still minister. I think he must have learnt from 2 Tim 2. There must be order in church.

You are just all over the place, in one sentence you are saying what Paul actually says, in another sentence you are trying to say he means something else . . .Why can't women argue with me over doctrinal issues?. . .Paul clearly does NOT want women to teach in church any where and any time and he stated it twice, he told Timothy as an injunction in his letter to him knowing that Timothy was going to open new churchs and that injunction is supposed to be abided by when he opens the new churches. . .What exactly are you on about?. . .

mazaje:

You are just all over the place, in one sentence you are saying what Paul actually says, in another sentence you are trying to say he means something else . . .Why can't women argue with me over doctrinal issues?. . .Paul clearly does NOT want women to teach in church any where and any time and he stated it twice, he told Timothy as an injunction in his letter to him knowing that Timothy was going to open new churchs and that injunction is supposed to be abided by when he opens the new churches. . .What exactly are you on about?. . .

@mazaje again u're wrong, Paul did not to write timothy because he was going to open new churches but oversee old once, in fact timothy pastored more than 4 different churches while Paul was alive. Let me put it clearly Paul had disciples who use to follow him and.hear him teach & he had founded so many churches, so he used send them to churches to oversee and put things in order, so timothy was a major minister because Paul trained him personally when still young.
Now the reason why Paul said women should not teach was because the tradition of that time for both the Jews and gentile nations did not permit women to speak in the public. But xtians because of the HS allowed women to speak, buy women in corinth abused it and it became a major problem in the church so Paul had to stop them and even used the tradition of that time to back his decision 1 cor 14:34.
I think I will stop arguing wit u guys because we're still @ d very elementary stage of arguing abt d contents of the bible, there are still major issues you guys are not talking about, for instance the prophecies, d science. If I may ask @mazaje, @LB, @Mr troll, @Mr anony do you know when it first rained on the earth?

^^^
not the science....please not the science!

come to this thread https://www.nairaland.com/1334001/christianity-neo-colonialism-homosexuality-homophobia-right

striktlymi:

I am in love with this explanation! This is what some Christians fail to realize...

unfortunately i dont buy noblefada's explanation. the bible is clear about the role of women in the church. Using semantics to excuse our willful breaking of a clear command isnt helpful.

davidylan:

unfortunately i dont buy noblefada's explanation. the bible is clear about the role of women in the church. Using semantics to excuse our willful breaking of a clear command isnt helpful.

Hmmm...if only you can apply what you have up there to your ish with abortion.

I hope that ^ Ad hominem matches yours!

Anyways, I know what Paul taught and how it is applied!

striktlymi:


Hmmm...if only you can apply what you have up there to your ish with abortion.

I hope that ^ Ad hominem matches yours!

Anyways, I know what Paul taught and how it is applied!

Bible says nothing specifically on abortion

Logicboy03:

Bible says nothing specifically on abortion

Murder is explicitly stated in Sacred scriptures!!!

striktlymi:

Murder is explicitly stated in Sacred scriptures!!!

So i take it all soldiers are going to hell?

striktlymi:

Murder is explicitly stated in Sacred scriptures!!!

If abortion is murder, then God is the ultimate murderer. He is the number 1 murderer considering how many natural abortions occur compared to man-made ones

striktlymi:


Hmmm...if only you can apply what you have up there to your ish with abortion.

I hope that ^ Ad hominem matches yours!

Anyways, I know what Paul taught and how it is applied!

Funny... christians are their own worst enemies. We seem to cherry-pick which verses we believe and which we dont. The ones we do, we defend with dogmatic fervor (most times completely out of context). The ones we reject, we simply invent verbal gymnastics to get around.

davidylan:

So i take it all soldiers are going to hell?

Okay, maybe some things should be made clear, though unnecessary...

1) Killing at a time of war when every 'rule of engagement' is strictly adhered to is NOT murder.

2) Killing out of self defence is NOT murder.

3) Killing by accident aka man slaughter is NOT murder.

Murder is 'unlawful' premeditated killing.

In order words, not every killing is murder.

I hope the above has clarified some of the ish you might have up there?

Logicboy03:

If abortion is murder, then God is the ultimate murderer. He is the number 1 murderer considering how many natural abortions occur compared to man-made ones

Are you talking about the God you believe does not exist?

#Anony sorry for derailing your thread.

striktlymi:

Are you talking about the God you believe does not exist?

#Anony sorry for derailing your thread.

Ah the usual christian cop-out.


Dont worry, we know how people behave when they have been debunked