luvmijeje:


What can I say.. .... God indeed is a jealous God. He created man for his pleasures. He indeed created heaven and hell and gave man the free will to choose life or death. He who believe in him choose everlasting life. You can't try to understand spiritual things with human intuition...... You will fail.

We have left the understanding part to you spiritual beings.

All we need is from you is to make sense when telling us about how choosing between heaven and hell, or life and death is "free will".

God is love and He is also terrible. His love for you does not cloud His sense of judgment.

DoctorAlien:
Shouldn't a Scotsman show it that he is really a Scotsman? And what becomes of the man who claims to be a Scotsman but has no quality of a Scotsman?

You don't know what The True Scotsman fallacy is.

No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

You try to suggest that someone cannot be a christian because their knowledge of the bible is not as good as yours. You neglect the fact that christianity spread by word of mouth, There was first an oral tradition of the teachings of Jesus before it got written down. And furthermore throughout history most christians have been illiterates so there is no way they they would have been reading the bible. They too only had what other people told them.
So it is either that only people who read the bible could be christians, in which case illiterates like Peter the apostle can not possibly be christian, OR it is okay to have not read the bible and still be a christian.

DoctorAlien:


I know what No True Scotsman fallacy is.

I was simply tryna point out the fact that most of what you hear these "ex-christians" put forth as what puts them off in Christianity are not even in Christianity in the first place.

Meeenh! Was Divine Jesus in Christianity in the first place?

Was eating pork in Christianity in the first place?

Was ignoring circumcision in christianity in the first place?

Does Christianity not evolve and add on ideas and drop ideas over time?

ScepticalPyrrho:
We have left the understanding part to you spiritual beings.

All we need is for you to make sense when telling us about how choosing between heaven and hell, or life and death is "free will".

Did God make it compulsory for you to serve him? Did he make it a must for you to believe that heaven and hell exist?

PastorAIO:


You don't know what The True Scotsman fallacy is.





You try to suggest that someone cannot be a christian because their knowledge of the bible is not as good as yours. You neglect the fact that christianity spread by word of mouth, There was first an oral tradition of the teachings of Jesus before it got written down. And furthermore throughout history most christians have been illiterates so there is way they they would have been reading the bible. They too only had what other people told them.
So it is either that only people who read the bible could be christians, in which case illiterates like Peter the apostle can not possibly be christian, OR it is okay to have not read the bible and still be a christian.

I find this to be very useful explanation.

I have observed that part of the difficulties of Christian apologies, is the dominant nature of religious knowledge in their minds, as against broader knowledge base from which atheists speak from.

I sometimes summarize volumes of knowledge in a sentence, but because these apologists are inexistent to these various knowledge base from which i have summarized, they are lost.

Rather for them to humbly ask for clarification, they arrogantly go into infantile behavior or just fizzle out of the discussion.

luvmijeje:


Did God make it compulsory for you to serve him? Did he make it a must for you to believe that heaven and hell exist?

I see no Gods.

All I see is you making wild claims.

DoctorAlien:


The bolded: are you lying or are you exhibiting your normal ignorance?

Most All of these folks claiming they were Christians before they became atheists are simply lying. When you behold the magnitude of ignorance oozing from their arguments, you begin to wonder whether they ever opened a copy of the Bible. Most of them argue based on what they heard other people say about the Bible. Nobody who tastes the goodness of Christ ever turns back from Him.

Oh.... Really?? We don't shed our physical bodies?? We carry our flesh to hell or heaven?? U think because u still believe fairy tales, u are more knowledgeable about the fairy tale... U better think again

ScepticalPyrrho:
I see no Gods.

All I see is you making wild claims.

Is still your choice. Nobody is putting gun to your head that you must see God. But you must respect others who believe in it no matter how foolish you think it is.

ScepticalPyrrho:
We have left the understanding part to you spiritual beings.

All we need is for you to make sense when telling us about how choosing between heaven and hell, or life and death is "free will".

You choose to obey God or disobey Him. You choose to listen to Him or ignore Him...that is freewill. Heaven and hell are the rewards of the exercise of your freewill. You CHOOSE the one you want from the only options provided....freewill.

How about if you want none does that not count as freewill? It would if it was provided as an option. Since it is not an option it is either live or die. There is no fence to sit on in the universe created by God.

akintom:

I find this to be very useful explanation.

I have observed that part of the difficulties of Christian apologies, is the dominant nature of religious knowledge in their minds, as against broader knowledge base from which atheists speak from.

I sometimes summarize volumes of knowledge in a sentence, but because these apologists are inexistent to these various knowledge base from which i have summarized, they are lost.

Rather for them to humbly ask for clarification, they arrogantly go into infantile behavior or just fizzle out of the discussion.

Indeed this is the great stumbling block of many so called 'christians'. It's like their entire religion is based on epistemic knowledge and that is conflated with spiritual growth.

I first noticed this problem when I was a kid and I was hanging out with my cousin who was a deep born again type before anybody else caught the bug. This was before bornagainism spread through nigeria like wildfire in the 80s. My cousin told me that he was now ready to start reading the OT because he had exhausted the teachings of the NT. In his words, "I'm no longer a baby christian so I have to move on to meat instead of milk".

It's like the person who can quote bible the best is the closest to God. It doesn't matter the actual practical living of christian discipleship. It's all about doing bible courses. And God forbid that you know less bible than them, they will use it to pour scorn on you.

randomperson:

Oh.... Really?? We don't shed our physical bodies?? We carry our flesh to hell or heaven?? U think because u still believe fairy tales, u are more knowledgeable about the fairy tale... U better think again

It's a waste of time engaging in any argument about the Bible with you.

Only informed people should argue, not uninformed, hearsay peddlers.

randomperson:

Oh.... Really?? We don't shed our physical bodies?? We carry our flesh to hell or heaven?? U think because u still believe fairy tales, u are more knowledgeable about the fairy tale... U better think again

According to bible there will be a Resurrection of the Flesh. However whether the flesh will be like our present flesh or different is deal with vaguely.
For a start there will be no knacking. Though we will have bodies we will be like the angels in heaven. What is the nature of Angelic bodies? Apparently they can't knack. But can they feel pain of Hell fire burning?

Wait o! Angels can't knack? So what happened in Genesis when 'sons of God' knacked 'daughters of men' and gave birth to Nephilim?

Wait o! God is god of living not of dead. Abraham Isaac Jacob therefore are living. if so then have they resurrected bodily? If not then what state are they in?

God himself, does he have a body? After all Jacob managed to wrestle physically with him.

He even visited Abraham and had a meal with him.

This body resurrection issue actually raises more questions than it answers.

PastorAIO:
Meeenh! Was Divine Jesus in Christianity in the first place?

The apostles knew that Jesus was a GOD. His divinity was never a point of argument. See Jn. 20:28

Was eating pork in Christianity in the first place?

Eating pork is still not permitted for a Christian. It is unclean, and GOD forbids it.

Was ignoring circumcision in christianity in the first place?

Circumcision after the flesh is not a prerequisite for making Heaven, "for he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh" Rom. 2:28

Does Christianity not evolve and add on ideas and drop ideas over time?

Nope. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Heb. 13:8

DoctorAlien:


It's a waste of time engaging in any argument about the Bible with you.

Only informed people should argue, not uninformed, hearsay peddlers.

I guess the bible is now hear say... In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Lazarus's finger was mentioned... Can u have a finger without having a body. The bible also says the SOUL that sins shall die... Unless u are one of those Christians who hold your opinions higher than the words of the bible

randomperson:

I guess the bible is now hear say... In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Lazarus's finger was mentioned... Can u have a finger without having a body. The bible also says the SOUL that sins shall die... Unless u are one of those Christians who hold your opinions higher than the words of the bible

I've told you before that you're very ignorant. I'm very sure you don't know what a parable is.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not about the fate of the dead: it is about the relationship between the Jews and the Gentiles.

If you had any commonsense, you would know that at death there is no communication, neither do righteous people go to Abraham's bosom.

Please go and read.

DoctorAlien:
The apostles knew that Jesus was a GOD. His divinity was never a point of argument. See Jn. 20:28

John's Gospel was written around 100AD. Christianity had evolved plenty by then. The synoptics were written about 30 years earlier and they make no mention of a divine Jesus. Only John. In fact it was such an important point for John he starts of by identifying Jesus as the Divine Logos.

Eating pork is still not permitted for a Christian. It is unclean, and GOD forbids it.

Romans 14
13Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.

Circumcision after the flesh is not a prerequisite for making Heaven, "for he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh" Rom. 2:28

I repeat, Christianity started off requiring circumcision (as all good Jews do), there was a period of conflict where this was challenged, then it became okay to be an uncircumcised Christian. Do you agree or not?

Everything else you've written is just confused confusion.

Nope. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Heb. 13:8

I was asking about christianity, not Jesus. One more time, I'll repeat my question:

Does Christianity not evolve and add on ideas and drop ideas over time?

skeendyke:


You choose to obey God or disobey Him. You choose to listen to Him or ignore Him...that is freewill. Heaven and hell are the rewards of the exercise of your freewill. You CHOOSE the one you want from the only options provided....freewill.

How about if you want none does that not count as freewill? It would if it was provided as an option. Since it is not an option it is either live or die. There is no fence to sit on in the universe created by God.

A God who created the universe just happens to care about where I stick my manliness di[k?

Do you know how insignificant we are when you put up the picture of the universe in your little speech?

You can't even spot earth, let alone my bony ass.

What makes you think singing "Halleluyah" for eternity sounds like a reward for rightly exercising freewill?

It as well means loosing your freewill.

Smh

luvmijeje:


Is still your choice. Nobody is putting gun to your head that you must see God. But you must respect others who believe in it no matter how foolish you think it is.

I respect your beliefs.

If that's all it is. No argument.

PastorAIO:
John's Gospel was written around 100AD. Christianity had evolved plenty by then. The synoptics were written about 30 years earlier and they make no mention of a divine Jesus.

It was once thought that the gospel of John was no older than 150 years after Jesus' death. However, a papyrus discovered in Egypt, acquired by John Ryland Library in England and dated about 135 A.D. or earlier contained portions of John 18. This means that the book thought to be the latest of the NT can now be dated to at least 50 years of John's estimated lifetime, if not sooner.

William F. Albright, one of the World's foremost archaeologists: "We can already say emphatically that is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about A.D. 80" Albright, William F., Recent Discoveries in Biblical Lands, New York, New York: Funk and Wagnalis, 1955, p.136.

PastorAIO,

In summary, the most recent discoveries indicate that all the books of the NT were written within 50 years after the event they report, which would have been within the lifetimes of the eyewitness, as the Bible internally claims.

Please click on [url=theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/42659#]the source[/url] to find out more about the first century eyewitness manuscripts.

DoctorAlien:


It was once thought that the gospel of John was no older than 150 years after Jesus' death. However, a papyrus discovered in Egypt, acquired by John Ryland Library in England and dated about 135 A.D. or earlier contained portions of John 18. This means that the book thought to be the latest of the NT can now be dated to at least 50 years of John's estimated lifetime, if not sooner.

William F. Albright, one of the World's foremost archaeologists: "We can already say emphatically that is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about A.D. 80" Albright, William F., Recent Discoveries in Biblical Lands, New York, New York: Funk and Wagnalis, 1955, p.136.

It's all these historical conflictions and creationist theories that tickles you. The unfortunate thing is that these lines of arguments further reveal how nonsensical the religious ideas are.

When you're confined within the bible, you go silent. And when your gross limitations in biblical exegesis is revealed, you lack the humility to admit it.

I saw where you said the eating of pork, is still forbidden for Christians. Are you a judaist?

PastorAIO,

There were two main groups in the early church: those converted from Judaism and those won from heathenism. These two groups did not get along very well: they were always judging each other(note also that there is a constant theme of judgment running through the whole of Romans 14). The Gentile converts judged the Jewish converts for eating foods sacrificed to idols, having a good knowledge of idolatry and food sacrifices to idols and the fact that GOD condemns idolatry. The Jewish convert, on the other hand, felt no such compunctions because he had always acknowledged the true GOD, and so felt no guilt eating meat sacrificed to idols. Such meat were sold at the marketplace cheaper, and the Jewish Christians considered it a desirable bargain.

PastorAIO,

The first few verses of Romans 14: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" Rom. 14:1-4.

By comparing other Scriptures, we can locate the weak brother, and also locate the problem which created the "judging" situation. Paul had to deal with it at considerable length in 1 Cor. 10 and 1 Cor. 8. Notice his description: "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. ... Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol...

...and their conscience being weak is defiled. ... But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." 1 Cor. 8:4-9, emphasis added. Here we locate the weak brother of Romans 14:1-3. He was the Gentile Christian who felt that it was sinful to eat the meat which had been offered to idols. Paul agreed with the Jewish converts that there was nothing wrong with the food, since there is only one God after all. But he advised that the food not be eaten in front of the Gentile believers lest it be a stumbling block to them. Compare this language with Paul's counsel in Romans 14:13: "Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

"Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Rom. 14:13

"Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died also." v.15

So, Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8 are referring to the same problem.

Cc: PastorAIO

DoctorAlien:


It was once thought that the gospel of John was no older than 150 years after Jesus' death. However, a papyrus discovered in Egypt, acquired by John Ryland Library in England and dated about 135 A.D. or earlier contained portions of John 18. This means that the book thought to be the latest of the NT can now be dated to at least 50 years of John's estimated lifetime, if not sooner.

William F. Albright, one of the World's foremost archaeologists: "We can already say emphatically that is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about A.D. 80" Albright, William F., Recent Discoveries in Biblical Lands, New York, New York: Funk and Wagnalis, 1955, p.136.

I gave John around 100AD. Giving it 150 years after jesus or even 135AD only makes my point stronger. Even 80 AD such as you're quoting from William Albright (without any back up or evidence, I notice) still leaves amply room for a cult to evolve ideologically. Imagine how long it took for a political party like the Labour party in UK to evolve into New Labour. It happened in a matter of months.

It is blatantly clear that John, which is the latest of the 4 gospels, conveys a much more evolved theology than the other earlier gospels.
It is alone in calling Jesus Divine. the other gospels are strangely silent on the issue. Do you really think that if the writers of the earlier gospels thought Jesus was Yahweh they would neglect to add that rather significant detail to their gospels?

Nothing you have said contradicts my point that Ideas evolved in christianity.

DoctorAlien:
PastorAIO,

In summary, the most recent discoveries indicate that all the books of the NT were written within 50 years after the event they report, which would have been within the lifetimes of the eyewitness, as the Bible internally claims.

Please click on [url=theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/42659#]the source[/url] to find out more about the first century eyewitness manuscripts.

I haven't seen anything to back up what you're saying in the link. Please copy and paste the relevant paragraphs.

PastorAIO,

Moreover, the meat in question in Romans 14 was not "unclean meat" in the biblical sense. The question was only about the food esteemed unclean by the Gentile Christians because it has been offered to idols. Actually, the heathen did not offer swine, or other unclean animals in their sacrifices, as Acts 14:13 establishes.

Moreover, Paul states emphatically that he never broke any commandment, nor the precepts of his fathers in Acts 25:8. Therefore, he could not have taught people to eat forbidden meat.

You can visit this source for more information on foods that a Christian should eat.

PastorAIO:


I haven't seen anything to back up what you're saying in the link. Please copy and paste the relevant paragraphs.

Scroll down to the part of the page that says "Early Writings".

DoctorAlien:
PastorAIO,

There were two main groups in the early church: those converted from Judaism and those won from heathenism. These two groups did not get along very well: they were always judging each other(note also that there is a constant theme of judgment running through the whole of Romans 14). The Gentile converts judged the Jewish converts for eating foods sacrificed to idols, having a good knowledge of idolatry and food sacrifices to idols and the fact that GOD condemns idolatry. The Jewish convert, on the other hand, felt no such compunctions because he had always acknowledged the true GOD, and so felt no guilt eating meat sacrificed to idols. Such meat were sold at the marketplace cheaper, and the Jewish Christians considered it a desirable bargain.

I don't see the relevance of any of this. There are certain foods known as unclean in Judaism. (btw no one converted from judaism to christianity. Christians were Jews, full stop. Gentile converts to christianity were converts to Judaism. )

It's not a matter of eating food sacrificed to idols. It is a matter of eating unclean beasts such as pigs.

Acts 10

10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.




There was no sacrifice in this case. Just unclean animals according to deuteronomy.

DoctorAlien:
PastorAIO,

The first few verses of Romans 14: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" Rom. 14:1-4.

By comparing other Scriptures, we can locate the weak brother, and also locate the problem which created the "judging" situation. Paul had to deal with it at considerable length in 1 Cor. 10 and 1 Cor. 8. Notice his description: "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. ... Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol...

You are quoting a totally different issue which is addressed in Corinthians. Me, I was talking NOT ABOUT SACRIFICED MEAT, but about unclean animals, declared unclean by the law of moses. Animals such as Pigs.

Please stay with the topic.

DoctorAlien:
...and their conscience being weak is defiled. ... But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." 1 Cor. 8:4-9, emphasis added. Here we locate the weak brother of Romans 14:1-3. He was the Gentile Christian who felt that it was sinful to eat the meat which had been offered to idols. Paul agreed with the Jewish converts that there was nothing wrong with the food, since there is only one God after all. But he advised that the food not be eaten in front of the Gentile believers lest it be a stumbling block to them. Compare this language with Paul's counsel in Romans 14:13: "Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

"Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Rom. 14:13

"Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died also." v.15

So, Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8 are referring to the same problem.

Cc: PastorAIO

No they are not.