# It’s About Time, Part II



## Asath (Mar 15, 2012)

Again I’ll apologize for not taking things in any order that may seem obvious, but again the thoughtful will see the reasons why this topic ought naturally follow the last one – 

Just who is shepherding whom?

Throughout the history of the various Churches of Christianity, for some 1800 years, the church itself owned and traded in slaves.  If anyone could know that this was right, surely it was God’s representatives on Earth – the sole authorized and infallible interpreters of, and expounders upon, the Bible.  The position that slavery was authorized was the official and unassailable position of Christianity throughout the centuries.  Christian England not only endorsed but encouraged slavery for some 250 years, and the slave trade became a Christian monopoly – in the hands of Christian countries exclusively.  English parliaments aided the trafficking, and two English Kings held stock in slave-catching companies.  So much so that the first and most successful (and most brutal) of slave hunters, John Hawkins, so delighted the Queen that she Knighted him.  The name of John Hawkins’ slave trading ship tells it all – it was called The Jesus.

But finally an illegitimate Christian rose, and sparked a movement, and after a bitter struggle in England the slave trade had to go.  The Biblical authorization hadn’t changed – just the practice.  Why?  Because the World corrected the Bible.  The Church didn’t, and fought against the change to the bitter end. Then the usual thing happened – the Church dropped in at the end of the procession of progress, and took credit for the correction.

During most ages there were witches.   The Bible said so, and commanded that they not be allowed to live.  For nine centuries Christianity tortured, imprisoned, burned, and hanged whole armies of witches, to cleanse the Christian world of this foulness.  Then it was realized that there had never been such a thing as witches.  And who made this startling assertion?  The Church?  No.  The parson clung, in Salem and Scotland and beyond, to his variously tearful and thundering imprecations long after the secular legislatures had outlawed the practice in every civilized nation.  The text remains, but, again, the practice has changed.  The World, again, corrected the Bible.  Condemnation of infants?  Text remains, World has corrected.  Well over two hundred death penalties provided in the text of the Bible remain in the Bible, which authorized them, but the law of Men has corrected these practices.

It is in all cases notable that the Churches have reacted in mock horror, (well after the fact) that such atrocious things had ever been practiced, and have found equal justifications in the very same texts for the modern condemnation of things they not only authored and justified and actively practiced, but also fought vigorously against the changes in these practices. 

Who, then, is teaching whom?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2012)




----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

They weren't REAL Christians.  

or

"It's not the Book's fault, it's sinful man's fault."



(I'm not trying to kill your thread.  I'm sure you'll still get some action.)


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

.....I'm gonna wait and see (hope) another believer tries to take it on, if not within a few days I will.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> They weren't REAL Christians.
> 
> or
> 
> ...



What answer would be good for you ambush?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 16, 2012)

There's a big difference in saying this:



Asath said:


> ... the church itself owned and traded in slaves....



... and saying this:



Asath said:


> Christian England not only endorsed but encouraged slavery for some 250 years ...English parliaments aided the trafficking, and two English Kings held stock in slave-catching companies



As I've said before in similar threads, whenever you mix _any_ religion with government (particularly a monarchy), you're asking for trouble.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What answer would be good for you ambush?



This one:

"Ah, I see now.  It is a made up book by men who needed a way to control people." 

In other words, the truth.


----------



## Four (Mar 16, 2012)

This is just a slight deviation from the god of the gaps.

The more we learn scientifically about reality, the less and less of reality is explained by god, that awkward placeholder gets smaller in smaller the more we understand.

Much like this, as a species / society, as we grow morally, the religions must change morally or be abandoned. The Christianity that supported slavery would have been completely abandoned if it didn't reject it by now.

Before it was women rights, slavery, heliocentric models, etc

Now it's gay rights, porn, birth control, etc

The religion will adapt to society or be tossed aside


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> This one:
> 
> "Ah, I see now.  It is a made up book by men who needed a way to control people."
> 
> In other words, the *truth*.



I don't like that answer.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

Four said:


> This is just a slight deviation from the god of the gaps.
> 
> The more we learn scientifically about reality, the less and less of reality is explained by god, that awkward placeholder gets smaller in smaller the more we understand.
> 
> ...



Did you read in that blog that JB posted where the guy was talking about "God sized gaps"? 



stringmusic said:


> I don't like that answer.



It will set you free, free, free.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It will set you free, free, free.



If I were to turn away from God, my first question would be "to what?" Is there a set direction that all people that turn away from God go?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Did you read in that blog that JB posted where the guy was talking about "God sized gaps"?



I was just hoping it would help y'all understand my and a few others on here perspective on the science and Bible stuff.  Big fail on my part.  I think you were looking for weaknesses instead of understanding how the thought process might work.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It will set you free, free, free.



Most Christians do not feel as if we are in bondage.  I think your experience and perspective of faith gave you that opinion, and I understand why as my early perspective and experience with faith was definitely not pleasant.  But, so you know, I do feel, and know, that I am free, free, free.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If I were to turn away from God, my first question would be "to what?" Is there a set direction that all people that turn away from God go?



Down the Rabbit Hole.  

There are may people and resources available to help one transition from Christian to Atheist.  I wasn't really a strong Christian but I believed that Jesus was God.  I believed in the Devil and man's sin nature.  

When I gave it up, I felt like when I moved out of my parent's house for the first time.  



JB0704 said:


> I was just hoping it would help y'all understand my and a few others on here perspective on the science and Bible stuff.  Big fail on my part.  I think you were looking for weaknesses instead of understanding how the thought process might work.



I think I understand your perspective as well as the author of that blog's.  

God of the Gaps.  If you don't see how flawed that position is then that's that.



JB0704 said:


> Most Christians do not feel as if we are in bondage.  I think your experience and perspective of faith gave you that opinion, and I understand why as my early perspective and experience with faith was definitely not pleasant.  But, so you know, I do feel, and know, that I am free, free, free.



Are you free to worship a tree god?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If you don't see how flawed that position is then that's that.



I'm ok with that. 



ambush80 said:


> Are you free to worship a tree god?



Yes.  I am given that choice.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I'm ok with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I am given that choice.




Actually, I think there's a commandment against it.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Actually, I think there's a commandment against it.



But I choose whether or not to follow that comandment.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I wasn't really a strong Christian but I believed that Jesus was God.  I believed in the Devil and man's sin nature.
> 
> When I gave it up, I felt like when I moved out of my parent's house for the first time.



As did I. The only difference may be that I knew I was not a Christian. But I believed the same it seems. When I walked away, I didn't think life could be any sweeter.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> But I choose whether or not to follow that comandment.



You know what I mean.  You have imposed upon yourself a system by which certain behaviors are EVIL, where as a non believer might pray to a tree and think it silly but not against god's commandment.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> As did I. The only difference may be that I knew I was not a Christian. But I believed the same it seems. When I walked away, I didn't think life could be any sweeter.




I was a Christian.  I proclaimed Jesus as Lord and got baptized.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I was a Christian.  I proclaimed Jesus as Lord and got baptized.



I was not and I also proclaimed Jesus as Lord and was baptized. In my youth, I asked Jesus to save me multiple times, and nothing. I asked lots of questions only to conclude nothing was happening with others as well. Some admitted as much. I was told "You are saved and don't let anybody tell you different" or "Maybe you weren't sincere enough". What? I did what was required only to be told I wasn't sincere enough? How sincere does one have to be? He11 is a pretty good motivator in the sincerity dept. I eventually gave up and walked away. Most of my friends at that time walked away as well.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You know what I mean.  You have imposed upon yourself a system by which certain behaviors are EVIL, where as a non believer might pray to a tree and think it silly but not against god's commandment.



I do know what you mean, but my point is that it is a system that I choose to adhere to.  Nobody forces me to.  God does not force anybody into the system (according to my belief system).  It is there to accept or not.

Now, there are many who would force the system on others, and I do not believe they are correct in doing so.  Belief and following Jesus are for the believer to do voluntarily because he wants to do so.  I have never been big on folks getting forced to believe or scared into belief.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Most Christians do not feel as if we are in bondage.  I think your experience and perspective of faith gave you that opinion, and I understand why as my early perspective and experience with faith was definitely not pleasant.  But, so you know, I do feel, and know, that I am free, free, free.



Yes!

Compared to some of the bondage of sin, I used to be in, I'm blessed to even have a second chance....and yes I'm free, free, free, too.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I do know what you mean, but my point is that it is a system that I choose to adhere to.  Nobody forces me to.  God does not force anybody into the system (according to my belief system).  It is there to accept or not.
> 
> Now, there are many who would force the system on others, and I do not believe they are correct in doing so.  Belief and following Jesus are for the believer to do voluntarily because he wants to do so.  I have never been big on folks getting forced to believe or scared into belief.



I agree.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> As did I. The only difference may be that I knew I was not a Christian. But I believed the same it seems. When I walked away, I didn't think life could be any sweeter.



I thought you were always a Christian....now I'm confused??


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 17, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I thought you were always a Christian....now I'm confused??



Yes


----------



## Asath (Mar 17, 2012)

“ . . . but my point is that it is a system that I choose to adhere to . . . “

Not to be a thorn, but I think that in light of your thoughts in this forum, you may want to take a moment and re-examine that position.  I don’t think you actually adhere to that system at all, and have decided, quite appropriately, to reject those parts of that system that you either object to or find offensive, on both moral and intellectual grounds.

As I have previously pointed out, if one ‘adheres’ to a system of belief, then one must take the bad with the good, and embrace the system as a whole.  Rejecting some parts, and embracing others is little more than exercising your own judgment and forging your own personal system.  It is no longer the established religion, as it exists, that you follow, but now your own version that you are now the sole author of.  

The ability to do that, and the legitimacy of that (now personal rather than dogmatically obedient) viewpoint, does not make you an ‘adherent’ of anything at all – it makes you an independent free-thinker.

I would gently suggest that you have found the keys (conceptually) to the chains you were bound with as a child, and now need only decide which of the shackles of dogmatic servitude you wish to shed.  Living a proper life as an adult human in a world that allows unlimited options is not for everyone, and not everyone is equipped to set themselves completely free.  Some choose the strictness of fundamental obedience to parental guidance, given to them by the elders, never questioned, and thus never their own personal responsibility.  Some choose a middle ground, where they dip one foot into the waters of freedom to test the temperature of it, but keep the other safely rooted in protected ‘systems.’  Others of us, seeing the opportunity to unlock the door of the cage, bolt headlong into freedom, preferring to take our chances over being groomed, tamed, intimidated, bullied, and ultimately used by other humans for purposes that were never our own to choose.

‘Systems’ are not made by extra-earthly powers, and ‘adhering’ to them is merely being an obedient subject of those other humans who conceived that system.  In my view you are half-way to freedom, by NOT completely embracing any ‘system’ at all wholly, and questioning the parts that make no sense.  Someone asked, “Is there a set direction that all people that turn away from God go?”  And you already know the answer to that – since there isn’t a ‘set direction’ that ALL people who DO turn to God go, the question negates itself as hopelessly rhetorical.   The people who turn away from these entrenched and strictly defined ‘systems of belief’ do so for exactly that reason – because even the ‘believers’ make themselves ridiculous by not even knowing what they believe.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 19, 2012)

I am going to give it a try, because every thread on here has sunk into a sarcasm / insult fest the last few days......



Asath said:


> Throughout the history of the various Churches of Christianity, for some 1800 years, the church itself owned and traded in slaves.  If anyone could know that this was right, surely it was God’s representatives on Earth – the sole authorized and infallible interpreters of, and expounders upon, the Bible.



Ok, as in the last thread, the difficulty is with assumptions.  Let's start by saying "yes" the church did awful things.  But, nobody is the "sole authorized and infallible interpreters, and expounders upon, the Bible."  There is no such thing, in fact, the Bible is very clear on that fact.  A scholar such as yourself knows this.

If we are going to draw a conclusion from a set of facts, the facts must also be truthful.  We cannot say your a + b = your c because you have errors in the initial equation.

1. People, be it through faith or political oppression, have always used the ignorance of the masses to exert control.

2. Nobody is infallible.  Christianity has as it's premise that people as a whole are not perfect.  So, no man can be trusted as the interpreter of God.

3. When studying the Bible, you do not start with the Church.  If you want a thread to condemn the church, then that is fine, but it is the use and application of things which determine their value. 




Asath said:


> The position that slavery was authorized was the official and unassailable position of Christianity throughout the centuries.  Christian England not only endorsed but encouraged slavery for some 250 years, and the slave trade became a Christian monopoly – in the hands of Christian countries exclusively.  English parliaments aided the trafficking, and two English Kings held stock in slave-catching companies.  So much so that the first and most successful (and most brutal) of slave hunters, John Hawkins, so delighted the Queen that she Knighted him.  The name of John Hawkins’ slave trading ship tells it all – it was called The Jesus.?



But, where in all this is the concept of slavery endorsed by Christianity (NT based).  We can look into the OT and find what you are looking for, but we are attacking the theological positions of Christianity, right?  If so, we have to use the NT as a context.



Asath said:


> But finally an illegitimate Christian rose, and sparked a movement, and after a bitter struggle in England the slave trade had to go.  The Biblical authorization hadn’t changed – just the practice.  Why?  Because the World corrected the Bible.  The Church didn’t, and fought against the change to the bitter end. Then the usual thing happened – the Church dropped in at the end of the procession of progress, and took credit for the correction.?



Are you talking about the KJV here?  Either way, the "church" you are referring to had become a political system at this point, and actually had zero resemblance to the "church" you will find in the Bible (in fact, very few today look similar either....different topic).  Again, how is a system which has zero basis in the text the fault of the text?




Asath said:


> During most ages there were witches.   The Bible said so, and commanded that they not be allowed to live.  For nine centuries Christianity tortured, imprisoned, burned, and hanged whole armies of witches, to cleanse the Christian world of this foulness.  Then it was realized that there had never been such a thing as witches.  And who made this startling assertion?  The Church?  No.  The parson clung, in Salem and Scotland and beyond, to his variously tearful and thundering imprecations long after the secular legislatures had outlawed the practice in every civilized nation.  The text remains, but, again, the practice has changed.  The World, again, corrected the Bible.  Condemnation of infants?  Text remains, World has corrected.  Well over two hundred death penalties provided in the text of the Bible remain in the Bible, which authorized them, but the law of Men has corrected these practices.?




Again, the Church should be based on NT teachings, not OT, there was no church in the OT, it was not founded until the resurection of Christ.  So, we have to look at the practice and see if it lines up in that context....where in the NT is one told to murder infants or kill witches?




Asath said:


> It is in all cases notable that the Churches have reacted in mock horror, (well after the fact) that such atrocious things had ever been practiced, and have found equal justifications in the very same texts for the modern condemnation of things they not only authored and justified and actively practiced, but also fought vigorously against the changes in these practices.



People suck Asath, even those who run churches.   It is what it is.  But, any system which exerts power and influence is corruptible.  I would say the enlightenment and education of the masses led to the changes you are speaking of because it became apparent that nobody was really following the "rules."



Asath said:


> Who, then, is teaching whom?



The Bible is still teaching the church, they, much like anybody else, are just very slow learners sometimes.


----------



## Four (Mar 19, 2012)

Why do Christians even accept the OT as a part of the bible / there holy book when they reject nearly everything in it.

Also, how about this for NT morality, certainly this philosophy is no longer accepted as just / moral anymore.



			
				God said:
			
		

> 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;* she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
> *


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 19, 2012)

Four said:


> Why do Christians even accept the OT as a part of the bible / there holy book when they reject nearly everything in it..



Good question. I think I know an answer, but I hope one of the good Christian theologians on here can give you something with substance.  But the difference in application is law v grace.




Four said:


> Also, how about this for NT morality, certainly this philosophy is no longer accepted as just / moral anymore.



The "posted by God" stuff is downright hilarious, man!

Anyway, I think there is a little cultural flare in that verse, though many still take it quite literally.  The saved through child bearing is a confusing thought to me, and I had never really pondered it much.....thinking......


----------



## Asath (Mar 19, 2012)

“But, nobody is the "sole authorized and infallible interpreters, and expounders upon, the Bible." There is no such thing, in fact, the Bible is very clear on that fact. A scholar such as yourself knows this.”

Indeed, and you know this as well, but you don’t get to use that as a rebuttal in this forum – it won’t be that easy.  The fact is that each and every sect and denomination HAS, since the beginning, set themselves up as exactly that --  the sole and unquestionable authority on matters Biblical.  Those who disagreed with them were labeled as heretics, and were dealt with quite severely, to put a nice spin on it.  But while I see a set of disconnected excuses, I do not see a rebuttal of the point – which is that the world has continually corrected the practices that were arrived at through interpretation of the Bible, and were justified on that basis.

That the ignorant have always been easily exploited, and that people are not perfect are very correct and useful points, though not at all germane to this discussion.  But to assert that the Bible is NOT the Church, and that the two either can or ought to be separated is disingenuous.  Each and every Christian Church, of every sect, is built ENTIRELY upon their own interpretation of the Holy Book – The Book IS the foundation of the Church, else there would be no Church, and certainly no further need for the Book.

“But, where in all this is the concept of slavery endorsed by Christianity (NT based). We can look into the OT and find what you are looking for, but we are attacking the theological positions of Christianity, right? If so, we have to use the NT as a context.”

No sir, we do not.  The slave trade was justified, at the time, entirely on Biblical grounds, and the fiercest defenders and most prolific profiteers were NT Christians, waving their Book ahead of themselves as justification.  NT Christians do not hesitate, even now, to pull out OT justifications when those suit the rationalization at hand, and if the OT is included in their Book, then it is correctly deemed an inextricable part of their Belief System and their dogma.  An actual Believer cannot separate the two when it suits them, include both when it suits them, and/or cherry-pick only the parts that bolster the argument and/or demand they wish to put forward.  A True Believer has to take all of it as True, good and bad, else they risk falling afoul of their own professed Faith.

“ . . . the "church" you are referring to had become a political system at this point, and actually had zero resemblance to the "church" you will find in the Bible (in fact, very few today look similar either....different topic). Again, how is a system which has zero basis in the text the fault of the text?”

You’ll have a difficult time finding any Church at all in the Bible, aside from the rabbinical, but we are referring to the actual Anglican Church of King James, and the actual post-Reformation Protestantism of Martin Luther, et. al. as regards the English slavers; and we are referring back to the very origins of the Christian faith and the Christian church which in all denominations and at all times held slaves and/or indentured servants for over 1800 years.  I did not say it was the fault of the text – THEY said it was included in and justified by the text.  They were right – it is.

“ . . . where in the NT is one told to murder infants or kill witches?”

Again, you make an illegitimate separation, and try to use it to build a rebuttal – but the fact remains that the Christians were enthusiastic witch-hunters and righteous witch-killers and torturers right up until society passed laws against that sort of thing and forced them to knock it off.  And the fact remains, once again, that they waved their Book ahead of them as justification for their actions.

“But, any system which exerts power and influence is corruptible. I would say the enlightenment and education of the masses led to the changes you are speaking of because it became apparent that nobody was really following the "rules."”

As to the first sentence – true enough, but how is it that corruptible governments were ahead of corruptible religions in outlawing contemptible practices authored in the name of religion?  

And as to the second sentence – partly true – the actual enlightenment of the masses DID lead to the changes, but that was not because the religion wasn’t following the ‘rules.’  The Church had made those rules, and was following them to the letter.  Society made new rules, because the ones the Church had made did not stand up to the standards of morality of the larger society.  

And, once again, if one cannot and will not accept the truth of one’s own Holy Book, as written, and must endlessly dodge and weave, interpret and disclaim, reject portions and rewrite others, then there is no longer a Believer label on one’s lapel – The correct term for thinking on your own, while perhaps still embracing the idea that there is a God, is AGNOSTIC.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 19, 2012)

This is going to take a while.........



Asath said:


> Indeed, and you know this as well, but you don’t get to use that as a rebuttal in this forum – it won’t be that easy..


 

Had to try......



Asath said:


> The fact is that each and every sect and denomination HAS, since the beginning, set themselves up as exactly that --  the sole and unquestionable authority on matters Biblical..


 

Yes.



Asath said:


> Those who disagreed with them were labeled as heretics, and were dealt with quite severely, to put a nice spin on it. .


 

Yes.



Asath said:


> But while I see a set of disconnected excuses, I do not see a rebuttal of the point – which is that the world has continually corrected the practices that were arrived at through interpretation of the Bible, and were justified on that basis..



Yes.  And, we are better for the corrections, but most of these corrections have been through education of the people.  It's easy to wield God over a person who can't read.  But educate the ignorant, then they find the "truth" (quotes used to avoid arguing over the term).  Often , the "truth" is that we are not supposed to kill anybody, instead, we are to "love our neighbor as ourselves."




Asath said:


> That the ignorant have always been easily exploited, and that people are not perfect are very correct and useful points, though not at all germane to this discussion.  But to assert that the Bible is NOT the Church, and that the two either can or ought to be separated is disingenuous.  Each and every Christian Church, of every sect, is built ENTIRELY upon their own interpretation of the Holy Book – The Book IS the foundation of the Church, else there would be no Church, and certainly no further need for the Book..



You are mostly correct here.  Except that the Bible is not the church, but the two cannot be seperated.  The Church was founded in the NT.  Again, what you see today does not look much like what was described there.  There is a lot of foreign tradition intertwined with modern worship practices.  Some good books have been written on the subject.  But, to say the Church follows the Bible is a bit off the mark.  The church puts their spin on it, and that is where we all get confused here.




Asath said:


> No sir, we do not.  The slave trade was justified, at the time, entirely on Biblical grounds, and the fiercest defenders and most prolific profiteers were NT Christians, waving their Book ahead of themselves as justification.  NT Christians do not hesitate, even now, to pull out OT justifications when those suit the rationalization at hand, and if the OT is included in their Book, then it is correctly deemed an inextricable part of their Belief System and their dogma.  An actual Believer cannot separate the two when it suits them, include both when it suits them, and/or cherry-pick only the parts that bolster the argument and/or demand they wish to put forward.  A True Believer has to take all of it as True, good and bad, else they risk falling afoul of their own professed Faith..



You make a very good point here.  But I submit that "taking the whole book" means different things to different people.  For instance, you will find many on here who believe absolutely that Genesis is an historically accurate book, without any metaphors.  They will see Genesis very different than a man who sees a metaphorical retelling of God's hand in creation.  Does either side not take the book of Genesis?  No.  Both sides see something different, but the point remains that both believe God created the heavens and the Earth.

Cherry picking does occur.  You will find this a lot with folks who use the Bible against tatoos, but don't follow much else in Leviticus.  I mean, nobody stones adulterers at the city gates anymore.   



Asath said:


> You’ll have a difficult time finding any Church at all in the Bible, aside from the rabbinical, but we are referring to the actual Anglican Church of King James, and the actual post-Reformation Protestantism of Martin Luther, et. al. as regards the English slavers; and we are referring back to the very origins of the Christian faith and the Christian church which in all denominations and at all times held slaves and/or indentured servants for over 1800 years.  I did not say it was the fault of the text – THEY said it was included in and justified by the text.  They were right – it is..



Yes.  But it is my belief that they were the cherry pickers for economic purposes (everybody has a reason for what they want to see).  I don't know what else to say.  I don't think a person can be intellectually honest and claim that Jesus would support the slave trade based on his teachings.  As a Christian, one cannot overlook his effect on the law.  



Asath said:


> Again, you make an illegitimate separation, and try to use it to build a rebuttal – but the fact remains that the Christians were enthusiastic witch-hunters and righteous witch-killers and torturers right up until society passed laws against that sort of thing and forced them to knock it off.  And the fact remains, once again, that they waved their Book ahead of them as justification for their actions..



A bunch of goober atheists in Florida unblessed a road the other day....washed it up with unholy water (I think those who blessed it were a bit goofy also).  Does that mean you are involved with them?  Not at all.  I agreed with you from the beginning that people have done awful things in the name of God.....but the God I believe in would not endorse any of it.  I base those beliefs on the same text that they use.



Asath said:


> As to the first sentence – true enough, but how is it that corruptible governments were ahead of corruptible religions in outlawing contemptible practices authored in the name of religion?



I got nothing.  I don't know.  It's a @$#% shame.  



Asath said:


> And as to the second sentence – partly true – the actual enlightenment of the masses DID lead to the changes, but that was not because the religion wasn’t following the ‘rules.’  The Church had made those rules, and was following them to the letter.  Society made new rules, because the ones the Church had made did not stand up to the standards of morality of the larger society.



I disagree a little.  People did not leave the church, they changed it.  They looked at the text and said "hey, that ain't right!"  



Asath said:


> And, once again, if one cannot and will not accept the truth of one’s own Holy Book, as written, and must endlessly dodge and weave, interpret and disclaim, reject portions and rewrite others, then there is no longer a Believer label on one’s lapel – The correct term for thinking on your own, while perhaps still embracing the idea that there is a God, is AGNOSTIC



Asath, I know you think I am dodging and ducking, but follow me here:

My belief system is based entirely on a faith in Jesus. I view the text with reason as well, which leads me to believe certain parts of the OT are metaphorical (simplification, I know, but I have already typed a while). That being the case, I cannot endorse any system which must pull instruction from the OT to be accurate because Jesus pretty much changed the way we interact with God.

So, I cannot endorse slavery, child murder, killing witches, condemning folks, etc. because the founder of my faith would not endorse such actions.  If that goes against historical precedent, then fine, I can live with that.  But the Jesus I worship, as I see it, would disapprove.  I am very sorry the church traded slaves.  I am very sorry people have been evil in the name of God.  I hate it that the most bigoted people tend to wrap their hatred in faith.  It makes me sick.  But, the fact that this has happened does not change the fact that I am pretty darn sure it is not what the book is telling us.

I get what you are saying about the agnostic stuff, I do.  But, I view myself as a bit of a free thinker within the realm of Christianity.  There are quite a few of us out there.  This means I do not adhere to anything just because of what the preacher said.  I try to study and find what I believe it says.  That is the right of any human being.  Also, this is a benefit of the educational advancements of the lst several hundred years.  Me are more limited in their ability to twist and turn things to their liking.  They still try, and fools will always follow.  But it is a bit more difficult when folks can read for themselves.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2012)

You in black, me in blue.  I don't have the time or inclination to break this up.

“But, nobody is the "sole authorized and infallible interpreters, and expounders upon, the Bible." There is no such thing, in fact, the Bible is very clear on that fact. A scholar such as yourself knows this.”

Indeed, and you know this as well, but you don’t get to use that as a rebuttal in this forum – it won’t be that easy.  The fact is that each and every sect and denomination HAS, since the beginning, set themselves up as exactly that --  the sole and unquestionable authority on matters Biblical.  Those who disagreed with them were labeled as heretics, and were dealt with quite severely, to put a nice spin on it.  I actually kind of agree with that.  Quick!  Somebody check the forecast in H - E double hockey sticks.  

But while I see a set of disconnected excuses, I do not see a rebuttal of the point – which is that the world has continually corrected the practices that were arrived at through interpretation of the Bible, and were justified on that basis.

That the ignorant have always been easily exploited, and that people are not perfect are very correct and useful points, though not at all germane to this discussion.  But to assert that the Bible is NOT the Church ... It is not.

... and that the two either can or ought to be separated is disingenuous.  Right again!  A stopped clock suddenly came to mind.  Anyway, I agree that separating the Bible from the church is asking for trouble. 

Each and every Christian Church, of every sect, is built ENTIRELY upon their own interpretation of the Holy Book –So far, so good. 

The Book IS the foundation of the Church, else there would be no Church, and certainly no further need for the Book.  You've got it exactly backwards here.  The church came first.  The NT came later.

“But, where in all this is the concept of slavery endorsed by Christianity (NT based). We can look into the OT and find what you are looking for, but we are attacking the theological positions of Christianity, right? If so, we have to use the NT as a context.”

No sir, we do not.  The slave trade was justified, at the time, entirely on Biblical grounds, and the fiercest defenders and most prolific profiteers were NT Christians, waving their Book ahead of themselves as justification.  And who stopped the slave trade in the west?  Buddhists?  Jews?  No, it was the Christians.  Look up William Wilberforce. 

NT Christians do not hesitate, even now, to pull out OT justifications when those suit the rationalization at hand, and if the OT is included in their Book, then it is correctly deemed an inextricable part of their Belief System and their dogma.  Of course it is.

An actual Believer cannot separate the two when it suits them, include both when it suits them, and/or cherry-pick only the parts that bolster the argument and/or demand they wish to put forward.  But they are separate and distinct.  The OT is the foundation of the NT.  The NT is the completion of the OT.  I have seen far more "separation" by the unbelievers on this forum than by the believers.  You guys slice-and-dice the OT the same way the gun control nuts do with the 2nd Amendment.  You miss the forest for the trees. 

A True Believer has to take all of it as True, good and bad, else they risk falling afoul of their own professed Faith.

“ . . . the "church" you are referring to had become a political system at this point, and actually had zero resemblance to the "church" you will find in the Bible (in fact, very few today look similar either....different topic). Again, how is a system which has zero basis in the text the fault of the text?”

You’ll have a difficult time finding any Church at all in the Bible, aside from the rabbinical ... C'mon.  

... but we are referring to the actual Anglican Church of King James, and the actual post-Reformation Protestantism of Martin Luther, et. al. as regards the English slavers; and we are referring back to the very origins of the Christian faith and the Christian church which in all denominations and at all times held slaves and/or indentured servants for over 1800 years.  I did not say it was the fault of the text – THEY said it was included in and justified by the text.  They were right – it is.

“ . . . where in the NT is one told to murder infants or kill witches?”

Again, you make an illegitimate separation, and try to use it to build a rebuttal – but the fact remains that the Christians were enthusiastic witch-hunters and righteous witch-killers and torturers right up until society passed laws against that sort of thing and forced them to knock it off.  And the fact remains, once again, that they waved their Book ahead of them as justification for their actions.

“But, any system which exerts power and influence is corruptible. I would say the enlightenment and education of the masses led to the changes you are speaking of because it became apparent that nobody was really following the "rules."”

As to the first sentence – true enough, but how is it that corruptible governments were ahead of corruptible religions in outlawing contemptible practices authored in the name of religion?  

And as to the second sentence – partly true – the actual enlightenment of the masses DID lead to the changes, but that was not because the religion wasn’t following the ‘rules.’  The Church had made those rules, and was following them to the letter.  Society made new rules, because the ones the Church had made did not stand up to the standards of morality of the larger society.  But why did "society" make new rules?  Were the atheists marching in the streets demanding them?  I just refer you back to Wilberforce and people like him.

And, once again, if one cannot and will not accept the truth of one’s own Holy Book, as written, and must endlessly dodge and weave, interpret and disclaim, reject portions and rewrite others, then there is no longer a Believer label on one’s lapel – The correct term for thinking on your own, while perhaps still embracing the idea that there is a God, is AGNOSTIC.[/QUOTE]


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> This is going to take a while.........



You've got more energy than I do.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 19, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You've got more energy than I do.



I'm trying, but thanks for jumping in....


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 19, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I was not and I also proclaimed Jesus as Lord and was baptized. In my youth, I asked Jesus to save me multiple times, and nothing. I asked lots of questions only to conclude nothing was happening with others as well. Some admitted as much. I was told "You are saved and don't let anybody tell you different" or "Maybe you weren't sincere enough". What? I did what was required only to be told I wasn't sincere enough? How sincere does one have to be? He11 is a pretty good motivator in the sincerity dept. I eventually gave up and walked away. Most of my friends at that time walked away as well.


Hello gemcgrew, I see this often. It is sad. Preachers have an agenda to get you down to the front so that they seem as though they are doing a good job. They give the false sense that your salvation is based on what you have done. That you jumped through the hoop correctly. Essentially your faith is based on what you did. In time, this has no foundation because you can wonder if you did it right or if you were sincere. I see many question this in time. They are told to redo it. All they have done is the same thing but now a different date. Our faith should be in what he has done. You will never see Paul trying to convince any of the flock that they are not really saved. He tries to build them up, to increase their faith, to stand strong. Preachers these days are tearing down instead of building up. I tell people to ask their self if they believe that the work of Jesus satisfied the Father. Most say yes. Then go and have faith in this, not in what you have done, but in what he has done. This is the proper foundation. I'm sure I will not change your mind, I'm just useing your post as an example to express my concern over the problems that preachers create


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 20, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello gemcgrew, I see this often. It is sad. Preachers have an agenda to get you down to the front so that they seem as though they are doing a good job. They give the false sense that your salvation is based on what you have done. That you jumped through the hoop correctly. Essentially your faith is based on what you did. In time, this has no foundation because you can wonder if you did it right or if you were sincere. I see many question this in time. They are told to redo it. All they have done is the same thing but now a different date. Our faith should be in what he has done. You will never see Paul trying to convince any of the flock that they are not really saved. He tries to build them up, to increase their faith, to stand strong. Preachers these days are tearing down instead of building up. I tell people to ask their self if they believe that the work of Jesus satisfied the Father. Most say yes. Then go and have faith in this, not in what you have done, but in what he has done. This is the proper foundation. I'm sure I will not change your mind, I'm just useing your post as an example to express my concern over the problems that preachers create



No need to change my mind, I don't disagree with anything you just said.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 20, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Preachers these days are tearing down instead of building up.



Fundamentalists will disagree strongly with this.  They believe current doctrine and preaching has gotten away from the primary concept of sin and wickedness, leaning towards a "feel good" message.  A large contingent of fundamentalists do not like how the doctrines have evolved with time.  They long for the puritanical, judgemental and oppressive days of Christian beliefs.

I guess current leaders have to do something to maintain membership headcount when folks are getting fed up with the "fire and brimstone" and leaving the church.


----------



## Asath (Mar 21, 2012)

Thought:  “The Book IS the foundation of the Church, else there would be no Church, and certainly no further need for the Book.”

Counter-thought:   “You've got it exactly backwards here. The church came first. The NT came later.”

I’m pretty sure that I won’t be alone in wondering just how this could be, especially as concerns the various Protestant Churches founded in the wake of the Reformation.  Do you REALLY mean to say that the Christian Churches (even in the original, Catholic form),  existed PRIOR to the writing of the Book (NT) that lent them legitimacy?  I disagree with this notion only in the extent of it, rather than in the truth of it.  You hit upon a very important point here – just what sort of ‘Church’ of Christianity could have existed PRIOR to the writing of the founding and guiding Book of that Faith?

Without the NT, the already extant Church that is proposed here had no knowledge of Christianity.  Or did they intuit that such a thing was on the way, and formed their Church in anticipation?  THAT would truly be prophetic.  OR, as is actually true, did they first form their Church, then go ahead and write the Book as they went along?  We breathlessly await the answer.

“And who stopped the slave trade in the west? Buddhists? Jews? No, it was the Christians. Look up William Wilberforce.”     Now, I’m not sure what you have against the Buddhists or the Jews, and so far as I know the Buddhists never held slaves, though the Jewish faith cannot be held innocent of this practice.  And if you are looking it up, notice also that the original protesters and agitators against the practice of slavery were immediately denounced by the Church as ‘Illegitimate Christians.’  They were shunned and anathematized to a man.  To say that a few folks who were accidentally born and raised as ‘Christians’ had the courage to rebel against the practice and teaching of their own Church were actually ‘Christians,’ and claim them as your own, is revisionism writ large.  The overall authority and hierarchy of the ‘Church’ fought tooth and claw against the abolition of slavery, and that fact is so well documented that it bears no argument other than ignorance.

“But they are separate and distinct.”   Really?  The OT and the NT are two completely different things, bearing no relation to each other?  Are you sure you want to argue that position, given that Christianity chose to compile the two into a single Book, and then label that Book: ‘The Holy Bible’?  Not to be dense or anything, but if you view it as two completely separate things, then which of the two is the ‘Holy’ part and which is the ‘Nonsense’ part?  You see, you can’t have it both ways, with some myths drawn from one and some from the other.  Enlighten me – which part is ‘Holy,’ and which part is not?

“But why did "society" make new rules? Were the atheists marching in the streets demanding them?”   Nice attempt to establish both Biblical authority and contempt for disagreement in a single statement, but the reason that society keeps correcting the fundamentally Book-based has been because of the ignorance, abuses, baseless persecutions, senseless murders, and endlessly self-righteous proselytizing of the self-proclaimed ‘Saved.’  Some folks just won’t learn, so we have to pass laws to actually outlaw the practice of their righteousness upon the rest of us.  If you don’t take this personally, then you aren’t one of them.  If it bothers anyone – well, we’re not sorry.

The point, once again, is that the religions no longer inform society as a whole – and when they held a position to do so they led us far astray – now society, and progress, both social and (yes) scientific, serve to chastise and negate the fundamental adherence to the myths and writings of ancient mystics and goat-herders who thought that the Sun was a mystery and that diseases and earthquakes were punishment.  We’ve run out of patience with that childish view of things.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2012)

Subtract from the New Testament the miraculous and highly impossible, and what will be the remainder?
-- George Eliot, from "What Great Men Think About Religion" by Ira D Cardiff, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 21, 2012)

You know the drill.

Thought:  “The Book IS the foundation of the Church, else there would be no Church, and certainly no further need for the Book.”

Counter-thought:   “You've got it exactly backwards here. The church came first. The NT came later.”

I’m pretty sure that I won’t be alone in wondering just how this could be, especially as concerns the various Protestant Churches founded in the wake of the Reformation.  Do you REALLY mean to say that the Christian Churches (even in the original, Catholic form),  existed PRIOR to the writing of the Book (NT) that lent them legitimacy?  Of course, I do.  And do you know who else does?  You and half the other skeptics on this forum.  If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times:  the NT was written "dozens of years" after Jesus or "hundreds of years" after Jesus or "generations" after Jesus.  Actually, the last book was written around 100 AD, which is roughly seventy years _after_ the day of Pentecost when the church was founded.  So, yes, the church came first and the NT followed.  Obviously, the Protestant Reformation resulted in other churches being formed. 

I disagree with this notion only in the extent of it, rather than in the truth of it.  You hit upon a very important point here – just what sort of ‘Church’ of Christianity could have existed PRIOR to the writing of the founding and guiding Book of that Faith?

Without the NT, the already extant Church that is proposed here had no knowledge of Christianity.  You're killin' me.  Do the names Peter and Paul ring a bell?  How about Thomas, Matthew, John, James, Luke, etc.?  What do you think they did until they died?  They taught people! 

 ... Or did they intuit that such a thing was on the way, and formed their Church in anticipation?  THAT would truly be prophetic.  OR, as is actually true, did they first form their Church, then go ahead and write the Book as they went along?  We breathlessly await the answer.  Take a breath and see above.

“And who stopped the slave trade in the west? Buddhists? Jews? No, it was the Christians. Look up William Wilberforce.”     Now, I’m not sure what you have against the Buddhists or the Jews ... Nothing. 


... and so far as I know the Buddhists never held slaves, though the Jewish faith cannot be held innocent of this practice.  And if you are looking it up, notice also that the original protesters and agitators against the practice of slavery were immediately denounced by the Church as ‘Illegitimate Christians.’  They were shunned and anathematized to a man.  Details, please.

To say that a few folks who were accidentally born and raised as ‘Christians’ had the courage to rebel against the practice and teaching of their own Church were actually ‘Christians,’ and claim them as your own, is revisionism writ large.  The overall authority and hierarchy of the ‘Church’ fought tooth and claw against the abolition of slavery, and that fact is so well documented that it bears no argument other than ignorance.  Are you talking about slavery in the U.S.?  If yes, there were some churches that were not abolitionists (hence the split between "southern" baptists and others.)  If it's not the U.S., then again, let's hear some details. 

“But they are separate and distinct.”   Really?  The OT and the NT are two completely different things, bearing no relation to each other?  Of course not.  "Separate and distinct"  does not mean "bearing no relation to each other".  Even a cursory reading of the NT shows how the two are interrelated.  

Are you sure you want to argue that position, given that Christianity chose to compile the two into a single Book, and then label that Book: ‘The Holy Bible’?  Not to be dense or anything, but if you view it as two completely separate things, then which of the two is the ‘Holy’ part and which is the ‘Nonsense’ part?  You see, you can’t have it both ways, with some myths drawn from one and some from the other.  Enlighten me – which part is ‘Holy,’ and which part is not?  All of it.

“But why did "society" make new rules? Were the atheists marching in the streets demanding them?”   Nice attempt to establish both Biblical authority and contempt for disagreement in a single statement, but the reason that society keeps correcting the fundamentally Book-based has been because of the ignorance, abuses, baseless persecutions, senseless murders, and endlessly self-righteous proselytizing of the self-proclaimed ‘Saved.’  Some folks just won’t learn, so we have to pass laws to actually outlaw the practice of their righteousness upon the rest of us.  If you don’t take this personally, then you aren’t one of them.  If it bothers anyone – well, we’re not sorry.  Too tired to deal with this now.  Maybe tomorrow.

The point, once again, is that the religions no longer inform society as a whole – and when they held a position to do so they led us far astray – now society, and progress, both social and (yes) scientific, serve to chastise and negate the fundamental adherence to the myths and writings of ancient mystics and goat-herders who thought that the Sun was a mystery and that diseases and earthquakes were punishment.  We’ve run out of patience with that childish view of things.


----------



## Asath (Mar 22, 2012)

Now I’ll be accused of pandering, but really?

“Actually, the last book was written around 100 AD, which is roughly seventy years after the day of Pentecost when the church was founded. So, yes, the church came first and the NT followed.”   

What Church?  Founded by who?  With what congregation?  Assembled in which place?  Dedicated to which form of worship?  And founded upon which doctrines that were yet to be written?  Be serious.

“Do the names Peter and Paul ring a bell? How about Thomas, Matthew, John, James, Luke, etc.? What do you think they did until they died? They taught people!”     

And you’ll happily find us a bunch of folks in the region in question, and during the time in question, who were named Peter, Paul, Thomas, and Matthew, or the like.  And you’ll happily prove that not only did those folks have presciently anglicized names, but that they were literate, in a time when hardly anyone was – especially the poor and downtrodden that were held to be the disciples that were gathered – AND you’ll easily demonstrate that, in an era when the average life-span was less than 40 years, that one or more of these illiterate desert-dwellers who couldn’t possibly have had the names you ascribe actually wrote the things you Believe up to and including 100 years later.  Knock yerself out – we’ve been waiting for THIS proof forever – if you know it to be a fact, then lay it out for us.

And, just for fun, are you contending, still, that these certainly fictitious fellas WERE the Church you contend existed PRIOR to having an established doctrine?  If so, they certainly were not in agreement.  

“If it's not the U.S., then again, let's hear some details.”  I thought that YOU were the one that brought up William Wilberforce, and argued that CHRISTIANS defeated slavery?  The anti-slavery forces arose in England – the center of the profiteering from the human trade, and also, at the time, the center of the new, ‘Enlightened’ form of Christianity, that called itself Protestant.  I’m not here to complete anyone’s education – merely to doubt same based on their words.  Slavery was outlawed in England well before the Americans (those fiercely religious and highly moral separatists) got the message.

“"Separate and distinct" does not mean "bearing no relation to each other". Even a cursory reading of the NT shows how the two are interrelated.”

No.  Separate and distinct means exactly what it says – it means that they have no traits in common – that is what separate means, and that is what distinct means.  As in:  A Hippopotamus is separate and distinct from a Bowling Ball.  If the OT and NT are interrelated, as you now say, then your previous assertion that “ . . . they are separate and distinct . . .” is as nonsensical as I previously observed.  If they are inextricably linked, then you cannot have one without the other – even Constantine realized that much.

If, “All of it,” is the ‘Holy’ part, then as a Believer you need to face All of it, OT and NT alike, and have no option to cringe from some parts while emphasizing others.  This is the Doctrine and the Holy Book that you embrace and defend as the Truth, and if you differ from even a single bit of it you are no longer in the camp of the ‘Believers.’  It is presented as an ‘all or nothing’ proposition, and cannot have a middle ground, unless, of course, you wish to write your own faith outside of the strict writing of that Book, in which case, you are, unfortunately, an Agnostic.  

 Sorry about that.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Subtract from the New Testament the miraculous and highly impossible, and what will be the remainder?
> -- George Eliot, from "What Great Men Think About Religion" by Ira D Cardiff, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief



One can subtract a lot of things from anything and there won't be much left.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> One can subtract a lot of things from anything and there won't be much left.



Right. But if it can't stand just two being taken away there was not much there to begin with. Without embellishments it is nothing.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Right. *But if it can't stand just two being taken away* there was not much there to begin with. Without embellishments it is nothing.



I would go as far as to say it can't stand one thing being taken away, the resurrection of Christ.

Saying that it can't stand _only_ two things being taken away is quite inadequate in making the claim that the bible is false, it was written as a whole and should be taken as a whole.

That's like someone pulling up at your house in a brand new 4X4 truck and you saying, yea, well take one of the tires off of it a see how good it is.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I would go as far as to say it can't stand one thing being taken away, the resurrection of Christ.
> 
> Saying that it can't stand _only_ two things being taken away is quite inadequate in making the claim that the bible is false, it was written as a whole and should be taken as a whole.
> 
> That's like someone pulling up at your house in a brand new 4X4 truck and you saying, yea, well take one of the tires off of it a see how good it is.



First, spot on about the resurrection. It really is tough to take that way when it has never been proven to have happened.
Second,the bible was absolutely, positively without question NOT written as a whole. 40+ authors over 1500 years.........
Third, take those Micky Thompson Baja tires off that 4x4 and slap on a set of regular old Long Trail T/A's and the truck will still do it's job. it doesn't NEED a set of off road tires(embellishments) to get the job done. To suggest that the NT NEEDS embellishments to sell the rest of it is a refreshing break through.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> To suggest that the NT NEEDS embellishments to sell the rest of it is a refreshing break through.



Depends on what is is attempting to be sold.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2012)

> Depends on what is is attempting to be sold.





bullethead said:


> Subtract from the New Testament the miraculous and highly impossible, and what will be the remainder?



This ^


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> First, spot on about the resurrection. It really is tough to take that way when it has never been proven to have happened.
> Second,the bible was absolutely, positively without question NOT written as a whole. 40+ authors over 1500 years.........
> Third, take those Micky Thompson Baja tires off that 4x4 and slap on a set of regular old Long Trail T/A's and the truck will still do it's job. it doesn't NEED a set of off road tires(embellishments) to get the job done. To suggest that the NT NEEDS embellishments to sell the rest of it is a refreshing break through.



Your right it was written as a whole, I mispoke(mistyped), it was put together as a whole and meant to be taken as a whole.

I didn't mean to suggest that the NT needs embellishments to "sell" the rest of it. If what is written about Christ is true, then the "embellishments" are not that at all, it is the truth, and there is nothing to "sell".

As far as the truck goes, my intention was to merely point out that one can't take away the ingredients to anything and it still be what it once was.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> This ^



If the miraculous were not true, or, if they were not in the text, then there would not be a global movement following the man.

However, you would still have the moral teachings of the man, and enlightened folks everywhere would quote him with the same arrogant righteousness that they currently quote Ghandi, because it would be cool to do so.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Your right it was written as a whole, I mispoke(mistyped), it was put together as a whole and meant to be taken as a whole.
> 
> I didn't mean to suggest that the NT needs embellishments to "sell" the rest of it. If what is written about Christ is true, then the "embellishments" are not that at all, it is the truth, and there is nothing to "sell".
> 
> As far as the truck goes, my intention was to merely point out that one can't take away the ingredients to anything and it still be what it once was.



If what is written about Christ is true............

I THINK comparing the STORY about how that 4x4 got it's wheels and would be more fitting. Take away that a giant robot on the assembly line put them on the truck and find out a man did it.....the truck still has it's wheels.


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If the miraculous were not true, or, if they were not in the text, then there would not be a global movement following the man.
> 
> However, you would still have the moral teachings of the man, and enlightened folks everywhere would quote him with the same arrogant righteousness that they currently quote Ghandi, because it would be cool to do so.


 
Well said.
The following the teachings of Christ are no where near to be compared to being in Christ. 

Salvation is more than biblical mastery, perhaps not even.
Redemption simply means "out of death, life", a far more esteemed project.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 22, 2012)

Asath said:


> Now I’ll be accused of pandering, but really?
> 
> “Actually, the last book was written around 100 AD, which is roughly seventy years after the day of Pentecost when the church was founded. So, yes, the church came first and the NT followed.”
> 
> ...



We've been through all of this at least half a dozen times before -- maybe not the slavery part but definitely the rest.


----------

