# Slavery



## ddd-shooter (Aug 2, 2013)

Do me a favor and check out who lead most of the civil rights movements. 
Christians. 
Wilberforce, MLK Jr, Finney, Stowe, Wesley, etc...

I will admit some have argued for slavery with the Bible, but I argue the "true" interpretations of the meaning of scripture has won out.


----------



## JFS (Aug 2, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Do me a favor and check out who lead most of the civil rights movements.
> Christians.



It's a majority christian country.  Who would you expect to lead "most" movements here, Hindus?   Would it be surprising if most slave owners were also Christians?  Or that states with the worst civil rights records were majority christian?

So not sure that really answers anything.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 2, 2013)

In the early 1800s many southern pastors were for abolishing slavery. When the cotton gin was invented and the economy demanded a heavier use of slaves- the same pastors turned to the verses that discussed slavery to justify it. Funny how the economy influences the way scripture is taught.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

The bible does not support slavery as we know it today. The Jews were slaves of whom the story tells how God set them free. When someone was in debt to another, he could work it off so to speak. this was the biblical slavery. Not that they were owned. There is however, if I recall, a few instances where while taking the so called promise land, that the captures were kept for hard labor. I can't recall, but say this in hopes that someone might speak of it to jog my memory


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> The bible does not support slavery as we know it today. The Jews were slaves of whom the story tells how God set them free. When someone was in debt to another, he could work it off so to speak. this was the biblical slavery. Not that they were owned. There is however, if I recall, a few instances where while taking the so called promise land, that the captures were kept for hard labor. I can't recall, but say this in hopes that someone might speak of it to jog my memory



So it was alright to beat your friend that owed you $20, just not kill him?
You have some of the best information on these boards most times, but this one sounds a little sugar coated.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

Less sugar coating on these:

   However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

   When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

 Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

 The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2013)

Anyone ever heard of the book of Philemon.  

1:15“For perhaps this is why he was separated from you for a brief time, so that you might get him back permanently, 16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave — as a dearly loved brother. He is especially so to me, but even more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.”

I realize this contradicts what you Atheist are attempting to portray, but it's in keeping with the message of Christ and the New Testament.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Anyone ever heard of the book of Philemon.
> 
> 1:15“For perhaps this is why he was separated from you for a brief time, so that you might get him back permanently, 16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave — as a dearly loved brother. He is especially so to me, but even more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.”
> 
> I realize this contradicts what you Atheist are attempting to portray, but it's in keeping with the message of Christ and the New Testament.



Paul wrote the book of Philemon. Paul never met Jesus. Paul is keeping the message of Paul.

It was Paul’s Plea for Onesimus. Nothing to do with anything Jesus said.

Does it cancel out the OT verses and the verses in Timothy and Luke?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

> Philemon 1:1-16 (New International Version)
> 
> Philemon 1:1-16
> 
> ...


*

Your not cherry picking a few verses for tomorrows service are you?*


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So it was alright to beat your friend that owed you $20, just not kill him?
> You have some of the best information on these boards most times, but this one sounds a little sugar coated.


Your assuming that beating was part of the slavery. It was more of an agreement originally. A job that paid no money. Kind of like borrowing. Sure I agree that beating went on and thus the need for laws but not the original norm. I have a friend, old gentleman whom I love to listen to his stories. His father had slaves. He said that "freedom" was not fitting. That these people called slaves would have never left if you told them they could go. He told about the meat house, how they, the ones called slaves by us but not them, had the key to the meat house. That his father entrusted them with everything. That they depended on him for everything. That each sides children grew up playing together, that mutual respect was on both sides. That they wanted to please him and in turn he saught to give them a good life that was not availiable to them on the outside. He was more like their caretaker rather than their owner. This is the picture that I hope was prevailant in slavery and that the extreme atroscities we think of regarding slavery are not the norm. I hope, but wonder why their was ever a push to abolish it if this were the case. And yea, your right, I'm sure my sugar coating is on thick, sorry, that human nature thing is hard to oppress


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

Interesting to me was about 15 years ago I had noticed that in the location where I deer hunt that 3 family last names in the same tiny town were the same as three black familys. I asked my friend from one of the familys, What's up with that and he replied, "don't you know?". Know what, I replied. "That the slaves took the name of their owners". I did not know that


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Less sugar coating on these:
> 
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> ...


When I read some of this it makes me think of immigrants. Such as the hispanics who come here with nothing. If one came to me and said I will work for you for nothing if you take care of me for seven years. Provide me with a place to stay and food. And one of these smart phones he might be more secure than on his own. This is the agreement type slavery. Not at all like the word slavery we think of. Yet I realize that the picture of slavery we have today did exist.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Less sugar coating on these:
> 
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> ...


When I read some of this it makes me think of immigrants. Such as the hispanics who come here with nothing. If one came to me and said I will work for you for nothing if you take care of me for seven years. Provide me with a place to stay and food. And one of these smart phones, he might be more secure than on his own. This is the agreement type slavery. Not at all like the word slavery we think of. Yet I realize that the picture of slavery we have today did exist.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Your assuming that beating was part of the slavery. It was more of an agreement originally. A job that paid no money. Kind of like borrowing. Sure I agree that beating went on and thus the need for laws but not the original norm. I have a friend, old gentleman whom I love to listen to his stories. His father had slaves. He said that "freedom" was not fitting. That these people called slaves would have never left if you told them they could go. He told about the meat house, how they, the ones called slaves by us but not them, had the key to the meat house. That his father entrusted them with everything. That they depended on him for everything. That each sides children grew up playing together, that mutual respect was on both sides. That they wanted to please him and in turn he saught to give them a good life that was not availiable to them on the outside. He was more like their caretaker rather than their owner. This is the picture that I hope was prevailant in slavery and that the extreme atroscities we think of regarding slavery are not the norm. I hope, but wonder why their was ever a push to abolish it if this were the case. And yea, your right, I'm sure my sugar coating is on thick, sorry, that human nature thing is hard to oppress



200 years ago. Imagine you are out fishing/walking/sitting in your house(take your pick) and all of a sudden a group of guys (same race as yourself)spring out of nowhere, knock you out and you wake up on the beach in shackles. They sell you to someone that does not look a thing like you.You are loaded on a ship run by people of a different race that sets sail for America. It takes months to get there and you are down in the belly of the ship tossing and turning in the mess of everyone else packed in there with you. You finally reach land and the captors pull you out of the hull over a few dozen dead bodies and put you up on an auction block to be sold to the highest bidder. You can't understand a thing they are saying, you just know through experience that the stick they are whacking you with says enough. And the shackles you are wearing tells you everything you need to know. You get to a farm where others like you are already living. They explain to you that you are not going to see your family again and you are going to work here for the rest of your life. Well that first night you say ADIOS and hi-tail it out of there. You have no idea that you are literally thousands of miles away from your family and village but you leave hoping to get the heck out of there. By morning your caught by men on horses chasing you with dogs. You get the whoopin of your life and it takes you a week to be able to even stand. You might be feisty and have this happen one or two more times until you get the idea that "Hey, I like it here" "I have absolutely no where else to go, no one to stay with and there is a cute little chicky next door that I think likes me." Eventually you have a few children, watch the whole cycle pan out a few dozen more times with new "recruits" just like you but by now you are content with your role and your family. After so many years your bestest buddy (lets call him ohhh I don't know...Master...) says "hey you can leave if you want to or you can stay here with your family(except for the couple we sold) and continue to work for me." Where are you going to go? You don't even know where you are at! Looking back , after you finally were persuaded enough times not to leave, it is not that bad here. It actually is better than the life you had running from the lions and yeah you miss your family back home but you figure they are all either dead or in shackles for someone else. You then make the decision to stay because you are comfortable in your environment.

I highly doubt there was any "agreement" and your buddies father's slaves were on the beach with a suitcase packed waiting for Doc, Julie, Gopher and Capt'n Stubing to greet them as they boarded the cruise ship. About the only agreements were when one of their own kind cracked them on the head with some wooden club is that it hurt and they all probably agreed the the boat ride stank and they agreed that they wished they never were taken and sold in the first place. After a bunch of years where the heck were they going to go that was any better? I am sure they were not given the choice to get a ticket back home.

The bible stories tie in with what we know happened all those years ago. People conquered other people and those conquered if not outright killed became slaves. Yeah sure, there were  instances where a family owed a debt to another and it was worked off, but it is pure sugar coating to think that the majority of people both here and in the ancient middle east volunteered their services as slaves, but more like buddy slaves.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

I wonder if slavery evolved? Not having studied this, what I am about to say and realizing that info exists that contridicts it, but wonder if it evolved from a way to pay off a debt in where you at some time were  paid up ... to the brutal oppression of owning a person????


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 200 years ago. Imagine you are out fishing/walking/sitting in your house(take your pick) and all of a sudden a group of guys (same race as yourself)spring out of nowhere, knock you out and you wake up on the beach in shackles. They sell you to someone that does not look a thing like you.You are loaded on a ship run by people of a different race that sets sail for America. It takes months to get there and you are down in the belly of the ship tossing and turning in the mess of everyone else packed in there with you. You finally reach land and the captors pull you out of the hull over a few dozen dead bodies and put you up on an auction block to be sold to the highest bidder. You can't understand a thing they are saying, you just know through experience that the stick they are whacking you with says enough. And the shackles you are wearing tells you everything you need to know. You get to a farm where others like you are already living. They explain to you that you are not going to see your family again and you are going to work here for the rest of your life. Well that first night you say ADIOS and hi-tail it out of there. You have no idea that you are literally thousands of miles away from your family and village but you leave hoping to get the heck out of there. By morning your caught by men on horses chasing you with dogs. You get the whoopin of your life and it takes you a week to be able to even stand. You might be feisty and have this happen one or two more times until you get the idea that "Hey, I like it here" "I have absolutely no where else to go, no one to stay with and there is a cute little chicky next door that I think likes me." Eventually you have a few children, watch the whole cycle pan out a few dozen more times with new "recruits" just like you but by now you are content with your role and your family. After so many years your bestest buddy (lets call him ohhh I don't know...Master...) says "hey you can leave if you want to or you can stay here with your family(except for the couple we sold) and continue to work for me." Where are you going to go? You don't even know where you are at! Looking back , after you finally were persuaded enough times not to leave, it is not that bad here. It actually is better than the life you had running from the lions and yeah you miss your family back home but you figure they are all either dead or in shackles for someone else. You then make the decision to stay because you are comfortable in your environment.
> 
> I highly doubt there was any "agreement" and your buddies father's slaves were on the beach with a suitcase packed waiting for Doc, Julie, Gopher and Capt'n Stubing to greet you as you boarded the cruise ship. About the only agreements were when one of their own kind cracked them on the head with some wooden club is that it hurt and they all probably agreed the the boat ride stank and they agreed that they wished they never were taken and sold in the first place. After a bunch of years where the heck were they going to go that was any better? I am sure they were not given the choice to get a ticket back home.
> 
> The bible stories tie in with what we know happened all those years ago. People conquered other people and those conquered if not outright killed became slaves. Yeah sure, there were  instances where a family owed a debt to another and it was worked off, but it is pure sugar coating to think that the majority of people both here and in the ancient middle east volunteered their services as slaves, but more like buddy slaves.


All of what your saying is correct and well put, but what I am pondering is whether this was the original description of the word slavery as found in early OT?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> All of what your saying is correct and well put, but what I am pondering is whether this was the original description of the word slavery as found in early OT?



If it was then they sugar coated it to hide what it really was.
The history of the Jews is that of one of war and violence. On their journey out of Egypt they were an army. History shows their rise to dominance in the region but the Bible spins it as a necessary journey commanded by God. the stories were written to justify the horrors and allow the leaders to control the masses. It is similar to the history of every single other culture, and is the history of mankind. From the time of the first cave men people have been killing other people and taking their possessions as spoils of war and those include other humans. Killing most of a tribe and taking their wives and daughters to rape and have serve you is not a way to pay off a debt. It is a way Nature lets the survival of the fittest happen. Lions, bears and many animals will conquer the leading male of another group, kill his offspring so that bloodline ends and take his women in order to breed with with to ensure the new bloodline survives. That is how interbreeding is kept in check. Humans do all that and have found a way to make survivors more useful by making them slaves to do what is needed. 

History shows that many ancient cultures employed people. That was the case in Egypt at the time of Moses. They lived among the Egyptians as citizens and workers and were paid for their services. Think about it, why did they have to put the lambs blood above their door ways if they all were slaves and lived in their own separate areas from the regular citizens? A little bit of embellishment to sell the story perhaps? They lived among the other citizens. They worked for a living and got paid. That is how the pyramids got built, but the pyramids were built long before the story of the Exodus took place. Many different cultures lived in Egypt and worked there. The Jews that were part of Moses band were all made up of tribes of Jews already living in Egypt. Now, the Egyptians did have slaves that were from conquering other places and those slaves were slaves and were treated as such. No different than how Moses treated everyone he conquered during his 40 years wandering the desert(if that story is even true). It is all how the spin is put on the tales in the Bible to justify the bad things. 

Moses wanted his people let go yet he enslaved others. A God was his justification on both ends.....according to the writers.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I wonder if slavery evolved? Not having studied this, what I am about to say and realizing that info exists that contridicts it, but wonder if it evolved from a way to pay off a debt in where you at some time were  paid up ... to the brutal oppression of owning a person????



If it evolved it evolved the other way from the brutal ownership into a way to pay a debt. They called them indentured servants.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

http://www.reformjudaism.org/were-jews-slaves-egypt

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world...laves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

In fact, because there is so little archeological evidence that any actual Exodus took place anywhere near the magnitude as claimed in the Bible, many scholars agree that the whole thing was made up in order to assert their distinctiveness.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Paul wrote the book of Philemon. Paul never met Jesus. Paul is keeping the message of Paul.
> 
> It was Paul’s Plea for Onesimus. Nothing to do with anything Jesus said.
> 
> Does it cancel out the OT verses and the verses in Timothy and Luke?



Let's re-read the book of Acts for that part in red. 

The exodus was a turning point in Egyptian history. no doubt about that.


----------



## TREY1984 (Aug 3, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Interesting to me was about 15 years ago I had noticed that in the location where I deer hunt that 3 family last names in the same tiny town were the same as three black familys. I asked my friend from one of the familys, What's up with that and he replied, "don't you know?". Know what, I replied. "That the slaves took the name of their owners". I did not know that




I'm a black guy with the last name of Durant... Mostly likely  somewhere 200 years ago my ancestors got that name from the slave master or every slave master they were sold to. So one slave that had good qualities probably had for than one last names because they was a bartering tool.
I know I wonder how where I come from or whats in my blood or the struggle that got me here.. Alot of black folk don't say anything or don't mention the family history because the white family up the road are related to them. Meaning the master had kids from the black females. I learn this because my wife that family is from Vildaila Ga. and has white relatives... If you wanna hear more stories let me know.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Let's re-read the book of Acts for that part in red.
> 
> The exodus was a turning point in Egyptian history. no doubt about that.



Paul never met Jesus

The Exodus occurred only in the Bible.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If it was then they sugar coated it to hide what it really was.
> The history of the Jews is that of one of war and violence. On their journey out of Egypt they were an army. History shows their rise to dominance in the region but the Bible spins it as a necessary journey commanded by God. the stories were written to justify the horrors and allow the leaders to control the masses. It is similar to the history of every single other culture, and is the history of mankind. From the time of the first cave men people have been killing other people and taking their possessions as spoils of war and those include other humans. Killing most of a tribe and taking their wives and daughters to rape and have serve you is not a way to pay off a debt. It is a way Nature lets the survival of the fittest happen. Lions, bears and many animals will conquer the leading male of another group, kill his offspring so that bloodline ends and take his women in order to breed with with to ensure the new bloodline survives. That is how interbreeding is kept in check. Humans do all that and have found a way to make survivors more useful by making them slaves to do what is needed.
> 
> History shows that many ancient cultures employed people. That was the case in Egypt at the time of Moses. They lived among the Egyptians as citizens and workers and were paid for their services. *Think about it, why did they have to put the lambs blood above their door ways if they all were slaves and lived in their own separate areas from the regular citizens? *A little bit of embellishment to sell the story perhaps? They lived among the other citizens. They worked for a living and got paid. That is how the pyramids got built, but the pyramids were built long before the story of the Exodus took place. Many different cultures lived in Egypt and worked there. The Jews that were part of Moses band were all made up of tribes of Jews already living in Egypt. Now, the Egyptians did have slaves that were from conquering other places and those slaves were slaves and were treated as such. No different than how Moses treated everyone he conquered during his 40 years wandering the desert(if that story is even true). It is all how the spin is put on the tales in the Bible to justify the bad things.
> ...


Hey, that's a good catch right there. Never thought about that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

TREY1984 said:


> I'm a black guy with the last name of Durant... Mostly likely  somewhere 200 years ago my ancestors got that name from the slave master or every slave master they were sold to. So one slave that had good qualities probably had for than one last names because they was a bartering tool.
> I know I wonder how where I come from or whats in my blood or the struggle that got me here.. Alot of black folk don't say anything or don't mention the family history because the white family up the road are related to them. Meaning the master had kids from the black females. I learn this because my wife that family is from Vildaila Ga. and has white relatives... If you wanna hear more stories let me know.


Nice to meet you trey. Any stories you have would be interesting.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

Has anyone ever heard a view about the civil war pertaining to the sell of cotton going through the north that was bypassed from the south, cutting out the norths profits so they therefore wanted to counter with the abolishment of slaves in an attempt to eliminate the souths workforce, making their cotton market die. Is that a theory or a movie or where did this idea come from? i had a friend who usually knows his stuff telling me this over lunch awhile back. Did not know if it was justified or not. I have never studied this topic. Up to you guys to inform me


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2013)

It's hard for me to believe slaves from any era were not the property of their owners. This doesn't mean they were all mistreated. Why would you want to hurt your workers to the point they couldn't work? 
They were considered property none the less and their owners could treat them as such.I wonder how Christians with Christian slaves justified that situation? Brothers in Christ. I've wondered that same thing when blacks were discriminated after slavery. How could one justify owning another man? I don't picture the Bible condoning slavery as much as living by the laws and customs of the time.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2013)

Trying to figure out how Paul's plea for Onesimus has to do with the discussion. Is it to show all slaves were considered brothers in Christ during Paul's era? I doubt they all were or Paul wouldn't be pleading so hard with Philemon. He wanted Philemon to go easy on him by letting his master know that Onesimus had become a brother in Christ. Paul also wanted Philemon to let Onesimus stay with him.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2013)

Nice reading of Paul's plea to a friend:
a. I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart: Onesimus had done something wrong in that he escaped from his master. It was time to set that right, so Paul was willing to send him back. Yet Paul obviously wanted Philemon to deal gently with Onesimus. Under Roman law the slave owner had complete and total control over his slave. It wasn’t unusual for slaves to be crucified for lesser offenses than escaping.

i. One ancient writer described how a slave was carrying a tray of crystal goblets, and he dropped and broke one. The master instantly demanded the slave be thrown into a fishpond full of lampreys that tore the slave to pieces. “Roman law . . . practically imposed no limits to the power of the master over his slave. The alternative of life or death rested solely with Philemon, and slaves were constantly crucified for far lighter offenses than this.” (Lightfoot)

ii. Considering the huge number of slaves in the Roman Empire, they thought the harsh punishment against escaped or rebellious slaves was necessary. In an Empire with as many as 60 million slaves, there were constant fears of a slave revolt. Therefore, laws against runaways were strict. When captured, a runaway slave might be crucified, or branded with a red-hot iron on the forehead with the letter “F” for fugitive.

iii. Considering this, we understand Paul’s phrase that is, my own heart. “Philemon, I know this man has done you wrong and deserves to be punished. But consider him as my own heart and be merciful to him.”

http://enduringword.com/commentaries/5701.htm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Has anyone ever heard a view about the civil war pertaining to the sell of cotton going through the north that was bypassed from the south, cutting out the norths profits so they therefore wanted to counter with the abolishment of slaves in an attempt to eliminate the souths workforce, making their cotton market die. Is that a theory or a movie or where did this idea come from? i had a friend who usually knows his stuff telling me this over lunch awhile back. Did not know if it was justified or not. I have never studied this topic. Up to you guys to inform me



I'm not a Civil War expert but i'm pretty sure it was based on many things including economic and social differences, states vs federal rights, and slavery.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Paul wrote the book of Philemon. Paul never met Jesus. Paul is keeping the message of Paul.



I don't get you.  You say you are a former Christian yet you make theses basic false statements regarding the content in the Bible.  I don't know if you never read it or you're just not being honest when you make such assertions.  It's a basic fact that Paul did meet Jesus.  

Acts 9:3
“3 As he traveled and was nearing Damascus, a light from heaven suddenly flashed around him. 4 Falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? ”
5 “Who are You, Lord? ” he said.
“I am Jesus, the One you are persecuting,” He replied."

So what gives?   Did you not know this?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Trying to figure out how Paul's plea for Onesimus has to do with the discussion.



Jeez.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Jeez.



Exodus 20:7

Seriously though what is your take on the story of Paul's plea to a friend and how it pertains to slavery? I think it is a wonderful story of love and forgiveness. It shows that every person on the Earth, even slaves, can become Christians. 
And in doing so we must forgive others ourselves.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Exodus 20:7







Artfuldodger said:


> Seriously though what is your take on the story of Paul's plea to a friend and how it pertains to slavery? I think it is a wonderful story of love and forgiveness. It shows that every person on the Earth, even slaves, can become Christians.
> And in doing so we must forgive others ourselves.



It's obvious Paul viewed slavery as wrong, but he also knew that the way you solve social ills is one person at a time through Christ.  Everything else is just palliative.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Paul never met Jesus
> 
> The Exodus occurred only in the Bible.



Still lost on the first one. 
Other than a few opinion pieces written by Jews who have a very liberalview, you have not given any evidence of either claim.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2013)

As to Paul’s practice, we should remember that the whole economy of the Mediterranean was built on slavery. Not even the all-powerful Roman Emperor could have dislodged it if he had wanted to do so. The Church was still struggling to survive. Surely it could not challenge slavery then. Further, the living conditions of slaves, except for those in the mines and agricultural capitalism as we said, were not bad. Many were house slaves. Their comfort was such that even when freed, it was not unusual for a slave to make a deal with the former master: I would like to keep on working for you, if you give me security. The reason was that in that economy, a free laborer had a hard time competing with real slave labor. He had no security at all. So the kind of deal we pictured was not unusual, not unreasonable. Further, St. Paul had strong in his mind the contrast between time and eternity: the things of this life are worth little compared to eternity. So in 1 Cor 7:18-24 he is developing the theme: No one needs to change the outward conditions of life when he becomes Christian. The second case he gives is this: “Were you called [into the Church] as a slave? Let it not concern you. But even if you are able to get free, rather use it.” Use what? In context it seems to mean use the chance for humility by staying as a slave. 

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0007.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2013)

Jeez: Short for Jesus. Used by Christians who don't want to "use the Lord's name in vain" even though it's just as bad.
euphemism for Jesus
First Known Use: 1923


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't get you.  You say you are a former Christian yet you make theses basic false statements regarding the content in the Bible.  I don't know if you never read it or you're just not being honest when you make such assertions.  It's a basic fact that Paul did meet Jesus.
> 
> Acts 9:3
> “3 As he traveled and was nearing Damascus, a light from heaven suddenly flashed around him. 4 Falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? ”
> ...



Listen SFD. I am well read on all of it and Paul writes that he met Jesus in Acts but he did not really meet Jesus. He had a hallucination where he nor none of the others around him on that road saw Jesus. Paul did not know Jesus before hand, he did not ever actually meet Jesus in the flesh. A bright light and heard a voice.....yeah they were good buds.
What gives is that I can read the Bible and tell what is total nonsense and you cannot.
Paul NEVER met Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Still lost on the first one.
> Other than a few opinion pieces written by Jews who have a very liberalview, you have not given any evidence of either claim.



I'll let you post links to all the artifacts that archeologists have found from the 40 years of around 3 million people  wandering the desert left behind.
Drum up all the evidence outside of the Bible that supports such a massive exodus.

No kidding your lost on the first one. Paul had a vision, a hallucination, a flat out fib, take your pick. He never knew Jesus or met him in the flesh. None of the people with Paul saw Jesus, according to the writings they were "blinded" by a light and Paul was the only one to hear Jesus speak to him.

You must be as delusional if you think Paul met Jesus. When you read Acts and when you get to the parts where Paul tells of his Journey to Damascus and if in your head you assign different voices for both Paul and Jesus then rejoice and tell the world that you have met both of them because that is about as close as Paul actually got to meeting Jesus. Isn't it odd how these miracles have stopped as mankind as advanced?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't get you.  You say you are a former Christian yet you make theses basic false statements regarding the content in the Bible.  I don't know if you never read it or you're just not being honest when you make such assertions.  It's a basic fact that Paul did meet Jesus.
> 
> Acts 9:3
> “3 As he traveled and was nearing Damascus, a light from heaven suddenly flashed around him. 4 Falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? ”
> ...



 I'll help you "get me" a little further. By now you should understand that I do not take the writings within the Bible as truthful.
When I was a Christian I fell for the nonsense written in the Bible lock, stock and barrel. As I slowly drifted away I was able to see the through the smoke screen for what these writings really were. 
Did Paul ever meet Jesus before Jesus was crucified?  NO
SFD, you say you are a Christian and read the Bible, yet you pick only one version of Paul's story to use as your evidence. I don't know if you have ever read the entire book of Acts or if you are just not being honest when you use one version of Paul's story. It is basic fact that Paul told three different versions of his story.

1. Acts (9:3-7)

[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.

[4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

[5] And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."

[7] The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

In this description, it is stated that only Paul fell to the ground. And, the other men who traveled with him did not see anything but heard a voice. Compare this to the next description:

2. Acts (22:6-9)

[6] "As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me.

[7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'

[8] And I answered, `Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, `I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.'

[9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

In this description, in complete contradiction to the one above, Paul states that those who traveled with him did not hear the voice but saw the light. The previous description said that they did not see anything but heard a voice!

3. Acts (26:14)

[14] And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.'

In this description, Paul says that they "all" fell to the ground whereas in the previous description, only Paul had fallen to the ground.

SFD, I believe Paul met Jesus about 1/1000th as much as I can honestly say that I have met you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'll help you "get me" a little further. By now you should understand that I do not take the writings within the Bible as truthful.
> When I was a Christian I fell for the nonsense written in the Bible lock, stock and barrel. As I slowly drifted away I was able to see the through the smoke screen for what these writings really were.
> Did Paul ever meet Jesus before Jesus was crucified?  NO
> SFD, you say you are a Christian and read the Bible, yet you pick only one version of Paul's story to use as your evidence. I don't know if you have ever read the entire book of Acts or if you are just not being honest when you use one version of Paul's story. It is basic fact that Paul told three different versions of his story.
> ...




You state Paul didn't meet Jesus then cite 3 instances in which he says he did.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2013)

I believe Paul's story. It shows that Jesus is different from God. He didn't hear or meet God but his son Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2013)

Interesting how Islam views slavery and our associated past with them on the slavery issue:

And the Quran explicitly and implicitly condones slavery in dozens of suras (chapters). Muhammad himself took numerous slaves, mostly women, as spoils of war. Some of the women Muhammad took for himself he called concubines, hardly a consolation to the helpless enslaved women.

Documents show that in the heyday of slavery, Muslims took just as many slaves from East Africa as did the Christians from West Africa.

Slavery is a matter of degrees. On one extreme is the absolute right of the owner to do whatever he wishes to the slave. This form of slavery is no longer prevalent. Yet disenfranchising people from any provisions of the Charter of Human Rights constitutes a form of enslavement.

Slavery seamlessly became a part of Islam, since it was widely practiced by the Arabs. Slavery is repeatedly approved in the Quran. The Old Testament also sanctioned slavery. Yet, Jewish and Christian societies have long banned slavery while the Muslims consider every verse and word of the Quran as those of Allah that can never be revised, discarded or violated. Therefore, with the resurgence of Islam, more and more Islamic laws and ethos, including slavery of various types and degrees, are implemented.

http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/48-imani/701-slavery-in-islam.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2013)

Was concubinage a form of slavery?
When slavery became institutionalized in the North American colonies, white men, whether or not they were married, sometimes took enslaved women as concubines. Marriage between the races was prohibited by law in the colonies and the later United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage#In_the_United_States

A concubine wasn’t quite a wife and she wasn’t quite a slave. Wives and slaves were both considered “property,” and so were concubines, but they were a slightly different kind of “property” than either wives or slaves.
And yet this practice, it turns out, is not all that distant from us historically. There do not seem to be any concubines or any system of concubinage in the New Testament, yet centuries later than that, here in America, the system was revived and it thrived for generations, once again enjoying legal and religious sanction just as it did in the time of Abraham and the time of David.

That’s an inconvenient bit of history. Concubinage is one of those things, like animal sacrifice or dietary laws, that modern Christians would prefer to dismiss with an inter-testamental hand-wave, mumbling something about “ceremonial law.” After all, Jesus and Paul and the other apostles never said anything to reaffirm the scriptural practice of keeping concubines. But American Christians did. And they did so as recently as the Buchanan Administration.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slackt...-inerrancy-slavery-and-a-great-deal-of-money/


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You state Paul didn't meet Jesus then cite 3 instances in which he says he did.




He can say whatever he wants. Your selective reading must have missed the details in my post....again.
And they back up why I think Paul, or Saul, is a liar.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> He can say whatever he wants. Your selective reading must have missed the details in my post....again.
> And they back up why I think Paul, or Saul, is a liar.



I'm still trying to figure out why you are trying to prove your point by citing a source you yourself have discredited.  Baffling   Why don't you just pick another contemporary source to refute Paul's account?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> You're right. Nobody whoever wrote a book in the Bible ever met Jesus  while was alive.



"Nobody whoever???"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> Nobody who ever...better to attack spelling and grammar and deal with the root of the subject.



Thank you for the clarification.  Now would you please explain your evidence behind this statement



> Nobody whoever wrote a book in the Bible ever met Jesus while was alive.



because I was under the impression that it is almost universally accepted among scholars and laymen alike that John was one of Jesus's apostles and James and Jude were his brothers.  Feel free to provide your scholarly resources you are sure to be inclined to cite.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why you are trying to prove your point by citing a source you yourself have discredited.  Baffling   Why don't you just pick another contemporary source to refute Paul's account?



I understand why you still trying to figure that out. You've got your religion goggles on with the darkest tint and you can't fathom anything else. Believe me I know what I am dealing with in here with you.
No need for a contemporary source. 
Paul saw a light and heard a voice that said it was Jesus. In your world it could have been Jesus or because you believe in spooky make believe it could have also been Satan playing a trick on him. But you believe everything you read in that book but are only willing to discuss in detail some of it and certainly cannot defend most of it.
In my world he made it up and told the story three different ways. In my world he would be discredited in any court room. 
I am citing the source so you know I know my Bible and am using that very source to discredit itself.
Paul never met Jesus. He heard a voice and saw a light. Heatstroke en rout to Damascus.
Paul didn't write this stuff like a diary as it happened. He penned this stuff later.

Old Testament full of writings by God speaking to and inspiring the writers.
New Testament starts with 4 Gospels written about Jesus by 4 people.  3 never knew him and are anonymous authors. The 4th, John (or Mark depending on the story but not the same Mark that gets credit for writing Mark that author is  anonymous...), is very different than the first 3 and also disputed.
Then we have Paul or Saul of Tarsus.
Supposedly traveled with John or Mark....Bible tells us all those names.... and Paul writes his own stuff. It is not inspired by God like in the OT and it is not the detailed life of Jesus like in the Gospels. Paul has his own thing going with a collection of letters he writes and tries to tie it all in with a hallucination or flat out lie, about seeing a light and hearing a voice (told three different ways) and claims it was Jesus.
There is much more detail about all of this written by scholars with much more talent a resources than I have. I know your a "google" machine so feel free to check into it at your leisure and maybe throw in a piece about it in your Sunday sermon. See if that gets the pews buzzing.

Color me not as easily convinced as you are SFD.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> He can say whatever he wants. Your selective reading must have missed the details in my post....again.
> And they back up why I think Paul, or Saul, is a liar.





bullethead said:


> I understand why you still trying to figure that out. You've got your religion goggles on with the darkest tint and you can't fathom anything else. Believe me I know what I am dealing with in here with you.
> No need for a contemporary source.
> Paul saw a light and heard a voice that said it was Jesus. In your world it could have been Jesus or because you believe in spooky make believe it could have also been Satan playing a trick on him. But you believe everything you read in that book but are only willing to discuss in detail some of it and certainly cannot defend most of it.
> In my world he made it up and told the story three different ways. In my world he would be discredited in any court room.
> ...




So let me get this straight.  You are using a questionable source(by your own admission), to disprove the same source.  Do you understand "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel" with regards to credulity?  I honestly cannot envision you offering any weaker argument?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 4, 2013)

Quick question, been wondering but did not feel like researching it. Does Paul himself speak of the event of being blinded when spoken to by Jesus or was this found only in Luke's writing. Hopeing since you guys are on the subject that you might know


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So let me get this straight.  You are using a questionable source(by your own admission), to disprove the same source.  Do you understand "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel" with regards to credulity?  I honestly cannot envision you offering any weaker argument?



I did nothing different than what an attorney would do. When the source will discredit itself, let it, and use it.

I understand the expression "trying to get 10lb of dung in a 5lb bag" or 66 books in a one book cover....same difference.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Quick question, been wondering but did not feel like researching it. Does Paul himself speak of the event of being blinded when spoken to by Jesus or was this found only in Luke's writing. Hopeing since you guys are on the subject that you might know



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dominic-crossan/paul-and-damascus_b_1348778.html


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

Some good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Quick question, been wondering but did not feel like researching it. Does Paul himself speak of the event of being blinded when spoken to by Jesus or was this found only in Luke's writing. Hopeing since you guys are on the subject that you might know



Since Luke seems to have been written well after Paul's death, some people say it was all Luke, some say it was Luke using Paul's writings, some say it was Luke trying to tie up some loose ends with Paul's writing and discussions with Paul to supplement or augment the story in later writings.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I understand the expression "trying to get 10lb of dung in a 5lb bag" or 66 books in a one book cover....same difference.




This is an example of what I don't get.  It's not enough for you to just not believe, but you go a step further by denigrating The Bible knowing full well how people revere it.  Why?  Why is it so personal to you that you feel the need to throw the insult.  

I think the only explanation to explain this personal animosity many if not most Atheist exhibit toward Christianity comes from resentment that is a result of constantly attempting to live out a life in direct opposition to their conscious.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 4, 2013)

A blinding light and voices?  Sounds like DMT to me.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is an example of what I don't get.  It's not enough for you to just not believe, but you go a step further by denigrating The Bible knowing full well how people revere it.  Why?  Why is it so personal to you that you feel the need to throw the insult.
> 
> I think the only explanation to explain this personal animosity many if not most Atheist exhibit toward Christianity comes from resentment that is a result of constantly attempting to live out a life in direct opposition to their conscious.



You make a good point concerning him and many others, but you've got to realize that's the reason they're here. 
Sorry.  As much as you might like to have a "break-through" moment, its surely not going to occur in the mist of the 'thinking' that goes on in the mind of many people.
It's the reason that everyone, a some point, must evaluate their own reasoning for posting.  
Why join the discussion?  Am I fooling myself?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is an example of what I don't get.  It's not enough for you to just not believe, but you go a step further by denigrating The Bible knowing full well how people revere it.  Why?  Why is it so personal to you that you feel the need to throw the insult.
> 
> I think the only explanation to explain this personal animosity many if not most Atheist exhibit toward Christianity comes from resentment that is a result of constantly attempting to live out a life in direct opposition to their conscious.



You started the whole thing with "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel". I just added my feelings(in keeping with relation to yours) to the mix. Don't get all bent out of shape about your book being insulted, you offer prayers for me all the time. Just like that is no foul you, this is no foul for me.

As far as your second thought,
You are off the deep end. With nothing to back such a nonsensical statement up.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> You make a good point concerning him and many others, but you've got to realize that's the reason they're here.
> Sorry.  As much as you might like to have a "break-through" moment, its surely not going to occur in the mist of the 'thinking' that goes on in the mind of many people.
> It's the reason that everyone, a some point, must evaluate their own reasoning for posting.
> Why join the discussion?  Am I fooling myself?



Certainly right RT. Thinking does not go well with religion. That is why I am here.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 4, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Quick question, been wondering but did not feel like researching it. Does Paul himself speak of the event of being blinded when spoken to by Jesus or was this found only in Luke's writing. Hopeing since you guys are on the subject that you might know



1 Corinthians 15 
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dominic-crossan/paul-and-damascus_b_1348778.html





ddd-shooter said:


> 1 Corinthians 15
> 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.


Thanks, I was lazy but you produced the answer


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> You make a good point concerning him and many others, but you've got to realize that's the reason they're here.
> Sorry.  As much as you might like to have a "break-through" moment, its surely not going to occur in the mist of the 'thinking' that goes on in the mind of many people.
> It's the reason that everyone, a some point, must evaluate their own reasoning for posting.
> Why join the discussion?  Am I fooling myself?



You're right.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dominic-crossan/paul-and-damascus_b_1348778.html


This link made mention of something overlooked that I have mentioned before. The Romans hated the Jews and would do anything to spite them. Especially in regards to their religious piety. There was no way that Rome gave Paul permission to go after those whom were believers of something contrary to the typical Judaism. Rome was not in the business of supporting Judaism


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You started the whole thing with "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel". I just added my feelings(in keeping with relation to yours) to the mix. Don't get all bent out of shape about your book being insulted, you offer prayers for me all the time. Just like that is no foul you, this is no foul for me.
> 
> As far as your second thought,
> You are off the deep end. With nothing to back such a nonsensical statement up.



Not bent out of shape at all brother.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 4, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Quick question, been wondering but did not feel like researching it. Does Paul himself speak of the event of being blinded when spoken to by Jesus or was this found only in Luke's writing. Hopeing since you guys are on the subject that you might know


Several things that Luke says about Paul have contridicted what Paul says about Paul.  And I have never saw Luke as a good source, so the reason I asked the question was to see if the story was validated by Paul. Seems so. Thanks for pointing it out


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Certainly right RT. Thinking does not go well with religion. That is why I am here.





SemperFiDawg said:


> You're right.




I don't know if I am or not.  Just thinking out loud.  But it is worth considering the point of carrying on a conversation with someone who considers our beliefs and motives to be asinine.

Vile people who take pride in insulting you and your God!  Who really believe they "win" by out crassing you!

These people are not who you and I believe they are.  Many of these discussions don't serve the purpose you and I wish/hope they would.
Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Aug 4, 2013)

I thought Peter was with Jesus the day he was crucified, and for years before hand... and I read a book or two that he wrote.  Gee, at least one person who saw Jesus alive wrote a book in the Bible.

There are lots of others, but you guys only believe what other atheist write, and none of them will say the Bible is true, so you accept that as truth.  

As time goes on, the Bible will be proven out as true.

One question... lots of times you guys throw out the flat earth theory as one of those gullible Christian concept.  How do you explain that David wrote thousands of years ago that the earth was a sphere and that it hangs on nothing?   No way he could have ever seen it from outer space to know that.

And No, I don't believe in any space alien showing him.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I thought Peter was with Jesus the day he was crucified, and for years before hand... and I read a book or two that he wrote.  Gee, at least one person who saw Jesus alive wrote a book in the Bible.
> 
> There are lots of others, but you guys only believe what other atheist write, and none of them will say the Bible is true, so you accept that as truth.
> 
> ...



You've had a couple thousands years to prove the Bible's truth, but ....any day now.

Peter's authorship is disputed.

Give us the verse from David.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> .....scholars and laymen alike that John was one of Jesus's apostles and James and Jude were his brothers.



That's what I've always heard and read.  John, in particular.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't know if I am or not.  Just thinking out loud.  But it is worth considering the point of carrying on a conversation with someone who considers our beliefs and motives to be asinine.
> 
> Vile people who take pride in insulting you and your God!  Who really believe they "win" by out crassing you!
> 
> ...



Now you know why it was nice to find a place that we could talk to each other and not really have to put up with the thumpers touting the same old assertions. In here there are a few true apologetics that offer great explanations without the blanket assertions as somehow being proof. Crassing is not intentional but happens when intelligent discussion is replaced by people who would much rather use terms and beliefs that they are used to using with like-minded believers, in an area where most of the posters do not use those terms, care about those terms, and flat out do not believe in any of the assertions without proof.
I gotta tell you, it is frustrating to have to constantly pretend that this stuff is real in order to converse with certain guys. They expect a code of conduct from us that they don't and cannot use themselves. They expect a respect that most do not give in return. Conversation can only go so far until it is a repetitive mess of unprovable assertions and unprovable claims.
Bottom line is if anyone wants to really have a conversation about God, first establish that there is a God. Then we can get into some serious discussion.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is an example of what I don't get.  It's not enough for you to just not believe, but you go a step further by denigrating The Bible knowing full well how people revere it.  Why?  Why is it so personal to you that you feel the need to throw the insult.
> 
> I think the only explanation to explain this personal animosity many if not most Atheist exhibit toward Christianity comes from resentment that is a result of constantly attempting to live out a life in direct opposition to their conscious.




Your _*kidding*_, right??!?!? Dude, there states Athiest CAN'T HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE.  (State laws trumped by federal legislation)  your crying about...._what exactly_? Athiest have been killed, blacklisted, mutilated and what's the worst an Athiest has done to _*you*_,_ wise cracks_? Batch a up in boot camp?  Man up.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> Your _*kidding*_, right??!?!? Dude, there states Athiest CAN'T HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE.  (State laws trumped by federal legislation)  your crying about...._what exactly_? Athiest have been killed, blacklisted, mutilated and what's the worst an Athiest has done to _*you*_,_ wise cracks_? Batch a up in boot camp?  Man up.



You missed the point entirely.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't know if I am or not.  Just thinking out loud.  But it is worth considering the point of carrying on a conversation with someone who considers our beliefs and motives to be asinine.
> 
> Vile people who take pride in insulting you and your God!  Who really believe they "win" by out crassing you!
> 
> ...




Vile people.........


vile  (vl)

1. Loathsome; disgusting: vile language.
2. Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather. See Synonyms at offensive.
3.
a. Contemptibly low in worth or account; second-rate.
b. Of mean or low condition.
4. Miserably poor and degrading; wretched: a vile existence.
5. Morally depraved; ignoble or wicked: a vile conspiracy.

Good example of that code of conduct I mentioned.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Now you know why it was nice to find a place that we could talk to each other and not really have to put up with the thumpers touting the same old assertions. In here there are a few true apologetics that offer great explanations without the blanket assertions as somehow being proof. Crassing is not intentional but happens when intelligent discussion is replaced by people who would much rather use terms and beliefs that they are used to using with like-minded believers, in an area where most of the posters do not use those terms, care about those terms, and flat out do not believe in any of the assertions without proof.
> I gotta tell you, it is frustrating to have to constantly pretend that this stuff is real in order to converse with certain guys. They expect a code of conduct from us that they don't and cannot use themselves. They expect a respect that most do not give in return. Conversation can only go so far until it is a repetitive mess of unprovable assertions and unprovable claims.
> Bottom line is if anyone wants to really have a conversation about God, first establish that there is a God. Then we can get into some serious discussion.



No, the bottom line is you are in active rebellion against God and it would not make one bit of difference if there were no apologist on this board or even one believer left alive on this planet, you would still be bitter because you still insist on denying what your conscious proclaims.  The only way for an atheist to be content is to find some way to kill or silence his conscious.  As long as its there, you have to deny its voice of truth.  Yelling louder only works until you are alone with your thoughts.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> All of what your saying is correct and well put, but what I am pondering is whether this was the original description of the word slavery as found in early OT?



It MAY not be... but now you're trying to justify what you read. It is the way it is in the bible for a reason. There's a plan behind the fact that it says word SLAVE and OWNING.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No, the bottom line is you are in active rebellion against God and it would not make one bit of difference if there were no apologist on this board or even one believer left alive on this planet, you would still be bitter because you still insist on denying what your conscious proclaims.  The only way for an atheist to be content is to find some way to kill or silence his conscious.  As long as its there, you have to deny its voice of truth.  Yelling louder only works until you are alone with your thoughts.



Coming from a guy that is in a constant state of denial, I have to not take your assessment seriously.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That's what I've always heard and read.  John, in particular.



Oh and Peter too.  Guess big red never heard of those guys.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't picture the Bible condoning slavery as much as living by the laws and customs of the time.



I agree with this.. Which means that morals are a result of society and people.. They don't come from any higher power.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Coming from a guy that is in a constant state of denial, I have to not take your assessment seriously.



Wrong camp brother.  Remember I'm down with the believers.  You're pitching for the Deniers.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> As to Paul’s practice, we should remember that the whole economy of the Mediterranean was built on slavery. Not even the all-powerful Roman Emperor could have dislodged it if he had wanted to do so. The Church was still struggling to survive. Surely it could not challenge slavery then. Further, the living conditions of slaves, except for those in the mines and agricultural capitalism as we said, were not bad. Many were house slaves. Their comfort was such that even when freed, it was not unusual for a slave to make a deal with the former master: I would like to keep on working for you, if you give me security. The reason was that in that economy, a free laborer had a hard time competing with real slave labor. He had no security at all. So the kind of deal we pictured was not unusual, not unreasonable. Further, St. Paul had strong in his mind the contrast between time and eternity: the things of this life are worth little compared to eternity. So in 1 Cor 7:18-24 he is developing the theme: No one needs to change the outward conditions of life when he becomes Christian. The second case he gives is this: “Were you called [into the Church] as a slave? Let it not concern you. But even if you are able to get free, rather use it.” Use what? In context it seems to mean use the chance for humility by staying as a slave.
> 
> http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0007.html



This is junk... If you keep a person in a basement without light or any access to the outside world for the first 20 years of their life, the outside world is going to scare them and they're probably going to prefer to be in the basement...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Wrong camp brother.  Remember I'm down with the believers.  You're pitching for the Deniers.



I'd believe that if you would not deflect and ignore the hard questions on there boards. You can't deal with them so you go into denial mode.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't get you.  You say you are a former Christian yet you make theses basic false statements regarding the content in the Bible.  I don't know if you never read it or you're just not being honest when you make such assertions.  It's a basic fact that Paul did meet Jesus.
> 
> Acts 9:3
> “3 As he traveled and was nearing Damascus, a light from heaven suddenly flashed around him. 4 Falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? ”
> ...



Who is the pastor you respect most in your life? Aside from yourself.. Now imagine him standing in the pulpit and saying that Jesus came to him like that.


"Basic fact"   Wow... should I post a link to the definition of the word fact?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why you are trying to prove your point by citing a source you yourself have discredited.  Baffling   Why don't you just pick another contemporary source to refute Paul's account?



We discredit the way that it is presented to the masses. Then way YOU present it. It tells a much different story than that.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Who is the pastor you respect most in your life? Aside from yourself.. Now imagine him standing in the pulpit and saying that Jesus came to him like that.
> 
> 
> "Basic fact"   Wow... should I post a link to the definition of the word fact?



"Basic Fact" means anything written in the Bible.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Who is the pastor you respect most in your life? Aside from yourself.. Now imagine him standing in the pulpit and saying that Jesus came to him like that.
> 
> 
> "Basic fact"   Wow... should I post a link to the definition of the word fact?





bullethead said:


> "Basic Fact" means anything written in the Bible.



According to what we know the bible says, it is a basic fact that Paul meet Jesus.

You guys makes an accusation about what the bible says, and then when you get a reasonable explanation of it, you always revert back to "the bible not even true!".

It's like someone saying "Santa Claus doesn't bring presents on Christmas" and then someone telling that person the folklore of Santa and the story goes that he indeed does bring presents to kids on Christmas. Then the person that made the original statement says "you're so stupid, Santa Claus isn't even real".

If you assume the bible in your accusation, you're going to get an answer that assumes the bible as well, but you guys always have an out.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No, the bottom line is you are in active rebellion against God and it would not make one bit of difference if there were no apologist on this board or even one believer left alive on this planet, you would still be bitter because you still insist on denying what your conscious proclaims.  The only way for an atheist to be content is to find some way to kill or silence his conscious.  As long as its there, you have to deny its voice of truth.  Yelling louder only works until you are alone with your thoughts.



Preach it!


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "Basic Fact" means anything written in the Bible.



Basic fact means anything, because truth is relative, remember?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You guys makes an accusation about what the bible says, and then when you get a reasonable explanation of it, you always revert back to "the bible not even true!".
> 
> It's like someone saying "Santa Claus doesn't bring presents on Christmas" and then someone telling that person the folk lore of Santa and the story goes that he indeed does bring presents to kids on Christmas. Then the person that made the original statement says "you're so stupid, Santa Claus isn't even real".



YES, YES string! I think you have finally got it!
There is no reasonable explanation of folklore.
No matter how much you try to use reasonable arguments as to whether or not Super Man is stronger than Mighty Mouse, from the beginning, through the entire discussion,and in the end they are both fictional things. No matter how much logic and reason you use, all you are doing is pretending those things are real in order to hold the conversation but no matter how well of a case you make in their favor, THEY ARE STILL MAKE BELIEVE.

Santa and Jesus after his death included.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Basic fact means anything, because truth is relative, remember?



Yes, obviously that works for believers too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The only way for an atheist to be content is to find some way to kill or silence his conscious.  As long as its there, you have to deny its voice of truth.


SFD, you are constantly demanding evidence and facts which is a good thing so people cant just throw out opinions and expect it to be taken as the truth. If you don't mind and are able to, please provide your evidence and facts for your above statements. Remember not opinion but evidence and facts same as you demand.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> YES, YES string! I think you have finally got it!
> There is no reasonable explanation of folklore.
> No matter how much you try to use reasonable arguments as to whether or not Super Man is stronger than Mighty Mouse, from the beginning, through the entire discussion,and in the end they are both fictional things. No matter how much logic and reason you use, all you are doing is pretending those things are real in order to hold the conversation but no matter how well of a case you make in their favor, THEY ARE STILL MAKE BELIEVE.
> 
> Santa and Jesus after his death included.



You have completely missed my point bullet. I wasn't, in any way, comparing Santa Claus to Jesus.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes


So then, Jesus did meet Paul. Discussion over.



> obviously that works for believers too.



I'm a believer and I don't think truth is relative.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD, you are constantly demanding evidence and facts which is a good thing so people cant just throw out opinions and expect it to be taken as the truth. If you don't mind and are able to, please provide your evidence and facts for your above statements. Remember not opinion but evidence and facts same as you require.



Walt1 don't even waste your time trying.

Opinions and assertions are all that he has got.  Opinions and assertions exist, Therefore God exists.....see how that works.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You have completely missed my point bullet. I wasn't, in any way, comparing Santa Claus to Jesus.



Good job


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Walt1 don't even waste your time trying.
> 
> Opinions and assertions are all that he has got.  Opinions and assertions exist, Therefore God exists.....see how that works.



SFD's opinions and assertions are true.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So then, Jesus did meet Paul. Discussion over.


Where exactly did you take my "Yes" from?

Luke wrote that Paul heard a voice and saw a light on a road to Damascus. 





stringmusic said:


> I'm a believer and I don't think truth is relative.


Well then your going to have to do better than believing a light and a voice in an ancient book.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> According to what we know the bible says, it is a basic fact that Paul meet Jesus.
> 
> You guys makes an accusation about what the bible says, and then when you get a reasonable explanation of it, you always revert back to "the bible not even true!".
> 
> ...



We are here to discuss the validity of the bible... You can't say it's valid because it says so... Do I need to post the meme? It fits this perfectly... the lady in the commercial sounded stupid, no?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> SFD's opinions and assertions are true.



That's all the evidence I need! string says it, so it shall be true.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 5, 2013)

Are there any other Biblical accounts of people seeing Jesus after he ascended to Heaven? Would that be considered his second Coming? 
Maybe Paul didn't meet Jesus physically but spiritually.

1 Timothy 6:15
who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> SFD's opinions and assertions are true.


Then he wont have any problem providing the facts (not opinion or assertion) to back up his statement, same as he demands, and I will have learned something. And since you confirm his statement was true you can throw in some facts too. I'll wait.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Where exactly did you take my "Yes" from?
> 
> Luke wrote that Paul heard a voice and saw a light on a road to Damascus.


I don't have to get a "Yes" from you, with truth being relative, it's true that Paul meet Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are there any other Biblical accounts of people seeing Jesus after he ascended to Heaven? Would that be considered his second Coming?
> Maybe Paul didn't meet Jesus physically but spiritually.
> 
> 1 Timothy 6:15
> who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.



Please tell me you are using more Bible verses as proof of Bible verses.....


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't have to get a "Yes" from you, with truth being relative, it's true that Paul meet Jesus.



You quoted a YES from me.
You just put one wherever you want in order to back up what you want said. A relative move my friend, kudos.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We are here to discuss the validity of the bible... You can't say it's valid because it says so...


Neither you nor bullet seem to understand what I'm trying to convey here, I don't know how to break it down any more. Read it again, and pay close attention to the last sentence.



stringmusic said:


> According to what we know the bible says, it is a basic fact that Paul meet Jesus.
> 
> You guys makes an accusation about what the bible says, and then when you get a reasonable explanation of it, you always revert back to "the bible not even true!".
> 
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That's all the evidence I need! string says it, so it shall be true.



Truth is relative remember, it's true for me, so it's true.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Neither you nor bullet seem to understand what I'm trying to convey here, I don't know how to break it down any more. Read it again, and pay close attention to the last sentence.



Gotta play in the land of make believe to discuss the make believe, but in the end it is still make believe. You and sfd are fine not coming out of that world when we ask for more than what your book can provide.
It's all relative.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Then he wont have any problem providing the facts (not opinion or assertion) to back up his statement, same as he demands, and I will have learned something. And since you confirm his statement was true you can throw in some facts too. I'll wait.



I going along with bullet here and saying that truth is relative to show the absurdity in that line of thinking.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Truth is relative remember, it's true for me, so it's true.



Yes. Now you have got it.
And then you will understand why it is not relative for me.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I going along with bullet here and saying that truth is relative to show the absurdity in that line of thinking.



So you would agree with something that you do not believe is true rather than give any sort of proof of what you say is true?
Only one reason for that. You can't help yourself out.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Gotta play in the land of make believe to discuss the make believe, but in the end it is still make believe. You and sfd are fine not coming out of that world when we ask for more than what your book can provide.
> It's all relative.



You were proven wrong in your assertion that Paul never meet Jesus, anytime something like that happens, all you guys ever do is revert back to the bible not being true.

It just gets a little old after a while. Y'all want to jump in with an accusation, but never do accept the explanations to those accusations. 

You can see how it seems like many of you nonbelievers don't come off a genuine in your questioning.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes. Now you have got it.
> And then you will understand why it is not relative for me.


What??

How can it not be relative to you?

Have you looked at the definition of relative truth lately?

If truth is relative for me, like you claim, it's relative for you too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I going along with bullet here and saying that truth is relative to show the absurdity in that line of thinking.


Please skip the re-direct. I was waiting for the facts you have that show what SFD said was true because you confirmed it was true.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So you would agree with something that you do not believe is true rather than give any sort of proof of what you say is true?
> Only one reason for that. You can't help yourself out.



I'm in here almost everyday giving my side of what I believe to be absolute truth.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Please skip the re-direct. I was waiting for the facts you have that show what SFD said was true because you confirmed it was true.


No "redirect". I was making a point to bullet.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Vile people who take pride in insulting you and your God!  Who really believe they "win" by out crassing you!



I am pretty sure "vile people" is an insult, however telling our understanding of religion, faith, the bible, the Quran, is only considered...by us...to the facts. The by product is that some of you consider that an insult. Kind of like the Islamic extremist do when a cartoon is drawn of their God. 

I think it is just another way to change the subject and make the opposing team appear to be the evil ones. 
We take no "pride" in stating facts as we know them. I can't speak for all atheist but, I just try to give more information. I figure no one has ever complained of knowing too much. Have as much information as possible before making a decision. Don't make a decision and then attack information that may make it appear you made a wrong one.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You were proven wrong in your assertion that Paul never meet Jesus, anytime something like that happens, all you guys ever do is revert back to the bible not being true.
> 
> It just gets a little old after a while. Y'all want to jump in with an accusation, but never do accept the explanations to those accusations.
> 
> You can see how it seems like many of you nonbelievers don't come off a genuine in your questioning.



I would only be wrong if I said no such story was ever written in the Bible. Which I did not.The story was written, but like in with many things in the Bible the facts just do not add up where any sort of truth can be had. I am disputing the accuracy of the story and with the research I have done(in a crazy place called Outside of the Bible) I have found that Paul did not meet Jesus.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No "redirect". I was making a point to bullet.


Ok I got it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What??
> 
> How can it not be relative to you?
> 
> ...



Relative truth is relative to the individual.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I would only be wrong if I said no such story was ever written in the Bible. Which I did not.The story was written, but like in with many things in the Bible the facts just do not add up where any sort of truth can be had. I am disputing the accuracy of the story and with the research I have done(in a crazy place called Outside of the Bible) I have found that Paul did not meet Jesus.



Where did you do this research? Have you read any other historical documents that show the Paul never meet Jesus?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't have to get a "Yes" from you, with truth being relative, it's true that Paul meet Jesus.



http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/did-paul-ever-meet-jesus/

Did Paul Ever Meet Jesus?
Q. We first wanted to thank you for your website on the Bible and Jesus Christ. We have a question about the Apostle Paul that we hoped you may be able to answer. I was at a Sunday school class and asked the question, did Paul ever meet Jesus?  The answer I got from the group was no.  On the road to Damascus Paul met Jesus after he had ascended into heaven. Was Jesus’s appearance physical or spiritual?  Please give us some insight.


A. _There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident.  And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time._But Paul did spend 3 years in Arabia where he received the Gospel from the Lord (Galatians 1:11-17). And he made a visit to the Throne of God (2 Cor. 12:1-4) where he saw things he was not allowed to talk about. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8, when Paul recounted all the Lord’s post resurrection appearances, he included himself as one who had seen Him.  So, at some point, he apparently did have a physical meeting with the Lord.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm in here almost everyday giving my side of what I believe to be absolute truth.



Turns out it is truth relative to you.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Relative truth is relative to the individual.


So something can be true for me and not for you?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/did-paul-ever-meet-jesus/
> 
> Did Paul Ever Meet Jesus?
> Q. We first wanted to thank you for your website on the Bible and Jesus Christ. We have a question about the Apostle Paul that we hoped you may be able to answer. I was at a Sunday school class and asked the question, did Paul ever meet Jesus?  The answer I got from the group was no.  On the road to Damascus Paul met Jesus after he had ascended into heaven. Was Jesus’s appearance physical or spiritual?  Please give us some insight.
> ...



So then, it's settled?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Where did you do this research? Have you read any other historical documents that show the Paul never meet Jesus?



If you bothered to read this entire thread I have posted a few links to the very things you are now asking me about. Either you did not read the thread. You read the thread but never bothered to read the links. You read the links but did not understand them or refuse to accept the answers. Or, you are just gonna ask the same questions to answers that were already given and pretend to go about as they were never addressed.... as usual.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So then, it's settled?



Sure. If you call a post resurrection meeting with the Lord the same as meeting Jesus the man...sure. Not like it is the biggest stretch in history. 

I have met folks recently that have "met the Lord". No reason to doubt them.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So something can be true for me and not for you?



You like hunting ducks.
I like hunting groundhogs.

Truth is we both like to hunt. It's the specifics is where we differ and there is no absolute in the specifics.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

Seems to me Paul let the cat out of the bag about something he wasn't allowed to talk about. I bet somebody was po'd about that


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD, you are constantly demanding evidence and facts which is a good thing so people cant just throw out opinions and expect it to be taken as the truth. If you don't mind and are able to, please provide your evidence and facts for your above statements. Remember not opinion but evidence and facts same as you demand.



No problem.  Open your eyes and look around.  Just visit Barnes and Noble and check out the Book titles from some of today's leading atheist thinkers.  What accounts for the vitriol there?  Check out the threads in other site forums dedicated solely to the atheist world view?  What accounts for the rabid hatred of Christianity there?  Check out the anger and bitterness in threads on this forum directed toward Christianity and the Bible.  What accounts for that?  If atheism can stand on its own two feet,  why the need to constantly denigrate opposing views?  Something makes it a very personal fight for the atheist, that goes beyond what one would expect from just difference of opinion regarding say what flavor of milkshake taste best.  The only thing I can envision to make one that bitter is having to live out a lie daily denying to yourself what is self evident.  You got a better explanation to explain the bitterness?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So then, it's settled?



Revelations of Jesus
Galatians 1:11-17
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a *revelation* of Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my [a]countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with *flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

Visions....
2 Corinthians 12:1-4
12 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations [a]of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.

And finally claims Jesus appeared to more than 500 but NOT Paul...
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For I delivered to you [a]as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as [c]to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.*


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No problem.  Open your eyes and look around.  Just visit Barnes and Noble and check out the Book titles from some of today's leading atheist thinkers.  What accounts for the vitriol there?  Check out the threads in other site forums dedicated solely to the atheist world view?  What accounts for the rabid hatred of Christianity there?  Check out the anger and bitterness in threads on this forum directed toward Christianity and the Bible.  What accounts for that?  If atheism can stand on its own two feet,  why the need to constantly denigrate opposing views?  Something makes it a very personal fight for the atheist, that goes beyond what one would expect from just difference of opinion regarding say what flavor of milkshake taste best.  The only thing I can envision to make one that bitter is having to live out a lie daily denying to yourself what is self evident.  You got a better explanation to explain the bitterness?



For me, I don't hate God( I don't believe in him so I cannot be bitter towards something I do not think exists), it is his cheerleaders that drive me to my opposing views.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are there any other Biblical accounts of people seeing Jesus after he ascended to Heaven? Would that be considered his second Coming?
> Maybe Paul didn't meet Jesus physically but spiritually.
> 
> 1 Timothy 6:15
> who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.



Are you sure you have the right verse??


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> For me, I don't hate God.....



*If* he exists, it is apparent you aren't real happy with him.  For instance, the existence of evil......


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The only thing I can envision to make one that bitter is having to live out a lie daily denying to yourself what is self evident.  You got a better explanation to explain the bitterness?



Typical. 
I am never bitter. When I eat at family reunions, I bow my head in respect during the prayer. I cover my heart and say God, when I do the Pledge of Allegiance. I never have complained about God on money or the fact that until recently, I couldn't buy a six pack on Sunday due to government mandated religion. I was happy living in the shadow of religion. 

Then, I find a forum where atheist and religious folks can discuss there differences and why one believes what,
and get called BITTER. I think if you scan this forum carefully, you will notice that most of the name calling/personal attacks has come from the religious side. And you wonder why we seem bitter. 
Any discussions that may shead a bad light on God, religion or the bible, is labeled from a bitter mind denegrating the religion for fun and pride. A vile people with no hope that kills humans at will because they are animals. All this happens in a forum for atheist and people that may disagree. Shocking. 
Really? Why are we bitter?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I was waiting for the facts you have that show what SFD said was true because you confirmed it was true.



An individual can confirm a truth if such truth is measured by an objective basis.  For instance, a believer taking a position using the Bible as his/her basis.  This foundation will be as secure to a believer as math is to a scientist (I know, difficult to comprehend, but "truth").

The only thing which might negate the truthfulness of the position is would be to invalidate the basis of the statement.  In this case, the value of the basis is assigned by the individual.  In such an event, SFD and String can claim an absolute because the have a common basis.  This basis can be universally applied if the absolute is.....absolute, which a believer will accept.  Obviously, a non-believer will not.

^^^Such position carries no value to those who do not accept the basis.  I say it all the time, and I think Bullet repeated it somewhere in here.....it makes no sense to debate about God unless everyone accepts the reality of God.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> I think if you scan this forum carefully, you will notice that most of the name calling/personal attacks has come from the religious side.



Yes, the believers can get a bit rude as well.  No denying that.  I think it goes both ways evenly in this forum.  You have to understand that an attack on God as a "magical mystery invisible friend" is personal to a believer.  Once that is understood, you can begin to see the back-and-forth from a believer's perspective.  We see that as an insult to something we hold very personal to us.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> *If* he exists, it is apparent you aren't real happy with him.  For instance, the existence of evil......



Now now now JB. If you want to go down the lists of all the Gods I can find a few things I'd like and a few things I do not like about any or all of them.
If you are just talking about about the God you worship, the God of the Bible, then yes you are correct in your assessment of me. I just cannot be happy with some of the claims made by that God, well the claims made by his creators, because that God never wrote a thing.
I think you are making the mistake of assuming that I think the God of the Bible is the only one deserving any acknowledgement.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Now now now JB. If you want to go down the lists of all the Gods I can find a few things I'd like and a few things I do not like about any or all of them.
> If you are just talking about about the God you worship, the God of the Bible, then yes you are correct in your assessment of me. I just cannot be happy with some of the claims made by that God, well the claims made by his creators, because that God never wrote a thing.
> I think you are making the mistake of assuming that I think the God of the Bible is the only one deserving any acknowledgement.



Let's assume any God.......is there evil in the world?  If yes, are you happy about it?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> Typical.
> I am never bitter. When I eat at family reunions, I bow my head in respect during the prayer. I cover my heart and say God, when I do the Pledge of Allegiance. I never have complained about God on money or the fact that until recently, I couldn't buy a six pack on Sunday due to government mandated religion. I was happy living in the shadow of religion.
> 
> Then, I find a forum where atheist and religious folks can discuss there differences and why one believes what,
> ...



Exactly, In every other aspect of daily life I am respectful of people's beliefs. In here it is my chance to say my true feelings and discuss things in ways that I cannot, or respectfully do not discuss elsewhere. This is the place to discuss the nitty-gritty and the believers don't like it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No problem.  Open your eyes and look around.  Just visit Barnes and Noble and check out the Book titles from some of today's leading atheist thinkers.  What accounts for the vitriol there?  Check out the threads in other site forums dedicated solely to the atheist world view?  What accounts for the rabid hatred of Christianity there?  Check out the anger and bitterness in threads on this forum directed toward Christianity and the Bible.  What accounts for that?  If atheism can stand on its own two feet,  why the need to constantly denigrate opposing views?  Something makes it a very personal fight for the atheist, that goes beyond what one would expect from just difference of opinion regarding say what flavor of milkshake taste best.  The only thing I can envision to make one that bitter is having to live out a lie daily denying to yourself what is self evident.  You got a better explanation to explain the bitterness?


You get that those are the key words right? They mean the same as "I think" and "In my opinion". I think and in my opinion if you would use those words at the beginning of your completely unprovable statements you wouldn't be viewed as such a hypocrite when you demand facts. As for going beyond what one would expect of just a difference of opinion, think back to some of your posts. You know the ones like atheists approving and condoning rape and murder etc. Remember those? We do. Kind of hateful, angry, bitter and denigrating words aren't they? Also I think and in my opinion, this isn't the forum for you. You take strongly defending a difference of opinion as hatred and causes you to meltdown and say ridiculous stuff. Most of the guys here enjoy the sparring as an intellectual thing but it causes you to blow your mind. That cant be good for your happiness. But hey what do I care you are just a dumb, ignorant, bassackwards Christian that I hate right?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> This is the place to discuss the nitty-gritty and the believers don't like it.





Seems like we hang around a good bit for folks who aren't happy with the way things happen.  I enjoy these conversations....they allow me to have a "logical workout" which is generally uncool in daily conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Let's assume any God.......is there evil in the world?  If yes, are you happy about it?



Correct. I am not happy about any one that claims their God that is all powerful, all knowing, is compassionate and loving and looking our for our best interests and lets evil rule.
All I can really focus on is the claims of believers because I have never had a talk with any God.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Correct. I am not happy about any one that claims their God that is all powerful, all knowing, is compassionate and loving and looking our for our best interests and lets evil rule.



Ok, then, the point remains.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Seems like we hang around a good bit for folks who aren't happy with the way things happen.  I enjoy these conversations....they allow me to have a "logical workout" which is generally uncool in daily conversation.



I apologize for lumping believers into one category. I have said it previously that there are a few in here that are able to go above and beyond the usual Bible banter in order to discuss and explain things in ways that make discussion interesting and worthy.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I apologize for lumping believers into one category. I have said it previously that there are a few in here that are able to go above and beyond the usual Bible banter in order to discuss and explain things in ways that make discussion interesting and worthy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> An individual can confirm a truth if such truth is measured by an objective basis.  For instance, a believer taking a position using the Bible as his/her basis.  This foundation will be as secure to a believer as math is to a scientist (I know, difficult to comprehend, but "truth").
> 
> The only thing which might negate the truthfulness of the position is would be to invalidate the basis of the statement.  In this case, the value of the basis is assigned by the individual.  In such an event, SFD and String can claim an absolute because the have a common basis.  This basis can be universally applied if the absolute is.....absolute, which a believer will accept.  Obviously, a non-believer will not.
> 
> ^^^Such position carries no value to those who do not accept the basis.  I say it all the time, and I think Bullet repeated it somewhere in here.....it makes no sense to debate about God unless everyone accepts the reality of God.


I think maybe you missed what I was responding to JB. It was the below statement by SFD -If that's what you were talking about, I'm missing how your post correlates to that? But I was never good at math or science so maybe Im just not getting it 
I think regardless of what you believe its a statement that is only an opinion and not fact because it presented as a fact of how an atheist thinks. So I was looking for some facts to back it up from a poster who demands others to back up their posts with facts.
Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg View Post 
The only way for an atheist to be content is to find some way to kill or silence his conscious. As long as its there, you have to deny its voice of truth.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I think maybe you missed what I was responding to JB. It was the below statement by SFD -If that's what you were talking about, I'm missing how your post correlates to that? But I was never good at math or science so maybe Im just not getting it
> I think regardless of what you believe its a statement that is only an opinion and not fact because it presented as a fact of how an atheist thinks. So I was looking for some facts to back it up from a poster who demands others to back up their posts with facts.
> Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg View Post
> The only way for an atheist to be content is to find some way to kill or silence his conscious. As long as its there, you have to deny its voice of truth.




I didn't follow the conversation completely, and just jumped in the middle of it....apologies for that.

I was only stating that String can claim SFD's comments to be truth if they assign equal value to their basis for "truth."  And that such a claim is worthless to a person who does not accept the basis.

Kind-a like "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" bumper stickers.  You probably think they are ridiculous, but they make perfect sense to the person who slaps it on his car.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I would only be wrong if I said no such story was ever written in the Bible. Which I did not.The story was written, but like in with many things in the Bible the facts just do not add up where any sort of truth can be had. I am disputing the accuracy of the story and with the research I have done(in a crazy place called Outside of the Bible) I have found that Paul did not meet Jesus.



We're using the accuracy of the story based on the story itself. He just pointed out inconsistencies in the same story, told by the same person. Those inconsistencies point to an incredible writer.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Are you sure you have the right verse??



Missed it by one, it's 1 Timothy 6:16.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I didn't follow the conversation completely, and just jumped in the middle of it....apologies for that.
> 
> I was only stating that String can claim SFD's comments to be truth if they assign equal value to their basis for "truth."  And that such a claim is worthless to a person who does not accept the basis.
> 
> Kind-a like "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" bumper stickers.  You probably think they are ridiculous, but they make perfect sense to the person who slaps it on his car.


No apologies necessary. And I follow you but I think the definition of truth is being twisted to suit the circumstance.
1+1=2 = truth
Humans need food and water to survive = truth
Atheists can only be content if they kill or silence their conscience = No matter what your base is, how much you think it, how much you want it to be true, no matter if your buddy agrees with you, no matter how much it makes sense to you, its not the "truth" unless it can be proven over and over across the board. Until that point its an opinion.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No apologies necessary. And I follow you but I think the definition of truth is being twisted to suit the circumstance.
> 1+1=2 = truth
> Humans need food and water to survive = truth
> Atheists can only be content if they kill or silence their conscience = No matter what your base is, how much you think it, how much you want it to be true, no matter if your buddy agrees with you, no matter how much it makes sense to you, its not the "truth" unless it can be proven over and over across the board. Until that point its an opinion.



I follow you, and can agree to a certain extent (I don't agree with the claim in red ).

However, whether or not it can be proven across the board can't be the standard.  The Earth revolved around the sun for billions of years before it could be proven scientifically, but that did not alter the reality of the situation.  How much exists, or is real, that can't be proven based on limitations?  We can't know until the limitations are removed.

As a believer, I will take that one step further and claim that God can be a reality whether or not I can prove it 100%.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I follow you, and can agree to a certain extent (I don't agree with the claim in red ).
> 
> However, whether or not it can be proven across the board can't be the standard.  The Earth revolved around the sun for billions of years before it could be proven scientifically, but that did not alter the reality of the situation.  How much exists, or is real, that can't be proven based on limitations?  We can't know until the limitations are removed.
> 
> As a believer, I will take that one step further and claim that God can be a reality whether or not I can prove it 100%.


The claim in red was made by your fellow believer my friend and stated it as fact   And that's what I was asking for the facts for.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> The claim in red was made by your fellow believer my friend and stated it as fact   And that's what I was asking for the facts for.





That's why I apologized up front for not following along


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That's why I apologized up front for not following along


By the way I agree with the rest of what you said concerning a persons view of reality and things can still be true although not proven. Although we didn't know they were true until it was proven. And that's basically why you will not see a single post, not one, where I have come out and said Christians are wrong and there is no God. Because I cant prove it although I see far, far, far more evidence for it being not true than true. I think that makes me Agnostic and not an Atheist contrary to popular belief. Not that I really care what group I supposedly fit in to.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> For me, I don't hate God( I don't believe in him so I cannot be bitter towards something I do not think exists), it is his cheerleaders that drive me to my opposing views.



That's a cheap out to justify your actions and it doesn't fit the context.  You denigrate the Bible which by your fore stated comments is just a book of fairy tales and dung.  Yet if you truly felt about God as you state the Bible would be nothing more than an inanimate object no different than a stick or blank piece of paper.  Do you really expect us to buy you have the same resentment toward a stick as you do toward the bible?  Like I said, your resentment goes deeper than what your world view should dictate, and you are not being honest about it, You don't want to be forced to give an honest reasonable defense of your actions, because it would involve admitting you are in conflict with your conscious.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's a cheap out to justify your actions and it doesn't fit the context.  You denigrate the Bible which by your fore stated comments is just a book of fairy tales and dung.  Yet if you truly felt about God as you state the Bible would be nothing more than an inanimate object no different than a stick or blank piece of paper.  Do you really expect us to buy you have the same resentment toward a stick as you do toward the bible?  Like I said, your resentment goes deeper than what your world view should dictate, and you are not being honest about it, You don't want to be forced to give an honest reasonable defense of your actions, because it would involve admitting you are in conflict with your conscious.



I think you've got him pegged.  There's a Pastor of a Mega Church inside of Bullethead just waiting to bust out.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's a cheap out to justify your actions and it doesn't fit the context.  You denigrate the Bible which by your fore stated comments is just a book of fairy tales and dung.  Yet if you truly felt about God as you state the Bible would be nothing more than an inanimate object no different than a stick or blank piece of paper.  Do you really expect us to buy you have the same resentment toward a stick as you do toward the bible?  Like I said, your resentment goes deeper than what your world view should dictate, and you are not being honest about it, You don't want to be forced to give an honest reasonable defense of your actions, because it would involve admitting you are in conflict with your conscious.


Im not speaking for Bullet but I personally have to ask - you really don't see the hole big enough to drive an ark through in your argument?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I think you've got him pegged.  There's a Pastor of a Mega Church inside of Bullethead just waiting to bust out.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's a cheap out to justify your actions and it doesn't fit the context.  You denigrate the Bible which by your fore stated comments is just a book of fairy tales and dung.  Yet if you truly felt about God as you state the Bible would be nothing more than an inanimate object no different than a stick or blank piece of paper.  Do you really expect us to buy you have the same resentment toward a stick as you do toward the bible?  Like I said, your resentment goes deeper than what your world view should dictate, and you are not being honest about it, You don't want to be forced to give an honest reasonable defense of your actions, because it would involve admitting you are in conflict with your conscious.



If it's resentment then it's for people like you... actually... Who preach it (not just preachers) and are the worse hypocrites of all.. So we can't think of the bible like we think of a stick... because sticks don't cause people like you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I think you've got him pegged.  There's a Pastor of a Mega Church inside of Bullethead just waiting to bust out.



SFD would probably say that a pastor of a mega church is just as bad as bullet anyway...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If it's resentment then it's for people like you... actually... Who preach it (not just preachers) and are the worse hypocrites of all.. So we can't think of the bible like we think of a stick... because sticks don't cause people like you.



So what do you resent, and how am I and other people who preach the Gospel hypocrites?


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Thank you for the clarithetion.  Now would you please explain your evidence behind this statement
> 
> 
> 
> because I was under the impression that it is almost universally accepted among scholars and laymen alike that John was one of Jesus's apostles and James and Jude were his brothers.  Feel free to provide your scholarly resources you are sure to be inclined to cite.




I think your correct. I misspoke. I was thinking of  the writings of his death. That no eye witnesses wrote.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So what do you resent, and how am I and other people who preach the Gospel hypocrites?



Your contributions to the meme thread show your hypocrisy pretty well.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's a cheap out to justify your actions and it doesn't fit the context.  You denigrate the Bible which by your fore stated comments is just a book of fairy tales and dung.  Yet if you truly felt about God as you state the Bible would be nothing more than an inanimate object no different than a stick or blank piece of paper.  Do you really expect us to buy you have the same resentment toward a stick as you do toward the bible?  Like I said, your resentment goes deeper than what your world view should dictate, and you are not being honest about it, You don't want to be forced to give an honest reasonable defense of your actions, because it would involve admitting you are in conflict with your conscious.



Those are your standards and opinions SFD.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If it's resentment then it's for people like you... actually... Who preach it (not just preachers) and are the worse hypocrites of all.. So we can't think of the bible like we think of a stick... because sticks don't cause people like you.



Spot on


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So what do you resent, and how am I and other people who preach the Gospel hypocrites?[/QUOTE
> I know this question wasn't directed at me but I would like to jump in with a point if I could. I just want to point out I don't think any of us view everybody who believes as hypocrites. Have you ever noticed the respect that JB gets in here?. He is absolutely a believer and doesn't stray from his position one inch. Yet he has most or all of our respect and for good reasons.
> For me personally, another believer that I respect and don't think is a hypocrite is Formula1. He is a perfect example of not only talking the talk but walking the walk. He conveys his faith in such a positive manner that you almost forget that you don't believe and jump on his bandwagon. If you don't know him you should introduce yourself. But if you tell him I sent you he isn't going to have any clue who I am.
> Then there are some that I don't really think of as hypocritical but just darn annoying
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I know this question wasn't directed at me but I would like to jump in with a point if I could. I just want to point out I don't think any of us view everybody who believes as hypocrites. Have you ever noticed the respect that JB gets in here?. He is absolutely a believer and doesn't stray from his position one inch. Yet he has most or all of our respect and for good reasons.
> For me personally, another believer that I respect and don't think is a hypocrite is Formula1. He is a perfect example of not only talking the talk but walking the walk. He conveys his faith in such a positive manner that you almost forget that you don't believe and jump on his bandwagon. If you don't know him you should introduce yourself. But if you tell him I sent you he isn't going to have any clue who I am.
> Then there are some that I don't really think of as hypocritical but just darn annoying
> And there are some  in here that if you look up the definition of hypocrite in the dictionary, its got their picture posted.
> ...





And, I appreciate it.....good to know that F1 gets noticed too.  I don't know him, in fact, he and I differ a good bit on our approach to faith, but the man seems very sincere.  I always like when he comments on my threads.  

What I have noticed about this forum is that folks come in "guns-a-blazin" from both sides, then, they usually figure out not many folks change their mind, and, the guys on the other side seem pretty decent.  That's when the good discussions start.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Do me a favor and check out who lead most of the civil rights movements.
> Christians.
> Wilberforce, MLK Jr, Finney, Stowe, Wesley, etc...
> 
> I will admit some have argued for slavery with the Bible, but I argue the "true" interpretations of the meaning of scripture has won out.



I don't think this was ever brought up, but where exactly does the idea that all men are created equal and have equal worth come from?
Answer: Christianity
So it's impossible to espouse all the wrongs done by Christians in the name of slavery without acknowledging that they were NOT in keeping with the tenets of Christianity.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think this was ever brought up, but where exactly does the idea that all men are created equal and have equal worth come from?
> Answer: Christianity
> So it's impossible to espouse all the wrongs done by Christians in the name of slavery without acknowledging that they were NOT in keeping with the tenets of Christianity.



I thought we were endowed by our government with inalienable rights?You saying they come from God? 
What kind of moron believes that?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I thought we were endowed by our government with inalienable rights?You saying they come from God?
> What kind of moron believes that?



A superstitious, fearful, indoctrinated one.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think this was ever brought up, but where exactly does the idea that all men are created equal and have equal worth come from?
> Answer: Christianity
> So it's impossible to espouse all the wrongs done by Christians in the name of slavery without acknowledging that they were NOT in keeping with the tenets of Christianity.



We will wait patiently for you to back up your answer of Christianity.
But since you and the Christians are all about everyone being equal and having equal worth (or is it just all men), you have me confused about your stance on homosexuality.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I thought we were endowed by our government with inalienable rights?You saying they come from God?
> What kind of moron believes that?



Just the guys that signed the Declaration of Independence and several billion more.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We will wait patiently for you to back up your answer of Christianity.
> But since you and the Christians are all about everyone being equal and having equal worth (or is it just all men), you have me confused about your stance on homosexuality.



Dun Dunit.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> A superstitious, fearful, indoctrinated one.



'Mock them.  Ridicule them with contempt.'
Dawkins to atheist.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Dun Dunit.



please copy and paste for me or give me the post #.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 'Mock them.  Ridicule them with contempt.'
> Dawkins to atheist.



_1. Superstition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Superstition (disambiguation).
[show]Part of a series of articles on the paranormal
Clay hamsa on a wall, believed to protect the inhabitants of the house from harm

Superstition is a pejorative term for belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any natural process linking the two events, such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, etc., that contradicts natural science.[1]

Opposition to superstition was a central concern of the intellectuals during the 18th century Age of Enlightenment. The philosophes at that time ridiculed any belief in miracles, revelation, magic, or the supernatural, as "superstition," and typically included as well much of Christian doctrine.[2]

The word superstition is often used pejoratively to refer to religious practices (e.g., Voodoo) other than the one prevailing in a given society (e.g., Christianity in western culture), although the prevailing religion may contain just as many superstitious beliefs.[1] It is also commonly applied to beliefs and practices surrounding luck, prophecy and spiritual beings, particularly the belief that future events can be foretold by specific unrelated prior events.[3]


2.  Proverbs 9:10 New International Version:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

3.  Indoctrination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.
Contents

Religious indoctrination

Religious indoctrination, the original sense of indoctrination, refers to a process of imparting doctrine in an authoritative way, as in catechism. Most religious groups among the revealed religions instruct new members in the principles of the religion; this is now not usually referred to as indoctrination by the religions themselves, in part because of the negative connotations the word has acquired. Mystery religions require a period of indoctrination before granting access to esoteric knowledge. (cf. Information security)

As a pejorative term, indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] believe that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism, temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5]_




Would I lie to you? Would it surprise you that I've read very little of Dawkins?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> I think your correct. I misspoke. I was thinking of  the writings of his death. That no eye witnesses wrote.



John was an eye witness to that also.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> please copy and paste for me or give me the post #.



http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=764218&page=2

#80


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=764218&page=2
> 
> #80



And that shows that all men are created equal and have equal worth?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And that shows that all men are created equal and have equal worth?



Hermaphrodites are doubly blessed. They can choose a male or female partner without compromise. Either that or they must remain celibate to prevent sinning.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And that shows that all men are created equal and have equal worth?



If humans are created in the image of God we ALL have infinite sanctity and dignity.  Atheist can't and don't make such claims.  Do you ever ponder why exactly that is?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If humans are created in the image of God we ALL have infinite sanctity and dignity.  Atheist can't and don't make such claims.  Do you ever ponder why exactly that is?



What if God is a jerk (as it turns out many of the gods, yours included are)?  Created in the image of a jerk.   

I have to say, I have a better sense of morality than most of the popular gods, your included.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> What if God is a jerk.....Created in the image of a jerk.



Then the creating God would be God.  The next in line would be just a creation, like myself, and not God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> What if God is a jerk (as it turns out many of the gods, yours included are)?  Created in the image of a jerk.
> 
> I have to say, I have a better sense of morality than most of the popular gods, your included.



Ambush I'm done replying to you.  You offer nothing in the way of dialogue, much less intelligent dialogue.  It's  just continual denigration from start to finish with you, and I'm not going to belittle myself by being part of it much less offer you an excuse to spew your miasmic screed.  Simple as that.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> What if God is a jerk (as it turns out many of the gods, yours included are)?  Created in the image of a jerk.
> 
> I have to say, I have a better sense of morality than most of the popular gods, your included.



"There is no objective moral standard, but I can say my morals are better than yours." Absolutely ludicrous. 
Better by who's standard? Are you saying there is a standard by which we can judge morals? 
Wow I guess you do believe there is an objective, absolute truth to the universe and you conveniently happen to be on the correct side of it.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> "There is no objective moral standard, but I can say my morals are better than yours." Absolutely ludicrous.
> Better by who's standard? Are you saying there is a standard by which we can judge morals?
> Wow I guess you do believe there is an objective, absolute truth to the universe and you conveniently happen to be on the correct side of it.



That's you, sir, and you get it from a book with talking donkeys.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:
			
		

> I have to say, I have a better sense of morality than most of the popular gods, your included.





ddd-shooter said:


> Wow I guess you do believe there is an objective, absolute truth to the universe.





			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> That's you, sir,





I absolutely believe you can be a moral person, but I have difficulty understanding how you are judging another's morality without believing you understand it universally.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I absolutely believe you can be a moral person, but I have difficulty understanding how you are judging another's morality without believing you understand it universally.




I'm judging the merits of where he gets his from.  Some of his overlap mine but not when it comes to tying up your son for sacrifice.  

I've got this here noggin and all the trial and error of those that went before me, including those that wrote all those 'guide books'.  

Are we not on that raft together?  Stop bowing down and row.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I absolutely believe you can be a moral person, but I have difficulty understanding how you are judging another's morality without believing you understand it universally.





ambush80 said:


> I'm judging the merits of where he gets his from.  Some of his overlap mine but not when it comes to tying up your son for sacrifice.



I thought you were gonna say "talking donkey"


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I thought you were gonna say "talking donkey"



It's almost too silly to type.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Are we not on that raft together?  Stop bowing down and row.



Yes, and I am rowing, you and I just paddle in different directions from time to time.  Makes for an interesting ride.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I'm judging the merits of where he gets his from.  Some of his overlap mine but not when it comes to tying up your son for sacrifice.



So, you can be the judge of good?  How is that different than a Christian making such a claim?  Let's drop the child sacrifice and use another example.....pork.  And another religion.....Judaism, just so we can debate this outside the realm of emotions.

They say it's bad to eat pork and they are more moral than you are because pork is inherently unhealthy.  Are you immoral?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> It's almost too silly to type.



Really?!?, I'd wager those letters are just about worn down on your keyboard.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If humans are created in the image of God we ALL have infinite sanctity and dignity.  Atheist can't and don't make such claims.  Do you ever ponder why exactly that is?



Is it possible God is gay? Bi-sexual? Asexual? If humans are created in his image and homosexuals are human then they are also created in his image. He made them that way. And are equal. There must be many faces of God giving the diversity of humans in this world.
I am picturing a Freddie Mercury type in a fish net sleeveless shirt and butt-less chaps instead of a white robe.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Hermaphrodites are doubly blessed. They can choose a male or female partner without compromise. Either that or they must remain celibate to prevent sinning.



Made in God's image right?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I absolutely believe you can be a moral person, but I have difficulty understanding how you are judging another's morality without believing you understand it universally.



Isn't that what we are all doing?
Who here knows what every absolute moral is and understands it?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, and I am rowing, you and I just paddle in different directions from time to time.  Makes for an interesting ride.




I know!  I'm trying to get direction from a compass and you would listen to god, even if he contradicted the compass.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I know!  I'm trying to get direction from a compass and you would listen to god, even if he contradicted the compass.



Yes....and oh the possibilities when you throw a God in the mix


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes....and oh the possibilities when you throw a God in the mix



He may have you tie me up....


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Isn't that what we are all doing?
> Who here knows what every absolute moral is and understands it?



My point was that I find it difficult to comprehend how a person can say a universal standard doesn't exist, but one standard is universally better than the other.

I try to avoid these morality discussions for a reason.  I just saw a small hole in an argument, that's all.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Is it possible God is gay? Bi-sexual? Asexual? If humans are created in his image and homosexuals are human then they are also created in his image. He made them that way. And are equal. There must be many faces of God giving the diversity of humans in this world.
> I am picturing a Freddie Mercury type in a fish net sleeveless shirt and butt-less chaps instead of a white robe.



It's all relative to you so I would expect you to gravitate to what ever you find attractive.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> He may have you tie me up....





....I was thinking something a little more positive.....like the raft ending up in heaven or something


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's all relative to you so I would expect you to gravitate to what ever you find attractive.



You just cannot answer the hard questions with the answer you want to because it goes directly against the examples you give.
You can dodge and deflect all you want but we know the game.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....I was thinking something a little more positive.....like the raft ending up in heaven or something




  Can you see the problems that would happen on that raft if you said "We should do this because god told me."?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Can you see the problems that would happen on that raft if you said "We should do this because god told me."?



Only if you couldn't see the talking donkey that told me so.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Only if you couldn't see the talking donkey that told me so.



Imagine if I told you "MY god (or talking donkey, or burning bush, whatever...) said we should do this!".

That's what's going on in the world.  If you want Universal Morality you have to look at what we all have in common; what we all have equal access to.   That's our reason and logic.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Is it possible God is gay? Bi-sexual? Asexual? If humans are created in his image and homosexuals are human then they are also created in his image. He made them that way. And are equal. There must be many faces of God giving the diversity of humans in this world.
> I am picturing a Freddie Mercury type in a fish net sleeveless shirt and butt-less chaps instead of a white robe.



For someone to have read "his book" through and through, you sure make some asinine claims. 
God is a creator. We can play a small part in that through procreation. 
He also implicitly denies such lifestyles throughout.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Imagine if I told you "MY god (or talking donkey, or burning bush, whatever...) said we should do this!".



Good point. We'd probably have to start throwing water on a paddle and see who's burned first, that God would be the winner ('nuther "out there" Bible reference for fun).



ambush80 said:


> That's what's going on in the world.  If you want Universal Morality you have to look at what we all have in common; what we all have equal access to.   That's our reason and logic.



Are you arguing for universal morality now?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> For someone to have read "his book" through and through, you sure make some asinine claims.
> God is a creator. We can play a small part in that through procreation.
> He also implicitly denies such lifestyles throughout.



Sure he does


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> For someone to have read "his book" through and through, you sure make some asinine claims.
> God is a creator. We can play a small part in that through procreation.
> He also implicitly denies such lifestyles throughout.




I just do not happen to take much of what is in the Bible as anything more than the work of men. I think the men who wrote those writings denied such lifestyles. They used God as their voice, not the other way around.


----------

