Science and schizophrenia

Originally posted by no1marauder
KM: St Paul had the complete picture.

More so then Jesus according to the Fundies here.

No , he was given the picture by Jesus.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you ever take a look at yourself? Here you've hi-jacked this thread in order to start a libelous attack. I mean, can you possibly be further off-topic? The way you twist the positions of others in an attempt to prop up your ego is pathetic. For one who professes to worship the God of Truth, you have little regard for it.

I admit things have gone off the subject. What I noticed was that you hadn't been around for some time. The first post I see you make in some time and what it is about it? You are addressing a christian regarding so called contradictions within Christianity. Of all the posts you could make you choose to attack Christ's church once again (rather than reveal you own position)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
When someone takes to attacking another by spreading lies the loving thing to do is to rebuke him.

Of course there is nothing loving about attacking another by spreading lies.

God is truth. The truth will make you free.

"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free"
"They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondag ...[text shortened]... the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever." (John 8:32-35).

The same old quotes again taken out of context from the whole of Jesus's ministry. Your beliefs about Jesus are out of kilter and do not support a Gospel of grace , faith or unconditional acceptance. Your interpretation of Christ denies the saving power of his blood , the significance of the new covenant and the meaning of the last supper.

This is why it needs to be challenged strongly and robustly.

You quote Jesus but you do not say if you ever fall into sin from time to time. The implications of your beliefs are that unless you have overcome sin 100% yourself then you are not saved. Are you asking others to abide by something that you don't live by yourself?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you ever take a look at yourself? Here you've hi-jacked this thread in order to start a libelous attack. I mean, can you possibly be further off-topic? The way you twist the positions of others in an attempt to prop up your ego is pathetic. For one who professes to worship the God of Truth, you have little regard for it.

Here you've hi-jacked this thread in order to start a libelous attack. I mean, can you possibly be further off-topic?---tof one---


Look back at the thread , it was going in a very ambiguous direction. If anything your post was looking to hijack the thread by placing a wedge between Jesus' teachings and Christianity.Your post was as off topic as any. I was simply following the lead you had set. If you didn't want to debate this then why bring it up. Having brought it up , do you expect those Christians who have wised up to you to stay silent or defend the truth?

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are still doing it , even now ...knock ..knock ..bash bash

Here let me show you what stating your position actually is....

My position is that I believe in the saving unconditional love of christ. It is the love and grace of christ that transforms me and helps me accept myself in my deepest , darkest places. Knowing that the love of God can ercome sin yourself. If you cannot live by what you preach then why should anyone listen?

You seem to have completely missed the point of the post that you're responding to. I'll try to state it more plainly.

Can you really not see the hypocrisy in your being critical of my position for being critical of your position? Here's an example of a single statement made by you that fits the very definition of hypocrisy:

"The problem with your overall position on Christianity and Jesus is that you take a negative and attacking position."

Can you really not see the hypocrisy in your using half-truths and outright lies in order to attack my position?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to have completely missed the point of the post that you're responding to. I'll try to state it more plainly.

Can you really not see the hypocrisy in your being critical of my position for being critical of your position? Here's an example of a single statement made by you that fits the very definition of hypocrisy:

"The problem with your o ...[text shortened]... e the hypocrisy in your using half-truths and outright lies in order to attack my position?

If you look carefully you will see that I have been careful to include clear and definite statements about my position and how my position relates to me personally. I included them alongside my rebuttal of your position because it's important that I don't just talk about stating one's position but I also demonstrate it. There is a balance to be struck between criticising another's position and stating your own. This I have done. I did this both in anticipation of just such a response from you.

A jesus devoid of unconditional love who requires us to be perfected before we are saved by grace is a travesty of the Gospel. I'm not attacking you I'm defending the truth. The truth is that God loves us as we are (not as we should be) and this truth releases us from fear and anxious striving.

If you have some truth that you want to share in some concrete way with us then by all means share it. Coming out with abstract statements like "God is truth" doesn't exactly give us much. Telling us that Christianity is contradictory is not focussing on what light you have to share. What light do you want to share?

I'm stating the truth and rebutting your position. All you are doing is saying I'm a hypocrite.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to have completely missed the point of the post that you're responding to. I'll try to state it more plainly.

Can you really not see the hypocrisy in your being critical of my position for being critical of your position? Here's an example of a single statement made by you that fits the very definition of hypocrisy:

"The problem with your o e the hypocrisy in your using half-truths and outright lies in order to attack my position?

OOPS double post!

If you look carefully you will see that I have been careful to include clear and definite statements about my position and how my position relates to me personally. I included them alongside my rebuttal of your position because it's important that I don't just talk about stating one's position but I also demonstrate it. There is a balance to be struck between criticising another's position and stating your own. This I have done. I did this both in anticipation of just such a response from you.

A jesus devoid of unconditional love who requires us to be perfected before we are saved by grace is a travesty of the Gospel. I'm not attacking you I'm defending the truth. The truth is that God loves us as we are (not as we should be) and this truth releases us from fear and anxious striving.

If you have some truth that you want to share in some concrete way with us then by all means share it. Coming out with abstract statements like "God is truth" doesn't exactly give us much. Telling us that Christianity is contradictory is not focussing on what light you have to share. What light do you want to share?

I'm stating the truth and rebutting your position. All you are doing is saying I'm a hypocrite.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If you look carefully you will see that I have been careful to include clear and definite statements about my position and how my position relates to me personally. I included them alongside my rebuttal of your position because it's important that I don't just talk about stating one's position but I also demonstrate it. There is a balance to be struck g the truth and rebutting your position. All you are doing is saying I'm a hypocrite.

How about answering the question. I'll try to simplify it even more for you.

Can you really not see the hypocrisy in the following statement?

"The problem with your overall position on Christianity and Jesus is that you take a negative and attacking position."

Originally posted by knightmeister
No , he was given the picture by Jesus.

So he claimed. He never met Jesus though. Why was his picture "more complete" than the ones who did? Don't you find it odd that he never actually quotes Jesus?

Originally posted by knightmeister
OOPS double post!

If you look carefully you will see that I have been careful to include clear and definite statements about my position and how my position relates to me personally. I included them alongside my rebuttal of your position because it's important that I don't just talk about stating one's position but I also demonstrate it. There is a ...[text shortened]... g the truth and rebutting your position. All you are doing is saying I'm a hypocrite.

KM: A jesus devoid of unconditional love who requires us to be perfected before we are saved by grace is a travesty of the Gospel.

A Jesus who doesn't require acting in a certain way i.e. with kindness and compassion toward our fellow Man is a mockery of his own words as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. Find the word "grace" in Matthew 25.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If anything your post was looking to hijack the thread by placing a wedge between Jesus' teachings and Christianity.

Read my original post again. It places no wedge between Jesus' teachings and Christianity. Like I said earlier, "All I asked Josephw was if he recognized that 'Christianity' as a whole is filled with contradictions just as 'science' is." This is a matter of fact. Or are you under the delusion that all Christian denominations are in complete agreement?

Perhaps you insist on twisting the truth, i.e. lying, because the truth doesn't serve your purpose. Instead you stoop to invoking the enemy of God, i.e. lies, to do your bidding.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So he claimed. He never met Jesus though. Why was his picture "more complete" than the ones who did? Don't you find it odd that he never actually quotes Jesus?

Oh come on! Jesus's whole philosophy was based on the idea that the Holy Spirit would guide his church "into all truth" after he had gone. Infact , more than this he said he wouldn't actually have gone away (only physically) . Therefore what we must ask ourselves is whether Jesus and his father would have allowed his message to have been hijacked by St Paul in such a grand manner.

If you really think this "mistake" could happen then you don't understand the God of Jesus who had spent 100s of years prophecising and planning the arrival of Christ. This idea is inconsistent with the idea that God would just sit back and allow things to go so badly wrong.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is why I say you have not stated your position--> You claim that we must overcome sin 100% in order to be accepted by Jesus and saved but you will not say if you have overcome sin yourself. If you cannot live by what you preach then why should anyone listen?

We both know that I've stated my position to you countless times elsewhere. Why do you insist on lying about it? Like I told you before, whether or not a given individual has overcome sin has absolutely no bearing on what Jesus meant when he said the following:

[i]Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

John 8:32-35
"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free"
"They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."
"And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Read my original post again. It places no wedge between Jesus' teachings and Christianity. Like I said earlier, "All I asked Josephw was if he recognized that 'Christianity' as a whole is filled with contradictions just as 'science' is." This is a matter of fact. Or are you under the delusion that all Christian denominations are in complete agreement?
...[text shortened]... purpose. Instead you stoop to invoking the enemy of God, i.e. lies, to do your bidding.

God lies ! For example,

Thessalonians 2:11-12 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Originally posted by josephw
I thought it was the consensus that the earth was warming. Now I hear that things might just be cooling off.

When will these scientists actually figure it out?

What's this got to do with schitzophrenia?