Originally posted by FMFBadgering?
Can you substantiate this paranoid nonsense that you posted on page 1?...
[b]But then Googlefudge launched into a massive attack upon me[i] for even considering to propose such a ridiculous idea and he wasn't going to respect me no matter what and even that yes, Christians were "dangerous" and should be opposed at every opportunity and with every breath.[ ...[text shortened]... eir place" and the persecution stepped up to even more than it was before.[/b]
No you cannot.[/b]
Originally posted by SuzianneI would ask you to consider that the Bible did not exist until the 4th c. How did early Christians keep the faith alive until then? By praying in small communities. "The Church" during those times consisted of "wherever two or more are gathered in my name" and it was they who kept the faith. If they could do it, you can, too.
About the church being the main hindrance to finding God, do you mean "the Church", which when capitalized is usually referring to the Roman Catholic Church, or just to "the church", what others here call "organized religion"? I am glad I am part of a church's congregation, I do not find that it actually hinders finding God, but rather facilitates it. I h ...[text shortened]... ch, but I think one doesn't go to church to find God, one goes to celebrate God and worship God.
What "the Church" became later on is what I mean when I say it is that which is the greatest hindrance to finding God. Jesus preached no doctrine. The "Five Fundamentals" is not Jesus talking; Jesus didn't say anybody had to assent to a list of propositions held to be truths. What he said was: 'love God, love thy neighbor, love yourself, and obey the law (by which he meant the Torah)--and if that's too difficult for you, then just believe I'll be there for you.'
I think even the most committed Christians and those of strong faith would certainly agree that they are not at the end of that road. But that's because the best part of that journey is the journey itself, growing into God while God grows within.
There be some here who put on airs, as if they were farther along that road than others or as if it were their task to point out every stone you might yet stumbled over. Just keep your eye on the summit, don't worry about how much dust the others are throwing up along the way!
Originally posted by moonbusYou must be referring to the canon of scriptures that was formed into the Holy Bible we have today. Obviously all the biblical scriptures existed before that time.
I would ask you to consider that the Bible did not exist until the 4th c. How did early Christians keep the faith alive until then? By praying in small communities. "The Church" during those times consisted of "wherever two or more are gathered in my name" and it was they who kept the faith. If they could do it, you can, too.
What "the Church" became late ...[text shortened]... our eye on the summit, don't worry about how much dust the others are throwing up along the way!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Originally posted by moonbusmoonbus, here are the first few paragraphs of an in depth scholarly presentation on the subject for your perusal:
I would ask you to consider that the Bible did not exist until the 4th c. How did early Christians keep the faith alive until then? By praying in small communities. "The Church" during those times consisted of "wherever two or more are gathered in my name" and it was they who kept the faith. If they could do it, you can, too.
What "the Church" became later o our eye on the summit, don't worry about how much dust the others are throwing up along the way!
"Canonicity
Definition and Description:
The term canon or canonicity in Christianity refers to a collection of many books acknowledged by the early church as the rule of faith and practice and is derived from the Greek word kanon which originally meant a rod or a ruler, hence, a measuring stick or norm of faith and eventually a catalogue or list. This is exactly what the Bible is-a norm or standard-the divine and absolute standard.
The term kanon was employed 6 times in the NT (2 Cor. 10:13, 15-16; Gal. 6:16; Phlp. 3:16), but it is first employed of the books of Scripture in the technical sense of a standard collection or body of sacred writings by the church fathers of the 4th century A.D. such as in the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), in the Festal Epistle of Athanasius 367), and by Amphilochius, archbiship of Iconium (395).
The object of this study is to demonstrate how the church acquired the Scriptures from its very origin to the printed page, and to present its relationship to history and its effects upon mankind...." [Top of Page 1 of 44]
http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/doctrines/bibliolgy/canonicity.pdf
20 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFIt seems that robbie carrobie is not content with just demeaning the topic and victims of his "lynchings" thread, he now seems intent on offending the memory of the enslaved black culture of 19th century America by assuming some sort of clichéd colloquialisms in an attempt to make a joke out of his previous offences.
You're trying to make some kind of ad hominem joke out of black people being lynched?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhy are you counselling me when I'm the one being attacked by RJHinds? Are you afraid to come out and address him personally?
Originally posted by divegeester
"So what do you think of one Christian telling another Christian they "deserve to burn in hell"? .. For eternity no less..."
If you're a believer in Christ, divegeester, quietly ignore any and all false statements made about you and/or your family members by others in your periphery; and pray for them. [i]"29 ...[text shortened]... the benefit of doubt, forgive and forget and move on. -Bob" Thread 163726 [Page 2]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
20 Apr 15
Originally posted by SuzianneWhat you did, when you said this..
You could turn your focus to my first post on page 1, where I answered the OP in carefully considered terms. I answered the OP there, you know, in case you missed it.
But, no, that doesn't fit your paradigm, *at all*, and so you must pick the low-hanging fruit. All my other posts in this thread (that most have focused on, instead of my post on page 1 a ...[text shortened]... people looking for something to blow up into a suitable derailment, much as you have done here.
.... But then Googlefudge launched into a massive attack upon me for even considering to propose
such a ridiculous idea and he wasn't going to respect me no matter what and even that yes, Christians
were "dangerous" and should be opposed at every opportunity and with every breath. This caused some
atheists to reverse course and say yes, you're right, those nasty Christians should be mercilessly "put in
their place" and the persecution stepped up to even more than it was before .....
...Was yet again misconstrue what it is that I said, and what happened.
Are you going to admit [given that I have yet again provided the original
conversation demonstrating that it does not say or do what you claim it
does] that you were wrong**?
Or are you going to keep falsely accusing me of saying something I never
did, and keep using that as an excuse for your continued attacks on me/us?
**Both in that I didn't launch the attack on you that you claim I did AND
that this post series had basically no effect on the other posters behaviour
and that the level of hostility between posters is pretty much the same as
it has always been. And that it is in fact pretty much just you that has
changed in any noticeable way since this exchange.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere you got the sleight from in the post aimed at me is irrelevant, it is the the fact that you selected it from its context and used it here to support your increasingly squalid little barbs at me.
No I am making a reference to a white person in a film, that being Paul Newman, have you never seen Cool Hand Luke? Oh dear it seems that in your ardour to land a blow you have overlooked the rather obvious, how very sad for you. Paul Newman was white last time I looked, was he not? He stated to the man with no eyes (also white) that he was shakin ...[text shortened]... environment, under those same circumstances may also have tolerated it. How does that grab you.
I find it astonishing that you can make the lynchings OP with your po-faced pretence that it was a serious attempt to comment, (when we all know it was you trolling), and now continue this horrid little display of callous disregarded for the seriousness of that topic. You never cease to disappoint.
Originally posted by googlefudgeBadgering.
What you did, when you said this..
[quote].... But then Googlefudge launched into a massive attack upon me for even considering to propose
such a ridiculous idea and he wasn't going to respect me no matter what and even that yes, Christians
were "dangerous" and should be opposed at every opportunity and with every breath. This caused some
atheis ...[text shortened]... s in fact pretty much just you that has
changed in any noticeable way since this exchange.[/i]
Originally posted by divegeesterBadgering
Where you got the sleight from in the post aimed at me is irrelevant, it is the the fact that you selected it from its context and used it here to support your increasingly squalid little barbs at me.
I find it astonishing that you can make the lynchings OP with your po-faced pretence that it was a serious attempt to comment, (when we all know it was ...[text shortened]... display of callous disregarded for the seriousness of that topic. You never cease to disappoint.