|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Anti-theist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The mafia wishes.
You make the government sound like the mafia. Phat writes:
You give them an ear. And I would not give most apologists anything much less everything."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Think. If I shut my ears to them, how would I know they were liars? And you do what? Shut your ears to all of them? Stop squirming. Discuss apologetics."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
He doesn't.
IF Jesus exists eternally and outside of the book... Phat writes:
That's a convenient cop-out. "It's all yours, Jesus. I'll just continue to use it until to come back and ask for it." Donald Trump could say the same thing. ... I often promise Him that He can have it all since it is all His anyway. But YOU do not get to decide who uses it.
Phat writes:
Oh, I know that. He has a special message just for you: "Never mind what I said to those people in the New Testament. Here's the REAL scoop - You keep it all and use it at your convenience. This generation - YOUR privileged generation - shall not pass before I come back and give you your special private instructions."
Now unlike your assumptions of how He must sound to me, I don't hear Jesus speaking to me through words He has said to others... Phat writes:
You scoff at the idea of giving it all up. You say it's impossible - even though many people have done it throughout history. Sounds like scoffing to me. This is no way means that I "scoff at what He says.""I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Are you talking to me? Does your pension belong to you or to the people-at-large? I once heard a clergyman say that he doesn't receive a salary or a wage. He receives a stipend. A stipend pays his expenses so he doesn't have to go out and get a regular job, leaving his time free to do the work of the church - e.g. visiting the sick. I think of my pension like a stipend. It pays my expenses so I don't have to go out and take a job away from a younger person who needs it more than I do.
Phat writes:
1. The people ARE the government. If you withdrew it from the bank and did not hand it over to the friendly government, would the people have a right to seize it?2. We're not talking about turning anything over to the government. 3. We're no talking about the people seizing anything. 4. We're talking about VOLUNTARILY giving it up. Phat writes:
See above.
How about if you had a safety deposit box and they froze it? Phat writes:
"Liberal Authoritarianism" is a lie that your far-right-wing handlers are feeding you. I have never, in any way, shape or form, advocated the government taking anything from you by force. STOP making that stupid claim. These answers likely will reflect what I dislike about liberal Authoritarianism."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
That's exactly what He said, "Sell what you have and give to the poor." That's exactly what His disciples did. ringo seems to emphasize the wholly nonsensical position that Jesus told Christians (and only Christians) to sell everything they have and follow Him. YOU keep claiming that I want the government to seize everything you have, despite me telling you repeatedly that it's supposed to be VOLUNTARY.
Phat writes:
The same as it meant 2000 years ago. So what does this mean today?"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
So... they weren't saved. *shrug* You can't negate what He said by pointing out people who didn't comply. Look at the ones who did.
Not *everyone that He knew did this. Mary and Martha didn't. The Roman Centurion didn't. Phat writes:
Voluntary - but a requirement for salvation. Jesus won't save anybody against their will.
Voluntary. Phat writes:
See above. EVERYONE that He spoke to didn't do it. The rich man asked, "What MUST I do to be saved?" and Jesus answered, "Sell what you have and give to the poor." It's a MUST if you want to be saved. Anybody who did not comply would not be saved.
Phat writes:
Ask Jesus. So why is it necessary to become totally broke?"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
It doesn't mention when He told them. It also doesn't mention His shoe size or His favorite pizza topping. When did Jesus tell his followers to live in the commune described in Acts 4:34-35? The point is that THEY thought He told them. Why do you think you know better than the church in Acts?
Dredge writes:
Jesus told the rich man he MUST sell what he had and give to the poor. It was a requirement for salvation. How did you get from ...Jesus telling the rich young to give away all his wealth to the poor TO Jesus (allegedly) telling all his followers to live in a socialist commune? Why would there be different requirements for different people?
Dredge writes:
How is it possible to separate them? You seem to be conflating two different and separate matters."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
It is ironic isn't it? The people who refuse to follow Jesus' explicit instructions - and call His instructions "idiotic" - call themselves "Christians". How ironic ... the only people who listen to your idiotic interpretation of the Bible are your fellow atheists."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
On the contrary, YOU have zero evidence that He didn't. He did tell one man specifically and the early church did live that way, so they must have thought that it applied to them too.
In other words, you have zero evidence that Jesus said all his followers must live in socialist communes. Dredge writes:
It's irrelevant which member of the Trinity told them. The point is that they were told - and you just admitted that they were.
The Holy Spirit told them (after the day of Pentecost), not Jesus. Dredge writes:
According to Acts 4:35, "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need," so yes, it is the same thing.
Jesus instructed the rich man to give away his wealth to the "poor" ... which has got nothing whatsoever to do with donating all his wealth to, and then living in, a socialist commune. Dredge writes:
Where's your evidence for that? And how do you reconcile different people having different requirements for salvation? It was a requirement for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem at that time, not for all Christians. There is no evidence that Gentile Christians were commanded to live that way, let alone told that it is necessary for salvation."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
I didn't say it was. I said that the Christian commune was following the instructions of Jesus, contrary to your claim that their actions were completely unrelated to what Jesus said.
The "poor" that Jesus refers to in Matt 19:21 could not possibly be the Christian commune described in Acts (2, 4, 5) ... simply bcoz the Acts commune was not formed until after the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) .... well after Jesus' time on earth! Dredge writes:
I didn't say it was. I said that they were following His instructions. The "poor" in Matt 19: is not a reference to the Christian commune in Acts, but to any poor people in the general community. Are all of your misconceptions based on lack of reading comprehension?
Dredge writes:
The commune in Acts was in direct response to what Jesus said. There are about Bible 300 references to caring for the "poor", and none of them refer to a commune such as the one in Acts. And the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira is an idication that the commune was a valid interpretation of what Jesus said. Why else would God kill the ones who didn't obey Jesus?
Dredge writes:
On the contrary, the early Church did exactly what Jesus said - and exactly as I have said. Unsurprisingly, you won't find one Bible scholar or commentary on the planet who agrees with your ridiculous interpretation.Neither will you find any of the Early Church Fathers agreeing with you. "I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
God killed Ananias and Sapphira for not doing it. Doesn't that suggest that it was "wrong"?
Furthermore, there are many sins mentioned in the NT, but - surprise, surprise - not donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune is not one of them. Dredge writes:
Jesus told the rich young ruler that he "must" do it to be saved - i.e. it WAS a requirement for him. It also appeared to be a requirement for Ananias and Sapphira. So I'm stll waiting for you to explain why you think it is (conveniently) not a requirement for YOU. You clearly ARE suggesting different standards for different people. There are not "different requirements for salvation".Contrary to your hillbilly reading of Scripture, donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune is not a requirement for salvation. "I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Jesus was answering the rich young man's question: Jesus told the rich young man, in order to be "perfect" (Matt 19:21), he should give all that he had to the poor. quoteHe asked, "What MUST I do?" He was asking for REQUIREMENTS. Jesus told him he MUST follow the commandments and the young man said: quoteHe was asking what else he was REQUIRED to do to have eternal life. And Jesus replied:quoteJesus was answering a question about REQUIREMENTS. Dredge writes:
Having eternal life is voluntary. The REQUIREMENTS for having it are not.
So it was not a necessity, but a voluntary act on the part of the rich young man. Dredge writes:
He was LEGALLY free to do what he wanted with the land. Roman Law and Jewish law did not recognize Jesus' REQUIREMENTS. The rich young man was legally free NOT to choose eternal life.
Peter is saying that before and after the sale of the land, Ananias was free to do with it whatever he wanted. Dredge writes:
Peter was quite clear. They were guilty of deception AND keeping back part of the proceeds. Keeping back part of the proceeds was clearly part of the wrongdoing. Lying about it only compounded the transgression. The grave sin of Ananias and his wife was attempting to deceive the Christian community into thinking they were generous and devoted by donating all the proceeds of the land sale ... (And Phat should be ashamed of himself for cheering your nonsense. I've been through all this with him before.)Edited by ringo, : Matthew 12 --> Matthew 19 "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And yet neither you nor Dread can defend your interpetation.
Your interpretation is wrong. Phat writes:
I have pretty good reading comprehension and I'm just pointing out what the scripture actually says. It's your interpretation that denies what the scripture says. It's your interpretation that is inconsistent with a large volume of scripture. And it's your interpretation that is egregiously self-serving.
You didn't imagine yourself an expert at scripture, did you? Phat writes:
I have said no such thing. You have had the audacity to state that parts of the Bible are wrong and that you only follow and quote the parts that get it right. I have said that many parts of the Bible are wrong, and they are. The Flood is a prime example. And I have said that Jesus' message did happen to get it right. What I have said about the passage in question (giving it all up for God) is exactly what Jesus said and that that principle permeates much of the Bible. I have not advocated that you should do what Jesus said. I have simply pointed out that that is what He said.
Phat writes:
I'm going to have to go through that sentence almost word by word to point out most of what's wrong with it:
The only reason you like the idea that Jesus expects everyone to give everything they have up before they gain eternal life is that you are a leftist who believes that people have a charge to take care of each other.Phat writes:
I have never said that I like the idea. I have said that that is what Jesus said.
The only reason you like the idea...Phat writes:
No. Jesus doesn't "expect" any such thing. He requires that his followers give everything up. If you don't do it, you're not his follower and you will not receive eternal life.
... that Jesus expects everyone to give everything they have up before they gain eternal life...Phat writes:
It's not a "charge" and it isn't exclusive to "leftists". EVERYBODY ought to take care of each other. That's the point of being a social species.
... you are a leftist who believes that people have a charge to take care of each other. Phat writes:
Get this through your thick skull, you moron: I HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT "THE STATE" TAKING ANYTHING!
... let me remind you that were the state EVER to declare that everyones money belonged to them ... Phat writes:
As I said to Dredge, that was Roman law and/or Jewish law. It has nothing to do with whether or not you give it up.
Even the Apostles told Ananias that the money remained his after the sale. Phat writes:
And yet neither you nor Dredge has been able to demonstrate that it is not applicable to everybody. Why would there be different requirements for salvation for different people?
And even if Jesus had spoken of such a requirment, it was clarely NOT applicable to everybody.... Phat writes:
DUH! The apostles heard it from Jesus Himself - and they obeyed. ... the Apostles would no have ever read it since there was no Bible at that time. (And yes, there was an Old Testament at the time. I have mentioned the widow who gave Elijah her last morsel of food even though she expected herself and her son to die as a result. For homework, go ahead and search the Old Testament for similar examples.)
Phat writes:
Then the apostles "Had the Holy Spirit" because they did what Jesus told them to do. And the early Church (except for Ananias and Sapphira) had it because they did what Jesus told them to do. And the lady with two mites. Etc.
If they had the Holy Spirit, which is commonly believed, they would have done precisely what the Spirit led them to do. Phat writes:
It isn't my "prefered" teaching. It's YOUR teaching.
I have no shame over your preferred teachings.quote Edited by ringo, : Removed sentence fragment. Don't remember what the whole sentence was supposed to be. "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Then why do you bring it up at all? It has NOTHING to do with what we were talking about.
ringo writes:
I never said you did. I HAVE NOT SAID A WORD ABOUT "THE STATE" TAKING ANYTHING! Phat writes:
Nonsense. The government certainly does have the "right" to tax you - and you have an obligation to render unto Caesar.
I said only that IF the State (or Federal Government) has any illusions about a necessary bail-in to "save" the economy they would have NO RIGHT to do so. Phat writes:
In an emergency, the government has the right and the obligation to fix things. Any sensible person would support that. What's YOUR plan? Shoot your way out of floods, famine and pestilence?
(And im thinking that in an emergency YOU would support such a thing!) Phat writes:
I have answered that soooooo many times. Don't you read my posts at all?
Again I ask you to whom we would give everything (materialistic) up? Phat writes:
You certainly DO trust the apologists. Otherwise, why would you parrot their bullshit?
I certainly don't trust either the apologists OR the government. Phat writes:
It's JESUS who promises to take care of you:
What puzzles me is how you claim on the one hand that Jesus wants us to give it ALL up and yet reassure me that I wouldn't be homeless.quote "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
See, this is why people keep asking you if you' ve ever read the Bible.
He is not a static character in a book who has given all of us marching orders and disqualifies anyone who is not all-in.quote Phat writes:
It isn't about trusting yourself. It's about trusting God.
And you find it incredible that I don't fully trust myself in regards to listening. Phat writes:
No it isn't. The issue here had nothing to do with what the government takes.
The issue is how much they have a right to. ALL of it? Phat writes:
I know it has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Do you even know what a Bail-In is?"Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024