National day of Prayer Sept. 25, 2009?????

#151
#151
gsvol said:
Where do you get your information?? Is newsweak your bible?? What church do you attend to witness such behavior???

Obviously you are rather ignorant of spiritual matters in your opinionated way.

Since it has been several pages since the topic of this thread has even been mentioned, much less discussed, I bid you adieu! :hi:
Click to expand...

gsvol, you know how it is said that everyone has a twin? When I was browsing the UF forum last night I came across this post and I immediately thought of you. Actually, while reading comments from various posters it reminded me of the Seinfeld "Bizarro" episode.
gator post.jpg
 
#152
#152
rjd970 said:
You're going to have to show me where volpj said anything about a government take over. Those were your words, he only said "in a sense".


As you agree with, the bible was chiefly put together by a council of men. What I am saying (and maybe volpj, don't want to speak for him) is that these men had ulterior motives, and whatever didn't fit their purview of christianity or would present a threat to the status quo of what was already believed wasn't included. Truth was secondary to their agenda.
Click to expand...

You are stating this as fact... how is it that you know what their motives were at the time?
 
#154
#154
rjd970 said:
You're going to have to show me where volpj said anything about a government take over. Those were your words, he only said "in a sense".


As you agree with, the bible was chiefly put together by a council of men. What I am saying (and maybe volpj, don't want to speak for him) is that these men had ulterior motives, and whatever didn't fit their purview of christianity or would present a threat to the status quo of what was already believed wasn't included. Truth was secondary to their agenda.
Click to expand...

So what were their motives? So you are saying the council found writings that fit their agenda, whatever it was, to control the population.

Essentially they pieced together writings from various authors in way to manipulate the ignorant masses.

How effective would this be if (and I'm assuming) most people weren't literate?

Wouldn't it be just as easy for the council to make up their own writings to control the masses if they had to read it to them anyway?
 
#155
#155
gsvol said:
Where do you get your information?? Is newsweak your bible?? What church do you attend to witness such behavior???

Obviously you are rather ignorant of spiritual matters in your opinionated way.

Since it has been several pages since the topic of this thread has even been mentioned, much less discussed, I bid you adieu! :hi:
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

:dunno:
 
#156
#156
IBlvNTmWrk said:
You are stating this as fact... how is it that you know what their motives were at the time?
Click to expand...

I'm not stating this as fact. I am stating that it is safe to say the books chosen to be in the Bible (and by extension, its message) didn't have a divine orgin.
 
#157
#157
rjd970 said:
You're going to have to show me where volpj said anything about a government take over. Those were your words, he only said "in a sense".


As you agree with, the bible was chiefly put together by a council of men. What I am saying (and maybe volpj, don't want to speak for him) is that these men had ulterior motives, and whatever didn't fit their purview of christianity or would present a threat to the status quo of what was already believed wasn't included. Truth was secondary to their agenda.
Click to expand...

I'll play along, what does this have to with Nicea or Carthage?

:snoring:
 
#159
#159
rjd970 said:
You're going to have to show me where volpj said anything about a government take over. Those were your words, he only said "in a sense".


As you agree with, the bible was chiefly put together by a council of men. What I am saying (and maybe volpj, don't want to speak for him) is that these men had ulterior motives, and whatever didn't fit their purview of christianity or would present a threat to the status quo of what was already believed wasn't included. Truth was secondary to their agenda.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:

:cray:
 
#161
#161
JZVOL said:
So what were their motives? So you are saying the council found writings that fit their agenda, whatever it was, to control the population.

Essentially they pieced together writings from various authors in way to manipulate the ignorant masses.

How effective would this be if (and I'm assuming) most people weren't literate?

Wouldn't it be just as easy for the council to make up their own writings to control the masses if they had to read it to them anyway?
Click to expand...

Ther motives were to make sure nothing was included that didn't include their own purview, or that would challenge the status quo.

And why create your own writings when you can claim others are God's words?
 
#164
#164
OrangeEmpire said:
I'll play along, what does this have to with Nicea or Carthage?

:snoring:
Click to expand...

OE, your the one spouting all this government-control the masses-theocracy nonsense.

volpj said this:

there are enough things in the bible whose reason for being included was to shape society in the way the writers/organizers wanted it done. I don't have it in front of me but can try to find some examples in there later
Click to expand...

...and that is what I was referring to.
 
#166
#166
rjd970 said:
OE, your the one spouting all this government-control the masses-theocracy nonsense.

volpj said this:



...and that is what I was referring to.
Click to expand...

What do you think the latter half of the new testament is about......

The roman occupation........

Revelation is entirely dedicated to the roman occupation.

What nonsense are you talking about?
 
#168
#168
rjd970 said:
Not surprised by this response. I would like to hear your opinion on the council of carthage and how it fits into the claims that the Bible is God's word.
Click to expand...

RJD - what I find interesting, and quite ironic, is the following:

In order to prove that Jesus is not Christ and the Bible is not divine... which is a compilation of documents that were written hundreds of years ago... by various individuals... some of whom were eyewitnesses to Jesus' teachings and the resurrection...

you are using something you've read... that was written by others... who were likely not involved in the process, and thus weren't witnesses to the decisions... that supposedly documents what was going on hundreds of years ago when the Bible was compiled.

So you choose to believe the latter as being true but emphatically deny that the former could also be true? If you choose to believe that these men had ulterior motives and truth was secondary to their agenda based on "something you've read", then that is clearly your option... but then doesn't it seem reasonable that others may choose to believe that the Bible is true?
 
#169
#169
OrangeEmpire said:

What do you think the latter half of the new testament is about......

The roman occupation........

Revelation is entirely dedicated to the roman occupation.

What nonsense are you talking about?
Click to expand...


I'm talking about the nonsense YOU have said and then convicted volpj of saying:

Interesting, you are talking about books that pose the argument that writers of the bible established the forumla for theocracy?
Click to expand...

You are claiming this is where the church leaders met to discuss theocractical takeover of gov't?
Click to expand...

what does it have to do with volpj talking about the bible and government take over?
Click to expand...

Nice way to put words in somebody elses mouth there. The only thing volpj said was "in a sense, yes".

Besides, I like the non-answer I got when I asked you about agreeing with this:

No one can dispute that Constantine called the council of Nicea in 325 and it ended with the cannon being chosen in 397 in Carthage.
Click to expand...

...and then explaning how that agrees with the notion that the Bible is the Word of God.

Not fun when somebody actually goes back and looks up how you hijacked what was said by somebody else and shows how you smirk off legitimate questions, is it?
 
#170
#170
rjd970 said:
I'm talking about the nonsense YOU have said and then convicted volpj of saying:







Nice way to put words in somebody elses mouth there. The only thing volpj said was "in a sense, yes".

Besides, I like the non-answer I got when I asked you about agreeing with this:



...and then explaning how that agrees with the notion that the Bible is the Word of God.

Not fun when somebody actually goes back and looks up how you hijacked what was said by somebody else and shows how you smirk off legitimate questions, is it?
Click to expand...

:lolabove:

Need a tissue?

Like I said, I am what you want me to be!

Don't forget to pat yourself on your back!

:hi:
 
#171
#171
IBlvNTmWrk said:
RJD - what I find interesting, and quite ironic, is the following:

In order to prove that Jesus is not Christ and the Bible is not divine... which is a compilation of documents that were written hundreds of years ago... by various individuals... some of whom were eyewitnesses to Jesus' teachings and the resurrection...

you are using something you've read... that was written by others... who were likely not involved in the process, and thus weren't witnesses to the decisions... that supposedly documents what was going on hundreds of years ago when the Bible was compiled.

So you choose to believe the latter as being true but emphatically deny that the former could also be true? If you choose to believe that these men had ulterior motives and truth was secondary to their agenda based on "something you've read", then that is clearly your option... but then doesn't it seem reasonable that others may choose to believe that the Bible is true?
Click to expand...

Don't try, he hates you. No matter what you say will not change any thing he already pre judges with.

Have fun with him!

:rock:
 
#172
#172
OrangeEmpire said:

Don't try, he hates you. No matter what you say will not change any thing he already pre judges with.

Have fun with him!

:rock:
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm thinking those feelings... if they exist... are directed more at you. :) But I agree, it's doubtful that anyone will change his opinion during this thread... but then again, I'm not really trying to. I'm just trying to understand where he's coming from?
 
#173
#173
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Actually, I'm thinking those feelings... if they exist... are directed more at you. :) But I agree, it's doubtful that anyone will change his opinion during this thread... but then again, I'm not really trying to. I'm just trying to understand where he's coming from?
Click to expand...

You are newbie.......

1.) Don't ever take any thing personal on this board.

2.) By all means, don't ever take me seriously.

3.) Have fun...........

4.) RDJ deep down really, really loves me....

:wub:

:hi:
 
#174
#174
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Actually, I'm thinking those feelings... if they exist... are directed more at you. :) But I agree, it's doubtful that anyone will change his opinion during this thread... but then again, I'm not really trying to. I'm just trying to understand where he's coming from?
Click to expand...

RJD is a solid poster who knows his stuff, although he gets quite carried away with the name me just one stuff. Then you name one and he never replies back.

If it weren't for people like him, this board would be dead.

:hi:
 
#175
#175
IBlvNTmWrk said:
RJD - what I find interesting, and quite ironic, is the following:

In order to prove that Jesus is not Christ and the Bible is not divine... which is a compilation of documents that were written hundreds of years ago... by various individuals... some of whom were eyewitnesses to Jesus' teachings and the resurrection...

you are using something you've read... that was written by others... who were likely not involved in the process, and thus weren't witnesses to the decisions... that supposedly documents what was going on hundreds of years ago when the Bible was compiled.

So you choose to believe the latter as being true but emphatically deny that the former could also be true? If you choose to believe that these men had ulterior motives and truth was secondary to their agenda based on "something you've read", then that is clearly your option... but then doesn't it seem reasonable that others may choose to believe that the Bible is true?
Click to expand...

I think it is absolutely reasonable that some would choose to believe the Bible at face value. I am simply stating why I don't. And I don't remember saying it was based on "something I read", I think you might have me mistaken with another poster.

All I am saying is that, at its foundation, the message of the Bible was chosen by a council of men. These men were church leaders and scholars, and therfore by decree at that time, government officials. The writings concerning Jesus's life were handpicked so that we know nothing about him between infancy and adulthood. I am not making any claims what their specific motives were, but what I am saying, is that given the history of early church leaders, I don't think truth and historical accuracy had high priority. I'm sure other ulterior motives....such as how this would effect social norms at the time & leadership claim to power and authority...affected which books were chosen and which weren't.

It is your prerogative if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God. I am just stating why I don't think it is. I honestly don't want to offend you, just stating my position.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top