Political Crossfire Forums

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: You can't be born a christian, you can't be raised christian, and to live in a christian country still does'nt mean you're a christian. So your perspective again was not asked for.

Opinions are'nt facts, sorry :wink:

With every post you make you show more and more your lack of Christian theology. So if you would like to continue to post Non-Christian beliefs go ahead I'm tired of your idiocy.

As I repeat to you if you would like to see the christian perspective(what the OP was asking for, because he clearly stated he was keeping his beliefs out of the thread) on the belief that there could be errors in the bible:
2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."

P.S. Toddytodd posting the same thing the last ignorant atheist thought up before him truly does'nt qualify him to be a thinker. I'm really getting sick of this crap if you don't know christianity please don't talk about.

Oh and since you like quotes here's some actual good ones:

"It is by rather an unlucky metaphor that we talk of a madman as cracked: for in a sense his not cracked enough. He is cramped rather than cracked; there are not enough holes in his head to ventilate it. This impossibility of letting in daylight on a delusion does sometimes cover and conceal a delusion of divinity. It can be found not among prophets and sages and founders of religions, but only among a low set of lunatics. But this is exactly where the argument becomes intensely interesting;because the argument proves too much. For nobody supposes that Jesus of Nazereth was that sort of person. No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was a horrible half-witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the walls of a cell. No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the Parable of the Prodigal Son was a monster with one mad idea like a cyclops with one eye. Upon any possible historical criticism, he must be put higher in the scale of human beings than that. Yet by all analogy we have really to put him there or else in the highest place of all." From The Everlasting Man-Chesterton

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic, on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg, or else he would be the devil of hell. Either this man was and is the Son of God; or else a mad man or something worst. You can shut Him up for a fool; you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him the Lord God. But let us not come out with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us, He did not intend to ..."

- C.S. Lewis

At the beginning of this preliminary negative sketch I said that our mental ruin has been wrought by wild reason, not by wild imagination. A man does not go mad because he makes a statue a mile high, but he may go mad by thinking it out in square inches.
Chesterton


You are very rude, aren't you? Also, you are trying to tell me how to interpret the OP - sorry, I don't accept your OPINION.

BTW, since you bring up CS Lewis (wow, such a stunning theologian! :roll: ) I will quote this, which not only addresses the topic, but should give you pause to think before you post:

Quote: "…But there is worse to come. `Say what you like' we shall be told, `the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, this generation shall not pass till all these things be done. And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.' It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. …The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. …The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so."
CS Lewis
"The World's Last Night", page 97


Now, if your god can't get it right, how did Mere Christian men transcribe god's laws correctly? Or, did your Gospel writers get something wrong?

OR, will you play the Apologetics card and claim Jesus was talking about future generations?

Are you a Preterist (Full or Partial) or a Futurist?

These are Xian perspectives (opinions), so I'm sure you will have a comment.

[LetsGetReal]

If being blunt but truthful is rude, then thank you. :)

I'd have to read the book to take it in context...So I have no real opinion.

To compare your half-guided falsities to C.S. Lewis is quite laughable he knew more about christianity then you could ever dream of. :lol:

But like I said continue to post it just makes you look worse.

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: If being blunt but truthful is rude, then thank you. :)
I see you have a habit of self-defining terms. I'll remember that.

Quote: I'd have to read the book to take it in context...So I have no real opinion. Of course not. You must find out what someone else thinks in order for you to have an opinion.

Quote: To compare your half-guided falsities to C.S. Lewis is quite laughable he knew more about christianity then you could ever dream of. :lol: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

Quote: But like I said continue to post it just makes you look worse.
Why? You plenty of criticism and never back up your grandiose claims. If this is what I am to expect from you, I will stop feeding your trolling habits.

I have yet to see a thoughtful post from you. I only see typical dogmatic declarations with little substance.

[John]

Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man.

[eynon]

toddytodd wrote: inmylineofsight wrote: Is this a possibility that even though god used man as a medium to wright the bible.The act of man physically wrighting the bible makes it a law of man even if its divinely inspired.

P.S. Im trying to keep my personal bias away from this subject. and not letting opinion or belief overcome facts//..

We must accept the possibility that the bible would have errors or a mis-represented idea, being written by an imperfect being. To think other wise would seem to indicate the ability for am inperfect person to grasp the knowledge of a perfect being. Anyway....
Can you expound on your idea about how or why you think the bible would be the law of man?

woot.....sums up my belief perfectly :-D

[LetsGetReal]

John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

Is your point that C.S. Lewis is not a very good thinker? :)

After all, not many people consider Jesus a monster. However, the average person would consdier him a philosopher, and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend.

[LetsGetReal]

mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

Is your point that C.S. Lewis is not a very good thinker? :)

After all, not many people consider Jesus a monster. However, the average person would consdier him a philosopher, and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend. Please just keep posting your proving my point better than I ever could :wink:

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

Is your point that C.S. Lewis is not a very good thinker? :)

After all, not many people consider Jesus a monster. However, the average person would consdier him a philosopher, and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend.
Quote: ...and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend. What do you mean here? Please explain.

[mODULAR mAN]

toddytodd wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

Is your point that C.S. Lewis is not a very good thinker? :)

After all, not many people consider Jesus a monster. However, the average person would consdier him a philosopher, and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend.
Quote: ...and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend. What do you mean here? Please explain.

It is most likely, considering the evidence, that Jesus existed, but was a relatively minor figure until some people started writing about him (and if you look at the Gospels, they chornologically get more "supernatural" until it's a total blow-up by John) and Paul was a great salesman.

The writers embellished about his life and even later scribes added things.

It is rational to believe he was a typical "prophet", one of many at the time, but had a better PR campaign.

All historic figures have had their image embellished, Jesus, would have been no different.

A legend: a mixture of fact and fiction.

And guess which parts I posit are fiction... Yep, the supernatural & the miracles.

They were superstitious people who wanted to believe something so strongly that, for example, Luke may have carefully transcribed history, but was not questioning of any of it.

Mark has all the stylistic markers of writing myth and Matthew gets his info from Mark (he never met Mark, but embellished Mark's already mythy-tainted stories).

John was a wacko.

[LetsGetReal]

mODULAR mAN wrote: toddytodd wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

Is your point that C.S. Lewis is not a very good thinker? :)

After all, not many people consider Jesus a monster. However, the average person would consdier him a philosopher, and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend.
Quote: ...and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend. What do you mean here? Please explain.

It is most likely, considering the evidence, that Jesus existed, but was a relatively minor figure until some people started writing about him (and if you look at the Gospels, they chornologically get more "supernatural" until it's a total blow-up by John) and Paul was a great salesman.

The writers embellished about his life and even later scribes added things.

It is rational to believe he was a typical "prophet", one of many at the time, but had a better PR campaign.

All historic figures have had their image embellished, Jesus, would have been no different.

A legend: a mixture of fact and fiction.

And guess which parts I posit are fiction... Yep, the supernatural & the miracles.

They were superstitious people who wanted to believe something so strongly that, for example, Luke may have carefully transcribed history, but was not questioning of any of it.

Mark has all the stylistic markers of writing myth and Matthew gets his info from Mark (he never met Mark, but embellished Mark's already mythy-tainted stories).

John was a wacko. Oh this is great can you please tell us some more oh wise and mighty one. :lol: Can you please prove my points more, so I urge you to keep on writing let us all know what you think?

P.S. Your little avatar title should state Classical Liberalism is what started America not Modern Liberalism. :wink:

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: Oh this is great can you please tell us some more oh wise and mighty one. :lol: Can you please prove my points more, so I urge you to keep on writing let us all know what you think?



Maybe, if you help me. I want to know if I make a mistake. So far, you seem to be ok with all of it. Since you are much more well versed in this perhaps you can offer some actual criticism, instead of leading me on with fly-by sarcasm.

I can't remember.... what do the call sarcasm, in terms of its form of humor??? Oh, well, maybe, youll know something.

Something at all. :roll:

[Revenant]

mODULAR mAN wrote: toddytodd wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

Is your point that C.S. Lewis is not a very good thinker? :)

After all, not many people consider Jesus a monster. However, the average person would consdier him a philosopher, and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend.
Quote: ...and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend. What do you mean here? Please explain.

It is most likely, considering the evidence, that Jesus existed, but was a relatively minor figure until some people started writing about him (and if you look at the Gospels, they chornologically get more "supernatural" until it's a total blow-up by John) and Paul was a great salesman.

The writers embellished about his life and even later scribes added things.

It is rational to believe he was a typical "prophet", one of many at the time, but had a better PR campaign.

All historic figures have had their image embellished, Jesus, would have been no different.

A legend: a mixture of fact and fiction.

And guess which parts I posit are fiction... Yep, the supernatural & the miracles.

They were superstitious people who wanted to believe something so strongly that, for example, Luke may have carefully transcribed history, but was not questioning of any of it.

Mark has all the stylistic markers of writing myth and Matthew gets his info from Mark (he never met Mark, but embellished Mark's already mythy-tainted stories).

John was a wacko.

So....surely you must have a link to a scholarly article proving these points are accurate and not your own suppositions.

I find the bible interesting, so if you would be so inclined to provide support of your grandiose statements, it would be much appreciated.

[LetsGetReal]

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

C.S. Lewis
Mere Christianity

[mODULAR mAN]

Revenant wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: toddytodd wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

Is your point that C.S. Lewis is not a very good thinker? :)

After all, not many people consider Jesus a monster. However, the average person would consdier him a philosopher, and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend.
Quote: ...and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend. What do you mean here? Please explain.

It is most likely, considering the evidence, that Jesus existed, but was a relatively minor figure until some people started writing about him (and if you look at the Gospels, they chornologically get more "supernatural" until it's a total blow-up by John) and Paul was a great salesman.

The writers embellished about his life and even later scribes added things.

It is rational to believe he was a typical "prophet", one of many at the time, but had a better PR campaign.

All historic figures have had their image embellished, Jesus, would have been no different.

A legend: a mixture of fact and fiction.

And guess which parts I posit are fiction... Yep, the supernatural & the miracles.

They were superstitious people who wanted to believe something so strongly that, for example, Luke may have carefully transcribed history, but was not questioning of any of it.

Mark has all the stylistic markers of writing myth and Matthew gets his info from Mark (he never met Mark, but embellished Mark's already mythy-tainted stories).

John was a wacko.

So....surely you must have a link to a scholarly article proving these points are accurate and not your own suppositions.

I find the bible interesting, so if you would be so inclined to provide support of your grandiose statements, it would be much appreciated.

Some sources:
1.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.html
2. The Bible
3. http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/4r_articles.html

The Bible is the best source for anti-Biblical ideas. You may not choose to read it that way, but I find it is an excellent source.

[Revenant]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Revenant wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: toddytodd wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: John wrote: Quote: Liar, lunatic or lord is a Straw Man argument. It is infantile.
How about Legend, for example?

You seem to take a lot of points that people make out of context.

Liar, lunatic or lord is in response to people who claim that Jesus was just a good man. I'm glad someone sees my point :wink:.

Is your point that C.S. Lewis is not a very good thinker? :)

After all, not many people consider Jesus a monster. However, the average person would consdier him a philosopher, and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend.
Quote: ...and make-up of other people's stories - a Legend. What do you mean here? Please explain.

It is most likely, considering the evidence, that Jesus existed, but was a relatively minor figure until some people started writing about him (and if you look at the Gospels, they chornologically get more "supernatural" until it's a total blow-up by John) and Paul was a great salesman.

The writers embellished about his life and even later scribes added things.

It is rational to believe he was a typical "prophet", one of many at the time, but had a better PR campaign.

All historic figures have had their image embellished, Jesus, would have been no different.

A legend: a mixture of fact and fiction.

And guess which parts I posit are fiction... Yep, the supernatural & the miracles.

They were superstitious people who wanted to believe something so strongly that, for example, Luke may have carefully transcribed history, but was not questioning of any of it.

Mark has all the stylistic markers of writing myth and Matthew gets his info from Mark (he never met Mark, but embellished Mark's already mythy-tainted stories).

John was a wacko.

So....surely you must have a link to a scholarly article proving these points are accurate and not your own suppositions.

I find the bible interesting, so if you would be so inclined to provide support of your grandiose statements, it would be much appreciated.

Some sources:
1.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.html
2. The Bible
3. http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/4r_articles.html

The Bible is the best source for anti-Biblical ideas. You may not choose to read it that way, but I find it is an excellent source.

Can you please point me to the articles which you've used to achieve your conclusions. I would like to read the specific ones you've used.

[mODULAR mAN]

its from reading many of them, listening to podcasts, reading books.
Not all sources agree, some are Apologetics, some are more or less skeptikal.

Bob Price is a great Biblical Scholar and fun to read.

Here is a debate "Jesus: Fact or Fiction"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/index.shtml

I forget who "wins" the debate.

[LetsGetReal]

Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

[Revenant]

LetsGetReal wrote: Misquoting Apologetics shows that you didn't read them and I sincerely believe you haven't read anything worth reading dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Copy/Pasting anti-christian thoughts isn't something to applaud yourself for.

Infidel.org quite laughable if you would like to call that a stellar source.

PH.D's are not handed out to anyone that wants one. The man got his PH.D from Drew University. Granted, not the most stellar of schools, but there were others on Infidels.org that got PH.D's from Ivy League schools.

The url is satirical, it probably isn't the site you are imagining.

[Revenant]

mODULAR mAN wrote: its from reading many of them, listening to podcasts, reading books.
Not all sources agree, some are Apologetics, some are more or less skeptikal.

Bob Price is a great Biblical Scholar and fun to read.

Here is a debate "Jesus: Fact or Fiction"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/index.shtml

I forget who "wins" the debate.

Interesting debate. Both actually did very well. However, even in the beginning, Dr. Price admitted that historians have to deal with probabilities, and that nothing is certain.

However there is a stark contrast with what you posted and what Dr. Price is speaking about. He hardly portrays JC as a "wacko". Hell, he still attends Episcopal Church. It seems as if his critiques are of the Christian Right (rightfully so), and not Christianity as a whole. Much of the recent explosion of secularism is in response to reactionary Christians, but it seemed as if Dr. Price is against the rabid fundamentalists, not Christians as a whole.