NOGO

Right! If my points are so simplistic and easy to answer why then do you need to deviate the discussion to my sincerity and not give a proper answer.

So you take offense at "master Radorth". You on the other hand question my sincerity and I am suppose to accept that since it is so obviously true.

... And no, Radorth does not have a holier-than-thou attitude. It just appears that way.

Radorth

A thread titled "Radorth-God's Plan" is highly suspect, especially since I did not even broach the subject directly. You simply made some assumptions about what I believed, and decided to take me to task for it and "tile you into a corner tile by tile." I gave you the benefit of the doubt until then, and might even have taken up the subject again. Did you forget I was gone for 5 days as well? By your third post you were gloating that you were "winning." I'm sorry, I just don't believe your motives were all that pure, and besides that you were setting the presumptions and rules to go by. Even that is OK for the sake of argument, but at that point one has to decide whether they want to live with them or not. I chose not to.

Radorth

Ron Garrett

This is probably worth some discussion as I think here Radorth, although pointedly and with unwarranted condecension, makes a relevant comment to these discussions.

We have many families of Christian denominations:
Adventist groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, and British Israelism, Southern Baptists, American Baptists, Christian Science, New Thought
The Jesus People, Twin Oaks, various Orthodox churches from Russia, Greece, Serbia, etc.
Amish, Brethren, Mennonites, Quakers, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Church of the Nazarene, Plymouth Brethren, Fundamentalists, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Unitarian Universalists, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Lutheran church - Missouri Synod, Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod, Messianic Judaism Jews For Jesus, Assemblies of God, Church of God (Cleveland, TN) Scandinavian Pietism, United Methodism, other Methodists, Reformed-Presbyterian , Presbyterian, Congregational, United Church of Christ, Swedenborgianism, Spiritualism, Roman Catholicism, Old Catholicism, Anglicanism, and we aren't even counting growing groups like Calvay Chapel, Vineyard, Horizon, and on and on.

Christians cannot among themselves "make intelligent distinctions between people who follow Christ "in spirit and in truth" and those who don't." Christians cannot agree on important rituals and ordinances such as baptism. Christians cannot agree upon issues such as salvation, predestination, foreordination, free will, unmmerited grace, praying to and baptism of the dead, permissability of divorce, homosexuality, qualifications for ordination to the offices, the Eucharist, tithing, evangelism, etc. Very important doctrines vary significantly from denomination to denomination. Since Christians are not able to dtermine who is and who is not true, what the scripture does and does not authoritatively teach, what doctrine is pure and which corrupt, it's arrogance plain and simple to attack the intelligence of an outsider who can plainly see that Christians themselves cannot discern the spirit or truth of themselves or others.o how shall we pick and choose to satisfy your personal criteria which you will assure us is the obviously correct ones, though other Christians will assure us something diferent and that you are mistaken. We tend to make them one homogenous mass because the distinctions that Christians of various sects emphasize overlap, but also exclude each other, yet many of these differences, while important enough to faction over to Christians, an outsider sees as pure specualtive nonsense of unprovable importance. If you read the Jefferson Bible you will realize TJ thought a lot of the gospels contained something added and atributed to Jesus which he did not credit inthe least. Hardly a thoroughgoing endorsement. I assume you mean yourself. So perhaps you can detail for us how these distinctions are made. I think we would like to see definitions of some sort, particularly ones that don't shift like sand to suit your purpose of the moment. If something is true it should be true, not merely true in a vague and indefinable sense that cannot be described or measured. Truth and falsehood are only apparent in contrast. If your truth is indefinable,then it is no guide. And some just use false humility. and some fantasize interventions by deified men who have been dead 2000 years. Perhaps it would be humility to creit my accomplishment to the benevlolent intervention for he Invisible Pink Unicorn, but I tend to think it just means one is a culturally conditioned person in a culture where glorifying a deity for good fortune and blaming oneself or a demon for bad fortune is expected and approved of.

By the way, have you ever slogged your way through Whitefield's sermons? Yeesh, he makes up more non-biblical crap than even Dakes, though I gather he was a stirring orator, as many preachers, even the ouright theives and liars, are.

Sojourner553

Radorth,

I think there is some truth to what you were saying for SOME atheists here -- they think all Christians are motivated the same way.

But I ask you to look in the mirror. Some of your posts I have seen seemed to imply all atheists were likewise the same!

P.S. I guess you didn't like the questions I was asking in my earlier posts (which is why you did not reply)???

Sojourner

NOGO

It goes without saying that noone will force you to respond to any question on this forum.

I have debated many people here and elsewhere. Frankly, I can only recall one victory and it was a total surprise too. A small detail did it and I discovered it as the debated when on. Hardly anything to sink your teeth in.

Given that I must be really bored to death if victories is what I seek. Repeating over and over again the same arguements over the same subjects and no victories. So why am I here? Why do I bother with you Radorth?

I am here to expose Christianity for the lie that it is. A pious lie perhaps but a lie nevertheless. In your lingo I am witnessing to the untruth that is Christianity.

"gloating that you were winning"
I think that you in your holier-than-thou attitude see evil everywhere you look, except of course in yourself.
You can certainly dish it out but you can't take any. I was astonished that after conceeding that there was a problem with the resurrection story in Matthew you kept talking about "copying" and "redaction" errors. I felt that this could not pass without a comment. There was no "gloating" there at all. I was expressing two things. One, that you failed to acknowledge a conclusion that you yourself drew from our discussion and two, that you stopped on the Luke discussion.

You questioned my motives right from the start of the thread so I will ignore your new comments on the subject. You are just looking for excuses not to respond. As I said noone is obliging you to do so.

I did not know that you were away for 5 days.

Radorth

Getting back to some other amazing posts :

Re Sojourner

The precise time when the Bible was unavailable to a huge number of Christians and even some clerics, and the intrpretation of Popes was the only Gospel. And those who did read it themselves complained rather loudly about abuses and ascriptural nonsense being taught. You claim to know history, but you never noticed that? See my thread on "authentic disciples" for futher info.

Radorth

Radorth

I susect you missed the point, however the most astonishing thing to date is your FAILURE to concede anything- even that you and Doherty totally contradicted each other on the same point-and then to explain how "rational" thinkers come up with self-canceling arguments.

I'd bet I'm not the first to have seen you get ahead of yourself, truth be known.

Radorth

NOGO

A typical Radorth statement!
I guess whenever you find nothing intelligent to say you have a need to return to same old worn out arguement which only you think is appropriate.

I think that I have already conceded that free-thinkers have no need to agree with each other on anything. Therefore I have no problem in contradicting Doherty, although it is certainoly not the case in the issue that you are referring to here.

Christian faith, however, comes from one source and should therefore be ONE and not contradict. That is, Christianity should have one doctrine which can stand up to any critical arguements. Why is it that Christians can't agree on this one true doctrine.

Chrisitanity in fact diverged into many factions right from the start. So much so that it became necessary to silence all of them except one. This was not done by intelligent debate, it was done by force. 1000 years later Christianity split again and since then we again have hundreds of Christian denominations.

So, "rational" thinkers can't agree on Christian documents ... right!... but neither can believers. What is your great point here, Radorth?

I know.
You are sorry that you conceded anything.
But really, it is not Radorth which conceded that Matthew 28 contradicts John 20. Any elementary school student can figure that out by himself. There is nothing to concede. It is an easily observable fact. All I did was to rub your nose in it long enough for your sensitive Christian eyes to see the light.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Radorth

LOL!

We do. It's called the Nicene creed, you know the one. We were all tortured mercilessly until we agreed to it. However now we've even totally resolved the justification by faith conflict. That was a biggie, I'll admit. We had to torture the Catholics in that case, but they cave in pretty easy. Bede did require some special treatment as I recall.

And here I thought Acts recorded "the very start" of the church. The Romans themselves marveled at the love and loyalty of Christians. Maybe you're suggesting Paul tortured Peter until he came around? Or that Peter went around knifing people he didn't like, and threatening everybody with same if they said anything. C'mon, spit it out. You think Christians were in violent disagreement from day one- you just can't prove anything except by innuendo.

There was a period when one had to believe the Pope or nothing, but publication of the NT soon cured that. It's a marvel what denominations agree on, considering they've had only about 300 years to recover what the first disciples knew and saw. The only serious issues left are whether God still works miracles, and whether the nine gifts of the Spirit are needful to the church. You WILL find us disagreeing about those.

It's a marvel what doesn't get moved to RRP, isn't it?

Radorth

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

K

Radorth:

Are you saying that there is no disagreement about whether bread and wine represent or really are the actual body and blood of Christ? That there is no disagreement about whether it is faith, works, or both that saves? That everyone agrees with the Calvanist doctrine of predestination? That there is no disagreement about whether or not the Bible is inerrant? That all Christians agree on whether or not the earth was created 6000 years ago in six 24 hour days? I would say there are still a lot of major issues Christians still don't agree upon.