Is Defense of the Gospel a Legitimate Activity?

thomas t · Feb 27, 2021

Norman Beall said:
No no lol , it's what moses called them heh.

Any you find that cherry pick truth as they see fit, moses called frogs. A cherry picker of the truth that is silenced is what moses called a locust.

I am neutral towards what Moses said there.
I would never tell my conversation partners that a religious authority calls them names.
Even if one of them may have resorted to cherry picking.

From my experience in one big Christian message board, discussions often went like that:
Atheist " I don't believe because of x"
Christian "y".
Atheist refuting y...
Christian "you are a fool, you are a [enter names here]"
It was a shame.

Norman Beall · Feb 27, 2021

thomas t said:
I am neutral towards what Moses said there.
I would never tell my conversation partners that a religious authority calls them names.
Even if one of them may have resorted to cherry picking.

From my experience in one big Christian message board, discussions often went like that:
Atheist " I don't believe because of x"
Christian "y".
Atheist refuting y...
Christian "you are a fool, you are a [enter names here]"
It was a shame.

it's not name calling, it's a reflection of the truth of an individual. one that hops from truth to truth as they see fit, is called a frog in the books of moses.

thomas t · Feb 27, 2021

Norman Beall said:
it's not name calling, it's a reflection of the truth of an individual. one that hops from truth to truth as they see fit, is called a frog in the books of moses.

I also got called names.
Sometimes they hid their name calling in a quote.
These were usually the reactions when I called them out:
"it's an observation"
"but it's true"
"I want to help you"...
however this did not make the name calling undone. Never.

There are situations in which God called someone names. Never should a Christian do the same.
This is at least my opinion.

Norman Beall · Feb 27, 2021

thomas t said:
I also got called names.
Sometimes they hid their name calling in a quote.
These were usually the reactions when I called them out:
"it's an observation"
"but it's true"
"I want to help you"...
however this did not make the name calling undone. Never.

There are situations in which God called someone names. Never should a Christian do the same.
This is at least my opinion.

God is a being of knowledge. Opinions are irrelevant to him.

God calls me the sword, the unicorn, the comforter, the holy ghost. it's not name calling, it's a relfection of the truth that is in me. God calls cherry pickers of the truth frogs. Take it up with God when you meet him in judgement. They that deal truly God finds delight in.

Norman Beall · Feb 27, 2021

thomas t said:
I also got called names.
Sometimes they hid their name calling in a quote.
These were usually the reactions when I called them out:
"it's an observation"
"but it's true"
"I want to help you"...
however this did not make the name calling undone. Never.

There are situations in which God called someone names. Never should a Christian do the same.
This is at least my opinion.

That's pretty funny, you're going to tell God in judgement he can't call individuals that hop from truth to truth as they see fit that hop over other truths, he can't call them frogs. Good luck with that heh

Norman Beall · Feb 27, 2021

thomas t said:
I also got called names.
Sometimes they hid their name calling in a quote.
These were usually the reactions when I called them out:
"it's an observation"
"but it's true"
"I want to help you"...
however this did not make the name calling undone. Never.

There are situations in which God called someone names. Never should a Christian do the same.
This is at least my opinion.

again, go read exodux 8 of the kjv. If you believe there are actual frogs in the story, and do not instead see it's talking about humans that cherry pick the truth as they see fit, you're a cherry picker of the truth as you see fit, one that God calls a frog.

How do you think it will work out for you in judgement? God calls you a frog, and you deny it? think about it heh

halbhh · Feb 27, 2021

Shadow Wolf said:
You apparently missed when I said I still know the interpretations and understandings from when I was a believer.

I got that, but I know believers are often having incomplete understanding, I saw, from many thousands of conversations with at least hundreds. That a person believed didn't make them already get what they missed -- as decades pass, they learn new things.

halbhh · Feb 27, 2021

TagliatelliMonster said:
You did in the post I was responding to.

I referred to the context of the previous post I wrote to you, to which you'd responded --

halbhh said:
@TagliatelliMonster

An important misnomer. The mortal death of this body, such as for instance in the seemingly genocidal biblical Flood == when someone tries to claim it's actually amounting to a "genocide" (or whatever instance given, even that there is any human mortality at all (that anyone is mortal makes all death then genocide it would seem)...)

Consider:

Suppose Ralph accuses Peter of killing Jane and her child, and indeed they are departed, passed away....

Ok.

But...then, later in time, we discover to our surprise that actually Jane and her child are perfectly fine and living in Australia (* note below)...

Well, it would have to be that Peter didn't actually kill them.

Ergo, Ralph was mistaken to begin with.

----------
(*) The victims of the biblical Flood, and by extension all the dead in some manner, are simply transported to a new location according to the common bible -- akin to the British "transportation" of criminals to Australia in the 19th century. (BBC Two - History File, Britain 1750-1900 - Part 1, Transportation of British criminals to Australia)

i.e. -- "18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison — 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built...."

Of course, being still alive in the essential (potentially eternal) way, they were not truly killed in a final sense, that is, in the sense of the word 'genocide' which has the sense of meaning of a real final death.

Luke 8:52 Meanwhile, everyone was weeping and mourning for her. But Jesus said, "Stop weeping; she is not dead but asleep."

Not that all people would believe that! -->
Luke 8:53 And they laughed at Him, knowing that she was dead.

Some won't believe until that final end when they face the reality.

night912 · Feb 27, 2021

thomas t said:
so if you go with Mark, there you go:
She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept
it's just two verses later (verse 10).
She changed her mind.
Set this in lights of Luke, and maybe she was accompanied by the other women.

No contradiction there.

Please set aside the dishonesty and address what I said instead of ignoring it so you can make a claim. If you actually read what I said, you would've realized that verse doesn't exist. So present your evidence to support that your verse exist in the manuscript of Mark that I used.

And that verse itself contradicts verse 8

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

You're making a claim based on your assumption. There's no verse in Mark that would suggest that she changed her mind. There's only a contradiction. Verses 1-8 is narrating an event. And the verses that were added later on, immediately after verse 8, it is just a rewording of the narrative of the same event and adding a couple new things that contradicts what was said. Mary said nothing to anyone, therefore, if Mary told those who were with him(Jesus), that would be a contradiction.

So which contradiction are you going with? Mine, where Luke contradicts Mark or yours, where Mark contradicts Mark?

Shadow Wolf · Feb 27, 2021

thomas t said:
Because you are the one making reproaches, present the facts that would prove your point that they actually acted accordingly at that point of time.

You want more? What about ripping the unborn from the womb, killing homosexuals, killing apostates, keeping slaves, keeping sex slaves, bear maulings, drownings, killing rebellious kids, killing those who violate the sabbath, kill witches, kill women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, it has such an utter lack of respect for the autonomy of others even permanent body modifications are ok to force on others under some circumstances.

thomas t said:
And I further argue that that decision came from Lydia herself.

There is nothing to support that, and the passage says specifically she was a merchant, not a church leader.

thomas t said:
Paul also set an example making tents, he was a tent maker, that does not mean that all Christianity has to be tent makers.
Paul also set an example of writing letters. But everyone does not have to write letters, too?

He didn't make rules about having to do those things. He made rules and policies for churches.
Grasping at straws isnt apologetics.

thomas t said:
Regardless of where the sexes came from.... Paul says no woman and no man at church.

He didn't say that. He said in church men lead, women shut up and hang their heads in humility. Women, after all, need to cover up because it's a problem with them that men don't have (interestingly, the genders roles are flipped here in Judaism).

thomas t said:
But lets assume you are right and all powers are given to the man.
If he has so much power, then he is entitled to delegate it back to the woman.
Very much in the way the people in a democracy is entitled to delegate their power to the parliament, too.
A man does not need to get rid of all of his power, but clearly he is entitled to do so woth 50% of it.
Then we have equality. as described in Galatians 3:28.

Except none of that is there. The Bible is not egalitarian.

Norman Beall · Feb 27, 2021

umm, the tent is the great sheet knit at four corners that forms the tetrahedron, which is the platoinic solid that represents the limits of three dimensional space. it's not actually a tent. any story that includes tents is a story about understanding dimensional analysis of the platonic solids.

we're reading the same book, right?

blü 2 · Feb 27, 2021

thomas t said:
I general, I don't defend anything by mere assertion, as you call it.

You asked if I thought apologetics was a legitimate activity.

No, it's not. Its own rules forbid certain answers if they disagree with whichever orthodoxy is involved.

Therefore apologetics is not about finding historical truth or examining the bible as a set of historical documents. It's about defending the client, regardless of the charge and the strength of the charge.

Let's leave it at that.

thomas t · Feb 28, 2021

night912 said:
Please set aside the dishonesty

I'm not being dihonest

night912 said:
and address what I said instead of ignoring it so you can make a claim.

I did address what you said, I did not ignore it.

night912 said:
If you actually read what I said, you would've realized that verse doesn't exist.

what? see below

night912 said:
You're making a claim based on your assumption. There's no verse in Mark that would suggest that she changed her mind.

what?
see verse 10, only 2 verses after your verse 8:
She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
Maybe, that verse doesn't exist in your Bible, though.
See here for the versions that contain it: Mark 16:10 She went and told those who had been with Him, who were mourning and weeping.

thomas t · Feb 28, 2021

Shadow Wolf said:
You want more? What about ripping the unborn from the womb, killing homosexuals, killing apostates, keeping slaves, keeping sex slaves, bear maulings, drownings, killing rebellious kids, killing those who violate the sabbath, kill witches, kill women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, it has such an utter lack of respect for the autonomy of others even permanent body modifications are ok to force on others under some circumstances.

No, I don't want to discuss more than 3 points at the same time.
So, let's do it that way: I address your first three points. Please leave the rest to another thread.
1) if the mother dies, it's probably best for the unborn to let it die a sudden death instead of suffering painful starvation or maybe suffocation.
That's how I understand it at least.
2) it's not only about homosexuality in the classic sense, as I see it. The concept of sexual orientation did not evoilve until the late 19th century, as far as I'm informed.
Today, there are men having sex with men although they are straight.
Maybe God wanted to address this. God maybe did not want straight men to abandon their sex with their female partners for the sake of having sex with men. Maybe.
But since nobody would have understood the difference between gay sex and same sex sex between one gay man and one straight man... he made a one size fits all solution. This is at least how it could be, as I see it.

Shadow Wolf said:
There is nothing to support that, and the passage says specifically she was a merchant, not a church leader.

She was a merchant... and became a church leader once her house was baptized.
Her house became a church. This is at least how I see the matter.
In my opinion, Lydia was the church leader then.
The passage is all about Lydia. Her house was seen as an attachment, as it seems.

Shadow Wolf said:
He didn't make rules about having to do those things. He made rules and policies for churches.
Grasping at straws isnt apologetics.

In this case, when he says "I suffer not the woman"...he made the rules for his churches. The ones he addressed in his letters.
Yes.
That does not mean anybody in the Christian world has to follow the rules for that particular church the letter was directed to.
No straws here.

Shadow Wolf said:
He didn't say that. He said in church men lead, women shut up and hang their heads in humility. Women, after all, need to cover up because it's a problem with them that men don't have (interestingly, the genders roles are flipped here in Judaism).

So, if men have all the power as you suggest they are entitled to delegate it back to the woman then.
At 50% I suggest.
If they can't talk at church, they can lead or whatever they want in return.

Shadow Wolf said:
Except none of that is there. The Bible is not egalitarian.

Galatians 3:28. The church (I mean all faithful believers) is as explained by this verse.

Is Defense of the Gospel a Legitimate Activity?

As an atheist, do you think doing apologetics is a legitimate activity?

yes

no

thomas t

non-denominational Christian

Norman Beall

Member

thomas t

non-denominational Christian

Norman Beall

Member

Norman Beall

Member

Norman Beall

Member

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".

night912

Well-Known Member

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber

Norman Beall

Member

blü 2

Veteran Member

thomas t

non-denominational Christian

thomas t

non-denominational Christian