Molok wrote:Buffalo I have a serious question.. were you this obnoxious and sure of yourself when you were a TBM?
No, never. Then again, the anonymity of the internet makes me more obnoxious than I would otherwise be - as I'm sure is the case for Crusader.
Finally, you answered a question posed to you Buffalo. Since you seem to be on mission to just be an annoying dickhead, I'll let you rail on your version of Christianity in complete peace.
Aristotle Smith wrote: Finally, you answered a question posed to you Buffalo. Since you seem to be on mission to just be an annoying dickhead, I'll let you rail on your version of Christianity in complete peace.
Have a nice day.
While I may indeed be an annoying dickhead, I stand by the veracity of my statements, even if I phrased them dickishly.
I've answered every question posed to me, and done it honestly.
Plucking new meaning for scriptures out of thin air is what it means to "interpret" them. That has long been the case - a way of dismissing doctrines that make believers uncomfortable and harmonizing passages that contradict each other.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Aristotle Smith wrote: Finally, you answered a question posed to you Buffalo. Since you seem to be on mission to just be an annoying dickhead, I'll let you rail on your version of Christianity in complete peace.
Have a nice day.
While I may indeed be an annoying dickhead, I stand by the veracity of my statements, even if I phrased them dickishly.
I've answered every question posed to me, and done it honestly.
Plucking new meaning for scriptures out of thin air is what it means to "interpret" them. That has long been the case - a way of dismissing doctrines that make believers uncomfortable and harmonizing passages that contradict each other.
How many doctrines can be made without interpretation? Even in the scripture that you are quoting, there has to be a measure of interpretation to read "destruction" as "eternal damnation"
Aristotle Smith wrote: Finally, you answered a question posed to you Buffalo. Since you seem to be on mission to just be an annoying dickhead, I'll let you rail on your version of Christianity in complete peace.
Have a nice day.
While I may indeed be an annoying dickhead, I stand by the veracity of my statements, even if I phrased them dickishly.
I've answered every question posed to me, and done it honestly.
Plucking new meaning for scriptures out of thin air is what it means to "interpret" them. That has long been the case - a way of dismissing doctrines that make believers uncomfortable and harmonizing passages that contradict each other.
Don't let the people here shame you for not feeling the same way about Christianity that they do. Your opinion of Christianity is every bit as valid as the next message board poster, whether or not certain so-called experts and bloggers agree with you.
Molok wrote:How many doctrines can be made without interpretation? Even in the scripture that you are quoting, there has to be a measure of interpretation to read "destruction" as "eternal damnation"
Eric wrote: Don't let the people here shame you for not feeling the same way about Christianity that they do. Your opinion of Christianity is every bit as valid as the next message board poster, whether or not certain so-called experts and bloggers agree with you.
Thanks. I readily admit that I can be a dick, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
It seems that the Christians are every bit as defensive and knee-jerk in the defense of their beliefs as are the TBMs.
The great thing about being atheist is that never are faced with the impossible task of defending convoluted mythology.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Molok wrote:How many doctrines can be made without interpretation? Even in the scripture that you are quoting, there has to be a measure of interpretation to read "destruction" as "eternal damnation"
Thanks for the answer, I have learned something today. Quick follow up: how does the concept of eternal destruction match up with the thought of hell being a place of torment, where unbelievers are given eternal bodies which cannot die? It seems to me that the word would have more of a meaning of being erased from existence..
Molok wrote:Thanks for the answer, I have learned something today. Quick follow up: how does the concept of eternal destruction match up with the thought of hell being a place of torment, where unbelievers are given eternal bodies which cannot die? It seems to me that the word would have more of a meaning of being erased from existence..
If we believe Jesus said all the words that are attributed to him, he expressed belief in the persistence of the soul and its torment in hell, as did other new testament writers.
Definition of perdition: A state of eternal punishment and damnation into which a sinful and unpenitent person passes after death.
Now, I'm not sure about the origins of that definition, but the doctrine is certainly expressed in the New Testament.
The JWs have certainly interpreted that to mean being erased from existence.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote: No, never. Then again, the anonymity of the internet makes me more obnoxious than I would otherwise be - as I'm sure is the case for Crusader.
That's true. I'm slightly less of a dick in person.
This just one of his many socks. CC's most famous sock is Richard Carrier, and he has been trolling the crap out of Atheists and Apologists for over a decade now.
Aristotle Smith wrote: Finally, you answered a question posed to you Buffalo. Since you seem to be on mission to just be an annoying dickhead, I'll let you rail on your version of Christianity in complete peace.
Have a nice day.
While I may indeed be an annoying dickhead, I stand by the veracity of my statements, even if I phrased them dickishly.
I've answered every question posed to me, and done it honestly.
Plucking new meaning for scriptures out of thin air is what it means to "interpret" them. That has long been the case - a way of dismissing doctrines that make believers uncomfortable and harmonizing passages that contradict each other.
It might help if you could clearly lay out how the earliest Christians read the various texts in say, the first 4 or 5 centuries of the faith’s existence (being generous there) and lay out what the exegetical methods were for this early church.
That is a lot of work, but it would make your case far more plausible. The biggest hindrance you have is that you don’t read the New Testament in it’s Greek form, at the risk of sounding like a snob, that greatly hinders your ability to actually read and understand the very real nuances in the text. At best, you could rely on top notch commentary, but I think that is a dead end, since you’d just be cherry picking sources that agree with you for every passage. That might show that there are overtly literal passages, but it doesn’t go far in establishing what you’ve been pushing in this thread.
It wouldn’t hurt to do some background reading in early church history, language, and hermeneutics.