(August 21, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: [...]I listed Five Minimal Facts...just five. See what you can do with them.

Yeah... I tried wiping my ar*e with them and sadly I have to inform you - they're not good for that either...

(August 21, 2015 at 7:57 pm)professor Wrote: I'm late to the party again, and I see it went into a tailspin.
Let me get this straight... Randy is an atheist ex catholic and is standing up for them?
Are you SERIOUS?

By the way Randy, what part of "Because you have kept the word of my patience- I will keep you from (eck- out of) the hour of testing that is coming on the whole world"  that is in the bible, do you not understand?
Or,
"I tell you a mystery- we shall not all sleep (die), in a moment- at the last trump, the dead shall rise first and WE which remain shall be caught up together with them in the air.."
Catholicism does not accept biblical statements like that because someone among them might recognize their organization as the whore of Babylon that she is.

I've got 5 bucks on professor.

You listed 5 non-facts, you dumb fuck.  It's not your fault.  Habermas has been peddling that shit for years and it remains shit.

(August 21, 2015 at 8:32 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 21, 2015 at 8:28 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote: LOL, how much should we really care about accuracy when dealing with Randy, for whom reality enters one of the holes, and gets blown out the A-hole? I was just trying to have a little fun with him, and maybe bring his arrogance down a peg. 

Well, maybe it has something to do with self respect. I for one don't feel the need to answer one verbal fart with an even louder one. It also has something to do with honesty.

Hey, you don't know me well enough to be calling me dishonest, and I was being perfectly honest by arguing according to Randy's own ideas, thereby I was attempting to make a point  which even he couldn't argue wtih.

While his asinine trolling plagues every single thread on this network, it remains impossible for most of us to carry on any meaningful discussion on account of his distractions, therefore I don't think it harms us all more than it helps to point out the nonsense which even he can't effectively deny.

That the story in question on which I was arguing probably didn't happen at all is a moot point. The historical veracity of the bible as a whole is overwhelmingly negative, but it is known to be based on at least a few true events, or partial truths, and not knowing otherwise regarding this particular story, I presumed for Randy's benefit that it is at least partially so. It's not dishonest at all that the story of Peter, Ananias, and his wife Saphira is in his bible, and he doesn't question that story. It's honest to take a good hard look at the likelihood that a bit of historical revisionism took place between the original telling of that story, the original writing, and the numerous written versions between then and the time that King James did his own transcription of it. In all honesty, a hard look at Randy's book of truths reveals that Peter wasn't really so nice a guy, although his violent loyalty to Jesus made him the favorite of the same. Looking that way at Randy's bible, it's a perfectly sensible conclusion that Peter killed that half-committed couple himself, in a fit of rage.

In my experience, the only way to get through to people like Randy is to give him the benefit of the doubt that the basis of his ideas is true, and then unpack the faults in his arguments based on that. I think it can work because when you accept the basis idea with little or no thought, you won't give much thought to the veracity of its derivative ideas either.

(August 21, 2015 at 7:34 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote:

(August 21, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

Your patron saint Peter is still a murderous thug. You know it's true on account of his bad-tempered nature, as the bible has described in no uncertain terms. That he was selected as the leader of his new church by Jesus should not be surprising, for when you xtians yammer about being "Christ-like", you consistently ignore the bad-tempered side of Jesus himself, when he went on a violent rampage through the Jewish temple. Obviously, Jesus knew what he was doing - he knew that it takes a ruthless thug to bring a small group of believers to power over millions, and then eventually billions. But he was still a thug, as is you.

Yay, Christian fight!

(August 22, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Yay, Christian fight!

Kind of funny, isn't it?

(August 21, 2015 at 8:05 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote:

(August 21, 2015 at 7:43 pm)abaris Wrote: I'm not known to be in Randy's fanclub, but based on what was Peter a murderous thug?

And if he's supposed to be one, he's on the same lines as Freddy Krueger. Prove that he even existed for starters.

I'm not studied enough to offer proof on Peter's existence, but you know it was somebody who led the first church. He is said to be buried in the Vatican, and those who succeeded him were regarded as Popes, not that his church ruled consistently from the Vatican until centuries after.

My stipulation is from Acts, Chapter 4, and presuming that the story of Ananias and his wife Saphira was true. If not, then it's still no win for Randy's side. The foundation of Randy's Catholic's Cannot Be Wrong arrogance is that the church was commissioned by Jesus to Peter, and that Peter's successors are right necessarily because they are Peter's successors, not the rebels who later challenged Peter's successors. Are you yawning yet? My point of this is that Randy isn't just an arrogant asshole for Xtiandom, but an all-around Catholic bigot.

Anyway, Peter told everyone following him to sell off all of their property and bring him all the money from the transactions. Ananias and his wife Saphira decided to keep some of their own money for themselves. Peter pressed them on whether they gave him all of their money, and Ananias lied. Peter knew they were lying. According to Acts 4, Ananias, and later his wife suddenly dropped dead in front of Peter for that lie. Now I don't believe that even Randy is stupid enough to believe they "just died", especially with Peter being known for his violent temper - fuck that, you know that if this scene with these people took place at all, it was Peter killing them in cold blood. Jesus had a violent side too, as told by his violent rampage through the Jewish temple, therefore it's unsurprising if in fact he chose Peter. Therefore, presuming that the bible is true at all, Peter was a murderous thug.

Is that what the bible ACTUALLY says, NoBrains2Use?

Here's the actual passage:

Quote:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Notice that part in bold? People sold their property voluntarily - not because Peter told them to. And why did they do this? Quite possibly because they were being led by the Spirit to liquidate their landholdings because the temple was going to be destroyed (which occurred in AD 70). Let's continue:

Quote:5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Again, check out the bolded passages. I wonder if Peter himself was not shocked when Ananias died, but when Saphira also lied, Peter knew how God would respond.

So, NoKnowledgeofGod, what is it about this passage that makes Peter a "murderous thug"? Nothing.

However, the verse bolded in blue suggests that just as He did in the Old Testament, God powerfully supported His chosen NT leaders and taught the people a lesson that dramatically benefited the early Church.

(August 22, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Yay, Christian fight!

(August 22, 2015 at 3:47 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 22, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Yay, Christian fight!

Kind of funny, isn't it?

One round. Two tops.