(June 19, 2017 at 12:05 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: We have Paul's assertion regarding his authorization from Jesus, but nothing from Jesus Himself.

We also have Joseph's Smith's assertion regarding his authorization from God and Jesus.  

And Pat Roberson's, and Jimmy Swaggart's, and Tammy Faye Bakkers . . . .

See the problem there ?

You need to read what each says and determine if it's reconcilable with what came before. Paul frequently quotes the OT to support his positions. Also, according to Paul and two other NT authors, Paul was vetted by Jesus' apostles. So, if you have specific items from Paul which you think are irreconcilable, we can discuss them, but a blanket but Paul said some different stuff  isn't much of an argument.

What we have is whatever the unknown scribe(s) who edited this paul shit wants you to hear.  WE HAVE NO FUCKING ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

worse, we have believers here once again NOT DOING IT RIGHT.

Sheesh, it ain't Atheist Forums anymore, it's Heresy Showcase.

(June 19, 2017 at 12:18 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: There is (or should be) a qualitative distinction between the Bible recording Jesus saying this, Jesus saying that and so forth, and then when a Joseph Smith, or a Jim Bakker pops up and says things in accord with what Scripture records, that is fine and dandy, however, when someone pops up and says essentially Jesus told me to go contradict Him, there otta be a 'flag on the play'.

Why do you only mention Paul? Why not Peter, for the vision he claimed he received which led to opening things up to gentiles? Jesus said that what Peter loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven though. Or didn't that remark from Jesus count?

What's of more interest is why you're not mentioning Paul. Why the deflection?

(June 19, 2017 at 12:35 pm)Cyberman Wrote: What's of more interest is why you're not mentioning Paul. Why the deflection?

I mentioned Paul in the post just before this last one...

(June 19, 2017 at 11:46 am)alpha male Wrote:

(June 16, 2017 at 8:28 am)Khemikal Wrote: I think we all know the story.  God trolls Abe, hard, and Abe's all like "doy doy doy" -but ofc the story itself isn't even remotely the interesting part - or what we were discussing...so?  

Actually, yes, the OP specifically mentions Abraham in the write-up for that question. Abraham was not required to sacrifice his child.

Oh stop, ofc he was, lol.  The success condition for this test was that he go "doy doy doy!" and grab the knife. To pretend that this was anyuthing other than an explicit and divinely imposed requirement is puerile.  I'm sure Abe and Isaac both were super relived that god is a major troll - but that doesn't change what was required of Abraham....which is the entire point of the narrative. 

Maybe that's the disconnect..you think that anybody is asking you about the story.  No one cares.  People wonder how modern day believers..purportedly better people™, reconcile their own faiths -today- with the character and commands portrayed in said story.  We've seen how you do so, you ponder slitting your kids throat. More power to you, at least here you can claim some sort of pyrrhic victory over the OP. Turns out you can answer that question, in the affirmative. Another example of that fine christian morality we always hear about, I guess.

Since that seems pretty cut and dry, I'm fine with moving on to this newest evasion.  As I already mentioned..when a person orders a hit in our country, we charge them with a crime regardless of whether any murder is accomplished.  It seems that the character of god fails to meet such uncontroversial standards.  Further, what compels you, to turn to this....as a defense of either your own hypothetical complicity or the narrative complicity of both god and abe?  Why would you want to mention it at all..since it can only worsen the assessment of either (or any) party's actions? Two would-be murderes, one the lord of creation(lol), who fail to accomplish the murder they had conspired to commit. Today, we'd consider both to be grade A idiots. The only person in the room we might consider even sillier...is anyone who mounted a "but, they didn't end up getting the little bastard" defense..........

Suppose you took god seriously, as Abe did, and bound up your son..in order to kill him at the appointed time and place....because maybe you'd do that, according to you. If god, as in the story, trolls you last minute...you will still be charged with a crime.  There is no version of this narrative, or your own hypothetical complicity, that isn't a textbook example of conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder.

understand my dismay and disappoint:
scenario1)
Apostates and heretics flock to Atheist Forums and are converted to Atheism en masse.


[yawn]

scenario 2)
1 actual pious believer shows up, starts Witnessing the Actual Word, but then after reading some other posts here realizes he is compelled to embrace Atheism.



Obviously, the real thrill of being here is for the promise of scenario 2 someday happening. Who gives a rats ass if a heretic renounces God?

Not me !!

(June 19, 2017 at 12:41 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Maybe that's the disconnect..you think that anybody is asking you about the story.  No one cares.  People wonder how modern day believers..purportedly better people™, reconcile their own faiths -today- with the character and commands portrayed in said story.  We've seen how you do so, you ponder slitting your kids throat.

Reconciling my own faith with that of Abraham is easy - my faith is lesser than his, and so God wouldn't even approach me with such a command. That wasn't the question though.

Quote:Since that seems pretty cut and dry, I'm fine with moving on to this newest evasion.  As I already mentioned..when a person orders a hit in our country, we charge them with a crime regardless of whether any murder is accomplished.

I didn't expect you to admit that moving to current law was an evasion, but yes, I agree.

---

(June 19, 2017 at 12:51 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: understand my dismay and disappoint:
scenario1)
Apostates and heretics flock to Atheist Forums and are converted to Atheism en masse.


[yawn]

scenario 2)
1 actual pious believer shows up, starts Witnessing the Actual Word, but then after reading some other posts here realizes he is compelled to embrace Atheism.



Obviously, the real thrill of being here is for the promise of scenario 2 someday happening.  Who gives a rats ass if a heretic renounces God?

Not me !!

You used to be an interesting poster. Now you're a 2-trick pony (Paul, day of crucifixion). I've got to share the yawn. I'm disappointed.

(June 19, 2017 at 12:53 pm)alpha male Wrote: .

Reconciling my own faith with that of Abraham is easy - my faith is lesser than his, and so God wouldn't even approach me with such a command. That wasn't the question though.

The ops question was simple.  Would you kill your kid.  You did manage to answer that one (which is probably the most hilarious bit of this little act).  You aren't talking to the op though, here, or responding to the op...so it hardly matters, huh?  You're right though, I definitely didn't ask you any question to gauge your faith - nor does the comment above seem to be at all relevant to anything I did ask.....yet again.

Quote:I didn't expect you to admit that moving to current law was an evasion, but yes, I agree.

Projection for the lose, lol.  Responding with some tripe about my elaboration being current law is nothing other than an evasion.  It was conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder no matter the time frame, and even though it's just a story in a book.  If you agree, and it seems that you do, then the whole point of ops question and my many questions remain completely unanswered..despite so much yapping about things people didn't ask you.