(September 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:If Paul was that bad then Christianity would have never spread as it did

Xtianity spread at the point of a sword because it was in Constantine's interest to do so.

Try not to forget that again.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Roman_Cultu...ristianity

Quote:While many people tend to exaggerate the growth of Christianity before the 4th century, ninety percent of the empire was not Christian, and there is no evidence that Christianity could have continued to grow. It was the support of the emperor Constantine that transformed Christianity into a driving force in the Roman Empire. “Most authorities agree that by 300 A.D., between seven and ten percent of the population of the Roman Empire were Christian.”

Note, though, that it does not specify what "kind" of xtians. It was a fragmented doctrine split by a number of heresies and it took a while for the state and their chosen xtian allies to stamp out the others.

You really have much to learn and you'll never find it if you keep reading and repeating the same old sorry shit.

Which authorities, what are their names, what are their qualifications, who opposes what they say, and why? How has it been determined that Christianity spread had been exaggerated before the fourth century? Where is you proof of any of this minnie? Or is speculation now considered proof? You guys scream and wine about proof, but when it is your turn to provide it you demand we take what you say on faith.

Your quotes are empty, and your reasoning flawed, if you measure by the standards you use against Christianity.

---

(September 5, 2013 at 5:47 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Evidence that your fucker "raised himself from the dead?"

Drippy, haven't you fucking learned by now that you will never get away with putting this horseshit out as if it is fact when it is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

You can't even provide evidence that your boy ever lived...let alone that he came back from the dead or will return at some unspecified time in the future.

Truthfully, there isn't one reasonable assertion anywhere in that asinine religion of yours.

see the above post you hypocrite.

(September 5, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Don't you see how it works? If Paul was that bad then xtianity would never have spread as it did. Xtianity did spread as it did (obviously), therefore Paul couldn't have been that bad. The logic is as watertight as any circle can be.

Oh, my bad.

(September 5, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Godschild Wrote: If Paul was that bad then Christianity would have never spread as it did, like Drich said Paul established a following of believers in Gentile cities. So how do you think he did that, his writings were to the leaders of each church he established, instructing them how to teach the greater meaning of Christianity in a persons daily life. He preached the Gospel (life of Christ) of Christ to the people, he did not use what he wrote to bring people to the saving grace of Christ, Paul says his writings are a revelation from Christ and he addresses them to Church leaders. As your analogy would put it, Paul sold the inner workings of the car to the Church leaders, so they could pass it on to the Christian community.

GC

If you read the next reply that I wrote, you'll know what I think of Paul and how Christianity spread. Now I say that you are merely "hopefully speculating." There is no evidence whatsoever that Paul preached differently to church leaders. Now, you might say that just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen, but considering the amount of work and time Paul put into pitching Christianity, it is far more logical to assess that it didn't. Use reasoning and logic, and the Bible will make a lot more sense to you, I promise. =)

Drippy, the odds of finding a kernel of reality in any of your posts is tiny bordering on microscopic.

All you do is regurgitate the same old holy horseshit over and over. You have never said anything of substance because you have no substance.

You are batshit crazy for religion but that does not make your horseshit real.

In fundyland, favourable evidence which must be beyond question always trumps evidence to the contrary which has to be torn apart and rendered harmless. In fundyland, non sequiturs in circular orbits are dignified with the title of 'logic'. It must be so nice and fluffly to live in fundyland; like a Disney cartoon but with vastly inflated exclusionist sectarianism.

In Drippy's case he won't even consider the alternative to his ecclesiastical bullshit.

He seems to forget that we have the decrees of the Roman Emperors as they cracked down on pagan and heretical xtian groups. His early xtian heroes had no sense of shame about these documents and so preserved them for posterity.

Now, we get sanctimonious little shits like Drippy and G-C who are embarrassed by the implications of them so any scholar who reads them and comments on them must be a "tool of the devil."

Sorry, Drip. You are a tool and a fool.

(September 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: In Drippy's case he won't even consider the alternative to his ecclesiastical bullshit.

He seems to forget that we have the decrees of the Roman Emperors as they cracked down on pagan and heretical xtian groups. His early xtian heroes had no sense of shame about these documents and so preserved them for posterity.

Now, we get sanctimonious little shits like Drippy and G-C who are embarrassed by the implications of them so any scholar who reads them and comments on them must be a "tool of the devil."

Sorry, Drip. You are a tool and a fool.

Is this what the great minnie is reduced down to when his arguements fail because he can not support them when asked to provide 'proof?'

Name calling? Really? is that your big finish? You called me a tool and a fool. I bet if you thought about it you could have worked in uncool, that rhymes, what about jewl, or Zuhl (The main bad guy from the first Ghost busters.) You could have said I was being stubborn like a mule maybe..

(September 5, 2013 at 5:40 pm)Drich Wrote: How could Paul ignore these problems? These people needed the Meat of the word, not the milk that new or non believers need.
(That is why you want to hear more about Christ, You need Milk.) While someone who has heard and taught about Christ for the last 20 or 30 years needs the Meat of the word. Meaning information on how to live our lives under Christ.
1 cor
3 :1And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

This solid food analogy us used by Paul through out His ministry. Paul Feed the Spiritually mature Solid food to nourish the Spirit. The tentament of basic salvation are very important, but in of themselves can not sustain an on going faith. again the reason you do not like or understand the need for Paul's efforts is because you need the basics of salvation. Maybe once you spent a few decades on the basics you will understand the need to move past them, and apply christianity to your whole life.

All right, good return. Let's try another quote:

Romans 6:15-16
"What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

So, basically be slaves to God, or suffer for it. That is the milk? Tastes sour to me.

You say that I need to apply Christianity to my whole life. Ya know what? I did that. For almost 20 years. And what did it get me? Anxiety, confusion and a sense of hopelessness. Now I am, as they say, "de-converted" and you know what? I'm happier than I've ever been. My life has improved in ways I won't bore you with now. But it did happen. I learned that life is better as a free mind, and not as God's slave. And no punishment has come to me. If there is a God, he either approves of my choice, doesn't care about my choice, or is planning on letting me enjoy life, then damn me for eternity. The latter possibility is just evil.

Paul's teachings were just the tip of the iceberg. They were only what Paul knew, and that wasn't much. I say even if they do serve a separate purpose, they are not without flaw and error. And therefore they are not perfect, and cannot be the word of a perfect being.

(September 5, 2013 at 6:46 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: In Drippy's case he won't even consider the alternative to his ecclesiastical bullshit.

He seems to forget that we have the decrees of the Roman Emperors as they cracked down on pagan and heretical xtian groups. His early xtian heroes had no sense of shame about these documents and so preserved them for posterity.

Now, we get sanctimonious little shits like Drippy and G-C who are embarrassed by the implications of them so any scholar who reads them and comments on them must be a "tool of the devil."

Sorry, Drip. You are a tool and a fool.

Is this what the great minnie is reduced down to when his arguements fail because he can not support them when asked to provide 'proof?'

Name calling? Really? is that your big finish? You called me a tool and a fool. I bet if you thought about it you could have worked in uncool, that rhymes, what about jewl, or Zuhl (The main bad guy from the first Ghost busters.) You could have said I was being stubborn like a mule maybe..

He actually backed it up by pointing out how you don't consider the alternative, but you let your emotions get in the way of that by focusing on the ad Homs. Why don't you finish your "what ifs" with "and if nots"?

(September 5, 2013 at 6:46 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: In Drippy's case he won't even consider the alternative to his ecclesiastical bullshit.

He seems to forget that we have the decrees of the Roman Emperors as they cracked down on pagan and heretical xtian groups. His early xtian heroes had no sense of shame about these documents and so preserved them for posterity.

Now, we get sanctimonious little shits like Drippy and G-C who are embarrassed by the implications of them so any scholar who reads them and comments on them must be a "tool of the devil."

Sorry, Drip. You are a tool and a fool.

Is this what the great minnie is reduced down to when his arguements fail because he can not support them when asked to provide 'proof?'

Name calling? Really? is that your big finish? You called me a tool and a fool. I bet if you thought about it you could have worked in uncool, that rhymes, what about jewl, or Zuhl (The main bad guy from the first Ghost busters.) You could have said I was being stubborn like a mule maybe..

Fuck off you damn fool. The man wrote an entire book on point but you cling to your fucking fairy tales like the mental midget you are and say "where is the proof."

Read the book, idiot. Put down your fucking bible and learn some shit.