Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

You would think, that a few of you would see the benefit of the study in Romans I was doing for the atheist side of most Christian/atheist arguments, and wouldn't care about trying to invalidate Paul or his contributions. Why?

Because this study in Romans undermines MOST if not all versions of Christianity that hold to strict rules or "extra" absolution/attrition for sin. If you guys put any thought into this at all you'd be asking yourself why you can find so many theists who try and undermine or minimalize the works of Paul. The book of Romans is that up discussed reason. This book puts many of the largest denominational doctrines out of business/in direct violation with biblical Christianity.

I would have though more of you would want me to get you through this book so you could us the bible to try and show some of our more legalistlicy confused brothers how their religion is In Direct contradiction to the bible.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You would think, that a few of you would see the benefit of the study in Romans I was doing for the atheist side of most Christian/atheist arguments, and wouldn't care about trying to invalidate Paul or his contributions. Why?

Because this study in Romans undermines MOST if not all versions of Christianity that hold to strict rules or "extra" absolution/attrition for sin. If you guys put any thought into this at all you'd be asking yourself why you can find so many theists who try and undermine or minimalize the works of Paul. The book of Romans is that up discussed reason. This book puts many of the largest denominational doctrines out of business/in direct violation with biblical Christianity.

I would have though more of you would want me to get you through this book so you could us the bible to try and show some of our more legalistlicy confused brothers how their religion is In Direct contradiction to the bible.

Actually, most of us tend to think that Christians heavily over-emphasize  Paul, from what I've seen written here. 

(I happen to agree with this analysis.)

Atheist Knowledge Fail™, again!

[KevinM1]

I'd say we're more interested in how your religion contradicts reason, common sense, and decency on the whole rather than sniping at particular sects.

Baptist
Catholic
Protestant
Etc.

Different colored candy shells surrounding the same rich, creamy center of nonsense and special pleading.

[Cinjin]

Drich,
I admit I didn't read all of this thread, but I did read about half of it.  Who are you to talk down to us?

You yourself have admitted that millions of Christians do not subscribe to your particular brand of Christianity. Yet somehow, you seem to regularly ignore this fact and accuse US of not understanding your version of the scriptures.  Meanwhile, you even point out that Paul wasn't doing the work of Jesus and was rather self-promoting.  Why should we even bother listening to someone like you after all that?  I would wager you couldn't get 10 men from your own church to universally agree on the interpretation of your bible.  Yet there you are, speaking from a self-proclaimed position of authority.    

I mean come on ... Does your god really need you here in your smug self-righteousness trying to convince us that we don't understand your religion?  

You are the iceberg to your own Titanic man.  After awhile we don't even bother taking you seriously.  Common Sense 101

[Silver]

Cinjin is more eloquent than most of our responses in stating the obvious that Drich is an idiot.

[GrandizerII]

Isn't it time to grow up and act rational? Let's say you quote an expert. I question the findings your go to guy talks about, your job, is not to say "nut-uh, my guys is right and you are a do doo head because you don't agree."

Dismissal is not questioning, Drich. I can post more links but you'll just "explain thier arguments away" as expected. I used to have a similar Christian mindset in the past, so I know it's futile to get into an honest scholarly discussion with you. Tried it recently with alpha_male, and he pretty much proved my suspicions.

And again, you keep pretending I only quoted one guy. It is the bloody consensus. Who am I, or who are you, to question the expert consensus without the required qualifications? If I were a scholar (even an amateur one), and I properly understood the scholarly consensus and am familiar with all the arguments they make defending that position, and through rigorous study of my own found their arguments to fall short of defending their position, then I can go and question them and provide a better position, but I need to first be at their level.

You still think it's not the consensus, go edit out the part I quoted from Wiki then ...

[Drich]

"Faith" in expertise is surely better than faith in nonexistent ogre shit?

(Yeah I felt like a change from bullshit and horseshit, and I took inspiration from the Halloween RPG I've been playing lately).

So when I ask a question based on an incomplete reading I have spotted from the authors/expert's very own quote, that completely undermines not only his point but in a rational mind challenge his "expert" status. yet content is ignored in favor for his original unchallenged point is not simple faith.

That is blind allegiance.

Again, the "expert" made a wrong comparison between acts 17 28-30 and Romans. When one reads past verse 30 all the way to verse 31 in acts 17 what your "expert" identifies as a contradiction and proof that The book of acts Pail is different than the Paul of Romans. All goes away because acts 17:31 forward bring the passage he quoted verse 30 back in alignment with the book of Romans.

Your expert is an idiot or hopes his followers are, in that they are not willing to look at the context in which he quotes.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ah yes of course... we must quote a much larger context at all times because then it will reveal that the Bible is not total and utter bullshit at all but in fact totally wise and up to date... very wise even by 2015 standards!

Oh wait no it won't at all it will just reveal more bullshit and the possibility of even more ridiculously largely ambigiuous interpretations because the Bible is written so badly!

[GrandizerII]

"Faith" in expertise is surely better than faith in nonexistent ogre shit?

(Yeah I felt like a change from bullshit and horseshit, and I took inspiration from the Halloween RPG I've been playing lately).

Your expert is an idiot or hopes his followers are, in that they are not willing to look at the context in which he quotes.

What is bolded (by me) says more than enough about how Christians like you (which I used to be myself) think. There is that sort of arrogance whereby a Christian layman like Drich thinks he understands the Bible better than someone like Bart Ehrman who, very probably, has studied the Bible way more than Drich ever has, and he has words on paper to prove that he is an expert in the field.

Acts 17 shows a Paul that thinks in a different manner from the Paul of the Epistles (in this case, with regards to idolatry). Therein lies the contradiction. It's not about just this verse or that. According to Acts, pagans were ignorant of the true God. Romans 1 says otherwise: that they knew of the true God but actively rejected him in favor of other gods. Dismiss the contradiction all you want, but it's there. And it also isn't the only main difference anyway.

Also, you keep forgetting the majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you on your view regarding the date Acts was written and the comparisons between Acts' Paul and the Epistles' Paul. Bart Ehrman is just one number. You simply laughing them off does not wish them all of a sudden away.

[Drich]

This statement was almost prophetic:
I found this to be true a long time ago. Most 'atheist' simply spin their own version of a hitchens or dawkins arguement and pin everything they believe on a primise they hear in a debate or read in an artical. The problem most have though is when their primary source material has been refuted, they simply shut down and start with personal attacks trying to discredit the one who showed them that their emperor has no cloths. They have to hide from the truth and are not able to follow it where ever it may lead.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-38331-page-8.html

Post 78