RE: Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans
November 2, 2015 at 12:18 pm
(This post was last modified: November 2, 2015 at 12:25 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
Yes, by the way, I DO know that you take issue with Ehrman's very passage, which I cited above, because you have an interpretation that is different about the people to whom Paul was speaking. My point is, of course, that he does reference the very verse you claim he omits.
Edit to Add: I like the fact that you "explain away" the disagreement with the theology presented in Acts vs. in Romans, not as writers who were and quoting Paul (in Acts, since of course Paul did not write Acts) versus what he wrote himself (Romans), but instead of seeing it as a difference between the two versions of Paul, you attribute it to... something else? Almost everyone considers the passage in Romans to refer to everyone who is not saved by grace and repentance, so it would certainly include all non-Christian groups. Your attempt to nit-pick on definitions fails utterly.
Edit to Add: I like the fact that you "explain away" the disagreement with the theology presented in Acts vs. in Romans, not as writers who were and quoting Paul (in Acts, since of course Paul did not write Acts) versus what he wrote himself (Romans), but instead of seeing it as a difference between the two versions of Paul, you attribute it to... something else? Almost everyone considers the passage in Romans to refer to everyone who is not saved by grace and repentance, so it would certainly include all non-Christian groups. Your attempt to nit-pick on definitions fails utterly.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
