RE: No such thing as a "true" Christian
April 23, 2011 at 10:19 pm
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2011 at 12:30 am by reverendjeremiah.)
(April 22, 2011 at 12:54 am)Godschild Wrote:(April 21, 2011 at 11:30 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: There's no such thing as a true Christian, because if you ask all Christians about what other denominations believe, they'll tell you that they're not true Christians. For example, ask Protestants about Catholics, and ask Catholics about Protestants.
I'm a Southern Baptist and I know many Catholics that are saved and most of my fellow Baptist would agree.
rev.J the word follow does not mean you must do, it means that it is possible.
I find it funny that codschild is telling me what the bible means, right after he "knows people are saved"
How do you know they are saved son? Looked in the book of life yourself? Jesus whispered it in your ears?
You know what you just did son? You just made a judgement, the same exact type of judgement the ten commandments prohibits your ilk from doing.
This "he's saved, he isnt" egotistical crap from the followers is one of the biggest reasons I left Southern Baptist religion LOOOOONNNNGGGG before I became an atheist. In otherwords, I realized southern baptistry was full of horse shit, mean, and egotistical at a young age. My mom kept pushing it on me and I DISPISED that church, and damn near all of the members in it..cocky sons of bitches they were.
(April 22, 2011 at 5:08 am)Eleazar Wrote:Look..I say we pick and choose. I say me and you pick and choose what we think is legitimate in Mark and consider that canonical and historical. The other stuff we can just assume it is symbolic and either ignore it or brush it off the table. If anyone brings up the verses we dont like, or if they bring up the last verses of Mark, then we will say somthing like "Hey man, thoses verses were not god inspired. You should look to Jesus' death and resurection in the book of Mark instead..those are accurate, historical verses..."(April 21, 2011 at 11:12 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Of course, that said, it is believed that the original version of Mark 16 ended at verse eight, and that the next twelve verses were later additions.Indeed - the earliest manuscripts we have don't include Mark 16:9-20, the language is thoroughly non-Markan, and it would be very strange for the gospel to end at verse 8. Most likely, the end of the scroll was simply lost (this was a common problem, because of the way scrolls were made - in fact, there are a number of important variants at the beginning of Mark's gospel too).
..or maybe we should just steer people away from the book of Mark as a whole.
(April 23, 2011 at 5:07 pm)Watson Wrote: Yeah, 'cause how dare we forgive people for the things they've done if they're truly sorry, right?
Really? Is that what you do? Oh yeah, you will forgive them, unless they dont believe what you believe, then you think they deserve to be tortured in fire for all eternity. So dont even try that one. Dont even try to water it down.
(April 23, 2011 at 8:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: All arguments from emotion Strongbad, which is a poor basis for justice. You may never forgive a personal injustice... that isn't to say that you shouldn't.
Really? And you dont use arguments from emotion? Are you some kind of computer? Are you inhuman? Exactly how can you come to a "faith" in a god through logic? I find it EXTREMELY hypocritical of a god believer pointing fingers and complaining about other people using arguments from emotion..its bad enough we have these mr.spock atheists on this site... As far as I am concerned, arguments from emotion are on the table.. Feel free to cry if I decide your emotional argument is nothing more than being a crybaby.
