Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[pocaracas]

Ah, Drich... if only you could take your head out of the sand and look around...

[quote='Drich' pid='1887526' dateline='1551123711']
citation please. Peter is the father of the catholic movement yes.. however paul wrote 2/3's of the bible my question was if peter was the father of the church then why did he contribute so little to it?

Indeed, why was Peter's gospel not kept in the Bible?

Retard.. Peter himself could not read or write. So he used a scribe. that scrib's name was commonly refered to as saint mark. Meaning the book of mark is peter's gospel.
So peter's gospel was indeed included.
[/quote]

Here's a crazy idea... Whoever was Peter's scribe wrote the gospel of Peter.
Whoever Mark was, wrote a gospel as if it was told by Peter, or however you can claim him to have been his scribe...

Who would know the difference?

Because its philosophy wasn't entirely in line with the philosophy that the Pauline Christianity was wanting to impose.

dear not smart person.. Paul's church... did not start till the reformaition nealy 1600 years after the church of peter had been in power.

Oh yeah... Paul didn't write letters to several locations explaining how his view of the church was to be.

[quote='Drich' pid='1887526' dateline='1551123711']
because we do not know who is and who is no till the final judgement. I grew up the first 1/2 of my life thinking I was not 'selected.' Now I know that was not true. I simply fell into believeing the same bs you guys keep hiding behind.

And tell us again Drich. Was it someone who convinced you that you were selected?

God showed me my path via a dream sequence that I saw my own judgment and was cast into hell. where I was consumed by hell fire in a great pit of nothingness. I asked for a second chance. and here I am 20 some odd years later still trying to spread the truth I was not privy too. Again incase you forgot I am not here to save anyone rather in my time in hell my worst haunting thought was if I had known the truth would I have responded to God differently. My task here is to provide you with God's truth so if you ever find yourself in my position this thought will not haunt you till it breaks your sanity in grief.

Or was it some circumstance in your life that "opened your eyes"?

Afterwards I sought God and he gave me several gifts to do this job. a few thriving sources of income where I can spend 4 to 6 hours aday in study prayer and answering these questions. godly wisdom to answer questions like the epicurean paradox, evolution verse creation, stupid little paradoxical spiritual speed bumps like can god creat a rock so big he can lift it.. and of course those long lists you 'good people' provide. answers to that stuff come off the cuff and ver little of my time has to be waisted in fussing over them. for instance I prayed for something to tell you guys about evolution/creation when asked. my whole answer came in flashes like I was watching a movie, 15 mins (as long as it took for me to write it down and put it in order and that was it.
be continued..
[/quote]

I rest my case.

[quote='pocaracas' pid='1887553' dateline='1551130906']
Because you need proper philosophy. Your god is indistinguishable from a super advanced alien.

You are saying that the god of the bible needs to be dumbed down to fit man's philosophy of a god, which is why the god of the bible is not taught intuitively?
Meaning when you said religion is invented by man, and I asked why then is the God of the bible not intuitively taught the way I/the bible teaches, you said because the teaching are not based in man's philosophy hence the need for a course in philosophy?!?!

Are you so stupid to not understand you just contradicted yourself? If God is man's creation then why does one need to study how man perceives God to change the god of the bible to fit man's idea of what God is supposed to be? Do you understand if man created the God of the bible should the God of the bible not fit man's philosophy automatically?

Because the God of the bible does not fit the philosophical profile of what man seeks in God... (by your own admission) shows that God's nature is different than what man would create. I know you are not smart enoug to understand but you just refuted your own objection. you just falsified the idea that God is a creation of man.
[/quote]

Here, I'll help you find the error in your judgment. You won't see it as an error, because you're thick, but I'll show it to you nonetheless.

In these 3 paragraphs when you speak of god, you always say "god of the bible". That is your problem.
You see... if a god does exist, then god is god. period. simple.
God is that which created the cosmos, that which supports all existence.

It doesn't matter which book describes this god, for it is an objective reality.
When you cling so strongly to the "god of the bible", you are telling us that your god is a [comic] book character.... and, as such, fictional. Every time you have to support god with the book, you repeat that he's fictional.

And I don't think I contradicted myself.
The god you call "god of the bible" is just a character in a book. At best, it is akin to a highly advanced extraterrestrial.
The god so-called "god of the philosophers" is a near-unassailable edifice, which then takes a bit of faith to make the leap into the god of Christianity, but people do it and live on.

That you can't understand how vastly superior to the "god of the bible" the "god of the philosophers" is, shows just how stunted you are.
Go dream+life coincidences!

The Catholic god is an underlying conceptual framework without which nothing can exist, for it is the very concept of existence (among many other things).

Can you spot the difference?

the catholic version of God can't even work his way past simple paradoxes of being an almighty being. not to mention the problem of evil nor can he resolve creation with evolution or even how adam and eve's children got married and had kids of their own without resorting to incest. So yeah I see a huge difference in that the catholic god is full of flaws you all like to pat yourself on the back when you point them out to eachother over and over again as if it where the first time those objection where made... then you have the God of the bible which no little paradox of litature can bind no question of orginans can't be anwered or is lost to explain how adam and eve children got married with resulting to incest.

You are so transparent in that you need the catholic God to be relevant with your objections and your insults. as your mind is not flexible enough to roll with the punches of a God based in the bible. especially when you are still arguing for aramaic/non Greek translations. (you have yet to properly concede the whole topic.

There you go again.... "god of the bible" this, "god of the bible" that... sheesh!

The god of the philosophers (which has been adopted as the god of catholicism) is not a being. It is Being! It is Existence.
It doesn't need to be almighty... It is the source of everything around you, everything in all of existence.
Can you top that with your puny "god of the bible"?

The "god of the philosophers" does not concern itself with the problem of evil at all. Evil is a human construct. God merely permeates his own existence with love. And humans can draw upon that love or not. Evil arises through humanity not partaking in the love provided.

Adam and Eve are, at best, allegory. Mankind evolved from apes, from mammals, from animals, from other life forms. When mankind became what we now call human (or perhaps this happened still before Homo Sapiens) and started thinking of their own morality, mortality and meaning... that's when they left the paradise that was an existence of animal intuition and came to be thinking, premeditating animals. That's the allegory of leaving paradise... ignorance is bliss, remember?

The god of the philosophers is also consistent with whatever science finds to be reality.
Your "god of the bible" is just the personification of a cosmic king. Wholly conjured up by people, drawn from people's experiences, emotions, commands, desires...

[quote='Drich' pid='1887526' dateline='1551123711']
the only thing that get twisted is you little perception of a great God and an explanation of a book that has chewed you up and spit you out today.

Your great god is puny.

said the douche that just learned that romans primary spoke and wrote greek in the first century in the middle east.
[/quote]

Try again. Romans spoke and wrote Latin. Some in the middle East learned Greek and used both Latin and Greek side by side. Official Empire business, especially that to do with the military, was solely performed in Latin.

Local middle Easterns spoke and wrote Greek as a second language.
That's what I learned. Thank you for pushing me towards that info.

[quote='Drich' pid='1887712' dateline='1551209459']

What I learned about the book was that it would be written in Greek if the purpose was to disseminate it throughout the larger region of Asia Minor and Eastern Mediterranean. Many people wrote Aramaic with Greek characters and, if it would be for popular and local consumption, your book would have been written like that.

Aramaic was not an offical language. it was the scribblings of malcontents and barbarians. as such there were or are surviving text in aramaic but they are know translations from the greek. many speculate the aramaic was translated from the greek as a means to speak to the aramaic only as an outreach.

There he goes again...
Aramaic was the de facto spoken language in the region of Jerusalem. Otherwise, this discussion wouldn't even exist.
For local writing, it is clear that some used Greek characters for conveying the sounds of Aramaic. For more widespread communication, proper Koine Greek was used.

As it is, it had the clear purpose of convincing people that were not around and could not in any way verify the stories.... except through faith... It was a propaganda device... well.... I should say "they", not "it". There were many gospels and similar texts floating around. All with the same goal: propaganda.

no back then they had access to the people who where there. which in that culture is far more believable than anything that could have been written

No, they didn't. That is such a fallacy.
Most people never moved farther than 10 miles away from their homes, during their whole lifetime. And the propaganda was aimed at these people who couldn't fact check.
And it carried a message that resonated with the poor peasants.