RE: "The bible test" Answered.
December 19, 2013 at 1:35 am
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2013 at 1:57 am by Drich.)
(December 18, 2013 at 2:55 pm)xpastor Wrote:'Drich Wrote:If "c" were true and Acts/luke was written decades later than why doesn't the book include the final imprisionment and death of Paul by the romans?Lest someone think that Drich made a point, I will observe there are are an almost infinite number of answers to his question.
1. In the first place, Paul's death is nowhere recorded in that perfect never-wrong book that Drich sets such store by. It's just a story told by Ignatius ca 110 CE, at least 45 years after the supposed date of Paul's death.
2. Acts ends rather abruptly. Paul went on preaching for two years in Rome. For all you know 17 pages fell off the end of the book and were never found.
3. Maybe the author did not want to include the story of Paul's death.
4. Maybe the author did not even know any details of Paul's death. If he was writing far away from Rome, it's not like he could email the Roman Christians to get further information.
-or maybe Paul was still alive when the book was written. I guess Occam's razor only applies when one is trying to disprove the bible.
(December 18, 2013 at 10:35 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote: It appears the Drich is a convert. The speech is typical of the saved-sinner scenario. What such people do is exaggerate all of the negative aspects of their lives and minimize all the positive aspects of their lives prior to conversion. Then they do precisely the opposite with their lives after conversion. They will retell their stories again and again about what wretched sinners they were and then found Jay-zuz and -- wooby, wooby, woo. The stories tend to get more and more exaggerated after so many re-tellings. For example, people who have been indoctrinated into a cult will describe themselves as a "god-hating monster" before the joined the group. Their memories get restructured.
An example that I came across online was a woman who was honestly unsure as to whether or not she actually had an abortion. It was part of the story she told in church -- she did not know if it really happened or not.
I kudoed you for your powerful observation skills, or your simple ability to remember me telling you I was a convert.
I have done some pretty bad things even by 'moral' standards. Even so I haven't exaggerated anything because I haven't shared anything. Most of it was petty looser lying cheating stealing stuff. The worst of it though was covered under my ability to 'moralize, and justify what I did. As if my reasons for doing the stuff I did meant anything, other than I need not repent.
(December 18, 2013 at 11:47 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Okay drich how do you explain people like me who followed the instructions in luke 11 and got nothing?
Do you know one of these people? Out of everyone that had made this claim not one actually performed all three steps as outlined by luke 11.
(December 18, 2013 at 12:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote: He asked, as though he didn't already know the answer is going to be, "you didn't try sincerely enough."
Sincerity is not the key. Following the instructions outlined in luke 11 is the key.
(December 18, 2013 at 1:56 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the Mormon Church, actually performed A.S.K. just as our buddy Drich here describes. The result? At 14 years of age, he got what he perceived to be an answer from God the Father and Jesus Christ, which led him to label all denominations as abominations in the eyes of The Lord. People believed he was a prophet sent forth to restore the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We know enough now to say that the man was sorely mistaken about the entire affair. If a person who truly believed that god had answered him could be demonstrably wrong, then all other people following A.S.K. should take Smith's example into account when trying get their own answers from god.
Joseph Smith was sincere as I'm sure Drich believes himself to be. Why should we consider anything Drippy has to say when this proscribed method has been proven ineffectual? Let's assume for a moment that Mormonism hasn't been completely turned on its head since its initial inception; why is Joseph Smith Jr. wrong while Drich is supposedly correct?
Hmmm, maybe I should have made the above post into its own thread. However, if I had done that, then I wouldn't have been able call Drich out on his A.S.K.
Joey did not ask seek and knock as outlined in luke 11. By yours/his own admission he was seeking the authority of the Father and Jesus. When in fact luke 11 is about obtaining a measure of the Holy Spirit, and not a personal revelation from God the Father.
