Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

Ah, the flaw in your reasoning! 'Zeal' in that time for the wrong thing meant death. So to have zeal about something forbidden meant you believed in it with your very life. Now whether you believe Paul to be correct or not is not what I am illustrating. I am pointing out that Paul believed with his very life on the line that he was correct. And he uses his 'zeal' to show those who maybe afraid what belief in christ may have ment, that he was not afraid to tie himself to any and all consenquences that would come from belief. Again, even if you wish to discount what was being said at the time romans was written, no one can deny his willingness to put his life on the line durning his beatings or ultimately his execution. what romans shows us was that Paul from the beginning did not shy away from his beliefs or any consenquences that rose from what he believed.

Ah, so it's "willingness to die" = must be true. Got it.

The Truth Died At Jonestown:


And of course also in Waco:



And I really do admire these guys for their willingness "unto death":

Context. Paul did not do any of those things. Paul's beliefs/Zeal were supported by the works and miracals he performed in God's name per acts 19. He did these things/'good deeds' in the face of torture and death, the only one you've pictured here that comes close is the monk.  but, monks don't set themselves on fire because their belief demands it, it is generally in protest to a cause or social stance. Matter of fact none who have died were beaten tortured and were killed/tested for what they believe. The wacco and jones town people laid down and died rather than be tested as Paul was by soceity.

[Drich]

And that whole business about airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers --

something about Paradise, Allah and virgins from what I remember. Why would they die for a lie?

Allah is a LIE?!?

They died for an unknown. Meaning they had nothing other than what they were told about their religion, and true or not they believed.

This is not the case with Paul or the rest of Christianity. With Paul he performed many miracals in the name of God. To perform these miracals in God's name and not repersent God would be die-ing for a lie. We have direct access to God through the Holy Spirit right now. The muslim does not have any access to their God in any way shape or form in this life (and only the best of the best in the next) so they must simply 'have faith' in what they believe.

So again the point I'm making is not death=truth. that's an oversimplified strawman you guys march out when you refuse to look at the reasons people die for what they believe.

The Point being made was what Paul's faith was founded on, what those who have died and continue to die in the name of Jesus is founded on. verses simple faith based zeal.

[Drich]

Sure, pictures can be better as in more effective. That's because we're emotional as well as rational creatures, and pictures tend to appeal to our emotions. If a theist put up pictures of aborted fetuses in a thread on abortion, you could make a similar charge.


Yep, and you twisted that to the straw man: Ah, so it's "willingness to die" = must be true.


He didn't argue otherwise, and expressly said that the correctness of Paul's beliefs was not his point.

Here is what he said:

Ah, the flaw in your reasoning! 'Zeal' in that time for the wrong thing meant death. So to have zeal about something forbidden meant you believed in it with your very life. Now whether you believe Paul to be correct or not is not what I am illustrating. I am pointing out that Paul believed with his very life on the line that he was correct.

His point IS that because Paul believed it to the point of death, he must have believed what he wrote. Whether *I* believe Paul is not the point he was illustrating. He was most certainly trying to show that Paul believed he was correct; he says so. So my pictures of other people who died horribly, while also believing they were correct about God, were most certainly relevant to his point. 

The only  point of putting up pictures with dead fetuses is to make an emotionally-charged side point. However, I could have simply typed "Jonestown, Waco, and the monks in Vietnam", and it would not have been nearly as effective a reply. My point is not a side point, I simply used illustration when I felt words were insufficient to get my point across entirely.

The pictures are not offensive to me, and I can't imagine why they'd be "emotional" to someone else, unless you count the emotion of sadness that we live in such a world of people who will die for their beliefs.

What I said goes a little deeper than that. I pointed to what and why Paul believe, you wrongly assume that the what and why Paul/Christians have is shared with those you've pictured.

Again just so we are clear their belief was a point of blind faith.

Paul's beliefs were based on his works/miracals and personal contact with God.

Those people died rather than be challenged or tested by the world.

Paull was beaten, imprisioned, stoned and beheaded/Severly tested for his beliefs.

Yes both wound up dead, but yours is an apples to oranges compareson because of how and why they both died

[Hmmm?]

They died for an unknown. Meaning they had nothing other than what they were told about their religion, and true or not they believed.

This is not the case with Paul or the rest of Christianity. With Paul he performed many miracals in the name of God.

Like this miracle: Acts 13:8  Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.

Luke 9:55-56 Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.

[Drich]

They died for an unknown. Meaning they had nothing other than what they were told about their religion, and true or not they believed.

This is not the case with Paul or the rest of Christianity. With Paul he performed many miracals in the name of God.

Like this miracle: Acts 13:8  Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.

Luke 9:55-56 Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.

Keep reading, or go back to what I originally said. I gave a citation that mentions Paul's works/miracals.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Context. Paul did not do any of those things. Paul's beliefs/Zeal were supported by the works and miracals he performed in God's name per acts 19. He did these things/'good deeds' in the face of torture and death, the only one you've pictured here that comes close is the monk.  but, monks don't set themselves on fire because their belief demands it, it is generally in protest to a cause or social stance. Matter of fact none who have died were beaten tortured and were killed/tested for what they believe. The wacco and jones town people laid down and died rather than be tested as Paul was by soceity.

The monks, indeed, have political motivations as well. If you think Paul's work was not motivated in part by politics, regarding the confluence of the Greek, Roman, and Hebrew worlds of which he was equally a part, you're fooling yourself. And Buddhists are tortured and killed for their refusal to stop pronouncing their faith all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio...ists#Tibet

[John V]

His point IS that because Paul believed it to the point of death, he must have believed what he wrote.

Exactly! You twisted this to:

"willingness to die" = must be true

If you were honest, you would have said:

"willingness to die" = person sincerely believes

[Hmmm?]

Paul's beliefs were based on his works/miracals and personal contact with God.

Like this personal contact with God; Acts 23:11 Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Was that the night after Paul told Ananias, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall? (2 pe 2:10, jde 8)

[Drich]

Context. Paul did not do any of those things. Paul's beliefs/Zeal were supported by the works and miracals he performed in God's name per acts 19. He did these things/'good deeds' in the face of torture and death, the only one you've pictured here that comes close is the monk.  but, monks don't set themselves on fire because their belief demands it, it is generally in protest to a cause or social stance. Matter of fact none who have died were beaten tortured and were killed/tested for what they believe. The wacco and jones town people laid down and died rather than be tested as Paul was by soceity.

The monks, indeed, have political motivations as well. If you think Paul's work was not motivated in part by politics, regarding the confluence of the Greek, Roman, and Hebrew worlds of which he was equally a part, you're fooling yourself. And Buddhists are tortured and killed for their refusal to stop pronouncing their faith all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio...ists#Tibet

which points to the truth in what they do and believe. They die for their faith, and by the rules of their faith as do the muslims, again All IN FAITH. Neither makes the claims Paul or any other Christian can make. Paul again is working from a position stronger than simple faith, and so can a Spirit filled Christian.

That is the difference between someone dying for a cause, and dying for Deeply held love. The one who dies for love, has/can endure far more before death, and someone who looks to make a point with their death.

[GrandizerII]

Paul was living quite a privileged life to be honest. Who exactly had the power and will to torture him at the time? The Romans didn't care back then, did they?