Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[GrandizerII]

Ok, and? That makes them all Sons of God declared with power through resurrection?

That proves the under a different name "resurection" exists even under our own power.

If you insist on calling that "resurrection".

But even so, the resurrection of the type in the Bible is not a proven fact.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Are you naturally this dishonest, or do you work at it?

Is this an example of your great love and mercy?

Yes. When a person is lied to, and facts are distorted deliberately to make a point which is not really there, it is hardly surprising that they would question the honesty of the person who lied.

[GrandizerII]

Is this an example of your great love and mercy?

Yes. When a person is lied to, and facts are distorted deliberately to make a point which is not really there, it is hardly surprising that they would question the honesty of the person who lied.

Well, he is a self-proclaimed sinner who continues to sin even after Jesus saved him. So yeah ...

[TheRocketSurgeon]

To be fair, that's just hypocrisy, and Christians generally do a pretty good job of calling themselves out on sin-hypocrisy.

I'm more concerned with the fact that he said we're all dishonest by nature (since that's what the verse says and thus he must accept it as reality) and then went and immediately misrepresented a definition in order to try to support his erroneous point.

Being a flawed human being, I'm fine with. Same goes for having different beliefs or opinions from my own (indeed, I'm almost surprised when anyone agrees with me about anything). But I will not sit here and meekly take bitch-slaps from someone who supports a verse that calls us all immoral and untrustworthy, then aggravates that slander by lying to us (it's okay, you see, because we're just immoral untrustworthy liars, not much better than animals, dontchaknow?) about a basic definition in an attempt to show we don't have mercy.

Because apparently, to him, "mercy" means meekness, rather than withholding one's power.

[Drich]

Nice dig, with the "easy to read" version. Personally, I prefer the NASB, though I've been known to dip into the New King James Version for certain poetic elements (like Ecclesiastes or Psalms), because I love the prose of the KJV but not so much the thees and thous.

Now that we have that out of the way, I have a serious issue with your citation of the final verses of Romans 1, which I consider among the most despicable parts of the New Testament.

What most people don't understand is that the bible is translated from one of 4 sources/codices.
The Receptus being the oldest used in english translation/KJV. The Sinaitus, Vanticanus, and the Textus Receptus being the two most modern bibles are translated from. Why the change? Because over the course of several hundred years, more complete, older, manuscripts are found. which make minor contextual changes over time, thus inspiring the creation of a new codex. The changes are not great, and nothing changes any of the elements of salvation. an example of a change would be the command in the Receptus "thou shalt not Kill." In the newer/better vetted codex, the word Kill has been changed to Murder. The difference? Murder is the unauthorized taking of life while Killing is not. the Command thou shalt not Kill puts moses Himself in violation of this command when he order the slaughter of whole soceities. While the word 'murder' would have Moses well with in the confines of God's law.

I use the easy to read because it is a translation like all others and are subject to the same translational issues all translations are subject to, but with one difference. It translates into an active/popular english dilect. What is the point to having a translation that translates into a dead dilect? Then one has to sub-translate the dead dilect into an active one thus submitting the text through another translation matrix further risking the bastardation of the original text. Rather than do all of that, I use the one easiest to understand translation and then use the Vaticanus/Receptus Greek along with a lexicon and concordance to give the text legitmacy when challenged.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

You see, we know this is why so many of your kind come here with all their preformed misconceptions about atheists, and all the horrible things they say to us here. But are you really suggesting that we are (unlike Christians, or at least significantly more than them)
murderers?
deceitful?
slanderers?
gossips?
wicked?
greedy?
untrustworthy?
unloving?
unmerciful?

I mean, really, dude?

Strawman.

You are contending All Atheists are subject/responsible to this list Paul gave. When this is not what is being communicated. The Word phrase "to gave them over" means God allowed them to do any of these things. The list is extreme yes, but it is extreme for a reason. The reason being is because under OT law most of these things demanded death, or at the very least to be cut off for soceity. Paul is contrasting the OLD way of doing/thinking with what is to come.

To say all none belivers live by this list means one is guilty of taking this list our of context, whether that be you or some other christian. because like I prefaced this study with, "there were no chapter and verse notations in Paul's letter, so a chapter does not signify the end of a thought. If you or one of your christian judges cares to read chapter 2 Paul quickly puts those people in their place.

I simply stopped at the end of each chapter to discuss and make sure everyone is on board before we continue.
just for you:

Chapter2:
So do you think that you can judge those other people? You are wrong. You too are guilty of sin. You judge them, but you do the same things they do. So when you judge them, you are really condemning yourself. 2 God judges all who do such things, and we know his judgment is right.

[John V]

Is this an example of your great love and mercy?

Yes. When a person is lied to, and facts are distorted deliberately to make a point which is not really there, it is hardly surprising that they would question the honesty of the person who lied.

I think it would be loving and merciful to assume that the person is genuinely mistaken and attempt to gently bring them to the truth, rather than call them a liar. Go figure. 


Your position is basically that you treat a person well unless you don't like him for some reason. Pretty low bar.

[Drich]

Why should we care what 'Biblical Christianity' is, according to you or anyone else?

Until the time the case has been made for the existence of anything that fits the description of a god, the specifics of that god, and whether the Bible, or any other religious text, accurately depicts said god, is a moot point.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Maybe so you don't look like a complete ___________ (Fill in the blank with your own word) when discussing why you hate chrsitianity...
To argue you hate something you do not fully understand, is to hate out of blind ignorance. Now I ask, is that a 'thinking man's' way of doing things?

(I pointed all of this out in the OP BTW)

[John V]

Modern medicine, magic, it's all the same thing really.

That's my point!

Maybe, God is not magic IF we can understand HOW He does what He does. God was only 'magic' to those who did not understand how He accomplished what He accomplished.

Nothing in the bible says God as to be 'magic' we only ever thought of Him that way because we did not understand. Now that we understand more what makes us think God has to remain in the realm of the supernatural when He is the creator of the natural!

Deserves repeating. The only difference between the natural and the supernatural is knowledge of the mechanics.

[Drich]

First, what we see today is mainly Paulism, not christianity. Secondly, take some history lessons on how it came to be. How it was changed at Nicea and during the whole 4th century to suit the political needs of the powerful.

I guess that's it for starters.

Can you show where the 'two' differ?

[Drich]

The Proclamations of Drich: It might look like Jesus at first glance, but it's really just an asshole.

Much like your mutt, your arguement/objection about what has been shared so far as been neutered!