Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Athene]

---

Just one, not specifically related to the content.

Is Alpha Male assisting you with this thread in an official capacity, or is he simply a self-appointed hype-man? I've been following this thread and was just wondering.

---

He is filling the gaps I'm leaving and supports as he sees fit.

I'm not telling him what to say if that is what your asking..

I didn't think you were telling him what to say. 

I was just wondering if this was some sort of joint venture, with him in a supporting role. 
Now it's clear that he's interjecting as he sees fit. 
Good to know. Thanks.

[Minimalist]

Just one, not specifically related to the content.

Is Alpha Male assisting you with this thread in an official capacity, or is he simply a self-appointed hype-man? I've been following this thread and was just wondering.

He is filling the gaps I'm leaving and supports as he sees fit.

I'm not telling him what to say if that is what your asking..

The gap you'd best worry about is the one between your ears.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Well I'd say scapegoating is the reason Paul was beheaded, along with a lot of other Christians. Nero was insane. They're no more to blame for the scapegoating and murders than the Jews targeted by the insanity of Hitler and his followers. But, like those Jews, Paul would hardly have renounced the central belief of his identity, even after that scapegoating began.

While I agree with most of what you've written here, recently, I'd say that the willingness to go ahead and self-identify even in the face of danger indicates only the degree of zeal, but is not proof of concept. As we have pointed out in a recent thread, atheists are frequently (and openly) discriminated against in this country, yet many of us "sign our names" and otherwise identify openly as atheists because we believe we are right about this, damn the consequences. Others prefer to fly under the radar. Yet I'm pretty sure you wouldn't consider the zealous among us to be evidence that our position is correct, would you?

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":

[JesusHChrist]

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?!?

[Cato]

He is filling the gaps I'm leaving and supports as he sees fit.

I'm not telling him what to say if that is what your asking..

The gap you'd best worry about is the one between your ears.

Gap nothing; keep your distance. If he suffers an unfortunate head wound the resulting vacuum would consume all matter inside a ten mile radius.

[John V]

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.

No, that's not what he said at all. You misrepresent his position, then throw in an appeal to emotion with the pictures. What were you saying before about intellectual integrity?

[Nay_Sayer]

Drich it saddens me that your going to suffer for so long in the afterlife. I don't want this but your so intent on making FSM angry, What can he really do?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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

No, that's not what he said at all. You misrepresent his position, then throw in an appeal to emotion with the pictures. What were you saying before about intellectual integrity?

Whatever, dude. I thought pictures were better than 1000 words, as the saying goes, that's all.

His contention is that Paul would not have done what he did, at risk of his life, unless he truly believed.

The pictures point out that people are willing to suffer greatly and even die in the name of false beliefs, even when they are (or follow) cult leaders who are clearly charlatans, like Koresh and Jones.

[John V]

Whatever, dude. I thought pictures were better than 1000 words, as the saying goes, that's all.

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.

His contention is that Paul would not have done what he did, at risk of his life, unless he truly believed.

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

The pictures point out that people are willing to suffer greatly and even die in the name of false beliefs, even when they are (or follow) cult leaders who are clearly charlatans, like Koresh and Jones.

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

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Whatever, dude. I thought pictures were better than 1000 words, as the saying goes, that's all.

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.

His contention is that Paul would not have done what he did, at risk of his life, unless he truly believed.

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

The pictures point out that people are willing to suffer greatly and even die in the name of false beliefs, even when they are (or follow) cult leaders who are clearly charlatans, like Koresh and Jones.

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.