Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Minimalist]

The "pastoral epistles" (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus ) are known forgeries.  If there was a recognizable "paul" ( doubtful ) he sure as shit did not write the pastorals.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The "pastoral epistles" (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus ) are known forgeries.  If there was a recognizable "paul" ( doubtful ) he sure as shit did not write the pastorals.

True, true... but it's clear that this guy gives not a shit about external criticisms of Pauline authorship (which is why we're having the Ehrman fight), so I didn't see a point in trying to throw another wrench into this by discussing which books that claim to be of Pauline authorship are not in fact written by Paul.

I mean, seriously, Min... this guy is trying to make a book written about Paul agree with a book written by Paul! Think he's gonna see a difference between two books claimed to be by the same author?

If he is going to try to make the entire NT agree with itself, he has to take into account all the writings, including the Pastorals... since he's not about to acknowledge even the possibility of forgery.

Okay, have to run to the store, now. See y'all in 45 mins to an hour. Hopefully.

[Drich]

So what is the difference? If you look at the bold face type in the Acts 17 passage I highlighted (above) Paul is pointing to the devout pagan trying to live a good life and simply does not know of the one true God. So for him their was mercy in OT days, where as now He is called to repent.

Are you blind? Do you not see that in Acts 17, Paul assumes they were following other gods out of ignorance, whereas in Romans 1, ignorance was never the reason?

wow, it's intresting that you assume the error here is mine.

Yes I see they are worshiping other Gods out of ignorance. Do you see that in Acts that Paul says because of this ignorance they were not deemed evil by God? He simply points out that now they have no excuse and they have been called to repent.

This is in stark contrast to the people Paul describes in Romans 1.

The People in sin of Act's 17 were in sin (worshiping idols) because they did not know any better. They were trying to worship/do right by God. they just did not know Him.

The people of Romans1 embraced their sin which is what made them evil. for them God found fault and turned them over to their evil desires. God wants no part of them.

Your 'expert' wrongly assumes that Acts 17 and Romans 1 describes the same group of people, when clearly it does not. the contrast between acts 17 and romans 1 is describing two different groups of people, (One sinning out of ignorance, but trying to do the right thing. the other willfully and loving embracing their sin which makes them Evil before God) because your 'expert' wrongly assumes that both groups are 'pagan' and therefore share a label of 'evil' before God. both acts 17 and Romans 1 should say the same thing essentally, IF Paul was indeed the author of both. Again not the case.

But, Because your super smart guy (way smarter than drich who cant even spell right) does not understand the nuances between a heart wanting to serve God but trapped in sin/ignorance, and a heart who embraces and loves his sin and hates God for forbidding their sin. your super smart 'expert' fails to see the reasoning for the differences Paul would have to put between the group of Acts 17 and the group of men in Romans 1.

Do you see now?

[Minimalist]

wow, it's intresting that you assume the error here is mine.

It's an easy assumption to make given your track record of total lunacy.

[GrandizerII]

Are you blind? Do you not see that in Acts 17, Paul assumes they were following other gods out of ignorance, whereas in Romans 1, ignorance was never the reason?

wow, it's intresting that you assume the error here is mine.

Yes I see they are worshiping other Gods out of ignorance. Do you see that in Acts that Paul says because of this ignorance they were not deemed evil by God? He simply points out that now they have no excuse and they have been called to repent.

This is in stark contrast to the people Paul describes in Romans 1.

The People in sin of Act's 17 were in sin (worshiping idols) because they did not know any better. They were trying to worship/do right by God. they just did not know Him.

The people of Romans1 embraced their sin which is what made them evil. for them God found fault and turned them over to their evil desires. God wants no part of them.

Your 'expert' wrongly assumes that Acts 17 and Romans 1 describes the same group of people, when clearly it does not. the contrast between acts 17 and romans 1 is describing two different groups of people, (One sinning out of ignorance, but trying to do the right thing. the other willfully and loving embracing their sin which makes them Evil before God) because your 'expert' wrongly assumes that both groups are 'pagan' and therefore share a label of 'evil' before God. both acts 17 and Romans 1 should say the same thing essentally, IF Paul was indeed the author of both. Again not the case.

But, Because your super smart guy (way smarter than drich who cant even spell right) does not understand the nuances between a heart wanting to serve God but trapped in sin/ignorance, and a heart who embraces and loves his sin and hates God for forbidding their sin. your super smart 'expert' fails to see the reasoning for the differences Paul would have to put between the group of Acts 17 and the group of men in Romans 1.

Do you see now?

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It isn't about a different group. You're adding to the text, Drich.

Or are you saying that despite what Paul said in Romans 1:20, there are people who still worshiped other gods out of ignorance and did not know of the true God?

Can't twist your way out of this one, Drich. You're not interacting with someone you can play these games with.

[KevinM1]

I'd say we're more interested in how your religion contradicts reason, common sense, and decency on the whole rather than sniping at particular sects.

Baptist
Catholic
Protestant
Etc.

Different colored candy shells surrounding the same rich, creamy center of nonsense and special pleading.

This presupposes that I am saying my 'sect' is the right one.

If I am ever allowed to finish my Romans study we will see that ALL 'sects' are wrong. That none conform, that we are only saved because Christ wants to save us, not in the way of our own religious efforts so that none of us can boast about being the 'one true sect'... that what is said here in romans undermines ALL religious efforts, and makes salvation about the work of Christ and not about our works of religion.

This means out 'names' we award ourselves (Baptist, Catholic, Protestant) mean absolutly nothing to God. He judges who and what we are in relation to our ablities and what he has set before us.

That, is what I am speaking of when I say one can use what Paul says here to destroy an arguement/doctrine that says it is the one true church.

So... you are saying that your flavor is the correct one.  Got it.

[robvalue]

Paul just had some weird dream/hallucination and conned people into thinking it meant something.

Why is that impressive? People back then seemed to believe anything.

Even more than today.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Why is that impressive? People back then seemed to believe anything.

Even more than today.

More than today? Nah. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

[Edwardo Piet]

Modernity is a positive layer of life that has been spread on top of and also knocked chunks out of ignorance... but the credulity is still there and strong.

[Cinjin]

I always know when I've bested you because you start using nicknames on me.  Pathetic man.
But hey I'll go one better than your god and offer you unconditional forgiveness without an eternity of punishment at no cost.  

but I digress ...

I admit I didn't read all of this thread, but I did read about half of it. Who are you to talk down to us?

Who is us?
I 'rebuked' one member of 'team rocket.' (Which is a Poke'mon reference btw/they thought themselves real smart too) Or are you saying you all have elected the other member of team rocket as your unoffical champion, kinda like the atheist version of goliath? By me challenging him (or one of his team members appearently) I have challenged all of you 'unwashed philistinies?' Otherwise again, who is this 'we?'

I don't give a shit about some beef you had.  You want to know who "us" is, go ahead and check your very first statment in your OP.  It was condescending and arrogant and aimed at all of US.  You were indeed talking down to us as a whole, not to one person you "rebuked" later on.  You're a filthy apologist looking for a fight.  Own it man.  Might as well be an honest filthy apologist.

It dawned on me while going through the last few threads with you all that in most of your recounting of what Christianity is, most of you don't even know the basics of Christianity as described in the bible. Which begs the question how can you hate something if you don't truly understand it? I know it happens (My dad and "Space Book"/Face book, we havent even bothered to try and explain twitter or instagram) but even so, I thought it might be nice to provide an actual line by line biblical over view of the book of romans, for those who want to know the truth or even for those who want to focus their hate on fact rather than what they remembered from sunday school.

Wait wait, don't bother responding, we already know what it looks like: