Why Do Atheists Criticize People's Beliefs?

[Huggy Bear]

Paul's doctrine does not contradict the Scriptures, in fact it lines up perfectly with the rest of the bible.

Any doctrine that Matches up with the scriptures must be accepted as true.

Therefore if Paul's doctrine is sound, any contradicting doctrine makes that doctrine false.

Perfectly? That's interesting. Jews seemed to have regarded the Law as a burden to be embraced and celebrated, not as something that revealed how utterly depraved they were. Admitting fault, making such amends as possible, observing the stipulations of the Law, maintaining ritual purity, and beseeching the Lord to forgive us was deemed sufficient for righteousness -- no gory sacrifice of some god/man, much less uncritical belief that such a thing happened, was required. Paul's doctrines, though consonant with scripture (after all, what else would you have expected from a Pharisee?), are hardly the last word on the subject and certainly debatable.

Not in the position to answer that in detail atm since I am still traveling.

In any case, if his doctrines match up with the scriptures they must be accepted as true? Um, no.

Really?

If there is no contradiction then what basis do you have to define any falsehood?

[vorlon13]

uh,

hate to pop anyone's sacred cow (not really) but Apostle Paul hijacked the religion Jesus died to inspire.

[Cyberman]

Or adapting it for some reason.

Okay...

The point is it is no longer canon.

Depends on what you call canon. It's well known that Sean Connery's performance in the Broccoli adaptations of the James Bond novels informed the way Ian Fleming wrote his later ones. I understand something similar happened with Harry Potter.

[Harry Nevis]

If I delivered a doctrine and then said that anyone who fundamentally disagrees with my doctrine is accursed, would you just take my word for it or would you think that perhaps I was making a power play?

Paul's doctrine does not contradict the Scriptures, in fact it lines up perfectly with the rest of the bible.

Any doctrine that Matches up with the scriptures must be accepted as true.

Therefore if Paul's doctrine is sound, any contradicting doctrine makes that doctrine false.

---

Matches up with the other edited stories? Wow.  Why must it be accepted as true?

---

Perfectly? That's interesting. Jews seemed to have regarded the Law as a burden to be embraced and celebrated, not as something that revealed how utterly depraved they were. Admitting fault, making such amends as possible, observing the stipulations of the Law, maintaining ritual purity, and beseeching the Lord to forgive us was deemed sufficient for righteousness -- no gory sacrifice of some god/man, much less uncritical belief that such a thing happened, was required. Paul's doctrines, though consonant with scripture (after all, what else would you have expected from a Pharisee?), are hardly the last word on the subject and certainly debatable.

Not in the position to answer that in detail atm since I am still traveling.

In any case, if his doctrines match up with the scriptures they must be accepted as true? Um, no.

Really?

If there is no contradiction then what basis do you have to define any falsehood?

What basis do you have for saying it's true?  You're going about it back assward, just like most believers.  Basing truth on continuity in books that we have no originals of shows that truth is not what you're after.

[Crossless2.0]

Paul's doctrine does not contradict the Scriptures, in fact it lines up perfectly with the rest of the bible.

Any doctrine that Matches up with the scriptures must be accepted as true.

Therefore if Paul's doctrine is sound, any contradicting doctrine makes that doctrine false.

---

Matches up with the other edited stories? Wow.  Why must it be accepted as true?

---

Not in the position to answer that in detail atm since I am still traveling.

Really?

If there is no contradiction then what basis do you have to define any falsehood?

What basis do you have for saying it's true?  You're going about it back assward, just like most believers.  Basing truth on continuity in books that we have no originals of shows that truth is not what you're after.

Exactly!

[Huggy Bear]

Paul's doctrine does not contradict the Scriptures, in fact it lines up perfectly with the rest of the bible.

Any doctrine that Matches up with the scriptures must be accepted as true.

Therefore if Paul's doctrine is sound, any contradicting doctrine makes that doctrine false.

---

Matches up with the other edited stories? Wow.  Why must it be accepted as true?

---

Not in the position to answer that in detail atm since I am still traveling.

Really?

If there is no contradiction then what basis do you have to define any falsehood?

What basis do you have for saying it's true?  You're going about it back assward, just like most believers.  Basing truth on continuity in books that we have no originals of shows that truth is not what you're after.

You're mistaken, we're not discussing whether or not you belive the scriptures to be true, or whether Harry Potter is true, we're discussing what is canon and what isnt.

Got it?

---

Matches up with the other edited stories? Wow.  Why must it be accepted as true?

---

What basis do you have for saying it's true?  You're going about it back assward, just like most believers.  Basing truth on continuity in books that we have no originals of shows that truth is not what you're after.

Exactly!

[Harry Nevis]

Matches up with the other edited stories? Wow.  Why must it be accepted as true?

---

What basis do you have for saying it's true?  You're going about it back assward, just like most believers.  Basing truth on continuity in books that we have no originals of shows that truth is not what you're after.

You're mistaken, we're not discussing whether or not you belive the scriptures to be true, or whether Harry Potter is true, we're discussing what is canon and what isnt.

Got it?

---

You said any doctrine that matches up with scripture must be true.

[Huggy Bear]

You're mistaken, we're not discussing whether or not you belive the scriptures to be true, or whether Harry Potter is true, we're discussing what is canon and what isnt.

Got it?

---

You said any doctrine that matches up with scripture must be true.

As it relates to the canon of scripture.

I used Harry Potter as an example, for a reason, not because I believe it to be true.

[Valyza1]

Wait, so we're saying Harry Potter isn't true??

[Huggy Bear]

Wait, so we're saying Harry Potter isn't true??

I'm saying I don't believe it to be true, which is irrelevant of the canon of Harry Potter books.

The Book of Mormon contradicts the canon of Biblical scripture.