What would it take?

[drfuzzy]

When you ask a question based on a specific cannon, then you for the sake of the argument at least suspend the right to call into question the validity of the cannon. Why? because you question asks for cannon to explain itself. when it does to back out of the question is intellectual dishonesty.

I know, right? Atheist questions about specific Christian doctrines are generally disingenuous. They can't see that it taints their brand.

What type of cannon?  Howitzer?  Mortar?  Most 10-year olds can spell better than Dripshit.  
It's very possible to ask a question about a section of religious canon if it is a contradiction with another section of the canon or contradicts known science -- particularly when some people actually think the canon is infallible -- in order to prove fallibility.  And since most people on an atheist forum know the Bible quite well and think it's a bunch of ridiculous fables, this type of query should be expected.

[Drich]

...When you ask a question based on a specific cannon, then you for the sake of the argument at least suspend the right to call into question the validity of the cannon. Why? because you question asks for cannon to explain itself. when it does to back out of the question is intellectual dishonesty...

Who wrote the cannon gospels?

The Holy Spirit wrote the gospels. What scribes did He use? we refer to the indivisual scribes as Matthew Mark Luke and John.

---

Moron..

Oops... More personal attacks from xtians. I'm getting used to this now but please note, I have not responded in kind to any xtians that have personally attacked me.

You can't ask, "Would an elevator be able to go up if Thor's Hammer was set in the middle of it." Then when the answer is given you can't say there is no such thing as Mjölnir.

When you ask a question based on a specific cannon, then you for the sake of the argument at least suspend the right to call into question the validity of the cannon. Why? because you question asks for cannon to explain itself. when it does to back out of the question is intellectual dishonesty.

In this case God Came to each and every person that was issued those warring or originally received them (and everyone since then) within their own life time everyone has experienced that judgement.. So the urgency you see in genuine because before those people were cool in the ground they stood judgement before God.

Right, not sure what you are getting at here. You seem to be so angry that your text is muddled up and confused. Can you please calm down and make your point succinctly and clearly.

---

You think Jesus reached nirvana or he's running around a meadow right now waiting for the farmer to milk him?

Ye, I think he is reborn and his name is Aegon.

Let's say...

You ask a question based in the star wars galaxy. Lets pretend you ask "what makes a light saber's lazer beam solid when struck by another light saber?" Then I give an answer in accordance to star wars cannon.  "Kaber Crystals turn light energy into a controllable solid plasma. " You may then say "Science" says plasma is not a solid it is a meta physical state of matter that lives between energy and gas.

Now I am pointing out that is an intellectually lazy response on your part as when you ask a "star wars question" you have to preclude or accept the Star Wars cannon as the ultimate authority, inorder to even ask the question. Let alone receive an answer.

The same is true with your OP You asked a canonical based Question about the nature of God, and Got a canonical response. you then can't honestly side step the answer you got because it was based on cannon, BECAUSE YOUR F-ING QUESTION WAS ALSO BASED ON CANNON!!! IF you ask a cannon based question then by defaut you accept a canonical answer.

Hence me calling you a moron.

Not a personal attack, just a intellectual observation. You want to seem "smart" but default to logical fallacy to obtain your status  which is the opposite of what you think you have obtained.

[vulcanlogician]

More than 90% of your fellow Christians disagree with that. You're just an exception. The problem is that it isn't so clear when one should read it plainly or dig deeper for meaning.

I'd put it at more like 30% by official denomination doctrine (Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, etc.) and a little less by personal conviction. I think many individual Christians are more likely take prophecies with a grain of salt, kind of like JairCrowford, relying on the "no one knows...not even the Son of Man", etc. It's sometimes a bit of a cop-out.

Assuming this is a credible chart of the denominational makeup of the United States, roughly 75% accept biblical inerrancy. Now, this doesn't speak to your thought about personal convictions. Although biblical inerrancy is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, even among clergy there is dissent. Some mainline protestants (like Methodists) reject the doctrine, so we'll give you the mainlines (all of them). But the remainder, (including evangelicals-- which I assume must include fundamentalists as this chart does not differentiate between the two) probably preach biblical inerrancy. Being as charitable as I can, I reject your 30% estimate and say it's at least half-- if not two-thirds who accept and preach the doctrine.

You never did get to my other point which was: "it isn't so clear when one should read it plainly or dig deeper for meaning." This problem is hard to ignore when one considers a given text to be authoritative.

[vulcanlogician]

I did some rather dubious number crunching there... my bad. I misread the chart, but still... over 30%

[Amarok]

I know, right? Atheist questions about specific Christian doctrines are generally disingenuous. They can't see that it taints their brand.

No they are not . Demanding consistency and honesty is just that . Atheism is not a brand no matter how much fools like you try and project it as . While your kind are determined to sweep that embarrassing parts of your religion under a rug and hope hair splitting and smoke and mirrors will serve as a distraction . The bible is a dilapidated house with thousands of priest ,theologians and apologists all desperately nailing boards onto it to avoid it's collapse.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I did some rather dubious number crunching there... my bad. I misread the chart, but still... over 30%

That's fine. I was only expressing my general impression. Do you believe that inerrancy is necessary for something to be authoritative? It seems like you do. I certainly don't think so. It depends on what you expect it to be authoritative about. I don't believe the Scriptures were written to convey cosmological or scientific facts; but rather, to reveal the nature of the Lord's sovereignty and serve as a reliable guide for Man's salvation. For those, I consider it authoritative, which, to my mind, is more than enough.

[JairCrawford]

Justin was clearly more focused on the Gospel than the Pauline epistles. We can't say for sure whether he ignored them or didn't know them.

As for Marcion, that doesn't surprise me. He developed conflicting views from the Pauline perspective but it doesn't surprise me that he could have canonized the gospels early on.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to live according to a thousands-year-old document. What it says depends largely on which part is emphasized over others. It can spur people to charity. It can justify murder. Beyond that, the Bible is what it is because of its history; people in the Holy Roman Empire, the fathers of the Byzantine empire... these guys had political motivations to organize the canon in a certain way.

And even Paul... so many people read his words like they are flawless orchestrations of the truth. He was a guy with issues like anyone else. He put some inspiring poetics into the epistles, but they were there to serve a practical purpose; they were communiques to his various parishes. Its quite possible that if he would not want them included in the canon if he had any say in the matter (which he didn't).

Anyway, in light of its history and what is contained within its pages, I have a hard time accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Your tradition presumably does, (or does it?) How do you feel about biblical inerrancy? Can you see why someone may doubt it? Doesn't it seem reasonable to doubt that the bible is perfect?

Actually, I agree with many of your points to a degree. The question is, what is innerancy? I prefer, Inspired. The issue is, it should be obvious even to the most fundamentalist Christians upon reading through the Bible, that you can't read through it literally front to back. It will just be confusing and contradictory. But many people in the faith insist that it MUST be read literally and you MUST know it's innerant and you dare not question it.

Here's the thing though, there is no verse in scripture that insists we must read it literally. There's no verse that forbids interpretation. No, it has been the church throughout the centuries that have taken verses out of context in order to fear monger (or even persecute) people into reading it one way and one way only.

So yes, there is a lot of truth to what you say. I'm just not compelled to throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water.

[Godscreated]

You're making a statement to a statement that was not implied. I know what Jesus said wouldn't eliminate the hour of being imminent, the fact that it hasn't yet come shows it wasn't imminent. Before you quote the verse where Jesus says that this generation will not pass away is referring to the church not the end of time. If you do not study all the NT and find out what Jesus was referring to in the other verses then you will have no idea of what He is teaching. Repeating what you hear or what you find on the web that's written by nonbelievers doesn't count as a study nor does it prove anything since these very people are out to do one thing, only disprove the Bible. 

What you are doing is reinterpreting the bible to suit the facts. Of course you must necessarily do that otherwise the bible has no meaning. I prefer Occam's razor. The bible has no meaning. I do not need to repeat what others have said. I have read the NT no less than 3 times. I still could not find the coherence, consistency and meaning that I was looking for.

My first response to what you said was to laugh a bit, an atheist who knows nothing about the Bible telling a Christian who has studied it for years with some very intelligent people that he is reinterpreting what the Bible says, it's just laughable. 
Then the next thing you say is just out of complete ignorance. I necessarily have to make the Bible a lie, so it will have meaning. Nothing that is a lie has meaning and is worthless, period. I search for the truth in the scriptures to find out what is contained within them. I've flown on airplanes several times an I'm still not a pilot, so why would reading the NT over make you aware of the truth it contains, study with those who have found the truth and you might just find the importance contained within it's pages. Your problem with reading the Bible is you have preconceived ideas of what it should have for you, I can tell you that it doesn't work that way, you read it to find out what is required of you and how to meet those requirements.

 No there are things happening today that didn't and couldn't happen in that time. I haven't read that book and I do not need to I have the Bible to get all the information I need to understand. You're right He hasn't come, but it will be sooner than many think and later than others think. The time for this to happen belongs to the Father and it will not happen till that time.



Like I said that would be a question for those that were living in that time and I've said that that time will never come. I have never nor will I ever question that the return of Christ will happen and as I've said it will when the Father tells Christ it is time to return.

GC

A thought experiment is rather simple actually. All you have to do is close your eyes, imaging that it is the year 100,000 and Christ has not returned. How do you feel about that? How do you feel about your religion? Why has he not returned? Time to give it all up???

 I fill that speculation is just that speculation it holds no truth nor reality, I deal in both of those. Wishing and pretending is for the foolish. Christianity is the only way of real life and why, because it leads to eternal life, everything outside of it leads to eternal punishment. Like I said the Father hasn't told Christ that the hour has come for His return, I'm not God so I couldn't tell you what His reasons for the eventual return of Christ is, I can tell you with absolute certainty that Christ will becoming soon.

GC

[Bow Before Zeus]

Let's say...

You ask a question based in the star wars galaxy. Lets pretend you ask "what makes a light saber's lazer beam solid when struck by another light saber?" Then I give an answer in accordance to star wars cannon.  "Kaber Crystals turn light energy into a controllable solid plasma. " You may then say "Science" says plasma is not a solid it is a meta physical state of matter that lives between energy and gas.

Now I am pointing out that is an intellectually lazy response on your part as when you ask a "star wars question" you have to preclude or accept the Star Wars cannon as the ultimate authority, inorder to even ask the question. Let alone receive an answer.

The same is true with your OP You asked a canonical based Question about the nature of God, and Got a canonical response. you then can't honestly side step the answer you got because it was based on cannon, BECAUSE YOUR F-ING QUESTION WAS ALSO BASED ON CANNON!!! IF you ask a cannon based question then by defaut you accept a canonical answer.

Hence me calling you a moron.

Not a personal attack, just a intellectual observation. You want to seem "smart" but default to logical fallacy to obtain your status  which is the opposite of what you think you have obtained.

Ok, you're a very angry person, I get that. But here I must draw the line. So let me start drawing.

I asked, since your pathetic little god-being had not returned "imminently" like he supposedly said he would, what it would take before you would give up your pathetic little religion. Your response was to threaten that nobody escapes judgement much like a voodoo witchdoctor would threaten that I am going to die by shaking a bone at me. What would I do in that situation? Laugh in the witchdoctor's face! I have shown restraint in not laughing at you and have politely asked you to partake in a thought experiment that you are clearly not capable of understanding.

On many levels I could turn around and call you a complete moron. Firstly for not understanding purpose of a thought experiment and secondly for believing the scribblings of iron age goat-herders but I have shown great restraint in not doing so.

You sit there with the intellect of a witch-doctor calling me a moron. It seems to be a pattern of behaviour that xtians here seem to engage in. A similar accusation was thrown at my daughters by another xtian poster. Young women that are studying degrees that would completely befuddle you and the other xtian poster. My family is a family of engineers and scientists. We are the high priests and gods of the modern era. We create machines that would seem like magic to the primitive goat-herders that wrote the bible. We create the modern society that you live in. We build the buildings, the cars, the planes, the bridges, the computers, almost every aspect of modern society. We are in the process of creating life in the lab and sentient machines and becoming an interplanetary species. This is what scientists and engineers do. Not theologians, not religious nutters, but educates, intelligent people. This is what intelligence is, not waving a witchdoctor's bone and someone and accusing them of being a moron.

So instead of throwing accusations at people, why don't you learn how to build stuff for modern society? And before you start calling people something that you are guilty of, put your science, engineering or medical degree on the table first. You would have to come out of your trailer park, earn a decent living, afford to go to university and of course have the intellect to be able to complete the degree in the first place. None of which I would wager you are capable of.

PS One of the posters has noted it but you still don't get it so let me spell it out for you. It's canon, not cannon. You are illiterate as well. Just stating a fact here.

---

What you are doing is reinterpreting the bible to suit the facts. Of course you must necessarily do that otherwise the bible has no meaning. I prefer Occam's razor. The bible has no meaning. I do not need to repeat what others have said. I have read the NT no less than 3 times. I still could not find the coherence, consistency and meaning that I was looking for.

My first response to what you said was to laugh a bit, an atheist who knows nothing about the Bible telling a Christian who has studied it for years with some very intelligent people that he is reinterpreting what the Bible says, it's just laughable. 
Then the next thing you say is just out of complete ignorance. I necessarily have to make the Bible a lie, so it will have meaning. Nothing that is a lie has meaning and is worthless, period. I search for the truth in the scriptures to find out what is contained within them. I've flown on airplanes several times an I'm still not a pilot, so why would reading the NT over make you aware of the truth it contains, study with those who have found the truth and you might just find the importance contained within it's pages. Your problem with reading the Bible is you have preconceived ideas of what it should have for you, I can tell you that it doesn't work that way, you read it to find out what is required of you and how to meet those requirements.

The bible was meant to be taken literally by the writers. We look at it today and laugh at the ignorance of the writers. Your analogy with the plane is erroneous. I will tell you why I can read the bible and see no meaning in it. It only requires basic comprehension to find meaning. I have read Shakespeare and Plato and many other texts and find meaning. The bible has none. You can pontificate on this point all you want. Facts are facts.

 No there are things happening today that didn't and couldn't happen in that time. I haven't read that book and I do not need to I have the Bible to get all the information I need to understand. You're right He hasn't come, but it will be sooner than many think and later than others think. The time for this to happen belongs to the Father and it will not happen till that time.



Like I said that would be a question for those that were living in that time and I've said that that time will never come. I have never nor will I ever question that the return of Christ will happen and as I've said it will when the Father tells Christ it is time to return.

GC

A thought experiment is rather simple actually. All you have to do is close your eyes, imaging that it is the year 100,000 and Christ has not returned. How do you feel about that? How do you feel about your religion? Why has he not returned? Time to give it all up???

 I fill that speculation is just that speculation it holds no truth nor reality, I deal in both of those. Wishing and pretending is for the foolish. Christianity is the only way of real life and why, because it leads to eternal life, everything outside of it leads to eternal punishment. Like I said the Father hasn't told Christ that the hour has come for His return, I'm not God so I couldn't tell you what His reasons for the eventual return of Christ is, I can tell you with absolute certainty that Christ will becoming soon.

GC

I can tell you with absolute certainty that he is not returning. The difference with my statement and yours is that mine is based on simple observation. Yours is based on fantasy. Which one do you think will come to pass?

[Godscreated]

My first response to what you said was to laugh a bit, an atheist who knows nothing about the Bible telling a Christian who has studied it for years with some very intelligent people that he is reinterpreting what the Bible says, it's just laughable. 
Then the next thing you say is just out of complete ignorance. I necessarily have to make the Bible a lie, so it will have meaning. Nothing that is a lie has meaning and is worthless, period. I search for the truth in the scriptures to find out what is contained within them. I've flown on airplanes several times an I'm still not a pilot, so why would reading the NT over make you aware of the truth it contains, study with those who have found the truth and you might just find the importance contained within it's pages. Your problem with reading the Bible is you have preconceived ideas of what it should have for you, I can tell you that it doesn't work that way, you read it to find out what is required of you and how to meet those requirements.

The bible was meant to be taken literally by the writers. We look at it today and laugh at the ignorance of the writers. Your analogy with the plane is erroneous. I will tell you why I can read the bible and see no meaning in it. It only requires basic comprehension to find meaning. I have read Shakespeare and Plato and many other texts and find meaning. The bible has none. You can pontificate on this point all you want. Facts are facts.

The only fact you have given is that you have read, if you have read Plato and Shakespeare and found some eternal meaning you are the one who is reinterpreting what you read. The Bible offers a hope that nothing else can and that's because it comes from the One who can give hope. You are rejecting the One who first loved you and gave His life for you before you were born, why that doesn't move you is beyond me.

 I feel that speculation is just that speculation it holds no truth nor reality, I deal in both of those. Wishing and pretending is for the foolish. Christianity is the only way of real life and why, because it leads to eternal life, everything outside of it leads to eternal punishment. Like I said the Father hasn't told Christ that the hour has come for His return, I'm not God so I couldn't tell you what His reasons for the eventual return of Christ is, I can tell you with absolute certainty that Christ will becoming soon.

GC

I can tell you with absolute certainty that he is not returning. The difference with my statement and yours is that mine is based on simple observation. Yours is based on fantasy. Which one do you think will come to pass?

 Mine because it's based on the word of the God who created us. Your observations, what observations, you expect me to believe you have a knowledge that no one else does. That's like me going to the bus stop to catch the bus and you observed it leaving and you have no idea of which bus I'm looking to take. You make statements without knowing what you are looking for. You make a lot of noise but have shown me nothing to make me believe that Christ isn't going to return, your arguments are weak at best and in reality they are nonexistent. 

GC