Even if theism is a failure, it's still superior to atheism

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The grand, unifying theme about all these side issues - Jesus’ literacy, the historicity of Paul, the authorship of the Epistles, Jesus’ social status, etc  - is that they have absolutely nothing to do with whether Christianity is true. I find that very comforting.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems like you've been setup to fail, if the objective is to be offensive to no one. Christianity is, itself, offensive to me. I guess you have to hope that this judger of yours isn't too legalistic in his interpretations. Hate to see you find out that the clauses in the contract were designed so that the provider never has to pay out....

Imagine, you wake up after your death at the pearly gates, in seeming confimration of everything you believed, and the big man himself says it's a no go, on account of how you were wildly offensive...and you say "but I only said what you told us!" and he crosses his arms and says..."exactly, off you go"....

Perhaps this life really was a test, and you were expected to know better, but you just couldn't help yourself. Personally, I'm just trying to be a decent person, I'm not overly concerned with living a life of faith or with being inoffensive. However that pans out, if there's some supernatural super judger of all...frankly, is beyond my paygrade, nothing I can do about it...and I guess those chips will fall however they do. Maybe I'll get tossed in the pit or killed for a second time, because this super judger is just so good and holy (lol), but, if so, nothing I can do about that.

[rlp21858]

to follow up on the "collective tone", what i said to Grand Nudger was not meant to sound condescending (Grand Nudger: if you took it that way, i'm sorry). *but i said it because it really needed to be said: the collective tone that he and many others speak in i believe will cause a lot of problems, and potentially keep someone from believing who could have. i understand this often comes from a concern for others, which is a good thing. but to not believe just because another doesnt believe i think is akin to crippling yourself because you feel bad for a man in a wheelchair. this isnt the only way to handle this: Christianity teaches that the perfect way is to accept the free gift of health that you have, then (from commandment) dedicate yourself to the care of the man in the wheelchair as a result. this lets you express your concern for others without denying yourself the personal contentment you have available to you. so i hope the members refrain from speaking in this tone and only present their own personal reasons for not believing. should those reasons be addressed, perhaps those that dont believe could be given a reason to believe through you.

[Pat Mustard]

Paul's letters didn't survive, we've four different authors for the Pauline epistles, none of whom can be convincingly linked with the original Saul of Tarsus.

Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are authentic Paul.   The name "Saul" was an invention of the author of Acts to burnish his Jewish cred.  The author who forged 2 Thessalonians had the balls to say beware of forgeries like 1 Thessalonians, but that was to throw people off the scent of his own forgery, sort of like when Lindsey Graham votes against LGBT issues.

No they're the oldest written epistles. There's no evidence to actually link them to Paul, especially when you consider that Corinth was still an abandoned ruin at the time that Paul/Saul was supposedly going around to the Greeks preaching Jesus. Corinth wasn't properly refounded until the 130s CE.

[Pat Mustard]

GUBU: and i was speaking collectively in response to Grand Nudger to show that this is a matter we all struggle with, not to be a hypocrite.

You were telling the Grand Nudger what he was thinking, what he was saying, and it was different than what he was telling you he was saying and thinking. Then afterwards you give out to everybody for doing what you just did.

Just because you're an idiot too stupid to realise the above fact doesn't also make you a hypocrite.

[The Grand Nudger]

There you go with the ludicrous explanations in the face of people clearly explaining things to you, rlp. You see me knocking on any doors, looking for converts, talking about a duty to testify? I'm not even at www dot I love jesus dot com, am I...but where are you, again?

I already told you I'm not interested in killing the better man to pay my parking tickets, or accepting any blood money for any reason, so... you can keep your "free" gift - I see what it's cost you.

[arewethereyet]

to follow up on the "collective tone", what i said to Grand Nudger was not meant to sound condescending (Grand Nudger: if you took it that way, i'm sorry).  *but i said it because it really needed to be said: the collective tone that he and many others speak in i believe will cause a lot of problems, and potentially keep someone from believing who could have.  i understand this often comes from a concern for others, which is a good thing.  but to not believe just because another doesnt believe i think is akin to crippling yourself because you feel bad for a man in a wheelchair.  this isnt the only way to handle this: Christianity teaches that the perfect way is to accept the free gift of health that you have, then (from commandment) dedicate yourself to the care of the man in the wheelchair as a result.  this lets you express your concern for others without denying yourself the personal contentment you have available to you.  so i hope the members refrain from speaking in this tone and only present their own personal reasons for not believing.  should those reasons be addressed, perhaps those that dont believe could be given a reason to believe through you.

Are you even remotely aware that many of us came from religion, particularly Christianity?

Most of us aren't here because we haven't heard your pitch before.  We heard it, were raised in it, lived in in, and found out that it's not the thing for us.

Your preachy, I am superior tone is annoying and you aren't converting anyone here.

[Ranjr]

to follow up on the "collective tone", what i said to Grand Nudger was not meant to sound condescending (Grand Nudger: if you took it that way, i'm sorry).  *but i said it because it really needed to be said: the collective tone that he and many others speak in i believe will cause a lot of problems, and potentially keep someone from believing who could have.  i understand this often comes from a concern for others, which is a good thing.  but to not believe just because another doesnt believe i think is akin to crippling yourself because you feel bad for a man in a wheelchair.  this isnt the only way to handle this: Christianity teaches that the perfect way is to accept the free gift of health that you have, then (from commandment) dedicate yourself to the care of the man in the wheelchair as a result.  this lets you express your concern for others without denying yourself the personal contentment you have available to you.  so i hope the members refrain from speaking in this tone and only present their own personal reasons for not believing.  should those reasons be addressed, perhaps those that dont believe could be given a reason to believe through you.

Someone who chooses to maintain doubt in a belief that requires faith has surely heard both sides and made that choice on their own.  

Ugh.  That Cristian guilt.  Shrug it.

[rlp21858]

why am i always accused of preaching? i would hope someone would give me the benefit of the doubt by now that i wont bite anyone here.

anyway, speaking of the offensiveness of Christianity: i think that a lot of well-meaning believers force on others their own desire to see an influence for the Christian doctrine, and do so from the fear that they cant see this influence if they always do what's right. i think this forcefulness isnt done in faith but in doubt and pride, and they end up saying/doing things that are untrue.

Christianity teaches that we are to be diligent but to do things only within our own capacity (1 Peter 4:11, Romans 12:8). for a spoken message, for example, i believe this means a Christian shouldn't speak what he cant support. so i believe the solution is to speak only that we can support, *but do it as often as we possibly can. i think this makes sense:

there are two well-known ways to advertise a product: add to it things that dont really belong to it in order to attract more people, or advertise the product as is but more vigorously, more often. the problem with the first way is that you "sell out": the product becomes something it wasnt intended to be. but by the latter way, you attract who you will attract legitimately and the product remains pure. i believe this is how a Christian's witnessing is supposed to be.

speaking your partially-understood personal message in as many places as possible gives an outlet to those desires to see influence, while staying within the bounds of only speaking the truth, and the commandment that this be done forces a potential chain reaction for good. this is done in faith and leaves all power of influence in the hands of God, where Christians are known for saying all power belongs.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

why am i always accused of preaching?  i would hope someone would give me the benefit of the doubt by now that i wont bite anyone here.

anyway, speaking of the offensiveness of Christianity: i think that a lot of well-meaning believers force on others their own desire to see an influence for the Christian doctrine, and do so from the fear that they cant see this influence if they always do what's right.  i think this forcefulness isnt done in faith but in doubt and pride, and they end up saying/doing things that are untrue.

Christianity teaches that we are to be diligent but to do things only within our own capacity (1 Peter 4:11, Romans 12:8). for a spoken message, for example, i believe this means a Christian shouldn't speak what he cant support.  so i believe the solution is to speak only that we can support, *but do it as often as we possibly can.  i think this makes sense:

there are two well-known ways to advertise a product: add to it things that dont really belong to it in order to attract more people, or advertise the product as is but more vigorously, more often.  the problem with the first way is that you "sell out": the product becomes something it wasnt intended to be.  but by the latter way, you attract who you will attract legitimately and the product remains pure.  i believe this is how a Christian's witnessing is supposed to be.

speaking your partially-understood personal message in as many places as possible gives an outlet to those desires to see influence, while staying within the bounds of only speaking the truth, and the commandment that this be done forces a potential chain reaction for good.  this is done in faith and leaves all power of influence in the hands of God, where Christians are known for saying all power belongs.

You're accused of preaching because that's what you're doing (you can call it 'witnessing' if you like, but it comes the same thing). We do not fear that you're going to bite anyone.

It isn't Christians pushing the doctrine that's offensive, it's the doctrine itself. If a Christian comes to my door, I can tell him to leave and the issue is done with. I can't do anything about the millennia of damage done by your faith.

Both of the verses you mention stress the word 'if'. Focus on that.

I'm delighted that you recognize your religion is a product.

Spreading your doctrine in 'as many places as possible' doesn't make you a potential force for good. It makes you a pest.

Boru