Why not make your own stuff up?

[JKTex]

I love this!! Thanks Pipeline for tossing the can of gas on this fire.

It's got everyone thumping bible's and when that starts, it never ends. Anyone can find anything in the bible somewhere that they can translate to support whatever their position is. It's the biggest circle of monkeys and footballs there ever was.

I'm getting the popcorn popping and getting comfortable, this is gonna be fun to watch!


EDIT: FOR THE RECORD, I DID NOT START THIS THREAD NOR AM I NOR HAVE I EVER PARTICIPATED IN IT BEYOND RAZZING PIPE. IT'S ANOTHER OF AL/AL-LA-MOD'S HOLIER THAN THOU RELIGIOUS PLATFORMS. IF THE TITLE DIDN'T GIVE THAT AWAY, IT STARTS AT POST #4. ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK OF BEING BEAT OVER THE HEAD WITH THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO AL

[Common Sense Al]

I'm getting the popcorn popping and getting comfortable, this is gonna be fun to watch!

Take a deep breather and calm down there JKTex... don't want you having an embolism or something.

[CopperCanyonResident]

So Jesus was being quoted in Leviticus? JC drove a DeLorean, who knew?

Romans is the word of Paul, not Jesus. It's amazing how many Christians let that dude speak for the big guy.

Yes, He was quoted in Leviticus because God is One and God gave the Law in Levitcus. 'Before Abraham was, I AM." Remember that? Yeah, He was there and has been everywhere from the beginning.

And you have a problem with St. Paul? Oh, the same guy who was blinded by the "big guy." You know, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

As if Paul did not speak for Our Lord who called him.

Moronic - simply moronic crap. Please spare us your idiocy.

Thanks,

CCR

[roadkill]

Yes, He was quoted in Leviticus because God is One and God gave the Law in Levitcus. 'Before Abraham was, I AM." Remember that? Yeah, He was there and has been everywhere from the beginning.

Jesus wrote the OT? I assume you're adhering to Orthodox Jewish law then. How did your last BLT feel about that?

And you have a problem with St. Paul? Oh, the same guy who was blinded by the "big guy." You know, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

As if Paul did not speak for Our Lord who called him.

Jesus called Paul? According to whom? Paul? Apparently Jesus also told Paul, "Hey, listen, man. I *totally* screwed up the message when I was going around preaching and stuff, so you're going to have to do a complete rewrite. Sorry about that, bro."

Paul spoke for Paul. Jesus spoke for Jesus.

Moronic - simply moronic crap. Please spare us your idiocy.

"Christians" rage so hard when anyone dares point out the idiocy in much of their doctrine. Rage for us, Can.

Thanks,

CCR

Come on, you can rage longer than that. Amateur.

[Common Sense Al]

"Christians" rage so hard when anyone dares point out the idiocy in much of their doctrine. Rage for us, Can.

If you get the doctrine from the right source, there is no conflict... and if you think there is, then you just don't understand it (and probably prefer to be ignorant instead of actually trying to understand it).

And most Christians do not "rage"... sure, some do... but not most.

[roadkill]

If you get the doctrine from the right source, there is no conflict... and if you think there is, then you just don't understand it (and probably prefer to be ignorant instead of actually trying to understand it).

And most Christians do not "rage"... sure, some do... but not most.

Which source would that be, Al? How many biblical "scholars" have done their linguistical and logical tap dance to rationalize clear discrepancies in the Bible? The history and contents of the Bible are almost comical in their messiness. There are exactly four books in the Bible of any real worth, and the fact that it contains so much superfluous text does nothing but water down the truly astonishing magnitude of those four books.

Here you have the single greatest human to ever walk the Earth, and an endless succession of cowardly and corrupt men have twisted and edited his legacy to suit their own fleeting needs. It's like when reporters try to make themselves the story rather than what they're covering, except in this case what they're covering is the word of God and the person with the focus should be Jesus Christ. It goes beyond religion. The words of Jesus fit nicely into any philosophical and scientific context we can consider. He's like a superforce unifying the three approaches to human thought and knowledge, or at least he should be and would be if the lunatic fringe hadn't appropriated the message.

[Common Sense Al]

Which source would that be, Al?

There's only one source with the "fullness of truth" - the church Jesus started with Peter... that's your source. Don't pay attention to "bible scholars". Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.

Here you have the single greatest human to ever walk the Earth, and an endless succession of cowardly and corrupt men have twisted and edited his legacy to suit their own fleeting needs.

Exactly! Which is why Jesus was smart enough to leave one guy in charge and to create one church that will NOT be corrupted - that will last until the end of time. Sure, it's made of people who make mistakes, but its doctrinal teachings on faith and morals are rock and do not change with the "sign of the times" and the passing fads. Stick with the ONE church Jesus Himself created (he didn't create thousands) and there is no conflict. Go by the latest "scholars" and the passing fads and all the new "theories" and "truths" and surely you will be confused. The bible is NOT easy to interpret correctly.

[roadkill]

There's only one source with the "fullness of truth" - the church Jesus started with Peter... that's your source.

Which church is that? Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, or Latvian Orthodox?

Don't pay attention to "bible scholars". Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.

If I don't pay attention to Bible scholars, then the first thing I'm throwing out is the Council of Nicaea.

Exactly! Which is why Jesus was smart enough to leave one guy in charge and to create one church that will NOT be corrupted - that will last until the end of time. Sure, it's made of people who make mistakes, but its doctrinal teachings on faith and morals are rock and do not change with the "sign of the times" and the passing fads. Stick with the ONE church Jesus Himself created (he didn't create thousands) and there is no conflict. Go by the latest "scholars" and the passing fads and all the new "theories" and "truths" and surely you will be confused. The bible is NOT easy to interpret correctly.

Who did Jesus leave in charge? It was supposed to be Peter, but Paul's doing all the talking. The church Jesus started has most certainly been corrupted throughout history. Corruption, reform, schism -- it's been a mess. The doctrine has shifted so many times within the various churches that the message of the churches doesn't mean much anymore. The dogma is more muddled and diverse than ever.

[Common Sense Al]

Which church is that? Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, or Latvian Orthodox?

I think you are kidding me... right???

If I don't pay attention to Bible scholars, then the first thing I'm throwing out is the Council of Nicaea.

Careful... you'd be throwing out the authoritative stuff there. You've got to be able to differentiate the authoritative stuff from the non-authoritative "bible scholars" and whoever else decides to make up their own stuff.

Who did Jesus leave in charge? It was supposed to be Peter, but Paul's doing all the talking.

Yes, it was Peter... doesn't matter if someone else did more talking. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, which meant authority was passed down to him directly from Christ.

The church Jesus started has most certainly been corrupted throughout history. Corruption, reform, schism -- it's been a mess. The doctrine has shifted so many times within the various churches that the message of the churches doesn't mean much anymore. The dogma is more muddled and diverse than ever.

Of course the Catholic church has had ups & downs, but that's to be expected given its membership of imperfect & sinful human beings.

However, you've got to differentiate the authoritative teachings & doctrines & dogmas from the non-authoritative. Show me where official, infallible, authoritative Catholic teaching on faith & morals has ever changed, because it hasn't. And by "changed", I mean where something was declared moral or true and then it was later reversed to be immoral or false. I don't mean changed as in expanded. I mean changed as in something was reversed to conflict with a prior authoritative teaching.

[CopperCanyonResident]

CopperCanyonResident wrote:
Yes, He was quoted in Leviticus because God is One and God gave the Law in Levitcus. 'Before Abraham was, I AM." Remember that? Yeah, He was there and has been everywhere from the beginning.

Jesus wrote the OT? I assume you're adhering to Orthodox Jewish law then. How did your last BLT feel about that?

CopperCanyonResident wrote:
And you have a problem with St. Paul? Oh, the same guy who was blinded by the "big guy." You know, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

As if Paul did not speak for Our Lord who called him.

Jesus called Paul? According to whom? Paul? Apparently Jesus also told Paul, "Hey, listen, man. I *totally* screwed up the message when I was going around preaching and stuff, so you're going to have to do a complete rewrite. Sorry about that, bro."

Paul spoke for Paul. Jesus spoke for Jesus.

CopperCanyonResident wrote:
Moronic - simply moronic crap. Please spare us your idiocy.

"Christians" rage so hard when anyone dares point out the idiocy in much of their doctrine. Rage for us, Can.

CopperCanyonResident wrote:
Thanks,

CCR

Wow. Where to start.

Come on, you can rage longer than that. Amateur.

Yeah, according to Christian teaching, Jesus is co-eternal with God the Father. He existed always, as the quote I gave indicates. He existed when the Old Testament was written.

If you do not believe that, you are at liberty not to believe that, but you cannot define the Faith for the Believers with a misunderstanding of what they believe and then castigate them for what you surmise to be their beliefs. Sorry.

Paul had his story to explain. He was a persecutor of the Church (much like you??), but he changed. Yeah, that was a miracle, and the leaders of the Church saw it for what is was.

Paul, and almost all the Apostles died for their faith.

Who dies for a faith that is based on a falsehood? If the Apostles knew it was all a bunch of bunk, would they not have caved in and admitted as much rather than suffer death by terrible means?

Yeah, they died rather than turn their back on Christ.

When you die, will Christ turn his back on you, just as you have turned your back on him?

Good luck with that.

[roadkill]

When you die, will Christ turn his back on you, just as you have turned your back on him?

Chuckle.

I'm betting I'm the only one here actually paying attention to his message. Turn my back on him? Yeah, right.

[roadkill]

Of course the Catholic church has had ups & downs, but that's to be expected given its membership of imperfect & sinful human beings.

Ups and downs? Good grief. That's like saying the Himalayas have their ups and downs.

I'm sorry, but if the Roman Catholic church is God's church, then he's not any god I want to worship. The "down" the church is currently in is all the evidence I need. What a colossal failure from bottom to top this episode has been. The coup de grace was the resignation of the pope who swept it all under the rug.

[Common Sense Al]

I'm sorry, but if the Roman Catholic church is God's church, then he's not any god I want to worship.

Well then just do the modern thing and create your own religion and become your own pope. It's what many people do these days... the only problem is, the keys of the kingdom have not been passed down to you so you don't have the authority, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from making their own crap up anyway. So whatever you think is right can be right and whatever you think is wrong can be wrong... sounds great, eh? And why not, everyone's doing it these days.

The "down" the church is currently in is all the evidence I need. What a colossal failure from bottom to top this episode has been. The coup de grace was the resignation of the pope who swept it all under the rug.

Sounds like you've been reading too much secular media.

[CopperCanyonResident]

I'm sorry, but if the Roman Catholic church is God's church, then he's not any god I want to worship. The "down" the church is currently in is all the evidence I need. What a colossal failure from bottom to top this episode has been. The coup de grace was the resignation of the pope who swept it all under the rug.
End quote.

That was my point. Go ahead and reject him. Please understand that he will let you choose your own path, and at the end of time, he will reject you.

Good luck with that.

[roadkill]

That was my point. Go ahead and reject him. Please understand that he will let you choose your own path, and at the end of time, he will reject you.

Good luck with that.

So by rejecting the Roman Catholic Church I am rejecting God? How does that work?

I simply can't believe that God would create such a nefarious puzzle, such a twisted route to salvation. He allows his one true church to be filled with corruption and despicable sin, yet somehow his lowly creations must see through all the layers of obvious filth and recognize the actual holiness of the institution. This god you describe must be an absolute psychopath. Why would anyone follow a being who behaves in that manner? Especially when we are given a conscience that clearly warns against such things.

No. God's church is built in our souls. His word is written in our conscience. We know what he wants and what is expected of us. We know it from day one and it does not change. We construct all manner of elaborate dogmatic evasions to rationalize our behavior because we know it runs contrary to what it should be.