Landover Baptist Pastor Preaches To Atheists

[4X4]

OK. We'll make a deal. You're nothing like mideval catholics (and frankly, not much has changed in that organization, nowadays they're just raping boys instead of the whole congregation) as long as I'm nothing like the guy in the video.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) isn't meant to be taken as a way to follow God? I'm sure the Jews of the world would take offense to that comment.

Sorry about the confusion.

I meant that the Old Testament cannot be used to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Jews don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so why would they take offense?

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Medieval version was strictly Catholic. Catholics during that time were basically corrupt.

They tortured, burnt, raped and basically killed anyone that opposed their belief system.

Then came this thing called the reformation.

It didn't even matter if they opposed their belief system. If anybody was determined a threat to the Catholic Church, and more specifically their piles and piles of gold and riches, they were also tortured, burnt, etc. As soon as the Catholics realized how much money they lost out on because The Knight's Templar were able to live and roam in France tax-free, and more specifically, how much wealth the Knights made off of a primal version of the Traveler's Cheque system, they immediately targetted them as their enemy. And these were the same Knights who fought for Jerusalem and in the Crusades.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Atheism is a view of who God is and what our response to Him should be.

I'm sorry, but you really just don't understand what an atheist is.

This quote really just sums it up:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just go one god further than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

-Stephen Robert

[photon]

Christianity definitely has been the most significant organization, religious and political, for good and for bad, in modern western civilization.

Kind of off topic but I read a poll once though that queried historical scholars about the most significant figure in western civilization, and Jesus and Paul were fifth on that list. Jesus and Paul being the co-founders of Christianity, Paul was instrumental in turning Christianity from the religion of Jesus (i.e. what Jesus himself taught, the kingdom of God was at hand, Jewish apocalypticism), into the religion about Jesus (that Jesus died for the sins of the world).

First on that list was Alexander the Great, as his bringing Greek life and culture to so many places laid the foundation for western civilization. It was interesting (at least to me who almost failed social classes in school so lots of history is new to me ).

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sorry about the confusion.

I meant that the Old Testament cannot be used to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Jews don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so why would they take offense?

You said nothing about Jesus in your original post. Your exact quote was the following:

I look at the Old Testament as a collection of 'stories'....written to perhaps teach us a few moral lessons, but certainly not to be taken as the literal way to follow God.

As you surely know, Judiasm is rooted in the Old Testament books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Those books which comprise the Torah are full of the various different rules, laws, and customs followed by Jews, yet you dismissed them as "not to be taken as a literal way to follow God". On the contrary, the Torah is, in fact, the precise manner in which they follow God. Do you see now why your comment is offensive to those who follow the Jewish religion?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

ok i'm not trying to insult or flame anyone, but this is pure curiosity. what's the difference between the old and new testaments, aren't both supposed to be the word of god? if there are so many discrepancies between the two, did god change his mind? and what about all the passages that were written which didn't make the final cut into the bible, who was in charge of determining what was and wasn't the true word of god?

Boom.

I just about missed this.

First of all, I think you've been a bit too influenced by all those people who think everything 'not' in the Bible was NOT written based on inspiration from God.

There were many writings that were not put into the Bible, yes, but if you'll closely examine all those writings, and compare them too those actually in the Bible, specifically in the New Testament, you'd notice one clear difference.

Every passage chosen to be put into the New Testament was chosen because it referred primarily to the spiritual life of Jesus Christ. The 4 gospels, John, the letters Paul wrote, all of them talk about the 'spiritual' context of Jesus Christ. In other words they're ALL talking about Christianity. Most of the passages that were 'excluded' from the 'final cut' were primarily based on the 'physical' life of Jesus Christ.

Now, when the Bible was put together, the people who did it had a choice. They could stick to the spiritual side of Jesus Christ, or they could focus on the physical side of Jesus, in other words his everyday life.

So no, certain texts weren't outright refused because they weren't clarified as the 'inspired word of God'....but because they served no purpose to Christianity.

Like I've said before, Christianity is based around the birth, teachings and death of Jesus Christ, and what they mean spiritually to Christians. Hence the reason why certain passages were left out of the final cut.

There was no BIG conspiracy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Schultzie

No, I was saying it as a general statement, so don't think it was directed towards you.

I always get the "Bible is proof" argument, so I figured I'd throw that one out there in case someone was thinking of posting it.

The first thing you forgot to remember when you started reading this thread and replying, is that Christianity is not based around 'proof.'

[Azure]

Originally Posted by 4X4

OK. We'll make a deal. You're nothing like mideval catholics (and frankly, not much has changed in that organization, nowadays they're just raping boys instead of the whole congregation) as long as I'm nothing like the guy in the video.

I never said you were like the guy in the video.

Catholics are not burning mid-wives anymore, claiming that they were disciples of Satan because they can help ease the pain of a woman giving birth.

That has changed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

It didn't even matter if they opposed their belief system. If anybody was determined a threat to the Catholic Church, and more specifically their piles and piles of gold and riches, they were also tortured, burnt, etc. As soon as the Catholics realized how much money they lost out on because The Knight's Templar were able to live and roam in France tax-free, and more specifically, how much wealth the Knights made off of a primal version of the Traveler's Cheque system, they immediately targetted them as their enemy. And these were the same Knights who fought for Jerusalem and in the Crusades.

Well said.

....course you didn't get that part from the Da Vinci Code, right?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You said nothing about Jesus in your original post. Your exact quote was the following:

Go whosh much?

I said sorry about the confusion.

I 'meant' to say...

I look at the Old Testament as a collection of 'stories'....written to perhaps teach us a few moral lessons, but certainly not to be taken as the literal way to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Get it now?

As you surely know, Judiasm is rooted in the Old Testament books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Those books which comprise the Torah are full of the various different rules, laws, and customs followed by Jews, yet you dismissed them as "not to be taken as a literal way to follow God". On the contrary, the Torah is, in fact, the precise manner in which they follow God. Do you see now why your comment is offensive to those who follow the Jewish religion?

Its not offensive.

You just didn't understand what I was trying to say.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well said.

....course you didn't get that part from the Da Vinci Code, right?

Hell no! I never actually read that book.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Hell no! I never actually read that book.

Its interesting.

Although I never outright believed everything he talked about, it certainly opened my eyes to a different viewpoint of the Bible.

He takes the Gospel of Phillip, where Mary Magdalene was talked about as being Jesus' companion, one step farther and makes her his wife.

And then he takes it another step and says that they had kids.

Then another step and says that the bloodline still exists today.

Course it made for a good story, but there are too many gullible people on both sides who thought he was writing the truth.

....back on topic.

[MarchHare]

Go whosh much?

[...]

Its not offensive.

You just didn't understand what I was trying to say.

That's because you didn't say what you meant to say, and what you actually said was offensive to Jews. Whether it was your intent or not, you dismissed their entire religion as "not a literal way to follow God".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's because you didn't say what you meant to say, and what you actually said was offensive to Jews. Whether it was your intent or not, your comment dismissed their entire religion as "not a literal way to follow God".

Get over it.

I already said it was a misunderstanding, and my original comment certainly wasn't supposed to be offensive to the Jews.

Geez.

[Cheese]

Facts:

What is the Old Testament?

THE Old Testament is a collection of selected writings composed and edited by members of the Hebrew-Jewish community between the twelfth century B.C. and the beginning of the Christian era. It includes such diverse materials as prophetic oracles, teachings of wise men, instructions of priests and ancient records of the royal courts. Some material is historical, some is legendary; some is legalistic, some is didactic. For the most part the literature was written in Hebrew, but a few passages were written in Aramaic, a kindred language which came into common usage among the Jews during the post-Exilic era (after the sixth century B.C.). The Aramaic portions include Dan. 2:4b-7:28; Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Jer. 10:11; and one phrase in Gen. 31:47 "Jegar-sahadutha," translated "Heap of Witness."


and
The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Facts:

What is the Old Testament?

THE Old Testament is a collection of selected writings composed and edited by members of the Hebrew-Jewish community between the twelfth century B.C. and the beginning of the Christian era. It includes such diverse materials as prophetic oracles, teachings of wise men, instructions of priests and ancient records of the royal courts. Some material is historical, some is legendary; some is legalistic, some is didactic. For the most part the literature was written in Hebrew, but a few passages were written in Aramaic, a kindred language which came into common usage among the Jews during the post-Exilic era (after the sixth century B.C.). The Aramaic portions include Dan. 2:4b-7:28; Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Jer. 10:11; and one phrase in Gen. 31:47 "Jegar-sahadutha," translated "Heap of Witness."


and
The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."

That is true to an extent... but the New Testament one in particular is written with a clear bias and agenda. Its tough to quote unbiased facts from a place called infidels.org. Its like saying that the information found on Link Byfield's or Michael Moore's pages are 100% accurate. Its the truth, but perverted to suit a viewpoint.

Also when they say beginning of the Christian era, they typically mean around 0 AD and before the time of Jesus. Isaiah in particular was one of the last books written in the Old Testament and some scholars believed he lived to Jesus' time.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 4X4

OK. We'll make a deal. You're nothing like mideval catholics (and frankly, not much has changed in that organization, nowadays they're just raping boys instead of the whole congregation) as long as I'm nothing like the guy in the video.

Atheist/Theist Group Hug?

[photon]

How is that truth perverted to suit a viewpoint though? That pretty much jives with what I've read from other biblical scholars.

There were a bunch of different writings and believes and groups that believed different writings.. and then eventually there were lists of books put out by different leaders which in their opinions were books that supported the doctrine they wanted their groups to subscribe to, rejecting the other books.

It's nothing like what I was taught in church; that the Bible was written and that was it, it's been the same ever since.

The chaotic and human nature of the origin of the NT doesn't detract from its content IMO (unless you are a literalist I guess).

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by photon

How is that truth perverted to suit a viewpoint though? That pretty much jives with what I've read from other biblical scholars.

There were a bunch of different writings and believes and groups that believed different writings.. and then eventually there were lists of books put out by different leaders which in their opinions were books that supported the doctrine they wanted their groups to subscribe to, rejecting the other books.

It's nothing like what I was taught in church; that the Bible was written and that was it, it's been the same ever since.

The chaotic and human nature of the origin of the NT doesn't detract from its content IMO (unless you are a literalist I guess).

It was more the simplification of the orthodoxy = the church that won. It was substantially more complicated than that, and that many of the gospels that were refused were simply too similar or way too questionable in origin and message. The fights are overstated, and it was rather tough to unify an orthodoxy until the 4th century, seeing as Christians were being hunted down and killed until Constantine.