Is Jesus A Prophet According To The Old Testament?
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
I could be wrong, but I'm detecting a purposeful contradiction to a Christian principle in your post. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:22 ...I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means(at all costs and in any and every way)save some[by winning them to faith in Jesus Christ].
All things to all people is about being accommodating to others and demonstrating a serving, sacrificing love for the good of others. Why have that attitude even to people you don't like, know, or understand? A myriad of reasons.
I'm afraid I'm going to take the last word at this point, until you agree to the terms.
P.S. I'm posting this here because the club forbids this kind of discussion.
Last edited:
Doesn't matter whether you're wrong or right, I'm not a Christian so contradicting a particular Christian principle is of no concern to me. And I think Paul was a misogynist, a hysteric, and delusional, I don't take his pronouncements seriously.
Sorry, but I used the wrong word in one spot here and must fix it.
You did state "you can't be all things to all people" to purposely contradict what Paul wrote, right?
I could be wrong, but I'm detecting you purposely contradicted a Christian principle in your post. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:22 ...I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means(at all costs and in any and every way)save some[by winning them to faith in Jesus Christ].
All things to all people is about being accommodating to others and demonstrating a serving, sacrificing love for the good of others. Why have that attitude even to people you don't like, know, or understand? A myriad of reasons.
I'm afraid I'm going to take the last word at this point, until you agree to the terms.
P.S. I'm posting this here because the club forbids this kind of discussion.
You did state "you can't be all things to all people" to purposely contradict what Paul wrote, right?
Paul blew the whole Jesus story right out of proportion. He never knew the guy and completely misunderstood the message. He created a religion about Jesus instead of one based on his teachings. Paul got it all wrong. And Christians revere the bozo so they have it all wrong too, because the point was to follow the teachings of Jesus and not the ravings of a lunatic.
Not really. Specifically contradicting Paul wasn't my motive, I don't recall thinking of him when I wrote that, I said it because I think it's true. "All things to all people" is just a sort of catch phrase that's come into the common consciousness because of the Bible's pervasive influence, but I'd bet most people couldn't identify the source.
You can't love everybody except in the abstract, and you can't even be all things to one person, that's a dysfunctional co-dependency. What Paul described as being all things to all people is nothing of the sort, he was interested only in proselytizing about his interpretation of his seizure and hallucination on the road to Damascus. His message is actually apocalyptic, as was Jesus' message. Both of them expected the Second Advent and the end of the world as we know it to occur very soon after Jesus' death, Scripture reports them both as clearly saying so several times. Paul certainly expected it within his lifetime, and that strongly coloured much of the advice he offered. Because he turned out to be wrong about that, much of his advice is bad. There are a lot of earnest Christians around expecting the apocalypse of Revelation 19:11-18 to come to pass (that's where Jesus comes back and kills off all the unrighteous) within their lifetime, that thread has run strongly through Christianity from the beginning. Nobody's been right yet.
Belief requires zero evidence. What you say is like saying, something can be evident without evidence.
Belief is an emotion in the same sense as nostalgia is emotion driven. If you remove emotion from the equation of belief there is nothing there creating an attachment.
Religion found the right emotion to manipulate and control the thoughts an actions of large masses simply through the use of words.
The word to describe this control of the mind and the illusion of a control of destiny by the gods is "magic".
Some will no doubt say I'm being blasphemous to the Majesty of God but hey, they are only words right?
Faith requires no justification. Faith is a belief producing the ground on which evidences can appear. Faith is the trust without which one remains a paranoiac producing his own false evidences. Making leaps of faith is the true freedom.
And largely fear, people are pretty sure they have it pegged, but not being too sure of the "future", aren't taking any chances.
Not true. The word belief has multiple meanings, it does make sense to talk of evidence-based beliefs versus evidence-free beliefs. The same point can be made about the word faith. My point is that evidence-free beliefs cannot be justified and so in my view deserve to be rejected.
In the religious sense, yes, but more generally, no. The word has multiple meanings, it does make sense to talk of evidence-based beliefs versus evidence-free beliefs. The same can be said about the word faith. The point is that evidence-free beliefs cannot be justified and so in my view should be rejected.
Hmm... first double post for me. Dunno how that happened, The first time I tried to submit, it timed out, so I did a little editing and submitted again, only to find the first one had worked too.