NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Corrected it.

More like mincing it with shoddy "corrections". Restored the original.

Remember Hobby Lobby? That business that sued to be able to not cover reproductive healthcare for female employees under Obamacare, lest their precious Christian dollars fund an abortion?

It turns out they're running a museum. A Bible museum. They actually got into a bit of trouble for potentially(probably accidentally) funding ISIS by illegally buying archaeological artefacts from them. But what's interesting is that they carefully curate who they allow to study their artefacts, suspiciously so, almost as though they're creating a body of research meant to "prove" that their version of the Bible is closest to the original.

Ifreann wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:More like mincing it with shoddy "corrections". Restored the original.

Remember Hobby Lobby? That business that sued to be able to not cover reproductive healthcare for female employees under Obamacare, lest their precious Christian dollars fund an abortion?

It turns out they're running a museum. A Bible museum. They actually got into a bit of trouble for potentially(probably accidentally) funding ISIS by illegally buying archaeological artefacts from them. But what's interesting is that they carefully curate who they allow to study their artefacts, suspiciously so, almost as though they're creating a body of research meant to "prove" that their version of the Bible is closest to the original.

Oh yes I remember. The theft actually predates ISIS by a few years, but it's still shockingly bad.

Ifreann wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:More like mincing it with shoddy "corrections". Restored the original.

Remember Hobby Lobby? That business that sued to be able to not cover reproductive healthcare for female employees under Obamacare, lest their precious Christian dollars fund an abortion?

It turns out they're running a museum. A Bible museum. They actually got into a bit of trouble for potentially(probably accidentally) funding ISIS by illegally buying archaeological artefacts from them. But what's interesting is that they carefully curate who they allow to study their artefacts, suspiciously so, almost as though they're creating a body of research meant to "prove" that their version of the Bible is closest to the original.

They should be made to walk around their town with signs hanging from their necks "proudly" proclaiming "I funded Islamic extremists".

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Corrected it.

More like mincing it with shoddy "corrections". Restored the original.

Thank you. Now if only xtians would do that with their holy book.

Big Jim P wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:More like mincing it with shoddy "corrections". Restored the original.

Thank you. Now if only xtians would do that with their holy book.

An indication of woeful ignorance of what the message really is.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Thank you. Now if only xtians would do that with their holy book.

An indication of woeful ignorance of what the message really is.

How fucking condescending. But par for the course really.

Thuzbekistan wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Corrected it.

Christian's dont understand it either, it seems. 40k+ denomination's out there. Some claim their interpretation is the only one. Wonder who is right?

Denominations that agree on the essential doctrines of Christianity are more or less correct. There is a reason why Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Scientologists are considere heretical cults.

The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4) the gospel, and 5) monotheism. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential (I call them primary essentials since the Bible declares them as essential). A non-regenerate person (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, atheist, Muslim), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines. Please note that there are other derivative doctrines of scripture that become necessary also and the Trinity being one.

Disagreement on things like tithes, the Communion, whether or not Christians should serve in the military, and other “non-essential” doctrines do not affect salvation in any way. The above five, however, are what matter. The rest are not affective towards salvation.

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:An indication of woeful ignorance of what the message really is.

How fucking condescending. But par for the course really.

Based on what standard? Your opinion?

Korhal IVV wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Thank you. Now if only xtians would do that with their holy book.

An indication of woeful ignorance of what the message really is.

Which is... what, exactly? And how do you know what the true message is, considering that the people who wrote it lived and died almost 2,000 years ago, and countless others between then and now have devoted their lives to determining what the Bible's true meaning was and they apparently failed?

Korhal IVV wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:How fucking condescending. But par for the course really.

Based on what standard? Your opinion?

From your other condescension so far.

Korhal IVV wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:How fucking condescending. But par for the course really.

Based on what standard? Your opinion?

Well yeah acting like only Christians are able to truly understand the bible and that everyone else are just ignorant is pretty condescending.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Thank you. Now if only xtians would do that with their holy book.

An indication of woeful ignorance of what the message really is.

I've read your book of myths. Have you?

Big Jim P wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:An indication of woeful ignorance of what the message really is.

I've read your book of myths. Have you?

10 times over within 5 years?

Andsed wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Based on what standard? Your opinion?

Well yeah acting like only Christians are able to truly understand the bible and that everyone else are just ignorant is pretty condescending.

That is how it works. It is offensive, of course, but Christianity is always offensive to the unbeliever. You cannot understand what you do not know.

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Based on what standard? Your opinion?

From your other condescension so far.

Stating offensive yet grounded theological truths is condenscending now?

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:An indication of woeful ignorance of what the message really is.

Which is... what, exactly? And how do you know what the true message is, considering that the people who wrote it lived and died almost 2,000 years ago, and countless others between then and now have devoted their lives to determining what the Bible's true meaning was and they apparently failed?

Who failed? Those who have ignored one part did.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
I've read your book of myths. Have you?

10 times over within 5 years?

Andsed wrote:Well yeah acting like only Christians are able to truly understand the bible and that everyone else are just ignorant is pretty condescending.

That is how it works. It is offensive, of course, but Christianity is always offensive to the unbeliever. You cannot understand what you do not know.

The New California Republic wrote:From your other condescension so far.

Stating offensive yet grounded theological truths is condenscending now?

No it not. It works like this. Christians interpret the bible as making sense everyone else interpret as being bullshit.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Thuzbekistan wrote:Christian's dont understand it either, it seems. 40k+ denomination's out there. Some claim their interpretation is the only one. Wonder who is right?

Denominations that agree on the essential doctrines of Christianity are more or less correct. There is a reason why Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Scientologists are considere heretical cults.

The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4) the gospel, and 5) monotheism. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential (I call them primary essentials since the Bible declares them as essential). A non-regenerate person (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, atheist, Muslim), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines. Please note that there are other derivative doctrines of scripture that become necessary also and the Trinity being one.

Disagreement on things like tithes, the Communion, whether or not Christians should serve in the military, and other “non-essential” doctrines do not affect salvation in any way. The above five, however, are what matter. The rest are not affective towards salvation.

Scientologists? They worship, like, alien ghosts or some shit. They're not an offshoot of Christianity at all.

Korhal IVV wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:From your other condescension so far.

Stating offensive yet grounded theological truths is condenscending now?

Nope, but the condescension is.

Andsed wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:10 times over within 5 years?



That is how it works. It is offensive, of course, but Christianity is always offensive to the unbeliever. You cannot understand what you do not know.



Stating offensive yet grounded theological truths is condenscending now?

No it not. It works like this. Christians interpret the bible as making sense everyone else interpret as being bullshit.

Ooorrrrrr... you interpret it as “BS” due to your own worldview. In reality, intepreting it as “BS” is ignoring many parts while focusing on one seemingly questionable part.

Ifreann wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Denominations that agree on the essential doctrines of Christianity are more or less correct. There is a reason why Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Scientologists are considere heretical cults.

The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4) the gospel, and 5) monotheism. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential (I call them primary essentials since the Bible declares them as essential). A non-regenerate person (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, atheist, Muslim), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines. Please note that there are other derivative doctrines of scripture that become necessary also and the Trinity being one.

Disagreement on things like tithes, the Communion, whether or not Christians should serve in the military, and other “non-essential” doctrines do not affect salvation in any way. The above five, however, are what matter. The rest are not affective towards salvation.

Scientologists? They worship, like, alien ghosts or some shit. They're not an offshoot of Christianity at all.

I meant Christian Science. Mixed up.

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:

Stating offensive yet grounded theological truths is condenscending now?

Nope, but the condescension is.

Does it look like it is my concern if I “sound condenscending”?

How odd. You are chill with calling out the apparent ignorance of others, and when yours is called out, you are so offended.

Korhal IVV wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Nope, but the condescension is.

Does it look like it is my concern if I “sound condenscending”?

Well if you want to keep on doing that, then go right ahead, but you'll just end up getting on a lot of people's wicks if you do.

Korhal IVV wrote:How odd. You are chill with calling out the apparent ignorance of others, and when yours is called out, you are so offended.

When did I do that?

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Does it look like it is my concern if I “sound condenscending”?

Well if you want to keep on doing that, then go right ahead, but you'll just end up getting on a lot of people's wicks if you do.

Korhal IVV wrote:How odd. You are chill with calling out the apparent ignorance of others, and when yours is called out, you are so offended.

When did I do that?

1. I do not exist to please people
2. Everytime you talk sarcastically about Christian interpretation of what what you people call “our book of myths”.

Korhal IVV wrote:Everytime you talk sarcastically about Christian interpretation of what what you people call “our book of myths”.

Quotes. Please.

Actually, scratch that, it'd likely verge into a threadjack if you started poring over my posts for the nonexistent instances of what you are inferring.

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Everytime you talk sarcastically about Christian interpretation of what what you people call “our book of myths”.

Quotes. Please.

Actually, scratch that, it'd likely verge into a threadjack if you started poring over my posts for the nonexistent instances of what you are inferring.

I was referring to Big Jim P, with whom you are in agreement with, in “book of myths”.

“You people” should have sufficed.

The New California Republic wrote:

Korhal IVV wrote:Corrected it.

More like mincing it with shoddy "corrections". Restored the original.

This is one.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Which is... what, exactly? And how do you know what the true message is, considering that the people who wrote it lived and died almost 2,000 years ago, and countless others between then and now have devoted their lives to determining what the Bible's true meaning was and they apparently failed?

Who failed? Those who have ignored one part did.

The thing about the Bible is that it says so many contradictory things that you pretty much have to ignore at least some of it for any of it to make sense. Add that to the fact that the vast majority of Christians actively go against the teachings of Christ while a small but vocal minority hates everybody else for existing (looking at you, WBC and Jehovah's Witnesses), and it shouldn't be particularly surprising that more and more people are switching to atheism.

Korhal IVV wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:How fucking condescending. But par for the course really.

Based on what standard? Your opinion?

Literally your only argument is "if you disagree with me, it must be because you don't understand". No. We understand, it's just that your arguments are dreadful.