If you didn't paraphrase, there would be no evidence you ever read one of my posts! :D

What's wrong with it, is that it's not an accurate way of describing it because there is nothing specific in your statement about a large segment of material. I'm just "saying basically." :D

...to present Wharton as a scholarly work proving the resurection of Christ is just ludicrous.



I started reading the Wharton book last weekend. I have already found at least one piece of evidence that is a blatant lie and found several questionable remarks that I'm researching now. I have to reserve final judgement until I've read the whole thing, but, at this point, I'd have to agree that the work is less than aceptable as a scholarly work


<font color="green"> To call "it" a blatant lie, that being one peice of evidence concerning the reliability of Josephus is completely your opinion based on your research. I'd like to share with you just one of the many emails I've recieved recently concerning this issue:
</font>
<font color="red"> I do know some about the external attestation to Jesus. While most of it is Christian, as would be expected (for example, Americans write about George Washington, but non-Americans may mention him, but not give detail or the attention we would give him; also, at the beginning of Christianity the movement was �small,� and historians in the Roman world were few). I have a chart of extra-biblical evidence for the life of Christ I can give you tomorrow if that helps. Yes, there is criticism of the Josephus passage, but it is also correct that no one has fully debunked the statement either. However, there are other references to Jesus in Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources.

James Riley Estep, Jr., Ph.D.
</font>
<font color="green"> Ed Whartons book, "Christianity, A Clear Case of History" ( http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&amp;id=7 ) is a good book that can strengthen the faith of believers. It can also help those who are searching for answers to develope there faith in Jesus Christ. That is my opinion, but it is one based on my own experience and seeing it impact the faith in many others.

The "quick-fix to faith" mentality will never work. I appreciate those who question this material who understand that concept. Dan, despite our differences, I recognize that lately you have not had a "quick-fix" type of mentality. I believe you when you say, "I want to believe in God, I just don't see the evidence," I'm slightly paraphrasing you cause I don't wanna go back 5 pages right now! And I appreciate your diligence in searching through my recomendations. I don't take that lightly... </font>

edited to change the header

I too would like to see the extra biblical sources of the evidences for the Life of Christ. I stopped looking for a historical Jesus after about a year into my fiver year tenure at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

My point is the logical fallacy expressed in that statement. Wharton is trying to put forth a deductive argument, one in which there is no possibility that if the premise is true the conclusion can be false.



I think that Wharton should be using inductve reasoning not deductive. This is the standard method used in law and history. He should be building up the weight of evidence that leads to a probable conclusion. He should be trying to establish a reasonable amount of certainty that the event occurred.

I too would like to see the extra biblical sources of the evidences for the Life of Christ. I stopped looking for a historical Jesus after about a year into my five year tenure at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.



BigBuck,

What were you studying? Did you finish your degree? If you were there 5 years it sounds like you were working on a PhD. Either that or really taking your time on a Masters :D.

Actually, Wharton is using inductve reasoning not deductive. This is the standard method used in law and history. He is building up a weight of evidence that leads to a probable conclusion. He is trying to establish a reasonable amount of certainty that the event occurred.



Nope. He is saying there is only one possible conclusion, not probable. Absolute certainty not reasonable. Deductive.

Actually, Wharton is using inductve reasoning not deductive. This is the standard method used in law and history. He is building up a weight of evidence that leads to a probable conclusion. He is trying to establish a reasonable amount of certainty that the event occurred.



Nope. He is saying there is only one possible conclusion, not probable. Absolute certainty not reasonable. Deductive.



This may be scandalous... but I have to confess that I haven't really read Wharton! I've barely skimmed the eBook. I was just making assumptions based on what he should be doing. If I'm wrong please don't crucify me! Inductive reasoning is the standard mode of argumentation that should be used here.

P.S.- I modified my original post to make my statements more tentative, and based merely on my opinion. That opinion may well be uninformed and erroneous.

This is a test. Please feel free to ignore me as I bask in my newfound abilities.

edit:
Can anybody tell me why this page of the thread is so... WIDE? Maybe it isn't for everybody, I have it set to 50 posts per page and the wideness is driving me batty.

edit2: note I'm not TOUCHING any posts or editing anything when I say bask in newfound powers, just kind of looking over the options I have now.

A moderator now, eh? Very impressive!

Can anybody tell me why this page of the thread is so... WIDE? the wideness is driving me batty.



The wideness is driving me batty too! It's usually caused by a wide picture or a long URL, but I don't see any. Weird.

(I'm also trying to get on the good side of the Lawman. :cool:)

Speaking of bugs... I posted this my last message at 10:23 p.m. My watch and computer time agree. But it shows up as 11:00 p.m. Why is the MB time off for me? Does this happen to anyone else too?

yeah, the PDGA has never figured out how to sync up the time on their server with actual time :)

Can anybody tell me why this page of the thread is so... WIDE? the wideness is driving me batty.



The wideness is driving me batty too! It's usually caused by a wide picture or a long URL, but I don't see any. Weird.

(I'm also trying to get on the good side of the Lawman. :cool:)


We've successfully thrown the thread to another page for me, so we're good now, you may now continue your regularly scheduled intellectual debate! :)

yeah, the PDGA has never figured out how to sync up the time on their server with actual time :)


Actually, it is frequently the USER that hasn't figured out how to set his time offset.

Go to "My Home" and go to the "Edit" link for your Display Preferences. For your time offset if you are east coast United States you want 2.5 as your setting. 1.5 for Central time, etc. on down the line and the reverse if you're looking to the east of US Eastern time. You're offsetting it from the server location. Many forums do it automatically, unfortunately this one does not.


-Chris.

Concerning the quotation from Jocephus:

Fact: Jocephus wrote <u>Antiquities of the Jews</u> in 93 AD. This is at least 60 years after the death of Jesus.

Previously, Wharton refers to several Roman historians and officials who wrote about Jesus. The earliest of these was in 52 AD and the latest was in 112 AD. He then goes on to say that Will Durant says that we can only accept these as proof of Christians, not as proof of Jesus.

(Aside: Wharton often uses Durant's work as evidence of the existence of Jesus. This is interesting because Durant makes a much stronger case for the existence of Jesus even though Durant was an atheist!)

The reason we can not accept these as evidence of Jesus is that they are all second hand information - hearsay, if you will. Wharton admits this.

As Wharton saves the Josephus quotation as his last piece of non-biblical evidence, we can assume that he thinks it is the strongest piece of evidence he has.

However, the Josephus quotation is also second-hand information - possibly even third hand. Why does Wharton think it is his strongest piece of non-biblical evidence? Seeing as Josephus was born in 37 AD, he certainly didn't know Jesus. And, as he wrote his book more than 60 years after the death of Jesus it was unlikely that he interviewed people who were living at the time of his death. (Life expectancies were significantly shorter then. This is not to say that everyone who knew Jesus was dead in 93 AD, but the chances are that there were very few if any people alive who did.) More than likely, Josephus had simply heard of Jesus much the same as the Romans had.

Since the Roman evidence of Jesus doesn't prove his existence directly, (Wharton's own admission through Durant because of second-hand information and the amount of time after the events) why does the evidence of Josephus stand up?

It is generally accepted (by Christian and non-Christian scholars) that the quotation has, at least in part, been fabricated. For Wharton to say that it has never been refuted is at best a half-truth and at worst, a lie.

yeah, the PDGA has never figured out how to sync up the time on their server with actual time :)


Actually, it is frequently the USER that hasn't figured out how to set his time offset.

Go to "My Home" and go to the "Edit" link for your Display Preferences. For your time offset if you are east coast United States you want 2.5 as your setting. 1.5 for Central time, etc. on down the line and the reverse if you're looking to the east of US Eastern time. You're offsetting it from the server location. Many forums do it automatically, unfortunately this one does not.


-Chris.



Thanks for the tip. The server is 2 hrs 23 min off of my time. I set the offset to 2.4, so we'll see what happens. (It was 5:02 at the server and 7:25 for me [EDT].)

Why in the world would the server clock be some portion of an hour off standard time? This makes no sense to me. I can understand it being from 1 to 3 hours off my time (I'd assume it would be +1 hour off being as the DGC is on the East cost and I'm Central, but 1 hour and 20 minutes seems strange to me.

(Please note that there is a serious question at the end of this attempt (possibly lame) at humor.)

So, as I'm riding the train home today and reading The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) in order to feel the power of The Noodly Appendage and to make sure I'm living by the Eight Holy "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts", a thought occurred to me.

I tried to imagine that I was Jesus and I had just come back from the dead. Now, I'm probably exhausted as being crucified is a tortuous and tiring process, so maybe I'm not thinking clearly. But, I hatch a plan to show people that I have been resurrected. And what, you might ask is my plan? That's right, I'm going to show myself to just a few select people and trust that they can spread the word that I'm back.

Of course, I have to call my manager and let him know that this is what I'm going to do since he gets 10% of everything. His response?

ARE YOU INSANE?!?!?!?!?!?!

He says, "I have a much better idea. Since you're only going to stay around here another 40 days or so to tie up some loose ends and say your goodbyes, let's do a farewell tour. I'll book you into all the biggest halls and we'll really give people a show. Why just show yourself to your disciples when you can march straight up to Pilate and the Jewish priests and say, 'Hi Guys, nice try. Want to go 2 out of 3 on that whole killing me thing?'

It'll be great. I've already got some ideas for posters and a website. We'll put up pictures of you on the cross and of you being hauled down and put in the tomb. Then we'll have pics of you smiling like 'The Buddy Jesus' in Dogma with some words like 'Back from the dead! See Jesus one last time! The definitive farewell tour! Go to www.resurrection.com (http://www.resurrection.com) to book your tickets early! This tour is guaranteed to sell out!'

What do you think?"

I think about it for a minute. Maybe I'm still a little dazed from being dead and all, but I fire him on the spot and go with my original plan. I've been really busy for the last three years and I just want some quiet time to say my goodbyes to my disciples.

It'll work. After all, I'm Jesus.

Seriously, why did Jesus appear only to a few select people, some of whom didn't even recognize him at first? If I'm the son of God and I really want people to believe in me, I march right into downtown Jerusalem three days after the crucifixion and show myself as unquestionably back from the dead! There's an undeniable miracle. 30,000 witnesses - the great number of them hostile to my cause. No more "Did he really exist?" No more "Did he really come back from the dead?" Nothing after that but an entire planet of believers. Simple.

So, why didn't he do that? What's the Christian explanation?

I believe the idea is to come back eventually. Something about rapping I think...

Frist of all, Dogma was a hilarious, well written movie, if you can overlook all the bad words. Didn't you get it, though? Chris Rock was a great 13th apostle. Alanis Morissette was a perfect god. I like that idea, too, but I digress. Even in the movie, it was pointed out that the idea that Carlin's priest character came up with was not a good idea. Watch it again.
The plan of God was actually to build relationships.
Sure, if like in the movie and your scenerio, it were to make money for the Catholic church (or Jesus' manager) then he would have rented out all the big coliseums. Money was not and should not be the motive. The object is a personal relationship with God. That is done one on one. Although I cannot state why God does what God does, I would assume it is because all God ever really asked was that we trust and follow Him. The trust part involves faith. Yes, we are back to faith.
off topic, but...
I seem to have misplaced my little boy's red waistcoat, and it's getting cold here. Have you seen it lately? (my attempt at humor)

(Please note that there is a serious question at the end of this attempt (possibly lame) at humor.)

So, as I'm riding the train home today and reading The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) in order to feel the power of The Noodly Appendage and to make sure I'm living by the Eight Holy "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts", a thought occurred to me.

I tried to imagine that I was Jesus and I had just come back from the dead. Now, I'm probably exhausted as being crucified is a tortuous and tiring process, so maybe I'm not thinking clearly. But, I hatch a plan to show people that I have been resurrected. And what, you might ask is my plan? That's right, I'm going to show myself to just a few select people and trust that they can spread the word that I'm back.

Of course, I have to call my manager and let him know that this is what I'm going to do since he gets 10% of everything. His response?

ARE YOU INSANE?!?!?!?!?!?!

He says, "I have a much better idea. Since you're only going to stay around here another 40 days or so to tie up some loose ends and say your goodbyes, let's do a farewell tour. I'll book you into all the biggest halls and we'll really give people a show. Why just show yourself to your disciples when you can march straight up to Pilate and the Jewish priests and say, 'Hi Guys, nice try. Want to go 2 out of 3 on that whole killing me thing?'

It'll be great. I've already got some ideas for posters and a website. We'll put up pictures of you on the cross and of you being hauled down and put in the tomb. Then we'll have pics of you smiling like 'The Buddy Jesus' in Dogma with some words like 'Back from the dead! See Jesus one last time! The definitive farewell tour! Go to www.resurrection.com (http://www.resurrection.com) to book your tickets early! This tour is guaranteed to sell out!'

What do you think?"

I think about it for a minute. Maybe I'm still a little dazed from being dead and all, but I fire him on the spot and go with my original plan. I've been really busy for the last three years and I just want some quiet time to say my goodbyes to my disciples.

It'll work. After all, I'm Jesus.

Seriously, why did Jesus appear only to a few select people, some of whom didn't even recognize him at first? If I'm the son of God and I really want people to believe in me, I march right into downtown Jerusalem three days after the crucifixion and show myself as unquestionably back from the dead! There's an undeniable miracle. 30,000 witnesses - the great number of them hostile to my cause. No more "Did he really exist?" No more "Did he really come back from the dead?" Nothing after that but an entire planet of believers. Simple.

So, why didn't he do that? What's the Christian explanation?



<font color="green"> ...And you had the nerve to "act" offended by my post that quoted you and bald guy and said in a sarcastic way what people could learn from you? You even went so far as threaten "reporting" me to the mods!!! The only reason why I modified my post back then was because I didn't think sarcasm was very respectful, not because any of it was untrue. Now you post this "mocking mix" of sarcastic questions? You really don't see this as hypocritical? I'm not surprised, I know where it's coming from. I just expected a bit more from you, especially lately. </font>

Concerning the quotation from Jocephus:

Fact: Jocephus wrote <u>Antiquities of the Jews</u> in 93 AD. This is at least 60 years after the death of Jesus.

Previously, Wharton refers to several Roman historians and officials who wrote about Jesus. The earliest of these was in 52 AD and the latest was in 112 AD. He then goes on to say that Will Durant says that we can only accept these as proof of Christians, not as proof of Jesus.

(Aside: Wharton often uses Durant's work as evidence of the existence of Jesus. This is interesting because Durant makes a much stronger case for the existence of Jesus even though Durant was an atheist!)

The reason we can not accept these as evidence of Jesus is that they are all second hand information - hearsay, if you will. Wharton admits this.

As Wharton saves the Josephus quotation as his last piece of non-biblical evidence, we can assume that he thinks it is the strongest piece of evidence he has.

However, the Josephus quotation is also second-hand information - possibly even third hand. Why does Wharton think it is his strongest piece of non-biblical evidence? Seeing as Josephus was born in 37 AD, he certainly didn't know Jesus. And, as he wrote his book more than 60 years after the death of Jesus it was unlikely that he interviewed people who were living at the time of his death. (Life expectancies were significantly shorter then. This is not to say that everyone who knew Jesus was dead in 93 AD, but the chances are that there were very few if any people alive who did.) More than likely, Josephus had simply heard of Jesus much the same as the Romans had.

Since the Roman evidence of Jesus doesn't prove his existence directly, (Wharton's own admission through Durant because of second-hand information and the amount of time after the events) why does the evidence of Josephus stand up?

It is generally accepted (by Christian and non-Christian scholars) that the quotation has, at least in part, been fabricated. For Wharton to say that it has never been refuted is at best a half-truth and at worst, a lie.



<font color="green"> Dan, you can divert the point all you want. The entire point of the quote that you are making such a stink about, and trying so hard to discredit Wharton with, is only ONE out of MANY times that Josephus mentions Jesus. The whole point isn't to say Josephus said Jesus is Deity, it's just to establish that He was a person who lived! Of which, there are MANY other sources that indicate that Jesus was a man who lived. Wharton in, his first chapter by the way, was simply establishing that FACT.

***Share your opinion of that one quote, then move on! It's not worthy of what you are making it out to be.***

Two questions for you Dan:

1. Do you believe Jesus was a man who lived? No elaborating on what He was about, just that He lived? Period.

2. Do you not see the futility in being on a Disc Golfers For Jesus thread and posting like you do?

Forgive me for being so blunt, but it seems like a wasted life that just goes around mocking and questioning the beliefs of others when they never came to you, you came to them! No one made you come on this thread! Not to mention the fact that you "offer no alternative theory" to the hope that Christians have. When your life is over, or even next year, would you look back on this time in your life and think "yeah, that was a possitive, productive time in my life." "I'm glad I spent so much time and energy mocking people's beliefs and trying to discredit their hope in their creator." Somehow, if you are honest about it, I think you'd have to admit the pathetic aspect of it. As the old saying goes, "If I'm right, I'm going to Heaven, and if I'm wrong, I'm worm food." BUT "If you are right, you are worm food, and if you are wrong, you are lost."

Can you please answer these two questions directly and specifically please?
</font>

The evidence would suggest otherwise! Just because you say that, does not make it true.



We need a rolling eyes emoticon.

<font color="green"> ...And you had the nerve to "act" offended by my post that quoted you and bald guy and said in a sarcastic way what people could learn from you? You even went so far as threaten "reporting" me to the mods!!! The only reason why I modified my post back then was because I didn't think sarcasm was very respectful, not because any of it was untrue. Now you post this "mocking mix" of sarcastic questions? You really don't see this as hypocritical? I'm not surprised, I know where it's coming from. I just expected a bit more from you, especially lately. </font>



The difference is that I believe that you attacked me personally by using an argument ad hominem.

I did not, have not and will not attack you personally.

On the other hand, your religion is open game as far as I'm concerned. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I have mocked your religion and I will continue to mock your religion because I believe that it is detrimental to humanity.

You don't have to agree with this opinion; you don't have to like this opinion. But as long as I'm attacking a thing and not your person, you'll have to accept that as a dues paying member of this organization (PDGA), I have a right to post on this board as long as I don't break the rules.

<font color="green"> Dan, you can divert the point all you want. The entire point of the quote that you are making such a stink about, and trying so hard to discredit Wharton with, is only ONE out of MANY times that Josephus mentions Jesus.</font>



Josephus mentions Jesus exactly twice.

<font color="green">Two questions for you Dan:

1. Do you believe Jesus was a man who lived? No elaborating on what He was about, just that He lived? Period.

2. Do you not see the futility in being on a Disc Golfers For Jesus thread and posting like you do?

Can you please answer these two questions directly and specifically please?
</font>



Here are some direct questions I have asked over the week or two:

1) If you have or plan to have children, when they reach / reached that age when they start / started asking rudimentary philosophical questions such as 'What happens when we die?', would / did you simply tell them that they go to heaven to be with God, or would / did you tell them that different people believe different things, but you believe this?

2) How do you feel about homosexual rights? Homosexual marriages? Partner insurance benefits for homosexuals?

3) How do you feel about creationism being taught as science in public schools? How do you feel about evolution as science being taught in public schools?

4) Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist?

5) Why Jesus didn't just walk into Jerusalem and show himself after his 'resurrection'?

Answer these questions directly, specifically and publicly (not in a PM) and I'll answer yours in the same fashion.

If man thinks that his belief in god is making him a better person, PLEASE let him believe.

How many times have you heard people say, "before I found god I was heading in the wrong direction with life".
By all means, let the fear of god keep wayward souls on the straight and narrow.

Most people shouldn't need the fear of anything to do right from wrong, but it's obvious that some do.

The truly "moral Atheist" should now better then to be on an evangelistic type crusade to sway believers into the light.


I have to agree with play-to-win, this thread is entitled disc golfers for Jesus and should remain here for that purpose.
I wouldn't want a thread Titled Disc golfer for Gateway Hijacked by those who do not believe in our products.

Maybe we can start a different thread titled " disc golfers who are unsure if Jesus was the son of god" or " to believe or not to believe".

How about one titled "Is there still a need for religion in 2008"

Threads with these titles would be a place for the direction this thread has drifted.

Personally I like the reading, its informative, entertaining and necessary! People young and old alike, need to realize for themselves about religion and be as informed as possible to the facts.

Pick a new title thats appropriate and move the conversation
over there and let "disc golfers for jesus" have their thread back.

of course everyone will be welcome over there, (believers, non believers and those that are unsure)

Dan, you've proven, along with others who ignore my posts, that you don't have a clue what my religion is. You consistently define Christianity in unbiblical terminology, and unbiblical doctrines. Your problem with Christianity is in fact, a problem with what people have done to Christianity. The detrimental aspects that you rail against, or regergatate from Dawkins, are not a part of my religion. You want to criticize my religion? Then find out what it is first. Until then, why don't you create an "Atheist" thread? And see how many comitted Christians come on there to mock your faith and say "it's their "dues paying right." Once again, "Words Mean Things!" Perhaps the simplicity of that satement has alluded you, but what you difine as Christianity, is far from it. I've tried to help you understand, but the bottom line is, you don't want to understand.

<font color="green">Two questions for you Dan:

1. Do you believe Jesus was a man who lived? No elaborating on what He was about, just that He lived? Period.

2. Do you not see the futility in being on a Disc Golfers For Jesus thread and posting like you do?

Can you please answer these two questions directly and specifically please?
</font>



Here are some direct questions I have asked over the week or two:

1) If you have or plan to have children, when they reach / reached that age when they start / started asking rudimentary philosophical questions such as 'What happens when we die?', would / did you simply tell them that they go to heaven to be with God, or would / did you tell them that different people believe different things, but you believe this?

2) How do you feel about homosexual rights? Homosexual marriages? Partner insurance benefits for homosexuals?

3) How do you feel about creationism being taught as science in public schools? How do you feel about evolution as science being taught in public schools?

4) Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist?

5) Why Jesus didn't just walk into Jerusalem and show himself after his 'resurrection'?

Answer these questions directly, specifically and publicly (not in a PM) and I'll answer yours in the same fashion.



Excuse me but your interpretation of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is incorrect. There's no beer, or stripping in it. You're confusing FSM with FSW or Flying Spaghetti Wrestling. My kid is a practitioner of FSM and can huck spaghetti from his high-chair to the rug in the living room. He's never once mentioned beer or stripping, well except at bed time before the bath and it's always in a whine, "do I have to take a bath?"

Dan, you've proven, along with others who ignore my posts, that you don't have a clue what my religion is. You consistently define Christianity in unbiblical terminology, and unbiblical doctrines. Your problem with Christianity is in fact, a problem with what people have done to Christianity. The detrimental aspects that you rail against, or regergatate from Dawkins, are not a part of my religion. You want to criticize my religion? Then find out what it is first. Until then, why don't you create an "Atheist" thread? And see how many comitted Christians come on there to mock your faith and say "it's their "dues paying right." Once again, "Words Mean Things!" Perhaps the simplicity of that satement has alluded you, but what you difine as Christianity, is far from it. I've tried to help you understand, but the bottom line is, you don't want to understand.



If you wish to mock my atheism, by all means do. That is your right. I wouldn't dream of stopping you or even get upset by you doing it.

And words do mean things. This is precisely why I'm attacking the one piece of evidence that Wharton used. (Don't worry, there's lots more to attack with Wharton! :D) That book was presented to me as a scholarly work espousing the historical Christ. Why is there a problem with me attacking his scholasticism?

<font color="green">Two questions for you Dan:

1. Do you believe Jesus was a man who lived? No elaborating on what He was about, just that He lived? Period.

2. Do you not see the futility in being on a Disc Golfers For Jesus thread and posting like you do?

Can you please answer these two questions directly and specifically please?
</font>







1. Yes I do. He's great, cuts my lawn and trims my trees. Oh, and I've seen his green card so I know he's legal.

2. I knew there was something wrong. I could have sworn this was the Disc Golfers for Satan thread that HawkGammon started! Now where was that thread?

I'm sorry, my mistake!

<font color="green">Two questions for you Dan:

1. Do you believe Jesus was a man who lived? No elaborating on what He was about, just that He lived? Period.

2. Do you not see the futility in being on a Disc Golfers For Jesus thread and posting like you do?

Can you please answer these two questions directly and specifically please?
</font>



Here are some direct questions I have asked over the week or two:

1) If you have or plan to have children, when they reach / reached that age when they start / started asking rudimentary philosophical questions such as 'What happens when we die?', would / did you simply tell them that they go to heaven to be with God, or would / did you tell them that different people believe different things, but you believe this?

2) How do you feel about homosexual rights? Homosexual marriages? Partner insurance benefits for homosexuals?

3) How do you feel about creationism being taught as science in public schools? How do you feel about evolution as science being taught in public schools?

4) Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist?

5) Why Jesus didn't just walk into Jerusalem and show himself after his 'resurrection'?

Answer these questions directly, specifically and publicly (not in a PM) and I'll answer yours in the same fashion.



<font color="green">I think that most of these questions are off topic, but if you are going to act like a child in order for me to hear the answer, then here ya go. BTW, if anyone else thinks this is extremely childish of Dan, please let him know, "publically" and "not in a pm" so people can see how a "Moral Atheist" as you call yourself can answer the question "specifically" how he's going to feel about all the energy and time he puts into openly mocking Christianity? Starting to see how foolish this was Dan?

1. I will do everything I can to raise my children the way God's Word instructs me to.
2. My "feelings" don't matter. What I believe is that homosexuality is not natural. Ask a five year old if you need help figuring that one out.

As far as homosexual rights, I think they should never under any circumstances be treated harshly. I have honestly never given it enough thought to say what I believe on all homosexual issues. For along time, !0% has been said to be the percentage of homosexuals in USA. However, this seems to be grossly overestimated. The numbers are actually well below 5%. But correct % or not, because of this and other things, it's just not a topic I have thought enough about to solidify a belief in homosexual rights. Like it or not, that's the truth. Homosexual marriage is not something I would be in favor of. And as far as insurance, once again, I've never taken the time, right or wrong, to come up with a solid belief. If this is your attempt to trip me up by somehow be showing me to be intolerant, then I feel sorry for you. I have an in law who is openly g ay, and his "life partner" and I get together several times a month to eat dinner, hang out, or even go to the park with my dog. I was house sitting for him last week when I wasn't around to be your religious punching bag for three days. The love and respect I show for them is undeniable, and I don't and have never once talked to them about their sexual preferences.

3. I am not a big fan of Creationism being taught in public school. Not a big fan of Evolution being taught there either! I am not a fan at all of Evolution being taught "as science" anywhere, because properly defined, it isn't a science because it can not be observed.

4. I no nothing about the flying spaghetti monster. I had to scroll up just to spell spaghetti properly. I don't care to know what it is. But if you cry about it enough, I'll check it out.

5. I don't don't have the foggiest clue as to why Jesus didn't go inot Jerusalem, nor do I know that He didn't go into Jerusalem. And neither do you. But I do know three things:

I) Paul attested that He appeared to over 500 people, both believers and non believers.

II) It wouldn't matter what I say even if I had the most probable theory out there on this subject.

III) I've answered your questions to which you say "I only ask to see what kind of person I'm dealing with." I know who I'm dealing with, an unbeliever who's attemtps to trip me up have done nothing but waste my time and everyone reading.

Ps. don't forget to include what I said about my second question when you answer it. It is part of the relevent aspect to it, unlike yours which are some pretty personal things...



</font>

EDITED TO CHANGE HEADER ONLY

1. Do you believe Jesus was a man who lived? No elaborating on what He was about, just that He lived? Period.

2. Do you not see the futility in being on a Disc Golfers For Jesus thread and posting like you do?

Forgive me for being so blunt, but it seems like a wasted life that just goes around mocking and questioning the beliefs of others when they never came to you, you came to them! No one made you come on this thread! Not to mention the fact that you "offer no alternative theory" to the hope that Christians have. When your life is over, or even next year, would you look back on this time in your life and think "yeah, that was a possitive, productive time in my life." "I'm glad I spent so much time and energy mocking people's beliefs and trying to discredit their hope in their creator." Somehow, if you are honest about it, I think you'd have to admit the pathetic aspect of it. As the old saying goes, "If I'm right, I'm going to Heaven, and if I'm wrong, I'm worm food." BUT "If you are right, you are worm food, and if you are wrong, you are lost."


HERE IS THE FULL QUESTION DAN

<font color="red"> First of all, thank you for answering the questions even if you think they are childish and off topic.

Secondly, I will answer all the questions as specifically and directly as I can. My comments/answers are indicated in red as to set them off. </font>




<font color="green">Two questions for you Dan:

1. Do you believe Jesus was a man who lived? No elaborating on what He was about, just that He lived? Period.

<font color="red">Either he lived, or, as Will Durant said, unless we assume that Christ lived, we will be forced to accept the "improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation." I have stated it on this thread once (I think) and I will state it again, I think there was a man named Jesus who lived and preached around 2000 years ago. I do not think he was anything other than an extraordinary man. (Technically, I have not elaborated on what he was about, but what he wasn't about.) </font>

2. Do you not see the futility in being on a Disc Golfers For Jesus thread and posting like you do?

<font color="red">I do not see it as any more futile than the Christians who used to knock on my door and ask if they could preach about their god to me when I very clearly had a 'No Bible Thumping Allowed Here' sign on my front door. I'm actually enjoying the conversation very much. </font>

Can you please answer these two questions directly and specifically please?
</font>



Here are some direct questions I have asked over the week or two:
<font color="red"> I think it's only fair if I answer these questions as well. </font>
1) If you have or plan to have children, when they reach / reached that age when they start / started asking rudimentary philosophical questions such as 'What happens when we die?', would / did you simply tell them that they go to heaven to be with God, or would / did you tell them that different people believe different things, but you believe this? <font color="red">I said before, I'm going to give my children as much information as I can about the issue and let them decide for themselves. </font>

2) How do you feel about homosexual rights? Homosexual marriages? Partner insurance benefits for homosexuals?
<font color="red">Personally, I am 100% in favor of equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to marry, to adopt children, and to have their partners included on insurance just as heterosexual couples are allowed. </font>
3) How do you feel about creationism being taught as science in public schools? How do you feel about evolution as science being taught in public schools?
<font color="red">As science: evolution, yes; creationism, no. I think creationism should be taught as mythology. </font>

4) Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist?
<font color="red">No. No one can. </font>

5) Why Jesus didn't just walk into Jerusalem and show himself after his 'resurrection'?
<font color="red">Because, I personally believe his corpse was rotting in the desert where his disciples buried it after they stole it. </font>

Answer these questions directly, specifically and publicly (not in a PM) and I'll answer yours in the same fashion.



<font color="green">I think that most of these questions are off topic, but if you are going to act like a child in order for me to hear the answer, then here ya go. BTW, if anyone else thinks this is extremely childish of Dan, please let him know, "publically" and "not in a pm" so people can see how a "Moral Atheist" as you call yourself can answer the question "specifically" how he's going to feel about all the energy and time he puts into openly mocking Christianity? Starting to see how foolish this was Dan? <font color="red"> Not really. </font>

1. I will do everything I can to raise my children the way God's Word instructs me to. <font color="red">Do you consider this in any way a form of brainwashing? </font>
2. My "feelings" don't matter. What I believe is that homosexuality is not natural. Ask a five year old if you need help figuring that one out.

As far as homosexual rights, I think they should never under any circumstances be treated harshly. I have honestly never given it enough thought to say what I believe on all homosexual issues. For along time, !0% has been said to be the percentage of homosexuals in USA. However, this seems to be grossly overestimated. The numbers are actually well below 5%. But correct % or not, because of this and other things, it's just not a topic I have thought enough about to solidify a belief in homosexual rights. Like it or not, that's the truth. Homosexual marriage is not something I would be in favor of. And as far as insurance, once again, I've never taken the time, right or wrong, to come up with a solid belief. If this is your attempt to trip me up by somehow be showing me to be intolerant, then I feel sorry for you. I have an in law who is openly g ay, and his "life partner" and I get together several times a month to eat dinner, hang out, or even go to the park with my dog. I was house sitting for him last week when I wasn't around to be your religious punching bag for three days. The love and respect I show for them is undeniable, and I don't and have never once talked to them about their sexual preferences.

3. I am not a big fan of Creationism being taught in public school. Not a big fan of Evolution being taught there either! I am not a fan at all of Evolution being taught "as science" anywhere, because properly defined, it isn't a science because it can not be observed. <font color="red">I have to disagree. I think maybe you should look up the story of the peppered moths in England. A clear case of natural selection / evolution in action. However, evolution is a topic for another thread.</font>

4. I no nothing about the flying spaghetti monster. I had to scroll up just to spell spaghetti properly. I don't care to know what it is. But if you cry about it enough, I'll check it out.
<font color="red">WWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!! ;) Check it out.</font>
5. I don't don't have the foggiest clue as to why Jesus didn't go inot Jerusalem, nor do I know that He didn't go into Jerusalem. And neither do you. But I do know three things:

I) Paul attested that He appeared to over 500 people, both believers and non believers. <font color="red">500 people and not one of them came forward to give their account? Did anyone write about this other than Paul? Do you think maybe he an ulterior motive for writing it? (Sorry for the sarcasm here, but I just keep picturing John Lovitz as Paul saying, "there were....20...100...500 people there. 500 people. Yeah, that's the ticket.") </font>

II) It wouldn't matter what I say even if I had the most probable theory out there on this subject.

III) I've answered your questions to which you say "I only ask to see what kind of person I'm dealing with." I know who I'm dealing with, an unbeliever who's attemtps to trip me up have done nothing but waste my time and everyone reading.
<font color="red">Dave, I knew what kind of person I was dealing with before you answered the questions. But, as far as wasting your time goes, aren't you supposed to be trying to convert the heathens? </font>
Ps. don't forget to include what I said about my second question when you answer it. It is part of the relevent aspect to it, unlike yours which are some pretty personal things... <font color="red">If I'm not mistaken, belief and worship in a diety is supposed to be a personal thing in America. That doesn't seem to stop people from wanting to inflict me with the fever...</font>



</font>

EDITED TO CHANGE HEADER ONLY

Forgive me for being so blunt, but it seems like a wasted life that just goes around mocking and questioning the beliefs of others when they never came to you, you came to them! No one made you come on this thread! Not to mention the fact that you "offer no alternative theory" to the hope that Christians have. When your life is over, or even next year, would you look back on this time in your life and think "yeah, that was a possitive, productive time in my life." "I'm glad I spent so much time and energy mocking people's beliefs and trying to discredit their hope in their creator." Somehow, if you are honest about it, I think you'd have to admit the pathetic aspect of it. As the old saying goes, "If I'm right, I'm going to Heaven, and if I'm wrong, I'm worm food." BUT "If you are right, you are worm food, and if you are wrong, you are lost."



You are entitled to your opinion. I don't know if I've been productive or not; but I certainly don't feel pathetic about it. I do know that if through my efforts just one person has changed their minds or is closer to following the path of changing their mind, then I'm a step closer to living in a world without gods. And that's a world I'd feel much safer in.

How many times have you heard people say, "before I found god I was heading in the wrong direction with life".




No matter how many times I've heard this, I'll bet the phrase "Believe in our god or die" has been uttered signifiantly more. That's why I won't stop.

Dan, I have a question for you.
I feel that I've stated my beliefs completely and not tried to tell anyone he or she has to believe as I. That being said, I wanted to know if you would be opposed if I pray to my God for you.
Thanks

Dan, I have a question for you.
I feel that I've stated my beliefs completely and not tried to tell anyone he or she has to believe as I. That being said, I wanted to know if you would be opposed if I pray to my God for you.
Thanks



Hi Laura,

If you want to pray to your God for me, feel free. You won't be the only one - so I've been told! :)

Laura, you have such a sweetheart... Happy Valentines Day!

My wife really likes this one, thought you might too:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=lDHkuu59fqk

She's not a big fan of the youtube versions that have video, I'd have to agree. Hope you like it if you haven't heard it before...

Two of my favorite things in life are disc golf and Jesus. Both are very important to me. I was wondering if anybody knows of any clubs or organizations for Christian disc golfers. I am in the Texas area, but would be interested in any information on the subject, whether it be in Texas area or some other state. If there is not anything yet, is there any interest?



Check this out. Disc Golfers For Christ

[email protected]

I met Dane Rogers in Tulsa at the 2006 Am Worlds. He is very involved in DGFC and he can give any info you need.

John 3:16 Doc1243--Tootsiesdad

<font color="red"> First of all, thank you for answering the questions even if you think they are childish and off topic. </font>
I never said they were childish, but you making me answer your irrelavent questions about homosexuality before you answer is very childish.

Can you please answer these two questions directly and specifically please?

1. Do you believe Jesus was a man who lived? No elaborating on what He was about, just that He lived? Period.
<font color="red"> Either he lived, or, as Will Durant said, unless we assume that Christ lived, we will be forced to accept the "improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation." I have stated it on this thread once (I think) and I will state it again, I think there was a man named Jesus who lived and preached around 2000 years ago. I do not think he was anything other than an extraordinary man. (Technically, I have not elaborated on what he was about, but what he wasn't about.) </font>

So much for direct. I�ll take that as a long-winded �yes.� That being the case, aren�t you now a �believer?� Oh wait, someone once said, �words mean things!�

2. Do you not see the futility in being on a Disc Golfers For Jesus thread and posting like you do?
<font color="red"> I do not see it as any more futile than the Christians who used to knock on my door and ask if they could preach about their god to me when I very clearly had a 'No Bible Thumping Allowed Here' sign on my front door. I'm actually enjoying the conversation very much. </font>

Once again Dan, you can't lump everyone who says "Jesus" together!

<font color="red"> 5) Why Jesus didn't just walk into Jerusalem and show himself after his 'resurrection'? </font>
<font color="red"> Because, I personally believe his corpse was rotting in the desert where his disciples buried it after they stole it
</font>
And your evidence for that opinion is? You said, �I don�t need to offer a different theory.� But you just did!

I am not a fan at all of Evolution being taught "as science" anywhere, because properly defined, it isn't a science because it can not be observed.

<font color="red"> I have to disagree. I think maybe you should look up the story of the peppered moths in England. A clear case of natural selection / evolution in action. However, evolution is a topic for another thread. </font>

A<font color="red"> "clear case of evolution" </font> he says! And you accuse Wharton of being less than accurate? Wow! I haven�t heard that one since 1991 when I read �The Collapse of Evolution.� I still own a copy of it, the 14th printed edition. Page 108:
<font color="blue"> D. Peppered Moths

Evolutionists commonly cite the case of the peppered moth (Biston betularia) of England as a striking example of present-day Neo-Darwinian evolution. Peppered moths have always existed in light, intermediate, and dark-colored varieties. Before the advance of the industrial revolution, the tree trunks were easily spotted and eaten by birds. Consequently, the dark-colored moths constituted a very minor proportion of the total population.

As the industrial revolution progressed, however, and pollution increased, the tree trunks became darker and within 45 years the situation was reversed. In the Manchester vicinity, for example, 95% of the moths were of the dark colored variety.

But is this really evolution? Certainly not! This process did not produce anything new. It did not result increased complexity and organization. The dark colored moths had always existed. The air pollution simply caused a shift in populations of the dark versus light colored moths. Although absolutely no evolutionary change occurred in these moths, the case of the peppered moths does illustrate the principle of natural selection. In the introduction of the 1971 edition of the Origin of Species, L. Harrision Matthews notes:
�The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection., or survival of the fittest, in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain form the beginning to end Biston betularia.�

Despite these obvious facts, many textbooks and encyclopedias continue to cite the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary development. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia, for instance, refers to this case as: ��the most striking evolutionary change ever to be witnessed by man.�
But if this is the best example that evolutionists can offer to substantiate their theory, then they are indeed in serious trouble for this is not evolution at all.� </font>

Despite these obvious facts, many textbooks and encyclopedias continue to cite the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary development. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia, for instance, refers to this case as: ��the most striking evolutionary change ever to be witnessed by man.�
But if this is the best example that evolutionists can offer to substantiate their theory, then they are indeed in serious trouble for this is not evolution at all.�

This is clearly NOT a "clear case of evolution." Now should I publically call into question everything you say like you did Wharton? Call your citation a lie? Call you a liar like you did Wharton in the pm you sent me? This reference of yours isn't a matter of debate or opinion like the Josephus stink you made. A writer for the introduction to "Origins of Species" says it isn't Evolution!
<font color="red"> Dave, I knew what kind of person I was dealing with before you answered the questions </font>

Nah, I really don�t think ya do! You prove it every time you lump me together with every other Christian you ever experienced or read about. I am not someone who believes because my folks did. I don't attend a Church that goes by human traditions over sound biblical doctrine. And I don't stay up late, research and post to argue or fight. I do it because God has touched my life in a way that is truly amazing. I know what it's like to be caught up in the world. I only wish someone would have made an effort to just reach out to me while I was lost in myself like you are. No, you don't know me Dan. Seek Him while He may be found...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
It's time you take your unsolicited mocking and ridicule of Christianity elsewhere. You didn't like those people knocking on your door, unsolicited, why can't you show the same respect you wanted from them? Start a thread called "Atheist Disc Golfers" if you want to mock Christianity. I am not joking Dan. I'm not being sarcastic one bit. I AM TOTALLY SERIOUS. Go where that kind of posting is appreciated. Disc Golfers For Jesus is not the place for it. Yeah, you have the right, so what? You also have the right to be the moral Atheist you call yourself. Does a "moral atheist" like yourself also have ethics and standard of conduct in a place where Christians would like to gather in peace? You have "the right" to talk about Innova on a Discraft or Gateway thread, but do you have "the class" to not do that? Show a little class Dan.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

</font>

edited header, keep forget'n!

<font color="red"> First of all, thank you for answering the questions even if you think they are childish and off topic. </font>
I never said they were childish, but you making me answer your irrelavent questions about homosexuality before you answer is very childish.


<font color="orange">My bad. You did say I was childish and not the questions. I stand corrected. (So, is calling me childish a personal attack under the new message board code? :eek:) </font>

So much for direct. I�ll take that as a long-winded �yes.� That being the case, aren�t you now a �believer?� Oh wait, someone once said, �words mean things!�



<font color="orange">Long winded? Have you seen some of your posts? ;)

Believing that he existed and believing he was the son of a god are two different issues. I believe that a lot of Egyptian pharoahs existed whose people thought they were gods. I don't think the pharoahs were gods even though I believe they existed.</font>

<font color="red"> 5) Why Jesus didn't just walk into Jerusalem and show himself after his 'resurrection'? </font>
<font color="red"> Because, I personally believe his corpse was rotting in the desert where his disciples buried it after they stole it
</font>
And your evidence for that opinion is? You said, �I don�t need to offer a different theory.� But you just did!



<font color="orange">I believe this because:

1) I believe that Jesus was a man - just a man.
2) His body was apparently missing.
3) Since I don't believe he came back from the dead and walked out of there on his own, I believe his body was carried off by someone.
4) The most likely candidates to take his body were his disciples.
5) Since bodies tend to rot after death (unless cremated, embalmed, frozen or otherwise preserved), I tend to think he was rotting where his disciples buried him. </font>


Now should I publically call into question everything you say like you did Wharton?


<font color="orange">I believe we're both doing that already. We're doing it in very different ways, but we're both doing it.
Incidentally, I haven't called into question everything Wharton said. I called him out on one piece of information that, if he had done a little research, would have been shown as an invalid piece of evidence.</font>

Call your citation a lie? Call you a liar like you did Wharton in the pm you sent me? This reference of yours isn't a matter of debate or opinion like the Josephus stink you made.



<font color="orange">I didn't submit a citation. I suggested some information to look up. I didn't suggest where to look it up.

Why would you call me a liar? I think you could call my source (if I had given one) a lie. And, of course, you can say that the evidence of the peppered moth is a lie. I think there is clear evidence for its existence. Most scientists think that as well. Believe what you want in that department.

As I said before, I'm not going to get into a debate about evolution on this thread. If you'd like to debate it somewhere else, we can start another thread for that. I'll do my best, but I'm not a biologist and haven't studied it anywhere near as much as I have history.</font>


Nah, I really don�t think ya do! You prove it every time you lump me together with every other Christian you ever experienced or read about. I am not someone who believes because my folks did. I don't attend a Church that goes by human traditions over sound biblical doctrine. And I don't stay up late, research and post to argue or fight. I do it because God has touched my life in a way that is truly amazing. I know what it's like to be caught up in the world. I only wish someone would have made an effort to just reach out to me while I was lost in myself like you are. No, you don't know me Dan. Seek Him while He may be found...



<font color="orange"> You're probably right. I don't know you any more than you know me. But I have a pretty good idea of what you believe and how strongly you believe. It's impossible to lump all Christians together, (There are over 34,000 denominations of Christianity!), but I think I can safely lump their basic arguments together. I think I asked you before and didn't get an answer - what denomination are you? I think that information would go a long way towards helping me see where you're coming from.</font>


It's time you take your unsolicited mocking and ridicule of Christianity elsewhere. You didn't like those people knocking on your door, unsolicited, why can't you show the same respect you wanted from them? Start a thread called "Atheist Disc Golfers" if you want to mock Christianity. I am not joking Dan. I'm not being sarcastic one bit. I AM TOTALLY SERIOUS. Go where that kind of posting is appreciated. Disc Golfers For Jesus is not the place for it. Yeah, you have the right, so what? You also have the right to be the moral Atheist you call yourself. Does a "moral atheist" like yourself also have ethics and standard of conduct in a place where Christians would like to gather in peace? You have "the right" to talk about Innova on a Discraft or Gateway thread, but do you have "the class" to not do that? Show a little class Dan.



<font color="orange">I think I could ask the same of anyone who posts about Jesus on a disc golf website. I could ask you to take your religion somewhere else because I don't want to hear about it at all. However, I won't ask that because we're in a public setting and not on my front porch.

No one forces you to read my comments anymore than I am forced to read yours. You can choose to skip over them or you can use the 'ignore user' function and never have to look at one of my posts again.

I am respectful of religion - in a proper setting. I would never go into a church and mock Chritianity there. I would never go into a mosque and mock Islam. However, this is not a church or a mosque. This is a public setting. If people are going to bring their religion into that setting, I'm going to say what I think about it.</font>

yeah, the PDGA has never figured out how to sync up the time on their server with actual time :)


Actually, it is frequently the USER that hasn't figured out how to set his time offset.

Go to "My Home" and go to the "Edit" link for your Display Preferences. For your time offset if you are east coast United States you want 2.5 as your setting. 1.5 for Central time, etc. on down the line and the reverse if you're looking to the east of US Eastern time. You're offsetting it from the server location. Many forums do it automatically, unfortunately this one does not.


-Chris.


Actually, the server should be using NTP to sync its time with a universal constant like UTC. there's no need for partial offsets like 2.4 or 2.5. One should be able to set the proper Time Zone and not worry about it. Aside from that, the clock on this server is not consistent. Sometimes it's off by 2 hours and 33 minutes, in a few months it will be off by 2 hours and 16 minutes or 2 hours and 45. This is a server issue, not a user one. Trust me on this... I have a little bit of experience in this arena.

yeah, the PDGA has never figured out how to sync up the time on their server with actual time :)


Actually, it is frequently the USER that hasn't figured out how to set his time offset.

Go to "My Home" and go to the "Edit" link for your Display Preferences. For your time offset if you are east coast United States you want 2.5 as your setting. 1.5 for Central time, etc. on down the line and the reverse if you're looking to the east of US Eastern time. You're offsetting it from the server location. Many forums do it automatically, unfortunately this one does not.


-Chris.


Actually, the server should be using NTP to sync its time with a universal constant like UTC. there's no need for partial offsets like 2.4 or 2.5. One should be able to set the proper Time Zone and not worry about it. Aside from that, the clock on this server is not consistent. Sometimes it's off by 2 hours and 33 minutes, in a few months it will be off by 2 hours and 16 minutes or 2 hours and 45. This is a server issue, not a user one. Trust me on this... I have a little bit of experience in this arena.



AhHa! I knew it. It's divine intervention, a message from above! Our server has been touched by an angel! Or was that a bad 90s drama?

BTW - whether you believe in evolution or not, it exists. I don't care whether ya think Darwin created it or God did.

It's the old DNA thing. Beyond the man and chimps are 99.9% related thing, we can trace numerous genes from progenitors, in what would be defined as early evolved organisms, to their modern form. Each change can been seen and tracked. You can see where genes split, going down different paths to be used to solve different, yet related problems.

Now you might argue that God set it up this way, but some of the changes that happened don't make sense. That is, the more modern form is less functional or reliable than the older form. Why would God have made a form that works less well? In some cases we know that the less functional form had an advantage in certain environments. In others we know that the bad form is just bad, but not bad enough to kill the species off.

Even more so, we see evolution happening on a huge scale before our very eyes. Two direct cases. The evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the evolution of pesticide resistance in insects.

It is obvious that any time you put pressure on a population, you see clear changes in the genetic and physical makeup of that population. This is clear.

Remember that Darwin and his compatriots were all good Christians. The concept of evolution bothered them greatly. They accepted it, but only as part of God's greater plan that is one of the many mysteries not directly explained in the bible.

I won't argue Creationism, despite the ample contradictory evidence, but I will say that if you are going to accept God, then you have accept what he put before you. On the other hand, maybe he made a mistake. Maybe he thought we were smart enough to look at the evidence, accept it is part of his plan (whether or not it was in the bible) and go on. Obviously, he was wrong.

BTW - did you hear, it's not that the earth revolves around the Sun, as in the bible, the earth is the center of the Universe and all else revolves around God's greatest creation! Oh yeah, and it's flat too, shaped like a Frisbee some say...

yeah, the PDGA has never figured out how to sync up the time on their server with actual time :)


Actually, it is frequently the USER that hasn't figured out how to set his time offset.

Go to "My Home" and go to the "Edit" link for your Display Preferences. For your time offset if you are east coast United States you want 2.5 as your setting. 1.5 for Central time, etc. on down the line and the reverse if you're looking to the east of US Eastern time. You're offsetting it from the server location. Many forums do it automatically, unfortunately this one does not.


-Chris.


Actually, the server should be using NTP to sync its time with a universal constant like UTC. there's no need for partial offsets like 2.4 or 2.5. One should be able to set the proper Time Zone and not worry about it. Aside from that, the clock on this server is not consistent. Sometimes it's off by 2 hours and 33 minutes, in a few months it will be off by 2 hours and 16 minutes or 2 hours and 45. This is a server issue, not a user one. Trust me on this... I have a little bit of experience in this arena.



AhHa! I knew it. It's divine intervention, a message from above! Our server has been touched by an angel! Or was that a bad 90s drama?


No. His noodly appendage keeps rearranging the numbers on the clock to mess with us. :D

<font color="green"> To the Christians who read this thread. Please don't be ashamed or fearful of letting your faith in Jesus be known. You have nothing to fear, and nothing to be ashamed of. You don't have to respond to those who mock and ridicule Christianity if you don't want to. My choice to do so was just that, my own choice. I am confident I will learn to let it go... How nice would it be to hear from other believers more frequently about how God is working in there lives? To recieve the encouragement of a brother, or sister in Jesus to keep on going? To request prayers for your concerns in life? In short, to share Him with each other in the midst of one of our passions in life, disc golf! Don't be afraid to share your faith. You were set free from fear! Live in His love, and help make this thread more enjoyable for those who have put there hope in Him?

To those who do not believe, but treat this thread with respect, I could name some names... thankyou! You make it much more enjoyable for those who are interested in sharing their faith in peace. I am sure I am not alone in saying that it is much appreciated. Thanks...

David Rose

all my words are in green</font> <font color="black"> or black </font>
<font color="red"> Dan's are in red </font> <font color="orange"> or orange </font>


<font color="red"> First of all, thank you for answering the questions even if you think they are childish and off topic. </font>
I never said they were childish, but you making me answer your irrelavent questions about homosexuality before you answer is very childish.


<font color="orange">My bad. You did say I was childish and not the questions. I stand corrected. (So, is calling me childish a personal attack under the new message board code? :eek:) </font>
<font color="green"> I really shouldn't be this surprized! You still don't get it. I never called you childish. Your actions were very childish and once again, your faulty perception reveals itself to those who take the time to read, and not react.</font>

So much for direct. I�ll take that as a long-winded �yes.� That being the case, aren�t you now a �believer?� Oh wait, someone once said, �words mean things!�


color:"orange"]Long winded? Have you seen some of your posts? ;)
<font color="green"> I asked a direct yes or no question. My lengthy posts are well thought out, painstakingly researched, and very informative to the topic at hand. </font>
Believing that he existed and believing he was the son of a god are two different issues. I believe that a lot of Egyptian pharoahs existed whose people thought they were gods. I don't think the pharoahs were gods even though I believe they existed.</font>
<font color="green"> Exactly my point Dan, geeez! Thank you "Captin Obvious!" That's exactly what you do to me! You take everything I say and assume it's the same as every other Christian you've ever experienced or read about. You totatlly didn't think when responding like this. Nothing new. Duh! </font>

<font color="red"> 5) Why Jesus didn't just walk into Jerusalem and show himself after his 'resurrection'? </font>
<font color="red"> Because, I personally believe his corpse was rotting in the desert where his disciples buried it after they stole it
</font>
And your evidence for that opinion is? You said, �I don�t need to offer a different theory.� But you just did!


<font color="orange">I believe this because:
1) I believe that Jesus was a man - just a man.
<font color="green"> We have lift off! (exellent choice! You have good reason to believe that)</font>
2) His body was apparently missing.
<font color="green"> Houston, he's left the tower! (You are assuming that the Bible account is true for a moment, ok, your at least imagining it to be accurate, baby steps!)</font>
3) Since I don't believe he came back from the dead and walked out of there on his own, I believe his body was carried off by someone.
<font color="green"> Houston, we have a problem! (Ahh, you were so close! Take one step back, now ask yourself, "assuming the account is correct, you just proved to everyone you can imagine it being accurate for the sake of argument Dan, does Dans theory that the body was stolen line up with the facts of the "story"? Not what you think really happend, just the "story" in a book you don't believe?

Does your theory gell with the facts of the story?
http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=books&amp;id=7&amp;pagenumber=8
Here are some answers to possible alternative theories...

Now, say something clever that doesn't take the logic of this into account. Complicate it, mock it, and then ignore it. Don't ever admit the logical, step by step analysis Dan. That's what I mean about waisting my time.I'll take the time to share the answer, you take enough time to ignore it.) </font>
4) The most likely candidates to take his body were his disciples
<font color="green"> One would think. But as I just demonstrated to you, that "clearly" doesn't make sense in the Biblical account. Of course if you go outside of the bible, we can make up all kinds of things! But if you are going to read the bible's account of what took place, the disciples stealing the body makes as much sense as an earthquake and a "Jesus eating lion" that someone previously hypothocized! (sp)... You can twist this any way you want Dan, and I'm sure you'll find a way. But your ignoring the logic of what I just spelled out for you, and your constant attempts to allude reason isn't fooling anyone who takes the time to read what I wrote. Take the time Dan... </font>
5) Since bodies tend to rot after death (unless cremated, embalmed, frozen or otherwise preserved), I tend to think he was rotting where his disciples buried him. </font>

Now should I publically call into question everything you say like you did Wharton?


<font color="orange">I believe we're both doing that already. We're doing it in very different ways, but we're both doing it.
Incidentally, I haven't called into question everything Wharton said. I called him out on one piece of information that, if he had done a little research, would have been shown as an invalid piece of evidence.</font>
<font color="green"> your research, your opinion. You making a big stink about one reference being in question doesn't change the numerous examples of history recording that Jesus did live. You even believe that He lived!! That was, and is the only point Ed Wharton was making! </font>

Call your citation a lie? Call you a liar like you did Wharton in the pm you sent me? This reference of yours isn't a matter of debate or opinion like the Josephus stink you made.


<font color="orange">I didn't submit a citation. I suggested some information to look up. I didn't suggest where to look it up.
Why would you call me a liar? <font color="green"> I never called you a liar, I ASKED "should I call you a liar like you called Ed Wharton a liar?" I have the pm you sent me saying exactly that, I can post it if you wish? </font> I think you could call my source (if I had given one) a lie. And, of course, you can say that the evidence of the peppered moth is a lie. I think there is clear evidence for its existence. <font color="green"> NO DAN, your point was never, for one second, that it existed. You said it was observable evolution. This is so typical of your twisting of things. When is someone else reading this gargabe gonna call Dan out? </font> Most scientists think that as well. Believe what you want in that department. <font color="green"> There ya go again, reduce it to something it never was by saying, "believe what you want." Why don't you believe in intellectual integrity? If someone is gonna take the time and effort to explain all this to you, the least you could to is actually read it! Somebody please? For crying out loud! </font>
As I said before, I'm not going to get into a debate about evolution on this thread. <font color="green"> But you will throw out ridiculous claims and back them up with "Peppered Moth" examples that are so weak, that the writer of the book "Origins of Species" doesn't believe it! Amazing! </font> If you'd like to debate it somewhere else, we can start another thread for that. I'll do my best, but I'm not a biologist and haven't studied it anywhere near as much as I have history.</font>

Nah, I really don�t think ya do! You prove it every time you lump me together with every other Christian you ever experienced or read about. I am not someone who believes because my folks did. I don't attend a Church that goes by human traditions over sound biblical doctrine. And I don't stay up late, research and post to argue or fight. I do it because God has touched my life in a way that is truly amazing. I know what it's like to be caught up in the world. I only wish someone would have made an effort to just reach out to me while I was lost in myself like you are. No, you don't know me Dan. Seek Him while He may be found...


<font color="orange"> You're probably right. I don't know you any more than you know me. But I have a pretty good idea of what you believe <font color="green"> Your opinion </font> and how strongly you believe. <font color="green"> you have no clue </font> It's impossible to lump all Christians together, <font color="green">ok, you've said it!!! Now show us you know how to apply it? </font> (There are over 34,000 denominations of Christianity!), but I think I can safely lump their basic arguments together <font color="green"> ahhhh, you had it for a seceond! </font> . I think I asked you before and didn't get an answer - what denomination are you? I think that information would go a long way towards helping me see where you're coming from.</font> <font color="green"> You hav asked me before, and I have told you. Once again, you prove that you DON'T know me! I am not a part of any "denomonation." I don't even think you know what that word means. I know what you mean by it, a name on the side of a building or a tradition and what it's called, i.e. Catholic, Luth, Baptist, Methodist, ect... I am not a part of any of that Dan, I am a Christian ONLY. </font>

It's time you take your unsolicited mocking and ridicule of Christianity elsewhere. You didn't like those people knocking on your door, unsolicited, why can't you show the same respect you wanted from them? Start a thread called "Atheist Disc Golfers" if you want to mock Christianity. I am not joking Dan. I'm not being sarcastic one bit. I AM TOTALLY SERIOUS. Go where that kind of posting is appreciated. Disc Golfers For Jesus is not the place for it. Yeah, you have the right, so what? You also have the right to be the moral Atheist you call yourself. Does a "moral atheist" like yourself also have ethics and standard of conduct in a place where Christians would like to gather in peace? You have "the right" to talk about Innova on a Discraft or Gateway thread, but do you have "the class" to not do that? Show a little class Dan.


<font color="orange">I think I could ask the same of anyone who posts about Jesus on a disc golf website. <font color="green"> Will someone else please explain to this guy the error of this answer? He's pitchin' softballs here folks, I could use a little help! </font> I could ask you to take your religion somewhere else because I don't want to hear about it at all. <font color="green"> Then don't click "Disc Golfers For Jesus!" Is that really too hard for you to understand? </font> However, I won't ask that because we're in a public setting and not on my front porch.
No one forces you to read my comments anymore than I am forced to read yours. You can choose to skip over them or you can use the 'ignore user' function and never have to look at one of my posts again. <font color="green"> childish... </font>
I am respectful of religion - in a proper setting. I would never go into a church <font color="green"> the church is not a building, no matter how much you or I call it that. It is the body of believers. The word church is never used to describe a building in the bible </font> and mock Chritianity there. I would never go into a mosque and mock Islam. However, this is not a church <font color="green"> but this thread IS a place for believers to speak to each other in peace. Not your happy hunting ground for mocking. </font> or a mosque. This is a public setting. If people are going to bring their religion into that setting, I'm going to say what I think <font color="green"> </font> about it.</font> REAL CLASS ACT DAN

How many times have you heard people say, "before I found god I was heading in the wrong direction with life".




No matter how many times I've heard this, I'll bet the phrase "Believe in our god or die" has been uttered significantly more. That's why I won't stop.



So,,, the religious civil war is going on between the believers and the non believers???
One side has meeting's of hundreds of millions, 1-2 times a week and the other has a individuals working from their computers and at the local hangouts.

Not that it may not be worth fight for, just doesn't seem like a fair fight or one that can actually be won.
Besides it could be a war thats not worth winning anyway.

Just think of what happens if those who's lives have been turned around, by excepting the fact the Jesus died for them, found out is wasn't true.
Not to mention those who have believed since childhood, who have had the fear of god instilled into them in order to be moral.
It seems like they would be really ticked off for allowing themselves to be being tricked into :"being good little boys and girls" with the hopes of eternal life.
This would be a formula for,,, forgive the pun" all hell to break loose" IMO

thats why I m not into religion. Wars, Hate ect...... Jesus is about love I never have understood how His message being one of redemption and grace for humanity could get so mucked up! Its a shame. Great post Dave I couldn't agree more.

Besides it could be a war thats not worth winning anyway.



Good post Dave, but I think these are vital questions because they potentially have eternal consequences. It's a matter of truth and reality. Between the atheists and the theists only one side can be right, so one side is wrong. Either God exists or He doesn't. The side that is wrong is not living according to truth and reality.

OK you skeptics, now I've got incontrovertible proof that miracles do happen! If there are miracles, then, by definition, there are forces outside of the natural realm. Hence, there must be a god. So the following miracle is undeniable evidence that God exists.

Lyle said:

Why in the world would the server clock be some portion of an hour off standard time? This makes no sense to me. I can understand it being from 1 to 3 hours off my time (I'd assume it would be +1 hour off being as the DGC is on the East cost and I'm Central, but 1 hour and 20 minutes seems strange to me.


Here's the miracle-- Lyle and I actually agree about something!! :eek: Since it's a miracle then God definitely exists. Case closed! :p

<font color="green"> My favorite artist of all time is/was a guy named Rich Mullins. He passed away but his music and writings have impacted my life and still do, more than anyone. These are just a few words of his I felt like sharing.
</font>
"You know, people come back from Ireland with those really beautiful big sweaters, real big bulky and they have those stitches and all kinds of stuff in them. Well, they started doing that because each of those different stitches is different charms and prayers and stuff that they'd weave into their husband's sweaters. If it worked, their husbands would come back alive and if it didn't, because fish don't eat wool, they could tell who was who by what sweater was on them.

So go out and live real good and I promise you'll be beat up real bad. But a little while after you're dead, you'll be rotted away anyway. It's not gonna matter if you had a few scars. It will matter if you didn't live. And when you wash up on that other shore, even though you've been disfigured beyond any recognition. The angel's gonna see you there and they'll go what is this? We're not even sure if it's human. But Jesus will say, "No, that's human. I know that one" They'll say, "Jesus, how do you know that one?" He'll say, "Well, you see that sweater he's got on?" :D

Here's a verse about God's love that I've been memorizing and meditating on:

Psalm 119:124
"Deal with your servant according to your steadfast love, and teach me your statutes." (ESV)
[You can also read it here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20119:124&amp;version=47).]

I'm always encouraged by God's unfailing love for me and his personal care in teaching me His ways.

David and Lowe,

I have just one last question before I leave this thread and start another.

Is it possible that you're wrong about God and Jesus?

David and Lowe,

Is it possible that you're wrong about God and Jesus?



Yes.

Some of the things that have been shared here have made sense, so I'm doing some more research.

Now let me ask you the same question-- Is it possible that you're wrong about God and Jesus?

If you're really interested in the Christian view I suggest that you check out the work of Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. Habermas may well be Christianity's greatest expert on the historical reliability of the resurrection of Jesus, and this is the foundational issue for Christians. From what I've seen, all of Habermas's works are written for Christian readers, though. I'd love to see him write for skeptics as his audience.

P.S.- Dan, please don't leave. I have a few more questions for you, but I don't have time right now to write them out. I hope to soon, though.

Is it possible that you're wrong about God and Jesus?



Please refer to my post, #796358 - 02/15/08 10:04 AM, too, for more of my perspective of why this is a very important discussion.

Hi Lowe,

It's absolutely possible that I'm wrong.

I'm just leaving this thread. I'm going to start another thread with as more appropriate name in a more appropriate part of the message board.

I'll talk with anyone who is willing to make points about things, ideas and beliefs - even if I find those points ridiculous and insulting to my intelligence. But I'm done talking with people who can't discuss a subject without making it personal and resorting to personal insults. As soon as David answers this question, I'm putting him on ignore.

Additionally, although I promised I wouldn't hold it against him, I'm getting tired of sifting through his poor spelling and grammar to figure out the full content of his "well thought out, painstakingly researched" posts.

Hi Lowe,

It's absolutely possible that I'm wrong.

I'm just leaving this thread. I'm going to start another thread with as more appropriate name in a more appropriate part of the message board. <font color="green"> You've also made it clear that you feel the pdga message board isn't the place for such discussion. I can find the quote if you need it. Now you say you just want to do it on another thread. Confusing to say the least...</font>

I'll talk with anyone who is willing to make points about things, ideas and beliefs - even if I find those points ridiculous <font color="green"> (hmmm) </font> and insulting to my intelligence. <font color="green"> No Dan, your actions and what you said earlier make it clear that you're not on here to just "talk about ideas" as you now say:

Quote:<font color="orange"> your religion is open game as far as I'm concerned. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I have mocked your religion and I will continue to mock your religion because I believe that it is detrimental to humanity.
</font>
<font color="green"> Somehow, doing that on a this thread isn't personal? :confused: </font>

</font> But I'm done talking with people who can't discuss a subject without making it personal and resorting to personal insults.<font color="green"> I strongly suggested that you take your "legal" yet unsolicited mocking elsewhere. Then I labeled your actions as not showing tact at all. This is what "you are saying" is your problem with me? Ok! </font> As soon as David answers this question, I'm putting him on ignore. <font color="green"> Really sorry you feel that way. </font>

Additionally, although I promised I wouldn't hold it against him, I'm getting tired of sifting through his poor spelling and grammar <font color="orange"> "I'm going to start another thread with as more appropriate name in a more appropriate part of the message board." </font> <font color="green"> (giggle) </font> to figure out the full content of his "well thought out, painstakingly researched" posts.



<font color="green">"Could I be wrong?" Of course I could be, but obviously I don't believe I am. I've chosen to give you SOME answers as to why believing in Jesus isn't "wrong." You've chosen to mock that belief openly in a thread dedicated to those who believe in Jesus. You've also chosen to ignore most of those answers and throw the baby out with the bath water when one piece of the puzzle didn't agree with your research. So with all that in mind, your choice to "ignore" me and/or "leave this thread" does not surprise me one bit. Your attempt to blame me for your choice to leave is just that Dan, "your choice." I hope you don't leave, but if you do, I wish you nothing but peace. You are amazingly resilient and could potentially be a mighty voice for hope instead of hostility and skepticism. Some of the best ministers are those who were right where you are now at one time in there life. Just look at Saul/Paul's story, or google "John Clayton, Does God Exist?"

The bottom line is, you shouldn't go on a Jesus thread and start trashing Christianity. Not a very smooth move IMO. I don't regret for a second defending the Gospel. I have two regrets with you Dan. Two weeks ago when I made a sarcastic parody of true things you actually said. I deleted the sarcastic part when you cried "personal attack" and left the rest. And recently using the header "class act" was semi-sarcastic, I guess. If those are my only regrets, I think I can live with myself!

Good on ya,

David

</font>

Hi again,

I realize you don't think it's appropriate for me to come on the 'Disc Golfers for Jesus' thread and mock Chritstianity. Well, that goes two ways. I don't think it's appropriate for you people to be talking about god on the message board. For some reason, Christians think it is OK to talk about god and his glory wherever they are, but it's not OK to criticize them for it. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Secondly, as I've stated several times, mocking an idea or a belief is not the same as mocking someone personally. I'm sorry if you fail to see the difference. But you have misquoted me with the purpose of making me look less than intelligent, you have called me childish, and you have called me classless. Now, semantically, it can be argued that you didn't actually call me these things. But, it can also be argued that they were, at the least, implied personal attacks.

And no David, mocking a religion isn't personal. Neither is mocking any other belief system. I can mock communism also. Does that mean I'm mocking communists personally?

Regarding Wharton, I have several more problems with him. The Josephus thing was just the first. I don't even disagree with his conclusion that Jesus lived as a historical person. But, there are much better, and academically acceptable proofs out there. Wharton has used unacceptable techniques and presents his evidence in a way that is, at best, a half-truth. This ruined his credibility with me. Lowe's suggestion of Gary Habermas seems much better even though I've only read a small bit of him so far.

David, I have no problem with sarcasm - when it is appropriately directed. If you want to direct it at the belief in atheism - OK. If you want to direct it at ideas that I have - OK. If you want to direct it at me personally, that's something for another setting.

So, should we move this to a better location or should we just acept that this is where this conversation has, does and will happen? That suggestion does seem stupid considering we all know it's here. ( David, notice the difference between me calling the suggestion stupid and myself stupid for suggesting it!)

Incidentally, I've decided that putting David on ignore might lose me some insight. Besides,I've decided to use some of his posts in my advanced level classes to check for spelling and grammar errors ;). Seriously, as an open-minded person, it wouldn't be fair for me to ignore him when he might have something to say. So, I'll see whatever he posts in response.

Reminder to self: NEVER comment on grammar and spelling without checking your own work for typos! :o :confused: :o:confused: (Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot!)

Dan,

Putting together several posts, you said--


I personally believe his (Jesus') corpse was rotting in the desert where his disciples buried it after they stole it.

I believe this because:

1) I believe that Jesus was a man - just a man.
2) His body was apparently missing.
3) Since I don't believe he came back from the dead and walked out of there on his own, I believe his body was carried off by someone.
4) The most likely candidates to take his body were his disciples.



What historical evidence do you have to support this theory?
And how does your evidence compare to the Christian evidence for the historicity of the resurrection?

Also, if your theory is true would you also offer an explanation for the following counter evidence?
<ul type="square"> Why did Paul, an enemy of Christians, convert to Christianity and become one of it's greatest spokesmen and center his message on the resurrection of Jesus? How do you explain the conversion of Jesus' brother James who was a skeptic and previously didn't believe Jesus' claims? What changed the original 11 followers from scared men running for their lives to bold proclaimers of the resurrection? This led to their persecution and martyrdom for what they believed. How did the 11 disciples overpower the guard at the tomb of Jesus? Why did not even one of the 11 recant the lie? If you read the gospels carefully, there are many details about the resurrection of Jesus. These details would have to be delibarate lies, so at the core Christianity is based on a lie. But Jesus taught that His followers should always tell the truth. Is it in character with the teachings of Jesus and of the rest of what the first disciples taught in the New Testament to have a colossal lie at the heart of their belief? [/list]

What historical evidence do you have to support this theory?
And how does your evidence compare to the Christian evidence for the historicity of the resurrection?


none of the below is evidence.

Also, if your theory is true would you also offer an explanation for the following counter evidence?
<ul type="square"> Why did Paul, an enemy of Christians, convert to Christianity and become one of it's greatest spokesmen and center his message on the resurrection of Jesus? How do you explain the conversion of Jesus' brother James who was a skeptic and previously didn't believe Jesus' claims? What changed the original 11 followers from scared men running for their lives to bold proclaimers of the resurrection? This led to their persecution and martyrdom for what they believed. How did the 11 disciples overpower the guard at the tomb of Jesus? Why did not even one of the 11 recant the lie? If you read the gospels carefully, there are many details about the resurrection of Jesus. These details would have to be delibarate lies, so at the core Christianity is based on a lie. But Jesus taught that His followers should always tell the truth. Is it in character with the teachings of Jesus and of the rest of what the first disciples taught in the New Testament to have a colossal lie at the heart of their belief? [/list]


I've decided to (mostly) stay out of this discussion since I believe it has become an argument and I don't want to be a part of that argument. I just wanted to comment on this one post.

These things are easily used as supporting "evidence" if you believe that everything in the bible is true. In order to draw the logical conclusions that you want us to draw, we have to believe that the 11 were pure of heart, perfect people, and there was nothing left out of or added to the story of the resurrection.

For those of us on the skeptical side, it is a ludicrous idea that the resurrection (or any of the other "miracles") actually happened. I personally don't believe that the disciples were any more honest or pure than your average man, regardless of what they were taught (weren't we *all* taught to be honest?). I believe that they were just as capable of lying and hiding things to promote their chosen religion. People have been doing that since the very first religion, why should they be any different?

The point I'm trying to make is that non-believers aren't going to be convinced (converted?) by "evidence" that only holds water if you're already a believer. Just like in any proof, I can't conclude that X = Z unless I can first prove that X = Y and Y = Z.

Hi Lowe,

That's about what I was going to say, but Josh beat me to it. :(

I'm really busy for the next couple of days, but I want to post about history in general as soon as I get a chance. Within a day or two.

I know this will sound off topic, but it's really not. Do you believe in Alexander the Great?

A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions. proverbs 18:2

A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions. proverbs 18:2



Who are you talking to?

I too would like to see the extra biblical sources of the evidences for the Life of Christ. I stopped looking for a historical Jesus after about a year into my five year tenure at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.



BigBuck,

What were you studying? Did you finish your degree?

<font color="blue"> "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels." (Will Durrant) </font>

http://www.symphonyofscripture.com/?p=627

<font color="blue"> "It is all about the Jesus of history. Remove him from Christianity and nothing distinctive is left. Once disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ, and Christianity will collapse like a pack of cards. For it all depends on this fundamental conviction, that God was made manifest in human flesh. And that is a matter not of ideology or mythology but history." (Michael Green, Runaway World, pg. 12) </font>

20 centuries of "higher criticism" and still, the Good News isn't disproven. Do any of those trying to debunk it ever think about that? Do we ever stop and really think about that?
I'm not talking about a man made "go-between" called a "pope". I'm not talking about some tv. evangelist who sells promises of health and wealth. I am talking about a man who claimed to be God! A man who has had more influence on mankind than anyone else, ever! But somehow it was all a lie? By men who had nothing to gain but extreme hardship and death?

Josh, I'm sorry, but calling this an "argument" and saying you don't want to be a part of it, then choosing to be a part of it doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me. I don't blame you, or think your wrong by being a part of it.That statement just didn't make sense IMO. Alot of people who actually "believe what they believe" never stand up for what they think is true. So I'm glad you are here, I mean that. It takes conviction.

Dan, concerning your last post to me, if words mean anything, I'll just let you have the last word! I'm glad you made the choice to not leave. Answered prayer, hmm, even more evidence! lol

I went to get my MDIV (its 92 Masters hours). I had to work so was not able to go full time. I have 57 hours completed and did not finish. I will finish at some point I just did not feel that my life was in line with 1st Timothy at the time. I received a great education in both the history of the Bible and how the Christian family works!

As far as the proverb it applies to whoever it impacted. I try my best to read and contemplate a proverb per day. I felt that it applied. I also feel that today's proverb applies as well ; It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way. Proverbs 19:2.

20 centuries of "higher criticism" and still, the Good News isn't disproven. Do any of those trying to debunk it ever think about that? Do we ever stop and really think about that?
I'm not talking about a man made "go-between" called a "pope". I'm not talking about some tv. evangelist who sells promises of health and wealth. I am talking about a man who claimed to be God! A man who has had more influence on mankind than anyone else, ever! But somehow it was all a lie? By men who had nothing to gain but extreme hardship and death?


assuming that you mean the new testament, it has been disproved at least as many times and in at least as many ways as it has been proven. The old testament has been disproved many many more times in many many more ways.


Josh, I'm sorry, but calling this an "argument" and saying you don't want to be a part of it, then choosing to be a part of it doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me. I don't blame you, or think your wrong by being a part of it.That statement just didn't make sense IMO. Alot of people who actually "believe what they believe" never stand up for what they think is true. So I'm glad you are here, I mean that. It takes conviction.


thanks for welcoming my comments. I only meant that I do not want to be a big part of this if it's going to remain strictly argumentative. I didn't mean that I won't stop in from time to time to offer an opinion or to answer a question. I just feel like it has moved away from the healthy discussion it started as, and I'm no longer as interested.

This got overlooked, so I'll post it again...

Dan has said:
"I personally believe his (Jesus') corpse was rotting in the desert where his disciples buried it after they stole it.

I believe this because:
1) I believe that Jesus was a man - just a man.
2) His body was apparently missing.
3) Since I don't believe he came back from the dead and walked out of there on his own, I believe his body was carried off by someone.
4) The most likely candidates to take his body were his disciples."

What historical evidence do you have to support this theory?

Dan, I know you're busy, so just reply when you have time.
Baldguy, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this question too.

The evidence to support this theory? hrm... well the evidence is in Dan's "I believe this because" section. When a man dies, there is a body. If the body is placed in a tomb, then goes missing, it was removed by someone or something. There's no other reasonable explanation. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck... you know the rest.

Again, the only path to another explanation requires belief in the supernatural. I personally find that idea silly. I'll give yet another example:

A man goes missing for three days. He then returns, claiming that aliens abducted him and ran all sorts of nefarious tests and experiments on his person. There is absolutely zero proof to the contrary. This man becomes a hero in the UFO-chaser community because so many people believe that his story is true. He gives details about the encounter that only a real abductee could provide. His story is published in books, magazines, and newspapers across the world. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people send him letters, emails, and phone calls requesting his presence at UFO conventions worldwide.

Do you believe that the man was abducted by aliens? Is this a situation where logic should prevail and tell us that the most reasonable explanation is the correct one? Please explain.

Instead of getting tripped up by the messenger why not deal with the message outside of the hocus-pocus. There is solid wisdom that can be used in everyday situations that tend to get overlooked because a debate breaks out.

I was just looking back through this thread and read the post where either Lowe or Player asked Dan if it was possible that he was wrong about Jesus and God.

There is a point which should be made here. Dan is less wrong about God and Jesus than he admits. For the most part, he's not wrong at all.

The point being missed is how you approach information and data. Dan works based on data, Player and Lowe work based on belief. Belief can lead you far astray, i.e., the universe revolves around earth. Believing it doesn't make it so. Evolution is the classic case. We believe the bible, we admit we can't understand all God's message in the bible, but since creationism, as we understand it, doesn't include evolution it doesn't really occur.

Evolution occurs, data, let's assume data generously provided by God, shows that it clearly exists. But, since it's not in the bible (or clearly written in the bible) it can't be real. That's why our morning commutes aren't really in a car, they're on the back of a donkey, the aforementioned not being in the bible, the latter clearly in the bible.

Instead of Dan, since I don't know all his positions, let's take myself for the next example. In Lowe and Player's opinions, God exists and he has certain properties of love and power. These are defined in the bible. One property that God has is omnipotence. Now, IMO, God may or may not have existed. My belief is that he didn't but I don't go with my belief, I go with I don't know because there isn't clear data yet. What I do know is that if God did exist, he's nothing like what the average Christian, in this case Lowe and Player, think he's like.

The label omnipotence carries meaning. An omnipotent God creates all. He writes the rules. Physical, moral, reproductive, it's all written by God. What that means is that an omnipotent God decided to let us suffer. It isn't something we can't understand, we do understand, an omnipotent God made it that way, he wrote the rules.

If God decided that the best way to salvation was to sit in an arm chair, eat donuts and watch T.V., besides the fact that Homer Simpson would have an in, that's the way it would be. He's omnipotent, he writes the rules. The only counter to that is that God isn't omnipotent, someone else, or some other factor wrote the rules and God has to live by them. Whether that factor is God, or some reality based on the laws of the physical universe, that reality is fairly cruel. SIDS, AIDS, Cancer, CF, CMS, the list of awful things that happen to us and especially to children is extensive. It is much easier to think that a physical reality causes these things than an omnipotent God. A God who would allow these things to happen is a cruel God, not one that I would like myself.

As long as Christianity accepts an omnipotent God, there is a contradiction. Either God has limitations, or he's not very nice. Dan and the rest of us recognize this as an obvious truth. Our position is based on observation and fact. The religious live in a world with a huge contradiction. Unless God allows huge contradictions that mislead his followers (not nice) then it doesn't fit. It's a no win situation.

So, Dan is a whole lot closer to the truth of the situation than Lowe and Player are; and that is because he works from a position of dealing with facts, not belief.

Hmmm...
Dan said, "I believe that Jesus was a man." That sounds like belief to me, and it's made based on a priori beliefs (that there is there is no God and nothing spiritual).

Others on here have said, "I don't believe there is a God." or "I don't believe that we can know whether there is a God or not." These are statements of belief.

Lyle's dichotomy between facts and belief is way too overstated. All statements about God and the spiritual realm are statements of faith. My faith is based on facts.

Instead of getting tripped up by the messenger why not deal with the message outside of the hocus-pocus. There is solid wisdom that can be used in everyday situations that tend to get overlooked because a debate breaks out.


I don't think anyone is arguing the point of morality taught by the stories in the bible. The point being discussed is that these are stories, not facts.

Hmmm...
Dan said, "I believe that Jesus was a man." That sounds like belief to me, and it's made based on a priori beliefs (that there is there is no God and nothing spiritual).

Others on here have said, "I don't believe there is a God." or "I don't believe that we can know whether there is a God or not." These are statements of belief.

Lyle's dichotomy between facts and belief is way too overstated. All statements about God and the spiritual realm are statements of faith. My faith is based on facts.


I think you're taking that a bit too far. Making a statement based on lack of belief isn't the same as making one based on belief.

Hmmm...
Dan said, "I believe that Jesus was a man." That sounds like belief to me, and it's made based on a priori beliefs (that there is there is no God and nothing spiritual).

Others on here have said, "I don't believe there is a God." or "I don't believe that we can know whether there is a God or not." These are statements of belief.

Lyle's dichotomy between facts and belief is way too overstated. All statements about God and the spiritual realm are statements of faith. My faith is based on facts.


I think you're taking that a bit too far. Making a statement based on lack of belief isn't the same as making one based on belief.



Don't you see BBD, not believing means you must believe, else what would you not be not believing in.

Has this thread reached page 666 yet?

keep posting

Instead of getting tripped up by the messenger why not deal with the message outside of the hocus-pocus. There is solid wisdom that can be used in everyday situations that tend to get overlooked because a debate breaks out.


I don't think anyone is arguing the point of morality taught by the stories in the bible. The point being discussed is that these are stories, not facts.



Every civilization to date has had moral codes and laws to live by. Most never heard of The Bible or Jesus.

I was just looking back through this thread and read the post where either Lowe or Player asked Dan if it was possible that he was wrong about Jesus and God.

There is a point which should be made here. Dan is less wrong about God and Jesus than he admits. For the most part, he's not wrong at all.

The point being missed is how you approach information and data. Dan works based on data, Player and Lowe work based on belief. Belief can lead you far astray, i.e., the universe revolves around earth. Believing it doesn't make it so. Evolution is the classic case. We believe the bible, we admit we can't understand all God's message in the bible, but since creationism, as we understand it, doesn't include evolution it doesn't really occur.

Evolution occurs, data, let's assume data generously provided by God, shows that it clearly exists. But, since it's not in the bible (or clearly written in the bible) it can't be real. That's why our morning commutes aren't really in a car, they're on the back of a donkey, the aforementioned not being in the bible, the latter clearly in the bible.

Instead of Dan, since I don't know all his positions, let's take myself for the next example. In Lowe and Player's opinions, God exists and he has certain properties of love and power. These are defined in the bible. One property that God has is omnipotence. Now, IMO, God may or may not have existed. My belief is that he didn't but I don't go with my belief, I go with I don't know because there isn't clear data yet. What I do know is that if God did exist, he's nothing like what the average Christian, in this case Lowe and Player, think he's like.

The label omnipotence carries meaning. An omnipotent God creates all. He writes the rules. Physical, moral, reproductive, it's all written by God. What that means is that an omnipotent God decided to let us suffer. It isn't something we can't understand, we do understand, an omnipotent God made it that way, he wrote the rules.

If God decided that the best way to salvation was to sit in an arm chair, eat donuts and watch T.V., besides the fact that Homer Simpson would have an in, that's the way it would be. He's omnipotent, he writes the rules. The only counter to that is that God isn't omnipotent, someone else, or some other factor wrote the rules and God has to live by them. Whether that factor is God, or some reality based on the laws of the physical universe, that reality is fairly cruel. SIDS, AIDS, Cancer, CF, CMS, the list of awful things that happen to us and especially to children is extensive. It is much easier to think that a physical reality causes these things than an omnipotent God. A God who would allow these things to happen is a cruel God, not one that I would like myself.

As long as Christianity accepts an omnipotent God, there is a contradiction. Either God has limitations, or he's not very nice. Dan and the rest of us recognize this as an obvious truth. Our position is based on observation and fact. The religious live in a world with a huge contradiction. Unless God allows huge contradictions that mislead his followers (not nice) then it doesn't fit. It's a no win situation.

So, Dan is a whole lot closer to the truth of the situation than Lowe and Player are; and that is because he works from a position of dealing with facts, not belief.



This is an argument I really like. Mainly because it says, OK so you can prove that there is a god but you can't prove that it's worthy of worship.

I sure loved my philosophy class.

OK so you can prove that there is a god



<font color="green"> Who said prove? </font>

assuming that you mean the new testament, it has been disproved at least as many times and in at least as many ways as it has been proven. The old testament has been disproved many many more times in many many more ways.



thanks for welcoming my comments. I only meant that I do not want to be a big part of this if it's going to remain strictly argumentative. I didn't mean that I won't stop in from time to time to offer an opinion or to answer a question. I just feel like it has moved away from the healthy discussion it started as, and I'm no longer as interested.

[/QUOTE]

<font color="red"> Do you care to share with the class how the bible as a whole has been disproven "many" times?

Can you share the diference between an argument and "sharing opinions and answering questions?"

I'll be honest with you, you keep saying that you don't want to argue, but then you throw "verbal hand-grenades" and then jump into the fox-hole and don't respond with anything supporting your claims. :confused:</font>

It�s always a �head-scratcher� when skeptics come up with alternative theories to the resurrection of Jesus. Not only because of the bizarre nature of their theories (�deceptive tomb-raiding disciples� or �Jesus-eating-lions�), but also because of how oblivious they are to the �cart before the horse� that is about to run over their theory. What I mean is that someone, who doesn�t believe in the Gospel, enters into the story of the Gospel and then proclaims that the Gospel didn�t happen that way? There is nothing wrong with theorizing, but what do you do when the text does not support your theory? So far, when those who theorize outside the text are shown why their theory doesn�t fit, I�ve seen three responses. Notice that none of them hold any contextual, logical, or reasonable level of �proof� or �evidence.� Something they absolutely demand from those who defend the Gospel.

1. Completely ignore (what the bible actually says or what is presented)
2. Theorize some more (without biblical context or evidence, and the theories grow in their absurdity)
3. Distract (with debatable opinions, new topics, or claim �interpretation fallacy�

I�ve given more than enough biblical information as to why the disciples did not do it. Perhaps a more condensed version could spark a more relevant public response. Or at least the skeptic could be more honest with themselves in private. I am learning more about this form of communication and the skeptics involved. Somehow, a mountain of evidence is not as valuable as a molehill of evidence. In our fast paced, quick fix, sound-bite society that doesn�t surprise me, but it is truly disappointing to say the least. Be that as it may, I�ll make this as brief as possible.

(According to the Bible) The Disciples Did Not Steal The Body Because:

1. This completely contradicts the biblical account of what happened (Mt.27:62-66 and 28:1-15)
2. This contradicts every action and belief of the disciples throughout the bible
3. The tomb was protected by Roman guards by the order of Pilate
4. It was well known, even to the day of the Gospel writings, that the chief priests and guards tried to deceive the governor about what really happened

I know, this isn�t a video recording of Jesus rising from the tomb. This isn�t even presented as evidence to the resurrection. This is to simply point out, that according to the text, the disciples did not remove the body. It just doesn�t fit. Like I said, it�s ok to theorize all you want, but if you are going theorize what happened in the Gospel story, why do you skeptics follow the story only up until the empty tomb? Jesus� body being stolen by the disciples and buried in the desert is no more that speculation. The reason why you or Dan haven�t given any evidence for this belief is because there is none to give.

Do you care to share with the class how the bible as a whole has been disproven "many" times?


sure. by my last assertion that a proof on the belief side requires that you already believe, then you should deduce from this statement that neither side has ever been truly proven.


Can you share the diference between an argument and "sharing opinions and answering questions?"


I thought this was universally understood, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I don't like to participate in the belligerence that you and others have brought to the thread. That is when it diverges from the discussion vein and becomes an argument.


I'll be honest with you, you keep saying that you don't want to argue, but then you throw "verbal hand-grenades" and then jump into the fox-hole and don't respond with anything supporting your claims. :confused:


I never said I didn't want to discuss. I just don't want to argue. If you prefer the word "fight" then feel free to substitute.

I'm not sure what my "verbal hand grenades" have been, but if you want this to be an at least somewhat productive conversation, you need to stop trying to prove A using A as a given. Non-believers don't need to prove that the text is incorrect because it is a deviation from the norm. If I said I could levitate, you would tell me to prove it. If I argued in your style, I would just say "you haven't proven that I can't."

You have to try to grasp what's going on here. You're trying to tell me that since I can't prove aliens, santa claus, the easter bunny, and peter pan don't exist, then they must exist. I don't have to prove that imaginary characters don't exist. If you want me to believe that they do, it's on you to prove it. AND you can't use the book "Peter Pan" to prove that Peter Pan exists.

The bible is full of tall tales, fables, and parables to teach man how to live a good moral life. No offense to anyone here but how could anyone not take what the bible says with a grain of salt...especially a story about a prominent man rising from the dead in a time where robbing graves, religious deception and wars were common. Sorry just me being rational...

The evidence is all hysterical.

This thread is hysterical.

You can levitate? :eek:

<font color="green">William F. Buckley was one of my favorites. After hearing about his death today, or last night, I found this link below and thought I'd share it. Ironically some of the subject matter deals with alot of things talked about on this thread lately. I know this website seems to be a "conservative desert" of sorts, but perhaps not by all of those on this thread. For those who believe in the value of conservative thinking or simply were fans of Buckley's "stuff" this will be a treat. He was so smart! Rest in peace WFB, you will be missed...
</font>

<font color="red"> http://agentintellect.blogspot.com/2008/02/william-f-buckley-jr-on-jesus.html </font>

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/02/27-1403459732T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=27-140345L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=02&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=9732&amp;srv=img3)

<font color="red"> evolution is great - one day it will lead to the extinction of the bible toting self proclaimed geniuses who think they really are in the know, although it won't be soon enough in my lifetime....even though 2k years has been way too long

this is a hit and run post since arguing with this lot is like a vicious circle of ignorance and blind fear </font>


these Jesus is for Disc Golfers threads are far more offensive and a bad representation of the sport in my opinion than any other thread could be - it just sends the wrong message by segregating the rest of the players out there

Who is forcing you to click this thread and read it over and over again?

You have every right to do a "drive by" with your words, or as you put it, "hit and run." Doesn't seem very constructive or interesting to me, but hey, you have the right to do it! I don't know the first thing about your experiences or what information you've been exposed to in life, but I am telling you the truth, the evidence to believe (not the "blind fear" that you speak of), is more than abundant. Not only that, but the evidence against evolution is also plentiful.

BTW, no one said "Jesus is for disc golfers" as you put it. The title of the thread is "Disc Golfers For Jesus???" Judging by his original post, it was started by a courageous guy who was looking for others who share in his faith. Hardly a "segragating" move IMO.

I, too, was a huge Buckley fan. While I often did not agree with some of his conservative views, I admire his intelligence and have fond memories of the debate I attended that he moderated on the flat tax held at TCU a several years ago.

See www.nationalreview.com (http://www.nationalreview.com) for a lot of WFB fond memories.

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2008/02/29-2204348275T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=29-220434L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=02&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=8275&amp;srv=img5)

<font color="red"> He had some of the funniest lines ever... </font>

This is one of my favs. I'm paraphrasing because I can't find it, but it went something like this. A somewhat hostile interviewer asked Bill Buckley "why do you always sit down when being asked questions, is it because you can't think quick on your feet?" Buckley quickly responded "no, it's because you need to sit down once in a while when you are carrying around the weight of this much intelligence!" :D

Thank You.

This is one of my favs. I'm paraphrasing because I can't find it, but it went something like this. A somewhat hostile interviewer asked Bill Buckley "why do you always sit down when being asked questions, is it because you can't think quick on your feet?" Buckley quickly responded "no, it's because you need to sit down once in a while when you are carrying around the weight of this much intelligence!" :D



Great! An intellectual snob calling someone else an intellectual snob. Thus begins the degrading of America by leaders who play up the "being dumb is noble concept."

Buckley, while powerful and a leader of the conservative movement, took so many awful positions that history has proven wrong that it is hard to view him as anything but what he was - an incredibly rich playboy with few manners who supported political positions that put more money into his pockets and the pockets of his rich friends.

He began the tactic of saying horrible things about those he opposed, ridiculing them in a very unprofitable fashion. The partisan politics that now plague this country can be traced to him and those of his ilk. Sad that this human being who did so much damage to common civility would be given any credence whatsoever.

This is one of my favs. I'm paraphrasing because I can't find it, but it went something like this. A somewhat hostile interviewer asked Bill Buckley "why do you always sit down when being asked questions, is it because you can't think quick on your feet?" Buckley quickly responded "no, it's because you need to sit down once in a while when you are carrying around the weight of this much intelligence!" :D



Great! An intellectual snob calling someone else an intellectual snob. Thus begins the degrading of America by leaders who play up the "being dumb is noble concept."

Buckley, while powerful and a leader of the conservative movement, took so many awful positions that history has proven wrong that it is hard to view him as anything but what he was - an incredibly rich playboy with few manners who supported political positions that put more money into his pockets and the pockets of his rich friends.

He began the tactic of saying horrible things about those he opposed, ridiculing them in a very unprofitable fashion. The partisan politics that now plague this country can be traced to him and those of his ilk. Sad that this human being who did so much damage to common civility would be given any credence whatsoever.




amen

Until just now I had completely forgotten about the "Ignore this User" function. All you have to do is click on the user's name and then look for "Ignore this User" and click on that.

Until just now I had completely forgotten about the "Ignore this User" function. All you have to do is click on the user's name and then look for "Ignore this User" and click on that.



How Buckleyesque of you. Yes, if you don't have any facts or figures, ignore, or talk louder than your opponent. Yes, William's job is done here... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

W.F. Buckley, "no really, segregation is good thing!" Well, until it becomes political suicide.

Yer just hit'n all the rounds today Lyle. You managed to rip on people in politics, the religious global warming hoax, and a guy who died less than a month ago! There's a little girl quoting psalm 23 on the "Bible Discussion" thread, you forgot to rip into her too! I won't put you on ignore, but I will continue to pray for you.

Yer just hit'n all the rounds today Lyle. You managed to rip on people in politics, the religious global warming hoax, and a guy who died less than a month ago! There's a little girl quoting psalm 23 on the "Bible Discussion" thread, you forgot to rip into her too! I won't put you on ignore, but I will continue to pray for you.



You sure you want to do that, after all I might be a Catholic (not a Christian by your def.) or a Muslim (a blanket supporter of terrorism by your def.)?

Yes, Buckley is dead, you didn't come on here and say Buckley is dead, you came on here and canonized his commentaries. I simply pointed out that those things aren't as nice as some in the conservative movement would have you believe. You might take a look at Laura's post to see how you can be sad about someone's death without putting forward their somewhat rude comments. BTW - you did know he was a Catholic didn't you? I'm surprised you'd support him given your view of Catholics...

It is an unfortunate reality that some would use another man's death to but forward that man's ideas, no matter how bad those ideas are. They use that man's death to move forward their personal agendas. Should the rest of us sit back while this happens or should we point out the weaknesses in that man's agenda?

Now lets say for a moment that the dead man was Louis Farrakhan, would you have the same concern if someone pointed out his weaknesses? What if the man were Bill Clinton? How about if it were an extreme case, say Putin or Musharif, supporters of dictatorial policies? Or is it simply bad because Buckley is someone you personally support?

[QUOTE]
You sure you want to do that, after all I might be a Catholic (not a Christian by your def.) <font color="red"> Never said they weren't saved, in fact I said the opposite and you know it. Why wouldn't I pray for you if you were a Catholic? </font> or a Muslim (a blanket supporter of terrorism by your def.)? <font color="red"> Not what I said and you know it. All of it can be found on the <font color="black"> Obsession thread. </font> I would invite anyone who gives a flip to read what I actually said, not what Lyle is lying about. Why wouldn't I pray for you if you were a Muslim?

Besides all that, I know you aren't a Catholic. I know you aren't a Muslim. You are a very confused man concerning the bible. You have many misconceptions that are based on lies and a ton of hostility. You are wasting your life ranting about things that add up to nothing! You have a wife and a child if I remember right, and yet you choose to spend your time spreading lies on a pdga board rather than making a stand for something meaningful and everlasting.</font>

Yes, Buckley is dead, you didn't come on here and say Buckley is dead, you came on here and canonized his commentaries. I simply pointed out that those things aren't as nice as some in the conservative movement would have you believe. You might take a look at Laura's post to see how you can be sad about someone's death without putting forward their somewhat rude comments. BTW - you did know he was a Catholic didn't you? I'm surprised you'd support him given your view of Catholics... <font color="red"> I knew Buckley was Catholic. Just because I disagree with Catholocism doesn't mean I discount eveything the man ever said! He was a funny, brilliant and entertaining dude who accomplished more than you will ever dream of in his life. I didn't agree with everything he said or did, but somehow I didn't feel the need to spit on his grave a month ago when he died. </font>

It is an unfortunate reality that some would use another man's death to but forward that man's ideas, no matter how bad those ideas are. They use that man's death to move forward their personal agendas. Should the rest of us sit back while this happens or should we point out the weaknesses in that man's agenda? <font color="red"> It is unfortunate that you are allowed to lie about me openly. One thing I love about this kind of forum, is that what I type, isn't going anywhere. Anyone can look back and read the words I carefully choose to convey a thought or belief. You can say anything you want about Buckley Lyle, I don't care. Like he said, "I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you actually believe what you just said (about him!)." </font>

Now lets say for a moment that the dead man was Louis Farrakhan, would you have the same concern if someone pointed out his weaknesses? What if the man were Bill Clinton? How about if it were an extreme case, say Putin or Musharif, supporters of dictatorial policies? Or is it simply bad because Buckley is someone you personally support? <font color="red"> On the day Buckley died some people, myself included, remembered him fondly. Nothing more. You are a real peice of work Lyle. You never have anything positive or uplifting or enjoyable to say or share. It's always negative, judgmental and pessaimistic. You are too much man... </font> [QUOTE]

You are pretty judgmental yourself.

You are pretty judgmental yourself.



<font color="red"> Hey sportsfan, "Red," you can call me anything you want, but could you please explain why you would label me "judgmental?" </font>

You are a real peice of work Lyle. You never have anything positive or uplifting or enjoyable to say or share. It's always negative, judgmental and pessaimistic. You are too much man...



There you go.

But I have wasted time on the likes of you before, and I won't do it here.

I just think that it is sad that you think there had to be a single creature of our universe, and you think he somehow communicated with this planet and got a book written...

Cool story....

You are a real peice of work Lyle. You never have anything positive or uplifting or enjoyable to say or share. It's always negative, judgmental and pessaimistic. You are too much man...



There you go. <font color="red"> You obviously don't know Lyle! Or what I really wanted to say! :eek: That's not judgmental Red, that's called using restraint! I called HIM "a real peice of work," and "too much." Not much of a condemnation, sir! Everything else was directed at HIS WORDS and I am far from alone in my opinion of his actions. </font>

But I have wasted time on the likes of you before, and I won't do it here. <font color="red"> I know the feeling, I wasted alot of time myself by the time I was 21 years old! Before you were born, back in high school, I also judged people without knowing anything about them. It was a very hard life lesson to learn. I hope you don't go through what I did, it was very humiliating and painful.</font>

I just think that it is sad that you think there had to be a single creature of our universe, and you think he somehow communicated with this planet and got a book written... <font color="red"> That was your "play by play" description of Jesus dwelling among us and how we got the bible, right? Well, I gotta give you points for originality! I've never heard it put that way before.</font>

Cool story.... <font color="red"> I agree Red, it is a very cool story. I'd love to help you gain a better understanding of it. You can trust the testimony of those who wrote it, and those who's lives have been radically changed by it. "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." 2nd Peter 1:16 </font>

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Just FYI, there is a thread called "Obsession" that is located under "Miscellaneous topics" that is dedicated exclusively to this topic. This video was posted there too. ( Re: Obsession
#794377 - 02/11/08 01:20 PM )

[QUOTE]
You sure you want to do that, after all I might be a Catholic (not a Christian by your def.) <font color="red"> Never said they weren't saved, in fact I said the opposite and you know it. Why wouldn't I pray for you if you were a Catholic? </font> or a Muslim (a blanket supporter of terrorism by your def.)? <font color="red"> Not what I said and you know it. All of it can be found on the <font color="black"> Obsession thread. </font> I would invite anyone who gives a flip to read what I actually said, not what Lyle is lying about. Why wouldn't I pray for you if you were a Muslim?

Besides all that, I know you aren't a Catholic. I know you aren't a Muslim. You are a very confused man concerning the bible. You have many misconceptions that are based on lies and a ton of hostility. You are wasting your life ranting about things that add up to nothing! You have a wife and a child if I remember right, and yet you choose to spend your time spreading lies on a pdga board rather than making a stand for something meaningful and everlasting.</font>

Yes, Buckley is dead, you didn't come on here and say Buckley is dead, you came on here and canonized his commentaries. I simply pointed out that those things aren't as nice as some in the conservative movement would have you believe. You might take a look at Laura's post to see how you can be sad about someone's death without putting forward their somewhat rude comments. BTW - you did know he was a Catholic didn't you? I'm surprised you'd support him given your view of Catholics... <font color="red"> I knew Buckley was Catholic. Just because I disagree with Catholocism doesn't mean I discount eveything the man ever said! He was a funny, brilliant and entertaining dude who accomplished more than you will ever dream of in his life. I didn't agree with everything he said or did, but somehow I didn't feel the need to spit on his grave a month ago when he died. </font>

It is an unfortunate reality that some would use another man's death to but forward that man's ideas, no matter how bad those ideas are. They use that man's death to move forward their personal agendas. Should the rest of us sit back while this happens or should we point out the weaknesses in that man's agenda? <font color="red"> It is unfortunate that you are allowed to lie about me openly. One thing I love about this kind of forum, is that what I type, isn't going anywhere. Anyone can look back and read the words I carefully choose to convey a thought or belief. You can say anything you want about Buckley Lyle, I don't care. Like he said, "I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you actually believe what you just said (about him!)." </font>

Now lets say for a moment that the dead man was Louis Farrakhan, would you have the same concern if someone pointed out his weaknesses? What if the man were Bill Clinton? How about if it were an extreme case, say Putin or Musharif, supporters of dictatorial policies? Or is it simply bad because Buckley is someone you personally support? <font color="red"> On the day Buckley died some people, myself included, remembered him fondly. Nothing more. You are a real peice of work Lyle. You never have anything positive or uplifting or enjoyable to say or share. It's always negative, judgmental and pessaimistic. You are too much man... </font> [QUOTE]




What I like most about player is how nicely he sets you up to make your point.

Let's be clear what my point is here. Buckley, the current topic, used a horrible debate tactic. He'd rarely used evidence or facts, rather he relied on his opinion and would try and trash the other person by attaching them personally. At the same time he would claim they were doing the same to him, even when they weren't.

This method has become common and is well evidenced on this MB.

1. Your right Lyle, you can't sepreate them, because the so called "peaceful" Muslims support the "radicals."

I'd say your position is pretty clear here Player and saying that I've lied when I point this out is very Buckleyesque. Good technique!

2. Now, if you want, I�ll go find the post where you said that Catholics weren�t Christians, you remember, the one where Discette replied that her friends who are Catholic certainly think they�re Christians. Again, I�d say your position concerning this issue was pretty clear. Saying I lied when I point this out is again, very Buckleyesque and very powerful.

Now, let�s remind the reader that in both these cases you�ve claimed that I�ve lied about you, and that I frequently rant. This is very standard Buckley technique, claiming that the person you are debating is ranting (while all the time, Buckley would be ranting himself) and that the person is misled by the information, even though Buckley had no real information himself.

Now, one thing that I try not to do is attack the poster, beyond my belief that it�s rude, I personally think it�s unprofitable (BTW � this was Buckley�s favorite tactic). Instead, I try to attack the points made by the person I�m debating. I stick to those points and leave that individual alone personally.

This is why I so dislike Buckley, and why I claim he damaged civil discourse. I think my position in this is pretty clear and I think the Buckley quotes placed here by others nicely prove the point. Buckley was rude and he moved our political discussions away from discourse on the issues to missives fired in anger or jest. Well spoken missives, but nonetheless, not nearly as informative or thoughtful.

Catholicism is a man made denomination. Denominate, to seperate from the original. If a Catholic considers biblical direction in there life is more important to them then traditions of men, then they wouldn't be called Catholic, they'd be called Christians only. I've explained all of this to you before. "Christian" is a term not only named in the scriptures, but it is clearly defined throughout the NT by direct comandments, examples of the first followers and the necessary inferences. Catholics can call themselves anything they want. So can Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and a host of others. Just because you call yourself a Christian, doesn't make you one as defined by scripture. Which, btw, is the source of this topic.

Quote: It is a tragic, if interesting, quirk of the present era that Bible things are being discussed and conclusions are being reached without any reference to the Bible!" Ed Wharton

I have written extensively on the diference between how society has defined "Christian" and how the bible declares what is in fact "Christian." You have clearly ignored that whole conversation. The Bible is very clear Lyle, you don't make the rules up as you go. Catholicism is filled with man made rules and traditions that are simply not supported by scripture in any way, shape or form. I am not talking about religioius preferences, but very important topics. This is not a judgment on the hearts of those who are Catholic, but the institution itself because it is easier than a two foot putt to show how blatently the Catholic religion contradicts scripture. Knowing you, you would respond to that by saying "anyone could miss a two footer!" This only demonstrates the mentality of who I am dealing with, not the validity of the point that I just made.

And if this is true, about how Catholocism makes up it's own rules, then what truly is the point of even owning a bible? Historically, as proven by that religion, not much! It was only until recently that Catholics even read or in many cases, were allowed to read their own copy of the scriptures! Doh!

There is a "tupos" (a pattern, plan, form) in the NT Lyle. You do not understand what that pattern is because your definition of biblical topics is formed and shaped by everything but the actual source, the bible. That's not a slam, but an obvious observation. Paul reminded the Roman Christians that they had obeyed from the heart a form (tupon) of teaching in order to be saved, read Romans 6:17-18. Paul told Timothy to hold to a distinct body of teaching, or doctrine: "Hold to the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me." 2nd Timothy 1:13.

The identity of the biblical "ekklesia" (church or assembly) is found in the text, not the minds of men and traditions that were formed by feelings, emotions, or human patterns. Anyone who wishes to follow what God want's for them is priveleged to do so for one simple reason, he/she has been given the scripture. Thank God! You are simply leaning on your own understanding more than something or someone bigger than yourself Lyle. Biblically speaking, you have become your own god, and let me tell ya, that's a pretty scary place to be.

This isn't about Buckley, like I said, say anything you want about him, I don't care. The guy died, I expressed how I felt, and you couldn't handle it. My desire to debate with the liberal version of Archie Bunker just isn't there. So like with Buckley, say whatever you want about me or my posts, "I don't care." Debating with a grown man who trolls the threads of topics he doesn't even believe it just to raise his heart rate on a daily basis isn't my idea of fun.

A grown man with a wife and child at home who spends all of his time saying to others who are convinced of something beautiful that they are wrong! Sounds like a recipe for a very wasted life in my opinion. If I didn't believe the bible, I'd simply enjoy my life and let others do the same, but not you, you find more fulfillment in dumping on people the beliefs that you don't believe. I feel for you Lyle, and I think it's very sad that you have no desire to learn about anything beyond your preconceptions or your finite imaginations of your Creator.

Maybe I'll talk to you down the road. Take care Lyle...

Don't just pick on the Catholics. The Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, church of God, church of Christ, belong in that same group with the catholoics, mormons, jehovah witnesses, etc.
All of those are man made religion and have their own set of "house rules". All of them are incorrect in their doctrine...according to the bible.

Whoa! Easy Slugger! I was just responding to Lyles specific point to me! He and I had a brief history of talking about the subject of Catholocism on another thread. I was simply replying to his last post to me on this thread where he tried once again to convolute the situation about the Catholic faith and what I had said about it. He couldn't understand why I would call Catholics "Catholics" and Christians "Christians." To him, it's all the same. I am just a Christian, I don't see the need to label myself as anything other than a follower of Christ.

If you wanna take issue with all those groups you listed, go right ahead! That's your deal man. I am asking you nicely, please don't instruct me to "pick on groups" that you find to be "man made" when I am talking to someone about one specific religious group? Who knows, I may agree with you on some, none, or all of your points. You don't need to "draw me offsides" to make a point though, just say what you've gotta say brutha!

I understood you we're just replying to Lyle, I was just adding my 2 cents. To call the Catholics "Christians" in your eyes is obviously not right. In my eyes, I was adding the other groups in with the catholics.

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2008/04/05-2142367783T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=05-214236L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=04&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=7783&amp;srv=img5)

R.I.P. Chuck!

I guess I can finally get that gun.

What was stopping you?

�Mr. Clinton, sir, America didn't trust you [or your wife!] with our health care system. America didn't trust you with gays in the military. America doesn't trust you with our 21-year-old daughters, and we sure, Lord, don't trust you with our guns.�
Charlton Heston quote

�I intend to dedicate my remaining time as president of the NRA to ensure that the Second Amendment is safe from Al Gore and all those who threaten it,�
Charlton Heston quote

What was stopping you?



He didn't have the "cold dead hands."

The word "catholic" means "universal" but it also means "according to the whole". In order to seperate itself from other groups the early church began to call itself catholic. This title adressed the fact that the church was universal and the inclusiveness of the witness (according to the whole) on which the entire church stood. I would be cautious on any stance that disreguarded church history due to modern day presuppositions on hearsay.

Debating with a grown man who trolls the threads of topics he doesn't even believe it just to raise his heart rate on a daily basis isn't my idea of fun.

A grown man with a wife and child at home who spends all of his time saying to others who are convinced of something beautiful that they are wrong! Sounds like a recipe for a very wasted life in my opinion. If I didn't believe the bible, I'd simply enjoy my life and let others do the same, but not you, you find more fulfillment in dumping on people the beliefs that you don't believe. I feel for you Lyle, and I think it's very sad that you have no desire to learn about anything beyond your preconceptions or your finite imaginations of your Creator.


I don�t want any part of this debate and will refrain from any further discussion in this matter but I just wanted to give you a gentle reminder that a public argument on biblical principles is NOT edifying for the soul or glorifying to God. There is never any need to put the gospel at a disadvantage. Our society has many who have no regard for revealed truth. Those of us who preach the Word have our hands full finding the ones who will respect it without being side-tracked by those who will not.

<font color="red">"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces�" (Matthew 7:6).</font>

Those of us who preach the Word have our hands full finding the ones who will respect it without being side-tracked by those who will not.



There are countless millions who pray that those "who preach the Word" will successfully find the former and "respect" the latter by talking with them about anything else :)

What was stopping you?



He didn't have the "cold dead hands."



No doubt you amused yourself by quoting C.H. as a response, but what do you mean? So only now that this conservative actor and activist is dead you feel free to purchase a gun? That makes no sense.

Charlton Heston was an incredible actor. He took on roles, almost exclusively, of men who were great men of history and high moral integrity. No doubt because of the high character and morals he held firmly to in his personal life. He did that in an industry full of liars, yes men, and very little morality. He was an awesome example of standing up for what is right, no matter how illogical and irrational his opposition was. In this day and age where all the lines of imoratlity are reduced to mere suggestions or sappy sentiment, he didn't just point to the truth, he exposed the darkness, despite being ridicueled for it.

The word "catholic" means "universal" but it also means "according to the whole". In order to seperate itself from other groups the early church began to call itself catholic. This title adressed the fact that the church was universal and the inclusiveness of the witness (according to the whole) on which the entire church stood. I would be cautious on any stance that disreguarded church history due to modern day presuppositions on hearsay.




Hey there Landis, what's up? Hey, could you please tell me what the definition of "Catholic" has to do with what I said? I am well aware of the defintion of "Catholic" but I am not seeing the connection between your response and what I said. Can you please clarify your point for me? Thanks...

Also, can you please tell me how my "stance" on the Catholic religion "disreguarded church history due to modern day presuppositions on hearsay," rather than just implying that I did? My beliefs concerning Catholic doctrines are not based on "hearsay" or anything "presupposed." They're based on what is actually taught and how that teaching does not accurately reflect what the bible actually says.

If asked again, "can a Catholic be a Christian?" I would answer the same way I did on a previous thread: "IMO, YES, a Catholic CAN be a Christian, but he/she wouldn't make much of a Catholic!" lol If people of the Catholic faith are saved, IMO it will be because of the "wideness in God's mercy," and I certainly hope they are, but it won't be because of the biblical accuracy of the Catholic doctrines (or others for that matter, we�re all saved by grace)! The man made elements of the Catholic church are damaging to the simplicity and unity of the scripture. I have a real hard time embracing those man made elements and was simply responding to them. Thank you for your input, but I really don't understand where you are coming from. Hope you are doing good, please feel free to discuss anything you want with me, anytime...

deleted

I mentioned the word Catholic because of the Church that you threw under the bus. Which the Catholic Church as it stands today was fully put into place in 350 AD. I understand that there may be somethings that they have developed that mirror the Pharisees but in no way can anyone that has an open mind can say that the Catholic Church is not of the New Testament. All of the symbolism in the service is in lock step with the stuff I learned at the Seminary. The problems that I would have (not all inclusive I am sure that I have more) are that the pastor cannot marry (so he has nothing to say to me), praying to Marry and the apostles (why?) and I have a problem with the Pope (which is actually a pretty cool post if you think about it). The Eastern Orthodox Catholics (Greek / Russian Orthodox) are the almost the exact same thing Minus the Pope and the pastors can marry (4th crusade took care of that part of the church). The Liturgy IS a great thing once an appreciation is achieved (but can be practiced with other churches and NOT just the Catholics). Just be careful when judging, that is the origin of the church that you attend. If you let me know what denomination I bet I could come up with some dirty little secrets there as well.

Hey man, thanks for the timely response. I didn't really get any answers but it's always good to hear from you on this thing. I was in DFW last week with a long layover, if I had one more hour I would have tried hitt'n bear creek. Man I miss DFW golf! Stl. courses are great, even better IMO, but the mini's are very different. They're mostly like Z-boaz dubs on Sunday nights with smaller ace pots and even less of a pay out! :eek: Anyway, I love to hear from you, you have such a way of calmness about you that I admire. Anyone who's met you would know what I am talking about.

I still don't see what the definition of Catholic has to do with what I said. Or how I disreguarded Catholic church history by talking about a few of the many man made elements that in fact DO disreguard the bible. Having simulartiy in some of the elements is a far cry short of being "in lock step" with what Jesus commanded and the believers left as an example. You even mentioned a couple of those things and that you don't agree with 'em either. Then you asked "why?" The answer is because it's not in the bible, it's in the traditions and customs of man made religion.

The (tupos) pattern is of human origin, not biblical. Those aren't minor issues. They, along with many others confuse the gospel and distort the authority of Jesus. I highly doubt you'd say the same about JW's or Mormons simply because they incorportate the bible? The pattern or example is what we are to follow. Rom. 6:17-18. It's what we are to "hold on to," (2nd Tim. 1:13). It's that pattern of teaching which makes "the faith" uniquely unifying (Eph. 4:4-5 &amp; vs.13) and identifiable (distinctive). This "pattern principle" is important because it's what we go to so that we can reproduce "the church" anywhere and in any generation as Jesus comanded Mk.16:16 /Mt.28:18-20. No amount of Catholic church history lessons will explain the doctrines and practices that are simply not found in the bible. That's not being judgmental, that's calling it like it is. Are you a practicing Catholic?

I've explained in great detail with Lyle and others previously how and why I do not attend a "denomination." I never will. I've said several times on here that the congregation I attend is a part of the "Christian heritage." It's actually a spin off of the congregation I attended all my life up until 7 months ago. I don't understand what that has to do with the man made elements of the Catholic church. I never once said that the congregation I attend is the perfect assembly. There are preferences I feel differently about, frankly, I don't like the music. But the message of the gospel is preached there and I do not find elements of man made practices and doctrines that conflict with the bible there. That is the issue I have with the Catholic church. If that is "judging" then I am guilty of holding to a standard that is not my own, but rather that which is found in the text.

Sorry so long!

Quote-
" The (tupos) pattern is of human origin, not biblical. Those aren't minor issues. They, along with many others confuse the gospel and distort the authority of Jesus. I highly doubt you'd say the same about JW's or Mormons simply because they incorportate the bible? The pattern or example is what we are to follow. Rom. 6:17-18. It's what we are to "hold on to," (2nd Tim. 1:13). It's that pattern of teaching which makes "the faith" uniquely unifying (Eph. 4:4-5 &amp; vs.13) and identifiable (distinctive). This "pattern principle" is important because it's what we go to so that we can reproduce "the church" anywhere and in any generation as Jesus comanded Mk.16:16 /Mt.28:18-20. No amount of Catholic church history lessons will explain the doctrines and practices that are simply not found in the bible. That's not being judgmental, that's calling it like it is. Are you a practicing Catholic?"

Those are strange examples to use. You tell him the pattern we're supposed to follow in those 4 verses, (all Pauline) then take him back to the red writing for obedience. The things Jesus preached about on EARTH are different from what the apostle Paul teaches. They are talking about 2 different churches.The church in Matt-John and part of Acts is Christ teaching, living and fullfilling the LAW, and is focused on the earth, and God's heavenly kingdom coming down to earth. Everything Paul talks about is focused in the heavenlies.

But, you can't teach grace when you've got to pay for that new $4 million dollar building, you've gotta preach tithing. That's what the mainstream churches today are doing, is teaching the law to people who should be under grace.

Quote- "I've explained in great detail with Lyle and others previously how and why I do not attend a "denomination." I never will. I've said several times on here that the congregation I attend is a part of the "Christian heritage." It's actually a spin off of the congregation I attended all my life up until 7 months ago. I don't understand what that has to do with the man made elements of the Catholic church. I never once said that the congregation I attend is the perfect assembly. There are preferences I feel differently about, frankly, I don't like the music. But the message of the gospel is preached there and I do not find elements of man made practices and doctrines that conflict with the bible there. That is the issue I have with the Catholic church. If that is "judging" then I am guilty of holding to a standard that is not my own, but rather that which is found in the text."

I'm curious in what text you do use? And are you speaking of God's standard when you say it's not your own?

I do agree with you on denominational churches. I will never attend one again for a church sevrice. I believe there is 1 denomination in the Bible today, it is The Body of Christ. Revealed to the Apostle Paul, through the RISEN Lord.
Rom 16:25