Come on, Creationists!

[Audie]

Not quite zero evidence --- some things happened that seemed remarkable co-incidence. My favorite
was the prophecy that Israel would end with the coming of the Messiah, and that nation would not be
re-constituted until the Gentiles time was finished.
But most of post-Abrahamic history was not believed going back 1900 or so. Today most of that history
is accepted, such as the existence of King David.

80 years after someone died is not the same time.

When wascthe "time of "everyone but the Jews finished?

Kind David is not supernatural stuff.

The flood is a spectacular failure of prediction and
occurrence. Kind of like negative minus zero evidence.

 

[ppp]

The 'history of Christianity' is given in The Acts.
If you read about the Crusades or the Inquisition you are reading Roman Catholic history - events which violated the Gospels.

I am referring to the entire history of all of the people who claim to be the real, true Christians.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No false facts offered?

And a number of different logical fallacies. I believe many of which have been pointed out by others.

 

[ppp]

Such are the statements of the morally bankrupt who don't obtain moral values through reason and instead get them from a perceived authority from the bronze age.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am referring to the entire history of all of the people who claim to be the real, true Christians.

Your word 'claim' is the key here - at one stage the Roman Catholic Church made it illegal for you not to be a Roman Catholic.
So everyone in the Western world was a Catholic, whether they liked it or not - even rapists and serial killers.
I take 'true Christians' to be how the New Testament defines them - someone murdering others in the name of God is not a
true Christian.

 

[PruePhillip]

80 years after someone died is not the same time.

When wascthe "time of "everyone but the Jews finished?

Kind David is not supernatural stuff.

The flood is a spectacular failure of prediction and
occurrence. Kind of like negative minus zero evidence.

Jesus wept for Jerusalem, He repeated what Daniel had said 600 years earlier about the Romans
ending Israel. 'Jerusalem shall be trampled down of the Gentiles until the Gentiles times is fulfilled.'
That happened in 1967 BTW, the height of moral ferment in the West.

The flood covered the whole world. But the Sumerians, who gave us this story, thought of the world
as all the land reaching the horizon. The Romans (in Luke's gospel) thought of the world as all that
belongs to Rome. It's a nuanced argument.

 

[ppp]

Your word 'claim' is the key here

Claim includes everyone who claims to be a Christian. That includes you.

 

[PruePhillip]

Claim includes everyone who claims to be a Christian. That includes you.

I didn't make that claim. Certainly I would ASPIRE to such a descriptor.
But you can't have someone forgive their enemies and meekly submit to those who would harm them - and
others who will kill anyone who doesn't convert - and say are the same people. I take most of what Western
Christianity has done to not only be wrong, but evil.

 

[ppp]

I didn't make that claim. Certainly I would ASPIRE to such a descriptor.

Looking at the content of your posts, I do not see a functional difference between your positions, and those of many of the protestants around me.

But you can't have someone forgive their enemies and meekly submit to those who would harm them - and
others who will kill anyone who doesn't convert - and say are the same people. I take most of what Western
Christianity has done to not only be wrong, but evil.

You absolutely can call them the same people -- when you base your religion on a books such as the Bible (or the Koran) with so many directly conflicting messages. The Bible champions both things that are moral and things that are immoral.

 

[Audie]

Jesus wept for Jerusalem, He repeated what Daniel had said 600 years earlier about the Romans
ending Israel. 'Jerusalem shall be trampled down of the Gentiles until the Gentiles times is fulfilled.'
That happened in 1967 BTW, the height of moral ferment in the West.

The flood covered the whole world. But the Sumerians, who gave us this story, thought of the world
as all the land reaching the horizon. The Romans (in Luke's gospel) thought of the world as all that
belongs to Rome. It's a nuanced argument.

"Nuance" is not a synonym for " wild exsggeration" nor "complete fantasy".

Once a person is done " nuancing" out the year- long, world wide, all
living things, the purpose of flood, 900 year old man, 300 cubit ark
highest hills, and the first rainbow, about all that reliably remains is
the word " rain".

 

[PruePhillip]

Looking at the content of your posts, I do not see a functional difference between your positions, and those of many of the protestants around me.


You absolutely can call them the same people -- when you base your religion on a books such as the Bible (or the Koran) with so many directly conflicting messages. The Bible champions both things that are moral and things that are immoral.

It was the Pope's representive called Amalric who had 20000 people massacred in a French city
during the Inquisition. Not knowing who was Catholic and who was heretic he put them all to the
sword with the famous (paraphrased) words, 'Kill them all and let God sort them out.'
Was this infamous monk a 'Christian' ? Depends what you mean by the term. I say he wasn't
because he did not live by Christian principles and you say he was to besmirch Christianity.

 

[ppp]

It was the Pope's representive

Are you under the impression that If you rant about the Catholics that the rest of Christianity will get a pass? No matter how loud you shout about the bad acts of Catholics, your volume will not erase all the bad acts and bad doctrines of non- Catholic Christians.

 

[Audie]

It was the Pope's representive called Amalric who had 20000 people massacred in a French city
during the Inquisition. Not knowing who was Catholic and who was heretic he put them all to the
sword with the famous (paraphrased) words, 'Kill them all and let God sort them out.'
Was this infamous monk a 'Christian' ? Depends what you mean by the term. I say he wasn't
because he did not live by Christian principles and you say he was to besmirch Christianity.

Just say " true scotsman" or even just
" scotsman" .
We know the " nuance".
It doesnt work.

 

[PruePhillip]

Just say " true scotsman" or even just
" scotsman" .
We know the " nuance".
It doesnt work.

But it does work.
There are sets of principles that define what a person is, ie environmentalist, Apple supporter, Ukrainian supporter,
Buddhist, Marxist etc.. Judging the principles for any value system by those who breach those principles is illogical.

 

[PruePhillip]

Are you under the impression that If you rant about the Catholics that the rest of Christianity will get a pass? No matter how loud you shout about the bad acts of Catholics, your volume will not erase all the bad acts and bad doctrines of non- Catholic Christians.

No, not necessarily Catholic - it's just, like militant Islamists, they are an easy target.
I find Martin Luther to be a particularly odious guy as well - every bit as flawed as the
Popes he attacked.

 

[Audie]

But it does work.
There are sets of principles that define what a person is, ie environmentalist, Apple supporter, Ukrainian supporter,
Buddhist, Marxist etc.. Judging the principles for any value system by those who breach those principles is illogical.

Total failure to get it that you are playing
Scotsman!
You dont get to determine the values of
Christisnity. Nor does the pope.
In China, people tore eachother apart
over who was a true communist.
Those of the three middle eastern sky- god
faiths have been tearing eachother apart
for centuries, within each and between each.

If you want to hop in and say they are
all illogical and in breach of your version of
True Principles why, they will tear you apart too.

Dont bother saying the basic principles are the same.
They arent

 

[ppp]

No, not necessarily Catholic - it's just, like militant Islamists, they are an easy target.
I find Martin Luther to be a particularly odious guy as well - every bit as flawed as the
Popes he attacked.

Do you have a point that you are trying to reach?

 

[PruePhillip]

Do you have a point that you are trying to reach?

Yes, if you want to know what Christianity is then read the New Testament.
If you want to read 'Christian history' then read about the Catholics and Protestants.

 

[ppp]

Yes, if you want to know what Christianity is then read the New Testament.
If you want to read 'Christian history' then read about the Catholics and Protestants.

I have read it. I don't approve. Or more precisely, I approve of some of it, I'm neutral towards some of it, and I find some of it to be utterly reprehensible.

Also, you cannot have a new testament without having an Old testament. You don't get to pretend that the Old testament is not a fundamental and inextricable pillar of Christianity. Warts and all.

 

[PruePhillip]

Total failure to get it that you are playing
Scotsman!
You dont get to determine the values of
Christisnity. Nor does the pope.
In China, people tore eachother apart
over who was a true communist.
Those of the three middle eastern sky- god
faiths have been tearing eachother apart
for centuries, within each and between each.

If you want to hop in and say they are
all illogical and in breach of your version of
True Principles why, they will tear you apart too.

Dont bother saying the basic principles are the same.
They arent

So if someone from the deepest Amazon wants to know what Christianity is - do you get them to read:
1 - New Testament
2 - Western religious history
3 - various Internet opinions