Intellectual Defense of Christianity.

[angellous_evangellous]

The word Bible is a proper noun. The first letter should always be capitalized. Quotes must always be in parentheses. The source must be given for the quote. When quotes are four or more lines it is best to intent them. Most of the time I put my quotes in italics. A few examples:

“Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.” (Gospel of Thomas, saying 3)The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources


20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20-21)
​

The word 'bible' is not a proper noun.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

One would think you folks would be going after the rape of children in the church, - with the same furor you go after homosexuality, - which in reality isn't even in the Bible.


*

yes it clearly is.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Not intellectual, not much of a defense, what can one expect from a Kurt Cameron fan? This dude's the kinda "preacher" my kid,when he was a teen, used to chew up just for practice.

Kurt Cameron barely contributes to the book, the majority of it is written by Ray Comfort.

Ad Hominims are not a legitimate argument to evaluate truth anyway.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Except we well know that there were some young-uns baptised even if we don't know their ages, even though adult baptism was still the norm. Indeed it makes sense to have an entire family baptized since the parents (back then, the father) was the standard-bearer of the family and directed what was to be practiced.

It is therefore absurd on your part to somehow miraculously "know" that there were no infants baptised. Unlike most Americans today, back in biblical times families were much more tight-knit and very patriarchal, so what Daddy believed and did, the family mostly believed and did.

Therefore, the problem you have is looking at these past events through just modern western eyes instead of through the eyes of people back then and there.

No we absolutely do not know that there were young-ins. This claim is completely unsubstantiated. It's pretty clear that no babies were baptized considering in every single case of Baptism in the N.T. where the people are known they are of the age and ability to believe and make a decision for Christ themself. one single verse where babies are read into the text in no case proves infant baptism, that is such along stretch.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Kurt Cameron barely contributes to the book, the majority of it is written by Ray Comfort.

Ad Hominims are not a legitimate argument to evaluate truth anyway.

You're right. Ray Comfort has no credibility because he continually makes incredible assertions. What you've done is the intellectual equivalent of using FOX News as a primary source for anything political. Not credible.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

yes it clearly is.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

It's clear in some translations, but interpretations of the text. There is a difference between text, translation, and interpretation. You've skipped to interpretation (one that's not linked well to the text).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

It's clear in some translations, but interpretations of the text. There is a difference between text, translation, and interpretation. You've skipped to interpretation.

What other possible way is there of interpreting that?

Ask any random person off the street without a homosexual bias and have them read that and they will tell you it's homosexuality. It doesn't take a theological scholar to realize it's talking about homosexuality.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

You're right. Ray Comfort has no credibility because he continually makes incredible assertions. What you've done is the intellectual equivalent of using FOX News as a primary source for anything political. Not credible.

Again you are just doing an Ad Hominim.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No we absolutely do not know that there were young-ins. This claim is completely unsubstantiated. It's pretty clear that no babies were baptized considering in every single case of Baptism in the N.T. where the people are known they are of the age and ability to believe and make a decision for Christ themself. one single verse where babies are read into the text in no case proves infant baptism, that is such along stretch.

There's no stretch at all to assume that there were children in the households that were baptized in Acts. There were also likely slaves and women (both unmentioned). The head of the household speaks for everyone in the house, which is why he is the only one mentioned.

You may as well argue that women and slaves can't be baptized as well as children, which would be unfortunate because the action of baptizing the entire household that women and children and slaves could possibly people, too (not everyone agreed on that).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Again you are just doing an Ad Hominim.

You don't know what an ad homonim is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What other possible way is there of interpreting that?

Ask any random person off the street without a homosexual bias and have them read that and they will tell you it's homosexuality. It doesn't take a theological scholar to realize it's talking about homosexuality.

Bandwagon fallacy.

Master List of Logical Fallacies

Bandwagon (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): The fallacy of arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. E.g., "Everyone knows that undocumented aliens ought to be kicked out!" Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics, e.g. “Surveys show that over 75% of Americans believe Senator Snith is not telling the truth. For anyone with half a brain, that conclusively proves he’s a dirty liar!”

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Since you insist on proof that Ray is a liar -

Ray Comfort - RationalWiki

 

[sojourner]

I'm struggling with the growing mockery of Catholicism/Christianity; seeing the millions that have
died in any argument over the last 2,000 years. It is gut wrenching and overwhelmingly depressing to
see it amount to little more than a burden of grief.

People in today's society have a powerful voice and they want to change the dogma to suit modern
day society; it's abdominal and at least it can be done humanely.

I see Catholicism and Christianity as the physical Kingdom of Christ; even though he may be
mortified by many of the events that took place with or without his consent over the last 2,000
years. Whether or not it was backed by old Gods is a growing concern of mine. To me it
is his Kingdom. These are his castles and his houses; I want it to amount to more than a joke, it definitively
reformed society over the ages though. It seems that it must now reform to suit the needs of the
sinners.

I'm not apologetic, nor is nature; It almost fuels a hatred in me towards this being a torrential
**** up in history.

It's "abdominal?" As in colonesque?

 

[metis]

No we absolutely do not know that there were young-ins. This claim is completely unsubstantiated. It's pretty clear that no babies were baptized considering in every single case of Baptism in the N.T. where the people are known they are of the age and ability to believe and make a decision for Christ themself. one single verse where babies are read into the text in no case proves infant baptism, that is such along stretch.

Again, you're actually the one fabricating stories here because we know entire families were baptized, and since we cannot know their exact ages, at least the door must logically be open to the idea that some might be infants or possibly youngsters of whatever age.

But here even more of your rather bizarre approach. With Baptists, baptism is not considered a "sacrament" but an "ordinance" instead. What's the implication of that? Glad you asked. An "ordinance" has a symbolic value, thus implying that, by itself, it does not necessarily bestow grace upon the person being baptised.

If it's mainly symbolic, thus not having sacramental value, then the issue becomes moot, as a child logically could be symbolically dedicated to God, Jesus, and the church. And we know with certainty that this was done at least by the end of the 2nd century, which was pre-Constantine of course, so logically there must have been precedence for this even if it wasn't the norm.

But what also makes the point even more moot is how you would believe one would be "saved"? Is it through some sort of ritual? Or how about maybe a belief in Jesus as being one's savior? Compared to this, baptism is a side-bar.

 

[Nakosis]

yes it clearly is.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Which means that this religious belief is no longer ethically acceptable and shouldn't be supported by anyone.

 

[Ingledsva]

yes it clearly is.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

LOL! And you are WRONG!


This is Qadash Sacred Sex.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.



A religious act! LOL!


Again - these are Qadesh - and this is Sacred Sex in the Temple.


It is NOT talking about homosexuals.




*

 

[Sapiens]

Again you are just doing an Ad Hominim.

Do you know what an "ad hominim" is or do you think that using the only latin phrase you know makes you appear intelligent? (BTW: That's known as a "loaded question).

Kurt Cameron barely contributes to the book, the majority of it is written by Ray Comfort.

Ad hominims are not a legitimate argument to evaluate truth anyway.

Comfort is every bit as dumb as Cameron and you're a plagiarist.

There is no ad hominim there, but I wouldn't expect you to grasp that. When you supply a reference as the basis for your statements, as in: "Facts on the bible taken from:Cameron, Kirk, and Ray Comfort. The School of Biblical Evangelism: 101 Lessons: How to Share Your Faith Simply, Effectively, Biblically-- the Way Jesus Did. Gainseville, FL: Bridge-Logos, 2004. Print." you are taking on the full weight of any criticism that the reference engenders. According to the reference Cameron is the first author so, if you can believe the reference, he has more responsibility for the content that Comfort, yet you say that, "Cameron barely contributes to the book." How many lies do we have to swallow from you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I hereby claim this thread for Angellous_adelphia

 

[roger1440]

The word 'bible' is not a proper noun.

A noun is a person, place or thing. A proper noun is a specific person, place or thing. When the word bible is used simply as an authoritative book such as a fishermen’s bible it is lower case. When the word bible is used for a set of specific books such as the Christian Bible, Jewish Bible, Catholic Bible or Protestant Bible is it upper case.

Bible - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A noun is a person, place or thing. A proper noun is a specific person, place or thing. When the word bible is used simply as an authoritative book such as a fishermen’s bible it is lower case. When the word bible is used for a set of specific books such as the Christian Bible, Jewish Bible, Catholic Bible or Protestant Bible is it upper case.

Bible - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

OK, but your link does not establish that point.