Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

pilgrim99 · 02-13-09 11:27 am

There was a thread here recently, where someone opined, that the only writings considered to be Scripture, during the lifetime of the Apostles, were the OT and the Apocrypha. In light of the fact that Peter wrote the following, is this a valid position?<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

elaine · 02-13-09 3:30 pm

There were letters circulating soon after Christ, but many were eventually excluded, while others were accepted into the NT canon. This was not completed until about the third century. In the NT there is a reference or one or two letters that did not officially make it into the NT we have today. There were probably a dozen or more such gospels and letters: The Gospel of Thomas The Gospel of Philip The Gospel of Mary The Gospel of Truth Ignatius Letter to the Romans (ca 110 A.D.) Irenaeus, a prolific writer (ca 175-185 A.D.) his most important work: "Against Heresies" is still a classic. Origen (ca. 185-254 A.D.) was considered the greatest of all Christian theologians and philosopher. It is to him that much of Christian doctrine began. As to what was meant by "rest of the scriptures" it is not definitively known. They could have been the Septuagint, as there is no record of the early apostolic letters being labeled "scripture."

pilgrim99 · 02-13-09 8:44 pm

Elaine, Peter included Paul's letters in the scriptures. This confirms that the early church recognized more than the OT. My question was not about the discovery of the Canon and why certain writings were included or excluded.

elaine · 02-13-09 10:17 pm

Yes, there were scriptures recognized that were not in the OT, and some that are not now included in the New.

elaine · 02-13-09 10:19 pm

Peter was probably one of the latest writers included in the NT, ca. mid second century.

neal · 04-25-09 5:43 pm

In light of the fact that Peter wrote the following, is this a valid position? <blockquote>Evangelical historians D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author."</blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Pet er</a>

bob_2 · 04-25-09 10:44 pm

<a href="http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/studybible/1peter.php" target=_top>http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/studybible/1peter.php</a> <a href="http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/studybible/2peter.php" target=_top>http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/studybible/2peter.php</a> Food for thought, from the NIV Study Bible intos to I an II Peter. Good info, certain a little more in depth than Neal's skeptical post.

elaine · 04-26-09 8:12 pm

I should have written that the Epistle of Peter in the NT is considered by many to be the latest of the NT. No one can verify that all of the names given the books of the NT were written by the names that were given them later. Paul, of course is an exception, but there is great doubt that he wrote some of those attributed to him: Timothy and Titus, and perhaps others.

elaine · 04-26-09 8:32 pm

From the Interpreter's Commentary on the Bible : "Though the text designates Peter the apostle as the author, serious questions have been raised against this claim. It is said that (a) the rugged Galilean fisherman could not have written the exquisite Greek of this letter; (b) it refers to persecutions more intense than any which took place by the time of Peter's death ca. 64 A.D.; (c) it relies too heavily upon the Pauline letters, which allegedly were not circulated extensively until after Peter's death; (d) it bears little evidence of the personal acquaintance Peter had with Jesus. "Two years ago two equally distinguished scholars published commentaries almost simultaneously. One dates the letter no earlier than 112 with author unknown; whereas the other regards it as basically Petrine, written from Rome no later than 64. "The second letter of Peter is not regarded as having come from the apostle: Early Christian writers give scant reference to Peter as the author. The author uses Jude, but Jude could hardly have been written early enough to have been known by Peterer before his death." The practice of of writing under the name of another person was not uncommon in the ancient world. Jewish apocalyptists often wrote under the name of revered persons long dead, such as documents purported to have come from Enoch, Moses, Ezra, Solomon, Daniel, Isaiah. Such writings were called "pseudonymous. This does not mean that they were false or forged. There are such writings bearing the name of Peter: the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Acopalypse of Peter, the Preaching of Peter. None of these won sufficient approval to be placed in the canon.

bob_2 · 04-27-09 12:59 am

Maybe Elaine was transported back in time and wrote it for Peter. Then when done was beamed down by Scottie!!!! Sheeeeeeeeesh. Anything to tear the Bible to pieces, eh, Elaine, so no one believes in salvation. State your purpose for your disrespect of God's Word. Where does it lead and what do you care if it is all a big joke. Enjoy the grandkids and respectfully "shut up".

bob_2 · 04-27-09 2:53 pm

Elaine, what's your message? If the Bible is a rag, as you have proved by not considering it important enough to read cover to cover, [your and Neal's logic not mine],so now what? What is your pitch? Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow yea die?? I'll shut up for 24 hours for you to repond. Here is a clean slate, See you guys on Wednesday...... (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 27, 2009) (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 27, 2009)

john8verse32 · 04-27-09 3:38 pm

Maybe Elaine was transported back in time and wrote it for Peter. Then when done was beamed down by Scottie!!!! Sheeeeeeeeesh......Enjoy the grandkids and respectfully "shut up"....Bob to Elaine Bob...are you so drunk with the enthusiasm of converting everybody to your personal beliefs that you miss seeing the problems you risk causing on this forum? don't you ever wonder why you are sometimes not welcomed with open arms on other forums? as you have admitted? and even complained about? don't you wonder why fewer and fewer enjoy conversing with you here anymore? Do you need a reminder of some of your recent posts of how NOT to make friends and influence people? Now that truly is (a ??) neat story. That must be something for your kids to look foward to even more th n yourself, eh???...Bob...to Neal You probably would be shot on the first day for stupidity.... Bob to John You are truly then to be pitied, if you believe that. Have fun with your immortality, your children. What else can I say. If that is your message, how empty!!!! Especially to those whose kids spit in their face, even when given every benefit in life.... Bob to Neal So put up or as they say "shut up", respectfully of course. I could use a cruder expression about producing or getting off the pot. but this will do to get my point across......YOu are the one that should take a refresher course about winning friends and influencing people, with your own ridicule and lack of proper capitalization, not even the common respect of writing in a non-lazy form. I will take your signature quote with a hugh? grain of salt ...Bob to John Why does each author in the Bible tell the story the same way, with the same words, as dictated from God, eh??? Because they are individuals and it wasn't dictated.... Bob to Elaine...and not making sense a later correction: Elained the sentence should start out: Why doesn't each author in the Bible tell... (ok...so now it makes some sense....but the corrected statement fails to explain why all the divergent issues in the collection of books and letters we call the Bible can be correctly interpreted into only ONE mandated belief...YOURS!!!) The perception of people becomes their reality, .... Bob WOW!! this is sooooo true!!! Bob..do you ever wonder what peoples perception is of some of your incomprehensible, disjointed, argumentative posts ? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/1124.jpg" alt=""> one of the perceptions I get is that you have almost totally ruined this great opportunity for intelligent discourse, as well as personally attacked and alienated almost everybody, such as with this recent quote: The New Atheists like Neal Walls, and similarly whatever John Alfke and Elaine Nelson are touting, why do I go so hard against their positions. Read above and see the vulnerbility to the Gospel as the Emerging Church questions itself. Recently statements, one by Neal, Christ never lived on the earth, Elaine Nelson questioning the need for Christianity's critical beliefs of the Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension. Ron Corson's lack of belief in the substitutionaary death of Christ to be able to save our sins, and John Alfke's Darwinistic beliefs and doubt of a God Creator. I would hope you could find an opportunity to reflect on this... like they say at the Planned Parenthood Clinic, better late than never Maybe the way to improve could include writing a first draft of any proposed posts, reading and checking them for accuracy, grammar, spelling, and respectfulness, and then, like Davey Crocket, only after you're sure of what you're aiming at, only then go ahead and shoot. maybe this will help, however temporarily: I'll shut up for 24 hours for you to re pond (Message edited by john8verse32 on April 27, 2009)

bob_2 · 04-27-09 5:33 pm

Dear John, I dare you to take your road show to Spectrum, to SDAnet, to HS.com, or AToday.org and get welcome arms with your "stuff". This is not a matter of Carnegie but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Do I have hope of "converting" you , Elaine and Neal to my view, SHEEEEEEEEEEEEESH, never. But to respond to absurdity is why I am here. Which I have seen a lot of without reasonable response, which means this forum would be taken over by Athiests and Agnostics with out any resistance. That's why I am here. I don't anticipate much change in Elaine, Neal or your position. But the response needs to be here. Being friendly, in and of itself doesn't change anything. Look at the friendliness Elaine shows to Don,my brother, Don still has the Denominational postion and Elaine still has the Agnotic/ Athiestic position. YOu miss the point. Let me drive it home with this example. I am a diabetic, Type II. I have choices with that diagnosis. There is a lot of scientific proof that if I cared to or my physician cared to and wanted to that they could find on my strands of DNA the gene responsible for my Type 2 Diabetes.There is a genetic study, expensive, that can prove this, I can ignore my Doctors' orders and get worse and possibly die from the complications like my brother did, or I can change my behaviors, and reverse the disease to the point that I wouldn't need insulin and the complications such as kidney destruction, what my brother died from. I could ignore my Doctor, then apply for disability after I am on dialysis, legally blind and have limb amputations, and be on the government dole making more than some entry level jobs make. OR I can cooperate with my Physician and give up some of my food desires and follow my Dietitians recommendations, and live to be older than 61 when my oldest brother died of the ravages of the disease on the goverment dole. Now, Homosexuality. They all would like for us to believe it is a gene that creates sexual orientation not environment or nurture. The argument is called "Nature/Nurture". My belief is and science so far can not disprove my position differently, that Homosexuality is environmental, not genetic, and can be treated and reversed, very much like Type 2 Diabetes. Although, I will with the Diabetes Gene always be a Diabetic because of the gene. If the Homosexual gives into his desires, he will become habitually a Homosexual, if he doesn't have protected sex, ignoring his Doctor's and Society's advice he will probably die of HIV/AIDS. Now if he chooses to get Psychological help, it is available and there are testimonies of those that have fought and won just as there are testimonies of those that have won the Type 2 Diabetes diagnosis. The Point. There are choices. Elaine will say I am out of my mind. That is her choice, but I don't plan to convert her from that view on Homosexuality or the view that she believes Jesus is not divine or born by a Virgin Birth. We can be civil, which is not what I have received from Neal, Elaine or you, consistently, maybe at times, but will I give up my faith in Jesus for my friendship with any of you, NO, a big ABSOLUTE NO. Can we be civil, that will depend on both sides. Won't it, John, not on a Carnegie book that only one side follows. Civility is a two way street. (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 27, 2009)

bob_2 · 04-27-09 5:43 pm

John, I believe my point got across adequately, given that you don't capitalize, so we don't know when your sentence begins and ends. This post, I stand by: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5&post=4502#POST4502" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=5&post=4502#POST4502</a> Show me one untruth as it relates to you beside the "hug" and "hugh" mistake. I know I wouldn't be able to give you a hug through the internet at least. Never saw this criticism of J.R. from you and you always waded through his misspelling and criticism, John. Where is your fairness. Where is Elaine's sense of fairness. Who needs to work on it??

john8verse32 · 04-27-09 6:28 pm

I can ignore my Doctors' orders and get worse and possibly die from the complications like my brother did, or I can change my behaviors here's the EGW approved version for part of the cure: <a href="http://www.chiphealth.com/abouthans_print.html" target=_top>http://www.chiphealth.com/abouthans_print.html</a> or the evolutionary scientific version if you don't believe in the Sabbath: <a href="http://www.webmd.com/dean-ornish-md" target=_top>http://www.webmd.com/dean-ornish-md</a> and while you're at it, might be interesting to have a brain scan... do I hear an... <a href="http:////www.amenclinics.com/" target="_blank">...AMEN...</a>?

bob_2 · 04-27-09 6:40 pm

A brain scan is only indicated if a stroke is suspected, which my physician does not feel is indicated. So I doubt I will go to that expense based on a non physician's sarcastic remark, uncivil, BTW.

bob_2 · 04-27-09 6:46 pm

Also, John, wonder if slick Willy's alteration in sexual practice in his life style was recommended by this guy??? Since he, Ormish, was physician consultant to Willy?? (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 27, 2009)

neal · 05-02-09 7:23 am

Never saw this criticism of J.R. from you and you always waded through his misspelling and criticism, John. Where is your fairness. Where is Elaine's sense of fairness. Who needs to work on it?? Again, refer to Law 1. <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=22&post=4634#POST4634" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=22&post=4634#POST4634</a>

bob_2 · 05-02-09 9:06 am

Again refer to further speculation: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=22&post=4638#POST4638" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=22&post=4638#POST4638</a>

neal · 05-02-09 9:39 am

Dear John, I dare you to take your road show to Spectrum, to SDAnet, to HS.com, or AToday.org and get welcome arms with your "stuff". Since you sometimes refer to myself as John I will take the liberty of posting a response to your "Dear John" post (isn't a guy writing a "Dear John" post a little gay?) I just went over and took a look at Spectrum. I did not see any fundamentalists such as yourself posting there. Maybe they just ban obnoxious irrational fundamentalists such as yourself. Have you ever thought of that? Since "Dear John" is not an obnoxious irrational fundamentalist he might just BE welcomed with "open arms". I don't anticipate much change in Elaine, Neal or your position. But the response needs to be here. Bob, you have been obnoxious and unchristian from your first post to me. There are lots of other so-called 'christians' like you. Just a couple hundred years ago christians like you stood in the front row and applauded as non-believers were burned at the stake. Now your kind are reduced to screaming and verbal threats (except for the odd abortion doctor killed by christian terrorists) in civilized countries that are ruled by civilized laws. ... Let me drive it home with this example. I am a diabetic, Type II.... What sin of your parents or parent's parents is God punishing you for? Have you been able to figure that out yet? Hasn't God whispered in your ear like he did to David when he explained that Saul's royal heirs needed to be used as human sacrifices in order to appease God and end the three year drought? Come on! Think, man, THINK. Hard. HARDER. What are you being punished for? Now, Homosexuality.... They all would like for us to believe it is a gene that creates sexual orientation not environment or nurture. That is a blatantly FALSE statement. They (I assume you are referring to scientists) have several theories with a contributing factor POSSIBLY being genetic. In addition, "environment" in the womb IS considered a top contributing factor to the sexual orientation of the human. (You managed to combine 2 false assertions in ONE sentence. Pathetic) My belief is.... Your beliefs, from your record on this forum, are generally worthless. ... and science so far can not disprove my position differently, that Homosexuality is environmental, not genetic, and can be treated and reversed, very much like Type 2 Diabetes. That is false. You cannot get rid of type 2 diabetes just like you cannot get rid of being gay. People are diabetic. People are gay. There are physical reasons to control diabetes- you can go blind, lose limbs, and die as you pointed out. Are there physical reasons to 'control' being gay? Not that I am aware of. Do you die from being a lesbian? No. Should Ellen Degeneres or Elton John try to change how they were born? Not anymore than you should try to change the fact that you are diabetic. Should we discriminate against diabetics? A big factor in displaying the SYMPTOMS of diabetes (blindness, etc) IS dietary and lack of enough exercise. Why should I pay for a foreigner to live on the dole when he brought it on himself. I say that if you are an alien and get the symptoms of Type 2 diabetes you should be deported. Although, I will with the Diabetes Gene always be a Diabetic because of the gene. If the Homosexual gives into his desires, he will become habitually a Homosexual.... Are you an habitual diabetic? If you give in to your desires of sitting on your behind in front of your computer eating the wrong foods you WILL DIE from your disease. ... if he doesn't have protected sex, ignoring his Doctor's and Society's advice he will probably die of HIV/AIDS. Easy fix. Wear a condom. Now if he chooses to get Psychological help.... This is not only false but dangerous AND stupid. Did you get help for your eating disorder? Did your eldest brother get psychological help?<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study homosexuality as a discrete phenomenon. In the late 19th and throughout most of the 20th centuries, pathological models of homosexuality were standard. On December 15, 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted the same measure on January 24-26, 1975.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psy chology</a> The only place you could go to where somebody said they could give you 'psychological' help is exactly the same place you would go to get demons removed through exorcism- quack religious nuts. ... it is available and there are testimonies of those that have fought and won just as there are testimonies of those that have won the Type 2 Diabetes diagnosis. I know of several of the 'Happy Hetero's' that the Dobson affiliated 'ministry' down in the Springs claimed had benn 'cured' that have given up the falsehood of their Fake Healing and gone back to their natural, God given attributes they were BORN with. Bob, ~1% of ALL births have some form of physical intersex characteristics. If babies are born in a natural state with penises protruding from their own vagina the MOST REASONABLE conclusion concerning homosexuality is that it ALSO is their NATURAL STATE. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The prevalence of intersex depends on which definition is used. According to the ISNA definition above, 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity, approximately one in every hundred births. [59] Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to disguise their sexual ambiguity. According to Fausto-Sterling's definition of intersex,[60] on the other hand, 1.7 percent of human births are intersex.[60] She writes, <blockquote>“While male and female stand on the extreme ends of a biological continuum, there are many bodies [...] that evidently mix together anatomical components conventionally attributed to both males and females. The implications of my argument for a sexual continuum are profound. If nature really offers us more than two sexes, then it follows that our current notions of masculinity and femininity are cultural conceits. [...] Modern surgical techniques help maintain the two-sex system. Today children who are born "either/or-neither/both" — a fairly common phenomenon — usually disappear from view because doctors "correct" them right away with surgery.[60]</blockquote><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality</a> So, before denigrating and ridiculing a minority of the members of our society please remember that our society knows vastly more than the book you appeal to for your authority which was written by a people that were certain the earth stood on 12 pillars, was God's footstool, and had an edge you could fall off of.

neal · 05-02-09 9:43 am

Civility is a two way street. A true statement, FINALLY!! Now, since you started it, you are welcome to stop any time. You stop, I stop. But until then....<blockquote>You vulgar little maggot. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon. You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beast who sired you and then killed himself in recognition of what he had done. I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a booger. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs. You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake? You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease. On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You are a source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go. You are a fiend and a coward. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away forever. I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid, so stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know.</blockquote> <a href="http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/wdc/1051162624.html" target=_top>http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/wdc/105116262 4.html</a>

john8verse32 · 05-02-09 10:34 am

but, Neal....shouldn't YOU be held to a higher standard? since you are at least capable of reaching that higher standard?....and not held back by antidiluvian misunderstandings? (un)Fun-da-mentalists NEED the support of their beliefs to get thru the daze.... those who have studied the world and how it works find they should rely more on themselves and their efforts than promises and threats made thousands of years ago. But, like Marx preached: from each according to his ability.... to each according to his need. Bob seems to need help.... you and I need to rise above the fray ang "give it to him".<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0> maybe he needs clear guideposts suggesting how, when, and where he should go? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/1176.jpg" alt=""> actually....its good that Bob is here prodding us...he at least motivates others to suggest alternatives..... so lets not scare Bob off..... without him, who would be asking the questions and making the statements which open up the possibility of providing real evidence.....

neal · 05-02-09 12:55 pm

but, Neal....shouldn't YOU be held to a higher standard? If somebody comes to a discussion willing to study and are open to belief revision when evidence contrary to their position is shown them, then I am the most cordial person in the world. However, when somebody approaches with threats of what their invisible sky deity (now that the person themselves cannot legally perform the atrocities which they believe their sky deity desires) will do if the crime of not believing exactly the way the believer believes, then they will have a fight on their hands. Ask, and ye SHALL receive from me. Bob asked and he is receiving. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0> (un)Fun-da-mentalists NEED the support of their beliefs to get thru the daze.... I have previously stated to Bob that I hope he keeps his faith since he has assured us that he believes its the basis of his morality. As such, if he lost his faith in his sky deity the entire town of Wildwood could be in danger as he he probably believes he would become a thieving, rapist, serial murderer with homosexual tendencies. Bob seems to need help.... you and I need to rise above the fray and "give it to him". My message is far above his frayed ramblings. How the message is delivered can be tailored to suit the respondent. He claims to be a follower of Christ yet comes across like a member of the Taliban. so lets not scare Bob off.... He's just frustrated that he can't kill us like his theological ancestor Knox. Since modifying his behavior or leaving would be the logical, reasonable thing to do I have no worries that our builder-of-straw-men will be here for as long as the administrator allows or until Bob dies. I enjoy his absurdity. Its just such a classic example of everything fundamentalists do that is obnoxious to not only unbelievers but to believers of other faiths. Bob would NEVER, using his tactics, be able to convert a Buddhist. If you want to be good at converting people to christianity you should have a system of thought and a marketing campaign that would convince a Buddhist. The scare tactics are ancient marketing techniques and will gradually disappear as the level of education increases around the globe. His tactics (and the tactics of the hell preachers and Revelation seminars) are very similar to the tactics of an Italian Mafioso.

bob_2 · 05-02-09 1:36 pm

Neal, Hitchens and Dawkins have made it clear that they plan to create chaos and agressively go at Christians with Darwinism. Hey, what's good for the goose......

neal · 05-02-09 2:09 pm

Neal, Hitchens and Dawkins have made it clear that they plan to create chaos and agressively go at Christians with Darwinism. Create chaos? Please show that to me. I call BS on it. "Aggressively go at Christians with Darwinism"? Again, I call BS. Producing facts and evidence is not creating chaos or aggressively going at anybody or anything other than ignorant bronze age superstitions. Give me some quotes dude. You make up way to much garbage to think you are even close to being correct on your accusations. BTW, Hitchens is anti-theist according to himself. This means anti-sky deity anything. Muslims, christians, orthodox jews, hindus, etc. Don't try to single out christians as being anything deserving special contempt from Hitchens. You're all the same to him. As for Dawkins, he is pro-science. Creationists and ID'ers are anti-science. That's all he cares about. He particularly abhors those that teach children superstitious false nonsense. I agree with both Hitchens and Dawkins. Cultures don't get along and have wars and hatred because of different beliefs about different invisible spirits. They also teach their kids these falsehoods about our natural world which stunts and impedes the advancement of knowledge and science which helps mankind.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 02-13-09 11:27 am

Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#2 02-13-09 3:30 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#3 02-13-09 8:44 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#4 02-13-09 10:17 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#5 02-13-09 10:19 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#6 04-25-09 5:43 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#7 04-25-09 10:44 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#8 04-26-09 8:12 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#9 04-26-09 8:32 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#10 04-27-09 12:59 am

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#11 04-27-09 2:53 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#12 04-27-09 3:38 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#13 04-27-09 5:33 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#14 04-27-09 5:43 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#15 04-27-09 6:28 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#16 04-27-09 6:40 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#17 04-27-09 6:46 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#18 05-02-09 7:23 am

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#19 05-02-09 9:06 am

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#20 05-02-09 9:39 am

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#21 05-02-09 9:43 am

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#22 05-02-09 10:34 am

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#23 05-02-09 12:55 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#24 05-02-09 1:36 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

#25 05-02-09 2:09 pm

Re: Were the writings of the Apostles considered Scripture?

Board footer