Nathan_Jr

Wow

I’m so grateful for Paw and everyone who makes this board possible. And for everyone who contributes to the discussion. I donated yesterday.Wish I could do more.

“…when they claim to speak for God…” This is your sign that they do not. They are either under a misapprehension or are lying.

Nostalgia It's an illusion. A seductive illusion. An erected idol of the past onto which one plants a foot. The other foot plants into an imaginary future, allowing perfect positioning for squatting over and defecating into the mouth of the eternal now.

Well done, WW. The academic term for this is Trauma Bond

Holy shonta!! Hilarious. Ken Ham and Ray Comfort! The trash can successors to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. The Beavis and Butthead charlatans for this our day and time. Remnants of present truth. Got questions? Ask a music coordinator. ———- From Ken’s page: “This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.“

Sounds like someone i know who once “taught” a class. mmmph

Fully, fully, fully full in fullness...

The layout, formatting and font selection are surprisingly elegant for this kind of project. God job, Bill.

Ha!

Thanks. i let my Adobe expire. Couldn't extract the text. Edit: Well, I could have easily copied and pasted into a Google Doc. Must not have been beleeving big enough. Thanks, again, WW.

If I were a current dupe standing on the word as contrived by vic paul, I wouldn't go unless I got the green light twice,

"Dearest Saints God bless you abundantly. What we commonly recognize as the first Rock of Ages emerged into full fruition in August 1971..." You can view the full letter from Vern here: https://www.reddit.com/r/theway/s/ecdSvJaYDS Apparently 368kb is beyond my photo posting limit.

Not a typo

I THINK you thought correctly. I brought him up last May in the Deconversion thread. BTW, I checked out those other Charlie Kirk videos. Though Charlie attempts to support his political ideology with the "Bible tells me so," Dan refutes his claims with actual Bible verses in a non-political way. But I get your point and will respect it. The one about migrants is immensely satisfying - a righteous evisceration. Wow!

Please post the link to this, Oldies.

Not surprising at all. Dan’s is not a political platform. As far as I can tell, he has NEVER mixed politics and biblical studies. The content of this video is so apolitical, it’s not even fair to describe it that way. Here it is. It should be good for discussion. Censor me if you like, but I think Dan’s evisceration of Charlie’s claims would find purchase here.

I gather from listening to Sam Harris's pod that he, too, has grown weary of the topics of religion and atheism. I was reading and listening to Christopher Hitchens before his God Is Not Great book, since before he moved right of center politically. So much of the so-called "New Atheist" movement was a reaction to 9/11, which was an act of terror in the name of god. A reaction with which I can sympathize. I don't believe good dogma is the answer to bad dogma, or right ideology fixes wrong ideology. Dogmatism and ideology themselves are inherently problematic. There is simply too much subtlety and nuance and complexity in this life. To see this requires being able to see. Ideology and dogmatism cloud the required vision. IMHO.

Well, he claims to be Mormon. Pretty easy to find out about that. i've never seen him expand on his personal theology. I think he intentionally avoids it, at least on IG and YT. He usually presents scholarly consensus and sometimes points to alternative perspectives outside the consensus. He seems to be a serious student of Hebrew, it's all very academic. I agree with Raf that he is fair and even-handed. I don't think what he presents is controversial or radical.

Last May I reference him once on Charity’s Deconconversiob thread. The comment got no traction then, but maybe you saw it and this is what you are now trying to remember.

I think it is possible to have this topic without getting political, but is it probable? The linked article is clearly political. I mean, at least Allan's recent political topic is so thickly veiled that it's plausibly deniable. So obscure is the allusion, the discussion naturally advanced in a different direction.

What was a regular sized class back in the day? I was in a class of two: me and the coordinator. Looking back, that seems like a huge number.

Read Mark in light of Paul. Who influenced whom? Paul preached Christ crucified. Some have argued Mark was written to fill the massive void left by the Pauline corpus: the life of Jesus.

Well, Mark didn’t make the same claim that Luke made about an accurate account. Ancient “historians” did history differently than historians do it today. I don’t think they were as concerned with accuracy the way we are. It’s anachronistic to apply modern expectations and standards to those ancient “historians.” I’m not even sure it’s fair to call Mark a historian. When I have a minute, I’ll pull some sources for you explaining this.

It’s almost like the late 2nd century writer of 2 Peter 2:12-15 was prophesying the coming of that charlatan victor paul wierwille. What an uncanny description!