Raf

I gotta admit I don't see him fitting that definition of trolling anyway. Trolls sow discord for their amusement. They don't do it because they're afraid independent minds will examine the evidence and come to a conclusion that troubles them. It's a motive thing, I think.

We're not supposed to use the T word. Besides, I find describing the behavior more effective than labeling it.

9!

I think i'm not being clear. This is a subforum of Doctrinal that expects an exploration of unbelief. An atheist corner, if you will. Doctrinal seems to be the place where you want this thread, not questioning faith. We will move it if that's ok with you

Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people to be saved? Why does God favor the gullible, I mean those with lesser mental acumen, I mean the stupid, I mean the faithful? Why put a stumblingblock in front of the intelligent that does not exist for those with lesser mental acumen? Doesn't THAT make him a respector of persons? I think there's a reason "God" has no use for smart people. He's a fictional character created by conmen who rightfully recognize intelligent people as a threat to their con.

He acts like that's the only time he called believers stupid. He actually said if God had provided adequate evidence, it would show "respect of persons," i.e., favoritism for intelligent people. I am not taking you out of context, TLC, and I'm starting to resent your falsewitness. You wanna dig up the quotes and deny you said exactly what you said? You don't value evidence, you don't value education, you don't have an argument to back up your position, so all you can do is bad-mouth the people who DO have the intelligence and the facts to support theirs. Try a single post that actually addresses the points being made on this thread without attacking the spirituality (or lack thereof) of those who are demonstrating your position is full of dung. If you can't do that, you're not really involved in this discussion. You're just trying to derail it because you can't handle where it's headed.

I'm going to start referring to people of faith as "those with lesser mental acumen" and see how long it takes for someone of lesser mental acumen to report me.

You constantly refer to them as people of lesser [note the spelling] mental acumen and distinguish them from those with intelligence. So, yeah, sorry, but the way communication works is, you're calling them stupid.

I don't know. Learning from fiction is hard. I'd rather learn from stories about talking snakes and superheroes who lose their powers with a haircut.

"And yes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethronethe spirit and obfuscated the simplicity and love of the truth in so many of lessor mental acumen." Ok, so let's be clear. TLC did not put intellectual in quotes to denigrate the scholar's education. Just to paint him as a tool of the devil. Let's not confuse the two. Because TLC has judged the heart of a priest who spent a lifetime serving people and studying the Bible with an open mind and heart (evidenced by reaching conclusions that are against his interest because that is where the evidence leads). You dare judge this man's spirituality after falsely accusing me of being "clueless" about you when I... what were your words... "actually know incredibly little about me, my background, my educational experience, my intelligence quotient, my life or my heart." Do you know anything about this man, his background, his educational experience, his intelligence quotient [nice correction there, genius. Don't think we didn't notice] his life or his heart before you brand him one in a long line of hoity toities who try to stop God from fooling stupid people? But it's okay when you do it. You know, if I called believers stupid half the number of times you have, I would be run out of this forum on a rail.

It is an affront to all of us that you claim not to have said what you said: relying on evidence will not lead to your conclusion. Those were your words. Do you include things as evidence that are not evidence at all, and berate me for not accepting it. The "guidance of the holy spirit" is not evidence. It's your chosen method to dismiss it. I am aware it makes me look like the bad guy when I say such things, but it needs to be said. "I know it in my heart" and "God has shown me" are nothing but appeals to emotion. Mocking people who have educated themselves and studied the material and have come to conclusions that are against their belief system as quote-unquote "intellectuals," making yourself the arbiter of who's right based solely on whether they agree with you... you want to talk about a fundamentally dishonest approach to this discussion? THAT'S a dishonest approach. Truth: you have shown no interest in an honest examination of evidence. You do not address the evidence. You do not rebut it. You do not refute it. You simply get on your holy high horse and decree its lack of value by mocking the messengers. Dodge. Distract. Anything but admit. I've seen this movie before.

It's more profitable for him to attack me than it is for him to defend his position having already announced the evidence will not support his view. We have so-called eyewitness testimony handed down from non-eyewitnesses buttressed by a fraud pretending to be someone he's not. So criticize those who have the training and expertise to point out the truth. Criticize those who seek unbiased experts to separate history from propaganda. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Because when you have the law on your side you pound the law. When you have the facts on your side, you pound the facts. When neither is on your side, you pound the table. TLC's table is already a pile of splinters.

That's "intelligence quotient," genius. Listen, you're the one who put "intellectual" in quotes, thus resorting to ad hominem against an educated scholar in the field we are discussing. Don't try to act like I'm the one getting personal. And calling you "evidence-dismissing" is not an attack. It is an accurate description of your own stated method of approaching this material.

Can't even give it away. Okay, here goes... This movie is based on a true crime. The perp of the true crime watched another movie for inspiration. Let's call it That movie. One of the stars of That movie starred in This movie as the perp he had inspired. Another star of That movie was also in This movie. In one scene (This movie), he tells another character to quit smoking or he (or she: I don't recall) would get cancer. Irony: he was a smoker in real life, and he died of cancer three years later. The lead actor first heard about the incident on which the film is based as it was actually unfolding in real life. Another movie swept the Oscars in all the major categories that year, but you can't sweep the writing categories. So while the competitor won Best Adapted Screenplay, This movie won Best Original Screenplay. Neat trick considering how much of the dialogue was improvised.

I love how he puts "intellectuals" in quotes. Like there's nothing to be said for people who actually study the material and the sources as opposed to just listening to his evidence-dismissing heart about it. Meanwhile Paul is the author of Colossians, and if he's not, God is, so what's the big deal. That gets emphatic support. A guy spends a lifetime educating himself on the issues and he's an "intellectual" in quotes, unworthy of TLC's attention.

If those are the only options, this belongs in doctrinal. If one of the options is "the majority of this story is horsehockey," then you've picked the right subforum. I don't believe Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two donkeys like Matthew says. I don't think he overturned tables at the Temple once at the beginning of his ministry, like it says in John, and once near the end, like the other gospels say. I don't think he predicted Peter would deny him three times before the cock crowed and three more times before the cock crowed again. I don't think Pilate wanted to let him go but caved to the pressure of the mob. Pilate put down mobs. He didn't cave to them. I don't think Pilate gave the people a choice between Jesus, the Son of the Father, and Jesus Barabbas (which means son of the father). They didn't have that tradition. I don't think Jesus was crucified between two robbers AND two evildoers... because they. didn't. crucify. robbers. I do't believe Joseph of Arimathea (which didn't exist but actually means "best disciple") was a member of the unanimous Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, but he was the shy and quiet type who happened to have an unused tomb and, shucks, let's just give it to Jesus. Oh, and then I'll disappear from the story never to be heard from again.

Dude's not even at bat.

"I disagreed with it." You didn't address it. You didn't rebut it. You didn't acknowledge it. You didn't refute it. You did... nothing. This is what I mean when I talk about unbiased scholars. This is someone who had every reason to cling to the traditional authorship of the epistles, but he refused to do it because he knew damn well the evidence did not support his position. You, on the other hand, have none of this guy's scholarship credentials, haven't studied the material, and -- this is most significant -- you are not open to the possibility that you are wrong, even if the evidence establishes it. That, again, makes it pointless to argue with you. What evidence can I show you to demonstrate that you should value evidence? Your method of debate and discussion is simply dishonest. You disagree with the notion that Paul was not the author of Colossians, yet you refuse to heed the advice IN Colossians, which warned of forgeries being written in his name. It's folly to think it's impossible any of those forgeries made it into the Bible. Of COURSE it's possible. There's a warning RIGHT THERE. But you're smarter than the Bible scholars, I guess. Unless you agree with them. That seems to be the relevant barometer. Whatever, dude.

If you'd read it, then you would know that the false epistles' distortion of Paul's doctrine was already discussed. You don't address that. Nice try.

10!

He didn't read the articles. I'm not terribly surprised. So the fact that the author lies about his own identity means nothing. Ok. Personally, I would think that lying about your identity would automatically fail any acid test. But who am I? The articles do show how the fraud epistles distort Paul's message, but I suppose it's asking too much to read them. And Paul, supposedly, warning people to avoid fraud letters written in his name but subverting his doctrine... I guess that really doesn't mean much. Ffs

Interesting article on authorship of the Pauline Epistles.

Dispensation after a few days, but yeah.

InfoAbsorption is correct enough. "I Can't Hold Back" by Survivor

There's a story in my eyes Turn the pages of desire Now it's time to trade those dreams For the rush of passion's fire I can feel you tremble when we touch And I feel the hand of fate Reaching out to both of us I've been holding back the night I've been searching for a clue from you I'm gonna try with all my might To make this story line come true Can ya feel me tremble when we touch Can ya feel the hand of fate Reaching out to both of us This love affair can't wait ... I'm on the edge ... You voice explodes inside my head ... I won't back down Girl it's too late to turn back now Another shooting star goes by And in the night the silence speaks to you and I And now the time has come at last Don't let the moment run too fast I can feel you tremble when we touch And I feel the hand of fate reaching out to both of us There's a story in my eyes, turn the pages of desire Now it's time to trade those dreams For the rush of passion's fire .... The only thing I left out was the title and repeats of the chorus.