Raf

Whatever you say. Whatever Mike says. It's hard to tell them apart.

"I said Christianity in its genuine form." How convenient! A formula that absolves Christianity of the actions of everyone who applied it and disclosed its flaws! An application doesn't fit your prediction? Must not have been genuine Christianity! Tadaaaa! These. Are. Excuses. The same excuses Mike makes to absolve PFAL of the misdeeds of its adherents, the same excuses Christians make to absolve Christianity of the misdeeds of its adherents. It's. the. same. thing! And I know you take solace in characterizing me as someone who was hurt by both groups or mad at both groups [don't recall ever saying I was hurt by either, and I am no angrier at TWI that you are], but ok, you "get to" make $#!/ up to dodge from my point by making it about ME so you don't have to confront it. It doesn't change the fact that the tactics Mike uses to defend his holy book are identical to the tactics you use to defend yours. Mike's dismissal of those who "abuse" PFAL is identical to your dismissal of those who "abuse" Christianity or scripture. Mike's exaltation of the true value of the real PFAL is identical to your exaltation of true Christianity and Biblical understanding/appreciation. Mike's assertion that it takes a certain in-depth spiritual perception and awareness to see PFAL for the Godsend that it is is identical to your/Paul's assertion that the natural man can't understand the things of God because you need the magic decoder ring... I mean, because they are spiritually discerned [which is a first century admission that when you look at it dispasdionately, it just makes no flipping sense]. Go ahead and make it about me. But it's not. I dropped my stake in this argument a decade ago. This is about the fact that the only difference between Mike and traditional Christians is the age of the scriptures they defend.

Yeah, that guy

For you. I think you will agree that I could find oodles of examples of the fruit of Christianity being precisely the same as PFAL: the abuse, the cover ups, the shunning, the egotism, the persecution, the estrangement of families... Catholic, Evangelical, Pentecostal. Maybe not the Lutherans. Heh heh: not anymore. But ask the Germans... 'But,' you might say, 'that's only people who abuse the Christian label, not true Scotsm... I mean not true Christianity.' Fine. But Mike gets to make the same argument: no one who truly understands and applies the principles of PFAL will ever produce anything but the fruit of the spirit. Anyone who abuses has betrayed PFAL.

Supergirl Helen Slater The Legend of Billie Jean

Two years earlier... https://youtu.be/LqJxyuTMMog

Hubba hubba? Potato sack lady?

I disagree. I think you [not you, but the community of faith in general] posited a God who exists and who demonstrates his existence only to turn around and redefine existence so as to make it undetectable to account for the fact that he fails any test for existence. If you ever get a chance, look up Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage and you'll see my point. The Bible does not describe a God who will do His best to avoid detection as a test of faith. It describes a God who rewards those who diligently seek him with tangible evidence of his power. **** For anyone not following threads, this thread is intended as the unbeliever's answer to a similarly titled thread in doctrinal. Because doctrinal is supposed to explore the Biblical answer to the questions raised therein, I chose not to respond there. But why do we not see the same miracles today that we saw in the first century or in the 1970s when people told incredible [and coincidentally unverifiable] stories of miraculous healings? You guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels seeking an answer to the point of denying any such "scarcity" exists. My unbelieving ass is sitting here giggling vecause the answer is so painfully obvious: The scarcity of miracles is directly relate to the non-existence of a power behind them.

Why do we no longer see the miracles that were prevalent before we could scrutinize them and subject them to inquiry? Why is it easier to make excuses for why an omnipotent God is powerless to bring good to pass than it is to recognize he is a fictional character who could not affect our lives if he had an existence or will that wanted to?

Many "of the" hookers and pimps is the giveaway. A comedy with throwaway hookers and pimps has to be Night Court. I'm guessing the Emmy winner has to be John Laroquette.

OldWolf, what up,?

agreed

I'm not done, but a few observations: 1. Paranoid conspiracy theory level silliness. "They were part of a secret society," then goes on to tell us all about it. Some secret. 2. Not exactly neutral. It's not that these folks were actually evil. They just were deists and not Christian. But that's not enough. Gotta be eeeeeevil. 3. Grateful to see the "founders weren't pushing Christianity" argument coming from CHRISTIANS for a change. However, it should be clear that Christians were involved in the founding and had some significant influence. Secularism was the compromise, and Oldies is right. How wonderful to have a constitution that allows Christians to be Christian as they wanna be. It also allows me not to be. Huzzah. Further exploration of this veers into politics. Let's not.

In case it got lost in the shuffle: The music producer was Berry Gordy of Motown [and banging Diana Ross] fame. NPH was famous [in part] for his character Barney Stinson who would promise adventures that were "legen--wait for it--dary. legendary." And yes, there was a Spider-man musical. He was not crashing the party.

Going to watch before commenting this time. Partway through Thomas Paine and recognizing how dangerously close to political content we are. I opened the door by talking about the Jefferson Bible in the context of this thread topic. But careful.

He hosted the Oscars once, as did Hugh Jackman. Both also hosted the Tony Awards. Neil Patrick Harris hosted in 2013. Bigger was co-written by Lin Manuel Miranda. It was ... amazing. See for yourself.

Oh trust me that is exactly where I am going.

I think the Destin Log article is, to put it delicately, laughable. It's on par with Wierwille's history of the Trinity in JCING. It will take some time to unpack.

The Jefferson Bible was an abridgment of the gospels for his personal use. I wouldn't call it atheist in any sense, but it is certainly rationalist.

What do you mean by "fundamentalist atheist"?

I just checked. Your assessment is not correct. At all. Here's what I wrote: [the formatting got thrown off here and I can't figure out how to fix it. Sorry]. That. was. literally. my. point. I think [if I may] that your question to me presumes that I have an explicit or implicit definition of theopneustos in mind. I don't. At all. I'll repeat my point: It does not matter how you define the term, whether it's God-breathed perfect down to the last preposition or "kind of God inspired," there's no way to rule out PFAL that does not rule out the Bible. On what grounds do you reject PFAL as "kind of God inspired"? Can you see how someone else might apply the same standard to the Bible and find it wanting? Etc.

Happens

Between awards show and magic trick, I think I've narrowed it down to one person. One of the lyrics was "I guarantee a truly legendary show." The singer did not make us wait for it.

Cleaning up the error: Dune, Jeffrey, A Christmas Carol. Same answer. WW is up.

ah, ok. i'll post links when I get to a computer rather than my phone. But I think you mistook my point for antagonism. You asked about the value of corroborating sources for the Bible's claims, then demonstrated the value by asking me for references. That's the point I was trying to make. For simplicity's sake I would just plug the keywords into wikipedia and see what pops up. Here's Joshua and Ai: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_(Canaan)#:~:text=The Ai (Hebrew%3A הָעַי%2C,day archeological site Et-Tell.