• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Anti-DOC Cabal has decided that DOC actually needs to answer the question placed forth by Six7s. Motion passed.

Mr. Secretary please place this motion on the books.
Mr. Men At Arms please bring forth the Axe of Truth.
Mr. RobRoy...just...stand there.
 
paximperium said:
Agreed. The Anti-DOC Cabal has decided that DOC actually needs to answer the question placed forth by Six7s. Motion passed.

Mr. Secretary please place this motion on the books.
Mr. Men At Arms please bring forth the Axe of Truth.
Mr. RobRoy...just...stand there.
Click to expand...
First order of business. I suggest a renaming to more accurately reflect our goal. I propose a change from the "Anti-DOC cabal" to the "Citizens for Constructive Conversation and Progress".
 
joobz said:
First order of business. I suggest a renaming to more accurately reflect our goal. I propose a change from the "Anti-DOC cabal" to the "Citizens for Constructive Conversation and Progress".
Click to expand...
In the current economic situation, this is obviously more liberal tax and spend behavior. CCCP is obviously a communist agenda.
 
joobz said:
First order of business. I suggest a renaming to more accurately reflect our goal. I propose a change from the "Anti-DOC cabal" to the "Citizens for Constructive Conversation and Progress".
Click to expand...

I didn't even know we were a cabal, and now we're changing? I've missed out on being part of some dark, shadowy, conspiracy again!
 
I don't want to be part of an Anti-DOC cabal

I do want to be part of an Anti-WOO cabal, or group, or whatever

If the former is, by definition, a subset of the latter then that ain't my problem
 
six7s said:
I don't want to be part of an Anti-DOC cabal

I do want to be part of an Anti-WOO cabal, or group, or whatever

If the former is, by definition, a subset of the latter then that ain't my problem
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but we do not refund. We already have a nice membership card already printed.

Any attempt to leave the ADC's involve a visit by Mr. Skullsmasher and Mrs. Ballstomper who will discuss your...problems. Dr. Vasectomy may be called in to...arbitrate.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
I expect flat-out denial from the liar, but I can't abide people who call themselves "atheists" who are willing to concede and capitulate with the likes of DOC. I did the ******* Google search. I found that the qoutes shared the same source, a source that the liar has cited before and reflects his bigoted beliefs. Ergo, it is highly probable that the Christian Party site is the source of the liar's Jefferson references.
Click to expand...

Jefferson said what Jefferson said regardless of some guy named DOC. And no I did not get those quotes from that site. If you don't believe it so be it.
 
joobz said:
This is a fair response to Mark's post.
But you still have an unanswered question:

How can something be both "the most moral teaching ever known to man" and use slavery parables to teach that morality?
Click to expand...


The people understood slavery. It was only logical to speak in ways the people understood. And when your making speeches live you don't have a lot of time to overturn a deeply ingrained cultural and economic system on hostile occupied territory. Christ also never talked about the sin of the Roman invasion and occupation. Does that mean he approved of it -- of course not.

But Christ definitely drove home the point in the short time he had while making speeches that there is a price to pay for sin and disobeying God's laws. But of course he did not just talk about punishment. He also talked about doing unto others as as you would have them do unto you. A logical progression of this thinking is bye bye slavery.

And this is not all I have to say about the issue of slavery. I said much more in these posts:

2705, 2752, 2696, 2490, 2501, 2505, 2509, 2513, 2422, 1947, 1889, 1878, 1793, 1775, 1811, 1802, 1795, and 1100.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
The people understood slavery. It was only logical to speak in ways the people understood. And when your making speeches live you don't have a lot of time to overturn a deeply ingrained cultural and economic system on hostile occupied territory. Christ also never talked about the sin of the Roman invasion and occupation. Does that mean he approved of it -- of course not.
Click to expand...
But HE did TALK of the Roman invasion and occupation. HE APPROVED OF IT. "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's".

DOC said:
But Christ definitely drove home the point in the short time he had while making speeches that there is a price to pay for sin and disobeying God's laws. But of course he did not just talk about punishment. He also talked about doing unto others as as you would have them do unto you. A logical progression of this thinking is bye bye slavery.
Click to expand...
So DOC, do you beleive that gays should be allowed to marry, or are homosexuals exempt from the golden rule treatment?
Can I assume, then, that you believe that all churches which oppose gay marriage also oppose Jesus' will?
 
joobz said:
But HE did TALK of the Roman invasion and occupation. HE APPROVED OF IT. "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's".
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point if you think that implies Jesus approved of the occupation.
 
sphenisc said:
I think you've missed the point if you think that implies Jesus approved of the occupation.
Click to expand...
condoned...cowtowed...gavein...accepted... Take your pick. We're talking about the person who's god and doesn't need to compromise. to codone or give into it IS to approve of it.
 
joobz said:
condoned...cowtowed...gavein...accepted... Take your pick. We're talking about the person who's god and doesn't need to compromise. to codone or give into it IS to approve of it.
Click to expand...

More like, given a trick question, one that could either get him arrested and potentially executed or alienate a significant portion of the population. And Jesus, pretty cleverly, refused to answer.
 
DOC said:
He also talked about doing unto others as as you would have them do unto you. A logical progression of this thinking is bye bye slavery.
Click to expand...

DOC, correct me where I'm wrong. You're saying that the Bible is "the most moral teaching ever known to man", but also that it can't be taken at face value, and you need to remember that some morals in the Bible are only correct for their time, or that Jesus needed to make some moral concessions in order to get his overall point across.

Is this what you think?
 
Simon39759 said:
More like, given a trick question, one that could either get him arrested and potentially executed or alienate a significant portion of the population. And Jesus, pretty cleverly, refused to answer.
Click to expand...
certainly a wise thing for a man to do. But are we talking about Jesus as a man or Jesus as a god (which is what DOC believes?).

If Jesus was a god, and god played verbal games to avoid getting into trouble, what Kind of lesson am I to gain from such a god?
 
DOC said:
I said much more in these posts:

2705, 2752, 2696, 2490, 2501, 2505, 2509, 2513, 2422, 1947, 1889, 1878, 1793, 1775, 1811, 1802, 1795, and 1100.
Click to expand...
Very thorough... OCD-ishly so perhaps

However, despite repeated requests, you still haven't answered my question
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom