Catholic Or Agnostic?

[evangelist6589 5]

This man claimed to be a Catholic at first, however having been chatting with him over email, what he said in person may have been a lie, or I heard him wrong. If he is an agnostic he did not think of the questions that I had originally asked on the streets or he lied. I walked him though a few of the 10 commandments and he admitted to having broken them. What say you?

 

FROM ME: Early on I told you that our view of scripture would be different. I do not accept the bible as infallible and inerrant and historically accurate. 

1- as I previously mentioned, the creation myth.

2- the flood myth

3- god 'giving' the promised land to the chosen and directing a genocidal wave on the people already living there.

4- etc.

 

Scripture is merely the reflection of the authority - which is god. Scripture worship is part of the outside of the gift of Jesus.  

 

I think each of these stories have a kernel of truth, what god wants us to learn from it, but not that all the story is accurate and for us to follow.

 

The Protestant fundie version of the atonement reflects an imperfect, vengeful, statistic god.

 

Why is the covena

nt

between God and man a abusive relationship? Why is God abusive?

 

A big burly high school bully who forces a freshman to carry his books, buy him lunch, etc. Is not in a covenant relationship. When one side is forced it is abusive. 

 

You asked for my definition of sin:

A) to go against what you know is right, which is in the very essence & ce

nt

er of your DNA.  That substance which science is discovering which holds ALL together and is ALL. Is Jesus.

Is this what the Bible says? What if someone says that killing and or using God’s name in vain is a right thing to do and there is nothing wrong with it. Is my own moral conscience equal with what the Bible says?

 

The bible as its read by many supports, misogyny, slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, incest, murder of unborn babies ( Sodom & Gomorah (sp ?)& flood), etc. which thru faith I don't accept.

 

I do need to say that I won't be discussing the bible at great lengths as I'm pretty sure that neither you nor I will be changing our minds.

 

I do want to offer to give you the books, into a minimalist - simple life, if you want them.

Edited October 12, 2014 by evangelist6589

[No Nicolaitans 3,397]

Your "FROM ME" section is interesting. According to what you said, you don't believe God's word.

 

Was this a mistake in your typing, or is it what you believe?

[evangelist6589 5]

Your "FROM ME" section is interesting. According to what you said, you don't believe God's word.

 

Was this a mistake in your typing, or is it what you believe?

 

My words are in bold. You knew that.

[No Nicolaitans 3,397]

When one writes "from me", that makes the reader think that the person writing it is the one saying it.

 

"From him" would have more clearly conveyed that the words were his and not yours.

[evangelist6589 5]

When one writes "from me", that makes the reader think that the person writing it is the one saying it.

"From him" would have more clearly conveyed that the words were his and not yours.

I did a copy and paste. He wrote that.

[Jim_Alaska 2,365]

Then make it clear as to just what is going on. I read it the same way NN did. How would I know that what you submitted was a copy and paste from the other guy?

[evangelist6589 5]

No one has answered my question

[Jim_Alaska 2,365]

No one has answered my question

 

No one answered it because of the way you presented it; no one could understand what you were OBtusley presenting. As to your other post in the welcome thread, nOBody has "attacked" you at all. People are simply asking for clarification.

 

For a new member just starting out, you come across as a bit haughty and even snide. I say snide because of the way you answered NN where you said to him, "you knew that", when there was no way for him to know that at all.

 

If you start out on a new board thinking that someone is attacking you because they ask for clarification, it sends up red flags. Evasive tactics such as you used on me in your first post on this board are also red flags. You said you were a Major Evangelist and when I asked what a major evangelist was, you said you had never heard of the term. You also never again addressed that, even when someone pointed out to you that you had indeed said it by copying and pasting from your original text.

 

Perhaps you just started out wrong and it caused misunderstanding and things will even out as time goes by. I hope so.

[John81 7,400]

If I understand this thread, from what's here and what "E" wrote in his intro thread recently, the copy/paste is from an email conversation with someone and he's been awaiting an answer from them. His comments, which I agree are very vague here and while unintentional, very misleading, seem to be aimed at the email writer and not anyone here.

 

In the future, when using copy/paste, it would be beneficial for all involved if a clear note was put forth indicating specifically what is a copy/paste from another persons writing. It would also be helpful to clarify when you are referring to someone here or to something from elsewhere.

[Alimantado 536]

Have to echo Jim and NN and say I'm a third who doesn't have a clue what was being said there. The prelude seems to suggest there was a conversation in person on the streets followed by an exchange of emails, though that's far from clear, and then we get a section in larger type: is that a transcript of a conservation? If so, the conversation in person or the exchange of emails? Like Jim, I also thought the 'from me' bit was John trying to identify his own words, though as I read on I didn't know if the bolded bits were for emphasis or were replies from the other fella, or whether they were prior statements/questions that were being answered or what. By the end I gathered I prOBably wasn't ascribing the right bits to the right person--as NN also affirmed--though I ended up wondering whether the entire section of text was a conversation at all.

 

So there we go. Maybe all three of us are indeed responding to tone on purpose to undermine you, John, >as you claim elsewhere. Or, maybe it's really the case that you need to write a bit more clearly.

[evangelist6589 5]

Forget I ever asked the question

[Alimantado 536]

Just reword it, John.

[Genevanpreacher 650]

Yes, reword and discuss patiently.

[evangelist6589 5]

Well he replied. My friend is not a Catholic, but someone that combines a bunch of different views into one view so he is a pluralist. He said to me that he reads Jesus and the gospels just for life principles and good ethics, and once I mentioned sin and the cross he got defensive. 

[John81 7,400]

Sounds similar to some of what Thomas Jefferson said.