Protestantism

» pink101 - BJ and BT

In response to Respond to PT posted by Brother_Jones:
.
You two guys are A-OK in my book as very normal individuals in a screwed up society. I like both of you and, probably so, because you remind me so much of myself as I have travelled along the pathways of life. I do love life and so, I find your travels to be deeply interest to me. Maybe some others feel the same way about you.
.
You two being Brother Jones and Brian Tubbs. I'm not trying to pull any rank on you as your experiences are common for all of us who live long enough.
.
Both of you are here on the basis that you already have read the last chapter of the book and so, you know how the story ends. That is such a crock; but, you have a chance to learn that for yourself--either in favor of my comments here or in opposition to them.
.
In the final analysis, we are all in it together. And, here we are.
.
:)
.
Several years ago, I met a woman who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. One day I was talking with her on the phone and at the end of the call, when it would be normal for her to say, "good bye", she instead said, "I love you", and I was taken aback; but, now I understand that she was really saying something about the fact that she loved life and that I had become, in some small way, a part of it for her.
.
Gently, brothers, gently.
.
:)
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Standards of Evidence

In response to Standards of Evidence posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I've asked you for secular evidence before, and asked you again in this thread. I haven't asked you for your opinion of me - which doesn't matter. Produce what you say is available, and we'll discuss it.
.
That rules out Jewish historians like Josephus.
.
Josephus' reference in "Testimonium Flavianum" is outruled, and you know why. Since the 1800s, scholars have agreed that Josephus' reference to Jesus (and 'Christ') was a forgery likely inserted by the Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the 4th century. Josephus' alleged reference was never quoted by any Christians before Eusebius. Not by Chrysostom, who frequently quoted Josephus. Not by 9th century Photius who wrote three articles concerning Josephus. Not by Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Not by Clemens Alexandrinus. Origen wrote that Josephus had mentioned John the Baptist, but not Christ. Now, if all these early Christians (other than Eusebius - the CATHOLIC CHURCH historian) didn't use Josephus's alleged remarks about Jesus to further Christian doctrine, why should we?
.
It even puts out pagan Roman historians, because they believed in the Roman gods.
.
Let's take a look at one ... 2nd century Roman historian, Tacitus. Again, no early Christians ever quoted him or his 'Annuls' reference to Christus even when they discussed the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Not Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Augustine of Hippo, and not even the Catholic Church historian Eusebius. It's not even mentioned by Luke in Acts. No outside collaboration. Once again, scholars propose that Tacitus' alleged reference to Christus is an interpolation, or at least that he borrowed his information from Christians or Pliny the Younger.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brother_Jones - BJ and BT

In response to BJ and BT posted by pink101:
It's good to hear some good stuff about oneself. I appreciate it. Lots of times, I try to sit and review the three or four posts that have come down over the years on the positive side. I think I will cut & paste this one and have Sister Jones needle point it into my office. Thanks.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» redback - Respond to PT

In response to Respond to PT posted by Brother_Jones:

Thanx, BJ. "...if I had to prove that my Mom was really my Mom..." Tis funny. I recall a time when us kids desperately wished we WERE adopted, even that my grandmum adopted my dad and all the variations. Not funny haha, you know. But my program is a journey of understanding, not proof. Relative proof is but a part of the process.

I really do appreciate the relative patience given me here by all. I'm one of those probably odd fellas who can be given the answer: "I don't know." and it's OK. You each help with the jigsaw in your own ways.

Having said that, some things raised here need to make better sense. And I use 'sense' more objectively. Self-serving statements have relative value, non sequiturs throw it all up for grabs. And suite101 offers at best, a snapshot.

I'll number this response 27 even if you don't recall 26. ABC Is it OK if you read 26 into all my posts to avoid repeats?

-- posted by redback

» Brother_Jones - Cool heads on TV

In response to Respond to PT posted by redback:

I really do appreciate the relative patience given me here by all.
You can get into some trouble by being nice to the likes of me. 'The old donkey in us dies hard' as Luther could say. Even the mention of Luther causes some folk to run in their minds to scenes of the holocaust. So Jesus gets tainted by Luther. Then I get tainted by mentioning the famous 'old donkey quote.'

Bill O'Reilly and Richard Dawkins got together the other night to contrast a weak Catholic with a strong Atheist on Fox TV. It is sort of amazing to see two cynics trying to explode history and call events into question that two really cool heads might ponder why any science based individual would start a war and risk losing their gitty up over an attractive lady. O'Reilly kept asking Dawkins if he had anything better than religious faith to offer. And Dawkins kept to his party line that Atheism is the ticket and the way of the future. Go out and hug an Atheist and tell them that they make us proud. ABC. Right. Eventually Dawkins will have to attempt to fill the hole that he is digging in the name of his love.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» HeadZenCards - Cool heads on TV

In response to Cool heads on TV posted by Brother_Jones:

You said that eventually Dawkins will have to attempt to fill the hole that he is digging in the name of his love.

Why?

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Brother_Jones - Cool heads on TV

In response to Cool heads on TV posted by HeadZenCards:

You said that eventually Dawkins will have to attempt to fill the hole that he is digging in the name of his love.

Why?

Because, Oliver, when you spend your life ridding yourself and others of God, you eventually end up with nothing and the tank is out of gas. No heroes, no loved ones waiting in the afterlife, no edgy theory about time and eternity, just nuttin. When you die, they just fill your hole up with earth and that is the end of you. That is the plan. Right?

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - You Forgot One, BJ

In response to Cool heads on TV posted by Brother_Jones:
.
YOu forgot one, Brother Jones.
.
No pie in the sky.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - You Forgot One, BJ

In response to You Forgot One, BJ posted by pink101:

YOu forgot one, Brother Jones.
.
No pie in the sky.

Can you remember any particular event that shaped your understand of the afterlife? At what point did you give up on the idea that you would be with a loved one when you pass on?

I realize that it gives you some sort of hot wonderful feeling everytime you see an atheist or unbeliever post. But you weren't always the way you appear now.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - Excellent Question

In response to You Forgot MY QESTIONSOne, BJ posted by Brother_Jones:
.
That has to be the most excellent question that has ever been put forward in these threads at these sites.
.
MY QUESTIONS.
.
Remember all the talk about existentialism? Have you ever read any existential works? Can you discuss the idea of existentialism in a way that proves you know what you're talking about? Can you think of the hole that is Hell? The bottomless pit? Can you imagine falling off into that endless black hell hole flailing your arms and legs and screaming that you know you are lost and that all of excistence stands there laughing at you? Have you been there?
.
Tell me about it. Teach me what you think about it. You have proffered an excellent question without doubt. Let's see if anyone can get a handle on it. It's far better than all that bull roar about biblical inauthenticity. The Bible, if you take it, must be taken on faith. Attempts to prove it are only examples of people trying to prove that they still have faith when they know they doubt the whole idea provided by religionism. I think we should dispense with questions about the Bible's authenticity. What difference does it make one way or the other?
.
But, when did I come to that realization?
.
First, I need you to address my questions up above.
.
.

-- posted by pink101