Yea, we are all prone to confirmation bias. Interesting indeed. P.s. I do believe there are traits carry forward (and that is itself a whole huge topic) that can explain many things.
Again the reason I can understand you and I don't agree is because you see the author as antiquated and limited by time where I see the author as atemporal and omnipotent. Again, the difference is because it's not immoral when it's self sacrifice. You don't see Jesus and God as One and that's why you don't agree with it. That's not a bible verse, that's me answering your question as to why Christians don't see it the way you do. You don't have to like it or even agree with it. Just understand that's what Christians think and believe. Just because it might be an often heard response for you doesn't make it untrue and might even be true because you often hear it. see above answer again
It is very common for people to use ad hominem attacks when they are losing an argument so that is not only a ME thing. Lets just say I am hater or something about my past, does that make my points any less valid? If not, why bring it up just like your supposed resume and credentials about the bible as if that has anything to do with the topic at hand. U have a great weekend !
There's a ton to unpack there as I do see that you've said and implied a lot. Reading between the lines and inferring what you've stated, I hear you saying the version of Christianity we have today isn't really the version that Christ intended, but rather a result of a Paul's interpretation that integrates facets of the political landscape and jewish traditions of the time. That's a fair and obviously very well thought out point, and I can see why that viewpoint is out there. The orthodox Christian viewpoint is that while it is indeed true that the early church patriarchs (apostles, pope's, etc) had vehement debate and that many things were not left clearly defined by Christ Himself, the belief is Christ left the Holy Spirit to equip and embolden the apostles and early Church to discern the nuances of theology that we have today. A number of Councils convened to work out proper doctrine and identify heresies. Each creed was stated because heresy demanded clarification from the apostles. The point being is, while some might look upon the early church fathers with suspicion believing they created a brand of Christianity that Jesus never intended, Christian belief understands the disagreements (like Paul's challenge to Peter regarding the necessity to keep Jewish law for the Christian) as part of the Church indwelled by the Holy Spirit to define herself and derive the bible we have today. And though the epistles and gospels are written in context of history, it is the responsibility of each generation to draw the timeless biblical principles through study, the equipping of the Holy Spirit, and the body of work and study that came from the Church's forefathers that came before them.
because each response from you sounds like a child throwing a tantrum.....and now you've threatened to take your toys and go home. your resentment wouldn't make your points less valid. as you can see others have been able to fully dialogue in the conversation without throwing hate the way you have and their points are still well taken. it's okay to disagree on these issues and still have a conversation about them, but you seem to have to bring a bit of emotional hate into it for some reason. so while that doesn't discount your points, it does tell me you aren't able or willing to listen to my points because of a filter you have for everything I say. And if that is indeed the case, this really isn't about understanding differences......it's about you resenting the fact that I believe what I believe.....as if you believe all the worlds problems and your problems are because people like me believe what I believe and need to stop believing it. which is ironic since the evangelical is typically the one seen as the one imposing beliefs on others. Hey I could be wrong, maybe you aren't hating and this is just how you usually converse with people on hotly debated issues. I've just seen more than a few times where you intentional try to twist my meaning (like the purpose in my 9/11 analogy or bringing up my credentialing) or simply can't understand what I'm trying to say, when all I'm trying to do is answer questions you've asked from a biblically Christian perspective. I mean really, why can't the response be, "ok I get it.....i completely disagree and think it's all hogwash, but okay thanks for playing." that fact that doesn't happen is why I tend to think you've got some hate going on......again could be wrong, just saying that's why.
Apologies for bumping this thread and discussion so late... ...really not my style, and getting the last word in isn't usually my M.O.... ...but I wanted to acknowledge something I may not have been clear on about my particular opinion on all this earlier. I respect your experience as a professional counselor, and in this particular context (depending on who you ask), defer to your knowledge on this theological aspect of Christianity as it applies to "modern" times. Hopefully, I implied nothing more than what I stated...but that wouldn't be totally honest. I've always believed that matters of "faith" (whatever shape that might take) was always more of an individual quest than a mass migration, and everyone approaches every point of discussion or contention with their own biases. Nothing new about any of that here. If I implied anything about Christianity today, I would hope it would be about the "tenets" that have risen up to add a conciliatory societal template for its theology to take hold for the people who choose to embrace it. And those tenets (not at all unlike the formation and maturation of the Jewish Torah from which Christianity was birthed under Moses), were largely crafted by the apostle Paul. He is the Old Testament equivalent of the lawgiver Moses, and his "Torah" could be argued to be that of the book of Romans, which historians generally tend to agree upon being authored by Paul himself (no insignificant fact, seeing as nearly half of the New Testament is regarded to be authored by Paul, pseudonymously or otherwise)... ...and as you point out, Paul himself had to rethink what he knew or understood about what the Jews at the time were adhering to in the name of Jesus. His self-imposed retreat to this effect was his way of establishing what he believed to be true about the Jesus movement (and to embellish his own visions of a heavenly Christ and the "true" nature of Jesus' earthly mission)―to create a race of heavenly beings that were the true children of God. From Paul's point of view, God had abandoned any sense of reconciliation with the physical world (..."Satan" being the "god" of this world...), and sought to redeem mankind (through those who so chose) by this idea of spiritual reconciliation and rebirth as new beings. Paul, from most accounts, believed this literally. And it is difficult, again, to separate what we can historically prove and what must be accepted through "faith" in what the actual truth may or may not have been, because of how the "historical" narrative of the spread of the gospel by Paul (mostly represented in the book of Acts―pseudonymously) has been presented over time. Paul's construction of church procedure and discipline is well-known, and does seem, on its own merit, bereft of the more open regard of Jesus in similar circumstances. Again, anything I "imply" here, I would hope would only enlighten "believers" and non-believers alike...so far as any presentation of contextual fact can do such a thing. Coming from a strict Baptist/Pentecostal Christian background myself, I'm well aware of the pox on anyone who would set up a "stumbling block" to those who are searching for higher spiritual answers to life. And Christian answers, in particular. I've never been a fan of, or an advocate for, blind or misleading facts as a way into anything other than a "hell" that is largely of our own making. I have to concede to you, on theological grounds, that all I might be is an "apostate" Christian (which nowadays is really no Christian at all)... ...but in practical, everyday terms, I prefer that title to just about anything else available. Ultimately, I meant no offense, but I don't want anyone to think that I have any agenda than what I say (or type). The internet (and this forum, at times) has enough of that type of mess going on all on its own....
