Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What about those who never heard the Word?

I guess im kind of like God in that i wouldnt give stiff necked non-believers with little faith specifice times and dates either, preferring they fall while leaning on their own understanding.

Yeah, that's it, you're kind of like God.

I heard He said we were created in His image, Steel.

You're dancing. You've made a veiled accusation, now come clean with it.

There ya go! Amen Geezer!

Dayom, 4, you're now arguing with HIM instead of him.

No, I'm reasoning.

Not sure why it's hard to understand what I said. ???

Also not sure why it's so important to you to try and trap me in something. Have I been somehow personally offensive?
I already know the gospel is offensive, so maybe that's it. If I have been offensive to you somehow Sean, please accept my apologies. It was not intentional.
I suspect however, that the gospel is that which you rail against.

I'm not trying to trap you. I'm trying to get you to be specific in your claim against someone.

I don't find the Gospel to be offensive. I find many "believers" to be offensive, and contradictory, and hypocritical, and blasphemous, and self-righteous, among other things.

I have not railed against the Gospel at all, and if it's me you're targeting, you're way, way off base.

Not even close, Doc. For an eye specialist, you're pretty damn blind some times.

Are you sure he's and eye doc?

The other night didn't he say something about getting up early to chop ice off the cattle tanks?

Since we are to take everything in the bible literally, heres a few gems to ponder on.

happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock- Psalm 137:9

I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man she is to keep silent -1 Timothy 2:12

and I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters. -Jeremiah 19:9

She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. Ezekiel 23:20

When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.Deut. 25:11

“Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.”Genesis 19:8

Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. Genesis 38:

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youth Kings 2:23

No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the Assembly of God.Deut. 23:1

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, “Surely a bloody husband art thou to me” Exodus 4:24

These were the spoils which remained of the plunder taken by the fighting men: 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and as for persons, 32,000 young women who had had no intercourse with a man" Numbers 31:32

I cant believe people let thier kids read it, then get all riled up over an R movie.

I've read hussler magazines with cleaner content.

Regardless or not the audience believes the crap or not?

Typo. It's the book of Neuteronomy.

One of my favorites.

Murdering children over an insult.

The story of Jonah says God prepared a big fish. If God is God He can do it.

Some who don't want this to be ture say it not.

"The story as reported is that during a whaling expedition off the Falkland Islands, Bartley's boat was attacked by the whale and he landed inside the whale's mouth. He survived the ordeal and was carved out of the stomach by his peers when they, not knowing he was inside, caught and began skinning the whale because of the hot weather which would have rotted the whale meat. It was said that he was in the whale for 15 hours and it was also said that his skin had been bleached by the gastric juices, and that he was blind the rest of his life. He was, however, supposed to have returned to work within three weeks in some accounts. He died 18 years later and his tombstone in Gloucester says 'James Bartley- a modern day Jonah'"[1][2]

You sure thats how the verse goes ringman?

antelope_sniper fails to grasp the fact they exist and support each other, unlike the dirth of manuscript evidence for other writers of antiquity.

Here's an answer from one of out .com friends.

24hourcampfire

Originally Posted By antlers
If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain.
Answered by Doc Rocket

Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.

However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.

The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millenia.

So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.

The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.

99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.

This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.

So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.

Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.

Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.

So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.

And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.

People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.