T1B

The New Testament book of Romans, for the laymen out there. It's quite interesting. Paul's logic is somewhat complicated and requires precise attention to follow. I'm pretty sure that this is one of those books that will require a re-read after I'm done. 3:1-19 took a bit to wrap my mind around. Think I got it, though. Very fascinating read. I think I understand why this guy is considered a genius by modern theologians and historians alike.

He was a very intelligent man; I would/could not ever argue otherwise! He should be mentioned with great minds such as Plato when it comes to rhetoric. The way he hijacked an entire religion was absolutly amazing...

SunCoastSooner wrote:The way he hijacked an entire religion was absolutly amazing...

What religion was that?

Paul's letter to the Romans??

Which board was that thieved from?

battery chucka' one wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:The way he hijacked an entire religion was absolutly amazing...

What religion was that?

The hellenistic Jewish followers of "Jesus".

SunCoastSooner wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:The way he hijacked an entire religion was absolutly amazing...

What religion was that?

The hellenistic Jewish followers of "Jesus".

You mean the Christians? Nah. He didn't hijack the Christian faith. Actually didn't write nearly as much as he gets credit for, if you want to get technical. Romans was his longest book of the Bible and it's a mere 16 chapters. 1 Corinthians was also 16 chapters in length. Luke wrote more of the NT than Paul.

battery chucka' one wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote: What religion was that?

The hellenistic Jewish followers of "Jesus".

You mean the Christians? Nah. He didn't hijack the Christian faith. Actually didn't write nearly as much as he gets credit for, if you want to get technical. Romans was his longest book of the Bible and it's a mere 16 chapters. 1 Corinthians was also 16 chapters in length. Luke wrote more of the NT than Paul.

This went over your head didn't it? Wasn't talking about the books he wrote I was talking about his opposition to the leadership in Jerusalem.

poptart wrote:Paul's letter to the Romans??

Which board was that thieved from?

RACK.

SunCoastSooner wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote: The hellenistic Jewish followers of "Jesus".

You mean the Christians? Nah. He didn't hijack the Christian faith. Actually didn't write nearly as much as he gets credit for, if you want to get technical. Romans was his longest book of the Bible and it's a mere 16 chapters. 1 Corinthians was also 16 chapters in length. Luke wrote more of the NT than Paul.

This went over your head didn't it? Wasn't talking about the books he wrote I was talking about his opposition to the leadership in Jerusalem.

Perhaps it did. I am curious to whom you refer. Please elaborate.

BCO, aren't you disappointed by the lack of a Hollywood ending?

PSUFAN wrote:BCO, aren't you disappointed by the lack of a Hollywood ending?

Not being a fan of Hollywood endings, I have no chance of being disappointed for that. Of course, if it was pointless in its nature, I might be a little put off. However, it has yet to prove to be such. I have yet to read the entire thing, PSU. Will let my feelings be known after then. Of course, then I shall give it another read. Probably will withhold reactions and such until that time. Why don't you give it a read, bro? You might learn something about yourself. Peace.

battery chucka' one wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote: You mean the Christians? Nah. He didn't hijack the Christian faith. Actually didn't write nearly as much as he gets credit for, if you want to get technical. Romans was his longest book of the Bible and it's a mere 16 chapters. 1 Corinthians was also 16 chapters in length. Luke wrote more of the NT than Paul.

This went over your head didn't it? Wasn't talking about the books he wrote I was talking about his opposition to the leadership in Jerusalem.

Perhaps it did. I am curious to whom you refer. Please elaborate.

Paul/Saul didn't exactly get along or agree with the leadership of the "church" after Jesus' crucifixion...

poptart wrote:Paul's letter to the Romans??

Which board was that thieved from?

They should have caught on when it didn't end with "BELEE DAT!"

battery chucka' one wrote:Am currently reading Paul's letter to the Romans

Fucking mods. That’s why I never use the PM feature.

Goober McTuber wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Am currently reading Paul's letter to the Romans

Fucking mods. That’s why I never use the PM feature.

Is there a two drink minimum here in the Comedy Forum?




...sheeesh...

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:Paul's letter to the Romans??

Which board was that thieved from?

They should have caught on when it didn't end with "BELEE DAT!"

Rack all of this.

SunCoastSooner wrote: Paul/Saul didn't exactly get along or agree with the leadership of the "church" after Jesus' crucifixion...

There was no Christer cult action at all until after the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 ade. Saul invented the Christer cult, despite the apocryphal tale of his conversion. And YOU are a Christer!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote: Paul/Saul didn't exactly get along or agree with the leadership of the "church" after Jesus' crucifixion...

There was no Christer cult action at all until after the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 ade. Saul invented the Christer cult, despite the apocryphal tale of his conversion. And YOU are a Christer!

Way to read one thread moron.

Congrats on even further proving what an ignorant narrow minded POS you are LTS.

If you need to be clued in I am deist.

SunCoastSooner wrote:
If you need to be clued in I am deist.

That's the current trend of American religion, without the uncomfortable acknowledgement of Jesus, right?

I've said it before. Lots of nebulous "god" talk, but falls short with the inclusion of Jesus.

The same "religious" Americans that believe in appearances of guardian angels and healing crystals.

mvscal wrote:Not exactly a current trend.

It's the current trend for Theocratic Revanchists.

mvscal wrote:I believe most of the founders were deists.

Yep.

mvscal wrote:Not exactly a current trend. I believe most of the founders were deists.

As usual, your beliefs have no basis in reality.

battery chucka' one wrote:Why don't you give it a read, bro? You might learn something about yourself.

As long as you don't write a story about it, I'd say we're all safe.

Martyred wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:
If you need to be clued in I am deist.

That's the current trend of American religion, without the uncomfortable acknowledgement of Jesus, right?

I've said it before. Lots of nebulous "god" talk, but falls short with the inclusion of Jesus.

The same "religious" Americans that believe in appearances of guardian angels and healing crystals.

Guardian angels and healing crystals? Not so much...

I believe Jesus/Yoshua Ben Joseph was definatly a historical figure just not the son of God.

I believe that there is a higher power I just don't believe he controlls what happens. Judaism and even christianity have something similar to this which is explained as "free will".

Deism is as old as this country, in fact older than the country, in the Western Hemisphere. See George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.

Jesus may have even been a prophet of that supreme being but I don't believe he was some sort of son of God...

SunCoastSooner wrote:Guardian angels and healing crystals? Not so much...

I believe Jesus/Yoshua Ben Joseph was definatly a historical figure just not the son of God.

I believe that there is a higher power I just don't believe he controlls what happens. Judaism and even christianity have something similar to this which is explained as "free will".

Deism is as old as this country, in fact older than the country, in the Western Hemisphere. See George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.

Jesus may have even been a prophet of that supreme being but I don't believe he was some sort of son of God...

Your 'belief structure' sounds quite a bit pluralistic to me. Hope not, it's just how it sounds.

mvscal wrote:Not exactly a current trend. I believe most of the founders were deists.

You would be correct in that assumption.

Can't believe I missed this on my first pass.

Good call mv.

Martyred wrote:

mvscal wrote:Not exactly a current trend.

It's the current trend for Theocratic Revanchists.

mvscal wrote:I believe most of the founders were deists.

Yep.

Dood do you not recall me getting "ran" out of the political forum for always bitching about the bible thumpers in the Republican party? You post there enough that you should.

Never will I deny that I am conservative (and I don't think Bush is a conservative but a traditionalist but this isn't the forum for that discussion) but bible thumper I am not!!!

SunCoastSooner wrote:
Dood do you not recall me getting "ran" out of the political forum for always bitching about the bible thumpers in the Republican party? You post there enough that you should.

Never will I deny that I am conservative (and I don't think Bush is a conservative but a traditionalist but this isn't the forum for that discussion) but bible thumper I am not!!!

I don't seem to remember calling you out personally in this thread.

Jeeezzzz...you sure are quick to get your back up.

SunCoastSooner wrote:

mvscal wrote:Not exactly a current trend. I believe most of the founders were deists.

You would be correct in that assumption.

And you are both still wrong.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Care to elaborate, oh mystical cross legged one?

Elaborate on what? The fact that anyone who believes that a majority (or even a large segment) of the founders were Deists is patheticly ignorant?

Diogenes wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:Care to elaborate, oh mystical cross legged one?

Elaborate on what? The fact that anyone who believes that a majority (or even a large segment) of the founders were Deists is patheticly ignorant?

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin were all deists.

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:Care to elaborate, oh mystical cross legged one?

Elaborate on what? The fact that anyone who believes that a majority (or even a large segment) of the founders were Deists is patheticly ignorant?

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin were all deists.

Paine was actually an athiest. Franklin and Jefferson might have been deists, Madison and Washington weren't. A far cry from '...most of the founders were deists.'.

Diogenes wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Elaborate on what? The fact that anyone who believes that a majority (or even a large segment) of the founders were Deists is patheticly ignorant?

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin were all deists.

Paine was actually an athiest. Franklin and Jefferson might have been deists, Madison and Washington weren't. A far cry from '...most of the founders were deists.'.

I was just tossing some names out from the top of my head.

Paine may have been an athiest. He was very private about his religious opinions.

Washington was most certainly a deist. He didn't even pray with the exception of one time in his adulthood by his own admission and that was during the winter at Valley Forge and he was absolutly desperate for anything that might help his cause.

mvscal wrote:'...most of the founders were deists.'

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Still a fucking idiot.

And no, Washington was not a deist. Madison either.