Oh Little Town of Bethlehem...

@fmf said
Well, we have discussed this before, KellyJay. Don't pull a Fetchmyjunk/dj2becker on me, now! The Book of Revelation was where the doubts first crept in ~ 20 or so years ago. I now see it as a hoax/delusion no different from the Muhammed and Gabriel hoax/delusion.

It took until the second page for FMF to insult a poster who wasn't present in the thread.

@philokalia said
I am giving you constructive feedback on how to become a better thread starter and top knotch thinker.

I'm helping you become a better version of yourself.

And i am clarifying the reality here for others.

Perhaps you need a little help with this objective.

@kellyjay said
We have discussed a lot of things in the past, I don't doubt Revelation was a topic,
but I don't actually recall the finer points of it. You do not believe God is going to
wrap up His creation here, and start a new without evil in it? What do you find is
not a viable text or doctrine?

We don't have to go over this again either if you don't want too, up to you!

Maybe I'll dig out one of the old threads. If you want to follow the doctrines that Revelation contributes to, that's fine. Whether one believes its authorship and its content [and the circumstances in which its content came into existence] are all authentic and credible, well, it is essentially a take-it-or-leave-it situation. In the end, after much contemplation, I decided that I didn't take it.

The doctrine is therefore moot as far as I am concerned [I just look at it now as material related to ideological/moral issues rather than something that was previously given certain status and significance by my faith]. It turned out to be the thin end of an intellectual wedge.

I'll dig out one of the old threads if I come across one.

@philokalia said
It took until the second page for FMF to insult a poster who wasn't present in the thread.

What does 'to pull a Fetchmyjunk/dj2becker on someone' mean, do you think? I'm not sure you have been here long enough to know what it means exactly.

@fmf said
Maybe I'll dig out one of the old threads. If you want to follow the doctrines that Revelation contributes to, that's fine. Whether one believes its authorship and its content [and the circumstances in which its content came into existence] are all authentic and credible, well, it is essentially a take-it-or-leave-it situation. In the end, after much contemplation, I decided that ...[text shortened]... the thin end of an intellectual wedge.

I'll dig out one of the old threads if I come across one.

Looking forward to it if you do.

@kellyjay said
What do you find is
not a viable text or doctrine?

If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and that particular claim was added to the text decades after Jesus' death in order that the prophecy of Micah could be said to have been fulfilled - to be clear: I am NOT asking you to subscribe to this view, I am saying IF it was so - then would that not be significant and would it not raise a question mark over the authorship and content of the text?

This is not a question that can be deflected by characterizing it is one of many mere "little things". Credibility and confidence are crucial to faith. Faith and belief are "big things" not "little things". Confidence in the Bible is the key to everything that Christians believe about themselves and about the significance of Jesus' life and death.

@fmf said
What does 'to pull a Fetchmyjunk/dj2becker on someone' mean, do you think? I'm not sure you have been here long enough to know what it means exactly.

I think it means many of the discussions are more about people than topics in my
opinion. Justifying some point of view you have attached to someone, as if they
are nothing but that cookie cutter versions of the person you created in your head
is all you are about. Find some flaw in your estimation and highlight it over and
over reducing them to non-human status but instead your cookie cutter version
of who they are. You pull out names to make a point as if that is all you need to
do!

@kellyjay said
I think it means many of the discussions are more about people than topics in my
opinion. Justifying some point of view you have attached to someone, as if they
are nothing but that cookie cutter versions of the person you created in your head
is all you are about. Find some flaw in your estimation and highlight it over and
over reducing them to non-human status but inst ...[text shortened]... tter version
of who they are. You pull out names to make a point as if that is all you need to
do!

FMF: What does 'to pull a Fetchmyjunk/dj2becker on someone' mean, do you think? I'm not sure you have been here long enough to know what it means exactly.

@kellyjay said
I think it means many of the discussions are more about people than topics in my opinion. Justifying some point of view you have attached to someone, as if they are nothing but that cookie cutter versions of the person you created in your head is all you are about. Find some flaw in your estimation and highlight it over and over reducing them to non-human status but instead your cookie cutter version of who they are. You pull out names to make a point as if that is all you need to do!

No. This is not what the expression 'to pull a Fetchmyjunk/dj2becker on someone' means, as I use it. You are incorrect.

@fmf said
If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and that particular claim was added to the text decades after Jesus' death in order that the prophecy of Micah could be said to have been fulfilled - to be clear: I am NOT asking you to subscribe to this view, I am saying IF it was so - then would that not be significant and would it not raise a question mark over the authorship and content of t ...[text shortened]... ything that Christians believe about themselves and about the significance of Jesus' life and death.

How would you know where He was born, even His disciples wouldn't have known
except Mary or Joseph told them. It didn't even appear Mary shared with Jesus
who His Father was when you read the text, when they lost Jesus. There are many
things in scripture if you were going to make it up you'd choose a better story. Not
having women be the first ones who saw Jesus after He rose. The reality of the
story isn't designed to make a great impression, but the truth of it.

@kellyjay said
How would you know where He was born, even His disciples wouldn't have known
except Mary or Joseph told them. It didn't even appear Mary shared with Jesus
who His Father was when you read the text, when they lost Jesus. There are many
things in scripture if you were going to make it up you'd choose a better story. Not
having women be the first ones who saw Jesus after He rose. The reality of the
story isn't designed to make a great impression, but the truth of it.

You have sidestepped my question.

@fmf said
FMF: What does 'to pull a Fetchmyjunk/dj2becker on someone' mean, do you think? I'm not sure you have been here long enough to know what it means exactly.

@kellyjay said
[b]I think it means many of the discussions are more about people than topics in my opinion. Justifying some point of view you have attached to someone, as if they are nothing but that cookie cu ...[text shortened]... t the expression 'to pull a Fetchmyjunk/dj2becker on someone' means, as I use it. You are incorrect.

You claim it means something just by saying their names, that assumes everyone
should think of them as you do, you reduced them into by word. Or have I not been
here long enough to know?

@fmf said
If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and that particular claim was added to the text decades after Jesus' death in order that the prophecy of Micah could be said to have been fulfilled - to be clear: I am NOT asking you to subscribe to this view, I am saying IF it was so - then would that not be significant and would it not raise a question mark over the authorship and content of t ...[text shortened]... ything that Christians believe about themselves and about the significance of Jesus' life and death.

Yes, credibility and confidence are important, which meant when they choose
those books to compile the Bible, those that did it did their due diligence. You
have seen the numbers of the copies of texts found when they put it together, no
other book has had that level of confirmation to it.

@kellyjay said
You claim it means something just by saying their names, that assumes everyone
should think of them as you do, you reduced them into by word. Or have I not been
here long enough to know?

If you didn't witness the almost 2 years of one particular gimmick over and over and over again then so be it. I was referring to that. You have been here long enough. But Philokalia may not have been. Don't worry about it.

@kellyjay said
Yes, credibility and confidence are important, which meant when they choose
those books to compile the Bible, those that did it did their due diligence. You
have seen the numbers of the original copies of texts found when they put it
together, no other book has had that level of confirmation to it.

So is your answer to my question 'Yes' or 'No'? I wasn't asking about your belief with regard to Bethlehem, or Revelation, or the authorship of the Bible. I asked you a specific question.

@fmf said
If you didn't witness the almost 2 years of one particular gimmick over and over and over again then so be it. I was referring to that. You have been here long enough. But Philokalia may not have been. Don't worry about it.

As I said, a by word. How many people here drag other's names into discussions
that have nothing to do with them just illustrate a point by smearing them? I don't
think I have ever brought your name into a discussion you were not a part of, even
when I wasn't responding to you I didn't talk about you, but the same wasn't done
to me. It is a nasty habit of yours if you think about it, I think you'd agree.