Do u beleave in God

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

So if you lived in one of those societies that thought genocide was morally okay, you be okay with it too?

Maybe. When Christians during crusades were doing "deliberate and systematic destruction of a cultural group", the Christian church was not only okay with that, but actively supported it.

THAT says a lot about YOUR morality doesn't it?

steveOrino

[billvon 2,991]

>So if you lived in one of those societies that thought genocide was
>morally okay, you be okay with it too?

I think in most societies people are generally OK with some level of genocide, depending on how it's presented. We were OK with firebombing Dresden and nuking a third of a million innocent people, because "winning the war" was a noble enough cause to us. There are enough comments about "wiping out Islam" nowadays to make me think that at least a fraction of our population still thinks that way. They see it as simple self defense, and even genocide is defensible if it's presented as "them or us."

Of course, our enemies portray the battle in exactly the same way - and unfortunately manage to convince a fraction of their members as well.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

When Christians during crusades were doing "deliberate and systematic destruction of a cultural group", the Christian church was not only okay with that, but actively supported it.

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Matthew 7:23

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

the writings of the early Christian fathers are facts (unless yoiu are a HairyJuan who believes they didn't exist either)

Could you please provide appropriate academical evidence, which a non-- religious academic professor would allow as valid, to prove the following:

- that those writing did exist at that time, and contained the information you allege they contain;

- that they did wrote about trinity, and nobody else wrote about other theories.

- who has an authority to create new doctrines, and adopt them into church teaching? Was any of those fathers such an authority at that time?

Quote

No scholar I know of denies what they wrote.

And how many scholars do you know?

Quote

the Council of Nicea was a meeting that united orthodox teachings and ruled out uncanonical writings. So their decison to include the trinity as part of the orthodox christian doctrines, was not a "new" idea, but simply a recognition, or in other words, approval of previous teachings that were very old.

So basically what we can say is:
- there were different previous teaching, not only trinity. For example from Judaism. There obviously were others;
- some of them (like trinity) were recognized and included into doctrine, and the rest were not;
- before the teaching was approved, nobody considered it as being true.
- this means that the trinity doctrine did not exist as a doctrine before approval.
?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

THAT says a lot about YOUR morality doesn't it?

And so? Unlike you Christians I do not force anyone to follow my morality. I don't even vote to ban the religion even though some of Christian _actions_ included things which are considered completely immoral today.
But it looks like I can regret someday about not being more active than having a "Keep your Jesus off my home" sign outside.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[philh 0]

"We were OK with firebombing Dresden and nuking a third of a million innocent people, because "winning the war" was a noble enough cause to us."
These are not comparable to the attrocities the bible at all. The reason is the hebrew armies had the deliberate policy of leaving no one left alive. That was not the policy of the RAF or the USAf in WWII. there is a big difference between having civilains as collateral damage and targettng all civilains for death. genocide is the intention or wiping out an ethnic groups I dont see that as anyway like what happened at dresden or Hiroshima. Let me add that I do not condone what happened at these places.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Could you please provide appropriate academical evidence, which a non-- religious academic professor would allow as valid, to prove the following:

- that those writing did exist at that time, and contained the information you allege they contain;

- that they did wrote about trinity, and nobody else wrote about other theories.

- who has an authority to create new doctrines, and adopt them into church teaching? Was any of those fathers such an authority at that time?

Check this out for an incomplete list of early Christian writings that are verifiable by non-christian scholars. These scholars may deny the validity of what these writers wrote, but they do not deny they were written.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Quote

And how many scholars do you know?

probably 60-70 biblical scholars from the six universities I have attended. And another 10-12 as personal friends from other organizations.

Quote

So basically what we can say is:
- there were different previous teaching, not only trinity. For example from Judaism. There obviously were others;
- some of them (like trinity) were recognized and included into doctrine, and the rest were not;
- before the teaching was approved, nobody considered it as being true.
- this means that the trinity doctrine did not exist as a doctrine before approval.
?

No, the main criteria that made a doctrine accepted a canon was the universality of its acceptance. It was the fringe doctrines that got rejected. The trinity was universally accepted from the writer of "Q" to Paul all the way to Tertullian and Origin

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

it ain't a historical record new or old, duh!

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

Quote

And so? Unlike you Christians I do not force anyone to follow my morality. .

I cannot think of a time when I forced anyone to believe what I believe.

Quote

I don't even vote to ban the religion

I never remember voting to keep religion? It must have been one of those local elections.

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

the united states is NOT a christian nation it is a BANKRUPT corporation owned by its sovereign creditor, the federal reserve, chartered in london england

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

Quote

the united states is NOT a christian nation it is a BANKRUPT corporation owned by its sovereign creditor, the federal reserve, chartered in london england

You must have mistaken me for someone else. I have never said USA was Christian nation. However, I have gone on record saying Christianity was better when it was not a state religion.

steveOrino

[smooman 0]

whats interesting to me about the Orbiting Purple Monster argument, is it was conjured up as a rebuttal to the Christian argument that God cannot be disproven so therefor he is likely to exist.
So lets compare the two, the monster and religion.
Since man has been able to wonder, there have always been religions of all makes and models. Most of these are passed on through thousands and perhaps millions of years......this monster in space has been around for a decade or so. I find the latter to be laughable at best. Honestly a better rebuttal for the "disprove" argument would be Santa Clause or something that has been a part of human culture worldwide for a substantial amount of time.

It is only after we have lost everything that we are free to do anything

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

whats interesting to me about the Orbiting Purple Monster argument,

I've never heard of the Orbiting Purple Monster. Is it an amalgamation of Russel's orbiting teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorns by any chance?

Quote

Since man has been able to wonder, there have always been religions of all makes and models. Most of these are passed on through thousands and perhaps millions of years......this monster in space has been around for a decade or so. I find the latter to be laughable at best.

You might, others (amazingly enough) don't. Remember, there was a time when every single surviving religion was 'new'. A group of people, somewhere, imagined every single God we have today and were able to convince enough people to believe it that it was passed on down through the generations.

For examples of how quickly completely stupid ideas can grow into full blown religions just look at Scientology. Invented by a sci-fi author just a few decades ago and now controls Hollywood. What about Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda? Do you really think in this day and age that intelligent, educated people can be duped into believing that some old Puerto Rican ex-con is the living embodyment of Jesus? Well fuck me, yes they can!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[philh 0]

i think you exxagerate when you say perhaps millions of years. best estimates are that modern humans have only been around about 200,000 years. Had old religions are is an open question we cant really answer at the moment. they are at least as old about 5,000 years old but beyond that there are no written languages so its hard to verify there were actual religions although its likely there were rituals.
the oldest religion that is still widely practised is hinduism. So if one extends your critique that the flying spagetti monster is too new you would be forced to conclude thast Hinduism is the most legitmate due to its age. I think we owuld all agree that the age of a belief has nothing to do with its validity. i think a better rebutal still is that weather is caused by god or gods, that is an idea that is very old and very wrong.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Check this out for an incomplete list of early Christian writings that are verifiable by non-christian scholars. These scholars may deny the validity of what these writers wrote, but they do not deny they were written.

First, I don't see any credentials from an academic professor which would consider this resource valid. Could you show it please?

Second, you missed the most important questions 2 and 3:

Could you please provide appropriate academical evidence, which a non-- religious academic professor would allow as valid, to prove the following:

- that they did wrote about trinity, and nobody else wrote about other theories.

- who has an authority to create new doctrines, and adopt them into church teaching? Was any of those fathers such an authority at that time?

Quote

probably 60-70 biblical scholars from the six universities I have attended. And another 10-12 as personal friends from other organizations.

I'd say 12 (and even 70) scholars is kinda low number to make your phrase "No scholar I know of denies what they wrote." an evidence.

Quote

No, the main criteria that made a doctrine accepted a canon was the universality of its acceptance.

This is simply not true; there are other doctrines (I even mentioned Unitarianism), which are also universally acceptable. As I said before, there is NO clear definition of such a doctrine in the Bible - so the difference between those doctrines again is really based on interpretation made by humans. Who are not perfect, and could make mistakes.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I cannot think of a time when I forced anyone to believe what I believe.

You just mentioned that Christians should lobby to prevent others from doing things Christians religion considers immoral.
This is exactly the same - basically you are saying that everyone, including non-Christians, should behave according to your beliefs.

Quote

I never remember voting to keep religion? It must have been one of those local elections.

I was born in a country where all the religions were very restricted. Now I can say for sure it definitely was not a bad thing.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

whats interesting to me about the Orbiting Purple Monster argument, is it was conjured up as a rebuttal to the Christian argument that God cannot be disproven so therefor he is likely to exist. So lets compare the two, the monster and religion.

So why not compare them using the same criteria as you mentioned before! There is no difference, as the monster cannot be disproven so therefor he is likely to exist.

Quote

Since man has been able to wonder, there have always been religions of all makes and models. Most of these are passed on through thousands and perhaps millions of years......this monster in space has been around for a decade or so.

I don't understand your point. Before recent progress in medicine the people believed that a disease is result of your sins or someone's sorcery. They believed in in even before JC was born. Does it make this claim more valid? Slavery was widespread before 18-19 centuries, and obviously existed before JC was born; does it mean that it is good? No.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

I cannot think of a time when I forced anyone to believe what I believe.

You just mentioned that Christians should lobby to prevent others from doing things Christians religion considers immoral.
This is exactly the same - basically you are saying that everyone, including non-Christians, should behave according to your beliefs.

Quote

I never remember voting to keep religion? It must have been one of those local elections.

I was born in a country where all the religions were very restricted. Now I can say for sure it definitely was not a bad thing.

To me it looks as you should go back there. You don't appreciate a democracy. You'd rather have the government tell you what to do than have people lobby & vote their conscience. I believe abortion is wrong, but i don't want to live in a country where i have no say in the laws. I prefer to live with the freedom that I can change laws I don't like by being politically active. I'm glad people like myself, my son and countless others serve so we may remain free. Why choose to live in a country when you don't like their form of government?

steveOrino

[billvon 2,991]

>To me it looks as you should go back there.

Your one warning.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

>To me it looks as you should go back there.

Your one warning.

THAT is a personal attack??

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

This is simply not true; there are other doctrines (I even mentioned Unitarianism), which are also universally acceptable.

Obviously we don't share the same definition as "universally".

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

the history of kjv bible is too large to attach





go to: www.messiahtruth.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

To me it looks as you should go back there. You don't appreciate a democracy.

So let's make it clear. You have said that Christians have all the rights to lobby the legislators to stop everyone, including non-Christians, from doing things you do not like because of various reasons. But at the same time you definitely didn't like the example where some non-Christians lobbied (and actually got) the rights to force Christians stop doing things they did not like. Is this your definition of democracy???

Quote

You'd rather have the government tell you what to do than have people lobby & vote their conscience...

...and use it to force the government to tell others what to do.
So what is the difference?

Quote

I believe abortion is wrong, but i don't want to live in a country where i have no say in the laws. I prefer to live with the freedom that I can change laws I don't like by being politically active. I'm glad people like myself, my son and countless others serve so we may remain free.

So your definition of freedom is that you can change the laws you don't like because of your beliefs - therefore forcing everyone else living according to your beliefs?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Obviously we don't share the same definition as "universally".

Yes, because my "universality" does not mean "accepted by everyone who share the same beliefs".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

So your definition of freedom is that you can change the laws you don't like because of your beliefs -

Yes, that is my definition of democracy, a form of government in which the people freely elect representatives to govern them. We elect those officials based on our view of morality & justice.

steveOrino