OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 04:13:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: how sure are you that you will never change a denomination?  (Read 5483 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2013, 01:07:24 PM »

So things are facts because you capitalize them in mid-sentence?

So you could refute what I said by asking an insecure question?

if your going to refute then refute, if you can't then just say it, no need to make yourself look bad. 3 options, Refute, don't refute, or show insecurity by throwing jokes to off put or slide away from a rebuttal.

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct?  Will you address things that people write that disagree with you?  If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History?  You have the Bible under History in your paragraph.  Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible?  It was written and compiled over many centuries.  It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts. 
What do you really know about the history of the Bible?  Do you have a particular translation that you prefer?  If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Here is a link to a book on the history of the King James Version (which did include the Apocrypha by the way)  called "God's Secretaries"
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736

and one on how it came to be from "British Library":
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/kingjames.html

I am starting with this translation because it is widely known.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2013, 02:29:33 PM »

Ah so now you get to determine what is a fact? So much more for the scientific method and all of the progress we've made...  Wink

Nope, Actually Science(Creation ex Nihilo, First Uncaused Cause, The Shroud, "macro-evolution" being a myth, Intelligent Design Fact, Mind-Body Dualism being a Fact/Mind is Immaterial), Philosophy("naturalism" is impossible, Morality), History(The Bible, Jesus Christ Resurrection being a Fact of Life), Logical(Ontological, God has to necessarily exist) determines what is Fact, and Science says that Factually, 100%, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) exists and The Bible is The Objective Truth.

now, what proof and evidence is there against these Facts?

None.

None of those are sciences, those are only related to theology and therefore cannot be considered objective facts. 

Either you're lying or you're naive, lets use The First Uncaused Cause for example, this is a Scientific Fact, if it ain't then you will properly refute it, now,


An Infinite Past of Anything in Succession(Matter, Time, Space, Energy, Change, cause & effect etc) is a Impossibility. if the past was infinite we would never get to the present, count down from Infinity to zero. therefore anything in succession must have a beginning in the finite past. which means it is an indeniable Fact that once nothing existed.(evident by this and the big bang)


Since infinite amount of past cause and effect is impossible it had to start, which means there is a cause which has no cause, The First Uncaused Cause.

The Cause is,

- Uncaused since has no cause

- Beginningless since if began to exist must have a cause.

-Changeless since an Infinite Amount of past change is impossible and a change requires a cause, First Uncaused Cause has no cause

- Timeless since changeless, no change, and no Time.

- Eternal since has always existed, is changeless(ceasing to exist would be a change) and is Timeless.

- Spaceless since Timeless and changeless, things in space are ever changing and are in time.

- Immaterial since Timeless and Changless, matter is ever changing, changeless material doesn't exist, and changeless material cannot cause anything, therefore Immaterial.

-All Powerful since created everything and lesser doesn't produce the greater.

- Of Which No Greater Can Be Conceived since Created Everything.

Now that was part 1,

Part 2,

3 Indeinable Facts

1, Whatever Begins to exists has a cause

2, The Universe began to exist(infinite regression is impossible, big bang, and Borde, Guide, Valienkin Theorem make this an irrefutable Fact.)

3, Therefore The Universe has a Cause to it's existence.

The Cause of The Universe is,

-Spaceless and Timeless, since Created/Started/Caused Space and Time, can therefore exist without Space and Time.

- Since Spaceless and Timeless is Changeless

-Since Changeless is Immaterial, and since doesn't change, The Cause didn't start to exist, making it The First Uncaused Cause.

The First Uncaused Cause is The Cause of The Universe.

Now time to prove that this is without a shadow of a doubt God(which means whether "macro-evolution" happened or not, God exists and you have to accept that)

1. That fits God's description to a tee.

2. The First Uncaused Cause is The Direct Cause of The Universe, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) is a First Uncaused Cause who Directly Caused The Universe.

3, Is Immaterial therefore can either be a Mind or Abstract Object such as numbers(The Mind is immaterial and we'll get to that later), Abstract objects cause nothing, therefore a Mind.

4, Fine Tuning, The Universe is so fine tuned for life that there's only 3 possibilities as to why,

Law, Chance, or Design. Cannot be law or chance, since Law can be different and Chance is Extremely Improbable that it's Factual it didn't happen that way, therefore Obviously Designed.

5, Only 2 types of causes. Accidential/Mindless or Intentional/Mind, Accidents require a prior cause, therefore cannot be accidential therefore caused on Purpose, God exists.

6, All "naturalistic" theories are Impossible.

1, "naturalism" is disproven by The Universe being caused so by default Supernatural and Immaterial exists.

2, Nothing existed and nothing causes nothing, the "nothing causes something" Quantum Mechanics argument proposed by w-child has been thrown in the fire with these facts,

1, The Quantum Vaccum isn't empty space.

2, Nothing cannot cause something with this fact,

The Cause of an effect must be equivelent or greater than it's effect,

Nothing has no properties, something has properties. so for nothing to cause something it would need the properties to do so, so if nothing caused something, it needs to properties of something rendering it to be something instead of nothing! and if nothing caused something it would need the properties from something eternal rendering it again not nothing.

Nothing can only cause, nothing.

and the "universe caused itself" argument(whoever posed this argument needs their liscense revoked, is automatically void as if the universe caused itself it would have already needed to exist!.

And lastly as proven in #5 can only have been caused on purpose.

There is no naturalistic explanation as 1, Supernatural exist, 2, it's impossible for nothing to cause something and 3, it is an impossiblity for The First Uncaused Cause to cause on accident.

#7, Creation ex nihilo proves The Bible is even more Scientifically Accurate and Correct, Creation ex Nihilo proves God exists and God is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit who is 1 God that is 3 Persons.

God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) existence is a Fact.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2013, 02:38:59 PM »

SBC, you don't have to answer this if you don't want to, but I thought I would ask.

Are you trying to test out materials for a possible college paper?

It looks as if some of your posts are meant to be that way. Just wondering.

 Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 3,997


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2013, 02:43:10 PM »

If he is, he needs to improve his capitalisation, pronto. Random shift strokes won't cut it.

/redpen
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2013, 02:43:19 PM »

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct?  Will you address things that people write that disagree with you?  If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History?  You have the Bible under History in your paragraph.  Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible?  It was written and compiled over many centuries.  It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts. 
What do you really know about the history of the Bible?  Do you have a particular translation that you prefer?  If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Having translation problems mean nothing, we have Alot of Manuscripts, The Bible is the most accurate Historical Document in Ancient History, http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Here is a link to a book on the history of the King James Version (which did include the Apocrypha by the way)  called "God's Secretaries"
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736

I am starting with this translation because it is widely known.

I don't care about The King James Version, we got The Manuscripts, King James is therefore not needed  in this debate,

The problem now is just folks don't know how to easily Translate things, for example the best Translation now would be The NIV, yet it has problems, for example, http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2009/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28-18

Also,, Jesus Christ Resurrection is a Fact,

Going through every "naturalistic" myth and will leave The Resurrection as The Only Explanation, not best or most probable but Only Explanation.

proving that Jesus Christ existed and there was an empty tomb factually follows that He rose from the dead.

myth theory -

Different points of views, no contradiction from The Apostles means events happened. miracles are authentic as they are written in witness and have evidence of addition, exaggeration, or lies.

Josephus proves Jesus Christ was crucified, no matter what you say this man was a Jew, had no biased or presupposition.

Nazareth Inscription proves empty tomb.

Women found the tomb empty, this irrefutable, criteria of embarrassment

Matthew 28:11-18 proves without a doubt there was an empty tomb, Matthew refutes the Jews, no matter what you say or what you think he REFUTES what the Jews were saying, which proves, the Jews were claiming they stole the tomb. a common presupposition and excuse.

My fellow Christians told the truth of The Resurrection and the Jews spread the stolen tomb myth, either way EMPTY TOMB, of who? Jesus Christ, why was there a tomb? He was crucified, why? because the Jews thought He committed blasphemy why was there an empty tomb? we will get to that next. Apostles died for their beliefs and appearances are genuine(will get to it next)

"myth theory" is long gone and dead. if you EVER claim myth then you are a presuppositional delusional hypocritical, the words could go on and on.

myth "theory" is now an impossible myth.


conspiracy theory - 1, No one could have stolen the tomb as it was blocked by roman guards.

2, Apostles had nothing to gain, criteria of embarrassment, they were shamed and were against all evil, sin.

3, They died for their beliefs, 11 of the 12 Apostles died for their beliefs, no one dies for a known lie, they really believed in The Resurrection added that with the facts of the appearances.

4, Appearances to Women, proves Apostles were telling the truth

5, James, the brother of Jesus Christ in The Gospels is a skeptic, outside of it he's a believer(Letters, Church, and Josephus) Jesus had to have appeared to him.

6, Paul, a prosecutor of Christians becomes a Christian himself and becomes a leading preacher of Christianity going through all kinds of suffering and ultimately death for his beliefs.

7, Apostles believed in The Resurrection despite every predispostion to the contrary, no one believed The Messiah was going to die, be God, or much less Resurrect from the dead. no one believed in The Resurrection until the end of world, the general Resurrection.

Apostles believed The Resurrection happened, myth and conspiracy theories are now myths, if you want to argue you can only use your last 3 "naturalistic" myths when arguing with me because the myth and conspiracy theories are dead myths now, using them or believing them exposes you as a hypocrite as those are now Impossible Explanations.


Now we have a few facts,

Jesus Christ was crucified
There was an Empty Tomb
Jesus Christ appeared alive after His death to several people
Apostles really believed in The Resurrection


last 3 which are easily refutatable.

"twin brother/lookalike" theory - Apostles knew Jesus, saw Him perform more miracles, Empty Tomb and no one could have stolen the tomb, had same wounds, no known twin brother as James, Jesus half brother, would take that into consideration. and theory is a stretch.

"twin brother/lookalike" theory is a myth

swoon theory - Apostles saw Jesus Christ die, He was anointed, stabbed in chest pouring blood and water confirming death, romans made sure you die when crucified, even if survived would have been impossible to escape tomb, would've died later, would not convince apostles, and Jesus Christ Ascended.

swoon theory is now a myth

last theory that if I disprove I prove The Resurrection happened.

hallucination theory - Apostles were in their right minds, died for their beliefs, hallucinations are fast and quick, Thomas for example put his hand in Jesus side, you don't have multiple hallucinations about the same thing, and finally multiple people do not hallucinate about the same thing.

EVERY Single "naturalistic" "theory" has been made a myth of.

There is one Irrefutable Explanation, not the best but The Only Explanation is that Jesus Christ died on the cross and Resurrected from the dead, therefore proving everything in The Bible as a fact.

Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead.

add that with The Shroud which has no evidence of forgery, not a painting, cannot be reproduced with any type of technology, and caused by a burst of light from the dead body causing an image like a photography.

With The facts of The Bible's inerrancy and no contradiction, The Sense it makes, reliable Testimony/Accounts, Scientific Accuracy and foreknowledge, Historical Accuracy and foreknowledge, God's existence and failure of other religions making Christianity the only factual possibility, Physical evidence in The Shroud and Only Explanation being The Resurrection, it is indeniable, God Exists, Jesus Christ is Lord, Our Savior who died for our sins on the cross, Jesus Christ is the 2nd person of God, and that God is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.



So on history you've been refuted, pick another area now.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 02:44:12 PM by SavedByChrist94 » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2013, 02:45:10 PM »

If he is, he needs to improve his capitalisation, pronto. Random shift strokes won't cut it.

/redpen

I repeat myself, but I think he or she may be German, because I think they capitalize nouns. I'm not aware of other languages in which they do that. Just a thought.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2013, 02:48:22 PM »

Denominations are for Protestants.  I'm pretty sure I won't become a Protestant.  Grin  (But, what do I know?)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,923


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #52 on: January 06, 2013, 02:59:23 PM »

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct?  Will you address things that people write that disagree with you?  If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History?  You have the Bible under History in your paragraph.  Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible?  It was written and compiled over many centuries.  It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts. 
What do you really know about the history of the Bible?  Do you have a particular translation that you prefer?  If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Having translation problems mean nothing, we have Alot of Manuscripts, The Bible is the most accurate Historical Document in Ancient History, http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Here is a link to a book on the history of the King James Version (which did include the Apocrypha by the way)  called "God's Secretaries"
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736

I am starting with this translation because it is widely known.

I don't care about The King James Version, we got The Manuscripts, King James is therefore not needed  in this debate,

The problem now is just folks don't know how to easily Translate things, for example the best Translation now would be The NIV, yet it has problems, for example, http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2009/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28-18

Also,, Jesus Christ Resurrection is a Fact,

Going through every "naturalistic" myth and will leave The Resurrection as The Only Explanation, not best or most probable but Only Explanation.

proving that Jesus Christ existed and there was an empty tomb factually follows that He rose from the dead.

myth theory -

Different points of views, no contradiction from The Apostles means events happened. miracles are authentic as they are written in witness and have evidence of addition, exaggeration, or lies.

Josephus proves Jesus Christ was crucified, no matter what you say this man was a Jew, had no biased or presupposition.

Nazareth Inscription proves empty tomb.

Women found the tomb empty, this irrefutable, criteria of embarrassment

Matthew 28:11-18 proves without a doubt there was an empty tomb, Matthew refutes the Jews, no matter what you say or what you think he REFUTES what the Jews were saying, which proves, the Jews were claiming they stole the tomb. a common presupposition and excuse.

My fellow Christians told the truth of The Resurrection and the Jews spread the stolen tomb myth, either way EMPTY TOMB, of who? Jesus Christ, why was there a tomb? He was crucified, why? because the Jews thought He committed blasphemy why was there an empty tomb? we will get to that next. Apostles died for their beliefs and appearances are genuine(will get to it next)

"myth theory" is long gone and dead. if you EVER claim myth then you are a presuppositional delusional hypocritical, the words could go on and on.

myth "theory" is now an impossible myth.


conspiracy theory - 1, No one could have stolen the tomb as it was blocked by roman guards.

2, Apostles had nothing to gain, criteria of embarrassment, they were shamed and were against all evil, sin.

3, They died for their beliefs, 11 of the 12 Apostles died for their beliefs, no one dies for a known lie, they really believed in The Resurrection added that with the facts of the appearances.

4, Appearances to Women, proves Apostles were telling the truth

5, James, the brother of Jesus Christ in The Gospels is a skeptic, outside of it he's a believer(Letters, Church, and Josephus) Jesus had to have appeared to him.

6, Paul, a prosecutor of Christians becomes a Christian himself and becomes a leading preacher of Christianity going through all kinds of suffering and ultimately death for his beliefs.

7, Apostles believed in The Resurrection despite every predispostion to the contrary, no one believed The Messiah was going to die, be God, or much less Resurrect from the dead. no one believed in The Resurrection until the end of world, the general Resurrection.

Apostles believed The Resurrection happened, myth and conspiracy theories are now myths, if you want to argue you can only use your last 3 "naturalistic" myths when arguing with me because the myth and conspiracy theories are dead myths now, using them or believing them exposes you as a hypocrite as those are now Impossible Explanations.


Now we have a few facts,

Jesus Christ was crucified
There was an Empty Tomb
Jesus Christ appeared alive after His death to several people
Apostles really believed in The Resurrection


last 3 which are easily refutatable.

"twin brother/lookalike" theory - Apostles knew Jesus, saw Him perform more miracles, Empty Tomb and no one could have stolen the tomb, had same wounds, no known twin brother as James, Jesus half brother, would take that into consideration. and theory is a stretch.

"twin brother/lookalike" theory is a myth

swoon theory - Apostles saw Jesus Christ die, He was anointed, stabbed in chest pouring blood and water confirming death, romans made sure you die when crucified, even if survived would have been impossible to escape tomb, would've died later, would not convince apostles, and Jesus Christ Ascended.

swoon theory is now a myth

last theory that if I disprove I prove The Resurrection happened.

hallucination theory - Apostles were in their right minds, died for their beliefs, hallucinations are fast and quick, Thomas for example put his hand in Jesus side, you don't have multiple hallucinations about the same thing, and finally multiple people do not hallucinate about the same thing.

EVERY Single "naturalistic" "theory" has been made a myth of.

There is one Irrefutable Explanation, not the best but The Only Explanation is that Jesus Christ died on the cross and Resurrected from the dead, therefore proving everything in The Bible as a fact.

Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead.

add that with The Shroud which has no evidence of forgery, not a painting, cannot be reproduced with any type of technology, and caused by a burst of light from the dead body causing an image like a photography.

With The facts of The Bible's inerrancy and no contradiction, The Sense it makes, reliable Testimony/Accounts, Scientific Accuracy and foreknowledge, Historical Accuracy and foreknowledge, God's existence and failure of other religions making Christianity the only factual possibility, Physical evidence in The Shroud and Only Explanation being The Resurrection, it is indeniable, God Exists, Jesus Christ is Lord, Our Savior who died for our sins on the cross, Jesus Christ is the 2nd person of God, and that God is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.



So on history you've been refuted, pick another area now.
Nobody here is denying the resurrection of Christ. He was asking you if you knew about the historical origin of the Bible. 
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 360



« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2013, 03:23:28 PM »

Eastern Catholicism has always boggled my mind.  The theological language which the Romans use often seems to contradict the Eastern understanding of the Faith, and many Roman Catholics today would not understand an Eastern or Oriental Catholic's point of view when it came to many of their cherished doctrines. 

You aren't the first person I have heard make this claim, and I have yet to be convinced that it is true. Rather than seeing them as in conflict, I see them as complementary.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2013, 03:59:10 PM »

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct?  Will you address things that people write that disagree with you?  If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History?  You have the Bible under History in your paragraph.  Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible?  It was written and compiled over many centuries.  It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts.  
What do you really know about the history of the Bible?  Do you have a particular translation that you prefer?  If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Having translation problems mean nothing, we have Alot of Manuscripts, The Bible is the most accurate Historical Document in Ancient History, http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Thank you for the link..  Do you understand that many of the "manuscripts" are not complete books or complete Bibles but fragments or portions?  Even the page you linked to says that they are fragments. Do you use the CARM site for your ideas?  Why do you trust them as reliable?  

The 66 books that make up the Bible today, not counting the Apocrypha, were not put together into one group for some time.  There were canons that were established starting in the 4th Century with the Emperor Constantine.  F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture is a good book on this.

Quote
Here is a link to a book on the history of the King James Version (which did include the Apocrypha by the way)  called "God's Secretaries"
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736

I am starting with this translation because it is widely known.

I don't care about The King James Version, we got The Manuscripts, King James is therefore not needed  in this debate,

Can you read Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic?  Do you have access to the "Manuscripts" fragments and older volumes?  
The translations do matter because they are how people who do not read those languages/have access to the materials have the Bible.

Quote
The problem now is just folks don't know how to easily Translate things, for example the best Translation now would be The NIV, yet it has problems, for example, http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2009/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28-18

Have you ever translated anything from one language to another?  Do you speak/read any other languages?  You've made a claim here that the NIV is the "best Translation".  Prove it.  Who else likes it?

I'll have to check this gentleman that you linked to, but you posting it doesn't mean that it is necessarily accurate.  I believe that in one of your earlier posts you were making claims about that particular passage of scripture.  Did you just cut and paste from the linked site?

Addressing one or two ideas at a time can make discussion easier. Why did you just post more claims?  

You did not "refute" me but just posted things that I had not written about. At no point did I write anything denying the Resurrection of Our Lord.  Therefore you did not address my point but, in effect, tried to put "words in my mouth" which I never said.  Therefore, you attributed something to me that was not True.  

 What do you personally know about how History is studied and how real historians work?




« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 04:00:27 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2013, 04:09:47 PM »

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct?  Will you address things that people write that disagree with you?  If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History?  You have the Bible under History in your paragraph.  Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible?  It was written and compiled over many centuries.  It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts.  
What do you really know about the history of the Bible?  Do you have a particular translation that you prefer?  If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Having translation problems mean nothing, we have Alot of Manuscripts, The Bible is the most accurate Historical Document in Ancient History, http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Thank you for the link..  Do you understand that many of the "manuscripts" are not complete books or complete Bibles but fragments or portions?  Even the page you linked to says that they are fragments. Do you use the CARM site for your ideas?  Why do you trust them as reliable?  

The 66 books that make up the Bible today, not counting the Apocrypha, were not put together into one group for some time.  There were canons that were established starting in the 4th Century with the Emperor Constantine.  F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture is a good book on this.

Quote
Here is a link to a book on the history of the King James Version (which did include the Apocrypha by the way)  called "God's Secretaries"
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736

I am starting with this translation because it is widely known.

I don't care about The King James Version, we got The Manuscripts, King James is therefore not needed  in this debate,

Can you read Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic?  Do you have access to the "Manuscripts" fragments and older volumes?  
The translations do matter because they are how people who do not read those languages/have access to the materials have the Bible.

Quote
The problem now is just folks don't know how to easily Translate things, for example the best Translation now would be The NIV, yet it has problems, for example, http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2009/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28-18

Have you ever translated anything from one language to another?  Do you speak/read any other languages?  You've made a claim here that the NIV is the "best Translation".  Prove it.  Who else likes it?

I'll have to check this gentleman that you linked to, but you posting it doesn't mean that it is necessarily accurate.  I believe that in one of your earlier posts you were making claims about that particular passage of scripture.  Did you just cut and paste from the linked site?

Addressing one or two ideas at a time can make discussion easier. Why did you just post more claims?  

You did not "refute" me but just posted things that I had not written about. At no point did I write anything denying the Resurrection of Our Lord.  Therefore you did not address my point but, in effect, tried to put "words in my mouth" which I never said.  Therefore, you attributed something to me that was not True.  

 What do you personally know about how History is studied and how real historians work?






Like I said in another thread about SBC, "He's 18, if I remember correctly.  Ergo, he knows everything (but not quite as much as a 16 or 17 year old).  Grin"
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,513



« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2013, 04:14:16 PM »

If I stick with traditional Christianity, I will stick with Orthodoxy but I'm not exactly sure whether I will stick with traditional Christianity for the rest of my life. I'm somewhat conservative as a person though so I wouldn't be so suprised if I stayed in the fold despite turning into an augustin copycat. At least I had dignified culture and tradition left despite losing faith in Orthodoxy as an explicit institutional religion.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,383



« Reply #57 on: January 06, 2013, 04:25:06 PM »

I can't remember the last time I disagreed with something you said, but I might today...  angel

The 66 books that make up the Bible today, not counting the Apocrypha, were not put together into one group for some time.  There were canons that were established starting in the 4th Century with the Emperor Constantine.  F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture is a good book on this.

While I have seen many people say this (bolded part), I do not know that it's true or not. Do you have any scholarly references/sources?
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,311


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 06, 2013, 04:29:41 PM »

I can't remember the last time I disagreed with something you said, but I might today...  angel

The 66 books that make up the Bible today, not counting the Apocrypha, were not put together into one group for some time.  There were canons that were established starting in the 4th Century with the Emperor Constantine.  F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture is a good book on this.

While I have seen many people say this (bolded part), I do not know that it's true or not. Do you have any scholarly references/sources?

The first list of "canonical" books that names the same twenty-seven writings found in our New Testament appears in the Easter letter of Athanasius , Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in 367 C.E. He names them in a different order, to be sure. Even so, the first list that agrees with ours was a long time in coming.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,383



« Reply #59 on: January 06, 2013, 04:32:39 PM »

I'm not sure what that info has to do with St. Constantine  Huh  Smiley
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,311


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 06, 2013, 04:35:31 PM »

I'm not sure what that info has to do with St. Constantine  Huh  Smiley
I read him as claiming not that Constantine defined the canon; only that that canon as we have it today, was formulated not too long after Constantine's rule.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 04:35:53 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,383



« Reply #61 on: January 06, 2013, 04:58:54 PM »

Ahh, ok, I got ya Smiley
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #62 on: January 06, 2013, 05:44:20 PM »

Eastern Catholicism has always boggled my mind.  The theological language which the Romans use often seems to contradict the Eastern understanding of the Faith, and many Roman Catholics today would not understand an Eastern or Oriental Catholic's point of view when it came to many of their cherished doctrines. 

You aren't the first person I have heard make this claim, and I have yet to be convinced that it is true. Rather than seeing them as in conflict, I see them as complementary.

I would love to talk more about how you see them as complimentary, as I've been seeking to reconcile them in my own mind as well.  Yet that would deserve a thread of its own...
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #63 on: January 06, 2013, 05:49:55 PM »

I am 1,000,000% sure that if I were to ever apostate from Orthodoxy, it wouldn't be for another Christian denomination. I am 1,000,000% sure that Orthodoxy is the real deal and the most reasonable Christianity. If I were to ever apostate, it would be to an entirely different religion--probably either Buddhism or atheism.

Neither of which should be called "religions".  Buddhism is very non-theistic, and atheism is a philosophy. 

I disagree, both, especially atheism are both religions. Dawkins practices the religion of atheism as an example.

I am 1,000,000% sure that if I were to ever apostate from Orthodoxy, it wouldn't be for another Christian denomination. I am 1,000,000% sure that Orthodoxy is the real deal and the most reasonable Christianity. If I were to ever apostate, it would be to an entirely different religion--probably either Buddhism or atheism.

This is the same for me, I would not and could not leave Orthodoxy unless it was towards an absolute state of atheism. If the Christian God doesn't exist and Orthodoxy isn't try, then no other religion is true and no God exists.

Define "religion"?   I always understood religion to be involving worship of a god, or gods. Atheism is godless by definition, and seeks to worship nothing.

Religions isn't worship of a god or gods, though it sometimes involves that. Buddhism is a religion, modern Atheism is a religion. A visit to Wikipedia or Dictionary.com will show good definitions of religion.

I would say that a man like Neil Degrasse Tyson isn't religious, whereas a man like Richard Dawkins is highly religious. One is apathetic toward religion and even towards atheism, he's a scientist and doesn't care much for such debate; the other has dedicated his whole life and being towards atheism and furthering its philosophy, doctrine and membership using a lot of rhetoric similar to Protestant Fundamentalists.

Yes and I saw no definition which indicates atheism would be a religion.

".
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Atheism is not about believing or not believing in anything.  Most atheists would much rather look at facts, and what can be proven rather than a personal set of beliefs.  That's closer to knowledge and understanding, not a matter of belief and faith.

I suppose you don't know any atheists then. May I introduce you to r/atheism? If you go there you'll see how atheism is a religion.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,305


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #64 on: January 06, 2013, 06:02:20 PM »


"buddhism" worships a "budda" and  "atheism" believes in nothingness, both false religions.

Buddhism doesn't "worship" a Buddha--at least not all Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism does not worship the Buddha, although, to be fair, the weird non-Indian forms of Buddhism do. As for atheism believing in "nothingness", that's quite a stretch. How exactly does lack of a belief in a God or gods constitute belief in nothingness? In fact, how is that even logically possible?

Quote
There can only be One True Religion and that is Christianity.

Why not Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jediism etc?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #65 on: January 06, 2013, 06:37:43 PM »

I'm not sure what that info has to do with St. Constantine  Huh  Smiley
I read him as claiming not that Constantine defined the canon; only that that canon as we have it today, was formulated not too long after Constantine's rule.

That's correct. I wrote poorly in my using Constantine as a sort of marker of the period with his supporting Christianity with the State and calling councils such as Nicaea I in 325 and the listing of various combinations of books to be part of the canon that were written down.  It was my intent with this to give some historical context and that the Bible did not get handed down all in one piece from some indefinite time nor that the New Testament was all compiled and agreed on in the first century.

As to books along with Bruce's there's Bruce Metzger's
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544

I'm not providing the Amazon link to suggest buying it but to get the info on the book to people.
 
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,311


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 06, 2013, 07:02:10 PM »

"atheist" worship nothingness
The atheists I know worship ("give worth to") reason and compassion.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #67 on: January 06, 2013, 07:06:06 PM »

"atheist" worship nothingness
The atheists I know worship ("give worth to") reason and compassion.

Well, some of them do. Let's not lump all atheists together. IIRC, atheism simply means "lack of belief in a deity or deities". Nothing specifically about "reason" or "compassion" need go along with that. Some atheists are reasonable and compassionate, and some are jerks (just like Christians  Grin ).
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #68 on: January 06, 2013, 07:21:27 PM »

"atheist" worship nothingness
The atheists I know worship ("give worth to") reason and compassion.

Or themselves as some also do.
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #69 on: January 06, 2013, 07:22:52 PM »

"atheist" worship nothingness
The atheists I know worship ("give worth to") reason and compassion.

Under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, but actually under "atheism" would be right, which is scary, there goes "atheistic" reason and compassion.

if you disagree then please answer this question, what reason is there for rape to be wrong under "naturalism"/"atheism"?
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #70 on: January 06, 2013, 07:23:52 PM »

"atheist" worship nothingness
The atheists I know worship ("give worth to") reason and compassion.

Under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, but actually under "atheism" would be right, which is scary, there goes "atheistic" reason and compassion.

if you disagree then please answer this question, what reason is there for rape to be wrong under "naturalism"/"atheism"?

Can you provide some factual evidence that the majority of convicted rapists are atheists? Because then this would actually be a legitimate question.

But to answer your question, if you really can't think of a good reason for rape to be wrong other than your religious beliefs, then please, by all means, don't let go of your religious beliefs. And either way, stay away from my house.  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 07:26:20 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,383



« Reply #71 on: January 06, 2013, 07:25:02 PM »

A lot of this has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. As theistgal said, all atheism is is lacking belief in a god or gods. That's it.
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #72 on: January 06, 2013, 07:26:05 PM »

"atheist" worship nothingness
The atheists I know worship ("give worth to") reason and compassion.

Under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, but actually under "atheism" would be right, which is scary, there goes "atheistic" reason and compassion.

if you disagree then please answer this question, what reason is there for rape to be wrong under "naturalism"/"atheism"?

Where do you get this garbage? I find it surprising that there really are people who are this poorly informed.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #73 on: January 06, 2013, 07:27:51 PM »

"atheist" worship nothingness
The atheists I know worship ("give worth to") reason and compassion.

Under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, but actually under "atheism" would be right, which is scary, there goes "atheistic" reason and compassion.

if you disagree then please answer this question, what reason is there for rape to be wrong under "naturalism"/"atheism"?

Where do you get this garbage? I find it surprising that there really are people who are this poorly informed.

ok then, answer the question.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #74 on: January 06, 2013, 07:30:34 PM »

Rape is wrong because it is the violation of my right to my own property: e.g., my physical body.

And it's also wrong because if you try it, you may wind up in the hospital for several weeks, if not the morgue permanently. So it's really a bad idea all around.  police
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 07:31:39 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2013, 07:31:04 PM »

SBC, you don't seem to understand what I said.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2013, 07:31:36 PM »

Can you provide some factual evidence that the majority of convicted rapists are atheists?

Who said a majority of "atheist" are rapist? you slanderer, I said under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, so if an "atheist" agrees that rape is wrong, they use Theistic Moral, aka General Real Morals.

Because then this would actually be a legitimate question.

But to answer your question,

 if you really can't think of a good reason for rape to be wrong other than your religious beliefs, then please, by all means, don't let go of your religious beliefs. And either way, stay away from my house.  Roll Eyes

Answer the question then if I am wrong, what reason under "atheism"(never said "atheist" are rapist, I said that there is no such thing as "atheistic" reason and compassion, any "atheist" who has reason and compassion uses Theistic Cognitive Logic)/ "naturalism" is rape wrong?
 You are warned for using an ad hominem and not respecting others. Please review our rules. If you wish to contest this warning, please PM me first. Carl Kraeff (Second Chance), Section Moderator
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2013, 07:33:31 PM »

Rape is wrong because it is the violation of my right to my own property: e.g., my physical body.

That's not explaining why it is wrong under "naturalism".

And it's also wrong because if you try it, you may wind up in the hospital for several weeks, if not the morgue permanently. So it's really a bad idea all around.  police

In other words you have no reason for it to be wrong under "naturalism", "naturalism" is therefore false.

so I ask again, what's the reason for rape being wrong under "naturalism", why is rape wrong under "naturalism"/"atheism"?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 07:34:05 PM by SavedByChrist94 » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2013, 07:36:05 PM »

Can you provide some factual evidence that the majority of convicted rapists are atheists?

Who said a majority of "atheist" are rapist? you slanderer, I said under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, so if an "atheist" agrees that rape is wrong, they use Theistic Moral, aka General Real Morals.

Because then this would actually be a legitimate question.

But to answer your question,

 if you really can't think of a good reason for rape to be wrong other than your religious beliefs, then please, by all means, don't let go of your religious beliefs. And either way, stay away from my house.  Roll Eyes

Answer the question then if I am wrong, what reason under "atheism"(never said "atheist" are rapist, I said that there is no such thing as "atheistic" reason and compassion, any "atheist" who has reason and compassion uses Theistic Cognitive Logic)/ "naturalism" is rape wrong?

1. Please do not call me names.

2. There is no such thing as "atheism" as a specific philosophy/system of belief. "Atheism" is "the lack of belief in a god or gods". There are atheists who belong to religions such as Buddhism, which has its own ethical system. There are other atheists who follow the rules of whatever society they managed to land in.

3. Rape is wrong because forcing another person, against their will, to have sex with you is a violation of their rights under the law. If you actually need more of a reason than that, then please, stay home, far far away from the rest of civilization.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 360



« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2013, 07:49:42 PM »

I would love to talk more about how you see them as complimentary, as I've been seeking to reconcile them in my own mind as well.  Yet that would deserve a thread of its own...
Send me a PM. I'd be happy to discuss it.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #80 on: January 06, 2013, 07:49:58 PM »

Historically, most societies have had punishments of some kind against rapists and other criminals. It's one of the signs of being a civilized culture, that you have a system of laws and something done against violators of the law.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #81 on: January 06, 2013, 07:53:26 PM »

Can you provide some factual evidence that the majority of convicted rapists are atheists?

Who said a majority of "atheist" are rapist? you slanderer, I said under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, so if an "atheist" agrees that rape is wrong, they use Theistic Moral, aka General Real Morals.

Because then this would actually be a legitimate question.

But to answer your question,

 if you really can't think of a good reason for rape to be wrong other than your religious beliefs, then please, by all means, don't let go of your religious beliefs. And either way, stay away from my house.  Roll Eyes

Answer the question then if I am wrong, what reason under "atheism"(never said "atheist" are rapist, I said that there is no such thing as "atheistic" reason and compassion, any "atheist" who has reason and compassion uses Theistic Cognitive Logic)/ "naturalism" is rape wrong?

1. Please do not call me names.

2. There is no such thing as "atheism" as a specific philosophy/system of belief. "Atheism" is "the lack of belief in a god or gods". There are atheists who belong to religions such as Buddhism, which has its own ethical system. There are other atheists who follow the rules of whatever society they managed to land in.

3. Rape is wrong because forcing another person, against their will, to have sex with you is a violation of their rights under the law. If you actually need more of a reason than that, then please, stay home, far far away from the rest of civilization.

1, you claimed that I said that a "majority of "atheist are rapist", I didn't say that.

2, actually "lack of belief" is a philosophy, I can easily refute it with this question, what proof and evidence is there for a "lack of belief" to be accurate and correct?

3,That is the correct reason, but under "atheism" there wouldn't be a law, that's why "atheism" is fairy tales.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #82 on: January 06, 2013, 07:57:14 PM »

1, you claimed that I said that a "majority of "atheist are rapist", I didn't say that.

I did not say you said that. I am pointing out that unless the majority of convicted rapists are avowed atheists, it's pointless to ask whether "atheism" has anything to say about rape.

I'm not responding to the rest of what you wrote because frankly, you're temping me to the Sin of Impatiently Posting Too Quickly On The Internet.  Cool
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,305


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #83 on: January 06, 2013, 08:06:08 PM »

Atheism is not necessarily naturalism. It is indeed true that most western atheists are naturalistic in their worldview, but just because they are atheists--lack belief in a God or gods--it does not follow that they necessarily are naturalists--like many scientists. Indeed, I know many atheists that are actually very superstitious or "spiritual" people who dabble in the occult and the like. Even Buddhism itself--which is a religion--is technically atheistic--although they generally refer to be called "non-theistic--because the religion lacks any concept of a God or gods.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #84 on: January 06, 2013, 08:06:25 PM »

1, you claimed that I said that a "majority of "atheist are rapist", I didn't say that.

I did not say you said that. I am pointing out that unless the majority of convicted rapists are avowed atheists, it's pointless to ask whether "atheism" has anything to say about rape.

I'm not responding to the rest of what you wrote because frankly, you're temping me to the Sin of Impatiently Posting Too Quickly On The Internet.  Cool

That's a sin?  Uh oh........ Wink
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,383



« Reply #85 on: January 06, 2013, 08:28:10 PM »

Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #86 on: January 06, 2013, 09:04:21 PM »



^ I've always loved that image
Logged
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #87 on: January 06, 2013, 09:07:36 PM »



LOLOLOL  laugh laugh Cheesy Cheesy, that's why I feel this whole argument started by SBC here has gotten rather pointless.. so it's no big deal to me anymore.
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #88 on: January 06, 2013, 09:11:00 PM »

Here's another version I like:

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,383



« Reply #89 on: January 06, 2013, 09:35:11 PM »

I'm not sure what that info has to do with St. Constantine  Huh  Smiley
I read him as claiming not that Constantine defined the canon; only that that canon as we have it today, was formulated not too long after Constantine's rule.

That's correct. I wrote poorly in my using Constantine as a sort of marker of the period with his supporting Christianity with the State and calling councils such as Nicaea I in 325 and the listing of various combinations of books to be part of the canon that were written down.  It was my intent with this to give some historical context and that the Bible did not get handed down all in one piece from some indefinite time nor that the New Testament was all compiled and agreed on in the first century.

As to books along with Bruce's there's Bruce Metzger's
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544

I'm not providing the Amazon link to suggest buying it but to get the info on the book to people.
 

Thanks! Smiley
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.194 seconds with 73 queries.