At 2/10/10 01:48 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: It seems that you really don't want to continue so I will respect that and make this brief.

Thank you kindly.

I would very much like for you to be saved and accept Christ as Lord but I was not debating from that premise. I know you didn't ask but still, if at any point you would like to know how to be saved you can contact me and I will be happy to give you any information you request on the subject.

Which does to me seem like the idea here ultimately is to convert people and prove how you're beliefs are fact. To be honest I have an idea about which denomination of the Church you are based on some of your statements here and as a favor to friends have attended such meetings. I found them to be pretty personally repellent as the message tended to be "if you're with us, you're the saved, the chosen, the worthy...if you aren't, you're the damned, the outcast, and deserving of the Hellfire you will burn in". To be honest I find that to be an extremely negative (some would even say bigoted) view that I do not and cannot get behind. I'm against those kinds of theories of a "superior" group, because that's the kind of thinking that has led to problems great and small in this world.

I appreciate what you're about and that I do believe you're coming from an honest place when you say this. But for me my fundamental belief on that kind of thing has always been that such things are more about getting people right with the church and loyal to that system then being right with God and loyal to the creator. I just have too many questions about the dogma and too many objections to organized religion to ever really become a part of it. I'll believe in and respect a creator in my own way and continue to choose to believe that such a creator won't care what church I belong to or don't belong to, as long as I'm a right and moral person who is doing everything I can to make the world a little better with me in it. If that's not acceptable to the creator, well then maybe it's better if we just don't hang out then.

Also I would like to thank you for pushing me to do some serious research; I know you don't necessarily agree with my conclusions but

Yeah, to be honest I don't think the research you did is all that serious since it seems to me you didn't look beyond really religious texts, and sources that continue to push the idea that religious texts are the true word (and even at that, only the texts that you've been indoctrinated to believe are the true ones). But like I say, I respect your rights to hold your beliefs, I just don't think we have anything else to really say to each other since we fundamentally disagree and I think we reached a total ideological impasse.

Also per what people were asking about Cain's wife, there is a heretical book of the bible (I forget which one, and by heretical I of course mean "circulated and believed by some...but didn't make the cut for the main inclusion) that says Adam and Eve didn't just have two sons but also had daughters and that Cain's wife was his sister. Obviously this one was left out because there's no way to reconcile it against the very strong prohibition on incest. But of course if we only started with one man and one woman...well, there's no way you don't get to have successive generations without incest.

At 2/10/10 01:50 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

At 2/9/10 01:28 PM, Smokey651 wrote: I'm an atheist, and I've been one for about a year now.

What's your backup plan?

If you say what I think you're going to say I'll slap you in the face!

At 2/10/10 01:48 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: I would love to have a debate with you and respond to some of your arguments but there are a few things I just can't get around, the above quote for example. It seems apparent that you have no intention of doing any other than attacking me. Have I done something to offend you? Is it because I didn't take you seriously? Is it because I am a Christian? These are rhetorical questions; I don't need to know your answer.

Exactly the problem. You don't need to know the answer, because you already think you have it.
I'm here to attack your arguments, when you actually bother to provide them, when they're actually sourced, and when they're actually based around some sort of factual basis.

These are far and few between for you it seems.
For ex, your example that "tens of thousands" were martyred is HISTORICALLY FALSE. So I want to know where you heard it from, because there are not many historians who would give such a number, and there is very little base for it. Edward Gibbon places the number of martyred IN TOTAL somewhere around 1500.

Much much less than your "tens of thousands". So I want to see a source for this claim. I want to see EVIDENCE, that supports your reasoning, interwoven in your argument. See? This is called "History", and this is how real historians do their work. We use things called "evidence", and "sources". You've provided neither.

So to call you a charlatan bullshitter is well within reason.

I do want you to know I harbor no ill will toward you; I simply see it as fruitless to carry on any sort of discourse as neither of us are likely to get anything out of it.

Because you think you already know the answers.
How many people have told you that you are distorting history?
How many people have told you that you are using fallacious arguments?
How many people have told you that your reasoning is faulty, and shown you why they think so?

You don't read Hebrew, you don't read Greek. But you're positive Catholicism distorts the Bible.
You don't know history, but you're positive Catholicism corrupted "True" Christianity.

You're convinced 1 billion people have got it wrong, and you're convinced you've got it right.
And you really don't think you're being arrogant?

Please, do me a favor. You don't have to debate me, because Avie and Bacchanalian aren't really saying anything different than what I would say.

So do me a favor, and show me somewhere in this "discussion" of you ACTUALLY getting something out of the conversation you're having with either of them. Because so far, all I've seen you do is argue that everyone is wrong but you.

You won't address my point on non-trinitarianism why? I'm guessing it's because you don't even know what that is. Not because you're "not gonna get anything out of it" as you so claim. And once again, if you can show where my argument is flawed, I would love to see it.

But don't for one second thing I'm attacking you. I'm attacking your argument, because it is based around a SEVERELY hampered understanding of history and Early Christianity. For you to think I'm attacking you because you are Christian is ludicrous.

Show me you're not a charlatan by providing the evidence for your claims. Period. End of discussion. You think that's a personal attack on you, well.....that's your problem then.

Ball's in your court Mr. Trouble-me-not-with-facts.

At 2/10/10 01:48 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Jesus being the Son of God is rather essential otherwise anything He did would not have mattered, however He is also the Messiah.

Exactly. If not God, at least a Messiah. Messiah's matter.

So sure, but it's dependant on how you intend to use this definition.

Yes! Thank you!

I would say that; some exception can be made for doctrinal confusion or misinterpretation where it is non essential to salvation. Does that work? Probably not...

An exception to exclusion? That seems counter to everything you've been saying.

[...] Salvation for example, which Catholicism doesn't inherently teach.

Judgment?

[mormons] still wouldn't fit even your definition.

How so?

Not really, but now that I'm thinking about it apostates come to mind, though that might be a step up for some.

Aren't they all apostates (of Christianity) from your point of view?

Actually, I think you're right.

Huzzah!

I get that and you are right but it's not necessarily about righteousness... [...]

*

But I don't care about entitlement, and the truth is all encompassing.

Before I yell, "yes you do!" what does "the truth is all encompassing" mean here?

I do care about salvation though, my own of course but also that of others

I never figured you were devoid of compassion/empathy/sympathy.

* But... when you corrected Saxturbation... was that really for his salvation?

(I was being serious when I asked you if you wanted to know how to be saved, and the offer stands).

Know how to be saved, and being saved are two different things. I mean, unless your beliefs are particularly obscure, chances are I'm familiar with it. But how about I stop being presumptuous for once and just let you tell me? :P

The world has a very loose, very disingenuous definition for Christianity which is in a large part in contrast with what it means to be a true Christian.

Christianity is to Catholic as furniture is to table. If that helps. It's not disingenuous. It's just muddy waters when you involve other definitions of Christianity. It is very loose though.

I was just playing along, that's all.

Oh pfft. You want to save me.

Believe it or not, no... you just read into things way too much. Do you go to school for debating or something?

Architecture... but not far off in some ways. We're trained to dwell on contradiction.

Yes, before it was abstract now the context denotes a concrete usage. I'm sorry to switch things up on you like that, should I have warned you?

It's not so much just that the switch was made. It's how the switch was exploited. You don't have to warn me, you just have to not do it. It's not that it throws me off guard. It's that it's dishonest.

In other words, one way to tell if someone is a true Christian

We're back to operating with different definitions again. I never said Hitler was a true Christian.

At 2/10/10 01:50 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:
Regarding Sir William Mitchell Ramsay:

I have not been able to verify that he was at one point an atheist using non Christian sources (which I imagine is all many of you would accept), for the purposes of this statement I cannot conclusively determine if at one point he was or not. I have no reason to doubt the claim that he was at one point an atheist, in fact a statement by Sir William Mitchell Ramsay himself in his book "St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen" would seem to support this. You can make your own conclusions.

I don't have a problem with a Christian source so long as the source's religious motivations do not interfere with the conclusion.

That said, there is certainly the case that a Christian source has an ulterior motivation to discuss Ramsay's conversion. A 3rd party source would not have that same bias. The fact that you cannot find said 3rd party source is what makes us skeptics look at you with O.o eyes.

You gave a reference for his book, that's perfectly fine.

Regardless of his spiritual status this quote does demonstrate his initial intentions toward his investigation. The point is that he set out to disprove the credibility of 'Luke' and as a result of his investigation ended up supporting it.

Again, if we were face to face, I'd be looking at you like this: O.o?
Because I'm fairly certain you're not reading what I'm reading......

The quote you used shows the exact opposite of what you are saying his initial intentions are. In fact, they're right there, in the first sentence; "without prejudice" to the conclusion.

Don't get much clearer than that, I have no idea how you can then say he set out to "disprove Luke", when he himself is saying he set out with no such thing in mind.

At most, he says he did not expect Acts to be a competent authority on topography and Asia Minor societies, and was pleasantly surprised.

How you interpreted it the way you did......well it's beyond me, really it is......

At 2/10/10 02:47 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/10/10 01:50 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

At 2/9/10 01:28 PM, Smokey651 wrote: I'm an atheist, and I've been one for about a year now.

What's your backup plan?

If you say what I think you're going to say I'll slap you in the face!

better question; whats Thunder's back up plan?

At 2/10/10 09:24 PM, SolInvictus wrote: better question; whats Thunder's back up plan?

Haven't you been paying attention? He knows the truth, he needs know back up plan!!!

Jeez Sol...way to reading comprehend!!

At 2/10/10 02:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which does to me seem like the idea here ultimately is to convert people and prove how you're beliefs are fact. To be honest I have an idea about which denomination of the Church you are based on some of your statements here and as a favor to friends have attended such meetings. I found them to be pretty personally repellent as the message tended to be "if you're with us, you're the saved, the chosen, the worthy...if you aren't, you're the damned, the outcast, and deserving of the Hellfire you will burn in". To be honest I find that to be an extremely negative (some would even say bigoted) view that I do not and cannot get behind. I'm against those kinds of theories of a "superior" group, because that's the kind of thinking that has led to problems great and small in this world.

I agree that some Christians can be pretty repellent. I personally don't belong to a church (I do go to church, I'm just not a member or anything) and I certainly don't consider myself any particular denomination. It's just me and God.

I appreciate what you're about and that I do believe you're coming from an honest place when you say this. But for me my fundamental belief on that kind of thing has always been that such things are more about getting people right with the church and loyal to that system then being right with God and loyal to the creator. I just have too many questions about the dogma and too many objections to organized religion to ever really become a part of it. I'll believe in and respect a creator in my own way and continue to choose to believe that such a creator won't care what church I belong to or don't belong to, as long as I'm a right and moral person who is doing everything I can to make the world a little better with me in it. If that's not acceptable to the creator, well then maybe it's better if we just don't hang out then.

I actually don't believe it's necessary to go to an actual church; I go because I want to, not because I feel I have to. Church dogma and organized religion doesn't do much for me either, any time you have someone between you and God there's the possibility for corruption or distortion. It is through faith that we are saved not by our works or by belonging to a group. I spent much of my life trying to 'get right with God' so I'd feel worthy enough until I realized that's not how it works. I finally realized I'm not strong enough to do it on my own and that it's through Gods strength that I was to be saved.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share a little about myself to clear things up. I know I come on strong sometimes but I believe in God with all my heart and make no apologies for that.

Also per what people were asking about Cain's wife, there is a heretical book of the bible (I forget which one, and by heretical I of course mean "circulated and believed by some...but didn't make the cut for the main inclusion) that says Adam and Eve didn't just have two sons but also had daughters and that Cain's wife was his sister. Obviously this one was left out because there's no way to reconcile it against the very strong prohibition on incest. But of course if we only started with one man and one woman...well, there's no way you don't get to have successive generations without incest.

That would be an interesting read. I infer the incest conclusion from the information available in the Bible. Where a lot of people get hung up is on perspective, just because the Bible says something somewhere doesn't mean it's true for the whole history of the Bible, attention needs to be paid to where it is said and in what context. Incest wasn't actually prohibited until the time of Moses; in fact Abraham was married to his half-sister Sarah.

-----------

At 2/10/10 02:47 PM, Brick-top wrote: If you say what I think you're going to say I'll slap you in the face!

It was actually a rhetorical question designed to make him think.
But it's killing me, what did you think I was going to say?

At 2/10/10 08:30 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Exactly. If not God, at least a Messiah. Messiah's matter.

Messiah's do matter, but He was also God... which also matters.

Yes! Thank you!

Oh great, what have I gotten myself into...

An exception to exclusion? That seems counter to everything you've been saying.

Not at all, salvation is primary to being a Christian; as long as you have that you have the foundation but that doesn't mean you are a Christian. However from there we can start framing things in with doctrine... I'm just going to use an analogy, it'll be easier... and since I like pie!

You can't have lemon meringue pie (pie = Christianity) without a crust (crust = salvation). Just because you have a crust doesn't mean you have pie, you have to fill that pie with lemon custard (lemon custard = doctrine).
On the other hand if all you have is lemon custard you don't have pie because you need the crust (salvation).
Sometimes people accidentally mistake the salt for sugar and ruin the pie with salty custard (false doctrine). As nasty as this is it's still technically pie (Christianity) [this would be doctrinal confusion or simple misinterpretation, still pie, just not very good pie].
If you start leaving ingredients out like the egg yolks (integrity of doctrine [if you don't follow doctrine]) then when you try to take a piece of the pie, the filling is going to run out everywhere meaning you don't have pie, which is very sad :( [This would be someone who's saved but doesn't follow Gods word and therefore isn't a Christian, which is technically possible.]
So we see that for lemon meringue pie we need both a crust and a filling, if either of these elements is missing or if the filling is runny we don't have pie.
You must have a crust and lemon custard, and then we can build a light and fluffy meringue (of devotion and works) to top it all off! :D

Okay, that wasn't easier...

I realize this is a little confusing, the only reason I'm actually posting it is because I spent a lot of time on it and thought if nothing else it would be entertaining. If you're still confused I have a standing rib roast analogy that might work better. :)

[...] Salvation for example, which Catholicism doesn't inherently teach.

Judgment?

One word questions are confusing... However I believe you are asking me if I'm judging Catholicism...?
If so, then yes. Not individual Catholics mind you but Catholicism in general. I compare it to the teachings of the Bible to determine if it is Christianity, as it turns out its salty, runny and generally crust-less.

How so?

For starters they are a polytheistic religion, instead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being one, Mormons believe they are separate entities. They also believe in a whole bunch of demigods for other planets. You see, Jehovah-Jesus resides with Mary on the planet Kolob and is only the God of this planet. Each planet has its own god in Mormonism you see...

(Come to think of it, the Catholics idea of what a saint is kind of resembles a demigod...)

Also they take the Bible very selectively/allegorically. Technically they use it but in reality their "Book of Mormon" is their holy book.
Besides... magic underwear with nipple protectors. Nipple Protectors!!!

Aren't they all apostates (of Christianity) from your point of view?

If indeed a certain group has left Christianity by deliberately and/or substantially adding or taking away from it then yes, they are apostates. Since the Bible is fundamental to Christianity this can be measured by how closely they follow the Bible.

Before I yell, "yes you do!" what does "the truth is all encompassing" mean here?

The truth of the matter(s) at hand.
Everything that we're talking about is about determining the truth. Even if I turn out to be wrong I care about knowing the truth.

I may have to clarify that depending on what you have in mind.

* But... when you corrected Saxturbation... was that really for his salvation?

That was about the truth, the closer to the truth I can bring someone the closer to salvation they are no matter how small the step may be. That isn't to say I had his salvation directly in mind, I simply had information to share. I enjoy learning and I enjoy sharing what I learn :)

Know how to be saved, and being saved are two different things. I mean, unless your beliefs are particularly obscure, chances are I'm familiar with it. But how about I stop being presumptuous for once and just let you tell me? :P

Yay!
It's really simple; all you have to do is hear or read the word of God (John chapter 1 is a great place to start), believe and truly accept that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for your sins (you do need to accept that you are a sinner), then repent of those sins. If you do this honestly, prayerfully and with all your heart, God will save you.

Luke 23:39-43 illustrates just how simple it really is:

39. One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
40. But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence?
41. We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42. Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
43. Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

No elaborate ceremonies necessary, just you and God. You don't even need to be baptized, though if you're truly saved I don't think there's any reason why you wouldn't want to be.

Anyway, you should totally do it, it's like doing drugs except it's free, it lasts longer, it's not illegal, it's even less socially acceptable, there's a slightly diminished risk of being shanked, it improves your life and there's actually a happy ending. Other than that it's practically the same thing. :P

Christianity is to Catholic as furniture is to table. If that helps. It's not disingenuous. It's just muddy waters when you involve other definitions of Christianity. It is very loose though.

And when that table has been cut up for fire wood, what is it then?
You're right though, it is muddy waters / very loose but it is to the detriment of Catholics (among others) and thats why I have a serious problem with it, all other reasons are secondary at best.

It's not so much just that the switch was made. It's how the switch was exploited. You don't have to warn me, you just have to not do it. It's not that it throws me off guard. It's that it's dishonest.

Well I feel I should apologize as dishonesty was not my intention.

We're back to operating with different definitions again. I never said Hitler was a true Christian.

No, I'm just explaining why he wasn't to draw up a simile to other situations, such as Catholicism.

At 2/10/10 03:37 PM, Imperator wrote: Edward Gibbon places the number of martyred IN TOTAL somewhere around 1500.

"but tens of thousands were killed over the years."

Years, "an unusually long period of time of indefinite length" ~ Dictionary.com

So really, just 1500 Christians martyred from 64 AD to, say, the Edict of Milan in 313 AD?

You could have simply asked me to specify rather than automatically assuming I was drawing upon faulty sources or making figures up that suited my purposes. However you didn't, you made a faulty assumption and have clung to it without giving me or my "source" the benefit of the doubt and in the process revealed much about your character as it relates to me.

"before I completely destroy it and make you look like a charlatan [censored]."

This also didn't help.

Because you think you already know the answers.

Because it would only turn into a (one sided) shouting match with you hurling insults at me until I get frustrated and leave. All of this has already happened except for the last part; I'm still here. If this continues I will ignore you, if that doesn't work I will leave. The only reason I'm responding is to clear a few things up.
I mean no offence by any of this and I still harbor no ill will toward you (in fact I only wish you the best), I simply am not going to stick around and be continually patronized by you or by anyone, I can only take so much.

You don't read Hebrew, you don't read Greek. But you're positive Catholicism distorts the Bible.

This quote was taken from my first response to you.
"What I'm getting at has little to do with how the words themselves were actually translated but rather deliberate alterations to the meaning of the text."

And I can prove this, in fact I already did but for some reason you refuse to accept this and continue to harp on this point as if I presumed something but did not support it with evidence. I did.

But don't for one second thing I'm attacking you. I'm attacking your argument,

Why the insults then? Why the condescension?
You are attacking me personally; it's frankly a little disturbing you can't see that.

For you to think I'm attacking you because you are Christian is ludicrous.

"Have I done something to offend you? Is it because I didn't take you seriously? Is it because I am a Christian?"

I thought it more likely I had offended you somehow or because I didn't take you seriously in your first response to me, I threw in the last one because it was indeed ludicrous.
But if it is truly ludicrous then why are you defensive about it and not the others?

Ball's in your court

I have nothing to prove to you.
Like I said, I'm just clearing a few things up, that you have distorted.

But I would hate for you to live you life not knowing something only because I didn't share it.

The trinity is alluded to several times in the Old Testament:
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us"
Genesis 11:7 "Go to, let us go down"
Isaiah 6:8. "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

The Hebrew word "Elohim" is the word primarily used when referring to God in the Old Testament and is the plural form of "Eloah" which means "a deity or the deity:-God". This implies the Trinity.
Strong's Concordance reference number '430'. "Elohim"; "plural of 433 [Eloah]; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God;"

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
The word "one" in this case is the Hebrew word "echad" which is not necessarily singular which is used to describe a unity which implies the Trinity.
Strong's Concordance reference number 259. "echad" "a numeral from 258 [258. "achad; perhaps a prime root; to unify,"] prop. United, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:-a, alike, alone, altogether,"

There's more but that should be enough. The allusions to the Trinity in the Old Testament are apparent and prove that Judaism has historically been a Trinitarian religion, and since Christianity is rooted in Judaism this means Christianity was not the first occurrence much less the origin of the Trinity. The existence of the Trinity is consistent with the New Testament story of the origin of Christianity.

Emphasis added to the quote by Sir William Mitchell Ramsay:

"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it,... It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth."

At 2/10/10 01:50 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

At 2/9/10 06:49 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: Here's some food for thought.
In the Bible, it says that after Cain was exiled, he went to live in the land of Nod, and took a wife there. This doesn't make sense. Other than Cain, Adam, and Eve, at the time, nobody else was alive. The Bible is full of nonsense. Why do you live by it?

The Bible does not specifically mention the berth of a lot of people that certainly existed however it does infer some of them by stating at the end of verse 4, in chapter 5, when referring to Adam "and he begat sons and daughters".

The Bible only directly mentions three offspring of Adam and Eve. It indirectly mentions that they had "sons and daughters", possibly hundreds considering how long they lived. That's right; this means Cain's wife was his sister.

Oh, I guess that makes sense. Never thought about that.
I do, however, stand by my opinion that the Bible should not be used as the source of truth. We have no proof that anything in it is correct; therefore, I regard it as false. I mean, what makes it any more credible than the Torah or Qur'an?

At 2/12/10 01:25 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: "but tens of thousands were killed over the years."

Years, "an unusually long period of time of indefinite length" ~ Dictionary.com

Yeah good job. Please look up "total" now.

It's not the time frame I'm having issues with, it's the number killed.
"tens of thousands". The highest estimate I've seen for total Christians killed under the Roman Empire has been 50,000. Now maybe there's more out there, but by and large estimates range much much lower than "tens of thousands". Over the years, in a single instance, or in total.

There are 3 reasons:
1.) Romans persecuted Christians ad hoc. Pliny's letters to Trajan are a good reflection of this. When it could be avoided, Romans avoided the bloodshed. A few select emperors went nuts, but 95% of all provincial administrators acted like Pliny. What really threw the Romans off was the fact that Christians went to their deaths WILLINGLY. That was enough of a reason to not kill them en masse.

2.) Christianity was underground. And it was also perverse. To root out Christians and persecute them on an Imperial scale would have been something like inviting civil war (especially considering a fair number of soldiers were Christian).

3.) Lack of corroborating evidence. All high estimates, ie, those over 10,000, are from later Christian sources. In other words, they are from sources predisposed to aggrandizing the spectacle. Christian embellish, just like Emperors and everyone else. Their deeds weren't really that spectacular, and the rivers didn't run red with Christan slaughtered.

So really, just 1500 Christians martyred from 64 AD to, say, the Edict of Milan in 313 AD?

Actually I think Gibbon may be referring to a single major persecution, Diocletian I think. I'll have to recheck this quote. But again, the Diocletian persecution was the most severe and wide spread, with a total being estimated at 1500.

So it really goes without saying that "tens of thousands" is a very biased, very inaccurate depiction of Christian Persecution under the Roman Empire.

You could have simply asked me to specify rather [...]:

You're supposed to provide the source up front. I shouldn't have to ask you nicely to supply evidence for your arguments. Conversation 101 bro.

Because it would only turn into a (one sided) shouting match [...]

I will keep hounding you as long as your arguments are irrational, and not backed by solid supporting evidence.

You want to get frustrated and leave? Or ignore me? Be my guest. You're gonna get creamed regardless, because there are some good debaters on these boards, and they are gonna be able to spot the rather large, gaping holes in your arguments.....and they WILL call you on it.....

Like I said, I could easily sit back and enjoy myself, it doesn't look like Bacchanalian or Avie are gonna miss much. I just wanted to add input because Roman history and Early Christianity are specialty areas of my education. I have more tid bits in this conversation than say....economics.

I mean no offence by any of this and I still harbor no ill will toward you (in fact I only wish you the best), I simply am not going to stick around and be continually patronized by you or by anyone, I can only take so much.

Then I suggest you show some intellectual integrity and SOURCE YOUR POINTS.

And I can prove this, in fact I already did but for some reason you refuse to accept this and continue to harp on this point as if I presumed something but did not support it with evidence. I did.

Maybe I missed it. Show me again. Show me the "deliberate alteration" the Catholic Church does. If it is NT, I will translate the original Greek and give you my translation. Because how one interprets the Bible depends on how it is translated.

My favorite is Jesus' stand before Pilate, when asked if he is the Son of God. He says "su legeis". A LOT of translations completely distort the meaning.....

Why the insults then? Why the condescension?

Calling you a charlatan bullshitter because you're putting up points without sound reference isn't insulting, it's accurate. Stop throwing bullshit and stop acting like a charlatan and my tones will change.

You are attacking me personally; it's frankly a little disturbing you can't see that.

I have nothing to prove to you.

Yes, I noticed you have not proved your arguments.
Yes, yes you do have something to prove to me. You have to prove your arguments.
You have yet to do so, therefore, I have no reason to believe them.

The trinity is alluded to several times in the Old Testament:
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us"
Genesis 11:7 "Go to, let us go down"
Isaiah 6:8. "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

All 1st plural, but I'm failing to see a reference to a trinity.

These could represent 2 people, 3 people, 100 people, etc. There's no more evidence this alludes to a trinity as it does to God and the chorus of angels. Or God and the souls of the dead, or God and Zeus.

They indicate more than 1 person, nothing more. No indication of a trinity. You are retroactively concluding these reference a trinity, or affirming the consequent.

There. I was nice, I was polite. No reason for you to whine about ad hominems.

The Hebrew word "Elohim" is the word primarily used when referring to God in the Old Testament and is the plural form of "Eloah" which means "a deity or the deity:-God". This implies the Trinity.

This does not. This implies a plural. The implication of a trinity is applied after the fact. See above.

Strong's Concordance reference number '430'. "Elohim"; "plural of 433 [Eloah]; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God;"

Good. We have proof that Eloah is the plural. We still have no evidence this plural indicates 3 persons, eg, the Trinity.

I can claim in good faith Eloah is implicating God and Bacchus.....and they're throwing a party. My argument would be just as valid as yours.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
The word "one" in this case is the Hebrew word "echad" which is not necessarily singular which is used to describe a unity which implies the Trinity.

Unity=trinity. Show me where this implies a trinity, and not God and the choir of angels. Otherwise, I'm just as safe assuming one or the other.

There's more but that should be enough. The allusions to the Trinity in the Old Testament are apparent and prove that Judaism has historically been a Trinitarian religion,

See above. There is a reference to a plural. There is no indication in ANY of the above that this plural refers to a trinity. You are affirming the consequent, and applying a Christian doctrine, established at Nicaea in 325, retroactively.

and since Christianity is rooted in Judaism this means Christianity was not the first occurrence much less the origin of the Trinity. The existence of the Trinity is consistent with the New Testament story of the origin of Christianity.

Time flows forward. Judaism must confirm the Christian sentiment, not vice versa. Otherwise, you affirm the consequent. The existence of the Trinity is consistent with the New Testament because the Council of Nicaea established trinitarianism as orthodoxy.

The retroactive application that plural uses of Hewbrew words must then refer to a trinity (as opposed to any other plural) is a fallacious argument.

The Old Testament lines you have shown allude only that God keeps company. QED. Your argument of what company God keeps is spurious.

If there is an OT verse showing "our" refers to God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, you would have a point. Otherwise, no. Fail. Sorry.

Imperator -- Oh, so that's what the Trinity means? Like, three gods? You're right, where does it say anything about three?

Unity=trinity. Show me where this implies a trinity, and not God and the choir of angels. Otherwise, I'm just as safe assuming one or the other.

***This should read Unity=/= trinity.....

As in, a "unity" may imply 2 people (as in marriage), 3 people (as in Trinity), or 5000 people (as in Roman legion).

Without corroborating evidence that the above mentioned unity implies a trinity, I cannot accept this argument.

At 2/12/10 06:34 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: Imperator -- Oh, so that's what the Trinity means? Like, three gods? You're right, where does it say anything about three?

Trinity means 3 gods, one person. Basically, and I use that word hesitantly.

It doesn't say anything about 3. Three comes after the fact, established as orthodox by the Council of Nicaea.

This is why, historically, non-trinitarianism is the older of the two Christian doctrines. The Trinity was established because it was very unclear as how Father, Son, and Spirit all fit together. There were many initial theories. Trinitarianism was established later. The Arian controversy was over trinitarian issues. Mormons today represent this continued diversity of opinion.

Earlier traditions were for all sorts of different things, including hero worship, much like the Greek custom. The figure of Jesus made sense that way too. Jesus was a man, but did some neat stuff, and therefore was elevated to deity status.

There was also a theory that Jesus was half-man, half-God. Born of Mary, but with the "seed" of God. It made sense to people in those days (especially Greeks), because Zeus was notorious for this type of behavior, and demi-gods like Alcaeus (Herakles/Hercules) were extant in Greek mythology.

Then there's the belief that Jesus was "adopted" by God and made Holy.

But the belief that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all "God" and yet separate persons (and exactly how this makes sense is about as clear as mud in current Christian doctrine)was not the first theory.

Since Thunder is arguing that Catholicism distorted what was the earlier, "truer" version of Christianity, this is a point he must address. Non-trinitarianism is the elder belief, ergo, "true" Christianity, by his argument, is to NOT believe in the Trinity.

This would make Mormons the most accurate, based on Thunder's argument.

At 2/12/10 01:20 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: I agree that some Christians can be pretty repellent. I personally don't belong to a church (I do go to church, I'm just not a member or anything) and I certainly don't consider myself any particular denomination. It's just me and God.

How exactly does one go to church but yet not be a member of the church they are attending? Are you going to multiple churches?

Also, it's not really "just me and God" when you get right down to it. You don't speak to God directly (or at least you've never claimed to) and you've made clear you are of the Christian belief system, so that is your vision of the being you call "God". Which has really been the heart of my (and I think other people's) discourse and objection to you saying you know the "absolute truth" or are somehow in possession of special knowledge others aren't. You are part of an established belief structure (whether you partake of the organized portions of such or not) and as part of that you askew from other competing (but in some cases closely related) options. You askew from these options with nothing more then your faith as the proof. But faith is not proof, by definition faith is not. Hence my objection. I do not object to the belief, you have a right to your belief. People have fought and died and sacrificed for your right to such and I wouldn't disrespect them by saying because we disagree you don't have that right.

But what I will always disagree with is when someone states a belief as fact with nothing really solid to back it up. Because then you're limiting yourself and others. Make sense?

Anyway, I just thought I'd share a little about myself to clear things up. I know I come on strong sometimes but I believe in God with all my heart and make no apologies for that.

I don't think anybody wants you to apologize for your beliefs. If they do, they suck and should consider how they'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot.

That would be an interesting read. I infer the incest conclusion from the information available in the Bible. Where a lot of people get hung up is on perspective, just because the Bible says something somewhere doesn't mean it's true for the whole history of the Bible, attention needs to be paid to where it is said and in what context. Incest wasn't actually prohibited until the time of Moses; in fact Abraham was married to his half-sister Sarah.

Mmm, yes, that might get you around the prohibition. But there's still one fact it DOESN'T get you around that invalidates the whole thing: genetics. Because we know that closely related immediate family members cannot mate with each other for successive generations without massive defects mentally and physically coming to the fore. As Garth Ennis crudely (but accurately) observed: "Son of God or Son of Man...you can't fuck your sister and expect anything good to come of it".

The story in Genesis, even if you take a heretical text like the explanation of Cain's wife, or other attempts to explain the propagation of the species, the gene pool is still just too damn slim not to die out within a few generations, not to mention it does nothing to address the racial diversity we have on this planet.

At 2/13/10 03:41 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: How exactly does one go to church but yet not be a member of the church they are attending? Are you going to multiple churches?

Well, I don't know about you, but I did go over to my own Church and found out that you can mark a place that says whether you want to go with being a member of the Church or a regular attendee. This could probably vary from place to place (I live in Florida) but you may want to check your local Church. I have never heard of a church just rejecting someone because he or she was not a member.

At 2/12/10 01:21 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Messiah's do matter, but He was also God... which also matters.

Matters.... under what context?

Oh great, what have I gotten myself into...

Um well. You kind of admitted that no word is inherently disingenuous.

Not at all, salvation is primary to being a Christian; as long as you have that you have the foundation

How can the foundation of Christianity be the foundation if it has to be defined through doctrine?

Okay, that wasn't easier...

I realize this is a little confusing

No. Not really. It seemed like a long winded way of saying... "if Jesus' 'Sermon on the Mount' took place on a boat and was called the 'Sermon on a Boat' then there has been no fundamental change that affects Christian doctrine."

So... two things...

1. You really need to start paying more attention to context. Because in no way is a 'Sermon on a Boat' an exception to: [Christianity is: One God; Jesus His Son (Or Jesus Messiah); Bible as divine word]. In no way is "no fundamental change" an exception to the fundamentals.

2. If this boils down to truth, then the 'Sermon on the Boat' is not good enough.

One word questions are confusing...

I was asking "What about judgment?" as in "isn't judgment a derivative/ component of/ type of salvation?"

Catholicism certainly teaches salvation. However, you're defining salvation by whether it's actually effective or not. Defining salvation functionally is troublesome because its proposed functionality is not evident in either case. You're arguing from faith.

For starters [...] Nipple Protectors!!!

So there's a lot cut out and a lot added. But it's sanctioned by Christ. So it's true.

If indeed a certain group has left Christianity by deliberately and/or substantially adding or taking away from it then yes, they are apostates.

Truism or (more of) some bizarre inability to understand hierarchy.

You: What do you call Christians that don't accept: one God; Jesus as Son; Bible as Divine?
Me: Is there a group you had in mind?
You: Apostates.
Me: Aren't [Christians in name only] all apostates?

Apostates are a group of apostates? You couldn't tell I was looking for something specific along the order of "Catholics and Mormons"?

The truth of the matter(s) at hand.
Everything that we're talking about is about determining the truth.

... and salvation.
... and "simply" "sharing" views.
... and entitlement.
... and catharsis.

Of course only ever one at a time, depending on whichever avoids the... *

That was about the truth, the closer to the truth I can bring someone the closer to salvation they are no matter how small the step may be. That isn't to say I had his salvation directly in mind, I simply had information to share. I enjoy learning and I enjoy sharing what I learn :)

* ... or all at once. Seriously. The fuck. **

When I argue that you have an angle, you argue it's solely something else. Infact... you argue it's solely several other things. Of course. Here, now, you argue it's several things combined. And of course you say, "cause it is!" completely neglecting the selective emphasis you've given each throughout this debate. Or maybe now I'm being too presumptuous.

It's really simple

And it's the one I thought it'd be too.

Anyway, you should totally do it, it's like doing drugs except it's free, it lasts longer, it's not illegal, it's even less socially acceptable, there's a slightly diminished risk of being shanked, it improves your life and there's actually a happy ending. Other than that it's practically the same thing. :P

What about the truth?

And when that table has been cut up for fire wood, what is it then?

I'm starting to get the feeling you only agreed with me back there to placate me or get me to be more apologetic.

1. Christianity = furniture. Catholic = table. You got it backwards.

2. If you chop up the table, it's not a table anymore. You realize this is a completely different analogy right? Just because you're using my 'table' doesn't mean you're refuting my analogy.

Ok. No more analogies.

Catholicism is a type of Christianity. That sounds familiar.

You're right though, it is muddy waters / very loose

When I say muddy I do not mean loose. I mean it's easy to confuse shit up when you have one word with two definitions that disagree but do not exclude one another.

but it is to the detriment of Catholics (among others) and thats why I have a serious problem with it, all other reasons are secondary at best.

** Seriously. What the fuck happened to the truth that it's secondary all of a sudden? Or is this when we go back to "the truth is all encompassing," so no matter what your motivation is, it's somehow primarily because of truth.

Well I feel I should apologize as dishonesty was not my intention.

That's great. Here, let me put the discussion in more precise terms.

YOU: Everything that I have been trying to do is geared around expressing [a particular part of] my world view.

ME: It is disingenuous to say that when most of this thread has been geared toward correcting [the respective parts of the world views of others].

YOU: I would love to correct your [entire] world view but that starts deeper than some shallow debate about [a particular part of my world view].

Do you see what happened?

No, I'm just explaining why he wasn't to draw up a simile to other situations, such as Catholicism.

ME: Being "evil" does not preclude one from being Christian.

YOU: "[...] one way to tell if someone is a true Christian or not [...]"

We are operating on different definitions of Christianity. The fact that you deny that... I mean... what the fuck. What ground did you think you were going to lose if you agreed? At best you just sent us into a tangent meta-debate, which at best is just wasting time.

You were talking about "true Christians" and I was talking about "parent-group Christians."

At 2/13/10 11:12 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: So who here hears (senses/acknowledges) their own consciousness, ego, conscience, etc?

What's that mean?

Where's all that come from? Evolution?

Yeah

Isn't evolution merely programming with[out] a purpose?

No

Does having godlike figureheads encourage or discourage growth?

Growth of what?

At 2/14/10 12:04 AM, poxpower wrote:

Isn't evolution merely programming with[out] a purpose?

No

You're an idiot if you believe that people have purpose through evolution.

It's nothing more than a fruitless endevour attempting to stand the test of time; which is utterly worthless.

No one matters. Nothing matters. Not you, me, or the guy next door.

The fact that you actually believe there's a "purpose" simply disgusts me.

How stupid and dellutional can you be to continue moving foward while knowing full well that it'll be completely meaningless?

Haha, how sad are you?

Are we delving into an evolution debate?

Quick, someone mention Nazism for some unknown reason and distort the definitions of everything!

At 2/12/10 01:20 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

At 2/10/10 02:47 PM, Brick-top wrote: If you say what I think you're going to say I'll slap you in the face!

It was actually a rhetorical question designed to make him think.
But it's killing me, what did you think I was going to say?

If I told you that it wouldn't be interesting because (If it is what I'm thinking) I'd rather let you figure it out than having me telling you why it's wrong.

But then again, I'd have to be right.

At 2/14/10 02:23 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/14/10 12:04 AM, poxpower wrote:

It's nothing more than a fruitless endevour attempting to stand the test of time

As much as a mistake it is to characterize evolution as purposeful when talking about it in contrast to religion...

... you kinda just attributed a purpose to evolution there: an endeavor attempting to stand the test of time.

which is utterly worthless.

Which is a different, albeit related, argument.

At 2/14/10 02:23 AM, Memorize wrote: No one matters. Nothing matters. Not you, me, or the guy next door.

The fact that you actually believe there's a "purpose" simply disgusts me.

How stupid and dellutional can you be to continue moving foward while knowing full well that it'll be completely meaningless?

Haha, how sad are you?

I could have swore I was just reading a cruel and unusual suicide note.

At 2/14/10 05:55 PM, Gunner-D wrote: I could have swore I was just reading a cruel and unusual suicide note.

Don't be silly.

It's no where near Christmas.

At 2/14/10 06:00 PM, Brick-top wrote: It's no where near Christmas.

But it is just in time for valentines day!

At 2/14/10 06:01 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/14/10 06:00 PM, Brick-top wrote: It's no where near Christmas.

But it is just in time for valentines day!

My Birthday isn't too far away so....early present?

At 2/14/10 05:55 PM, Gunner-D wrote:

I could have swore I was just reading a cruel and unusual suicide note.

It's my happiness peaking to a point of ecstasy.

At 2/14/10 05:33 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

... you kinda just attributed a purpose to evolution there: an endeavor attempting to stand the test of time.

Which is a different, albeit related, argument.

At best it's a pointless purpose. Unless you somehow think that anything can stand the test of time.

At 2/14/10 08:22 PM, Memorize wrote: At best it's a pointless purpose.

Which is still a purpose.

At 2/14/10 08:22 PM, Memorize wrote: At best it's a pointless purpose. Unless you somehow think that anything can stand the test of time.

Well, certain structures, religion, and other elements of civilization are doing a pretty good job of it so far.

At 2/15/10 12:33 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Well, certain structures, religion, and other elements of civilization are doing a pretty good job of it so far.

No avie... you don't understand. You can only stand the test of time if you outlast it.