Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2013, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 12:39 AM by Doctor X.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Doctor X's post
27-03-2013, 08:02 AM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2013 02:57 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-03-2013 07:20 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:I'm sad that it's come to this. PJ, for a while, you gave the appearance that you had something meaningful and interesting to argue about, but now you've just devolved into "Come on, atheists, prove a negative. Nyah nyah, you can't, so I win."

I guess, like all the rest of the theists, when your "clever" attempt to prove your own delusion failed, you fall apart and end up in the theological gutter, begging atheists to prove something that most of us don't even claim in the first place.

For shame.
No, actually I'm parodying what you all teach as "gospel". The sentence, "One cannot prove a negative," is in itself a NEGATIVE sentence. Can it be proven to be true, therefore?
Quote:If you read a bit of history you'd realize the council of Nicaea decided he was god in the flesh. All other versions of christianity in which jesus was not god were suppressed over the course of the history of the church.
Whay are you psychically unable to simply say, "How would you respond to the Nicene Council and church suppression?" rather than post inane memes and insults? I DO read history and recommend you look up the correspondence and council details that affirm that council AFFIRMED what was already considered Orthodox faith and defended it against attack--same with many of the church resolutions afterward--kind of like what I do on this forum. This forum isn't Christians with an alternative and intriguing look at faith and scripture--it's attacks on the scripture that I am an apologist against.

That is simply what this troll here once called "revisionism".
Simplistic, childish, denial of reality.
Anyone who has read the procedings of the Council of Nicea knows they fought like cats and adogs and were actively involved in cooking up what WOULD BECOME "orthodoxy". There WAS no "orthodoxy" at that point, and THAT IS precisely why the council was called, as the divisions were confusing and politically inconvenient to the Roman (empire) authorities. As usual SPJTJ is trying to white-wash history, and make it appear to be what his demented simplistic "faith" NEEDS it to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
The "filioque procedit" arguement, (re the "trinity") went on for CENTURIES, and even Aquinas said he did not get it.

"I do not believe that there were, at the Council of Nice,
three persons present who believed in the truth of what was set down.
If there were, it was on account of their ignorance."

-- J. M. Roberts, "Antiquity Unveiled", 1892

(The famous British historian).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts_(historian)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 09:59 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Um,

The council settled, to some degree, the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ, along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from God (The Father), had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[9] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 10:29 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
wait, if christ is the one true god, who was the father? Is christ his own father? Sounds like a back to the future movie.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-03-2013 10:29 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  wait, if christ is the one true god, who was the father? Is christ his own father? Sounds like a back to the future movie.....

He's a fully functional, eternal and limber hermaphrodite. Continually getting eaten by his young. Like Saturn. Only, with more gay. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
27-03-2013, 02:59 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2013 03:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-03-2013 09:59 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Um,

The council settled, to some degree, the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ, along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from God (The Father), had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[9] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
The council "settled" nothing. They argued, and afterwards, they continued to argue. Their arguments are today proposterous. If "junior" *proceeds* from the Father, IT REQUIRES TIME. WIthour (space)time, it's all linguistically meaningless. That is a problem some of them got. "Procede" is an ACTION verb. It's ridiculous, linguistically. There is NOTHING about a "trinity" until they invented it. Human beings cooked it all up.
Thank you for contradicting yourself, and affirming my point. There was no "orthodoxy" pre-existing the council to affirm n, as you said. Your memory of your own statements is very poor.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 07:59 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:The council "settled" nothing. They argued, and afterwards, they continued to argue. Their arguments are today proposterous. If "junior" *proceeds* from the Father, IT REQUIRES TIME. WIthour (space)time, it's all linguistically meaningless. That is a problem some of them got. "Procede" is an ACTION verb. It's ridiculous, linguistically. There is NOTHING about a "trinity" until they invented it. Human beings cooked it all up.
Thank you for contradicting yourself, and affirming my point. There was no "orthodoxy" pre-existing the council to affirm n, as you said. Your memory of your own statements is very poor.

1. Jesus is of one essence with God in His divinity. In space/time, He was/is in a body. The body is human, the spirit is divine. Do you understand Orthodoxy or Nicea I differently?

2. I don't believe in a trinity, I believe in a tri-unity. I'm not promoting Catholicism but the scriptures.

3. Orthodoxy was recognized before, during and after the council by the fact that the preponderance were of the same mind while the Arians, although far less in number, were brewing a lot of trouble. You can accuse them of a fallacy of ad populum if you like, but again, the Council met mainly to say, "Let's all discuss this together. We as a body agree the Arians are wrong. Let's affirm what was right." They already had an orthodox practice but the Emperor called the council to make the peace and to get them to bind their (known and already affirmed) resolutions. Do you disagree?

The fact is you can keep using the straw man of heresies and schisms. Straw to me because I know men are willful and the devil divisive. But I came to certain conclusions on reading and studying the scriptures and Lo! I can go back to the apostles, church fathers, and etc. and they held the same views. Just because some misunderstood fool like Augustine believed in infant baptism and etc. doesn't mean I do or the vast majority of born again Christians.

PS. Jewish men, who remembered the refusal of Daniel, Mordecai and the prophets to bow before idols and men, bowed, prostrated and worshipped before Jesus. Neither you nor I require a convened council to recognize that they thought Jesus was One with Father God. Thanks.

PPS. I'm asking you several questions within. Will you (again) ignore my inquiries? Perhaps you will enlighten me. Certainly we both might benefit from an exchange.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-03-2013 07:59 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The council "settled" nothing. They argued, and afterwards, they continued to argue. Their arguments are today proposterous. If "junior" *proceeds* from the Father, IT REQUIRES TIME. WIthour (space)time, it's all linguistically meaningless. That is a problem some of them got. "Procede" is an ACTION verb. It's ridiculous, linguistically. There is NOTHING about a "trinity" until they invented it. Human beings cooked it all up.
Thank you for contradicting yourself, and affirming my point. There was no "orthodoxy" pre-existing the council to affirm n, as you said. Your memory of your own statements is very poor.

1. Jesus is of one essence with God in His divinity. In space/time, He was/is in a body. The body is human, the spirit is divine. Do you understand Orthodoxy or Nicea I differently?

2. I don't believe in a trinity, I believe in a tri-unity. I'm not promoting Catholicism but the scriptures.

3. Orthodoxy was recognized before, during and after the council by the fact that the preponderance were of the same mind while the Arians, although far less in number, were brewing a lot of trouble. You can accuse them of a fallacy of ad populum if you like, but again, the Council met mainly to say, "Let's all discuss this together. We as a body agree the Arians are wrong. Let's affirm what was right." They already had an orthodox practice but the Emperor called the council to make the peace and to get them to bind their (known and already affirmed) resolutions. Do you disagree?

The fact is you can keep using the straw man of heresies and schisms. Straw to me because I know men are willful and the devil divisive. But I came to certain conclusions on reading and studying the scriptures and Lo! I can go back to the apostles, church fathers, and etc. and they held the same views. Just because some misunderstood fool like Augustine believed in infant baptism and etc. doesn't mean I do or the vast majority of born again Christians.

PS. Jewish men, who remembered the refusal of Daniel, Mordecai and the prophets to bow before idols and men, bowed, prostrated and worshipped before Jesus. Neither you nor I require a convened council to recognize that they thought Jesus was One with Father God. Thanks.

PPS. I'm asking you several questions within. Will you (again) ignore my inquiries? Perhaps you will enlighten me. Certainly we both might benefit from an exchange.

I will answer any question, but FIRST you must provide references and supportting documentation to PROVE all your crappy nonsense assertions. AFTER you do that, I talk about anything.

Until then, SexuallyPleasingJebus, THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 09:45 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-03-2013 09:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Until then, SexuallyPleasingJebus, THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE.


Cheshire, according to Wallace and Gromit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-03-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I will answer any question, but FIRST you must provide references and supportting documentation to PROVE all your crappy nonsense assertions. AFTER you do that, I talk about anything.
Oh, there's zero need to answer my questions:

1. I can tell all my Theist friends and also my Atheist friends "They were utterly unable and unwilling to answer my many questions and objections".

2. I can tell the above how I wrote, "I'm here to learn and have questions answered" but that you refused until I justified my positions with citations and references, positions I was even willing to abandon even if big old you would answer poor little me's questions.

3. You don't need to answer my questions, since I also (last post is a typical example) refuted you AGAIN with facts.

Remember these posts?

BB, I made 9 points and you answered 1 with an ad hom. Drinking Beverage

Here's a dozen questions that come to mind if your theory is true. Care to address them? I'm open minded. Drinking Beverage

Okay, then, chuck mere "evidence". I'll PROVE God exists if you prove you exist, first. Drinking BeverageDrinking BeverageDrinking BeverageDrinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: