Do u beleave in God

[steveorino 7]

George, let me see if I can clear up some confusion here. My responses on the Trinity was in reply to HairyJuan who said it was a pagan philosophy adopted by the church in 325 CE. I was trying to point out that the doctrine of the Trinity had its roots in the gospel and early church fathers 100s of years before the Council of Nicea. That Council began an era where the church was more "established" as a state religion.

Where there other doctrines in Christianity that conflicted the doctrine of the Trinity? Yes, but they were never recognized by the leaders the church claims as patriarchs of the faith such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen.

My point was not that the doctrine of the Trinity was the only doctrine taught at that time, but that the doctrine of the Trinity was well established by the church fathers before the Council of Nicea made it part of the "official" church teachings.

You are right that to this day there are those in Christianity that deny this doctrine. I was not disputing that. I enjoy debating you George, but I feel I don't communicate to you very clearly for some reason. I apologize for the remark that Billvon deemed a PA. I didn't mean it that way. I hope we can remain civil and continue a debate on this topic or others.

My list of atheists on dropzone.com I'm willing to exchange thoughts with is diminishing. Phil is too sensitive (trekki nerd comment put his panties in a wad), Hairy is too far on the edge (denying the existence of a historical figure and all) Have a great day!

steveOrino

[philh 0]

So Steve are you sayig that freedom and democracy are the same thing? i agree democracy is a essential mechanism that helps safe guards freedom but democracy does not equal freedom. My study of Us histroy is not perhaps scholarly but as i recall the country was a democarcy from its inception but it had slavery for a large proportion of its existence. My own country , the UK , is a constiutional monarchy. At the time when abolition of slavery was being debated in the US the Uk had alreadsy abolished it. Now the Uk had more power to unelected officials such as the house of Lords and The queen. By your definition the Us was more free but it had a much higher proportion of its population enslaved. i think you can see that the issue is not so clear cut as you suggest.

In a more general sense if 51% of the population elect to enslave 49% of the population we may agree that such a decision is consitent with democracy but not necessarily consitent withh freedom.

But perhaps this is all getting a bit off topic?

[philh 0]

"My list of atheists on dropzone.com I'm willing to exchange thoughts with is diminishing. Phil is too sensitive (trekki nerd comment put his panties in a wad), Hairy is too far on the edge (denying the existence of a historical figure and all) Have a great day! "

Is it possible that the problem is with you? The list of theists I refuse to correspond with is zero. I didnt think your star trek comment weas appropriate but i think your description of my reaction is something of an exageratrion and not a very polite one at that ,but I can take it.

[philh 0]

"My list of atheists on dropzone.com I'm willing to exchange thoughts with is diminishing. Phil is too sensitive (trekki nerd comment put his panties in a wad),"

Isnt it interesting that people remember events differently to how they actaully happened? Magicians know this as people often describe effects in retrospect as being more spectacular than they were. People who believe in the supernatural may be more prone to this effect than others although we all suffer from it. For example a study carried out by pyschologist DR Richards Wiseman found that people would remember pyschics performing feets that they infact did not perform.

Looking at the above passagge from Steve the implication is that he doesnt want to debate me because of my sensitivity. In fact the rationale he actaully gave at the time was very different, here is what he really said:

"I love to discuss theology with those who differ from me from fellow pastors & Christians to Buddhist & atheists. However, I have grown very weary of the debate continually being tossed back to scientific reason just as I would grow weary of the KJV only people's debates. No offense to you personally, but I'm "brushing the dust off and moving on" from your replies. I wish you peace!"

One should notice no mention of my sensitivty instead an inability to face the scientific evidence. In particualr at the time I was challenging Steve's concpetion of innate human nature by presenting him evidence form changes in human nature caused by changes in brain chemistry. This of course does not support the conclusion of an innate human nature that could survive death. In the face of scientific evidennce those with fixed views in contradiction to that evidence often buckle up.
If Im too senstive I apologise for that but i will not apologise for using scientific evidence to make conclusion abotu the world around us, how should we come to rationale conclusion?

[steveorino 7]

To clarify. My response you cited was true to the extent I was growing weary of you continually wanting a scientific reason for things that are spiritual in nature. Yet, you continue to chime into my comments made to other posters. That is how the trekki comment came about. When you responded to my reply to a tekkie's comment I assumed it was you. I seldom go back 3-4 pages to see if the poster is the one I originally commented on. So, when I was responding to Andy's Spock comment, you mistakenly were included.


EDITED TO ADD: Andy, I was just joking! You don't have email or allow PMs so I could not tell you that. I never figured people would get all bent ouf shape by calling a trekki a nerd. My bad.

Your "panties in a wad attitude" was enough for me to say that is enough for me. The fun has been taken out.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Science does not deal with proof, thats mathematics. I have never asked for proof, evidence yes, they are different. perhaps studying a bit more science will help clarify that.
Now If i have evidence that there is no such thing as you describe as an "invariable nature of a human.", why will you not consider that evidence? All facets of human behaviour can change and are a function of at least genetics, enviroment and brain chemistry. Now if you have a better way of arriving at knowledge other than looking at the evidence I sure would like to hear it.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

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

Isn't that in a sense what most every law does? For example, when a group of people believe the enviornment is being harmed, they lobby congress to enact laws that will protect it. If our representatives, who we elected, pass that legislation then it becomes law.

I don't agree with some of the legislation that has been passed by congress regarding the enviornment, but I hardly call that forcing me to do something. And if in fact I believe the law is wrong, I have every right to lobby my congressman to change the law.

I would not have it any other way.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

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

It is a perfect example. I'm willing to live with laws I don't like. It motivates me to vote and take part in the democratic process. Do you think everyone in the USA likes every law that is enacted? Do you think those that dissent are denied their rights to change the laws they disagree with through lobbying and voting?

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

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

So you elect government representatives based on your view of morality, and you are fine that it will to govern you and everyone else according to your view of morality?

Then could you tell me how your democracy is different from the "democracy" Taliban has? Yes, they did execute a Christian for his beliefs - but that's the polulation view of morality and justice, so it is ok, right?

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

[steveorino 7]

yes, my worldview influences how I vote. I suspect everyone's worldview influences their vote.

Your Taliban comparison is a little silly, isn't it?

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

George, let me see if I can clear up some confusion here. My responses on the Trinity was in reply to HairyJuan who said it was a pagan philosophy adopted by the church in 325 CE. I was trying to point out that the doctrine of the Trinity had its roots in the gospel and early church fathers 100s of years before the Council of Nicea.

Okey, so your main concern was agains "pagan", not against "did not exist as a concept or doctrine before 325CE", right?

Quote

Where there other doctrines in Christianity that conflicted the doctrine of the Trinity? Yes, but they were never recognized by the leaders the church claims as patriarchs of the faith such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen.

But this doesn't make them invalid. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen were humans, which could make mistakes, including choosing the wrong doctrine.

So what I'm trying to say is that:
- Trinity doctrine didn't exist neither as a doctrine nor as a teaching before 325CE, so HairyJuan was right here;

- The true origin of this doctrine is unknown. As you see yourself, there are several contradicting doctrines, which are based on the same source. This means that the gospels cannot be treat as a reliable source. So it would be fair to guess that this doctrine might be based on paganism as well, however I'm not competent enough to support this claim with evidence.

Quote

You are right that to this day there are those in Christianity that deny this doctrine. I was not disputing that.

This is very important point. If you have several doctrines, which are based on the same source, and they all seems to be equally valid - you cannot say that the source teaches this doctrine, as it teaches all three. And because the doctrines contradict with each other, we can say that the source basically does not teach anything, but provides ambiguous information which could be interpreted either way.

Quote

I enjoy debating you George, but I feel I don't communicate to you very clearly for some reason. I apologize for the remark that Billvon deemed a PA. I didn't mean it that way.

Don't mind.

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

[steveorino 7]

Man, I'm striking out here.

My main objection was the date 325. A little historical understanding of what the Council of Nicea was about would dispel this, but few people outside Christianity have a clue. I'll try one more time. People who identified themselves as Christians wrote directly about the doctrine of the trinity as a church doctrine 100s of years before the Council of Nicea developed their creed. Therefore it is my statement that the Doctrine of the Trinity did not just appear at the Council of Nicea in 325. In fact it existed in Christian writings 100s of years earlier. It was at the Council of Nicea that the church put an "official" stamp on that particular doctrine.

Where there people who disagreed with the doctrine of the trinity back then? Yes, But there were people who disagreed around 325 CE, and throughout history too. Some Christians today do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. However, in mainstream churches it is the prevalant belief.

I'll try a different comparison and hope I don't sidetrack my point. Today most scientist believe in global warming, no? But there are some scientist who deny it, or say it is a natural consequence that is not impacted by mankind. While there are different beliefs there is a main belief that is prevelant in most scientific circles.

The sources I cited teach the doctrine of the Trinity exclusively. Those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity do not quote Tertulian, Justin Martyr or Origen. So while some may believe the Gospel is ambiguous about the Trinity because it does call it that by name, they have few good answers for sayings of JC like, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19
"

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Isn't that in a sense what most every law does?

No, the law does not work that directly. What you describe is forcing minority to follow majority moral. Real democracy is where everyone should be protected, not just the majority.

Quote

For example, when a group of people believe the enviornment is being harmed, they lobby congress to enact laws that will protect it.

This example is biased. Harm to environment is not something you either believe or not. There is scientic evidence available, and in the worst cases anyone can see it just with their eyes. However if the same group of people would lobby congress to enforce laws to protect Flying Spahetti Monster by banning pasta, this would be the example similar to what Christians typically have.

The law should protect others in society from us, not ourselves from ourselves. That's why murder is illegal, but suicide is not - even though it is one of the worst sins in the Bible. The law should not restrict others from doing anything you don't like or consider stupid, but cannot prove harm to society other than your beliefs. Hey, the majority of people consider skydiving stupid - and some priests of Orthodox Church have said that skydiving is a kind of "suicidal activity", and therefore a sin.

One of the best examples for this kind of logic is gay marriage. Sometime I get an impression that a lot of people treat "allowing gay marriage" is the same as "allowing some ugly, nasty, HIV-positive faggot marry ME". People take it too personal if you ask me. Personally thinking about having sex with another man makes me vomit. But it doesn't mean other should not do it ehther, and my reaction is emotion-based, and not logical - and the laws should not be based on emotions. Therefore I support gay sex and gay marriage, even though I would definitely object against someone's attempt to have sex with me (man or woman, so it really doesn't matter).

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It is a perfect example. I'm willing to live with laws I don't like. It motivates me to vote and take part in the democratic process.

The problem with your example is that no matter do you vote or not, it won't change anything - because the majority supports it.
And I suspect your willingness would disappear quickly if keeping a copy of the Bible in your home would be punished by jail time, and as a priest of the only allowed church in your town you were required by law to report everything you learned during confessions to KGB. And yes, we had that too.

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

[steveorino 7]

Quote

That's why murder is illegal, but suicide is not - even though it is one of the worst sins in the Bible.

Please give me a reference for this statement. (suicide is one of the worst sins in the bible)

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Please give me a reference for this statement. (suicide is one of the worst sins in the bible)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sui_bibl.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/dml-y038.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/suicide-and-heaven.html

Most sources agree that a Christian, which commits suicide, will not go to Heaven, as commiting suicide is a serious sin, and you obviously have no chance to fix it before the Last Judgement.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I'll try one more time. People who identified themselves as Christians wrote directly about the doctrine of the trinity as a church doctrine 100s of years before the Council of Nicea developed their creed.

Well, people wrote about a lot of different things. Some of them were adopted (like trinity doctrine), some were refused. But by the whole definition of the word "doctrine" it only became doctrine when it was officially adopted.

Otherwise Unitarians could say that the Unitarian doctrine existed at the same time as Trinity doctrine, even though I could hardly find any valid reference to Unitarianism before 16 century.

Quote

Where there people who disagreed with the doctrine of the trinity back then? Yes.

Good point. So let's look on the situation:

- some people wrote that the God is 3-in-one (the Trinity doctrine);
- some people wrote writing that there were 2 entities - God and Jesus, who was or was not the God, his son etc.
- some people wrote that there were several Gods;
and so on. Because all of them called themselves Christians, the Church was forced to make a decision - because having multiple contrading doctrines is dangerous. But choosing a mainstream doctrine was also a major task, because it would turn off the Church everyone else who followed other doctrines. So it didn't happen before 325 - we didn't have a doctrine, just several different teachings.

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

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Please give me a reference for this statement. (suicide is one of the worst sins in the bible)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sui_bibl.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/dml-y038.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/suicide-and-heaven.html

Most sources agree that a Christian, which commits suicide, will not go to Heaven, as commiting suicide is a serious sin, and you obviously have no chance to fix it before the Last Judgement.

But what is the scriptural reference for your statement that suicide is one of the worst sins in the Bible? I'll save you time. There is none. That is a Roman Catholic doctrine. Maybe Russian Orthodox as well???

Your first reference says your assumption is wrong.
Here is your reference, word for word (emphasis mine)


Augustine argued in the fifth century that suicide was a violation of the sixth commandment, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). Later, Thomas Aquinas, being catholic and believing that confession of sin must be made prior to departure from the world to the next, taught that suicide was the most fatal of all sins because the victim could not repent of it. The problem with his view is that it represents a gross misunderstanding of eternal security, which Scripture clearly teaches. We are saved by the grace of God, not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9) and nothing can separate a Christian from the love of God (Romans 8:37-39).

Your second reference refers back to the first response. The third reference states the "christian" (Roman Catholic) doctrine is outside of scripture. Here is the third response (Ephasis mine)

The Bible contains a number of references to men seeking suicide, either

by taking direct action or
by begging God to kill them on the spot.

In these passages, the authors of the Bible do not appear to consider suicide to be a great moral sin. The act of committing suicide or of asking that God kill them are simply reported in a factual manner. The authors do not interpret these acts as sinful. They seem to be regarded simply as straightforward personal decisions. However, the Christian [Roman Catholic] church has traditionally deviated from the biblical message and has considered suicide to be a great moral sin. Some denominations have even refused to bury people who have committed suicide

I don't know why the author of this website states "Christian" when it should have stated "Catholic" unless ithey are like many denominations and believe every denomination holds true the teachings of their own. I can say with confidence that the evangelical word (Baptist, Nazarene, AOG, COG, CC, Charamatic, etc) don't hold onto that Roman Catholic teaching. I'm not so sure about Methodist, Episcolpal & Presbyrterian. Maybe others can enlighten.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

So it didn't happen before 325 - we didn't have a doctrine, just several different teachings.

In all of my years of study I have never heard of one person who stated all doctrines came into existance at the Council of Nicea, and that prior to that event it was only "teachings" I think I have well proven my point. I'm sorry you and Hairy don't get it. Based on the emails & PMs I keep getting I think others do, and I'm beating a dead horse. So I'll quit reposting the same examples.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

It is a perfect example. I'm willing to live with laws I don't like. It motivates me to vote and take part in the democratic process.

The problem with your example is that no matter do you vote or not, it won't change anything - because the majority supports it.

It appears you have been well indoctrinated by your former USSR. The majority has changed their mind a million times over the years.

Quote

And I suspect your willingness would disappear quickly if keeping a copy of the Bible in your home would be punished by jail time, and as a priest of the only allowed church in your town you were required by law to report everything you learned during confessions to KGB. And yes, we had that too.

Thank God the USA is not the USSR! While one never knows what they will actually do until they are actually confronted what they will do in a time of crisis the safe bet (ask those who know me) I'd be the pastor standing up and going to the gulagog for my beliefs.

I realize my thoughts sound foreign to you, but 52 years of freedom in the USA has taught me we have every opportunity to change what we don't like about our society if we do not grow weary in well doing.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
------------------------------------------------------------

For example, when a group of people believe the enviornment is being harmed, they lobby congress to enact laws that will protect it.

------------------------------------------------------------


This example is biased. Harm to environment is not something you either believe or not. There is scientic evidence available, and in the worst cases anyone can see it just with their eyes

Nah, sure. I suppose that is why there is so little debate about global warming being caused by human emission of CO2 or sun spots. /satire

steveOrino

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Nah, sure. I suppose that is why there is so little debate about global warming being caused by human emission of CO2 or sun spots. /satire

I bet Jesus would boldface all of his posts too.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[steveorino 7]

I do that as I can't tell where some people post stop and end.

steveOrino

[TylerDurden 0]

Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?
Listen to me! You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen.

[hairyjuan 0]

jesus never existed, all bible thumpers can do is deny it



Thomas Jefferson-"The christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man"







video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1363085081657572837


video.google.com/videoplay?docid=699411921004029996





www.godisimaginary.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish