| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kurt Gavin" |
| Date: |
15 Jul 2007 05:37:38 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The promi |
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc12@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1184536411.423961.230830@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult
you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." -- LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:22)
Yes, pedophile priests are most exalted when "men hate you, when they
exclude you and insult
you and reject your name as evil".
Similarly, Jim and Tammy Baker were never so exalted as when they were
exposed.
By the way, Andrew, people don't hate you - that's DERISION you're having
heaped in you....
;-))
Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of 300 bishops and they
said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
The meeting was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he did it for
political reasons because he wanted to institute a state religion, for
political reasons.
Jesus is a manmade false god and praying to a crucifix is idolatry.
Christians are condemned by Yahweh in...
Deuteronomy 5:6-18 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land
of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 7you shall have no other gods before
me. 8You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth. 9You shall not bow down to them or worship
them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the
iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject
me, 10but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who
love me and keep my commandments.
.
|
|
| User: "Flying Rat, board-certified Earthquack trainer" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
16 Jul 2007 04:29:17 AM |
|
|
In article <Skxmi.8001$Od7.6136@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
buggeroff@s.com says...
Yes, pedophile priests are most exalted when "men hate you, when they
exclude you and insult
you and reject your name as evil".
Similarly, Jim and Tammy Baker were never so exalted as when they were
exposed.
By the way, Andrew, people don't hate you - that's DERISION you're having
heaped in you....
St Chunky the Craptist seems to think that Christianity is a bit like
the Freemasons.
Take out a membership and you get issued with a get out of jail free
card.
That's why he never sets foot inside a church. He thinks spouting off
here is enough to pay his dues and have everyone forgive his spamming
and scams.
Genuine Christians (with whom I have no problem) take note and avoid
this failed creature, who has managed to screw up an expensive career
financed by a scholarship and now poses as a prophet.
FR
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
16 Jul 2007 09:22:03 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jul, 23:37, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in messagenews:1184536411.423961.230830@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult
you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." -- LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:22)
Yes, pedophile priests ...
....are so very useful an excuse to violate the human rights of
thousands of people who had nothing to do with them. Such
accusations, as an excuse for hate, are unacceptable, surely?
By the way, Andrew, people don't hate you - that's DERISION you're having
heaped in you....
Why not test this idea? You could try heaping 'derison' on some
negros. But I think that the police would explain the concept of a
distinction without a difference to you, probably at some length.
Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
Not really. It was much more disputed whether he was truly human.
Different eras have different ideas, you know.
The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of 300 bishops and they
said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
No, they said that the second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First. The divinity of Christ is a
commonplace in the second-century fathers, 2 centuries earlier, and is
in the NT:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
The meeting was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he did it for
political reasons because he wanted to institute a state religion, for
political reasons.
He had no such goals or ideas, at least according to anyone at the
time. The meeting was in fact assembling at Ancyra, when bishop
Hosius persuaded Constantine -- an enthusiastic supporter of
Christianity -- to pay the bills so that western clergy could attend,
and the meeting was shifted to Nicaea so that the emperor could be
there too.
Jesus is a manmade false god ...
Perhaps. But living by the values of those who control the media
agenda in the time in which we grew up is evidently false, and the
usual unstated alternative of those who post like this.
and praying to a crucifix is idolatry. Christians are condemned by Yahweh in...
I'm not sure who this 'Yahweh' you talk about might be, but if you can
describe him, prove he exists and that we should pay any attention
then your comments deserve notice. But not until then, surely?
Playing games with words is a waste of valuable drinking time.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Gavin" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
16 Jul 2007 11:32:14 AM |
|
|
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184595723.103680.5550@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 15 Jul, 23:37, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
messagenews:1184536411.423961.230830@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult
you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." -- LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:22)
Yes, pedophile priests ...
...are so very useful an excuse to violate the human rights of
thousands of people who had nothing to do with them. Such
accusations, as an excuse for hate, are unacceptable, surely?
You are a liar.
No one has violated anyone's "rights", except the sexual deviate priests
themselves, AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH FACILITATED AND PROTECTED THEM
FROM THE LAW - FOR CENTURIES.
for those concerned about such things: if this systematic child abuse could
go on for centuries in the US with a relatively good and open legal system,
think what's going on in less developed countries, where the church has an
even stronger hold and influence on the legal and governmental instituions.
By the way, Andrew, people don't hate you - that's DERISION you're having
heaped in you....
Why not test this idea? You could try heaping 'derison' on some
negros. But I think that the police would explain the concept of a
distinction without a difference to you, probably at some length.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****. "Negros" are a race, not a
chosen fantasy system which inflicts its bad ideas on mankind, *****.
I DO have something against assholes like Andrew, and you.
Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
Not really. It was much more disputed whether he was truly human.
Different eras have different ideas, you know.
Idiot. You don't even understand the point.
The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of 300 bishops and
they
said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
No, they said that the second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First. The divinity of Christ is a
commonplace in the second-century fathers, 2 centuries earlier, and is
in the NT:
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Not a reliable source.
Here's a much more credible account:
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hise.htm
325 CE: The period of time from 325 to about 590 CE is often referred to as
the "post-Nicene" era. This interval takes its name from the church Council
of Nicea which was held in 325 CE.
There was no single individual who spoke for the entire church; no one
person had the authority to decide matters of belief and practice. Such
matters could only be determined by councils at which all available bishops
would debate and attempt to resolve their differences. The first such
meeting was the Council of Nicea in Asia Minor (now Turkey). 318 bishops out
of the approximately 1,800 Christian bishops then in existence attended.
Most came from the eastern half of the Empire. 5 Bishops attempted to
resolve a major uncertainty facing the early church: the relationship
between Jesus and God. The church recognized the Hebrew Scriptures (Old
Testament) which described God in strictly monotheistic terms. But there
were references in the Gospels (particularly John) which implied that Jesus
was divine. Two conflicting theories about the deity of Jesus were argued at
the time: Arius (250 - 336 CE) proposed that Jesus and God were very
separate and different entities: Jesus was closer to God than any other
human being, but he was born a man, had no prior existence, and was not a
god. On the other hand, God has been in existence forever. Arius felt that
any attempt to recognize the deity of Christ would blur the lines between
Christianity and the Pagan religions. If Christianity recognized two
separate gods, the Father and Jesus, it would become a polytheistic
religion.
Athanasius (296 - 373 CE) argued that Jesus must be divine, because
otherwise, he could not be the Savior. The atonement would not have been
possible.
Both Arius and Athanasius had large, evenly matched followings among the
bishops. Emotions ran high. The council, under intense pressure from Emperor
Constantine, resolved its deadlock by a close vote in favor of Athanasius.
The dissenting bishops were offered two options: to sign the settlement at
Nicea or be exiled. The bishops produced the Nicene Creed, which declared
that Jesus Christ was "of one substance with the Father." This did not
immediately settle the question of the divinity of Christ; many bishops and
churches refused to believe in the council's decision for decades.
The meeting was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he did it for
political reasons because he wanted to institute a state religion, for
political reasons.
He had no such goals or ideas, at least a
Wrong, and clueless. To think that the most powerful man in the world, in
the process of consolidating power in a huge empire under internal and
external threats, didn't do things for practical serious reasons is
foolish.
He was trying to consolidate power over a widespread, disparate empire, and
trying to wrest political power from old city of Rome centers of power and
influence that had existed for centuries.
Established religion always a symbiotic relationship with established
political power. Gradually supporting and instituting a new religion with
government support was a good way to undermine existing nexuses of power in
an increasingly dysfunctional empire, coming under increasing external
threats from barbarians.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I
Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman
Emperor. His reign was a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313
Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan,
which removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had
been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned
confiscated Church property. Though a similar edict had been issued in 311
by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy,[7] Constantine's lengthy
rule, conversion, and patronage of the Church redefined the status of
Christianity in the empire.
Constantine the Great, mosaic in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, c.
1000.Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's
Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the
course of his life.[8] Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared
himself a Christian.[9] Writing to Christians, Constantine made clear that
he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone.[10]
Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built
various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g. exemption from certain taxes) to
clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property
confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian.[11] His most famous
building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Old Saint
Peter's Basilica.
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the
Christian Emperor in the Church; Constantine considered himself responsible
to God for the spiritual health of his subjects, and thus he had a duty to
maintain orthodoxy.[12] For Constantine, the emperor did not decide
doctrine - that was the responsibility of the bishops - rather his role was
to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[13]
The emperor ensured that God was properly worshipped in his empire; what
proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine.[14]
from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html
One of the most surprising Christian heroes in the entire tradition, I
think, is Constantine. He is, first of all, a successful general. He is also
the son of a successful general and at the head of the army at the West. And
he's fighting another successful general, struggling for who is going to be
at the top of the heap of the very higher echelons of Roman government. What
happens is that Constantine has a vision. Luckily for the Church, there's a
bishop nearby to interpret what the vision means. Constantine ends not
converting, technically, to Christianity, but becoming a patron of one
particular branch of the church. It happens to be the branch of the church
that has the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as part of its
canon. Which means that since this branch of Christianity includes the story
about historical Israel as part of its own redemptive history, it has an
entire language for articulating the relationship of government and piety.
It has the model of King David. It has the model of the kings of Israel. And
it's with this governmental model that the bishop explains the vision to
Constantine.
In a sense Constantine becomes the embodiment of the righteous king. And
once he consolidates his power by conquering, eventually, not only the West,
but also the Greek East where there are many more Christians [who are]
concentrated in the cities, which are the social power packets of this
culture, [he] is in this amazing position of having a theology of government
that he can use to consolidate his own secular power. And it works both
ways. The bishops now have basically federal funding to have sponsored
committee meetings so they can try to iron out creeds and get everybody to
sign up.
One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting
other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist
Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their
canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on. There's a kind of
internal purge of the church as one emperor ruling one empire tries to have
this single church as part of the religious musculature of his vision of a
renewed Rome. And it's with this theological vision in mind that Constantine
not only helps the bishops to iron out a unitary policy of what a true
Christian believes, but he also, interestingly, turns his attention to
Jerusalem, and rebuilds Jerusalem just as a righteous king should do. But
what Constantine does is take the city, which was something of a backwater,
and he begins to build beautiful basilicas and architecturally ambitious
projects in the city itself. The sacred space of the Temple Mount he
abandons. It's not reclaimable. And what he does is [to] religiously
relocate the center of gravity of the city around the places where Christ
had suffered, where he had been buried, or where he [had] been raised. So
that in the great basilicas that he built, Constantine has a new Jerusalem,
that's splendid and beautiful and... his reputation as an imperial architect
resonates with great figures in biblical history like David and Solomon. In
a sense, Constantine is a non-apocalyptic Messiah for the church. ...
The bishops are terribly grateful for this kind of imperial attention. It's
not the western Middle Ages. The lines of power are unambiguous. Constantine
is absolutely the source of authority. And there's no question about that.
But the bishops are able to take advantage of Constantine's mood and his
curious intellectual interest in things like Christology and the Trinity and
Church organization. They're able to have bibles copied at public expense.
They are finally able to have public Christian architecture and big
basilicas. So there's a comfortable symbiotic relationship between the
empire and the church, one that, in a sense, is what defines the cultural
powerhouse of Europe and the West.
time. The meeting was in fact assembling at Ancyra, when bishop
Hosius persuaded Constantine -- an enthusiastic supporter of
Christianity -- to pay the bills so that western clergy could attend,
and the meeting was shifted to Nicaea so that the emperor could be
there too.
Jesus is a manmade false god ...
Perhaps. But living by the
Perhaps?
If he lives on as a supernatural being, why don't you use your great peudo
knowledge to conjure him up, so we can all see and appreciate him?
values of those who control the media
agenda in the time in which we grew up is evidently false, and the
usual unstated alternative of those who post like this.
and praying to a crucifix is idolatry. Christians are condemned by Yahweh
in...
I'm not sure who this 'Yahweh' you talk about might be,
Try google to find out...
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 1,890,000 for yahweh [definition]. (0.08
seconds)
begin 666 topbul2d.gif
M1TE&.#EA# `,`(#_`,# P,R9,R'Y! $`````+ `````,``P```(6A(\9NPD,
2$9QFVF=CUKOUAF72I41'`0`[
`
end
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
16 Jul 2007 03:47:03 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jul, 17:32, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184595723.103680.5550@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 15 Jul, 23:37, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
messagenews:1184536411.423961.230830@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult
you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." -- LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:22)
Yes, pedophile priests ...
...are so very useful an excuse to violate the human rights of
thousands of people who had nothing to do with them. Such
accusations, as an excuse for hate, are unacceptable, surely?
You are a liar.
Charming.
No one has violated anyone's "rights", except ...
Nonsense.
By the way, Andrew, people don't hate you - that's DERISION you're having
heaped in you....
Why not test this idea? You could try heaping 'derison' on some
negros. But I think that the police would explain the concept of a
distinction without a difference to you, probably at some length.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Charming. I think from here on I will simply snip the abuse, as
tedious to all of us and irrelevant.
I'm afraid you need to ask someone to explain my post to you, for I
really can't state that any simpler.
Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
Not really. It was much more disputed whether he was truly human.
Different eras have different ideas, you know.
You don't even understand the point.
Why?
The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of 300 bishops and
they said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
No, they said that the second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First. The divinity of Christ is a
commonplace in the second-century fathers, 2 centuries earlier, and is
in the NT:
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
Why?
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Not a reliable source.
It is merely a compilation of all the ancient data. Unless you have
other ancient data to offer, it is pretty much definitive.
Here's a much more credible account:
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hise.htm
Ahem. The authors of this page were not there. The authors of the
above accounts *were*.
325 CE: ... Two conflicting theories about the deity of Jesus were argued at
the time: Arius (250 - 336 CE) proposed that Jesus and God were very
separate and different entities: Jesus was closer to God than any other
human being, but he was born a man, had no prior existence, and was not a
god.
Let's hear what Arius *actually* said:
From "Documents of the Christian Church", second edition, Selected and
Edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press. pp. 39-401.
The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, c. 321
"...But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to
teach; that the Son is not unbegottten, nor part of the unbegotten in
anyway, not is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will
and counsel he existed before times and ages fully God, only-begotten,
unchangeable. And before he was begotten or created or appointed or
established, he did not exist; for he was not unbegotten. We are
persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning, but God is
without beginning. For that reason we are persecuted, and because we
say that he is from what is not. And this we say because he is neither
part of God nor derived from any substance. For this we are
persecuted; the rest you know. I trust that you are strong in the
Lord, mindful of our afflictions, a true fellow-disciple of Lucian,
Eusebius."
The Son was "fully God", you see, even in the thought of Arius.
Athanasius (296 - 373 CE) argued ...
Athanasius was only a deacon at the time of the council of Nicaea,
tho, so was not a protagonist.
I have snipped the remainder which likewise contradicts the historical
record in various crass respects.
To sum up: whatever we say about the past, let's have it based on the
actual data preserved from antiquity, and not made up today.
The meeting was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he did it for
political reasons because he wanted to institute a state religion, for
political reasons.
He had no such goals or ideas, at least a
To think that the most powerful man in the world, in
the process of consolidating power in a huge empire under internal and
external threats, didn't do things for practical serious reasons is
foolish.
Conspiracy theory is all very well, but evidence is better.
fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I
Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman...
I am sorry to snip all this, much of which is true, but it has no
bearing on the discussion. To the extent that it does, it rather
endorses what I wrote! He created no state religion, he had no such
intention, and his enthusiasm for Christianity was genuine.
fromhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimiza...
One of the most surprising Christian heroes in the entire tradition, I
think, is Constantine...
Again the relevance of this seems questionable. Modern speculation is
not relevant, in any event, and it contains nothing else.
One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting
other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist
Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their
canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on.
Unfortunately the evidence does not, and there is none for any of
this. Gnostics -- not Christians, but Christianising pagans -- were a
movement in decline and were of no interest to anyone at the time.
Constantine did reluctantly issue a decree against the Donatists, but
only after much pressure and while being misled by local
politicians. He stayed out of church politics as a rule.
time. The meeting was in fact assembling at Ancyra, when bishop
Hosius persuaded Constantine -- an enthusiastic supporter of
Christianity -- to pay the bills so that western clergy could attend,
and the meeting was shifted to Nicaea so that the emperor could be
there too.
Jesus is a manmade false god ...
Perhaps.
Perhaps?
It would probably be better to quote me properly.
But living by the values of those who control the media
agenda in the time in which we grew up is evidently false, and the
usual unstated alternative of those who post like this.
and praying to a crucifix is idolatry. Christians are condemned by Yahweh
in...
I'm not sure who this 'Yahweh' you talk about might be,
Try google to find out...
And the rest of my comment is, of course, snipped. :-)
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Gavin" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
16 Jul 2007 06:17:47 PM |
|
|
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184618823.323260.287340@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Jul, 17:32, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184595723.103680.5550@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 15 Jul, 23:37, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
messagenews:1184536411.423961.230830@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult
you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." --
LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:22)
Yes, pedophile priests ...
...are so very useful an excuse to violate the human rights of
thousands of people who had nothing to do with them. Such
accusations, as an excuse for hate, are unacceptable, surely?
You are a liar.
Charming.
No, just accurate.
No one has violated anyone's "rights", except ...
Nonsense.
Here, you defend pedophile priests and the organization that protected and
continues to protect them.
Readers should see my post he was responding to, to see what he snipped.
By the way, Andrew, people don't hate you - that's DERISION you're
having
heaped in you....
Why not test this idea? You could try heaping 'derison' on some
negros. But I think that the police would explain the concept of a
distinction without a difference to you, probably at some length.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Charming. I think from here on I will simply snip the abuse, as
tedious to all of us and irrelevant.
Again, just being accurate...
I'm afraid you need to ask someone to explain my post to you, for I
really can't state that any simpler.
Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
Not really. It was much more disputed whether he was truly human.
Different eras have different ideas, you know.
You don't even understand the point.
Why?
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that you
can't think straight.
The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of 300 bishops and
they said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
No, they said that the second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First. The divinity of Christ is a
commonplace in the second-century fathers, 2 centuries earlier, and is
in the NT:
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
Why?
Becasue, you probably use obfucation and ***** jargon to make you apear
authorative - you are not.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Not a reliable source.
It is merely a compilation of all the ancient data. Unless you have
other ancient data to offer, it is pretty much definitive.
LOL
Here's a much more credible account:
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hise.htm
Ahem. The authors of this page were not there. The authors of the
above accounts *were*.
325 CE: ... Two conflicting theories about the deity of Jesus were argued
at
the time: Arius (250 - 336 CE) proposed that Jesus and God were very
separate and different entities: Jesus was closer to God than any other
human being, but he was born a man, had no prior existence, and was not a
god.
Let's hear what Arius *actually* said:
This has been gone over for centuries, and anyone can do a google search or
get authorative books that support what I posted.
<snip>
As I said, restored:
Here's a much more credible account:
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hise.htm
325 CE: The period of time from 325 to about 590 CE is often referred to as
the "post-Nicene" era. This interval takes its name from the church Council
of Nicea which was held in 325 CE.
There was no single individual who spoke for the entire church; no one
person had the authority to decide matters of belief and practice. Such
matters could only be determined by councils at which all available bishops
would debate and attempt to resolve their differences. The first such
meeting was the Council of Nicea in Asia Minor (now Turkey). 318 bishops out
of the approximately 1,800 Christian bishops then in existence attended.
Most came from the eastern half of the Empire. 5 Bishops attempted to
resolve a major uncertainty facing the early church: the relationship
between Jesus and God. The church recognized the Hebrew Scriptures (Old
Testament) which described God in strictly monotheistic terms. But there
were references in the Gospels (particularly John) which implied that Jesus
was divine. Two conflicting theories about the deity of Jesus were argued at
the time: Arius (250 - 336 CE) proposed that Jesus and God were very
separate and different entities: Jesus was closer to God than any other
human being, but he was born a man, had no prior existence, and was not a
god. On the other hand, God has been in existence forever. Arius felt that
any attempt to recognize the deity of Christ would blur the lines between
Christianity and the Pagan religions. If Christianity recognized two
separate gods, the Father and Jesus, it would become a polytheistic
religion.
Athanasius (296 - 373 CE) argued that Jesus must be divine, because
otherwise, he could not be the Savior. The atonement would not have been
possible.
Both Arius and Athanasius had large, evenly matched followings among the
bishops. Emotions ran high. The council, under intense pressure from Emperor
Constantine, resolved its deadlock by a close vote in favor of Athanasius.
The dissenting bishops were offered two options: to sign the settlement at
Nicea or be exiled. The bishops produced the Nicene Creed, which declared
that Jesus Christ was "of one substance with the Father." This did not
immediately settle the question of the divinity of Christ; many bishops and
churches refused to believe in the council's decision for decades.
The meeting was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he did it for
political reasons because he wanted to institute a state religion, for
political reasons.
He had no such goals or ideas, at least a
Wrong, and clueless. To think that the most powerful man in the world, in
the process of consolidating power in a huge empire under internal and
external threats, didn't do things for practical serious reasons is
foolish.
He was trying to consolidate power over a widespread, disparate empire, and
trying to wrest political power from old city of Rome centers of power and
influence that had existed for centuries.
Established religion always a symbiotic relationship with established
political power. Gradually supporting and instituting a new religion with
government support was a good way to undermine existing nexuses of power in
an increasingly dysfunctional empire, coming under increasing external
threats from barbarians.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I
Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman
Emperor. His reign was a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313
Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan,
which removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had
been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned
confiscated Church property. Though a similar edict had been issued in 311
by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy,[7] Constantine's lengthy
rule, conversion, and patronage of the Church redefined the status of
Christianity in the empire.
Constantine the Great, mosaic in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, c.
1000.Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's
Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the
course of his life.[8] Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared
himself a Christian.[9] Writing to Christians, Constantine made clear that
he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone.[10]
Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built
various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g. exemption from certain taxes) to
clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property
confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian.[11] His most famous
building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Old Saint
Peter's Basilica.
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the
Christian Emperor in the Church; Constantine considered himself responsible
to God for the spiritual health of his subjects, and thus he had a duty to
maintain orthodoxy.[12] For Constantine, the emperor did not decide
doctrine - that was the responsibility of the bishops - rather his role was
to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[13]
The emperor ensured that God was properly worshipped in his empire; what
proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine.[14]
from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html
One of the most surprising Christian heroes in the entire tradition, I
think, is Constantine. He is, first of all, a successful general. He is also
the son of a successful general and at the head of the army at the West. And
he's fighting another successful general, struggling for who is going to be
at the top of the heap of the very higher echelons of Roman government. What
happens is that Constantine has a vision. Luckily for the Church, there's a
bishop nearby to interpret what the vision means. Constantine ends not
converting, technically, to Christianity, but becoming a patron of one
particular branch of the church. It happens to be the branch of the church
that has the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as part of its
canon. Which means that since this branch of Christianity includes the story
about historical Israel as part of its own redemptive history, it has an
entire language for articulating the relationship of government and piety.
It has the model of King David. It has the model of the kings of Israel. And
it's with this governmental model that the bishop explains the vision to
Constantine.
In a sense Constantine becomes the embodiment of the righteous king. And
once he consolidates his power by conquering, eventually, not only the West,
but also the Greek East where there are many more Christians [who are]
concentrated in the cities, which are the social power packets of this
culture, [he] is in this amazing position of having a theology of government
that he can use to consolidate his own secular power. And it works both
ways. The bishops now have basically federal funding to have sponsored
committee meetings so they can try to iron out creeds and get everybody to
sign up.
One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting
other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist
Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their
canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on. There's a kind of
internal purge of the church as one emperor ruling one empire tries to have
this single church as part of the religious musculature of his vision of a
renewed Rome. And it's with this theological vision in mind that Constantine
not only helps the bishops to iron out a unitary policy of what a true
Christian believes, but he also, interestingly, turns his attention to
Jerusalem, and rebuilds Jerusalem just as a righteous king should do. But
what Constantine does is take the city, which was something of a backwater,
and he begins to build beautiful basilicas and architecturally ambitious
projects in the city itself. The sacred space of the Temple Mount he
abandons. It's not reclaimable. And what he does is [to] religiously
relocate the center of gravity of the city around the places where Christ
had suffered, where he had been buried, or where he [had] been raised. So
that in the great basilicas that he built, Constantine has a new Jerusalem,
that's splendid and beautiful and... his reputation as an imperial architect
resonates with great figures in biblical history like David and Solomon. In
a sense, Constantine is a non-apocalyptic Messiah for the church. ...
The bishops are terribly grateful for this kind of imperial attention. It's
not the western Middle Ages. The lines of power are unambiguous. Constantine
is absolutely the source of authority. And there's no question about that.
But the bishops are able to take advantage of Constantine's mood and his
curious intellectual interest in things like Christology and the Trinity and
Church organization. They're able to have bibles copied at public expense.
They are finally able to have public Christian architecture and big
basilicas. So there's a comfortable symbiotic relationship between the
empire and the church, one that, in a sense, is what defines the cultural
powerhouse of Europe and the West.
time. The meeting was in fact assembling at Ancyra, when bishop
Hosius persuaded Constantine -- an enthusiastic supporter of
Christianity -- to pay the bills so that western clergy could attend,
and the meeting was shifted to Nicaea so that the emperor could be
there too.
Jesus is a manmade false god ...
Perhaps. But living by the
Perhaps?
If he lives on as a supernatural being, why don't you use your great peudo
knowledge to conjure him up, so we can all see and appreciate him?
values of those who control the media
agenda in the time in which we grew up is evidently false, and the
usual unstated alternative of those who post like this.
and praying to a crucifix is idolatry. Christians are condemned by Yahweh
in...
I'm not sure who this 'Yahweh' you talk about might be,
Try google to find out...
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 1,890,000 for yahweh [definition]. (0.08
seconds)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
17 Jul 2007 02:26:47 AM |
|
|
On 17 Jul, 00:17, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184618823.323260.287340@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Jul, 17:32, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184595723.103680.5550@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 15 Jul, 23:37, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
messagenews:1184536411.423961.230830@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult
you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." --
LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:22)
Yes, pedophile priests ...
...are so very useful an excuse to violate the human rights of
thousands of people who had nothing to do with them. Such
accusations, as an excuse for hate, are unacceptable, surely?
You are a liar.
Charming.
No, just accurate.
Charming again.
No one has violated anyone's "rights", except ...
Nonsense.
Here, you defend pedophile priests ....
Nope: that's the point. I think that they deserve more than they will
get. The Great and the Good would rather attack millions of innocent
people and demonise them for things they emphatically reject, just for
reasons of political and religious hate. Every hate-group uses this
technique of false association.
By the way, Andrew, people don't hate you - that's DERISION you're
having
heaped in you....
Why not test this idea? You could try heaping 'derison' on some
negros. But I think that the police would explain the concept of a
distinction without a difference to you, probably at some length.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Charming. I think from here on I will simply snip the abuse, as
tedious to all of us and irrelevant.
I'm afraid you need to ask someone to explain my post to you, for I
really can't state that any simpler.
Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
Not really. It was much more disputed whether he was truly human.
Different eras have different ideas, you know.
You don't even understand the point.
Why?
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that you
can't think straight.
No answer? I thought not. Atheists...
The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of 300 bishops and
they said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
No, they said that the second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First. The divinity of Christ is a
commonplace in the second-century fathers, 2 centuries earlier, and is
in the NT:
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
Why?
No answer? I thought not.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Not a reliable source.
It is merely a compilation of all the ancient data. Unless you have
other ancient data to offer, it is pretty much definitive.
Here's a much more credible account:
fromhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hise.htm
Ahem. The authors of this page were not there. The authors of the
above accounts *were*.
325 CE: ... Two conflicting theories about the deity of Jesus were argued
at
the time: Arius (250 - 336 CE) proposed that Jesus and God were very
separate and different entities: Jesus was closer to God than any other
human being, but he was born a man, had no prior existence, and was not a
god.
Let's hear what Arius *actually* said:
This has been gone over for centuries, and anyone can do a google search or
get authorative books that support what I posted.
Then why haven't *you* done so?
I note, with distaste, that you snipped the entire remainder of my
post and just substituted your previous post. I refer you to my
reply.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Gavin" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
17 Jul 2007 10:47:05 PM |
|
|
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184657207.169632.181860@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On 17 Jul, 00:17, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184618823.323260.287340@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Jul, 17:32, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184595723.103680.5550@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 15 Jul, 23:37, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
messagenews:1184536411.423961.230830@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and
insult
you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." --
LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:22)
Yes, pedophile priests ...
...are so very useful an excuse to violate the human rights of
thousands of people who had nothing to do with them. Such
accusations, as an excuse for hate, are unacceptable, surely?
You are a liar.
Charming.
No, just accurate.
Charming again.
No need to be nice to liars.
No one has violated anyone's "rights", except ...
Nonsense.
Here, you defend pedophile priests ....
Nope: that's the point. I think that they deserve more than they will
get. The Great and the Good would rather attack millions of innocent
people and demonise them for things they emphatically reject, just for
reasons of political and religious hate. Every hate-group uses this
technique of false association.
Look you idiot, the catholic church has fostered, facilitated and protected
these people for centuries.
In addition, it was hardly limited to the US and the few other advanced
nations where it has been exposed.
The people who did the pedophilia, the ones who knew it was going on and
didn't turn in the criminals, the church which protected and facilitated it
all, obviously have guilt.
No one has accused innocents priests of pedophiolia.
You are a liar in implying that I did.
By the way, Andrew, people don't hate you - that's DERISION you're
having
heaped in you....
Why not test this idea? You could try heaping 'derison' on some
negros. But I think that the police would explain the concept of a
distinction without a difference to you, probably at some length.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Charming. I think from here on I will simply snip the abuse, as
tedious to all of us and irrelevant.
I'm afraid you need to ask someone to explain my post to you, for I
really can't state that any simpler.
Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian
church.
Not really. It was much more disputed whether he was truly human.
Different eras have different ideas, you know.
You don't even understand the point.
Why?
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that you
can't think straight.
No answer? I thought not. Atheists...
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I didn't
give you one.
The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of 300 bishops
and
they said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
No, they said that the second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First. The divinity of Christ is a
commonplace in the second-century fathers, 2 centuries earlier, and
is
in the NT:
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
Why?
No answer? I thought not.
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I didn't
give you one.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Not a reliable source.
It is merely a compilation of all the ancient data. Unless you have
other ancient data to offer, it is pretty much definitive.
Here's a much more credible account:
fromhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hise.htm
Ahem. The authors of this page were not there. The authors of the
above accounts *were*.
325 CE: ... Two conflicting theories about the deity of Jesus were
argued
at
the time: Arius (250 - 336 CE) proposed that Jesus and God were very
separate and different entities: Jesus was closer to God than any
other
human being, but he was born a man, had no prior existence, and was
not a
god.
Let's hear what Arius *actually* said:
This has been gone over for centuries, and anyone can do a google search
or
get authorative books that support what I posted.
Then why haven't *you* done so?
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar like
yourself:
""
Nicaea, Council of
(325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in
ancient Nicaea (now Iznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor Constantine
I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening
session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the
church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a
heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is
not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council
but was represented by legates.
The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some,
incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios ("of one substance") into a
creed (the Nicene Creed) to signify the absolute equality of the Son with
the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a
solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular
patronage in ecclesiastical affairs.
The council also attempted but failed to establish a uniform date for
Easter. But it issued decrees on many other matters, including the proper
method of consecrating bishops, a condemnation of lending money at interest
by clerics, and a refusal to allow bishops, priests, and deacons to move
from one church to another. Socrates Scholasticus, a 5th-century Byzantine
historian, said that the council intended to make a canon enforcing celibacy
of the clergy, but it failed to do so when some objected. It also confirmed
the primacy of Alexandria and Jerusalem over other sees in their respective
areas.
I note, with distaste, that you snipped the entire remainder of my
post and just substituted your previous post. I refer you to my
reply.
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
To think that the most powerful man in the world, in
the process of consolidating power in a huge empire under internal and
external threats, didn't do things for practical serious reasons is
foolish.
He was trying to consolidate power over a widespread, disparate empire, and
trying to wrest political power from old city of Rome centers of power and
influence that had existed for centuries.
Established religion always a symbiotic relationship with established
political power. Gradually supporting and instituting a new religion with
government support was a good way to undermine existing nexuses of power in
an increasingly dysfunctional empire, coming under increasing external
threats from barbarians.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I
Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman
Emperor. His reign was a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313
Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan,
which removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had
been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned
confiscated Church property. Though a similar edict had been issued in 311
by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy,[7] Constantine's lengthy
rule, conversion, and patronage of the Church redefined the status of
Christianity in the empire.
Constantine the Great, mosaic in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, c.
1000.Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's
Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the
course of his life.[8] Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared
himself a Christian.[9] Writing to Christians, Constantine made clear that
he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone.[10]
Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built
various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g. exemption from certain taxes) to
clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property
confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian.[11] His most famous
building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Old Saint
Peter's Basilica.
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the
Christian Emperor in the Church; Constantine considered himself responsible
to God for the spiritual health of his subjects, and thus he had a duty to
maintain orthodoxy.[12] For Constantine, the emperor did not decide
doctrine - that was the responsibility of the bishops - rather his role was
to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[13]
The emperor ensured that God was properly worshipped in his empire; what
proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine.[14]
from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html
One of the most surprising Christian heroes in the entire tradition, I
think, is Constantine. He is, first of all, a successful general. He is also
the son of a successful general and at the head of the army at the West. And
he's fighting another successful general, struggling for who is going to be
at the top of the heap of the very higher echelons of Roman government. What
happens is that Constantine has a vision. Luckily for the Church, there's a
bishop nearby to interpret what the vision means. Constantine ends not
converting, technically, to Christianity, but becoming a patron of one
particular branch of the church. It happens to be the branch of the church
that has the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as part of its
canon. Which means that since this branch of Christianity includes the story
about historical Israel as part of its own redemptive history, it has an
entire language for articulating the relationship of government and piety.
It has the model of King David. It has the model of the kings of Israel. And
it's with this governmental model that the bishop explains the vision to
Constantine.
In a sense Constantine becomes the embodiment of the righteous king. And
once he consolidates his power by conquering, eventually, not only the West,
but also the Greek East where there are many more Christians [who are]
concentrated in the cities, which are the social power packets of this
culture, [he] is in this amazing position of having a theology of government
that he can use to consolidate his own secular power. And it works both
ways. The bishops now have basically federal funding to have sponsored
committee meetings so they can try to iron out creeds and get everybody to
sign up.
One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting
other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist
Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their
canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on. There's a kind of
internal purge of the church as one emperor ruling one empire tries to have
this single church as part of the religious musculature of his vision of a
renewed Rome. And it's with this theological vision in mind that Constantine
not only helps the bishops to iron out a unitary policy of what a true
Christian believes, but he also, interestingly, turns his attention to
Jerusalem, and rebuilds Jerusalem just as a righteous king should do. But
what Constantine does is take the city, which was something of a backwater,
and he begins to build beautiful basilicas and architecturally ambitious
projects in the city itself. The sacred space of the Temple Mount he
abandons. It's not reclaimable. And what he does is [to] religiously
relocate the center of gravity of the city around the places where Christ
had suffered, where he had been buried, or where he [had] been raised. So
that in the great basilicas that he built, Constantine has a new Jerusalem,
that's splendid and beautiful and... his reputation as an imperial architect
resonates with great figures in biblical history like David and Solomon. In
a sense, Constantine is a non-apocalyptic Messiah for the church. ...
The bishops are terribly grateful for this kind of imperial attention. It's
not the western Middle Ages. The lines of power are unambiguous. Constantine
is absolutely the source of authority. And there's no question about that.
But the bishops are able to take advantage of Constantine's mood and his
curious intellectual interest in things like Christology and the Trinity and
Church organization. They're able to have bibles copied at public expense.
They are finally able to have public Christian architecture and big
basilicas. So there's a comfortable symbiotic relationship between the
empire and the church, one that, in a sense, is what defines the cultural
powerhouse of Europe and the West.
time. The meeting was in fact assembling at Ancyra, when bishop
Hosius persuaded Constantine -- an enthusiastic supporter of
Christianity -- to pay the bills so that western clergy could attend,
and the meeting was shifted to Nicaea so that the emperor could be
there too.
Jesus is a manmade false god ...
Perhaps. But living by the
Perhaps?
If he lives on as a supernatural being, why don't you use your great peudo
knowledge to conjure him up, so we can all see and appreciate him?
values of those who control the media
agenda in the time in which we grew up is evidently false, and the
usual unstated alternative of those who post like this.
and praying to a crucifix is idolatry. Christians are condemned by Yahweh
in...
I'm not sure who this 'Yahweh' you talk about might be,
Try google to find out...
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 1,890,000 for yahweh [definition]. (0.08
seconds)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
20 Jul 2007 04:36:10 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jul, 04:47, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
You are a liar.
No need to be nice to liars.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that you
can't think straight.
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I didn't
give you one.
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar like
yourself:
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
Nothing in this deserves a reply.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Gavin" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
20 Jul 2007 05:38:57 PM |
|
|
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184967370.937572.289550@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On 18 Jul, 04:47, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
You are a liar.
No need to be nice to liars.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that
you
can't think straight.
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I
didn't
give you one.
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar
like
yourself:
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
Nothing in this deserves a reply.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
He runs from dealing with material from the Encyclopedia Britannica and
pretends "nothing in this deserves a reply".
Pathetic.
Here's what i had posted, that he clipped and mangled, then ran from:
(it's about Roman Emperor Constantine instituting Christianity as the main
religion for the Empire).
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar like
yourself:
""
Nicaea, Council of
(325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in
ancient Nicaea (now Iznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor Constantine
I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening
session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the
church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a
heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is
not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council
but was represented by legates.
The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some,
incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios ("of one substance") into a
creed (the Nicene Creed) to signify the absolute equality of the Son with
the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a
solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular
patronage in ecclesiastical affairs.
The council also attempted but failed to establish a uniform date for
Easter. But it issued decrees on many other matters, including the proper
method of consecrating bishops, a condemnation of lending money at interest
by clerics, and a refusal to allow bishops, priests, and deacons to move
from one church to another. Socrates Scholasticus, a 5th-century Byzantine
historian, said that the council intended to make a canon enforcing celibacy
of the clergy, but it failed to do so when some objected. It also confirmed
the primacy of Alexandria and Jerusalem over other sees in their respective
areas.
I note, with distaste, that you snipped the entire remainder of my
post and just substituted your previous post. I refer you to my
reply.
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
To think that the most powerful man in the world, in
the process of consolidating power in a huge empire under internal and
external threats, didn't do things for practical serious reasons is
foolish.
He was trying to consolidate power over a widespread, disparate empire, and
trying to wrest political power from old city of Rome centers of power and
influence that had existed for centuries.
Established religion always a symbiotic relationship with established
political power. Gradually supporting and instituting a new religion with
government support was a good way to undermine existing nexuses of power in
an increasingly dysfunctional empire, coming under increasing external
threats from barbarians.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I
Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman
Emperor. His reign was a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313
Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan,
which removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had
been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned
confiscated Church property. Though a similar edict had been issued in 311
by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy,[7] Constantine's lengthy
rule, conversion, and patronage of the Church redefined the status of
Christianity in the empire.
Constantine the Great, mosaic in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, c.
1000.Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's
Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the
course of his life.[8] Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared
himself a Christian.[9] Writing to Christians, Constantine made clear that
he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone.[10]
Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built
various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g. exemption from certain taxes) to
clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property
confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian.[11] His most famous
building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Old Saint
Peter's Basilica.
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the
Christian Emperor in the Church; Constantine considered himself responsible
to God for the spiritual health of his subjects, and thus he had a duty to
maintain orthodoxy.[12] For Constantine, the emperor did not decide
doctrine - that was the responsibility of the bishops - rather his role was
to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[13]
The emperor ensured that God was properly worshipped in his empire; what
proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine.[14]
from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html
One of the most surprising Christian heroes in the entire tradition, I
think, is Constantine. He is, first of all, a successful general. He is also
the son of a successful general and at the head of the army at the West. And
he's fighting another successful general, struggling for who is going to be
at the top of the heap of the very higher echelons of Roman government. What
happens is that Constantine has a vision. Luckily for the Church, there's a
bishop nearby to interpret what the vision means. Constantine ends not
converting, technically, to Christianity, but becoming a patron of one
particular branch of the church. It happens to be the branch of the church
that has the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as part of its
canon. Which means that since this branch of Christianity includes the story
about historical Israel as part of its own redemptive history, it has an
entire language for articulating the relationship of government and piety.
It has the model of King David. It has the model of the kings of Israel. And
it's with this governmental model that the bishop explains the vision to
Constantine.
In a sense Constantine becomes the embodiment of the righteous king. And
once he consolidates his power by conquering, eventually, not only the West,
but also the Greek East where there are many more Christians [who are]
concentrated in the cities, which are the social power packets of this
culture, [he] is in this amazing position of having a theology of government
that he can use to consolidate his own secular power. And it works both
ways. The bishops now have basically federal funding to have sponsored
committee meetings so they can try to iron out creeds and get everybody to
sign up.
One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting
other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist
Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their
canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on. There's a kind of
internal purge of the church as one emperor ruling one empire tries to have
this single church as part of the religious musculature of his vision of a
renewed Rome. And it's with this theological vision in mind that Constantine
not only helps the bishops to iron out a unitary policy of what a true
Christian believes, but he also, interestingly, turns his attention to
Jerusalem, and rebuilds Jerusalem just as a righteous king should do. But
what Constantine does is take the city, which was something of a backwater,
and he begins to build beautiful basilicas and architecturally ambitious
projects in the city itself. The sacred space of the Temple Mount he
abandons. It's not reclaimable. And what he does is [to] religiously
relocate the center of gravity of the city around the places where Christ
had suffered, where he had been buried, or where he [had] been raised. So
that in the great basilicas that he built, Constantine has a new Jerusalem,
that's splendid and beautiful and... his reputation as an imperial architect
resonates with great figures in biblical history like David and Solomon. In
a sense, Constantine is a non-apocalyptic Messiah for the church. ...
The bishops are terribly grateful for this kind of imperial attention. It's
not the western Middle Ages. The lines of power are unambiguous. Constantine
is absolutely the source of authority. And there's no question about that.
But the bishops are able to take advantage of Constantine's mood and his
curious intellectual interest in things like Christology and the Trinity and
Church organization. They're able to have bibles copied at public expense.
They are finally able to have public Christian architecture and big
basilicas. So there's a comfortable symbiotic relationship between the
empire and the church, one that, in a sense, is what defines the cultural
powerhouse of Europe and the West.
time. The meeting was in fact assembling at Ancyra, when bishop
Hosius persuaded Constantine -- an enthusiastic supporter of
Christianity -- to pay the bills so that western clergy could attend,
and the meeting was shifted to Nicaea so that the emperor could be
there too.
Jesus is a manmade false god ...
Perhaps. But living by the
Perhaps?
If he lives on as a supernatural being, why don't you use your great peudo
knowledge to conjure him up, so we can all see and appreciate him?
values of those who control the media
agenda in the time in which we grew up is evidently false, and the
usual unstated alternative of those who post like this.
and praying to a crucifix is idolatry. Christians are condemned by Yahweh
in...
I'm not sure who this 'Yahweh' you talk about might be,
Try google to find out...
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 1,890,000 for yahweh [definition]. (0.08
seconds)
<
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
20 Jul 2007 04:39:58 PM |
|
|
On Jul 20, 5:36 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 18 Jul, 04:47, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
You are a liar.
No need to be nice to liars.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that you
can't think straight.
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I didn't
give you one.
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar like
yourself:
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
Nothing in this deserves a reply.
That's convienent, because you certainly aren't capable of making one.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
21 Jul 2007 02:35:12 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul, 22:39, wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:36 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 18 Jul, 04:47, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
You are a liar.
No need to be nice to liars.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that you
can't think straight.
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I didn't
give you one.
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar like
yourself:
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
Nothing in this deserves a reply.
That's convienent, because you certainly aren't capable of making one.
To mindless abuse, trolling and bluster? No indeed, for I am not an
atheist.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Gavin" |
|
| Title: Re: The promi |
21 Jul 2007 11:02:01 AM |
|
|
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1185003312.497468.37610@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 20 Jul, 22:39, wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:36 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 18 Jul, 04:47, "Kurt Gavin" <bugger...@s.com> wrote:
You are a liar.
No need to be nice to liars.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda
that you
can't think straight.
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I
didn't
give you one.
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about
the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar
like
yourself:
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
Nothing in this deserves a reply.
That's convienent, because you certainly aren't capable of making one.
To mindless abuse, trolling and bluster? No indeed, for I am not an
atheist.
You got caught in lies, and like all supernaturalists, you wriggle, use
slander, and try to change the subject.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" |
|
| Title: Such are the words coming from satan's sockpuppets (demons). |
20 Jul 2007 04:41:13 PM |
|
|
friend Roger Pearse wrote:
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote in his usual lying fashion:
You are a liar.
No need to be nice to liars.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that you
can't think straight.
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I didn't
give you one.
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar like
yourself:
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
Nothing in this deserves a reply.
Correct.
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Gavin" |
|
| Title: Re: Such are the words coming from satan's sockpuppet Andrew Beezelbub Chung |
20 Jul 2007 05:41:55 PM |
|
|
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc9@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1184967673.785891.31180@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
friend Roger Pearse wrote:
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote in his usual lying fashion:
You are a liar.
No need to be nice to liars.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that
you
can't think straight.
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I
didn't
give you one.
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about
the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar
like
yourself:
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
Nothing in this deserves a reply.
Correct.
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed:
Well, there you are. Pearse has nutcase Andi chung in his corner.
That's a VERY clear indication of who's right.....
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: Such are the words coming from satan's sockpuppets (demons). |
21 Jul 2007 02:36:04 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul, 22:41, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<heartd...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
friend Roger Pearse wrote:
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote in his usual lying fashion:
You are a liar.
No need to be nice to liars.
I have nothing against "negros", you *****....
Probably because your mind is so disturbed from xian propaganda that you
can't think straight.
Idiot, you got an answer, you just didn't like it so you pretended I didn't
give you one.
This is stupid nitpicking over terminology.
It is YOU who soes not understand what scholarship has revealed about the
matter, not me.
From the Britannica, a somewhat better source than a pretentious liar like
yourself:
I snipped your nonsense reply and replaced it with some good reliable
scholarship
I repeat:
Nothing in this deserves a reply.
Correct.
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed:
Many thanks, except for the bit about hungry... :-)
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
