| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"duke" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 05:34:13 PM |
| Object: |
Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
*****
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement
God created A&E beings knowing from the start that they would not
please him. And when they would not please him, he knew he would have
to arrange to have the humans torture and kill him/God in the form of
Jesus so that he could forgive them for being the way he created them
to be and the way he knew they would be from the beginning.
*****
Much to th's shame is the fact that God gave us a free will, and an opportunity
to use that free will to choose him (God) rather than satan.
It's the same cross we all carry. Truth Hunter doesn't understand and doesn't
want to.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
| User: "Secular Fundamentalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
31 Mar 2005 05:06:15 AM |
|
|
The gates of alt.atheism slowly swung open, and there stood georgann
<chenault@mindspring.com>,who intoned thus:
Actually I believe in a somewhat implausible truth. Only its implausible to
some and not others.
That, to most people, is the quintessence of madness.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
31 Mar 2005 07:21:11 AM |
|
|
Actually I believe in a somewhat implausible truth. Only its implausible to
some and not others.
Secular Fundamentalist wrote:
That, to most people, is the quintessence of madness.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No its not. Its merely a difference in world views.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
30 Mar 2005 06:20:16 PM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
I would expect an actual super-duper omniscient god to just forgive
people without having to commit suicide and pretending to be dead
for three days like your false god. What a stupid story you believe in.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I don't believe in a story but a personal God who has been born into
human flesh.
Elroy Willis wrote:
Get real. You believe in a bloody fairytale story and refuse to admit it.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Actually I believe in a somewhat implausible truth. Only its implausible to
some and not others.
There's no reason why an omniscient omnipotent god would have to
commit a bloody suicide or pretend to have died to forgive people.
It's not only implausible, it's just plain stupid.
You've fallen for the lies of the ancient priests and con men, and are
obviously too embarrassed or ashamed to admit it.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
31 Mar 2005 05:12:54 AM |
|
|
I don't believe in a story but a personal God who has been born into human
flesh.
Elroy Willis wrote:
Get real. You believe in a bloody fairytale story and refuse to admit it.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Actually I believe in a somewhat implausible truth. Only its implausible to
some and not others.
Elroy Willis wrote:
There's no reason why an omniscient omnipotent god would have to commit a
bloody suicide or pretend to have died to forgive people. It's not only
implausible, it's just plain stupid.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
It may seem stupid to you but not to me. And He didn't commit a bloody
suicide as He was killed by people, not Himself. Now I would agree He knew
it would happen, but that's the deal.
Elroy Willis wrote:
You've fallen for the lies of the ancient priests and con men, and are
obviously too embarrassed or ashamed to admit it.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I've never conversed with any ancient priests or con men. And I am most
definitely not embarrasses or ashamed to admit my introduction to Jesus
Christ was personal, not second hand, intellectual or from any kind of
stories.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
31 Mar 2005 02:11:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:12:54 GMT, georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote:
It may seem stupid to you but not to me. And He didn't commit a bloody
suicide as He was killed by people, not Himself.
The first of two, perhaps three, childish, semantic arguments, in this post.
Jesus/god, committed suicide.
When you enter a situation, with the intention of dying, and you succeed, that
is suicide; The hand that wields the blade, or in Jesus case, the hammer and
nails, is irrelevant.
Sacrificing your self, is suicide, no matter how high your motives.
Now I would agree He knew
it would happen,
And could have avoided it.
but that's the deal.
Yep, suicide.
Elroy Willis wrote:
You've fallen for the lies of the ancient priests and con men, and are
obviously too embarrassed or ashamed to admit it.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I've never conversed with any ancient priests or con men.
Second, childish, semantic argument
You have read the books, texts, etc, written by them, and fallen for them.
And I am most
definitely not embarrasses or ashamed to admit my introduction to Jesus
Christ was personal, not second hand, intellectual or from any kind of
stories.
So, until he suddenly appeared in front of you, and you became a xtian, you had
never heard of "Jesus Christ", and knew nothing about him, or the bible in
general: Yes?
You had never heard the xmas nativity story, or the Easter,
cruxifiction/resersction, story; Yes?
No one ever explained what the bible meant?
If that is true, then you are the only person ever recorded, to become a xtian,
follower of any other religion, without any external source of information.
Every record/myth that tells of the manifestation of your god, to a mortal, the
mortal already believed.
Are you telling us that your case is unique?
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
31 Mar 2005 07:17:51 PM |
|
|
And I am most definitely not embarrasses or ashamed to admit my introduction
to Jesus Christ was personal, not second hand, intellectual or from any kind
of stories.
Dubh Ghall wrote:
So, until he suddenly appeared in front of you, and you became a xtian, you
had never heard of "Jesus Christ", and knew nothing about him, or the bible in
general: Yes?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I'm certain there is a logical fallacy in there some where ... I'm just not
sure which one. The fact that I did meet Jesus personally has nothing
whatsoever to do with whether or not I ever heard of Him or read the Bible
etc.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
01 Apr 2005 01:05:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 01:17:51 GMT, georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
So, until he suddenly appeared in front of you, and you became a xtian, you
had never heard of "Jesus Christ", and knew nothing about him, or the bible in
general: Yes?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I'm certain there is a logical fallacy in there some where ... I'm just not
sure which one. The fact that I did meet Jesus personally has nothing
whatsoever to do with whether or not I ever heard of Him or read the Bible
etc.
It has much to do with it Georgann.
Had you been raised with an islamic background, you would have met the Prophet.
Raised in a hindu culture, it would have been Krishna, or some other hindu god.
You are claiming that Jesus came to you. Nothing new about that, thousands have
made that claim.
The difference is that you are claiming that a god, of whom you knew absolutely
nothing, visited you?
That makes your claim, unique.
It also leaves me with a puzzle: How did you know it was Jesus? How did you
know who Jesus was? Did he spend time telling you about himself?
Tell me, I am most interested.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
31 Mar 2005 08:44:23 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
There's no reason why an omniscient omnipotent god would have to
commit a bloody suicide or pretend to have died to forgive people. It's
not only implausible, it's just plain stupid.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
It may seem stupid to you but not to me. And He didn't commit a bloody
suicide as He was killed by people, not Himself. Now I would agree He knew
it would happen, but that's the deal.
You admit that your god can't forgive people without bloodshed of some
kind. First it was animal sacrifices and their blood sprinkled around
some altar, then a human sacrifice and its blood dripping on a
cross. It's barbaric to the core, but you're too brainwashed to see
it.
Elroy Willis wrote:
You've fallen for the lies of the ancient priests and con men, and are
obviously too embarrassed or ashamed to admit it.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I've never conversed with any ancient priests or con men.
You believe the stories they wrote, that's all that matters.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
30 Mar 2005 05:01:19 PM |
|
|
georgann wrote:
Right. In order for any prophecy to be 100% correct, the future has to be
set in stone and cannot be changed, hence no free will. And since the Bible
is filled with supposed "100% fulfilled" prophecies, that means that it
actually says there's no free will.
I'm sure georgann will disagree, not knowing how to use logic and all.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
You're correct Elroy, I do disagree. God knew we could and would screw up but
the WHEN was up to Him to account for. He did account for it and did so
perfectly - without negating man's free will. Would you expect anything less
of God?
Elroy Willis wrote:
I would expect an actual super-duper omniscient god to just forgive people
without having to commit suicide and pretending to be dead for three days like
your false god. What a stupid story you believe in.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I don't believe in a story but a personal God who has been born into human
flesh.
Why don't you? What makes you the correct "Christian" and other
Christians who do believe that God was born as human in the form of
Jesus incorrect?
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
30 Mar 2005 05:51:46 PM |
|
|
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
You're correct Elroy, I do disagree. God knew we could and would screw up
but the WHEN was up to Him to account for. He did account for it and did so
perfectly - without negating man's free will. Would you expect anything
less of God?
Elroy Willis wrote:
I would expect an actual super-duper omniscient god to just forgive people
without having to commit suicide and pretending to be dead for three days
like your false god. What a stupid story you believe in.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I don't believe in a story but a personal God who has been born into human
flesh.
DanielSan wrote:
Why don't you? What makes you the correct "Christian" and other Christians
who do believe that God was born as human in the form of Jesus incorrect?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
?? If someone believes that Jesus is God in the flesh, they are Christians.
Why do you ask me if they are incorrect when there is no inconsistencies in
this?
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert the NOLA Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
31 Mar 2005 01:24:31 AM |
|
|
georgann seems to have overlooked the Arian Schism over the humanity
and divinity of Jesus that nearly split the early Xtian church and was
the catalyst for the council at nicea. The question that hung over
the early church? Who and what was Jesus? While Xtians today want us
to think there has always been agreement over the matter of faith and
doctrine, this is a lie. The early church was choc full o'
disagreement... just like modern Xtianity! So to enlighten Xtians
like georgann about the history of their faith, I present... (drum
roll please)
"WHO" AND OR "WHAT" WAS JESUS?
THE ARIAN-ATHANASIAN CONTROVERSY, DURING WHICH MORE CHRISTIANS KILLED
CHRISTIANS THAN ROMANS KILLED CHRISTIANS DURING THE PREVIOUS 250
YEARS.
THE FIRST ECUMENICAL CHUCH COUNCIL--HELD AT NICEA
From the very first the Church was faced with the task of establishing
dogmas. For Christianity abounds in problems more hinted at than
answered in the New Testament.The first ecumenical church council, the
Council of Nicea, assembled in the year 325 in the imperial palace of
the first Christian emperor, Constantine. Once the discussions started
the participants threw their episcopal dignity to the wind and shouted
wildly at each other. They were concerned primarily with improving
their positions of power.
[(Concerning such "power") we must remember that Constantine built
some impressive churches and they did not stand alone.They usually
stood in a complex of buildings.that included an audience hall in
which the bishop presided as judge, an extensive bishop's palace,
warehouses for supplies for the poor, and, above all, an impressive
courtyard, of the sort which stood in front of a nobleman's town
house.Such building complexes made palpable the emergence of a new
style of urban leadership.Christians themselves built countless other
churches of more moderate size, that reflected the ability of the
local clergy to mobilize local loyalties and to appear to local
pride.Bishops and clergy received immunities from taxes and from
compulsory public services. In each city, the Christian clergy became
the only group that expanded rapidly, at a time when the strain of
empire had brought other civic associations to a standstill. Bound by
oath to "their" bishop, a whole hierarchy of priests, deacons, and
minor clergy formed an ordo in miniature, as subtly graded as any town
council, and as tenaciously attached to its privileges. Furthermore,
Constantine expected that the bishop would act as exclusive judge and
arbiter in cases between Christians, and even between Christians and
non-Christians. Normal civil litigation had become prohibitively
expensive. As a result, the bishop, already regarded as the God-like
judge of sin among believers, rapidly became the ombudsman of an
entire community. Besides this, the imperial supplies of food and
clothing, granted to the clergy to distribute to the poor, turned the
ferociously inward-looking care of fellow-believers for each other,
which had characterized the Christian churches of an earlier age, into
something like a public welfare system, designed to alleviate, and to
control, the urban poor as a whole.
--Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom, 2nd Ed., (Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing, 2003), p.78]
Thus at the Council of Nicea diplomacy was wielded as a weapon, and
intrigues often replaced intelligence. There were so many ignorant
bishops that one participant bluntly called the council "a synod of
nothing but blockheads."
[The bishops at the Council of Nicea condemned and forbade kneeling at
prayer on Sundays, and also on any day between Easter and Whitsunday.]
Walter Nigg, The Heretics
____________________________
THE MAJOR THEOLOGICAL DEBATE THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA
At the Council of Nicea a theological debate took place that set the
stage for disputations and even riots between Christians in the
following centuries. Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria defended his own
teaching that Jesus was of the same exact essence (Homoousios) as the
Father. Taking the other side of the debate, bishop Eusebius of
Nicomedia endorsed the position of a theologian named Arius (who saw
himself as defending the position of early church fathers like Origen
and Tertullian, who did not speak of Jesus being of the same exact
essence as the Father.) As with all theological debates, the council
reached a deadlock.
It was at this point that the Emperor Constantine, who had convened
the council, stepped in and sided with Athanasius. He argued that
everyone present should sign the new creed that stated Jesus was of
the same exact essence (Homoousios) as the Father: "Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, begotten not made, by the Father as his only Son, of the
same essence (Homoousios) with the Father, God of God, Light of
Light." Constantine's desire to deify Jesus was not in the least
surprising. It was a natural carry over from his pagan past when he
had his father, Constantius, deified. It is thus natural that he would
want to see the founder of his new religion put on the same pedestal
as well. Constantine added that whoever agreed to the new creed would
be invited to his twentieth anniversary celebration, while those who
did not agree would face immediate banishment. As a result, all but
seventeen die-hard Arians signed the new creed. One can only speculate
how many of the bishops signed due to Constantine's threat. We do know
that many of the bishops who agreed initially, due to the emperor's
threat, withdrew their agreements after returning to their own cities.
Thus Eusebius, one of the signatories to the new creed, wrote (on
behalf of himself and two other bishops) to Constantine upon return to
Nicomedia: "We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a
blasphemy for fear of you." Whatever may be the reaction of the
bishops who signed the formula unwillingly, the emperor was quick to
act. He ordered the banishment of Arius and the burning of his
writings. The leading Arian bishops were also deposed.
"The Arian Controversy" [Online at The Rejection of Pascal's Wager]
____________________________
"If any treatise composed by Arius should be discovered, let it be
consigned to the flames, in order that no memorial of him may be by
any means left. This therefore I [Constantine] decree, that if any one
shall be detected in concealing a book compiled by Arius, and shall
not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this
offence shall be death; for immediately after conviction the criminal
shall suffer capital punishment."
Letter of Constantine To the Bishops and People, c. 333 A.D. in which
he proscribed the works of Arius [a Christian] and in which he also
proscribed the works of the pagan scholar Porphyry [who questioned
Christianity], as cited in A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the
History of the Church to AD 337, Ed., J. Stevenson, newly revised by
W. H. C. Frend
____________________________
THE TROUBLE WITH SCRIPTURE
Both Arius and Athanasius thought the Scriptures could settle their
disagreement. The Arians quoted a text from Proverbs to support their
view:
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his
acts of old.
- Proverbs 8:22
To the modern scholar, the "me" refers to a pre-Christian notion of
God's Wisdom, but to the Arians and Athanasians alike, many Old
Testament's verses were interpreted as being about Jesus, and this
passage, they agreed, referred to Jesus. The difference came in their
interpretation of its meaning. The Arians claimed that the passage
proved Jesus was created by God. But the Athanasians argued that the
word "create" did not mean "coming into being." To them the passage
referred to the creation of all mankind through the resurrection of
Jesus.
Another passage the Arians quoted was from the gospel of Luke, which
referred to the growth of Jesus:
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and
man
- Luke 2:52
The Arians argued, God obviously could not have "increased in wisdom
and stature" for he is a perfect being. Jesus, because he could
increase in wisdom and stature, could not be God. The Athanasians
countered by saying that the Scriptures contain a "double account" of
Jesus Christ. Some passages refer to Jesus as man, and others refer to
him as God. The passage from Luke refers to the part of Jesus that is
a man; so said the Athanasians.
Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings, p. 90-93
____________________________
As is now widely recognized, the Scriptures and their
interpretations.were the source of the "Arian controversy."
As Robert C Gregg and Dennis E. Groh have observed, "It has been easy
to overlook the degree to which appeal to the Scriptures was
fundamental for Arius," and, it might be added, the later Arians. R.
P. C. Hanson in particular has said in The Search for the Christian
Doctrine of God, "When arguing about the career and character of Jesus
Christ himself depicted in the Gospels," the Arians "are usually on
much firmer footing than their ['orthodox'] opponents," in fact, "both
Athanasius and Hilary are driven to take refuge in the most
unconvincing arguments." Ambrose's ['orthodox'] interpretations are
also, in general, "fantastic nonsense woven into purely delusive
harmony." The Arian exegesis of the first three Gospels is "confident"
and "embarrassing" to their [Athanasian] opponents who treat the
crucial verses in those Gospels in "uncertain" and "strained" ways.
Maximinus even told the church father, Augustine, "The divine
Scripture does not fare badly in our [Arian] teaching, such that it
has to receive correction [Latin, 'emendationem'] from us."
Kevin Madigan, "Christus Nesciens? Was Christ Ignorant of the Day of
Judgment? Arian and Orthodox Interpretation of Mark 13:32 in the
Ancient Latin West," Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 96, no. 3 (2003)
____________________________
"ARIANISM" USED TO BE JUST AS POPULAR AS THE DOCTRINE THAT JESUS IS
FULLY GOD
Arianism, which orthodox Christians now consider the archetypal
heresy, was once at least as popular as the doctrine that Jesus is
God. Ordinary trades people and workers felt perfectly
competent--perhaps even driven--to debate abstract theological issues
and to arrive at their own conclusions.Disputes among Christians,
specifically arguments about the relationship of Jesus Christ the Son
to God the Father, had become.intense. [p.7]
The anti-Arians demanded that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or
even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and
the Son. From the perspective of our time it may seem strange to think
of Arian "heretics" as conservatives, but emphasizing Jesus's humanity
and God's transcendent otherness had never seemed heretical in the
[Eastern half of the Roman Empire]. [p.74]
The Great Council of Nicaea was the largest gathering of Christian
leaders, up to that time with 250+ bishops in attendance, almost all
of them from the Eastern Empire.To some extent, this Eastern
predominance can be attributed to the westerner's lack of interest in
the Arian controversy, which still seemed to them an obscure "Greek"
matter. [The controversy over Arianism was most virulent in
Greek-speaking areas, where the language lent itself to fine
distinctions, and the involvement of the emperors, whose aims were
usually social unity rather than theological truth, complicated
matters. Often the churchmen who prevailed were those who had the
emperor's ear. It is only with hindsight that bishops can be readily
assigned to one or the other camp in the controversy: there were many
gradations within the "Arianizing" outlook.--Desmond O'Grady, Beyond
the Empire: Rome and the Church from Constantine to Charlemagne (New
York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001), p.16]
The Council of Nicaea, then, was not universal. [There were in fact
over 1800 bishops in the Christian church and only 250-300 of them
attended the Council of Nicea].Several later gatherings would be more
representative of the entire Church; one of them, the joint council of
Rumini-Seluicie (359), was attended by more than five hundred bishops
from both the East and West. If any meeting deserves the title
"ecumenical," that one seems to qualify, but its results--the adoption
of an Arian creed--was later repudiated by the Church. Councils whose
products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the "ecumenical"
label but virtually disappeared from official Church history. [p.74]
[After the Council of Nicaea, Constantine exiled Arian theologians.]
But within three years, Arius, Eusebius, and their fellow exiles would
be forgiven by Constantine and welcomed back to the Church. Eusebius
would become Constantine's closest advisor, and would insist that
Athanasius, now bishop of Alexandria, readmit Arius to communion in
that city as well. A decade after that, Bishop Athanasius himself was
exiled, and Arianism was well on its way to becoming the dominant
theology of the Eastern Empire. [p.84]
The Council of Nicaea was the last point at which Christians with
strongly opposed theological views acted civilly toward each other.
When the controversy began, Arius and his opponents were inclined to
treat each other as fellow Christians with mistaken ideas. Constantine
hoped that his Great and Holy Council would bring the opposing sides
together on the basis of a mutual recognition and correction of
erroneous ideas. When these hopes were shattered and the conflict
continued to spread, the adversaries were drawn to attack each other
not as colleagues in error but as unrepentant sinners: corrupt,
malicious, even satanic individuals. [p.84-85]
Athanasius's ambition was endless; and he was very much at home in the
"real" world of power relations and political skullduggery.Athanasius
would soon be recognized as the anti-Arians' champion. But first, he
had to become bishop of Alexandria. [p.104-105]
Athanasius sent gangs of thuggish supporters into the Melitian
Christian district, where they beat and wounded supporters of the
Melitian leader, John Arcaph, and, according to Arcaph, burned
churches, destroyed church property, imprisoned and even murdered
dissident priests. [p.106]
Constantine ordered a council of bishops to meet in Tyre [concerning
charges leveled against Athanasius]. Athanasius reacted with
desperation. He had his agents terrorize those who might have provided
evidence against him and prevented them from leaving the country.The
pro-Athanasius bishops who attended the council at Tyre behaved so
disruptively that the council later cited their activities as proof of
Athanasius's unfitness for office.The debate at the council was
stormy, with many witnesses contradicting each other's stories, and
much name calling.After weeks of squabbling the bishops decided to
send a commission to the region to interview witnesses there and the
decide the truth of various accusations.The investigative commission
left for Egypt.accompanied by a company of imperial troops.For the
next two months Egypt was in an uproar. The Athanasians charged that
the commission was obtaining evidence by means of threats and torture.
The commissioners charged that Athanasius's supporters were
intimidating and kidnapping witnesses. By the end of the investigation
it was clear that the commission's report would indict Athanasius, who
fled the city by night.The Bishops in Tyre condemned Athanasius for
specific acts of violence and disobedience. [p.123-125]
When Constantine convened the Great Council of Nicea, he could not
have imagined that the bishops would be meeting almost every year to
rule on charges of criminal activity and heresy. Partisan control of
these gatherings virtually guaranteed that condemned churchmen would
attempt to rehabilitate themselves and punish their enemies by denying
the authority of "illegitimate" councils and convening new ones. The
emperor probably considered this a temporary problem. Surely, after
blatant troublemakers and fanatics like Bishops Athanasius and
Marcellus were removed from office, reasonable churchmen could learn
to live together despite occasional differences of opinion! But this
was to repeat the original mistake made at Nicea. It was to assume
that doctrinal differences among Christians were not that important,
that they did not reflect serious divisions of class, culture, and
moral values within the community, and that they could be resolved by
discovering the correct form of words. [p.133]
[More and more Christians started disavowing the "Nicene creed," and
Arianism experienced a resurgence. By the year 329 Arianism had such
widespread support that Constantine became persuaded that his earlier
decision was a mistaken one. In 336, the former exile, Arius, on the
eve of being readmitted to membership in the church at Alexandria, was
found dead on the floor beside a toilet. Poisoning is one possibility
to account for the timing and manner of his passing.] However,
Athanasius used Arius's death as a public relations opportunity. He
announced that the city's prayers had been answered and "the Arian
heresy was unworthy of communion with the Church." Most telling is the
language Athanasius used in describing the manner of Arius's death:
"Arius.urged by the necessities of nature, withdrew, and in the
language of Scripture, 'fell headlong, and burst asunder in the
midst,' being deprived of both communion and his life together." [The
Biblical reference Athanasius employed was to Judas's death, the
apostle who betrayed Jesus, Acts 1:18] [p.137]
[Even after Arius's death, Arianism remained, for there remained other
more influential Christian leaders who dominated the movement.]
Moreover, another death was of greater consequence than Arius's. The
death in question was Emperor Constantine's.Eusebius [an Arian Bishop]
heard the Emperor's confession, and administered the last rites.and a
decree was made that permitted all exiled bishops to return to their
sees. Athanasius [who was in exile at that time] returned to
Alexandria after making a political tour of several provinces.
Everywhere he rallied the anti-Arian forces and helped return exiles
to power, organized opposition to "heretical" bishops, and intervened
actively in local disputes. Violence dogged his steps, since both
sides had organized popular support and were quite ready to use angry
mobs to expel churchmen they despised or defend friendly incumbents.
The result in a number of key cities was something close to civil
war.Finally, Athanasius returned to Alexandria where, according to his
enemies, 'he seized the churches.by force, by murder, by war.'"
[p.141-142]
Soon afterwards a large council of bishops met in Antioch [in 338] to
declare that Athanasius had committed new atrocities.The leaders of
the church met again in Antioch in the winter of 338-339. With the new
Emperor, Constantine's son, Constantius [who openly embraced Arianism]
in attendance, they convicted Athanasius of violence and mayhem, and
ordered him deposed.Warned by his agents, Athanasius fled, and rioting
and arson (which had also accompanied his return) erupted across the
city.The Church of Dionysius was burned, a number of people on both
sides were injured and killed, and fighting even broke out on Easter
Sunday in the Church of Quirinius. Several weeks later, the mobs
supporting Athanasius had been suppressed, at least for the time
being.
What really happened in Alexandria during this stormy month?
Athanasius in a letter charged that "Arian madmen" incited pagans,
Jews, and "disorderly persons" to attack the faithful, set churches on
fire, strip and rape holy virgins, murder monks, desecrate holy
places, and plunder the churches' treasures. He presents pictures
designed to horrify and madden his readers: Jews, for example, are
presented as cavorting naked in the churches' baptismal waters. And,
of course, he says nothing about any violence that his own supporters
may have offered in his defense or in opposition to the installation
of the new bishop.
Athanasius had always had a following in Alexandria, but Arius was
also an Alexandrian with his share of supporters.The truth seems to be
that in Alexandria and many other cities large groups of militant
fighters could be mobilized by both sides, and that both sides made
frequent use of them in the confused period following Constantine's
death. What is most striking is the closeness and bitterness of the
conflict in important cities like Constantinople, Antioch, Ancyra,
Caesarea, Tyre, and Gaza. [p.143-144]
[Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in two years
[A.D. 342-343, during the Arian controversy] than by all the
persecutions of Christians under the Romans during the previous three
hundred years.--Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4, The
Age of Faith] But what caused this deep division?.The split between
Nicene and Arian Christians seems to reflect a rough division between
those more in need of a powerful, just ruler and those more in need of
a loving advocate and friend. Neither side in the controversy could
afford to turn its back entirely on either image: the Athanasians
therefore called Jesus "God from God." And the Arians called him "a
paradigm and an example." Each side put its primary emphasis on one
image while paying lip service to the other, and each side was prey to
fears that the other side was aiming to obliterate "its" Jesus. While
Athanasians denounced the Arians for lowering Christ to the point that
his majesty and saving power would be lost, the Arians accused
Athanasius and Marcellus of raising him to the point that his love
(and God's majesty) would be lost.
The violence in the Eastern cities ended for the time being with the
forcible eviction of major anti-Arian bishops and their exile to the
Western half of the Roman Empire. Many were arriving in Rome, where
Athanasius had already fled. But the uncalculated efforts of these
deportations would be to make the Pope of Rome a major participant in
the controversy, to embroil the Western bishops, and, finally, to dive
a wedge between the Christian churches of the Greek East and the Latin
West [which latter would excommunicate each other]. [p.146-147]
[The Arians split into three factions: the Anomeans, the extreme party
which stressed the difference between Father and Son; the Homoeans,
which simply affirms that the Son is similar to the Father "in
accordance with the scriptures"; and the Semi-Arians which favored the
term homoiousion (Greek for "of like substance") as expressing both
the similarities and the differences between Father and Son. In 359
two simultaneous councils were held; one for the eastern bishops (in
Seleucia) and one for the western bishops (in Ariminum). Both councils
adopted the Homoean formula. However, this victory for Arianism
frightened the Semi-Arians back into the ranks of the Athanasian fold.
The death of Constantius in 361 also deprived the Arians of political
support and they began to lose ground to the
Athanasians.--Livingstone, Dictionary of the Christian Church, p.33.]
[It was at this time, 361 A.D., that the Emperor Julian "the
Apostate," though raised a Christian, came to power and declared
himself a pagan.] He reflected the common people's distaste for the
scandalous disunity of the Church. Christianity had conspicuously
failed to bring the empire together or to secure it from enemy attack.
As the contemporary historian Ammianus said, "no wild beasts are such
enemies to mankind as are most Christians in their deadly hatred of
one another." He deprived the Christian clergy of the special
privileges [and tax exemptions] bestowed on them by his predecessors,
and also took steps to re-inflame the Arian controversy by permitting
Athanasius and other anti-Arians to return from exile. Violence
between competing Christian groups broke out almost immediately.Bishop
George of the city of Alexandria was murdered [along with several of
his fellows].by a mixed mob of pagans and anti-Arian Christians. The
Bishop's body paraded through the streets on the back of a camel and
burned. [p.195] Back around 150 A.D., Christians in Alexandria,
inspired by anti-Jewish preaching, had rioted against the Jewish
community. Two hundred years later those who called Jesus "Lord" were
battling each other in the streets.and lynching bishops. By the time
bishop George of Alexandria met his grisly death, religious riots had
become commonplace throughout the region. [p.6]
[In 363, after reigning a mere three years, Julian "the Apostate" was
killed in battle, after which Christian Emperors were once again the
rule, one of the most intolerant of whom was Emperor Theodosius]
Theodosius banned Arianism and officially declared Christianity the
religion of the Roman Empire. [p.226]
[In his edict of 378, Theodosius issued an order compelling all people
under his rule to embrace the Catholic faith. (Codex Theodosianus XVI,
I,
2) Any doctrines deviating from the Church's teachings were declared
criminal, those responsible for such doctrines deserving
punishment.--Gustav Mensching, Tolerance and Truth in Religion,
trans., Hans-J. Klimkeit (Alabama: The University of Alabama Press,
1971), p.44.]
[And in 380 A.D. a decree from Theodosius read: "We shall believe in
the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule
shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom
We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical
dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches,
and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by
the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in
accordance with the divine judgment."
--J. N. Hillgarth, The Conversion of Western Europe]
Since Arianism was now identified with the "barbarians" who were its
main advocates, the remaining Arians within the empire, now split into
small, powerless sects, were also fair game for Christian avengers.
And the struggle to uproot paganism, conducted sporadically ever since
the days of Constantine the Great, now resumed in earnest.
Was the Arian controversy resolved?.Unresolved issues, appearing in
changed form, continued to produce serious religious conflicts.that
ended in the Great Schism separating the Roman Catholic and Orthodox
churches. [p.226-227]
In the Greek-speaking lands, the end of the Arian controversy
triggered more than two centuries of intense conflict [over the
question of the relationship between Jesus's human and divine
natures]. Once again, bishops met in councils to proclaim the
orthodoxy of their views and to excommunicate their opponents. Once
more the East knew depositions and exiles, riots and assassinations.
Each side accused the other of Arianism. The Second Council of Ephesus
(449) condemned the school of Antioch; the Great Council of Chalcedon
(541) condemned the Alexandrians; numerous emperors intervened on one
side or the other; and the controversy did not end until the
one-nature "Monophysites" were driven from their own churches, many of
which exist to this day.
Richard E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over
Christ's Divinity in the Last Days of Rome
____________________________
It was only later agreed, by the victorious "Nicene" party, that
Athanasius had been the hero of a Christian orthodoxy laid down once
and for all at Nicea. But the story of Athanasius and of his defense
of the "Nicene Creed" gained in the telling. It did so especially in
the Latin West. By the end of the fourth century, the "Arian
Controversy" was narrated in studiously confrontational terms: it was
asserted that "orthodox" bishops had defeated "heretics;" and, in so
doing they had offered heroic resistance to the cajolery and, at
times, to the threats, of "heretical" emperors. This view of the
"Arian Controversy" was constructed after the event. It contains
little truth.
- Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom, 2nd Ed., (Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing, 2003), p.80
The winners even made a few changes to Scripture to help cement their
view of the truth. See The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The
Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New
Testament by Bart D. Ehrman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)
- E.T.B.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/faith_under_fire.html
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:51:46 GMT, georgann <chenault@mindspring.com>
wrote:
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
?? If someone believes that Jesus is God in the flesh, they are Christians.
Why do you ask me if they are incorrect when there is no inconsistencies in
this?
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence Tribe
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
31 Mar 2005 08:07:58 AM |
|
|
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
georgann seems to have overlooked the Arian Schism over the humanity
and divinity of Jesus that nearly split the early Xtian church and
was
the catalyst for the council at nicea.
Both sides at Nicaea considered Jesus divine.
The question that hung over the early church? Who and what was
Jesus?
By all means document this assertion from the ancient sources. I find
no evidence of such agonising.
While Xtians today want us to think there has always been agreement
over the matter of faith and
doctrine, this is a lie. The early church was choc full o'
disagreement... just like modern Xtianity!
This is a lie, I'm afraid.
So to enlighten Xtians like georgann about the history of their
faith, I present... (drum
roll please)
Oh God, he's going to cut and paste some donkey-dung he found on the
net, by someone even more ignorant than himself! <gouging eyes out
with frenzy of boredom>
"WHO" AND OR "WHAT" WAS JESUS?
THE ARIAN-ATHANASIAN CONTROVERSY, DURING WHICH MORE CHRISTIANS KILLED
CHRISTIANS THAN ROMANS KILLED CHRISTIANS DURING THE PREVIOUS 250
YEARS.
There is no evidence whatever of this.
THE FIRST ECUMENICAL CHUCH COUNCIL--HELD AT NICEA
answered in the New Testament.The first ecumenical church council,
the
Council of Nicea, assembled in the year 325 in the imperial palace of
the first Christian emperor, Constantine.
True.
Once the discussions started the participants threw their episcopal
dignity to the wind and shouted
wildly at each other.
False.
They were concerned primarily with improving their positions of
power.
False, and libellous.
It was at this point that the Emperor Constantine, who had convened
the council, stepped in and sided with Athanasius.
At the Council of Nicaea, Athanasius was only a deacon and could not
participate. Nor did Constantine interfere in the debates of the
council.
[Various bogus citations from various books snipped, put in merely to
add substance to a load of rubbish]
As a result, all but seventeen die-hard Arians signed the new creed.
Only two failed to do so.
[endless garbage snipped]
The winners even made a few changes to Scripture to help cement their
view of the truth. See The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The
Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New
Testament by Bart D. Ehrman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)
- E.T.B.
A man who tried to mislead a whole roomful of scholars at a conference,
and was caught doing so.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
31 Mar 2005 08:08:12 AM |
|
|
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
georgann seems to have overlooked the Arian Schism over the humanity
and divinity of Jesus that nearly split the early Xtian church and
was
the catalyst for the council at nicea.
Both sides at Nicaea considered Jesus divine.
The question that hung over the early church? Who and what was
Jesus?
By all means document this assertion from the ancient sources. I find
no evidence of such agonising.
While Xtians today want us to think there has always been agreement
over the matter of faith and
doctrine, this is a lie. The early church was choc full o'
disagreement... just like modern Xtianity!
This is a lie, I'm afraid.
So to enlighten Xtians like georgann about the history of their
faith, I present... (drum
roll please)
Oh God, he's going to cut and paste some donkey-dung he found on the
net, by someone even more ignorant than himself! <gouging eyes out
with frenzy of boredom>
"WHO" AND OR "WHAT" WAS JESUS?
THE ARIAN-ATHANASIAN CONTROVERSY, DURING WHICH MORE CHRISTIANS KILLED
CHRISTIANS THAN ROMANS KILLED CHRISTIANS DURING THE PREVIOUS 250
YEARS.
There is no evidence whatever of this.
THE FIRST ECUMENICAL CHUCH COUNCIL--HELD AT NICEA
answered in the New Testament.The first ecumenical church council,
the
Council of Nicea, assembled in the year 325 in the imperial palace of
the first Christian emperor, Constantine.
True.
Once the discussions started the participants threw their episcopal
dignity to the wind and shouted
wildly at each other.
False.
They were concerned primarily with improving their positions of
power.
False, and libellous.
It was at this point that the Emperor Constantine, who had convened
the council, stepped in and sided with Athanasius.
At the Council of Nicaea, Athanasius was only a deacon and could not
participate. Nor did Constantine interfere in the debates of the
council.
[Various bogus citations from various books snipped, put in merely to
add substance to a load of rubbish]
As a result, all but seventeen die-hard Arians signed the new creed.
Only two failed to do so.
[endless garbage snipped]
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
28 Mar 2005 06:10:16 PM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE6E032E.57FE8%chenault@mindspring.com...
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
This is where your dumb religion goes belly-up. If the god created A&E
knowing from the start that they would not please him, he is by
definition
omniscient. This is all part of his "plan". Most Christians will agree
with
this. But what they (and you) do not understand is that if the god is
omniscient, there is no free will. It is logically impossible.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Actually, this is where most non-Christians go belly up. God created A&E
knowing they COULD and WOULD screw up.
Then why punish them and every subsequent generation for being the way he
made them? What a sadist.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
28 Mar 2005 07:13:41 PM |
|
|
This is where your dumb religion goes belly-up. If the god created A&E
knowing from the start that they would not please him, he is by definition
omniscient. This is all part of his "plan". Most Christians will agree
with this. But what they (and you) do not understand is that if the god is
omniscient, there is no free will. It is logically impossible.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Actually, this is where most non-Christians go belly up. God created A&E
knowing they COULD and WOULD screw up.
Robibnikoff wrote:
Then why punish them and every subsequent generation for being the way he made
them? What a sadist.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Where does it say they are being punished?
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
28 Mar 2005 07:32:48 PM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE6E15F5.5803E%chenault@mindspring.com...
This is where your dumb religion goes belly-up. If the god created A&E
knowing from the start that they would not please him, he is by
definition
omniscient. This is all part of his "plan". Most Christians will
agree
with this. But what they (and you) do not understand is that if the
god is
omniscient, there is no free will. It is logically impossible.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Actually, this is where most non-Christians go belly up. God created A&E
knowing they COULD and WOULD screw up.
Robibnikoff wrote:
Then why punish them and every subsequent generation for being the way he
made
them? What a sadist.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Where does it say they are being punished?
Oh you know, that we're all sinners and will be sent to hell for the
slightest infraction thing.
Are you saying that Adam and Eve weren't "punished" when they were kicked
out of Eden?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
28 Mar 2005 07:39:01 PM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2005, Robibnikoff dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE6E15F5.5803E%chenault@mindspring.com...
Where does it say they are being punished?
Oh you know, that we're all sinners and will be sent to hell for the
slightest infraction thing.
Are you saying that Adam and Eve weren't "punished" when they were
kicked out of Eden?
Apparently they couldn't do the immortal thing *and* be intelligent, or the
god would have competition. You know how the god folds under competition.
And don't even mention the iron chariots. So the god had to make them
mortal, just like the rest of the animals on this earth, which have nearly
all the same basic components....
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
28 Mar 2005 08:56:29 PM |
|
|
In article <BE6E15F5.5803E%chenault@mindspring.com>, georgann
said...
Where does it say they are being punished?
And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of
your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns
and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the
plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat
bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were
taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
Did you catch that, Georgann? Because they disobeyed, they had
to endure thorns and thistles and toil. And bread. :)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
29 Mar 2005 06:36:15 PM |
|
|
Where does it say they are being punished?
Brian E. Clark wrote:
And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and
have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of
it,'cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the
days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you
shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat
bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are
dust, and to dust you shall return."
Did you catch that, Georgann? Because they disobeyed, they had to endure
thorns and thistles and toil. And bread. :)
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
By that interpretation you are saying you consider the life we presently
live to be a punishment?
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
29 Mar 2005 07:09:42 PM |
|
|
In article <BE6F5EB2.584DE%chenault@mindspring.com>, georgann
said...
And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and
have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of
it,'cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the
days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you
shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat
bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are
dust, and to dust you shall return."
[...]
By that interpretation you are saying you consider the life we presently
live to be a punishment?
I don't believe the Eden myth is historical.
I do think the authors (or rather, the redactors) of the Eden
myth believed that Adam was punished by God, the means of
punishment being dispossession from a place of hurtless ease and
unlimited access to food, to a life of pain, toil and want.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
28 Mar 2005 09:05:22 PM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2005, Brian E. Clark dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
In article <BE6E15F5.5803E%chenault@mindspring.com>, georgann
said...
Where does it say they are being punished?
And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of
your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns
and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the
plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat
bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were
taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
Did you catch that, Georgann? Because they disobeyed, they had
to endure thorns and thistles and toil. And bread. :)
Don't forget the next verse. "Got milk?"
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
29 Mar 2005 06:56:12 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
This is where your dumb religion goes belly-up. If the god created A&E
knowing from the start that they would not please him, he is by definition
omniscient. This is all part of his "plan". Most Christians will agree
with this. But what they (and you) do not understand is that if the god is
omniscient, there is no free will. It is logically impossible.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Actually, this is where most non-Christians go belly up. God created A&E
knowing they COULD and WOULD screw up.
Robibnikoff wrote:
Then why punish them and every subsequent generation for being the
way he made them? What a sadist.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Where does it say they are being punished?
It says all women are punished with pain in childbirth because Eve
listened to a talking snake, does it not?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
29 Mar 2005 05:40:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:10:16 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com>
wrote:
Actually, this is where most non-Christians go belly up. God created A&E
knowing they COULD and WOULD screw up.
Then why punish them and every subsequent generation for being the way he
made them? What a sadist.
Our problem is our sin, not theirs.
Robin, stick with the bugs. You understand them better.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
28 Mar 2005 07:33:19 PM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2005, georgann dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Actually, this is where most non-Christians go belly up. God created
A&E knowing they COULD and WOULD screw up.
Tarets syndrome?
Not because He screwed up
but because He wanted them to have free will.
You're not listening, Georgann. If you have an omniscient god, there is no
free will. But since there *is* free will, there is no omniscient creator.
If every parent refused
to have children unless they were guaranteed perfect, well, there
wouldn't be any people on the planet earth today.
Parents are not omniscient.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Hunters latest fabrication. |
29 Mar 2005 05:42:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:53:34 GMT, georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote:
Actually, this is where most non-Christians go belly up. God created A&E
knowing they COULD and WOULD screw up. Not because He screwed up but because
He wanted them to have free will. If every parent refused to have children
unless they were guaranteed perfect, well, there wouldn't be any people on
the planet earth today.
Exercising their own free will to say yes to God, or no to God, remains well
over their collective heads.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
