Jump to content

Theological debate: please join me inside.


mrcrow

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 616
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Pursuit of the master race. Hitler was a Catholic growing up, not sure how much of a case could be made for him but I've heard arguments about Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Read a bit about how many have died under their leadership. Again, I'm not saying that I buy or believe that they did this in the name of Atheism, I've never looked into it. But, I do know of people who claim the connection. You can't really argue against the pursuit to rid certain parts of the world of religion by means of imprisonment and violence.

 

 

As a political party,the Nazis were NOT christian by any strech. Stalin,and Mao tortured,and killed millions.Most just for having an opposing opinion,or being raised in an area that believed something different than what they were "selling". My point is that the killing continues.It always will. Now its the radical muslems against everything that they don't agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Keep in mind that some would say that more have died in the name of atheism in this century alone than in the name of God in all others put together.

 

 

And they would be wrong. Although atheists or suspected atheists are said to be guilty of killing millions, they were not killed in the name of Atheism. People like to cite Stalin as an atheist, where there are plenty of conflicting stories of his beliefs.

 

Lots of Christian believers will come with that argument but I don't think it really holds any water, personally.

 

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm still waiting for KK's overly-worded explanation about how the Eastern Churches view Christ's divinity differently than the west.

 

 

Yeah, I can't imagine how they would be different:facepalm:

 

I could go to two different churches ten miles apart and hear different things. Religion isn't standardized Rob.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The only clear fact here is that you are a very lame Church historian.


What is also clear is you are a arrogant enough person to not be able to handle being corrected. Grow up, Rob. You ahve a lot ot learn about a LOT of things. Have you had a beer yet?

 

The guy who constantly throws tantrums and insults people (and is even now insulting me) is telling me to grow up? Roffles...:thu:

 

 

As for which one of us is a reliable church historian here are some questions:

 

-Which one of us couldn't correctly identify the century in which the Bible was canonized?

-Which one of us couldn't correctly identify the root of the word "Bible"?

 

Now,

 

-Which one of us has read the church Acts under discussion?

-Which one of us has read those acts (and the scriptures themselves) in the original language in which they were written?

-Which one of us has presented peer reviewed papers at conferences about Patristic History?

 

As I said, we've already discussed church history...I've no need to repeat the experience.

 

If you think "you've shown me up", you're welcome to think that...You're also welcome to openly ask to see who shares in your assessment...though somehow I doubt you will... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
And they would be wrong. Although atheists or suspected atheists are said to be guilty of killing millions, they were not killed in the name of Atheism. People like to cite Stalin as an atheist, where there are plenty of conflicting stories of his beliefs.


Lots of Christian believers will come with that argument but I don't think it really holds any water, personally.

I haven't looked into it enough to really have an opinion. I do however, know a few who have been threatened in countries like Cambodia and China, for being suspected of teaching about the Bible. In those cases, my friends were Christians, but they at no time mentioned God or Jesus for fear that they would have "gone away".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And they would be wrong. Although atheists or suspected atheists are said to be guilty of killing millions, they were not killed in the name of Atheism. People like to cite Stalin as an atheist, where there are plenty of conflicting stories of his beliefs.


Lots of Christian believers will come with that argument but I don't think it really holds any water, personally.



Dan

 

 

Yeah, the problem with this claim is that these people's alleged atheism was incidental. i.e. not the reason they were murderous lunatics.

 

In fact, I'd argue that people like Stalin actually proceeded from a fervor similar to a religious one. In these cases, the religion was what we might call "Statism" where The State or ruling party tries to stamp out dissidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I haven't looked into it enough to really have an opinion. I do however, know a few who have been threatened in countries like Cambodia and China, for being suspected of teaching about the Bible. In those cases, my friends were Christians, but they at no time mentioned God or Jesus for fear that they would have "gone away".

 

 

That's pure stupidity right there IMO. As far as the Atheists, Stalin and Tung were suspected Atheists and they are both guilty of killing millions of people. Christians like to point to them when the argument of wars and deaths and religion come up. No big deal really...war is stupid under any name.

 

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I'm still waiting for KK's overly-worded explanation about how the Eastern Churches view Christ's divinity differently than the west.




Since your sole tactic seems to be the automatic gainsaying of whatever KK says with some insults mixed in, perhaps a better idea is for you to just set aside your biases and educate yourself.

:thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Since your sole tactic seems to be the automatic gainsaying of whatever KK says with some insults mixed in, perhaps a better idea is for you to just set aside your biases and educate yourself.


:thu:



I'm willing to help you guys along.

First, KK needs to address the Counceil of Ephesus, also called the "Robber Synod" and address what is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical.

Then, the controversy between Nestorius and Cyryl, and how those eastern churches that rejected the Council of Chalcedon did so for reasons that were as much politcal as dogmatic.

Any prudent answer would deal with the filioque controversy of the eigth century (a result of Arianism creeping into Spain, brought buy the Visigoths) and also address the theotokos, ie Mary as Mother of God, a doctrine that is crucial in understanding Christ's personhood and natures.

One thing is clear: After Chalcedon, the Church believed that Christ is one person with two natures. Did some reject that? Yes, as they do today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
No, they're non-Chalcedonian.


As I said, the doctrine of "Fully god, Fully man" was decided at Chalcedon, not Nicaea, and wasn't a result of the Arian Controversy...




The Coptic Church, the Armenian Church, the Church of the East, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Indian Orthodox are all miaphysite (by their description, "monophysite" by Western church description)...


They reject the Council of Chalcedon.




The guy who constantly throws tantrums and insults people (and is even
now
insulting me) is telling me to grow up? Roffles...
:thu:


As for which one of us is a reliable church historian here are some questions:


-Which one of us couldn't correctly identify the century in which the Bible was canonized?

-Which one of us couldn't correctly identify the root of the word "Bible"?


Now,


-Which one of us has read the church Acts under discussion?

-Which one of us has read those acts (and the scriptures themselves) in the original language in which they were written?

-Which one of us has presented peer reviewed papers at conferences about Patristic History?


As I said, we've
already discussed church history
...I've no need to repeat the experience.


If you think
"you've shown me up"
, you're welcome to think that...You're also welcome to openly ask to see who shares in your assessment...though somehow I doubt you will...
;)



To say Arianism had nothing to do with the Christological controversies of the succeeding century is pure nonsense. If there were no challenges to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed, there would never have been an Ephesus or Chalcedon.

I really could care less about showing you up, it has no value to me. As I have posted before, this is a BASS forum, and I gave a succinct and CORRECT and simple answer that, yes, if I had all the time YOU apparently have to sit at the computer and try and lord whatever it is you do on others, yeah, then we could HAVE a class on church history.

I stand by my intitial statement, obviously others agree, and you can't stand that, can you? Too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If I could point everyone's attention to the thread that KK linked in his response, any talk of RM showing him up would be put to rest, and we could save KK some time in redundant responses to RM...just a thought.

 

Of course I'm just a KK groupie...he spews truth into my mouth nightly so take my posts with a grain of salt:love:

 

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
That's pure stupidity right there IMO. As far as the Atheists, Stalin and Tung were suspected Atheists and they are both guilty of killing millions of people. Christians like to point to them when the argument of wars and deaths and religion come up. No big deal really...war is stupid under any name.

Yep. I don't think that Christians would be the only group to bring it up though. Keep in mind that people of just about every religion have had their time of persecution at that hands of those who are against freedom of religion. Haven't heard any of my Muslim peeps talk about it specifically but then we don't go around telling each other that our choice of religion sucks because of all the death that it's caused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back to the original topic...

If Jesus IS God, why did He need to address God as Father?

and...

Why did Jesus say (paraphrased) "None can get to the Father, except through Me"?

There are many examples of Jesus talking to His Dad... if They were the same, then why have conversations with One's self?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back to the original topic...


If Jesus
IS
God, why did He need to address God as
Father
?


and...


Why did Jesus say (paraphrased) "None can get to the
Father
, except through Me"?


There are many examples of Jesus talking to His Dad... if They were the same, then why have conversations with One's self?

 

 

Schizophrenia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
You are more intelligent than God!?
:eek:
If you can understand everything about God, then he really isn't all that impressive, is he?


John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.


John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." - Jesus Christ




I'll add a couple more:

Isaih 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, For unto us a Son is given, and his name shall be called, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace........

Rev. 21:6,7 "He said to me:"It is done, I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty..........And I will be his God, and he will be my son.

Acts 20:29 "Be shepherds of the church of God, Which he bought with His own blood

Colossians 1:16 "For by him were all things created.............He is before all things, and in him are all things held together.

You can not read these passages and many others and not to come to the conclusion that the authors or the scriptures viewed Jesus as God. If you want to use an external Christian source to come to your conclusions you are welcome to. But then the definition you will arrive at will not be the scriptural view of Christ. I am much less interested in what some council said (and yes I do value and study theology) then what the scriptures say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jesus made a differentiation between him and God. He said people should listen to him as being the voice of God, to obey him the way they would to God, but he knew that he was not God, only a manisfestation of God in a human body.

Jesus sayd, in the cross:

Father, into your hands i commend my spirit. Father, why have you forsaken me?


you can see cleary by there that he Jesus had the conscience he was not actually God, but he always said people should listen to him as being the "spokesman" of the actual words of God, as if God itself had descended to the earth to guide mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Jesus made a differentiation between him and God. He said people should listen to him as being the voice of God, to obey him the way they would to God, but he knew that he was not God, only a manisfestation of God in a human body.


Jesus sayd, in the cross:


Father, into your hands i commend my spirit. Father, why have you forsaken me?



you can see cleary by there that he Jesus had the conscience he was not actually God, but he always said people should listen to him as being the "spokesman" of the actual words of God, as if God itself had descended to the earth to guide mankind.



You sure? ;)

John 10:30 - "I and the Father are one"

John 14:9 - "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father"

John 8:58 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am" (that last word is the important one there, that's God's name to Moses)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
You sure?
;)

John 10:30 - "I and the Father are one"


John 14:9 - "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father"


John 8:58 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am" (that last word is the important one there, that's God's name to Moses)...



yeah man, but he always differentiates him from the Father. He says "I and the Father", but he never says "I am God, or I am the Father of All."

that's what i was saying, read my post again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

yeah man, but he always differentiates him from the Father. He says "I and the Father", but he never says "I am God, or I am the Father of All."


that's what i was saying, read my post again.

 

I did read your post, did you read mine? :confused:

 

"I and the father are one", "He who has seen me has seen the father"...those aren't claims of him "not being God" (as you said), those are claims of being "one"...

 

Precisely how can you say "I and the father are one" is a claim by Jesus that he is not God? That's diametrically opposed to the explicit content of the verse?

 

Your interpretation ignores the trinitarian aspects of those and other statements (I.e., he's not going to say "I am the Father", because he's not the Father, he's the Son...but he does claim He and the Father are one being, and he claims it multiple times)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back at ya, Rob!!!
:thu:

 

As a note, calling someone by their first name is generally considered rude unless you are friends with them or you've given them permission, either explicitly or implicitly (such as using your real name on a public forum, thus allowing for no other moniker to be used)...

 

I have not ever given you permission and we are not friends...

 

Just to clarify if you were thinking that the opposite were true in either case...since I know you're concerned about proper manners (at least you claim to be in many statements, your repeatedly demonstrated behavior to the contrary not withstanding)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...