I'm going to hell for my new Avatar.

[Roger in the sky]

Hiya, Roger. Things are good over here, except I stepped in a religious thread. It's going to take forever to wash that out of my shoes... I'm kidding. I find open-minded religious discussion refreshing. Maybe because it's so rarely encountered... Anyhow. Long time no see! How've you been?

it's ok, i accidentally posted in a political thread last week

i've been busy. LA is pretty wack
i have to work like 60+ hours a week out here just to keep my {censored} in line
which leavs very little time for bass-ing and art-ing

[MrJoshua]

it's ok, i accidentally posted in a political thread last week i've been busy. LA is pretty wack i have to work like 60+ hours a week out here just to keep my {censored} in line which leavs very little time for bass-ing and art-ing

Yikes ... I can see where that would cut into your schedule. I work around 40 hours a week. Sometimes a bit more or less. I work for my Dad, though, in our family business so I have a really flexible schedule most of the time, which rules.

I actually do more music stuff now, when I have a regular job, than I did when I was in college and a music major (before I decided I wanted a job and switched over to engineering). I also have a lot more gear now than I did then, lol. Hooray for a good day job!

I don't think I could live in a big city like LA. I'd go nuts eventually.

[Roger in the sky]

I don't think I could live in a big city like LA. I'd go nuts eventually.

LA isn't urban enough for me actually
it's more like a giant sprawling bunch of suburbs

[MrJoshua]

I live in a three-bedroom trailer (well, one bedroom - the other two have been converted to an office/library and a small recording studio ) adjacent to a cow pasture, lol. When I walk out my back door I see a large grass field with a large pond (about an acre, I suppose) and some cattle. Out my front door is my yard, then my parents' yard - I live all the way across the road from them. Which is alright, because this place is paid off and all mine, so I don't have to worry about rent or house payments or anything like that.

I'm about to start building an add-on right beside the trailer, too, which will include a parking area for my truck and a 12'x24' studio room. I'm going to run an audio snake from there to the studio in the trailer, and the window in the studio will be directly across from the window in the new studio room, so I'll be able to see from one into the other. It should be nice, once I get it built...

[Roger in the sky]

that sounds like a pretty sweet setup
i couldnt handle the wide open spaces though...

[MrJoshua]

It's not a bad setup at all. I'm just saying, this is why I'd go nuts trying to live in a big city. As it is, I only have one neighbor within 150 yards of my place that isn't related to me. Nobody ever complains about noise, or anything like that.

[King Kashue]

 

KK, you DO know some Church history, but Arianism did not result in a SEPARATE church. That is where all this confusion comes in. Were there Christians who persisted in that heresy? You bet. Some of them made their way into the Barbaric territories and when those Barbarians came into Spain in AD410, but they eventually converted to Orthodox Catholicism. So, you actually are WRONG in stating the Church split in the 300s over Arianism.

 

 

No, I'm really not.

 

The fact it didn't continue in schism doesn't mean it wasn't a substantive split. There were two organizational heirarchies in many areas, two administrative structures.

 

And, on a separate note, your description of the later Roman period using terms like "Barbaric territories" is about 80 years out of date.

 

 

Yes, there are Coptics that are separate and Coptics in unity with the Roman CatholicCHurch and Nestorian Christians were heretics.

 

 

The Coptic church does not, nor has it ever, recognized the supreme authority of the Pope. Why should they? The first Bishop to be called "Pope" (Latin "Papa") was the Patriarch of Alexandria...

 

As for the Nestorians being Heretics, Heresy isn't an objective term...It's not like 'black' or 'white'. Heresy is a relative term, defined by those who claim orthodoxy.

 

The Greek Orthodox church does not recognize sacraments performed in Catholic churches (even though the Catholics recognize those performed in Orthodox churches). Is the Greek Orthodox heretical for that position?

 

You're saying "they're heretics" like it's an absolute. They weren't declared heretics after Chalcedon. Constantinople and Rome continued to claim communion with the Church of the East for several centuries afterwards.

 

Likewise, the Axumite, Armenian and Indian churches were never declared heretical, yet they also never recognized the authority of the Pope (or any other patriarchs).

 

 

Slice the baloney how you like, you have yet to address the issue of heresy, that is, expressing oneself outside of the teaching Church.

 

 

That's not the definition of Heresy, that's the definition of heterodoxy. Heresy is continuing in a heterodox position even after correction. It comes from the Greek word haireomai, "to choose" (in this case, choosing to reject correction).

 

 

The Bible also emphasizes the teachings and TRADITIONS of the Catholic Church.

 

 

How could the Bible emphasize the traditions of an institution that didn't exist yet? The traditions that the Catholic church currently adheres to developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Long after the Bible was written. Your claim is temporally impossible.

 

 

Study the early Church Fathers and you will find they were VERY Catholic and Sacramental, with NOTHING resembling a "Faith only" approach to Christianity. Read St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Iraneaus, St. Clement, St. Jerome, and St. Gregory the Great.

 

 

And they didn't write the Bible. Paul did. Peter did.

 

As for Studying the Church fathers, I've presented papers at conferences about Patristics. I've read them plenty.

 

 

And still, the Bible was declared canon in the 3rd century by the pope and his bishops, those of the Catholic Church, not that of Arius, or Nestor.

 

 

Once again, canonization took place in the 4th century, not the 3rd. If your basics are so demonstrably in error, how can anyone trust your conclusions?

 

 

Your reference to Revelation is ONLY about that BOOK, it was not written originally as part of the 'Bible' that would be a ridiculous claim indeed.

 

 

Fine, we can go to Paul...

 

Gal 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel

[willsellout]

This is addressed to no one in particular:D








Dan

[Incubitabus]

This is addressed to no one in particular:D Dan

HA!

[James Hart]

[YOUTUBE]hk41Gbjljfo[/YOUTUBE]

[Goofball Jones]

What amazes me is that Kashue is actually sitting there typing all this out and correcting him. Taking the time and all. While I find it interesting and informative...you know you're not really going to change the mind of the guy you're replying to.

 

Besides, I thought academics were suppose to be busy banging the freshmen chicks? What gives?

[frunobulax]

This is addressed to no one in particular:D

it's true, it's damn true.

[King Kashue]

What amazes me is that Kashue is actually sitting there typing all this out and correcting him. Taking the time and all. While I find it interesting and informative...you know you're not really going to change the mind of the guy you're replying to.

 

 

I'm correcting the factual stuff, so if anyone is reading it they take correct information out of the discussion.

 

As for Rob in specific, he's proven himself generally predisposed to personal insults and tantrums. As long as he's not doing that, I'm happy to discuss things with him, even if he's unlikely to listen.

 

 

Besides, I thought academics were suppose to be busy banging the freshmen chicks? What gives?

 

 

This term I'm teaching at a private prep school. The freshman I'm currently teaching are 14 & 15 years old. I'm not terribly attracted to teenagers, nor am I trolling for jailbait.

[frunobulax]

This term I'm teaching at a private prep school. The freshman I'm currently teaching are 14 & 15 years old. I'm not terribly attracted to teenagers, nor am I trolling for jailbait.

you're too modest KK. a man with your cranial capacity would certainly not have to troll. i should think the sweet young things would just be jumpin' in the boat.

[Goofball Jones]

This term I'm teaching at a private prep school. The freshman I'm currently teaching are 14 & 15 years old. I'm not terribly attracted to teenagers, nor am I trolling for jailbait.

Um...yes..."keep yer mitts off the kinder" as Frank Sinatra would say.

Thought you were teaching on the college level. Lol.

[MrJoshua]

Do y'all MIND? Roger and I are trying to have a conversation here.

[Rob Martinez]

I'm correcting the factual stuff, so if anyone is reading it they take correct information out of the discussion. As for Rob in specific, he's proven himself generally predisposed to personal insults and tantrums. As long as he's not doing that, I'm happy to discuss things with him, even if he's unlikely to listen. This term I'm teaching at a private prep school. The freshman I'm currently teaching are 14 & 15 years old. I'm not terribly attracted to teenagers, nor am I trolling for jailbait.

 

 

Either there are universal truths or not. You obviously are of the school there are not, hence your claim "Heresy is subjective." That's not an insult or a tantrum, but to claim that any group that separates from another is "legitimate" is just wrong.

 

KK has taken the tactic that if he believes it to be so, then that is the truth. If the state of Illinois decides to cecede from the Union, reject the authority of the US president, and reject half of the Consitution, yet, still claim to be Americans, are they? Just because they say they are? Perhaps to THEM they are, but plenty of folks in the USA would not accept their claim.

 

Listening is a two way road. You are obviously studying history from a de-constructionist approach, at least partially, if you buy into things like not using the term "barbarian," but REAL historians still call the Germanic tribes of the Roman era that, since they were barbarians in contrast to the Romans. But you would just say that is "subjective." So be it. Whatever.

 

Fine, the canon of the Bible was established in the 300s not the 200s, SO WHAT? You still prove my point for me, which is it was the pope and the Catholic Church that did it.

 

Your claim that the Bible holds FAITH ALONE is not supported by history. Before 1517, no Christian believed that. So they are all condemned? Again, I suggest (at the risk of being insulting and argumentative) you read the early Church fathers, and tell me if the early church looked anything like what Luther suggested, or the Catholic Church. Don't take my word for it (you obviously won't, that would entail LISTENING to someone else).

 

At the end of the day, you and I have different belief systems. Sure, I can go on quoting historians who support my views, and you could do the same with modernist, de-constructionist historians who impose modern views on the past. But we'd get nowhere.

 

As someone above suggested, your not gonna change my mind.

 

Quoting the Bible ad infinitum is no claim to better knowledge of the Church or it's teachings. Satan did a better job of that than any tele-evangelist could do when tempting Christ. As for Faith alone, even the devils believe, but still shake in fear of God, knowing there is no hope for them. Faith alone sure didn't save them.

 

I am glad to hear you will be teeaching teenagers. Boy, is THAT gonna be an eye-opener! No insult intended.

[King Kashue]

 

KK has taken the tactic that if he believes it to be so, then that is the truth. If the state of Illinois decides to cecede from the Union, reject the authority of the US president, and reject half of the Consitution, yet, still claim to be Americans, are they? Just because they say they are? Perhaps to THEM they are, but plenty of folks in the USA would not accept their claim.

 

 

No, I'm taking the position that because I've read the primary sources, I actually know what I'm talking about.

 

Have you read the acts of the Councils? Have you read them in the original language?

 

You've demonstrated you don't know what century the canonization of Scripture occured. You've demonstrated you don't know the process by which it happened. You've demonstrated you don't even know the word from which "Bible" comes.

 

And it's not because I say you don't, it's because the sources say you don't...

 

 

Listening is a two way road. You are obviously studying history from a de-constructionist approach, at least partially, if you buy into things like not using the term "barbarian," but REAL historians still call the Germanic tribes of the Roman era that, since they were barbarians in contrast to the Romans. But you would just say that is "subjective." So be it. Whatever.

 

 

First of all, I don't reject using the term barbarian. I use it all the time.

 

However, where as you're using it as an adjective to describe them in contrast to the Romans, I'm using it in context; i.e., They're barbarians and the the reason they're barbarians is because the Roman's saw them that way (specifically, they didn't speak Greek or Latin, which is the origin of the word).

 

It's not your use of the term in general that's outdated, it's the specific way in which you used it. Describing Barbarian hordes overrunning the Christian Romans. That's what's nonsense.

 

Half of the "Roman" generals were Germanic in origin. Arianism wasn't something that came from the Barbarians to the Romans (which is what you've claimed), it was something that came from the Romans to the Barbarians...There were Arian Bishops in Ravenna, an Imperial residence, Milan, also an imperial residence and the same Episcopal seat held by Ambrose. There were Arians in North Africa, and Augustine spoke against them (100+ years after they were supposedly "eliminated")...

 

It's not the term that's outdated and inaccurate (since it's a contemporary term), it's the way you used it that is.

 

 

Fine, the canon of the Bible was established in the 300s not the 200s, SO WHAT? You still prove my point for me, which is it was the pope and the Catholic Church that did it.

 

 

The "so what" is that you clearly don't know the basics. How can anyone trust you on more complex information?

 

As for "proving your point", it doesn't...The Pope didn't call the synods that canonized the scripture. The conciliar acts of the first several centuries don't bear out the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The dogmatic Primacy of the Bishop of Rome was first asserted in the 8th century onwards. Claiming it from the 3rd century onwards is not supported by the evidence.

 

 

Your claim that the Bible holds FAITH ALONE is not supported by history. Before 1517, no Christian believed that. So they are all condemned?

 

 

Paul clearly did. Considering he wrote almost half of the New Testament, and it was his preaching that planted the Church among the gentiles, you claim that "no christian believed that" is nonsense (because at the very least, Paul did).

 

 

At the end of the day, you and I have different belief systems. Sure, I can go on quoting historians who support my views, and you could do the same with modernist, de-constructionist historians who impose modern views on the past. But we'd get nowhere.

 

 

You've quoted a historian? Where?

 

Feel free to quote as many historians as you want.

 

As for my "de-constructionists" imposing "modern views", you're full of it. Imposing anachronistic views is what you're doing, not me. I'm attempting to reflect the actual sources. If the acts of the council (authoritative portions of Canon law) don't reflect papal primacy, how can you claim it?

 

Would you like me to give you citations from Jesuit scholars who say the exact same thing (and also fully acknowledge the apostolic succession of the Pope and his dogmatic authority)? I can easily do that.

 

 

I am glad to hear you will be teeaching teenagers. Boy, is THAT gonna be an eye-opener! No insult intended.

 

 

I've taught every age from 1st grade to adults (my oldest student was in their 50s). I taught teenagers for almost seven years on and off before this.

 

 

 

Edit: corrected error where I had cut part of the sentence regarding Ravenna, Milan and North Africa

[frunobulax]

[Jugghaid]

It always amazes me how people who claim to be Christian or people of faith or godly can act so despicably to their fellow man and not even see their own hypocricy.

It's really disgusting. The air of moral superiority and judgemental behavior is nothing more than a sign of an overinflated ego born from a textbook inferiority complex.

Pride (Superbia) too is a sin. One of the 7 deadly ones. While Patience, Kindness, and Humility are 3 of the 7 holy virtues.

Some people here, who claim to be Christian, would do well to remember that.

[Darkstorm]

Lol, that is a funny one.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

It always amazes me how people who claim to be Christian or people of faith or godly can act so despicably to their fellow man and not even see their own hypocricy. It's really disgusting. The air of moral superiority and judgemental behavior is nothing more than a sign of an overinflated ego born from a textbook inferiority complex. Pride (Superbia) too is a sin. One of the 7 deadly ones. While Patience, Kindness, and Humility are 3 of the 7 holy virtues. Some people here, who claim to be Christian, would do well to remember that.

 

 

All you have to do is throw a few smilies onto the end of a few more almost-but-not-quite-conciliatory gestures, and then you can get back to the insults.

[bholder]

"50,000 Quatlus on the newcomers!"

[bholder]

It always amazes me how people who claim to be Christian or people of faith or godly can act so despicably to their fellow man and not even see their own hypocricy. It's really disgusting. The air of moral superiority and judgemental behavior is nothing more than a sign of an overinflated ego born from a textbook inferiority complex. Pride (Superbia) too is a sin. One of the 7 deadly ones. While Patience, Kindness, and Humility are 3 of the 7 holy virtues. Some people here, who claim to be Christian, would do well to remember that.

 

 

Couldn't agree with you more. I might change "some" to "most" in your last sentence, however.

[LittleWoodenBoy]

Patience, Kindness, and Humility are 3 of the 7 holy virtues.

 

 

Hear that, Kindness? You're holy!