theological wrote: » troyzer wrote: » The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God. This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God. Let me provide some light fact checking on this point. "The New Testament was literally designed by committee" - Not exactly. All of the New Testament texts were used throughout the history of the early church. One can see evidence of this through the texts that were cited extensively by the church fathers throughout the second century and others in the church. Were the texts of the New Testament "designed" at the Council of Nicea? No. Were the books of the New Testament agreed upon by the church at the Council of Nicea? Yes. Was Jesus "decided" to be the Son of God at the Council of Nicea? No. This was clear from the early church from the New Testament letters and the New Testament gospels which date to the first century. Was the Arian heresy (which denied that God the Son existed before the incarnation) condemned at the Council of Nicea? Yes. You say these things as if we aren't familiar with the basics of Christian history, but that's not true. If we've decided to live for Jesus in an age that holds it in derision then you can be sure we've done our homework before stepping up to the plate. Jesus was clear, count the cost before following Him. (Luke 14:25-33) troyzer wrote: » People keep avoiding my point. You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion. And this has nothing to do with his religion. You're correct. I wouldn't defend Nazi views. Christianity bears no similarity to Nazism which was a political system which oppresses others. Christianity isn't a political religion. Jesus Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world" when questioned by Pilate (John 18:36). I don't agree that it should be made into a political religion either. In this scenario, declaring Christian faith and belief doesn't constitute genuine oppression. People can either engage with him or walk on by. That's the nature of free speech. I'm not particularly interested in him specifically however. I am interested in defending the gospel and standing for Jesus Christ.
troyzer wrote: » The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God. This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.
troyzer wrote: » People keep avoiding my point. You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion. And this has nothing to do with his religion.
antiskeptic wrote: » troyzer wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: » Troyzer wrote: The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God. This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God. 325 CE. smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in) Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas ☺ You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration? Exactly. C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era. It was common to us all prior to 0 C.E. Simple laying of the new religious view onto the old. The only sense it makes is avoiding the difficulty in actually wiping out the old system, given how embedded dates and centuries are centred around Christ coming. Marathon becomes Snickers to suit the new mood. Nothing else changes. Syncretism. Secularism showing the same tendencies as religions past And religions show the tendencies of the religions before them. I have no problem with this. Cultural appropriation is not exactly new. I can still enjoy Superman even though his entire character is heavily influenced by the character of Jesus who in turn was heavily influenced by Horus and a few other ancient deities who in turn were probably influenced by some proto Indo-European deity we have no written record of.
troyzer wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: » Troyzer wrote: The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God. This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God. 325 CE. smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in) Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas ☺ You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration? Exactly. C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era. It was common to us all prior to 0 C.E. Simple laying of the new religious view onto the old. The only sense it makes is avoiding the difficulty in actually wiping out the old system, given how embedded dates and centuries are centred around Christ coming. Marathon becomes Snickers to suit the new mood. Nothing else changes. Syncretism. Secularism showing the same tendencies as religions past
antiskeptic wrote: » Troyzer wrote: The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God. This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God. 325 CE. smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in) Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas ☺
Troyzer wrote: The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God. This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.
You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration?
C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era.
antiskeptic wrote: » troyzer wrote: » People keep avoiding my point. You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion. I'm not sure what the nazi reference serves to achieve, other than to suppose every one need put his belief on a par with nazi beliefs? We are defending hos religion (some because they share his religion and views (if not quite lacking the nuance his views lacked). Others, even if they don't share his religion or view, see that one belief system (secularism) is attempting to suppress another belief system. And this has nothing to do with his religion. Not sure how you figure that. He is expressing a religious belief.
troyzer wrote: » People keep avoiding my point. You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.
And this has nothing to do with his religion.
amcalester wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: » Indeed. They are born again though You believe it's always* learned behaviour, you mean. Your worldview belief system leads you to conclude so. But it's just a belief system. * I'd agree that it's frequently, or perhaps even mostly learned behaviour: cultural Christianity or Islam or whatever. Born again figuratively speaking I assume? It’s always important to establish whether religious people are speaking literally or figuratively because they’ve been known to pick and chose depending on what they’re saying and their particular religious text says. No, it’s a fact that religion in all cases is learned behavior it’s not in anyway innate.
antiskeptic wrote: » Indeed. They are born again though You believe it's always* learned behaviour, you mean. Your worldview belief system leads you to conclude so. But it's just a belief system. * I'd agree that it's frequently, or perhaps even mostly learned behaviour: cultural Christianity or Islam or whatever.
amcalester wrote: » Nobody is born believing in god
it’s learned behavior.
antiskeptic wrote: » Much is said about homosexuals not being able to help the fact they are homosexual. "They might as well be asked not to breathe" Are you assuming holding the 'hateful' belief is any different? We are, after all, born again this way. Maybe your starting point is that the bible is untrue, therefore all beliefs that arise in relation to it are really a choice. Wouldn't that merely be inserting your beliefs onto my beliefs. Since you can't show either my beliefs false or your beliefs true, things are somewhat stalemate. You'd be left holding onto a majority view for your foundation. Not only is your view not even close to a majority in the world. But the might is right argument is very, very problematic.
sydthebeat wrote: » theological wrote: » I'm more interested in being faithful to God and His Word, and loving others enough to encourage them to repent before it is too late. your belief that they actually have something to repent from is the basis for society seeing your belief as hateful. you might think you are lovingly "asking them to repent" but you may as well be asking them to stop breathing. your belief is hateful.... and i feel sorry for you that you dont see this.
theological wrote: » I'm more interested in being faithful to God and His Word, and loving others enough to encourage them to repent before it is too late.
smacl wrote: Nick, can I ask why exactly you think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, if not for publicly advocating homophobia?
recedite wrote: » sydthebeat wrote: » do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination? if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic. There are many kinds of aberrant sexual beviours; homosexuals, sado-masochists, gimps, paedophiles. I don't want to delve into all these, nor do I care too much what all these people get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so long as they are all consenting adults. But I refuse to accept these as "normal" behaviour when they are not. They are all deviant in some way. I don't need a holy book to tell me that. The LGBT agenda seeks to normalise that which is not normal. It started off with decriminalising gay sex, which was fine. Then it moved on to civil partnerships, which was also fine. Then it moved on to saying a homosexual marriage is the exact same as a heterosexual marriage, which is untrue. Two homosexuals cannot produce children without the help of a third person. Then it turned its attention to the kids.https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes. Folau has been harassed and bullied just because he quoted scripture. The LGBT community are entitled to hold and express their views, but equally others are entitled to hold and express a different view.
sydthebeat wrote: » do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination? if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic.
robinph wrote: » Israel Folau is the one who has been sacked and made the initial comments.
Nick Park wrote: » No, I want people (including atheists and homosexuals) to be able to exercise their basic human rights without being prosecuted, discriminated against, or sacked for doing so. For what it's worth, I think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, but he has the right to do so - as do you. He should be free to say what he said, without losing his job. And you should be free to advocate removing his human rights without you losing your job (if you have one). I supported the removal of blasphemy from the Irish Constitution - but woe betide anyone who blasphemes against our secular sensitivities.
homer911 wrote: » sydthebeat wrote: » no i am not, i am saying the words he used are inherently homophobic. Words that the majority of right minded christians do not accept as being truth. Words that modern society completely refutes and does not accept, and rightly so. i ask you homer.... do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination? if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic. so please answer my question.... do you? I have a number of gay friends and colleagues, just as I have straight friends and colleagues. We are all sinners. If I choose to use the bible to point out the need for Christ to my straight friends, why should I not do this to my gay friends, in a way that is appropriate to each of them? I serve an unchanging God, who exists outside of time and space, having created them both. Forgive me for holding to biblical teaching when its not "politically correct". The pendulum swings back and forth. It wasn't so long ago that society thought it was perfectly fine to objectify women, or make lewd comments about them or to harass them. Where was your righteous morality then?
sydthebeat wrote: » no i am not, i am saying the words he used are inherently homophobic. Words that the majority of right minded christians do not accept as being truth. Words that modern society completely refutes and does not accept, and rightly so. i ask you homer.... do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination? if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic. so please answer my question.... do you?
homer911 wrote: » Let's politely agree to disagree until you have done your research
homer911 wrote: » The pendulum swings back and forth. It wasn't so long ago that society thought it was perfectly fine to objectify women, or make lewd comments about them or to harass them. Where was your righteous morality then?
amcalester wrote: » Do you not see any irony in criticising the koran for being contradictory? And those oldest scripts were written how long after the death of Jesus? Even translating into a modern understanding implies that the understanding has changed over time, so how can someone say they follow the literal word of god when you've admitted it's the current best guess of what was written down years after he died. Not exactly a solid foundation.
homer911 wrote: » Oh please! Get informed before you start repeating this drivel. Modern translations of the bible all go back to the oldest scripts available and are translated into a modern understanding wheras the muslim scriptures are shown to be highly contradictory and difficult to interpret
homer911 wrote: » amcalester wrote: » Absolutely, but it at least claims to be the literal word of god whereas the bible has undergone I don't know how many translations and iterations. Oh please! Get informed before you start repeating this drivel. Modern translations of the bible all go back to the oldest scripts available and are translated into a modern understanding wheras the muslim scriptures are shown to be highly contradictory and difficult to interpret
amcalester wrote: » Absolutely, but it at least claims to be the literal word of god whereas the bible has undergone I don't know how many translations and iterations.
Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes
amcalester wrote: » That's a very long winded way of outing yourself as a homophobe.
