[SolarCross]

Says a fascist wingnut and a LARPer, lol.

You are far more of a fascist than me if you are a socialist. Though I'll own up to the LARPing but all of us here do that. None of you commies are ever going to get to wear a commissar uniform and do all you shit you want to, Late Capitalism is as much of a fantasy as the Rapture. It's just a LARP.

[Sivad]

Though I'll own up to the LARPing

[annatar1914]

It's ok annatar, you can just say that you don't have any good answer.

I can say that I have no good answer, but I shouldn't, because I'd be wrong

Fact is, I base a good deal of my credibility on these issues on Jesus of Nazareth Himself, Who believed in the utter reliability of the very Scriptures that He said wrote of Him. You Anti-Christians know that Christianity stands or falls on the inerrancy of Scripture and the teachings of the fathers, and so for centuries you have made your attacks on this avenue. Liberalized and secularized Christianity that tries to curry favor with it's enemies always fails, for their children join your camp in every generation, with every attack.

I stand on what was always believed.

[Sivad]

You Anti-Christians know that Christianity stands or falls on the inerrancy of Scripture and the teachings of the fathers

No it doesn't. Scripture doesn't have to be inerrant, just inspired. And inerrancy doesn't necessarily mean literally true.

Even if the bible is inerrant, it may need to be interpreted to distinguish between what statements are metaphorical and which are literally true. Jeffrey Russell writes that "Metaphor is a valid way to interpret reality. The 'literal' meaning of words – which I call the overt reading – is insufficient for understanding reality because it never exhausts reality." He adds:

Originating in Evangelicalism, the Fundamentalists affirmed that the Bible is to be read "literally" or overtly, leading some to reject not only physicalist evolution but even evolution science and to deny that life developed over billions of years. Evangelicals tended to believe in the "inerrancy" of the Bible (though they defined that term variously), a view that sometimes could unhelpfully turn the Bible into an authority on science and history.[65]

Also, figures such as Scot McKnight have argued that the Bible clearly transcends multiple genres and Hebrew prose poems cannot be evaluated by a reader the same as a science textbook.

[annatar1914]

No it doesn't. Scripture doesn't have to be inerrant, just inspired. And inerrancy doesn't necessarily mean literally true.

This is more of that wishy washy liberal pablum that people have been meekly spewing for centuries now, vainly attempting to appease the Anti-Christians by eternal concessions to the New Priesthood of Scientists and their New ''Orthodoxy'' of the moment, every time letting the enemy win. Much like ''conservatives'' in secular politics.

Well, what is needed is intransigence. If I am wrong, then I will live and die being wrong, with Christ. But if I am right...

[Sivad]

This is more of that wishy washy liberal pablum that people have been meekly spewing for centuries now, vainly attempting to appease the Anti-Christians by eternal concessions to the New Priesthood of Scientists and their New ''Orthodoxy'' of the moment, every time letting the enemy win. Much like ''conservatives'' in secular politics.

Well, what is needed is intransigence. If I am wrong, then I will live and die being wrong, with Christ. But if I am right...

If you're right what? Nothing hinges on a literal interpretation. All that's necessary for salvation is an acceptance of the spiritual truth, the question of literal truth is irrelevant.

[Albert]

I've read a study recently that half of Orthodox people do not believe in creationism. If god is truth, then what is the point saying the Earth is only 10,000 years old. With this doctrine the church leaders are actually working against Christianity not for it and robbing people of their church.

Church leaders not just of orthodox faith but of many denomination of Christianity had failed their people. It is not concessions to science that is the problem; it is the notion that the church and science is incompatible.

[annatar1914]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QPNvri-zxs



If you're right what? Nothing hinges on a literal interpretation. All that's necessary for salvation is an acceptance of the spiritual truth, the question of literal truth is irrelevant.

You say ''nothing hinges'' on a literal interpretation, but saying that doesn't make it so. The Founder of Christianity was a Person born into History, at a certain time and place, and He demonstrated opinions, too. If He was wrong in His opinions, He was not God, or God lies, or similar such thoughts, thoughts which most people cravenly avoid by pretzel logic as deployed by gutless wonders like Hart

On Hart, from Wikipedia my emphasis in bold;

As a patristics scholar, Hart is especially concerned with the tradition of the Greek Fathers, with a particular emphasis on Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor. His writings on such figures are distinctive in that they are not cast in the mold of typical patristics scholarship; Hart is quite willing, for instance, to use Maximus as a "corrective" to Martin Heidegger's "history of Being". The emphasis is very much on ideas and "deep readings", which seek to wrest from ancient texts insights that might fruitfully be brought into living contact with contemporary questions. Issues of the Scottish Journal of Theology and New Blackfriars have devoted special space to his work.

Of late, his work has been much concerned with philosophy of mind and the relation between science and metaphysics.

In other words, he's just another surrender monkey, making right good coin for creating a new kind of apostate''Christianity'' that is entirely in line with the thinking of modern and godless secular humanity.

So, what's it to you and others that I believe as I do? That in itself is an interesting question the answers to which could fill a book.

I avoided these topics not out of concern for myself, for I have no such concern, but for others who don't understand and who get incensed at these beliefs. It wasn't out of shame at all. This isn't my first experience with this phenomena.

Albert wrote;

I've read a study recently that half of Orthodox people do not believe in creationism.

That means half do, but Truth isn't up to a committee vote, is it?

If god is truth, then what is the point saying the Earth is only 10,000 years old.

The point is that He indicates as much, that we live on a young and created Earth. God is Truth, and so I cannot believe in the lie of evolution, no matter how skillfully wrapped in a package that lie is.

With this doctrine the church leaders are actually working against Christianity not for it and robbing people of their church.

Absolutely false. On the contrary, the ''church leaders'' historically have surrendered everything to the god of ''scientific'' opinion.

Church leaders not just of orthodox faith but of many denomination of Christianity had failed their people. It is not concessions to science that is the problem; it is the notion that the church and science is incompatible.

False again. Nothing in true Science will ever contradict the Truth of Scripture and Holy Tradition, so if the fault lies anywhere, it lies with human limitations.

[Sivad]

:roll:

You say ''nothing hinges'' on a literal interpretation, but saying that doesn't make it so. The Founder of Christianity was a Person born into History, at a certain time and place, and He demonstrated opinions, too. If He was wrong in His opinions, He was not God, or God lies, or similar such thoughts, thoughts which most people cravenly avoid by pretzel logic as deployed by gutless wonders like Hart

On Hart, from Wikipedia my emphasis in bold;



In other words, he's just another surrender monkey, making right good coin for creating a new kind of apostate''Christianity'' that is entirely in line with the thinking of modern and godless secular humanity.

So, what's it to you and others that I believe as I do? That in itself is an interesting question the answers to which could fill a book.

I avoided these topics not out of concern for myself, for I have no such concern, but for others who don't understand and who get incensed at these beliefs. It wasn't out of shame at all. This isn't my first experience with this phenomena.

You really hit the ground running with this fundie shit. I don't care what you believe I just think your beliefs are dumb.

[annatar1914]

You really hit the ground running with this fundie shit. I don't care what you believe I just think your beliefs are dumb.

Call it what you will, think of it what you will. But I suppose we'll find out eventually, won't we? Again, the chutzpah of Non-Christians telling a Christian what to believe

I also suppose that we'll find agreement sometime here, I actually get along with pretty much everybody under the circumstances.

[Saeko]

I can say that I have no good answer, but I shouldn't, because I'd be wrong

Fact is, I base a good deal of my credibility on these issues on Jesus of Nazareth Himself, Who believed in the utter reliability of the very Scriptures that He said wrote of Him.

No, you place your trust in whoever it was that wrote the Gospels. Authors so reliable that you don't even know their names.

[Albert]

Albert wrote; That means half do, but Truth isn't up to a committee vote, is it?

Well the church leaders seems to think so.

The point is that He indicates as much, that we live on a young and created Earth. God is Truth, and so I cannot believe in the lie of evolution, no matter how skillfully wrapped in a package that lie is.

The Old Testament indicates so indeed, but even most Jewish denominations do not recognize creationism (fixed). That is if you think Jewish view of Old Testament is anything to go by.

Absolutely false. On the contrary, the ''church leaders'' historically have surrendered everything to the god of ''scientific'' opinion.

It is the church leaders that have killed Christ and they are continuing in their old trusted tradition.

False again. Nothing in true Science will ever contradict the Truth of Scripture and Holy Tradition, so if the fault lies anywhere, it lies with human limitations.

It is not scientists, politicians or modern ideologies that have driven away people from the church it is the priest and clergy themselves. They are the most significant reason why the notion of science and religion incompatibility continues today. Darwin was a devout Christian for crying out laud.

[Sivad]

But I suppose we'll find out eventually, won't we?

Not necessarily, there might just be nothing after the big goodnight.

Again, the chutzpah of Non-Christians telling a Christian what to believe

I got a lot of nerve.

I also suppose that we'll find agreement sometime here, I actually get along with pretty much everybody under the circumstances.

I got nothing against you personally, I sincerely wish you a very merry fundamentalism.

[annatar1914]

No, you place your trust in whoever it was that wrote the Gospels. Authors so reliable that you don't even know their names.

Authors quite reliable, who by the earliest tradition were people who knew Jesus of Nazareth. Why quibble? You don't like His message anyway, do you?

[Sivad]

@annatar1914, but if you ever go liberal it's gonna get ugly

[Saeko]

Authors quite reliable, who by the earliest tradition were people who knew Jesus of Nazareth.

Ok. Let me ask you this. Who wrote the gospels?

[Albert]

The holy spirit Saeko, the holy spirit.

[annatar1914]

Albert said;

Well the church leaders seems to think so.

Bizarre argument from authority

The Old Testament indicates so indeed, but even most Jewish denominations do not recognize creationism (fixed). That is if you think Jewish view of Old Testament is anything to go by.

Again, I don't go by the secularized liberal trend of today, and I'm sure there are Jews who don't either.

It is the church leaders that have killed Christ and they are continuing in their old trusted tradition.

Since you're not Christian, on what basis would you make that kind of sweeping judgement?

It is not scientists, politicians or modern ideologies that have driven away people from the church it is the priest and clergy themselves.

Correction; it is the priests and clergy who often give in to the scientists and politicians and modern ideology, and so the people decide that there's no reason to be Christian, usually by the following generation of the latest surrender to the opinions of the world.

They are the most significant reason why the notion of science and religion incompatibility continues today. Darwin was a devout Christian for crying out laud.

No Darwin most emphatically was not, and he was continuing in the footsteps of his grandfather who himself was a evolutionist and an open infidel.

You're fooling yourself. I understand why, but you are.

[annatar1914]

Ok. Let me ask you this. Who wrote the gospels?

St. Matthew was an Apostle

St. Mark was a disciple of St. Peter, and was made Bishop of the Christian community in Alexandria Egypt

St. Luke was an associate and follower of St. Paul originally, and by tradition knew those closest to Christ

St. John was an Apostle

[Albert]

Since you're not Christian, on what basis would you make that kind of sweeping judgement?

Annatar, who executed Christ? The Romans?

Correction; it is the priests and clergy who often give in to the scientists and politicians and modern ideology, and so the people decide that there's no reason to be Christian, usually by the following generation of the latest surrender to the opinions of the world.

Do not confuse science with modern social depravity, one and the other is not the same.

No Darwin most emphatically was not, and he was continuing in the footsteps of his grandfather who himself was a evolutionist and an open infidel.

You're fooling yourself. I understand why, but you are.

Darwin wanted to be a clergyman.