- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by David CSo do you think that the Bible is mumbo-jumbo but the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 is the absolute truth?
I have, on several occasions. Nicaea was a farce, and Constantine worshipped Deus Sol Invictus. His 'conversion' was purely cosmetic, or worse: a total fabrication.
According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967, article on Constantine the Great: Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Church of Rome as evidenced by Christ as Apollo-Helios in a ...[text shortened]... ginning of the third century "Sun of Justice" was used as a title of Christ.
Happy?
Edit: 😉 (I forgot)
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseDid he ever come out of it?
Did he ever come out of it?
P.S. This winking between you and dj is unnerving... is it some sort of secret message? Lemme try... 😉😉😉
Dunno. Ask RatX. He's the expert on that sort of thing.
P.S. This winking between you and dj is unnerving... is it some sort of secret message? Lemme try... 😉😉😉
Yeah, it's code for "Don't take any of it too seriously. Ain't no one here gonna change their views."
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerNot at all, on either count. Just because I unequivocally reject the bible as any sort of "WORD OF GOD", or Jesus as any sort of historical reality, does not mean I think it's useless as a tool for spiritual enlightenment.
So do you think that the Bible is mumbo-jumbo but the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 is the absolute truth?
Edit: 😉 (I forgot)
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHere's a link you might be interested in, probably still biased towards the right, but more objective IMO:
I don't have the time to summarise the story of David Barton, a revisionist Christian who fabricated the quotes you used above, but the link I posted (http://www.ntskeptics.org/1997/1997june/june1997.htm) gives the story.
Here's a snippet:
Church & State editor Rob Boston, who also authored books such as Why The Religious Right is Wrong about ...[text shortened]... minent figures, that are now considered to be suspect or outright false.9
OK, Hal? Satisfied?
http://watkins.gospelcom.net/foundingfathers.htm
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by David CHow does this show that the Church Fathers rewrote history? Or that Nicaea was a farce?
I have, on several occasions. Nicaea was a farce, and Constantine worshipped Deus Sol Invictus. His 'conversion' was purely cosmetic, or worse: a total fabrication.
According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967, article on Constantine the Great: Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Church of Rome as evidenced by Christ as Apollo-Helios in a ...[text shortened]... ginning of the third century "Sun of Justice" was used as a title of Christ.
Happy?
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by David CThat's just being lazy.
You're a bright fellow, Hammy...figure it out.
Alright, let me help you out: For the claim that the Church Fathers "rewrote" history to be true, you need to show that:
1. Event A happened (or did not happen)
2. The Church Fathers taught that Event A did not happen (or did happen).
3. The Church Fathers' teaching was widely accepted.
Go ahead.
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerBeen through this already with you, Ham.
That's just being lazy.
Go ahead.
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
QED.
(Yeah, I'm lazy. So what?)
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by David CI thought you were going to pick something much harder - like the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection.
Been through this already with you, Ham.
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
QED.
(Yeah, I'm lazy. So what?)
We've been over this before - your arguments for Christ being entirely fictional are so tenuous you can't even get fellow-atheists to agree with you.
Try again.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by David C(Yeah, I'm lazy. So what?)
Been through this already with you, Ham.
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
QED.
(Yeah, I'm lazy. So what?)
That explains a lot of things...
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by David CSorry Dave, I'll have to side with LH, this is hardly an ironclad case you are making here...
Been through this already with you, Ham.
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
QED.
(Yeah, I'm lazy. So what?)
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
Unless you can pull some rabbit out of your hat, this is a preposterous assumption...
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
Lol, I really think you need to back up premise 1) or this premise really falls. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
This we shall see based upon the reasonable evidence you present... if your evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt 1) and subsequently 2) then yes, I'll admit to 3)
Quite Eloquently Done
09 Nov 05
Whilst a handful of Christians being constructive in no way undermines my argument that in general religious people waste their lives, you may be interested in my new thread:
"List of 'constructive' Christians - debunked. "
I hope you enjoy learning about the people named in your cut 'n' paste lists, Halitosis and PRatX.
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeGo check your list HG, and btw how can you determine if somebody is a Christian or not, you closed-minded atheist bigot...
Whilst a handful of Christians being constructive in no way undermines my argument that in general religious people waste their lives, you may be interested in my new thread:
"List of 'constructive' Christians - debunked. "
I hope you enjoy learning about the people named in your cut 'n' paste lists, Halitosis and PRatX.