Is the Bible Hate Speech?

[tedw]

Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell. Is that hate speech? Should we consider banning the Bible or at least parts of it.?

[CW]

On 13 May 2022 tedw wrote:

> Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell.
> Is that hate speech?

Yes

> Should we consider banning the Bible or at least
> parts of it.?

No

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[badgolferman]

CW wrote:

>On 13 May 2022 tedw wrote:
>
>> Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to
>>hell. Is that hate speech?
>
>Yes
>
>> Should we consider banning the Bible or at least
>> parts of it.?
>
>No

I'm sure many people would like the Bible rewritten to remove offensive
words and become gender neutral like they are going to do to the Big
Book. Oh wait...they've already done that with the Bible.

[tedw]

I didn't know they had done that.

[Charlie M. 1958]

Jesus is always pictured with long hair and a dress. Surely he was trans.

[Socrates]

The Bible doesn't say Jesus was transgender, but this playwright had
decided to tell it that way anyway.

Jo Clifford stared in a one-woman show called "The Gospel According to
Jesus, Queen of Heaven" that depicted Jesus as a transgender woman. The
show toyed with many other biblical parables and was shown in November
of 2015 at the Outburst Queer Arts Festival in Ireland.

"There's a little sermon that reminds the audience that Jesus never had
a single word of condemnation for trans people," Clifford said, "the
show is a reminder that we have existed throughout this world and many
cultures have accepted and celebrated our existence."

[tedw]

Maybe an outright ban is too severe. Perhaps just make it illegal to print Bibles with the offensive wording in
Corinthians. Over time the old Bibles will wear out.

[badgolferman]

NSRV and NIV are two that come to mind.

[Socrates]

On 5/13/2022 11:23 AM, tedw wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:50:05 AM UTC-7, CW wrote:
>> On 13 May 2022 tedw wrote:
>>
>>> Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell.
>>> Is that hate speech?

>> Yes

>>> Should we consider banning the Bible or at least
>>> parts of it.?

>> No

> Maybe an outright ban is too severe. Perhaps just make it illegal to print
> Bibles with the offensive wording in Corinthians. Over time the old Bibles
> will wear out.

Would they still be considered the "word of God?"

[tedw]

https://miamistandard.news/2022/04/16/california-wants-to-ban-the-bible-for-hate-speech/#

California wants to Ban the Bible

[Socrates]

LOL, "a social experiment in San Diego, California with random
beachgoers who were asked if they would sign a petition that would ban
the Holy Bible?"

Your link mentions an article in the New York Times on Good Friday. Here
is a reaction to that article by Michael Brown on Townhall posted: Apr
18, 2022:

From Time's 'Is God Dead?' in 1966 to The New York Times' Call to 'Give
Up God' Today:

https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2022/04/18/from-times-is-god-dead-in-1966-to-the-new-york-times-call-to-give-up-god-today-n2605986

[badgolferman]

tedw <tedwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell.
> Is that hate speech? Should we consider banning the Bible or at least parts of it.?
>

What do you expect from the Land of Fruits and Nuts? I hope they do ban the
Bible as that would show what kind of people Progressives really are and
wake up others to where the real hate speech originates.

[Robert Dye]

Oh, sure.

Thomas Jefferson did that a looooong time ago.

And Luther simply took out parts objected to by the Jewish scholars.

Nothing new there.

[Robert Dye]

Oh, good grief, Ted.

This is silly, even for you.

Some idiot nut-picked responses from random beach-goers, and made a collage of people who would "ban" The Bible.

(We have nothing about which respondents said, "No, that would violate the US Constitution, by the way. He only included the ones who would make his point for him.)

Then this is "reported" by a website that pretends to be a legit newspaper, but I will bet you money the "Miami Standard" has no print-edition, nor ever did, and *also* bet they echo Breitbart and The Daily Caller.

Again, Ted, silly, even for *you.*

[Dexter]

-----------------------------
Which bible says that? I can't find that particular quote in my bible.

--
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually
the same god as the many ancient gods of past
civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed
monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one
wishes to know more of this raging, three headed
beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber
of people who say they serve him. They are always
of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
- paraphrased from the writings of Thomas Jefferson

[Dexter]

CW wrote:

> On 13 May 2022 tedw wrote:
>
> > Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell.
> > Is that hate speech?
>
> Yes
>
> > Should we consider banning the Bible or at least
> > parts of it.?
>
> No

-----------------------------
Definitely should not ban the bibles. They are one of the most
effective tools for converting people to atheism.

[Dexter]

-----------------------------
In which bible did they do that?

[Dexter]

-----------------------------
So, if the bible has been rewritten is it still the
inerrant word of god? Which bible is the true
bible?

[Robert Dye]

On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 2:16:59 PM UTC-5, Dexter wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
>
> > CW wrote:
> >
> > > On 13 May 2022 tedw wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to
> > > > hell. Is that hate speech?
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > >> Should we consider banning the Bible or at least
> > >> parts of it.?
> > >
> > > No
> >
> >
> > I'm sure many people would like the Bible rewritten to remove offensive
> > words and become gender neutral like they are going to do to the Big
> > Book. Oh wait...they've already done that with the Bible.
> -----------------------------
> In which bible did they do that?

You ought to know this one Dexter.

Jefferson himself did this.

He edited a version of the NT where he removed any reference to anything miraculous.

Which makes the Teachings of Jesus come off rather silly, as there would be nothing to back them up.

Either they depend upon signs in the OT, or they are validated by the signs performed by Jesus Himself as testimony to His Teaching.



If someone wants to reject scripture, or reject religion . . . hey, I get that. We Christians have not been very good witnesses at living what we claim to believe. (As Bill says, "Not too closely followed by those who claim Him.")

But I think editing someone else's "holy book" to fit your own beliefs is a bit much.

I generally have a good opinion of the "Founding Fathers." But on this thing with Jefferson?

Not so much.

[badgolferman]

Robert Dye wrote:

>I generally have a good opinion of the "Founding Fathers." But on
>this thing with Jefferson?

Jefferson was a deist, not religionist to my knowledge. If my history
lesson serves me right, he rewrote the Bible for his own reference and
it was published later after his death. I'm not discounting the
Jeffersonian Bible as acceptable, but I find that purposely rewriting
the Bible to serve an agenda and selling it as the one that is now the
"official" one is going too far.

The same thing is happening to the Big Book now. They are rewriting it
into a "modern language" translation and that book will eventually
become the one that is widely accepted as "THE BIG BOOK" someday
because it will be the one given to newcomers at treatment centers and
at meetings. And you know the 'modern language' editors will be a
bunch of flamiing queers ensuring the book is full of gender neutral
and progressive social justice language.

[tedw]

Who owns Miami standard news?
Cox Enterprises
The paper started publishing in May 1896 as a weekly called The Miami Metropolis. The Metropolis had become a daily (except Sunday) paper of eight pages by 1903.

Ok. Let's bet $100. Where do I collect?

[tedw]

Perhaps the First Edition of the Big Book should also be banned? Definetely too many references to God and the Bible there.

[Robert Dye]

You sure of this, Ted?

The "Miami News" used to be the "Miami Metropolis."

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know; not always accurate, as anyone can edit it), the "Miami News" ceased publication in 1988.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are asserting the "Miami Standard" is part of Cox News Enterprises, yes?

[Robert Dye]

Okay, Ted, you've got a bet.

You show me where the "Miami Standard" is part of Cox News, but is also now part of the Palm Beach Post, now owned by Gannett, which is where their assets and archives ended up, and I will send $100 to your favorite charity.

(I don't buy it. You won't honor your wager, and will never admit you don't know what you're talking about.

If you decide to be honorable, you can send your $100 to Madonna House of Catholic Charities, Tulsa, Oklahoma.)

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/14/2022 3:52 PM, Robert Dye wrote:

>
> He edited a version of the NT where he removed any reference to anything miraculous.
>
> Which makes the Teachings of Jesus come off rather silly, as there would be nothing to back them up.
>
> Either they depend upon signs in the OT, or they are validated by the signs performed by Jesus Himself as testimony to His Teaching.

I'm not saying I agree with editing the bible to suit one's own
perspective, but I'm at a loss to see how Jesus' teachings come off as
silly without miracles to back them up.

I don't see where the miracles attributed to Jesus serve any other
purpose than to provide supporting evidence of who he was. (Which is why
I suspect they were added to Jesus' story in the first place.)

Real or not, the miracles help you *believe* in the authority of the
messenger. But what changes about the message itself if Jesus had not
done anything miraculous?

[Robert Dye]

Way of approaching The Law, primarily.

If He had no authority to back up what He was teaching, he might just as well have been teaching any random thing whatsoever, which is what I mean by the silliness of it.

His emphasis was that love of God expressed in love of neighbor was more important than strict adherence to The Law.

Without some sign to validate, it collapses into ""Yes it is" vs. "No it isn't."

How do you decide who is right? It becomes a silly argument.

Might just as well be "Rabbit Season/Duck Season."

[Robert Dye]

On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 5:41:43 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

I'm not really satisfied with my answer to you, Charlie. I suppose what I was thinking of was *why* Jefferson would even both with editing a NT with all reference to the miraculous removed.

"Jesus was a guy who didn't really do anything special. He had a disagreement with the Pharisees and the Saducees, and they ganged up to get the Romans to kill him.

The end."

[Robert Dye]

Let 'em whirl, Mike.

Let 'em whirl.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/14/2022 8:55 PM, Robert Dye wrote:

>
> If He had no authority to back up what He was teaching, he might just as well have been teaching any random thing whatsoever, which is what I mean by the silliness of it.
>
> His emphasis was that love of God expressed in love of neighbor was more important than strict adherence to The Law.
>
> Without some sign to validate, it collapses into ""Yes it is" vs. "No it isn't."
>
> How do you decide who is right? It becomes a silly argument.
>
> Might just as well be "Rabbit Season/Duck Season."

Well, okay. Then my disagreement with you is mainly just in how you
phrased it. The message is the message. It doesn't become less true
without the miracles, it's just that people are much less likely to take
you seriously without some sign that you really are from God.

It's an important distinction for those who, like me, think the miracles
were quite possibly fabricated into the gospels for the exact reason you
point out.

[CharlieM1958]

On 5/14/2022 9:00 PM, Robert Dye wrote:

> I'm not really satisfied with my answer to you, Charlie. I suppose what I was thinking of was *why* Jefferson would even both with editing a NT with all reference to the miraculous removed.
>
> "Jesus was a guy who didn't really do anything special. He had a disagreement with the Pharisees and the Saducees, and they ganged up to get the Romans to kill him.
>
> The end."

But then you're totally discounting Jesus' ability to persuade anyone
that his message made sense. People are people. No doubt there were
others in Jesus' time who saw that the overbearing adherence to
religious laws was overshadowing more important aspects of humanity.
Jesus was a revolutionary who was able to galvanize a movement based on
a largely unspoken groundswell of discontent.

Now if you're writing about this later in an attempt to convince others
who weren't personally exposed to Jesus' powerful personality, you just
/know/ it's going to take something more than a simple restatement of
the message to bring people around en masse. Hence, the miracles.

Look, I'm certainly not trying to change or discount your beliefs. I'm
simply pointing out that there is a logical argument for how things
might have actually taken place a different way.

[tedw]

Type in google: Who owns the Miami Standard news and the result is:

Cox Enterprises
The Miami News was an evening newspaper in Miami, Florida.

If I am wrong then so is google. What about the second part of the bet "and also bet they echo Breitbart and the Daily caller". Prove that.

Even If google is wrong about the ownership of the Miami Standard, it does not necessarily follow " you will never admit you don't know what you are talking about" . It's really irrelevant who owns the Miami Standard. If I am wrong about that so what? Are you asserting that somehow proves that everything I have ever said is untrue?

[tedw]

My opinion ( Since you didn't ask):

"Which is why I suspect they were added to Jesus story in the first place"

Looks like you "suspect" the miracles never happened and were just added (made up) to lend credibility. Maybe.

Belief in Christ is central to the Christianity: As the Apostle Paul said:

Romans 3: 22 We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

And:

Romans 3: 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood.

That's how important belief in the Christ is. Jesus said to the Jews:

John 8:24

That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I Am who I claim to be, you will die in your sins.”


Regarding the miracles Jesus said:

Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.

So apparently many people would not have believed had they not seen the miracles. But Jesus also said (to doubting Thomas):


29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


So belief in Jesus Christ as your Savior is pretty important, essential actually. Miracles still happen in this world but honestly they are pretty rare. But you can believe now even without seeing them.

[Fred Exley]

I Googled 'who owns the Miami Standard news' and indeed the top result
was Cox Enterprises The Miami News was an evening newspaper in Miami,
Florida


The results are referring to 'The Miami News', not 'The Miami Standard'.


According to Media Bias Fact Check:

"Founded in 2021, the Miami Standard is an anonymously published news
website covering Florida and National news. The website lacks
transparency as they do not have an about page, disclose ownership, or
name authors."


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/miami-standard-bias/

[tedw]

OK, It's Sunday , Rob can be right today about that. On occasion , I am wrong. Does it also say it echoes Breitbart?

[tedw]

https://cceok.org/madonnahouse ; looks like a good cause

[Socrates]

My perspective (since you insist on preaching).

Jesus in comparative mythology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology


https://postimg.cc/yDrP5xtx

https://i.postimg.cc/pdP6mnBf/let-me.jpg

[Robert Dye]

Nice shifting of the goal-post, Ted.

[tedw]

You really can't win Padre. If I am right, I win. If I am wrong, I give to a good cause: I win either way.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 5/13/22 11:34, tedw wrote:
> Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell. Is that hate speech? Should we consider banning the Bible or at least parts of it.?

No way...They also should not try to ban books that bash the God theory.

--
Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
No appointment needed

[tedw]

Ok. Maybe that is going to far. How about we ban the mention of Jesus in AA meetings?

.

[tedw]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 10:08:49 AM UTC-7, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

LaRocca, don't you realize some people's feelings are hurt by the Bible? Don't you care about that?

[Skeezix LaRocca]

I have no problem with someone saying Jesus is their Lord & Savior, but
telling me he has to be mine ?...I would tell them I thought they were
bat shit crazy...Trying to ban them from saying it ?...That is a group
decision...If I don't like the group decision, tolerate it, or move on.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

They need to quit being babies, just like a lot of Christians are when
you hurt their feelings.

[badgolferman]

How about you go to an Islamic country and try to ban them mentioning
Allah?

[badgolferman]

Skeezix LaRocca <fatl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/22 13:12, tedw wrote:
>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 10:08:49 AM UTC-7, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 11:34, tedw wrote:
>>>> Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to
>>>> hell. Is that hate speech? Should we consider banning the Bible or at
>>>> least parts of it.?
>>>
>>> No way...They also should not try to ban books that bash the God theory.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
>>> Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
>>> We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
>>> No appointment needed
>>
>> Ok. Maybe that is going to far. How about we ban the mention of Jesus in AA meetings?
>>
>> .
> I have no problem with someone saying Jesus is their Lord & Savior, but
> telling me he has to be mine ?...I would tell them I thought they were
> bat shit crazy...Trying to ban them from saying it ?...That is a group
> decision...If I don't like the group decision, tolerate it, or move on.
>
>

I have never heard anyone in AA say Jesus *must* be my Lord and Savior.

[tedw]

They have a sign outside an Egyptian town. If you are Christian do not enter, we will kill you.

[tedw]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 10:45:57 AM UTC-7, badgolferman wrote:

Neither have I. LaRocca must go to some different kind of AA meetings.

[tedw]

You don't understand LaRocca. They are SENSITIVE alcoholics.

[badgolferman]

tedw wrote:

>> > I have no problem with someone saying Jesus is their Lord &
>>Savior, but > telling me he has to be mine ?...I would tell them I
>>thought they were > bat shit crazy...Trying to ban them from
>>saying it ?...That is a group > decision...If I don't like the
>>group decision, tolerate it, or move on. >
>> >

>> I have never heard anyone in AA say Jesus must be my Lord and

>>Savior.
>
>Neither have I. LaRocca must go to some different kind of AA
>meetings.

Either that or he is exaggerating to make a point.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

You need to get out more

[Skeezix LaRocca]

I don't call some areas around me Mississippi North for nothing..Over 30
years ago, in Fenton Michigan, a guy was having a hard time...Some well
meaning, but uninformed people from the God Squad laid hands on the guy
and called out for Jesus to heal the guy...5 or 6 people, including
myself walked out...I didn't raise hell...I was a one time visitor.

[CW]

Yeah, but, that doesn't mean they're some random news outlet no one, except
tedw, has ever heard of -- they've got 677 followers on Facebook, FFS!

[badgolferman]

Skeezix LaRocca <fatl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/22 13:45, badgolferman wrote:
>> Skeezix LaRocca <fatl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/16/22 13:12, tedw wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 10:08:49 AM UTC-7, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/22 11:34, tedw wrote:
>>>>>> Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to
>>>>>> hell. Is that hate speech? Should we consider banning the Bible or at
>>>>>> least parts of it.?
>>>>>
>>>>> No way...They also should not try to ban books that bash the God theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
>>>>> Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
>>>>> We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
>>>>> No appointment needed
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Maybe that is going to far. How about we ban the mention of Jesus in AA meetings?
>>>>
>>>> .
>>> I have no problem with someone saying Jesus is their Lord & Savior, but
>>> telling me he has to be mine ?...I would tell them I thought they were
>>> bat shit crazy...Trying to ban them from saying it ?...That is a group
>>> decision...If I don't like the group decision, tolerate it, or move on.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have never heard anyone in AA say Jesus *must* be my Lord and Savior.
>>
> You need to get out more
>

It looks like Michigan is the armpit of America (Shreveport is the asshole
of America) and it’s really you who should get out more. I’ve actually
lived in six states since I got sober and been exposed to meetings and
peoples much more than you have.

[Socrates]

On 5/16/2022 3:05 PM, badgolferman wrote:

> It looks like Michigan is the armpit of America (Shreveport is the asshole
> of America) and it’s really you who should get out more. I’ve actually
> lived in six states since I got sober and been exposed to meetings and
> peoples much more than you have.

How many consecutive years of AA involvement did it take to bring this
sort of humility to life, or were always humble and non judgemental?

[Skeezix LaRocca]

So now we're seeing who can piss the furthest...How childish.

[Dexter]

Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

> On 5/14/2022 8:55 PM, Robert Dye wrote:
>
> >
> > If He had no authority to back up what He was teaching, he might just
> > as well have been teaching any random thing whatsoever, which is what I
> > mean by the silliness of it.
> >
> > His emphasis was that love of God expressed in love of neighbor was
> > more important than strict adherence to The Law.
> >
> > Without some sign to validate, it collapses into ""Yes it is" vs. "No
> > it isn't."
> >
> > How do you decide who is right? It becomes a silly argument.
> >
> > Might just as well be "Rabbit Season/Duck Season."
>
> Well, okay. Then my disagreement with you is mainly just in how you
> phrased it. The message is the message. It doesn't become less true
> without the miracles, it's just that people are much less likely to take
> you seriously without some sign that you really are from God.
>
> It's an important distinction for those who, like me, think the miracles
> were quite possibly fabricated into the gospels for the exact reason you
> point out.
-----------------------------

Funny how rare those miracles are now that we all have cameras
in our pockets, and we have a vastly greater pool of medical knowledge
than those who wrote and translated and rewrote and retranslated and
translated yet again those texts.

--
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually
the same god as the many ancient gods of past
civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed
monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one
wishes to know more of this raging, three headed
beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber
of people who say they serve him. They are always
of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
- paraphrased from the writings of Thomas Jefferson

[Dexter]

Robert Dye wrote:

> On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 2:16:59 PM UTC-5, Dexter wrote:
> > badgolferman wrote:
> >
> > > CW wrote:

> > >
> > > > On 13 May 2022 tedw wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Well, after all, it does say unrepentant homosexuals are going to
> > > > > hell. Is that hate speech?
> > > >

> > > > Yes

> > > >
> > > >> Should we consider banning the Bible or at least
> > > >> parts of it.?
> > > >
> > > > No
> > >
> > >

> > > I'm sure many people would like the Bible rewritten to remove
> > > offensive words and become gender neutral like they are going to do
> > > to the Big Book. Oh wait...they've already done that with the Bible.
> > -----------------------------
> > In which bible did they do that?
>
> You ought to know this one Dexter.
>
> Jefferson himself did this.

>
> He edited a version of the NT where he removed any reference to anything
> miraculous.
>
> Which makes the Teachings of Jesus come off rather silly, as there would
> be nothing to back them up.
>
> Either they depend upon signs in the OT, or they are validated by the
> signs performed by Jesus Himself as testimony to His Teaching.
>
>
>

> If someone wants to reject scripture, or reject religion . . . hey, I get
> that. We Christians have not been very good witnesses at living what we
> claim to believe. (As Bill says, "Not too closely followed by those who
> claim Him.")
>
> But I think editing someone else's "holy book" to fit your own beliefs is
> a bit much.
>
> I generally have a good opinion of the "Founding Fathers." But on this
> thing with Jefferson?
>
> Not so much.
>
-----------------------------
You highlighted the point I was making. Jefferson was continuing
a tradition that began when the original writings - of which there
remain no extant copies, if one is to believe scholars - were being
copied, recopied numerous times with sections added, or changed
or reinterpreted to suit the goals of the person doing the interpretation.
Jefferson did precisely the same thing and that tradition continues
with the multitude of modern translations that exist today.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations

Given that not one single version of the bible exists in the language
that jesus spoke - Aramaic, that the apostles were all likely to have
been completely illiterate and the original versions written were in
Greek and consisted of written versions of oral traditions passed down
for decades after his death, how is it that we can trust any version to
be authoritative?

That doesn't even take into account other holy books that are the
root of other major religions, e.g. the Torah or the Koran.

Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" outlines a multitude of
reasons the no christian bible, in any of its versions, can be trusted
to be the authoritative word of Jesus.

[Dexter]

badgolferman wrote:

> Robert Dye wrote:
>
> > I generally have a good opinion of the "Founding Fathers." But on
> > this thing with Jefferson?
>
>

> Jefferson was a deist, not religionist to my knowledge. If my history
> lesson serves me right, he rewrote the Bible for his own reference and
> it was published later after his death. I'm not discounting the
> Jeffersonian Bible as acceptable, but I find that purposely rewriting
> the Bible to serve an agenda and selling it as the one that is now the
> "official" one is going too far.
>
> The same thing is happening to the Big Book now. They are rewriting it
> into a "modern language" translation and that book will eventually
> become the one that is widely accepted as "THE BIG BOOK" someday
> because it will be the one given to newcomers at treatment centers and
> at meetings. And you know the 'modern language' editors will be a
> bunch of flamiing queers ensuring the book is full of gender neutral
> and progressive social justice language.
-----------------------------

Ah, so we finally get to the heart of the matter. Seems your beef
is with flaming queers and social justice types taking over AA and
writing your sorry ass out of the big book. Yeah, you have a right
to be nervous. Thing is, and you should pay close attention here
because it's very important. You. Are. Powerless. To. Stop the
progress coming to AA. Unless of course you want to create a
schism. All you need is a coffee pot and a couple of like minded
drunks and hell, you can create your own little AA fiefdom, complete
with a traditional big book. None of that fancy new language shit.

You and your little group of hardnosed AA fundies can find yourselves
a dark little cave in the basement of some evangelical christian cult
and have private bitch sessions while you complain bitterly about
those youngsters who don't think like you do and how delighted
you'd be if they would just go out and get drunk so you could prove
how right you are. Hell, Sharx would add a little spittle and spice
if you could get him to join up. You could put up a little sign on
the door - NO QUEERS OR DRUG ADDICTS. SJWs CAN GO TO HELL.

It'll be grand fun, Mikey, just like a little boys club - No Gurls Allowd.

But you're doomed to fail, Mikey, because you're mortal. Like the
rest of us you'll grow old. And you'll die. And the youngsters will
take your place for better or worse while you moulder in the dirt,
never knowing why you failed. And few if anyone will remember
you in AA, except as that crusty old bastard who hated queers and
drug addicts cuz they didn't see Bill as some kind of God, and the
Big Book as his bible. Oh, and no one but him could do AA the
correct way anyway. Pity.

[Dexter]

Socrates wrote:

> On 5/15/2022 10:38 AM, tedw wrote:

----| a lot of dumb shit snipped here |-----

>
> My perspective (since you insist on preaching).
>
> Jesus in comparative mythology:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology
>
>
> https://postimg.cc/yDrP5xtx

-----------------------------
One of the best and funniest memes I've ever seen.
It's been around a while but never looses it's punch.

[Socrates]

Amen. :)

[Robert Dye]

Hey, Ted.

Did the doc make a recent adjustment to your medication?

[Charlie M. 1958]

Harsh, but true. :-)

[tedw]

Stop it. You are hurting my feelings.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

I gotta admit....That made me laugh.

[badgolferman]

The difference between you and me is that I don't believe social issues
have a place in AA. This lesson was taught to us by the Washingtonians
and it's the main reason it failed. We are at that same place again
where social issues are being pushed into AA to further an agenda.
Alcoholics Anonymous traditions teach us that we are all the same when
it comes to alcohol and we should focus on our similarities. This is
not the case anymore as now we are highlighting our differences and why
some alcoholics are different than others. This will only serve to
widen the chasm and create distinct cliques of AA members just as we
have in society at large.

Despite what you think, I have mentioned numerous times every ALCOHOLIC
has a right to be a member of AA and to receive help from the rest of
us. I have no desire to exclude any ALCOHOLIC. But now we don't have
ALCOHOLICS in AA anymore, we have gay alcoholics, transgender
alcoholics, gender neutral alcoholics, black alcoholics, white
alcoholics, drug addict alcoholics, senior alcoholics, young
alcoholics, etc. I find this disturbing and completely against the
principle of unity in the sense of people pointing out how they are
different than the rest of us.

As you can imagine there are many homosexuals in AA around here. I
even sponsored one for a couple years and still see him when I go to
meetings in Norfolk. My wife an I have a lesbian couple who are our
friends and we used to have a couple male homosexuals who we spend time
with. I even went with my wife on an all day motorcycle ride with the
lesbians a couple weekends ago. None of these homosexuals feel the
need to flaunt their sexual identities in people's faces or demand a
certain type of treatment by others. To my knowledge they aren't even
in favor of changing AA writings to "promote equality" as it's being
pushed these days. They recognize the timeless and classic principles
of AA as powerful and all encompassing already.

The bottom line is I cherish Alcoholics Anonymous and want it to be
here when the day comes that my own two children will need it. I don't
want outside social issues to break apart the unity and love that makes
us all the same -- ALCOHOLICS.

[Socrates]

On 5/17/2022 8:38 AM, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
> On 5/17/22 09:34, tedw wrote:

>> On Tuesday, May 17, Robert Dye wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 16, wrote:

>>>> On Monday, May 16, LaRocca wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/22 13:22, tedw wrote:

>>>>>> On Monday, May 16, LaRocca wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 11:34, tedw wrote:

>>>>>> LaRocca, don't you realize some people's feelings are hurt by
>>>>>> the Bible? Don't you care about that?

>>>>> They need to quit being babies, just like a lot of Christians are
>>>>> when you hurt their feelings.

>>>> You don't understand LaRocca. They are SENSITIVE alcoholics.

>>> Hey, Ted. Did the doc make a recent adjustment to your medication?

>> Stop it. You are hurting my feelings.

> I gotta admit....That made me laugh.

Me too! Another sign of end times. :)

[Dexter]

-----------------------------
Ohh, Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. You are oozing hypocrisy from every pore of
your being. And you've been doing it for so long you can't even smell the
stench anymore. In addition, you are deaf to your own words.

You claim "the 'modern language' editors will be a bunch of flamiing
queers"
and when called out on it you whine "but, but I have gay friends." I'm not
buying it. It wasn't too long ago that same lame plaint was used by those
denigrating a different population segment. You couldn't be more
transparent.
And it ain't fooling anyone here.

By the way, if "none of these homosexuals feel the need to flaunt their

sexual identities in people's faces or demand a certain type of treatment

by others" then why are you even making the accusation? You seem
very fearful, confused and paranoid.

As for your kids needing AA in the future, that would indeed be
unfortunate,
but not to worry, if you raised them right they're likely to be just as
narrow
minded and rigidly tribal as you are. Perhaps AA will help them gain a bit
more insight to themselves and tolerance for others than it has managed
to do for you.

[tedw]

The sad part Dexter is that Christ died for your sins and you are rejecting it, even mocking it. All you have to do is admit your life style is sinful, experience the sadness and sorrow of repentance, believe and receive his love and forgiveness.....but God does not force that on anyone.

[Robert Dye]

Ted, seeing as you have touched more males' privates than the vast majority of men, mebbe you should go sit down and contemplate that.

[tedw]

I wonder why a Catholic Priest would write something like that. If I had to guess, I would say he is trying to hurt somebody deliberately. The last time I checked that is NOT living the Christian life.

I have received the forgiveness of Christ which is sufficient for All sin. And I did not have to go to a Catholic Priest to receive it. Only God and Christ (who was granted the authority to forgive sin by God) can do that.

If I was you , I would contemplate why you (who claim to a Christian) would want to try and hurt people.

[Robert Dye]

Ted, you were part of a group that committed a sexual assault, and you were the guy with the lit cigarette.

That indicates something far more serious than drug addiction or "youthful high-spirits." As near as I can tell, the way you deal with having encountered such sociopathic ulliness within yourself is by turning that ugliness outward, going after immigrants and homosexuals.

I really doubt that strategy is going to do it for you. Maybe your self-absolution will take care of it.

Maybe it will. Good luck with that.

I still think a lot more introspection (and counseling) is in order.

[Robert Dye]

(Besides which, I have repented and received forgiveness, so any hurt to *you* is immaterial, right?)

[tedw]

Your meanness does not hurt me, it only hurts you. I overlooked your desire to hurt and don't judge. I am forgiven as I forgive (let go) so it works to my benefit, probably you don't understand that but it is in the Lord's Prayer.

And no , I don't think you are sorry. In some strange way, I think you have convinced yourself you are doing some kind of good.

When children are cruel to others , it is because others have been cruel to them (frequently abuse from their own parents). They have no other choice really but to hate and they become like what they hate. That is how evil is passed from one generation to the next.

Receiving God's forgiveness is not "self -absolution" as you like to put it. It is a profound spiritual experience.

Apparently, you think I need introspection and counseling. As if over the past 55 years I have not had that. You do not know what level of introspection and counseling I have had, so how would you know what I need?.
From the things you post and how you act, I can see you really don't have much deep understanding about things including alcoholism. I feel sorry for anybody that would go to you for "counseling".

As far as introspection, I submit you need some. You do not act much like a Christian, and somebody should tell you that.

[Socrates]

On 5/18/2022 8:03 AM, Robert Dye wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, tedw judged the Padre thus:

>> If I was you , I would contemplate why you (who claim to a Christian) would want
>> to try and hurt people.

> Ted, you were part of a group that committed a sexual assault, and you were the guy
> with the lit cigarette. That indicates something far more serious than drug addiction
> or "youthful high-spirits."

> As near as I can tell, the way you deal with having encountered such sociopathic ugliness

> within yourself is by turning that ugliness outward, going after immigrants and homosexuals.

Astute assessment.

> I really doubt that strategy is going to do it for you. Maybe your self-absolution will
> take care of it.
>
> Maybe it will. Good luck with that.
>
> I still think a lot more introspection (and counseling) is in order.

Morning line on that the same as Trump: 1000 to 1.

[Dexter]

> > to you is immaterial, right?)

>
> Your meanness does not hurt me, it only hurts you. I overlooked your
> desire to hurt and don't judge. I am forgiven as I forgive (let go) so
> it works to my benefit, probably you don't understand that but it is in
> the Lord's Prayer.
>
> And no , I don't think you are sorry. In some strange way, I think you
> have convinced yourself you are doing some kind of good.
>
> When children are cruel to others , it is because others have been cruel
> to them (frequently abuse from their own parents). They have no other
> choice really but to hate and they become like what they hate. That is
> how evil is passed from one generation to the next.
>
> Receiving God's forgiveness is not "self -absolution" as you like to put
> it. It is a profound spiritual experience.
>
> Apparently, you think I need introspection and counseling. As if over the
> past 55 years I have not had that. You do not know what level of
> introspection and counseling I have had, so how would you know what I
> need?. From the things you post and how you act, I can see you really
> don't have much deep understanding about things including alcoholism. I
> feel sorry for anybody that would go to you for "counseling".
>
> As far as introspection, I submit you need some. You do not act much like
> a Christian, and somebody should tell you that.

-----------------------------

Oh, I think Rob has your number, Teddy, just as I do and everyone else here
as well. You've conveniently forgiven yourself but society would demand
atonement in the form of prison time. That might explain the convenient
route you've taken.

You'd find yourself deemed the vile scum at the bottom of the social order
in prison. Serial murderers, theives, rapists - the worst of the worst in
prison
would look down their noses at you. And they'd seek retribution for the
child
you assaulted sexually. No, prison wouldn't treat you well. But you'd get
what
you deserve.

You should hope that God *doesn't* exist because it might not be as
forgiving
as you would like it to be.

[Robert Dye]

Ted, your definition of "a Christian" included "someone who denies the divinity of Jesus."

If you are a Christian, I'm not. If I am, you are not.

Our beliefs are too different to both fit under that name.

[tedw]

You mean to say I have not accepted the false man made church doctrine that Jesus is God. No, I don't. Divine in the sense he is the Son of God , born of a virgin birth, and the savior of the Human race and messiah. Yes, I accept that.

Yes, I would agree, you are a false Christian.

[Socrates]

On 5/18/2022 6:19 PM, Robert Dye wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 11:22:32 AM UTC-5, tedw wrote:

>> Your meanness does not hurt me, it only hurts you. I overlooked your desire
>> to hurt and don't judge. I am forgiven as I forgive (let go) so it works to
>> my benefit, probably you don't understand that but it is in the Lord's Prayer.
>>

>> And no, I don't think you are sorry. In some strange way, I think you have

>> convinced yourself you are doing some kind of good.
>>

>> When children are cruel to others, it is because others have been cruel to

>> them (frequently abuse from their own parents). They have no other choice really
>> but to hate and they become like what they hate. That is how evil is passed from
>> one generation to the next.
>>
>> Receiving God's forgiveness is not "self -absolution" as you like to put it. It is
>> a profound spiritual experience.
>>
>> Apparently, you think I need introspection and counseling. As if over the past 55
>> years I have not had that. You do not know what level of introspection and counseling
>> I have had, so how would you know what I need?
>>

>> From the things you post and how you act, I can see you really don't have much deep
>> understanding about things including alcoholism. I feel sorry for anybody that would
>> go to you for "counseling".
>>
>> As far as introspection, I submit you need some. You do not act much like a Christian,
>> and somebody should tell you that.

> Ted, your definition of "a Christian" included "someone who denies the divinity of Jesus."
>
> If you are a Christian, I'm not. If I am, you are not.
>
> Our beliefs are too different to both fit under that name.

Teddy is a complex persona. Kinda like an alcoholic in denial. He
projects his untreated childhood abandonment issues into delusions of
spiritual grandeur and superiority, imagining himself parenting fully
functional adults who are clearly better adapted and successful in the
game of life.

Not that big of a deal if it's just a phase but he's been stuck on this
merry go round for years without ever being able to see what is plain as
day. Introspect is just never possible with some folks. "So it goes."

Tune in tomorrow for another recital. And the next day. And....

[Robert Dye]

Good on you, Ted!

You should write a book refuting Augustine, Aquinas, et cetera.

I'm sure your arguments would be compelling, and you would convert huge numbers of people of good will to your truth. Their lives, the Church, and the world in general would be vastly improved by the wide acceptance of your Teaching.

It almost seems selfish and irresponsible that you don't do that very thing.

Hmmmmm.

[badgolferman]

>>and received forgiveness, so any hurt to you is immaterial, right?)

Maybe there are degrees of Christianity, much like there are degrees of
sin.

[tedw]

Do I need to do that?

The Catholic Church council of Sirmium in 357 already did that.

During the 4th century Pope Liberius signed the formula of Sirmium in which he asserted that God the Father was greater than God the Son .

So it was a legitimate Church Council and the Pope Liberius signed on to it. That is correct is it not?

Are you going to try and deny that?

[badgolferman]

God the Son? Does that still make him God?

[tedw]

The Greatest Commandment
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

YOU ARE RIGHT IN SAYING GOD IS ONE AND THERE IS NO OTHER BUT HIM.

[badgolferman]

tedw wrote:

>YOU ARE RIGHT IN SAYING GOD IS ONE AND THERE IS NO OTHER BUT HIM.

tedw, you read passages too literally and without awareness of the
entire meaning. There are back stories within the New Testament
related to the Old Testament. Regardless of your insistence otherwise,
the Nicene Creed is the defining statement of belief for mainstream
Christianity. Jesus is considered divine and equal to God the Father.
Until you go the route of Martin Luther and get the authorities to
change their statement of belief then you're just pissing in the wind.
And ARAA has some rather strong windbags too...

[Sharx335]

Mortal vs venial?

[tedw]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:20:06 AM UTC-7, badgolferman wrote:

Trinitarian teaching is that Jesus is God and that he is Equal to God.

The Nicene Creed states that Jesus is “consubstantial with the Father.” This means that Jesus is one in substance with the Father, having full possession of the one divine nature and thus equal to the Father.
***********************
The problem is that Jesus himself sad that is not true. One Church council said it was not true, others said it was? Why? The politics of the moment frankly. If the Roman Emperor was an Arian (their word for it); it was the in thing. If the Roman Emperor was not an Arian it could be quite dangerous to your physical safety. The Trinitarians won the debate in 380 when Emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica " It condemned other Christian creeds such as Arianism as heresies of "foolish madmen," and authorized their punishment.[5]"

In other words, " Believe as I want you to believe or off with your head". That worked and is how Mainstream Christian Trinitarism become dominant.

Thanks for asking. Now you know why you believe Jesus is God.

[tedw]

Your quite right about that. "Christians" in general do not like being told their belief is wrong and are loathe to admit it. It is quite distressing to them to admit something they have believed for years and decades is off base.

People have been burned at the stake for doing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

Loving Christians are frequently not very loving when you tell them the truth.

[tedw]

I don't think I do that at all. Cite one example.

[Robert Dye]

Nice try.

I did a little refresher.

Liberius was "compelled" by Empreror Constantius to "favor" the Arian position. By compelled, read "imprisoned," or "tortured," or "outright-forged."

Anything from this period is piss-poor evidence for your position.

[badgolferman]

tedw wrote:

>Loving Christians are frequently not very loving when you tell them
>the truth.

Assuming you die and go to Heaven, and when you arrive you're greeted
by Jesus sitting in the big chair, will you argue with him that he
should move to the right hand chair?

[tedw]

That won't happen.

[tedw]

"It is true that Liberius returned soon after this, but Emperor Constantius had made it the condition of his return that he should sign the decisions of the Council of Milan. Two years' sojourn in cold and barbarous Thrace, while a rival bishop was enjoying the splendors of the episcopal office in Rome, exerted a strong tendency to convince Liberius that Athanasius was rightly condemned, and that the Arian doctrine might be true. He therefore signed both the condemnation of Athanasius and the Arian creed of Milan. Upon this Constantius called him to Sirmium. But as in the meantime the emperor had changed his views and adopted the Semi-Arian doctrine, he would not allow Liberius to return to Rome unless he would first subscribe to the same. Liberius signed this also, and was allowed to go on his way to Rome."

Like it not, the Catholic Pope signed on to the Arian Doctrine. He was not tortured.

"Constantius granted his request, and appointed a council to meet at Milan, in the beginning of the year 355.

The council met, accordingly, to the number of more than three hundred bishops of the West, but only a few from the East. This council was but a repetition on a larger scale, of that at Arles. Constantius insisted, without any qualification, that the bishops should sign the condemnation of Athanasius. He took a personal interest in all the proceedings. Like his father at the Council of Nice, he had the meetings of the council held in the imperial palace, and presided over them himself.

Constantius not only demanded that the Catholic bishops should sign the condemnation of Athanasius, but that they should also sign an Arian formula of faith. They pleaded that the accusers of Athanasius were unreliable. Constantius replied, "I myself am now the accuser of Athanasius, and on my word, Valens and the others [the accusers] must be believed." They argued that this was against the canon of the church. Constantius replied, "My will is the canon," and appealed to the Eastern bishops, who all assented that this was correct. He then declared that whoever did not sign might expect banishment. At this the orthodox bishops lifted up their hands beseechingly towards heaven, and prayed the emperor "to fear God, who had given him the dominion, that it might not be taken from him; also to fear the day of judgment, and not to confound the secular power with the law of the church, nor to introduce into the church the Arian heresy." -- Hefele.17

They forgot that they themselves, many of them at least, had unanimously approved in Constantine at the Council of Nice the identical course which now they condemned in Constantius at the Council of Milan. In their approval of the action of Constantine in forcing upon others what they themselves believed, they robbed themselves of the right to protest when Constantius or anybody else should choose to force upon them what somebody else believed. They ought not to have thought it strange that they should reap what they had sown."

As I have said, the position of the Church changed if the Roman Emperor was Arian or not . In the end, the Roman Emperor Theodosius cracked down with force on the Arian position so it became Catholic Doctrine for all time.

So modern day Trinitarians point to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD as the point when the Catholic doctrine became Jesus is God. The truth is more complicated and the official position of the church went back and forth.

So the Nicean Creed of 325 was just one of many Church councils. It eventually won out not by persuasion but by the force of the ROMAN EMPEROR.

The Council of Nicea is from this period of time also and as Rob says is piss poor evidence of anything.

So when Modern Trinitarians say Historical Christianity teaches Jesus is God they are not telling the whole truth

[tedw]

"After what has been said in the foregoing [395] pages, we are prepared to re-assert, in conclusion, that the modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. Letters, art, usage, theology, worship, creed, hymn, chant, doxology, ascription, commemorative rite, and festive observance, so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine, an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the Father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a co-equal Trinity. The cross is there; Christ is there as the Good Shepherd, the Father’s hand placing a crown, or victor’s wreath, on his head; but no undivided Three,—co-equal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin.”[21]"

21] Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries: Notices of the Lives and Opinions of Early Fathers, with Special Reference to The Doctrine of the Trinity; Illustrating Its Late Origin and Gradual Formation, 2nd ed. (Boston: Walker, Fuller, and Company, 1865), p. 396.

So now you know the rest of the story. Refute that Rob.

[Ted H]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:56:52 -0700 (PDT),
tedw <tedwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Loving Christians are frequently not very loving when you tell
> them the truth.

This reminded me of the main points my mother showed me from a
book she read...

There are certain facts of life that we cannot change--the
unavoidable "givens" of human existence:
(1) everything changes and ends,
(2) things do not always go according to plan,
(3) life is not always fair,
(4) pain is a part of life, and
(5) people are not loving and loyal all the time.

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Things-Cannot-Change-Happiness/dp/1590303083

--
Ted H.

[badgolferman]

Which one? You going to Heaven or you telling Jesus he’s not God?

[Dexter]

-----------------------------
Stop it. You're gonna hurt his feelings.

[Robert Dye]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:20:15 PM UTC-5, tedw wrote:
> On
> > > > > > > > > > >
>

> > > > > > > > > Ted, you were part of a group that committed a sexual assault, and you were the guy with the lit cigarette.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That indicates something far more serious than drug addiction or "youthful high-spirits." As near as I can tell, the way you deal with having encountered such sociopathic ulliness within yourself is by
> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I still think a lot more introspection (and counseling) is in order.
> > > > > > > > (Besides which, I have repented and received forgiveness, so any hurt to *you* is immaterial, right?)
> > > > > > > Your meanness does not hurt me, it only hurts you. I overlooked your desire to hurt and don't judge. I am forgiven as I forgive (let go) so it works to my benefit, probably you don't understand that but it is in the Lord's Prayer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And no , I don't think you are sorry. In some strange way, I think you have convinced yourself you are doing some kind of good.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When children are cruel to others , it is because others have been cruel to them (frequently abuse from their own parents). They have no other choice really but to hate and they become like what they hate. That is how evil is passed from one generation to the next.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Receiving God's forgiveness is not "self -absolution" as you like to put it. It is a profound spiritual experience.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Apparently, you think I need introspection and counseling. As if over the past 55 years I have not had that. You do not know what level of introspection and counseling I have had, so how would you know what I need?.
> > > > > > > From the things you post and how you act, I can see you really don't have much deep understanding about things including alcoholism. I feel sorry for anybody that would go to you for "counseling".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as introspection, I submit you need some. You do not act much like a Christian, and somebody should tell you that.
> > > > > >

> > > > You should write a book refuting Augustine, Aquinas, et cetera.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure your arguments would be compelling, and you would convert huge numbers of people of good will to your truth. Their lives, the Church, and the world in general would be vastly improved by the wide acceptance of your Teaching.

correct is it not?
> > >
> > > Are you going to try and deny that?
> > Nice try.
> >
> > I did a little refresher.
> >
> > Liberius was "compelled" by Empreror Constantius to "favor" the Arian position. By compelled, read "imprisoned," or "tortured," or "outright-forged."
> >
> > Anything from this period is piss-poor evidence for your position.
> "It is true that Liberius returned soon after this, but Emperor Constantius had made it the condition of his return that he should sign the decisions of the Council of Milan. Two years' sojourn in cold and barbarous Thrace, while a rival bishop was enjoying the splendors of the episcopal office in Rome, exerted a strong tendency to convince Liberius that Athanasius was rightly condemned, and that the Arian doctrine might be true. He therefore signed both the condemnation of Athanasius and the Arian creed of Milan. Upon this Constantius called him to Sirmium. But as in the meantime the emperor had changed his views and adopted the Semi-Arian doctrine, he would not allow Liberius to return to Rome unless he would first subscribe to the same. Liberius signed this also, and was allowed to go on his way to Rome."
>
> Like it not, the Catholic Pope signed on to the Arian Doctrine. He was not tortured.
>
> "Constantius granted his request, and appointed a council to meet at Milan, in the beginning of the year 355.
>
> The council met, accordingly, to the number of more than three hundred bishops of the West, but only a few from the East. This council was but a repetition on a larger scale, of that at Arles. Constantius insisted, without any qualification, that the bishops should sign the condemnation of Athanasius. He took a personal interest in all the proceedings. Like his father at the Council of Nice, he had the meetings of the council held in the imperial palace, and presided over them himself.
>
> Constantius not only demanded that the Catholic bishops should sign the condemnation of Athanasius, but that they should also sign an Arian formula of faith. They pleaded that the accusers of Athanasius were unreliable. Constantius replied, "I myself am now the accuser of Athanasius, and on my word, Valens and the others [the accusers] must be believed." They argued that this was against the canon of the church. Constantius replied, "My will is the canon," and appealed to the Eastern bishops, who all assented that this was correct. He then declared that whoever did not sign might expect banishment. At this the orthodox bishops lifted up their hands beseechingly towards heaven, and prayed the emperor "to fear God, who had given him the dominion, that it might not be taken from him; also to fear the day of judgment, and not to confound the secular power with the law of the church, nor to introduce into the church the Arian heresy." -- Hefele.17
>
> They forgot that they themselves, many of them at least, had unanimously approved in Constantine at the Council of Nice the identical course which now they condemned in Constantius at the Council of Milan. In their approval of the action of Constantine in forcing upon others what they themselves believed, they robbed themselves of the right to protest when Constantius or anybody else should choose to force upon them what somebody else believed. They ought not to have thought it strange that they should reap what they had sown."
>
> As I have said, the position of the Church changed if the Roman Emperor was Arian or not . In the end, the Roman Emperor Theodosius cracked down with force on the Arian position so it became Catholic Doctrine for all time.
>
> So modern day Trinitarians point to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD as the point when the Catholic doctrine became Jesus is God. The truth is more complicated and the official position of the church went back and forth.
>
> So the Nicean Creed of 325 was just one of many Church councils. It eventually won out not by persuasion but by the force of the ROMAN EMPEROR.
>
> The Council of Nicea is from this period of time also and as Rob says is piss poor evidence of anything.

That is most assuredly ***not** what I said.

You have chosen to argue in bad faith and distort statements.

Moreover, you reject the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John.

Dialogue with you is a waste of time.

[tedw]

'Moreover, you reject the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John." ----

You , Sir, are a liar. I do not reject the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John. It is now a known fact that John 1:1 is not an accurate translate. The New English Bible has corrected the translation and it is endorsed by many Churches. If you were a honest man, you would say "Yes, it has been mistranslated". The United Stated Conference of Catholic Bishop Bible mistranslates it. Here is your opportunity to stand up for what is right and say "Yes, it is mistranslated"

I have made a video which explains it here: https://youtu.be/nxg7sm2QHHc

I predict you will not stand up for what is right. You will either 1) deny the truth of what I am saying even though many Bible experts agree 2) Ignore what I am saying as a waste of time.

If you have Integrity, you will admit I am making an excellent point. Integrity is Faith. So the question I put to you sir , is do you have the integrity and faith to do what is right?

Whatever you choose to do, know this: God is watching.

[badgolferman]

tedw <tedwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 'Moreover, you reject the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John." ----
>
> You , Sir, are a liar. I do not reject the first chapter of the Gospel of
> St. John. It is now a known fact that John 1:1 is not an accurate
> translate. The New English Bible has corrected the translation and it is
> endorsed by many Churches. If you were a honest man, you would say "Yes,
> it has been mistranslated".

Which of these is your version?

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%201%3A1

[Robert Dye]

You are such a goof.

First off: While the NEB may be fine for ease of reading and proclamation, it is a paraphrase version.

Fine for the already stated purpose, but not anything a serious scholar would rely upon for doctrinal analysis.

That aside, even if we *did* settle on that translation as "authoritative for meaning," the very first verses say:

"1WHEN ALL THINGS BEGAN,
the Word already was.
The Word dwelt with God,
and what God was, the Word was."


So by the version *you* cherry-picked, "God" and "The Word" (The Logos," obviously the Christ, the Messiah, quite obviously Jesus if one reads above a first-grade level) is "what God was."

But this is not a true past-tense, where God or the "Word" have gone from being something at one time to being something else.

Rather, the text is asserting their "sameness." (In Catholic expression, they are "consubstantial," which you reject.)

To hold to your position, you have to reject the text you claim supports your position.

You. Are. A. Goof.

[SMDH]

I'm done, Ted. You are not worth it.