steveorino

Check this out for an incomplete list of early Christian writings that are verifiable by non-christian scholars. These scholars may deny the validity of what these writers wrote, but they do not deny they were written. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ probably 60-70 biblical scholars from the six universities I have attended. And another 10-12 as personal friends from other organizations. No, the main criteria that made a doctrine accepted a canon was the universality of its acceptance. It was the fringe doctrines that got rejected. The trinity was universally accepted from the writer of "Q" to Paul all the way to Tertullian and Origin steveOrino

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Matthew 7:23 steveOrino

Maybe. When Christians during crusades were doing "deliberate and systematic destruction of a cultural group", the Christian church was not only okay with that, but actively supported it. THAT says a lot about YOUR morality doesn't it? steveOrino

the writings of the early Christian fathers are facts (unless yoiu are a HairyJuan who believes they didn't exist either) Justin Martyr 150 AD Irenaeus 180AD Tertullian 200 AD they all wrote about the trinity. No scholar I know of denies what they wrote. the Council of Nicea was a meeting that united orthodox teachings and ruled out uncanonical writings. So their decison to include the trinity as part of the orthodox christian doctrines, was not a "new" idea, but simply a recognition, or in other words, approval of previous teachings that were very old. steveOrino

Because - unlike gay marriage or abortion - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is considered unacceptable in the society I live. So if you lived in one of those societies that thought genocide was morally okay, you be okay with it too? steveOrino

Wikipedia, the controversial online encyclopedia, is planning to ask its army of faceless Internet editors — known as Wikipedians — to verify their credentials after one of the most prolific of their number was exposed as a fraud. The online reference work was dealt a serious blow last week as it emerged that EssJay, a Wikipedia editor understood by the site and its users to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law, was in fact a 24-year-old from Kentucky called Ryan Jordan with no higher educational qualifications to speak of. steveOrino

Seems like you haven't read this for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity The trinity concept itself is "separated and united" :P Find me ONE academic professor who would allow Wikipedia as a vaild source. I do not consider [Wikipedia] to be an appropriate source for use in academic work. — Robert Rubin, Wright State University Relying on the Wikipedia for academic research seems a sloppy and negligent way to work. — Wayne Bivens-Tatum, Princeton University I would advise teachers not to accept any student essays that use Wikipedia as a source. — Paul Axelrod, Dean of York University Wikipedia is not getting better. It is getting worse. ... Wikipedia is unacceptable as a research tool. — Ken Friedman, Norwegian School of Management The important point that we wish to communicate to all students taking courses and submitting work in our department in the future is that they cite Wikipedia at their peril. — Don Wyatt, History Chair, Middlebury "Q" earliest gospel circulated 40 AD Epistles of Paul 50-65 AD Gospel writers (1st century) Justin Martyr 150 AD Irenaeus 180 AD Tertullian 200 AD All of them write about the trinity as doctrinal fact. The Council Nicaea only put all theories and doctrines together as one. It was a doctrine of the church from the beginning. steveOrino

Why do you say genocide is wrong? steveOrino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Elohim Despite the -im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God is grammatically singular, and takes a singular verb in the Hebrew Bible. That is because the triune God is one. steveOrino

So in your opinion we have two separate gods (the Father and the Son)? You have no clue about the doctrine of the trinity do you? steveOrino

Watching the Jetsons only means I am old, not a nerd. Everyone watched them back in the 60s steveOrino

A laudable goal, but more accuracy will never be perfect accuracy; and without perfect accuracy, some small percentage of innocent people will inevitably be convicted. Society should never accept the abomination of executing an innocent person as the cost of doing business. To me, that's reason enough not to have the death penalty. I understand your viewpoint. I really do. And I'm leaning more that way, but when I hear of such cases as cited in the original post it leads me to believe there are cases where CP is worthy. steveOrino

Would you support a moratorium until your lobbying is succesful, or would you prefer to let a flawed system continue with executions in the meantime? I'd use it for the cut and dry cases as few as they may be. steveOrino

No, not to all. Luke 8:8b-10 When he said this, he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand. steveOrino

My thoughts too! Meet the Jetsons! steveOrino

The early Christian fathers writing about the trinity in 100 AD to 250 AD obviously proved the doctrine of the trinity was not added after 325 CE!! My argument is not whether the doctrine of the trinity is true; I believe it is, but none the less, my argument is your assertion that it was added after 325 CE is 100% completely bogus and 100% verifiable as false. The fact you will not admit that makes it easier to see how ridiculous your claims about JC not existing are. steveOrino

While i disagree with that I certainly support your right to lobby for your convictions. I'd prefer to lobby for a system that would make the judicail process more accurate. steveOrino

Sounds like you too found a niche. I love my (part time) job too! steveOrino

In the most extreme cases (child abuse that ends in the death of a child, etc) I'm okay with the death penalty. My opinion is the examples you cite are more a problem with judicial proceedings than the actual sentencing. steveOrino

Damn libs always trying to feed the poor and help the sick with other people's money! Fixed it for you! steveOrino

My history book speaks of genocide and the book is not immoral. The Bible is not immoral. I believe many acts of the Hebrews were immoral. EDITED to ADD: Can the Bible be a moral guide when parts may not be accurately attributed to God? Truth is truth regardless of who says it. The judgment of God is not an immoral act. IMHO any more than the death penalty for a child abuser steveOrino

And this must be my fault? No God did not give that order. Israel wrote their history in hindsight Why did they continually have problems with Canaanites? Disobeying a command from God to commit genocide would have made sense to them for the reason they continued to be harassed by the Caananites. steveOrino

I think the Jews wrote their history while in babylonian captivity from oral traditions. I believe they attributed many things to God that fit with their worldview steveOrino

Then who did Nero blame? steveOrino

Another example of a lib desiring the governemnt to do what individuals should do on their own. "It takes a village .... blah, bla, blah " Don't get your panties all in a wad. I was only referring to your idealogy about feeding the poor. You are a lib when it comes to that. steveOrino