georgerussia

So why not compare them using the same criteria as you mentioned before! There is no difference, as the monster cannot be disproven so therefor he is likely to exist. I don't understand your point. Before recent progress in medicine the people believed that a disease is result of your sins or someone's sorcery. They believed in in even before JC was born. Does it make this claim more valid? Slavery was widespread before 18-19 centuries, and obviously existed before JC was born; does it mean that it is good? No. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You just mentioned that Christians should lobby to prevent others from doing things Christians religion considers immoral. This is exactly the same - basically you are saying that everyone, including non-Christians, should behave according to your beliefs. I was born in a country where all the religions were very restricted. Now I can say for sure it definitely was not a bad thing. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

First, I don't see any credentials from an academic professor which would consider this resource valid. Could you show it please? Second, you missed the most important questions 2 and 3: Could you please provide appropriate academical evidence, which a non-- religious academic professor would allow as valid, to prove the following: - that they did wrote about trinity, and nobody else wrote about other theories. - who has an authority to create new doctrines, and adopt them into church teaching? Was any of those fathers such an authority at that time? I'd say 12 (and even 70) scholars is kinda low number to make your phrase "No scholar I know of denies what they wrote." an evidence. This is simply not true; there are other doctrines (I even mentioned Unitarianism), which are also universally acceptable. As I said before, there is NO clear definition of such a doctrine in the Bible - so the difference between those doctrines again is really based on interpretation made by humans. Who are not perfect, and could make mistakes. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Hmm.. need to ensure that my any route tomorrow goes no closer than six blocks to any Starbucks. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Is it your own experience, or you heard about it from your friend (who heard about it from someone else)? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So could you tell me where in SF could I see people who are forcing other people to act according to their beliefs? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I have no idea what you are talking about. Living ~40 miles from SF, we go there almost every week. So far nobody forced us to do anything. What were you forced to do? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

What are you talking about? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And so? Unlike you Christians I do not force anyone to follow my morality. I don't even vote to ban the religion even though some of Christian _actions_ included things which are considered completely immoral today. But it looks like I can regret someday about not being more active than having a "Keep your Jesus off my home" sign outside. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Could you please provide appropriate academical evidence, which a non-- religious academic professor would allow as valid, to prove the following: - that those writing did exist at that time, and contained the information you allege they contain; - that they did wrote about trinity, and nobody else wrote about other theories. - who has an authority to create new doctrines, and adopt them into church teaching? Was any of those fathers such an authority at that time? And how many scholars do you know? So basically what we can say is: - there were different previous teaching, not only trinity. For example from Judaism. There obviously were others; - some of them (like trinity) were recognized and included into doctrine, and the rest were not; - before the teaching was approved, nobody considered it as being true. - this means that the trinity doctrine did not exist as a doctrine before approval. ? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

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. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yeap, I completely agree that this boring porn sucks. As soon as somebody showed his dick you know what to expect for the next 15 minutes. (so far I've seen only about 30 exceptions, with the "Corruption" was the last) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'm the little Jew who wrote the Bible. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It doesn't matter what you believe in. It matters whether do you want to force others to act according to your beliefs. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

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. If I lived in Nazi Germany in 1939, I might not say that. After all, the God did it several times, and Jesus said nothing about it being wrong. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If you actually READ the article, you would see that it just quotes the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible. So what was your point? Are you saying that no professor would accept Oxford Dictionary of the Bible as a valid source? Why did you waste your time blaming Wikipedia (and missing the whole point this way) instead of just showing your arguments? You are saying the quote from Oxford Dictionary is wrong; could you show any counter-arguments? Obviously please choose those a non-religious academic professor would allow as valid. NEITHER of them contains any direct proof regarding trinity doctrine. Some passages in the Bible could be interpreted this way. But they could be interpreted different way as well. Ask any Unitarian, and he'll prove you this. So the facts are: - there is nothing in the Bible talking about Trinity doctrine directly. The doctrine itself is based on the interpretations of the Bible; - there are no facts that Trinity doctrine existed before 325, but there are facts that it was created at this time. If you have different facts, which are academically acceptable - please show us it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, that's because their God is not triune. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There were talks about having a mandatory separate landing area for swoopers after those fatalities in December; just wonder whether it happened/gonna happen? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

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 The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by the church of the biblical data, thrashed out in debate and treatises, eventually formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD in a way they believe is consistent with the biblical witness, and further refined in later councils and writings. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is correct. The book itself cannot be immoral, because the whole concept of morality belongs to society, not to the book. And the concept changes while the book stays intact. However someone actually following or asking other to follow the immoral writings does commit immoral acts. Therefore if you do all the things Bible says it is good to do, you will not only commit immoral, but also illegal acts. But if you start choosing what to do and what not to do, you are not following the Bible anymore - you're following your own understanding of what to do. This is correct when talking about something which is known to be true. However it does not work when we cannot know and prove whether it is true, and therefore it is subject to belief, and it is based on person knowledge and reliability. Sure, if someone says 2+2=4, his level of knowledge does not matter. However if someone says 2+2=5, it really depends whether it is said by full professor of mathematics (who is likely to know something you do not know), or by a 2nd grade student (who probably didn't do his homework). The definition of phrase "immoral act" itself is subjective, and depends on person. This means that it not "immoral act" itself, it is just you do not treat it as an immoral act. Which means nothing to anyone else though. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

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. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So in your opinion we have two separate gods (the Father and the Son)? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

For example, JC first said it's ok let children who curse their parents to die. Then he said "do not kill". Does it include children who cursed their parents, or not? And the funniest one, regarding divorce: Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (so if a man divorces and gets married again, he commits an adultery) Matt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (so if a man divorces and gets married again, he does not commit an adultery if it was the "cause of fornication") So which one is correct? Just as a reminder, the Bible penalty for adultery is death for both participants (Lev 20:10), so right choice is important. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So you're basically saying that if anythng JC said _later_ in the Bible contradicts with what JC said before, he is correcting/expanding his (or someone's teaching), right? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Sorry, not from Bush. Am I the only one who sees the irony in this statement? And a lot of people in Russia wish he wouldn't - at least he is not stealing government money for his friends/family members like previous president did. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *