by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,1982,1992,2002,2012,2022,2032,204. . .2,5072,508»

American antartica

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:
You must distinguish what is essential (and I mean that in a more philosophical sense) from what is secondary or accidental or even consequential.  The suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, and his atonement and redemption of mankind, is the Good News of the Gospel.  It doesn't get more essential.  The apostles and evangelists make this point clear, as do the creeds of the church and its traditions. 

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and was buried.  He descended into hell.  On the third day he rose again from the dead.

That's 1/3 of the earliest Christian deceleration of faith outside of scripture. 

Obviously there are other aspects, traditions, practices, and teachings to the Christian faith, but they all hinge upon this essential facts.  The Old Testament was fulfilled in the life, teachings, and passion of Christ and the New Testament follows from it.  As the scripture from Paul quoted above clearly states, Christian faith is useless with Christ's resurrection.  He makes this point later on as well when he describes Christ as the New Adam.  It's not like the symbol of the fish or praying hands are wrong, but they are certainly meaningless if the faith they are rooted in is meritless.  I suggest On the Incarnation: http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf
Of course Paul does also pretty directly confront your position when he says that Christ crucified is "a stumbling-block to the Jews, and folly to the Gentiles." 


I do not think is qualifies as an obsession.  Pagans (Aztecs, Mithras, Baal, Molech, etc.) certainly were obsessed with those things, but Christ supplanted this. As Thomas Aquinas so beautifully puts it:
Lo! o'er ancient forms departing
Newer rites of grace prevail


That's not to say these things completely disappear, rather they are uprooted, transplanted, and transformed: God did not desire blood, but charity and faith, now made fully possible by Christ's spotless, complete and total sacrifice, his death, and his blood (and body).  Christ clearly insists that we must drink his blood and eat his flesh ("Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.  Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day").  He is also clearly the Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world (in other words: the pure sacrifice), as John so pointedly tells the first disciples when he walks by and so clearly revealed by John in his narrative of the passion (his death and his sacrifice).  These things are essential to Christian teaching and belief, even essential to the very teachings of Christ, not obsessions.  Like so many other things, the Christian faith pulls the symbolism and mythical radiance from the pagan and Hebraic history of sacrifice and myths about dying gods and entirely changes them meaning into something real. 

Imagine a painter loves His paintings so much that when bandits come to burn them He dies in defense of them.

Now think about this: Jesus defeated His enemies. Who were His enemies? Did He conquer Rome? Did He slaughter those who didn't believe in Him? No.

The enemy He defeated was the devil. Jesus has defeated sin and death. It is as if Jesus as reached out a hand to save us from the abyss. What we need to do? Grab His hand. We need to follow Him and live Holy lives.

He rose from the dead on the third day. Death troubles the people of God no longer. Praise be to God!

The pagans went about capturing victims and slaughtering them essentially saying, "This is your body given up to me and this idol." Very much so this more describes those who crucified Jesus than Jesus or His followers.

Truthfully Jesus says to us, "This is my body given up for you."

A pagan sacrifice is one of forcing a subject to die for your benefit. The Christian sacrifice? To sacrifice yourself willingly like Christ did, even in day to day things. Sacrifice a bit for another person.

The Christian sacrifice is willing to good of the other, love in other words, as defined by Christianity. The pagan sacrifice is to steal, to rob, to bring death upon another so that you may have whatever worldly thing it is you want.

American antartica wrote:A pagan sacrifice is one of forcing a subject to die for your benefit. The Christian sacrifice? To sacrifice yourself willingly like Christ did, even in day to day things. Sacrifice a bit for another person.

The Christian sacrifice is willing to good of the other, love in other words, as defined by Christianity. The pagan sacrifice is to steal, to rob, to bring death upon another so that you may have whatever worldly thing it is you want.

It's a common Christian linguistic quirk to divide the world into "Pagan" and "Christian", often while capitalising one and not the other.

Said approach often has little understanding or research into what Paganism is, or represents.

It also implies "Christian = correct worldview, pagan = other worldviews."

I expect this is offensive to Pagans, but is also simultaneously rude to pretty much all non-Christians.

Anyway, regarding the idea of self-sacrifice as the path to enlightenment, I don't think Christians can lay claim to that one.

In Norse mythology Odin sacrificed himself to himself, and gained power and wisdom by doing so. Indeed, he hanged himself on the Tree of Life for nine days and nine nights, to gain knowledge of the runes and the other worlds. In fact, the whole mythos of a divine figure offering himself up as a sacrifice may have leaked into early Christian ideas, as indeed have many other Norse traditions. Of course, it's actually harder to read than that, because Norse mythology was primarily transmitted in the oral tradition, with little in the way of runic records and original poems. Its entirely possible that the way we recall the Odin myth now is filtered through the subsequent conversion of those peoples to Christianity, and the reframing of older myths through Christian ideas.

Another example of self-sacrifice can be found in the Olympics, which were thought to originally be a dedication to the Gods, where the physical exertions were a direct oblation to the gods. Exercise to this extreme was literally seen as self-punishment, sacrificing your own body's pain in honour of the gods.

Likewise, I think the Christian idea of selfless behaviour -- noble as it is -- cannot be said to be originated with Christianity, and certainly isn't unique to Christianity. In fact, selflessness is a core message in almost every successful religion, which makes sense when you think about it -- a mindset of working for the greater good is necessary for the formation of any community or organisation.

The Sikhs have seva. Shian Ismailism has nazrana.

To take an example, look at the direct antecedent to Christianity, which is Judaism, which has gemiult hasidim, acts of loving kindness, which are actions done without wish for material reward, and given for the sake of a reward in heaven.

Finally, as an atheist and humanist, I'd note that the truest selflessness comes when you do good things for no reward at all, not even in heaven. A humanist who does something good in secret and who receives no reward on this earth or the next is one who is making the ultimate expression of altruism. These actions can, of course, simply derive from self-satisfaction, though also can be undertaken even at personal cost and when negative self-consequences emerge, thanks to the societal constructs and implied social contracts we place within our own minds -- as Scanlon would say what we owe to each other.

So I think, in summary, to be good because you are Christian is a fine thing. But never assume that others -- be they Jew, atheist, Muslim or indeed Pagan -- are less inclined to self-sacrifice or selflessness simply because they are NOT Christian.

As an moral atheist I'd always encourage others to be good for whatever reasons they find to be good, as there's a strong consequentialist argument that the overall outcome is what matters. Perhaps not to the degree of "the ends always justify the means", but rather in the sense of accepting that good people exist within all religions.

United massachusetts and Slavic lechia

First And Only Archive wrote:It's a common Christian linguistic quirk to divide the world into "Pagan" and "Christian", often while capitalising one and not the other.

Said approach often has little understanding or research into what Paganism is, or represents.

It also implies "Christian = correct worldview, pagan = other worldviews."

I expect this is offensive to Pagans, but is also simultaneously rude to pretty much all non-Christians.

(All the non-quoted parts of this post I liked and didn't feel the need to address)

The distinction between "christian and pagan" is way more complicated and changes from one denomination to the other and is also different for catholics and orthodox... Assuming this stance is actually a theological argument. I have said many times that entering a theological debate with a theological stance is the opposite of what atheists should do. Just like assuming a definition of faith, or what the other person means by it, the same is for pagan and christian definition.

I have met many non-christians who were not offended by being called pagan, even when not capitalized and it's a common consensus that all abrahamic religions are not pagan, as they are abrahamic. This includes also mazdan religions, because of Cyrus the II... It's complicated, but let's not get into that, since Mazdan religions are few and non-expansive, so let's leave it at that and not even try to get into Manicheanism which litterally is both Mazdan and abrahamic...

For a christian correct worldview is indeed christian view. For a muslim it is islam and so on. There is really no reason to use this as any form of argument or point that out in any way. It's the same as saying "you think you are right and all who think otherwise are wrong"... It is always the case with anyone, unless they get convinced or change their mind. This argument was literally pointless...

I did a lot of research into my own local paganism, which is slavic paganism. There are tons of things in the slavic mythology which is shared with Christianity, including trinity. There is literally a diety which is trinity itself and that diety kills itself to create the world and other gods... Let's not get into that. The lack of understanding certain pagan mythologies, or religions comes from the fact they are rarely believed in. Most see learning about them as useless just like learning a dead language. Obviously not everyone who uses latin as an example knows enough latin to actually explain how it formed or changed or even use it in a conversation, but that's just another normal thing. People make examples from things they don't always know a lot about and it's fine as long as you're not teaching it. In a regular conversation a person with a lot of knowledge on the topic is not respected and is usually seen as boring, stubborn or cocky (I know from experience).

La france bonapartiste wrote:

I just feel like these interpretations have strayed too far from the actual Bible and evolved into something unrecognizable.......
Religion should be based on a personal relationship with God, and the more levels of complexity and ritual you put between yourself and the Divine, the further away, in my opinion, you become from Him. All you really need is yourself and God.

I haven't been able to jump into this-have not had the time for a full debate recently-but I wanted to comment on this at least. To some extent, I get what you're saying, and I concur with some of it, primarily the amount of 'ritual', which is where I have some issues with Catholicism, but I don't agree on the 'complexity'.

As you say, it is about a personal relationship with God, and if you want to have a personal relationship with someone, you want to know them. Especially in a relationship like one has with God without the kind of conversational communication that you would have with another human, it becomes more important than ever to know who you are having a relationship with. A sort of vague connection to a 'God' without any complexities mixed in could be copy-pasted into any other monotheistic religion, or even something New Age, if you do not know His personal characteristics beyond 'supreme being.' Something like the Trinity is absolutely very complicated, but that complexity comes out of a desire to know who God is, so as to have the relationship that you note in a more meaningful way.

In a core human relationship you would want the same, relational intimacy largely comes from learning the deeper things about your partner. In a spiritual relationship, where you cannot converse in the same way, that intimacy comes from study of the Word that we have been given, Scripture, and just like learning more about anything or anyone, that invites complexity, and that complexity is not a bad thing.

United massachusetts

GAH STOP GIVING ME TIES MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.

Much love,
UM

La france bonapartiste wrote:It looks like he edited it before I posted my response.

Yeah, I'm leaning towards agreeing with Al-zariba that some of these things sound blasphemous.

My parents were religious in the broad sense, but they were not church-goers. I come from a family of very independently-minded Protestants, of the mold of Ann Hutchinson (only in the sense that she was a nonconformist). Ergo, I was never instructed in any religious dogma and was more or less self-taught from reading the Bible on my own and doing research here and there. Things like the hypostatic union, trinitarianism, original sin, the Eucharist, transubstantiation, etc., etc. are all things that I didn't know about when I was younger because they are not in the Bible. They all sound illogical to me, and I believe that faith and reason are the only tools you need to read the Bible. Biblical understanding should come from within, not without, and a lot of these concepts that developed over the centuries are so surprising to me, since I only know about them from reading about them online, that I didn't know how little I have in common with the dogmas of most Christian organizations. It's mind-boggling. For instance, it was only when you guys started talking about trinitarianism, Arianism, etc. that I found out I was (I guess) a unitarian by default. Who knew!

I think the above synopsis of your background is helpful in explaining why you're probably running into issues with the people you're dialoging with. Even for our other Protestant members in the region, this is a very "stripped-down", if you will, Christianity. To some, it comes off as not Christian since it doesn't hold to foundational Christian beliefs, as shown in history. Your philosophical framework, in this and later posts you've made, seems to hold more to a rationalist or deistic view. It seems to de-mythologize areas of the historical Christian faith. I say this because it doesn't seem that you've been raised with/held to "standard" Christian doctrines/dogmas. As I pointed out to Phydios, even the Protestantism of the original "Reformers" held to the Seven Ecumenical Councils to some degree. These councils, as verified in history, were the places where the central Christian dogmas were formulated and laid down. So the basic foundations of what makes Christianity what it is were formulated there, including belief in the Trinity and how that's explained, the person and nature of Christ, etc. I would, like others in the region, argue that you do find the Eucharist, original sin, etc. in the Bible but to really get down to defining what these terms and concepts mean you need the historical witness of the Councils, writings of the Christians of the time period, etc. And this produced a lot of controversy and heretical teachings, the Christological heresies and debates being one of the well-known examples.

First And Only Archive wrote:It's a common Christian linguistic quirk to divide the world into "Pagan" and "Christian", often while capitalising one and not the other.

Said approach often has little understanding or research into what Paganism is, or represents.

It also implies "Christian = correct worldview, pagan = other worldviews."

To be clear "christiani" and "pagani" are Latin terms and there is no such thing as "captialization" in Classical Latin. Putting this aside, tt would be rather odd to capitalize pagan even by the norms of standard English. "Christ" is a proper name, as is "Buddha". Pagan comes from "pagani", meaning "countryside-folk" or, colloquially, "country bumpkin". This is certainly an interesting historical fact, reflecting the reality that Christian converts and churches were almost exclusively in the cities and town of the Roman Empire (and Sassanid etc) and, later on, it was in the rural areas that paganism was most resilient. Your argument though is rather bizarre: yes, the whole point of "pagani" was to have a colloquial way of referring to the people who were not part of the Church. If they find the term offensive then why do modern-day "pagans" call themselves "pagans" at all? It is a Christian cultural term.

First And Only Archive wrote:Anyway, regarding the idea of self-sacrifice as the path to enlightenment, I don't think Christians can lay claim to that one.

Who said we did? Some random redneck preacher on youtube? Humbuggery. The claim of the Church and the Christian faith to universality is that the Incarnation and the Gospel are the fulfillment of history, of the philosophers, of the mystics, of all the world's traditions and desires for communion with God and the redemption of humanity. This idea is called Praeparatio evangelica.

Horatius Cocles, Phydios, United massachusetts, The Catholic State of Eire, and 1 otherLagrodia

La france bonapartiste wrote:I just feel like these interpretations have strayed too far from the actual Bible and evolved into something unrecognizable. Religious organizations and their dogmas have accumulated so much baggage over the millennia that I can't even wrap my head around it. I won't argue anymore since I don't think it would be productive, and think I've made my points sufficiently clear--they're my honest feelings towards Old World dogma and I stand by them. I believe a more rational approach to religion and the scriptures will lead to a happier life.

What can I say man? securus judicat orbis terrarum.

United massachusetts wrote:GAH STOP GIVING ME TIES MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.

Much love,
UM

This proves that the current voting system is inadequate.

ATTENTION ALL CITIZENS OF RIGHT TO LIFE:

Firstly, thank you for electing me as Speaker of the Citizen's Assembly!

More importantly, PLEASE take a look at the draft Rules and Procedures of the Citizen's Assembly of Right to Life that I have written out here. Once there has been some discussion on it, we will vote on it. These will be the basic groundwork for how the Citizen's Assembly will work in the future, an Assembly which all of you have the right to participate in! I also put a lot of time into this, and I don't want it to go to waste.

https://nsrighttolife.proboards.com/thread/161/discussion-assembly-rules-procedures?page=1&scrollTo=636

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:To be clear "christiani" and "pagani" are Latin terms and there is no such thing as "captialization" in Classical Latin. Putting this aside, tt would be rather odd to capitalize pagan even by the norms of standard English. "Christ" is a proper name, as is "Buddha". Pagan comes from "pagani", meaning "countryside-folk" or, colloquially, "country bumpkin". This is certainly an interesting historical fact, reflecting the reality that Christian converts and churches were almost exclusively in the cities and town of the Roman Empire (and Sassanid etc) and, later on, it was in the rural areas that paganism was most resilient. Your argument though is rather bizarre: yes, the whole point of "pagani" was to have a colloquial way of referring to the people who were not part of the Church. If they find the term offensive then why do modern-day "pagans" call themselves "pagans" at all? It is a Christian cultural term.

Ah, etymology, a favourite subject!

You're right about the Latin origins, and that "pagan" was originally a pejorative term employed by Christians against the old religions of the countryside, and was later broadened to mean all non-Christian religions.

However, used in that way and that context, it has implications of superiority, and is intended as a negative category to place the non-believers in. In this way, it's very similar to the Islamic term Kaffir, loosely translating as "infidel".

Were we discussing the words "gentile" or "heathen" (which have similar etymological roots, geographically and temporally), it'd be more straightforward and obvious that we're talking about non-Christians, and the implication of superiority would be much more obvious.

The difference here is that regardless of etymology, Paganism is now a religion in its own right, and there are folk who identify as Pagans. The word no more belongs to Christians than it belongs to Italians -- etymological roots don't have final say over current day usages.

I would say -- as an small-"a" atheist (and as a capital "H" Humanist) -- that according Paganism the same capital letter as Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism or Judaism has nothing to do with whether the religion is named after a person's proper name or not. "Sikh", for example, means "student". Hindhuism is named for a river. Taoism is named for "the Way."

Rather, capitalisation or not is a sign of respect for a people and a faith.

Saying "Pagan" means that you recognise that Paganism is a faith followed by many people, and while we may or may not follow the same beliefs, we respect that they hold their beliefs.

Saying "pagan" is Roman-style superiority, no different from describing non-believers as heathens. It's a pejorative term. Think of words like "gypsy", "negro" or "homo", and no matter what the etymological origins are, the important thing is how the words are deployed, and the attitude behind them. We don't say that "my nurse was a very nice n****r" and then excuse it by saying that it just comes from the Latin "niger". Likewise, I'd argue, we shouldn't say "pagan sacrifice is to steal, to rob, to bring death upon another", and then excuse it by saying that it was a Christian term originally.

The word "pagan" is not derogatory when used in certain ways, but certainly IS derogatory when used to describe the negative actions of non-Christians. The original post I was responding to basically said "Christians do this sacrifice thing in a loving way, (derogatory term for non-Christians) do sacrifice in an evil way".

In NLP terms, Christians speaking to Christians and using the term "pagan" in a perjorative and non-capitalised way is -- consciously or not -- designed to close ranks against outsiders and to remind Christians that they are better than everyone else.

Words have power, and etymology is not an excuse.

"Paganism" is not a religion, rather there are religions that are pagan. Bon, for example, is a pagan religion, but most pagan religions do not have names for themselves nor would their practitioners call themselves pagans because, again, it is a Christian cultural term. I assume you are referring to so-called "neo-pagans", people who are invariably post-Christians or, if you will, spiritualist reactionaries. Whether many of these people really are pagans in the proper sense is debatable (most do not sacrifice anything, for example). That point aside, in this case they call themselves pagans because they were born into a culture that was Christian and a language shaped by Christianity. It is not my fault, or the Church's fault, that they have decided to refer to themselves using a term that is, in a vague sense, pejorative. I do not consider it my responsibility to accept such linguistic appropriation and change the meaning or history or grammar of the word.

Hi people of Right to Life,

I am from the United Christian Empires of the West. Do you remember how recently a World Assembly vote was passed, which forced us all to accept Universal Access to Abortion? I wrote a dispatch on the topic, and I suggest you put out similar statements, affirming your Pro-Life stance.

Best Regards, God Bless and Keep You,
New jewlan,
Imperial Grand Councillor,
Governor of the Realm,
Imperial Councillor of Religion and History for U.C.E.O.T.W.

La france bonapartiste

I have two questions about amending the constitution:
1. Do amendments to this constitution change its text or are they added to the end like the U.S. constitution?
2. Why did you guys previously just replace the constitution rather than amend it? Have there ever been amendments (I just saw there was a bicameralism amendment, which I suppose might answer both of these questions)?

United massachusetts

Eire has informed me that he no longer wishes to serve in the Senate. To that end, your new Senate is Phydios, La france bonapartiste, and Horatius Cocles

Horatius Cocles, Phydios, The Rouge Christmas State, Stellonia, and 5 othersImperii Ecclesia, The Catholic State of Eire, Slavic lechia, Vicell, and La france bonapartiste

La france bonapartiste

Roborian wrote:A sort of vague connection to a 'God' without any complexities mixed in could be copy-pasted into any other monotheistic religion, or even something New Age, if you do not know His personal characteristics beyond 'supreme being.'

What you say about the commonality in belief in the Supreme Being among the primary monotheistic religions is, of course, true. But that is only half of what I said was necessary for Christian belief, "devotion to God and [belief in] the charity and miracles of Christ". Believing in Jesus' miracles and the truth of his teachings is the most fundamental element of Christianity, that separates it from other religions, and this goes beyond the Resurrection, since the Resurrection by itself does not give guidance to people on how to lead their daily lives. Belief in Christ and his goodness is what motivates Christians and what unites them.

To quote our dear Founding Emperor:
"Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than a man. I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts. Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it." --Napoleon I

La france bonapartiste

Horatius Cocles wrote:I think the above synopsis of your background is helpful in explaining why you're probably running into issues with the people you're dialoging with. Even for our other Protestant members in the region, this is a very "stripped-down", if you will, Christianity. To some, it comes off as not Christian since it doesn't hold to foundational Christian beliefs, as shown in history. Your philosophical framework, in this and later posts you've made, seems to hold more to a rationalist or deistic view.

I feel like that's a fair enough characterization, and in fact recently I came across an article on Christian rationalism and I agreed with it, insofar as it was presented therein. Particularly with the emphasis placed on reason as being the guiding light for interpreting religion. As far as I am concerned, Nature is God's book, and it is the one place in which it is indisputable His hand has written Truth. The Bible is the book of other hands, though that does not mean it does not hold truth in its way. I, too, am also a book in which God has written, as I believe we all are, and I daily try to glean some inner truth He has put there, searching for answers within myself. And reason is the eyes I was given to read that book.

But I do not agree with deism at all, as it is, in my view, only a hair's breadth away from agnosticism or atheism. I strongly believe that God is actively involved in the world. Therefore, I am much more of a George Washington (Christian rationalist) than I am a Thomas Jefferson (deist).

Horatius Cocles wrote:It seems to de-mythologize areas of the historical Christian faith.

Now this I don't think I agree with. I would say my faith is one which de-mystifies Christianity, making it accessible and less the domain of priests and theologians. God belongs to everyone, not just the specially educated, and I believe priests can only serve to get in the way of people's personal relationship with God. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, who created 613 laws to supplement the Ten Commandments, priests too often attempt to overcomplicate religion and "lock" the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter." (Matthew 23:13)

Horatius Cocles wrote:So the basic foundations of what makes Christianity what it is were formulated there, including belief in the Trinity and how that's explained, the person and nature of Christ, etc. I would, like others in the region, argue that you do find the Eucharist, original sin, etc. in the Bible but to really get down to defining what these terms and concepts mean you need the historical witness of the Councils, writings of the Christians of the time period, etc. And this produced a lot of controversy and heretical teachings, the Christological heresies and debates being one of the well-known examples.

After Moses ascended to Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments, it only took 40 days for the people of Israel to turn from the correct way and to turn to idolatry and pageantry. And over the successive years, the priests of the Temple accumulated more and more wealth and power. And when Jesus came to minister to the people of Israel, they were afraid. Afraid of losing their power. And that is why they turned on Jesus.

Now, there was about 300 years, over 100,000 days, between Jesus' Ascension and the Council of Nicaea. If it only took 40 days for the People of Israel to stray from God, who's to say the Nicene priests could not repeat the same mistakes, 2500 times over, after several centuries? To say nothing of the developments in dogma since.

La france bonapartiste

Imperii Ecclesia wrote:ATTENTION ALL CITIZENS OF RIGHT TO LIFE:

Firstly, thank you for electing me as Speaker of the Citizen's Assembly!

More importantly, PLEASE take a look at the draft Rules and Procedures of the Citizen's Assembly of Right to Life that I have written out here. Once there has been some discussion on it, we will vote on it. These will be the basic groundwork for how the Citizen's Assembly will work in the future, an Assembly which all of you have the right to participate in! I also put a lot of time into this, and I don't want it to go to waste.

https://nsrighttolife.proboards.com/thread/161/discussion-assembly-rules-procedures?page=1&scrollTo=636

I took a brief look at it earlier and I have a lot of recommendations, some textual (matters of wording or grammar), others conceptual. I will try to give a robust response soon.

Also, congratulations to Horatius Cocles and Phydios for being appointed to the Senate alongside me, let's hope we never have to see the word "tie" ever again! Also, I'd like to thank The Catholic State of Eire for being a gentleman about the whole affair and withdrawing his candidacy and giving his fellow party member a chance to serve in his place, that was very sporting of you.

Everyone ran a nice, clean campaign (mostly because you did not campaign at all), and I'm happy with my first electoral foray on NationStates. I'd like to give a special shout-out to my campaign manager (me) and The Rouge Christmas State and Stellonia for believing in me and lending me your support during the run-off. Your votes in the run-off were a lot more precious since you were only allowed to give one, so I really appreciate it. I also thank Imperii Ecclesia for his support in the first round, and Culture of Life too I guess, even though I'm pretty sure he only cast his votes the way he did to intentionally create a four-way tie for novelty's sake and to spread chaos throughout the land. 😒

I also apologize for all the side-by-side posts, but since so many people were involved, I thought it best for everyone if I parsed them out a bit.

Horatius Cocles, Phydios, The Rouge Christmas State, Stellonia, and 5 othersImperii Ecclesia, United massachusetts, The Catholic State of Eire, Vicell, and Second third rome

Herman Cain has died.

Oddly enough, it would appear that the youngest demographic (18-29) is the most concerned about health vs. economy during the pandemic while the oldest demographic (65+) is the most concerned about economy vs. health.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/0nx7ztz02j/econTabReport.pdf (Which one are you most concerned about?)

Horatius Cocles and United massachusetts

Same poll.
People who said they would vote for Biden: 61% said they were mostly voting against Trump.
People who said they would vote for Trump: 77% said they were mostly voting for Trump.

Phydios, Stellonia, United massachusetts, and The Catholic State of Eire

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Same poll.
People who said they would vote for Biden: 61% said they were mostly voting against Trump.
People who said they would vote for Trump: 77% said they were mostly voting for Trump.

If Biden can stay out of trouble, Trump will defeat himself handily. The protest votes are not in his favor this time around, and his actions aren't helping.

Slavic lechia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo53amqybX8 <- Let's discuss the Nicene Creed.

If you are christian say if you agree, or not and which part if not the entire thing.

If not, then ask questions and question it.

Do not use any form of condemnation. Do not attempt conversion. No straw-man arguments. I actually want just a thoughtful discussion between christians, other christians and non-christians... I want to start the discussion with something most christians agree on (I am aware of the Filioque controversy and I want this to be a part of this discussion), but open the discussion to everyone. Try to tag me in every post related ti this topic. I want to read your posts ;)

Horatius Cocles and United massachusetts

Phydios wrote:If Biden can stay out of trouble, Trump will defeat himself handily. The protest votes are not in his favor this time around, and his actions aren't helping.

IF

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Same poll.
People who said they would vote for Biden: 61% said they were mostly voting against Trump.
People who said they would vote for Trump: 77% said they were mostly voting for Trump.

This seems similar to Poland and Duda... I voted against Duda.

The Rouge Christmas State and United massachusetts

«12. . .2,1982,1992,2002,2012,2022,2032,204. . .2,5072,508»

Advertisement