Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:50 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trinity Nonsense
#21
RE: Trinity Nonsense
Concerning the idea that polytheism was interesting enough to sprinkle a dose of it into Christianity:


I would think being a polytheist is less hypocritical. And more fun. And don't have to eat someone's body and drink their blood, like Dracula.

"Be ye not lost amongst Precept of Order." - Book of Uterus, 1:5, "Principia Discordia, or How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her."
Reply
#22
RE: Trinity Nonsense
(June 18, 2011 at 3:25 am)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:It isn't a matter of belief but of being open minded.


I cannot disagree more. Accepting lunacy because it is written in an old book....and actually, it isn't written in the old book it was hashed out centuries later...and then calling yourself "open-minded" is little more than chutzpah.

Be careful you are not so open minded that your brain falls out.

The positive atheist appears to have only two choices: belief or disbelief. There is no "I don't know" along with the joys of contemplation and the value of contemplating an apparent contradiction

Reply
#23
RE: Trinity Nonsense
(June 16, 2011 at 10:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Um, I'm not quite sure what your problem is, Zen. Are you saying that you want to see this in a history book? Because it took me less than 1.5 seconds on Google to find the History of Ammianus Marcellinus in an English translation. You can't get better than a primary source.
I guess I sought on google Scythopolis death camps, perhaps that was the reason I didn't find.

Quote:


I'm glad you found the source. That's the best thing one could find.
However, I think you did not read all that you should: the title above (the context of the passage you have given) was "PROSECUTIONS FOR TREASON":
Quote:


Note also that the author (who was pagan) does not condemn the Emperor (as I read, he was Constantius (293-306)) for persecuting pagans for their religion - the reason was politics: the author rather calls him narrow-minded (i.e. stupid) and describes him as obsessed of being betrayed.
By the way, I don't know if this is of great importance but Theodosius (379-395) was the guy who made Paganism illegal and tried to destroy it. And Constantius was both before him and before Julian the Apostate (355-363) (the pagan emperor who tried to restore paganism in the empire).

Quote:
Quote:I don't understand you, seriously: some time ago you perfectly agreed with the romans killing christians for getting into religious meetings... And now you say that christians doing likewise to pagans is blatant? By the way, they didn't have "church" buildings to gather there, back then. They gathered where they could.

First off, Pliny made it clear that the secret meetings were regarded as "political" not "religious." The Romans did not give a shit about religion; they were concerned about sedition.

Were the meetings really regarded as political and not religious?
By the way, have you really read XCVII and XCVIII from here?
As about sedition and political reasons (which are the obvious things they were concerned of), they could have come in conflict with christianity/christians. One of them being, for instance, if the emperor wants to impose his authority over people and to be regarded as a god and people to bring sacrifices to him as to a god, then the christians' attitude would have been seen as some kind of rebellion (against Emperor's authority and against the unity of the Empire itself).

Quote:Of greater importance is that you miss the point...perhaps accidentally.
Sorry, I use to get off topic easily. And to focus on details and stuff.

Quote:I don't give a flying fuck what the emperor did 1500 years ago. He was the emperor and he could kill whoever the fuck he wanted. That's what being emperor means. BUT. When modern xtians trot out this holier-than-thou horseshit about how their marvelous religion spread peacefully across the world it is time to shake them out of their stupidity with FACTS. Xtianity was not spread by pious missionaries but by terror, murder and oppression.
I know, it was mostly this way. But also by political reasons (seeking some advantage) and stuff like that.

Quote:Do you understand that, at least, or am I wasting my time? You made an assertion that the populace was blindly following the bishops and priests and it is simply untrue in many instances.
I understand that. Yeah, indeed in many instances the populace was not simply "blindly following the bishops and priests", I was wrong with that assertion.

Some notes, they may clarify some things about me, if you were really curios:
1. I am quite skeptic, about what anybody says. Regarding religious topics, most people are biased - i.e. they fight to prove their views and to disprove all others, without paying too much attention to who's right & who's wrong in a certain issue (just like we see in politics when every political party presents itself as the savior and the other parties as useless or evil). That's my observation at least.
2. I am not fighting against any philosophy/religion, neither for. I'm simply not a 'combatant'.
3. Regarding those questions I asked you (i.e. "tell me that..."), sorry for that. I guess I was a bit upset or something. It's just an obsession of mine, you know, when I hear people that are blaming others of things, as if themselves yearn for the absolute good and absolute righteousness, as if they could not harm even an insect, but they are not actually feeling that way - they do it only for the public or for certain objectives. I don't want to blame anybody, as I said, it's just an obsession of mine.
4. I don't know about others, I don't care about others, but I myself want to be fair: if someone is wrong in a certain thing, I don't care who or what he's fighting for, or what good thing would be if he succeeded convincing people, if that thing is wrong, it's wrong. Likewise, if someone is right in a certain thing, I don't care who or what he's fighting for, if that thing is right, it's right.

P.S. I might share my view on the trinity issue (the actual topic here) as I understand it from the bible, if anybody is interested. But perhaps by doing that, I might start a debate with the xtians on the forum on the subject. Anyway, anybody interested in my view regarding the trinity?
Reply
#24
RE: Trinity Nonsense
I keep this link handy for the Pliny-Trajan correspondence as it goes directly to the ones in question without having to wade through discussions about court houses in Asia Minor:

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/pliny.html

Quote:Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations.

There is a difference in translations: Your version uses the term "assemblies" in lieu of "political associations." I would not put my rudimentary Latin against either of the translators even though I know I could find a Latin version of this text if I looked for it!

BTW, the church spreading by recruiting local leaders was actually a tactic learned from Rome itself. Much of the Roman Empire was held together with minimal military force. The provincial governors ( mainly senatorial appointees ) had what amount to police forces and in event of serious trouble had to call on the legions. Almost invariably when the Romans conquered a region there was a rebellion soon after which was crushed. The local leaders - weighing the idea of another rebellion - were given a subtle choice. Maintain your titles and property by becoming "Roman" or risk everything by having your belly ripped open with a sword and your house burned down around your ears. It was an effective means of persuasion.
Similarly, when the empire began to collapse the church concentrated on "converting" various barbarian leaders. The idea being that if the chief became xtian all of his followers would then become xtian also. If they chose not to, it was up to the newly "xtianized" chieftain to kill them for treason which kept the church itself one step removed from the carnage.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Serious] The Trinity zwanzig 127 7175 January 23, 2021 at 10:31 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Refuting trinity. Mystic 35 5297 April 8, 2018 at 2:15 pm
Last Post: JackRussell
  The Trinity Doctrine: Help me out, Christians GrandizerII 169 17872 February 9, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  The Trinity and Mary vorlon13 52 14478 May 30, 2017 at 12:28 pm
Last Post: Lek
  10 apologist mistakes about trinity Mystic 21 4091 April 2, 2016 at 5:34 pm
Last Post: athrock
  Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From? Alter2Ego 13 4545 March 17, 2014 at 1:20 pm
Last Post: Tonus
  Trinity old man 133 41324 September 19, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  The trinity Drich 246 89204 June 11, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Where Did the Trinity Teaching Come From? Alter2Ego 80 33775 June 6, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Last Post: parabola
  The trinity. objectivitees 14 3736 October 21, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Last Post: Cyberman



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)