|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2006 : 06:01:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
The word Christian may have first been used as a mockery meaning "little christ" or simply like christ, or christ mimic. It is not completely clear and not that important. Third try the bible Romans and Collosians.
So ... it may have, or it may not have, and it's not completely clear, and it's not that important. Thanks for the clarification. I fully expect that you'll demonstrate the same acuity when explaining you adolescent and nonsensical claim that "it is impossible to be a Christian* and not be a bigot". |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 07:34:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
The word Christian may have first been used as a mockery meaning "little christ" or simply like christ, or christ mimic. It is not completely clear and not that important. Third try the bible Romans and Collosians.
So ... it may have, or it may not have, and it's not completely clear, and it's not that important. Thanks for the clarification. I fully expect that you'll demonstrate the same acuity when explaining you adolescent and nonsensical claim that "it is impossible to be a Christian* and not be a bigot".
I already explained it, right in the post I made the claim in. Then three times after. The literal translation of the word christian is not known for sure. What it means to be a Christian is spelled out here. If you can show me how you can believe that Jesus as described in the 4 canocal gospels and his words, as well as the principle that god is the ultimate source on morals and his words are recorded in the bible, without being a bigot, do it. If all you can do it criticize me for not knowing something for sure that NO BIBLICAL SCHOLAR knows then please stop posting as you are not serving anything in the disussion.
Also, do not say "there are multiple definitions of christian" because I have already conceeded that point. I am criticizing the one I linked to which is the most commonly accepted definition.
PS I am still waiting on your explanation. I comply with your request, are so special you cannot comply with mine. Or is it that you like to throw stones from a distance and not actually back anything up with evidence? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 12/12/2006 07:37:03 |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2007 : 11:57:30 [Permalink]
|
| [P]utting the future into the past,the effect before the cause,teleology negates time...End states are consequences[ natural causation], not foregone conclusions[ teleology], of beginning states." That would be backwards causation.Neurosis, I am neurotic: I have schizotypy and dysthemic and clinical depression. As a schizo., I am supposed to go for the supernatural and the paranormal,but I abjure and objurate both!Thank modern science for nerve medecine! |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 02:57:48 [Permalink]
|
| Let us get back on the topic! Consequential atheist, yes! |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Theistic evolution
