Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
302

pkradgeek, fishlips, mattew, stellarhorion,

In my continuing effort to educate and inspire, I will now discuss another God that is near and dear.

I know that you have devoted your lives to Christ. I cannot change what happened in your past. However, I can lead you forward into the streaming sunshine.

Come to us!!!

Come to Aeval!!!

This is from sacredgrove.com.

“AEVAL/Aibell/Aebhel: (beautiful)”
Earth (Celtic: Irish) Goddess of love and sexuality.
The love goddess Aeval devolved into the Fairy Queen of Munster."

Thus, displacing Al Shades as the fairy queen.

“Queen Aeval held a midnight court, where once a debate was held to
determine whether the men of her kingdom were sexually satisfying the
women.”

At this, Al began to sweat.

“She judged the men to be remiss, and ordered them to overcome
their prudishness and give the women what they wanted.”

Let’s hear it for the Ladies!!

“Aeval possessed a magical harp which would play whatever she told it
to play.”

You haven’t lived until you’ve harped “Another one bites the dust.”

Give it a try.

“Its music was deadly to humans though, for any mortal who
heard it playing would soon die.”

Much like my harp music.

Maybe it’s the “My harp kicks ass!!!” that I have etched into it that is particularly deadly.

“Young men were the most likely
victims of beautiful Aeval’s deadly harp.”

Watch out little Al!!! You seem like the kind of guy that would be susceptible to harp music.

“Aeval was associated with Craig Laity (gray rock), near Killalow,
Ireland.”

Indeed.

“Leaves, stones, and harp music can be used to invoke her.”

Sounds like Detroit.

“Call upon Aeval for music, ecology, love spells, fairy magic,
protection, lust, temptation, sex magic, wise judgment, earth magic,
and sexual satisfaction.”

One stop shopping!!!

In summary, get your harp, throw some stones, lift some leaves and reach the higher plain we call AEVAL!!!

JeffR

303

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
I must honestly express Stella, I have never met someone who activated less neurons before he expresses himself than you! I can just see you now foaming at the mouth, rocking back and forth stuttering and stammering as you repetitively mutter ‘Nope can’t beat me, nope can’t beat me’ while sticking your fingers in your ears.

Can’t wait till I get home from work and have time to ‘deal’ with you.

Signed your owner,
Fishlips[/quote]

Now that’s not fair Fishlips. I agreed to stick with your rules and stick to scripture for now, and you bring up the biographer of a 4th century church father, who after all can express his “opinion” as an individual and still accept the inspired decision of ALL of the bishops present at Nicea.

Anyway, you can’t have it both ways. I have greatly limited my resources by agreeing to focus on scripture as you requested and your purposefully going off track.

304

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Stella, you get one chance at this to prove that you just may have one iota of rationality to you.

This is a yes or no question, I’m keeping it simple for you.

Is the word ‘us’ used when more than one individual is involved?

If you get this wrong you have proven yourself incapable of intelligent discussion and I officially give up on this fruitless conversation.[/quote]

The problem is, I asked you to define your beliefs toward the trinity, the three persons of the trinity, and or the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You said that Jesus was not God incarnate when I asked if the Eucharistic belief was any harder to grasp than the incarnation, then you said Jesus was divine. I argued that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all eternal and divine, and S.H. pointed out the versus to support that they were present at creation.

You need to define your stance because it sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself by admitting that they were all present at creation.

305

hey JefR, did you see the afternoon rally in june crude oil futures. it caused a slight sell off in the S+P. the damn xoi had a nice pop and then just kept going up. what do you think about the new trading regarding no up tick short selling in those stocks. laters pk

306

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Found a few moments here at work and would like to briefly respond to someone who’s thinking rationally but just missing a few points.

Pookie, you’re are doing what you should and using logic but after I’m done hopefully that logic will still kick in to acknowledge the logic behind the explanation.

Would we need 4 gospels if they all simply said the same thing? Only 1 gospel would be necessary then. The 4 gospels bring to life many different facets of Jesus life and ministry. Not all the apostles were present at all times together. Therefore ones would have heard and witnessed things others didn’t, at least not first hand. They also would have had different perspectives on the same events being different people with their own personalities, backgrounds etc. Luke was a physician so you’ll note at times he makes mention of specific physical maladies people had. Matthew was a tax collector and is more detailed with numbers etc. The important point is they don’t contadict each other. [/quote]

Good point. But in fact the gospels do in some occurences contradict themselves.Simply comparing the genealogies of Joseph given in two of the gospels will show that they don’t match.

Having given man free will, would He contradict His own word whenever it suits Him? It is well known that the first printed versions of the Bible were so riddled with typos and errors that they were collected and destroyed. A well known 1631 version of the KJB has one commandment listed as “Thou Shalt Commit Adultery” because the “Not” got left out. Since God allowed for those versions to exist, how can we then know which is the correct, unnerrant one? The examples I gave are gross, easily caught mistakes; but what of subtler, more nuanced ones?

I’ll agree with you here. Not about God’s message, but about the fact that some “deviations” can occur while still allowing the gist of the message to be understood.

My point of contention was simply that I felt that the premise “There is only One Truth. Any deviation from that truth makes it a lie.” made for some extremely fragile “Truth”. Entrusting man, an eminently faillible being, as the keeper of that truth practically garantees “a lie” after very few generations.

It seems that the Orthodox Church (Greek? Eastern? other?) bases it’s legitimacy on that premise.

[quote]Hence the regular encouragment in the scriptures to ‘look’ for truth, ‘search’ for it etc. denoting effort is involved which will be rewarded.

Does this response make sense and satisfy you? I trust your query was in sincerity and not simply argumentative.[/quote]

The response is satisfying in the sense that it allows for “deviations” in the gospels without invalidating them; but the response then implies that the first post of this thread posits an invalid test for “truth”.

You’d have to allow that a truth can be communicated in many different ways; even in some contradictory ways and still the truth (or most of it) remains.

307

Fishlips;

I gave you an honest chance. I followed YOUR rules. You are exhibiting classic signs of denial. I have made errors in reasoning, but you have ignored at least 3 points made on scripture for each one you have responded to. Your responses have at times made sense in the specific scriptural context that you dealt with, but not in the context of the other 2-3 examples given for each. I have raised questions based on scripture and I will not let you go off in other directions until you deal with all of them. I can only conclude at this time that you concede the 7 or 8 points which you couldn’t respond to.

Likewise, with S.H. you pick a tenth of what he says, out of context and try to make him look foolish. If people read what he wrote first-hand, they will see that you again leave out the major portion that you apparently can’t deal with.

You got to decide what evidence was acceptable. If this was a scored debate, you would have lost based on failure to address AT LEAST 3/4 of the points. Thats all.

308

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
You have no ability to interpret the Gospel.[/quote]

I make no claim to interpret the Gospels. I simply ask if the test for truth you gave in the first post of the thread can be applied to them as a group.

If there is only one truth, and that truth can suffer absolutely no deviation unless it denatures into a lie; how can the current Gospels be truth?

Again, I do not interpret any of the content; I simply apply your test for truth to the Gospels.

They weren’t written in English; hence any english translation is “a deviation” from the “one truth”. You could of course learn Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew to read what’s left of the originals, but some originals have long since disappeared. The remaining copies cannot be validated identical with 100% certainty; hence here too, your “one truth” test would fail.

As for knowledge, well I’ve read them. In french. And again; I’m not trying to interpret the content at all… I’m trying to show that “Only One Truth to which any deviation makes it a Lie” is a flawed test for said Truth.

Such a fragile truth simply cannot be expected to survive being copied, translated, recopied, etc. by hands for almost 2000 years.

If I’m wrong, then you must explain why your test is valid when you apply it to other churche’s apostolic lineage; but not articles of your own faith.

I don’t understand how you can have it both ways.

309

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
If light has both wave characteristics, and particle characteristics, then which one of them is it. It is both. Maybe that will help with the Trinity analogy. laters pk[/quote]

Trinity is dogma.

It cannot be tested; so there is no way to verify or falsify it. Arguing its validity or even reality is pointless.

So, you either accept the dogma and believe in Trinity, or you don’t.

310

Pookie, I just want to leave you with some of the Orthodox beliefs on the issues you raised. Fishlips has consistently broken his own rules, contradicted himself and not done what he agreed to do. He holds to a belief that the Orthodox Church found (in interpreting the Bible) to be heresy almost 2000 years ago, which is apparently some form of poly-theism in which there are three or more independent gods out there.

Orthodoxy does not make theology on a regular basis. Within the first 300 years, the Church selected which books presented theological truth (not historical fact) and were of legitimate Apostolic origin. Each of the major churches till then were founded by one of the 12 apostles, or one of the 70 whom they chose, or came from one of the original churches founded by such. Each of these churches maintained a record of their bishops from the apostles (although it is historically clear that the Romans altered the record of Rome as they include names of Popes which are actually Greek prepositional phrases, and that Rome had a Bishop before Peter ever went there).

Now from around 300 to 1000, the church had a FEW issues over how to interpret parts of the bible. It is clear that the bible needs interpretation in parts, but for example which words were Jesus’ final words is not important for showing us how to behave. The church called councils so that representatives from each local church could share their traditions as they believed had been passed down from the apostles. In each of these councils, the heresy was put down by the otherwise unanimous agreement of those representatives present. We are talking about 5-6 major questions in theological interpretation over 1000 years.

I also want to stress that their was a unified liturgical service throughout all of the local Christian churches within the lifetimes of the apostles. The Gospels had not even been completely edited by the original authors at that time. There was a place in the unified service for Biblical readings which paralleled the Torah readings from the Jewish service. By 50, the Christians had more or less accepted the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke to be included in these readings. They were written, compiled and translated TO BE the scriptural part of the liturgy. That was their purpose. Same with acts and the epistles which also FILLED places in the service paralleled by certain old testament readings in the jewish service. Records show that John, James, Thomas, Andrew and others presided at this service weekly in their local church. It is the Liturgy we use today.

The service is not a tool, it is the act of being orthodox.

If one accepts the Liturgical service that the apostles shared and passed down, then all the other questions evaporate. When one realizes that the Bible Existed AND ONLY EXISTED to be the source of Scriptural readings for these services, its importance can be better understood.

Until 1054, all Christians on earth were Orthodox. There was nothing else. Come Romanism and suddenly there’s 10,000 denomonations.

311

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
mert: lol

But actually, it’s not logical at all. Even if we throw in Sulu and Chekov, too. And that fine chick with the nice rack that always wore blue and worked in the infirmary with Bones.

I think she was Roddenberrys wife.

[/quote]

She was. Majel Barret Roddenberry. Now back to my fulfilled life… :wink:

Makkun

312

Matthew9v9,

[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
makkun wrote:

The kind of T-Man that stands up against someone who resorts to an antisemitic tone when he’s not pleased with the answers of someone else, whom he “suspects” to be jewish. I hope I misunderstood you on that one, because that would massively suck.

As I said earlier, I know that mocking is perhaps not the right way of taking part in the discussion, but quite honestly, your holier-than-though attitude is indeed a bit overbearing at times; as is calling people liars when they don’t share your belief system.

Makkun

So mocking Christians is OKAY, but if someone asks if another poster is Jewish, he’s all of assuden anti-Semetic? That’s rediculous.[/quote]

Mocking (christian, jewish, martian) anyone is OK in my book. Being aggressive about it is not.

Uhhhh. Done. Has been addressed and settled some time ago.

[quote]Matthew9v9: not Jewish, fundamentalist, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, atheist, nor pagan.

(This thread has taken on a life of it’s own.)
[/quote]

Yeah.

Makkun

313

JeffR,

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pkradgeek, fishlips, mattew, stellarhorion,

In my continuing effort to educate and inspire, I will now discuss another God that is near and dear.

I know that you have devoted your lives to Christ. I cannot change what happened in your past. However, I can lead you forward into the streaming sunshine.

Come to us!!!

Come to Aeval!!!

…

In summary, get your harp, throw some stones, lift some leaves and reach the higher plain we call AEVAL!!!

JeffR[/quote]

JeffR, you crack me up.

Makkun

314

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
This is for Tank and Machine Gun, stop wasting your ammo. You know it is expensive. This land is barren and is not worth fighting for. You know the most important battle is the one engaged for your own soul so i find it best to fight that battle rather then battle the living dead. laters pk[/quote]

mertdawg, a.k.a the Machine Gun, our comrade in the Faith pkradegreek, a.k.a. the Sniper, provides sound counsel. The sirens of battle have silenced. The smoke has cleared and the enemy’s been annihilated by the firepower of the fullness of Truth. Orthodox Christianity has stood up to every challenge of heretics & blasphemers. The fortress of Truth (the Orthodox Christian Church) will not be torn down by enemies who blow sand against its walls.

Peace be with you comrade,
stellar_horizon a.k.a. the Tank

315

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
This is for Tank and Machine Gun, stop wasting your ammo. You know it is expensive. This land is barren and is not worth fighting for. You know the most important battle is the one engaged for your own soul so i find it best to fight that battle rather then battle the living dead. laters pk[/quote]

mertdawg, a.k.a the Machine Gun, our comrade in the Faith pkradegreek, a.k.a. the Sniper, provides sound counsel. The sirens of battle have silenced. The smoke has cleared and the enemy’s been annihilated by the firepower of the fullness of Truth. Orthodox Christianity has stood up to every challenge of heretics & blasphemers. The fortress of Truth (the Orthodox Christian Church) will not be torn down by enemies who blow sand against its walls.

Peace be with you comrade,
stellar_horizon a.k.a. the Tank

316

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:

mertdawg, a.k.a the Machine Gun, our comrade in the Faith pkradegreek, a.k.a. the Sniper, provides sound counsel. The sirens of battle have silenced. The smoke has cleared and the enemy’s been annihilated by the firepower of the fullness of Truth. Orthodox Christianity has stood up to every challenge of heretics & blasphemers. The fortress of Truth (the Orthodox Christian Church) will not be torn down by enemies who blow sand against its walls.

Peace be with you comrade,
stellar_horizon a.k.a. the Tank[/quote]

Funniest post ever.

I declare victory. Good night.

Doogie a.k.a. The NUKE

317

Amen!

318

[quote]doogie wrote:
I declare victory. Good night.

Doogie a.k.a. The NUKE[/quote]

You lost the war before you ever stepped foot on the spiritual battlefield. By your account of faithlessness in Jesus Christ, your demise is made self-evident.

The NUKE will self-destruct before it ever finds a target.

The maggots will devour your flesh, as the demons drag your soul into the bowels of the abyss. Unless you change your ways, you shall never find true Peace.

319

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Matthew 22:43
Why did the spirit inspire David to call the Messiah Lord?

(because he was before David)

Matthew 23:2
The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are authorized interpretors of Moses’ Law.

(the law requires interpretation. Men are set aside and given authority to do the interpreting)
[/quote]

Because Jesus was from Heaven and was David’s Lord not simply a human descendant of David as the Pharisees, whom he was arguing with, believed.

No the Pharisees were not authorized interpretors.
Consider this reference:
?The nature of the difference [between Jesus and the Pharisees] is made clear only in the light of the two opposing understandings of God. For the Pharisees, God is primarily one who makes demands; for Jesus he is gracious and compassionate. The Pharisee does not, of course, deny God?s goodness and love, but for him these were expressed in the gift of the Torah [Law] and in the possibility of fulfilling what is there demanded. .?.?. Adherence to the oral tradition, with its rules for interpreting the law, was seen by the Pharisee as the way to the fulfilment of the Torah. .?.?. Jesus? elevation of the double command of love (Matt. 22:34-40) to the level of a norm of interpretation and his rejection of the binding nature of the oral tradition .?.?. led him into conflict with Pharisaic casuistry.??The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

Vs. 2 describes how they put themselves in that position, they were not given it.
Look at the entire chapter 23 of Matthew to see how Jesus denounced them.

320

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Matthew 18:18
Whatever you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted (bound and loosed) in heaven.

The apostles interpret the new law.[/quote]

Unfortunately you would be saying that heaven is held to some human’s decision. Not a chance.
“Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 18:18, New American Standard Bible; see also NW, Ro, The New Testament by C. B. Williams) Though some Bible versions render this verse in a way that suggests that the heavenly action occurs after the earthly decision, noted Bible translator Robert Young said that it literally should be: “shall be that which has been bound (already).”

The decision of the apostles or whoever was making the decision would simply reflect the application of God’s standards that were already considered in effect in heaven.

321

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
mertdawg, a.k.a the Machine Gun, our comrade in the Faith pkradegreek, a.k.a. the Sniper, provides sound counsel. The sirens of battle have silenced. The smoke has cleared and the enemy’s been annihilated by the firepower of the fullness of Truth. Orthodox Christianity has stood up to every challenge of heretics & blasphemers. The fortress of Truth (the Orthodox Christian Church) will not be torn down by enemies who blow sand against its walls.

Peace be with you comrade,
stellar_horizon a.k.a. the Tank[/quote]

I call upon all Atheists, Heathens, Heretics, Blasphemers, Doubters and Pagans. Hell, bring along a few Fornicators for good measure! Heed my words!

Verily I say unto thee, the simple-minded dolts of faith are beating a hasty retreat!! But we shall not let them escape in such a cowardly fashion! The seeds of doubt are mightier than any dogma. They work slowly, but surely; corrupting the shackles of blind faith until finally reason is allowed to emerge and shine through the darkness of ancient doctrine.

Primitive scripture cannot withstand the assaults of logic and critical thought; like a seeding dandelion in a hurricane it is blown away like so much dust.

Only through reason and thought will Man discover the ultimate truth of the universe. The mind wasting methods of the ancients have held sway to this day; but their time is up!

…just kidding. You can go back to arguing who’s fairy tale is the mostest best one now.