ISIS has nothing to do with Islam

[cleanhippie]

[Gothmog]

1. Great Cartoon about Islam and peace

[Yorktown]

2. You just offended some people with your cartoon

Irony is lost on some:

[cleanhippie]

3. Yeah, I've got another easily-offended snowflake stalking me in another thread.

He's so angry!

[Yorktown]

4. It's touching how some really, really want to think religion is good

Some deep, deep psychological wish to retain the pure innocence of childhood?

[cleanhippie]

5. Seems more like deep-seeded hatred and anger to me.

Most likely just projection over not being loved enough as a child or something?

[Leontius]

6. So what is your position on lying does it show good moral character?

Do you trust liars, do you support them?

[Yorktown]

7. I remember you were quite shifty about Nicaea I, playing loose with words

Are you saying someone here might have once wrongly pointed towards you an accusation which was accurate when directed to a general comment by many believers?

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye, brother Leontius?

Your zig-zaging about Nicaea I was not inspiring.

[Leontius]

8. Everything I said about the Council is historical fact.

The fallacies were yours. Your inability to answer direct questions is becoming obvious and tedious.

[Yorktown]

9. We must disagree. Over and out.

[cleanhippie]

11. Not over, but he's out

Mandatory vacation time.

[Yorktown]

12. Unlike religious types who love to do it on me, I did not report

Even if Leontius wrote this charming sentence:

The fallacies were yours. Your inability to answer direct questions is becoming obvious and tedious.

[cleanhippie]

13. It's mere projection and nothing more.

Look at his last several posts. All anger and hatred, no on-topic substance, just blatant personal attacks.
Considering his remarks in Interfaith regarding this group, it was totally expected.
It's a shame to see one self-immolate though. Very sad.

[Yorktown]

14. I give you the link you to that discussion on Nicaea 1 if I had had it

I was not impressed by the level of fortitude of Leontius in that discussion.

He started off by saying it was a 'debunked myth' that Nicaea 1 had busied itself with determining the canonical gospels.

I brought him a quote by 'saint' Jerome proving the contrary.

He never even once acknowledged his mistake, trying to muddle it under multiple sidesteppings.

Oh, well,...

[Leontius]

15. There is no record of the Council discussing Biblical canon.

Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)

There was no action taken by the Council in setting a Biblical canon. Everything decided by the Council was published and is available today. Find any statement of the Council that concerns Biblical canon and post it. Jerome's statement is wrong, plain and simple if, his meaning is that the council took any action on the Book of Judith. It would help to read the documents of the Council before you assert what is in them.

[Yorktown]

16. St Jerome says Nicaea 1 decide the gospel of Judith was canonical

So it's your word against that of saint Jerome.

And please, spare me the rather weak and obvious loose use of words: "action taken"

According to Jerome, the council came to an oral agreement the gospel of Judith was canonical

It is an action in the sense that the delegates went back home holding that idea.

Actions are not just putting things in black and white.

Welcome back, btw.

[struggle4progress]

17. Hmm. Probably not, since Judith is not a gospel but an earlier Judaic text

[Yorktown]

18. Hmm. Probably yes, since you are discussing canonic text

OK, I made a mistake about Judith. OT, not NT. And?

You were still wrong when claiming Nicaea 1 did not take canonical decisions.

[struggle4progress]

19. Also not canonical but only deutero-canonical in Judaism

[Yorktown]

20. Do you really believe Nicaea 1 was trying to decide the canon of Judaism?

Please, desist from cheap debating tricks, not very interesting.

I was referring to the fact Nicaea 1 did indeed debate what the canonic status of certain texts.

Contrarily to your initial statement about that council. No amount of finagling will cover up that.

Cheap courtroom tactics will only work on the unwary.

[struggle4progress]

26. Nope. I believe you're trawling for reactions, posting

wingnut bullshizz by Mark Dice, anti-semitic crap by some wacko, and now arguing about what the council of Nicaea decided about a text that you first incorrectly identified as a gospel and then next incorrectly identified as a Jewish canonical text

Discussion is entertaining when informative: Mark Dice's rightwing propaganda isn't informative; neither is anti-semitic crap; nor is it informative to listen to your arguments about texts you haven't ever bothered to examine

[Leontius]

33. I may be prejudiced but

I think we can answer the question "Are you smarter than an atheist?" from another OP with a yes here.

[struggle4progress]

35. I'm afraid I've done my share of stupid in my life,

and there's probably more idiocy from me ahead too -- but the silly bottom-dragging for reactions from some folk around here certainly doesn't improve the world

[Leontius]

21. No it's my word and every Church historian that has written on the Council with one know exception.

Jeromes' statement is ambiguous at best but he does not say what he means by validated and wrote this 80 yrs later. No member in attendance has written anything to support it or your contention that any discussion on Canon took place. Considering that Athanasius is considered the father of the Canon and was in attendance at the Council he surely would have written about it. The original statement by MoL was also not just stating some mention or discussion of any possible canon or legitimacy of any books by some bishops but a statement of definitive forming of the Canon at Nicaea at Constantines order. The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent and Wikipedia just to mention three sources among many all agree with what I have written.

[Yorktown]

22. I already told you why you are probably wrong

Nicaea 1 happens in 325.
I already mentioned to you the commissioning of 50 'yardstick' Bibles for the Church of Constantinople by Constantine who was pivotal at Nicaea. That happened in 331.
Since it is unlikely Constantine would have taken the decision of the contents without some degree of consensus among the 1800 Nicaea delegates, there is every reason to suppose some discussion about canonical texts occured. In addition to that referred to by Jerome.

btw, the text of wiki on Nicaea does in no way contradict what I wrote above.
And I wouldn't touch the Catholic Encyclopedia with a barge pole.
Just like Islam's hadiths, it's just party line propaganda.

[Leontius]

25. Wrong on the delagate number by a factor of 6 is quite an error

Since no mention of the completion or even the content of the so called Constantinian Bibles exists this assertion of your is without any meaning or merit.

[Yorktown]

27. I speed-read wiki diagonally; it doesn't help you make any valid point

I just speed-read wiki diagonally

Attendees
Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west),

and didn't bother with

but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[18] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[9] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[19] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[20] and Evagrius,[21] Hilary of Poitiers,[22] Jerome,[23] Dionysius Exiguus,[24] and Rufinus[25] recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church[26] and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

Congrats, you just won one internet point.

Redeemable at any well stocked Church near you.

[Leontius]

28. I guess you missed section 12.1 Biblical canon

Under section 12 Misconceptions.

[Yorktown]

29. I guess you missed my answer #22 to which I already directed you

[Leontius]

30. Section 12.1 directly contradicts everything you have asserted about Nicaea and Biblical Canon.

What you have amounts to someone 80 yrs after the conference saying that the principals at Yalta might have discussed the weather that week.

[Yorktown]

31. You're wrong on two counts

1- wiki 12.1 doesn't address directly my claim made in answer #22

2- your Yalta example adds fuel to my fire. You do not know if FDR, Churchill and Stalin commented about the weather. Since it is a common topic in general, even more so during wartime if they discussed about this or that current military campaign, it is quite likely they discussed the weather.

Just like canonical texts at Nicaea 1.

[Leontius]

32. Sure doesn't address it at all

Except it is a total and complete refutation to every point you have made, including the masterful post #22. It destroys all arguments you have presented. And is in complete opposition to anything you have posted on the subject.

[Yorktown]

34. The point you are referring to explicitly says I am right

Literaly:

In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[68] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which suggests that the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the sacred scriptures.

So my post #22 explains to you why, and wiki 12 confirms.

Game, set and match.

[Leontius]

36. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strengh"

[mr blur]

37. Have you heard the description "Two bald men fighting over a comb"?

Your obsessive behaviour in this thread reminds me of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, fanatical religious lunatics who differ from you only in the style of delusions they favour, are slaughtering people whose only "crime" is to think for themselves. Something you might try, by the way.

[Leontius]

38. Do know anything about the issue?

There is only one here with a bald head. And why is only my behavior called "obsessive"?

[cleanhippie]

39. He left out "compulsive" in an attempt to be nice.

[Yorktown]

40. Am I the second 'bald man'?

[Leontius]

23. It is also possible Jerome confused what occured at Nicaea with

the Council of Laodicea a regional council that was held in 364 and does contain a defined Canon of the Bible.

[Yorktown]

24. See my post #22

[cleanhippie]

10. No. In fact I think they should be silenced from further debate.

If you see any toupee's while on vacation, do say hi for me.