God thinks you're an idiot!

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
God thinks you're an idiot!

In Postmodernism today, many Christians FEEL that if you offend somebody, you're not being spiritual. Or if you are not sensitive you are intolerant. If you call somebodies names (despite if it's true), you're being unspiritual.

But this is nonsense. God looks down on these puny atheists and calls them idiots. According to the Hebrew in some places, God even curses at these pathetic losers.

However, I shall give you some examples. It's to numerous to list them all. I will avoid Psalms 14:1 since that is the most popular one and is somewhat low key compared to the other ones.

So, as evidence, here are some verses that demonstrate that while these filthy low lifes are mocking God, it is actually God, that mocks them:

Quote:
Psalm 2:4 = He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.

Quote:
Psalm27:13 =  But the Lord laughs at the wicked, for He knows their day is coming

Quote:
Ps 58 But You, O Lord, Laugh at them, You scoff at all the nations.
 

Quote:
Proverb 1:26 =  I in turn will laugh when disaster strikes you; I will mock when calamity overtakes you—

These are only a sliver of examples.God even gets specific with His name calling at times. These fools (atheists) are as stupid (God refers to them as stupid) as they get. Now look atheists, I'm not calling you stupid, idiotic, moronic, freaks, and losers, (parable on my part), God is. So as I reflect the light of Scripture unto the pagan atheists, God tells you that you're an idiot.

I like the last one. When atheists die, or when the wicked parish, I'd rejoice. I'm not sure what happen with the shameful indian's dad on here, but perhaps God rejoiced and mocked you in your pain.

So, my worthless losers of friends on here, next time a Christian says He loves you or cares for you, you tell him that he's giving you bull shit.

Tell him, Jean sent you.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The Most Consistent Christian You Know!!!

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

Atheism is full of many denominations. Weak, Strong, LaVey, Theological Atheists, etc,

I'm assuming you are a weak atheist. It seems that this generation is very popular with the weak kind of atheism. Why is that? Why is weak atheism so attractive?

Well, at least we agree, Athesim is weak.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Is that not a fallacy of equivocation on the word 'weak', Jean?  You're trained in logic, I do hope that was an attempt at levity, I'd hate to see you as logically inconsistent, you're the absolute logical frame of reference on which I base atheism. Smiling (and that is how levity is attempted)

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Yes, very good, that was an intentional equivocation. But in all senses of the word, yes, atheism is weak. Some dumb atheist named Sheila from FFRF said to an apologist, I will accept your apology now. She was an idiotic moron. At least mine stuck.

So tell me, why is weak atheism so popular with the young punks of today? I suppose LaVeyian Atheism is popular as well, but I'm speaking in referene to the strong vs. weak approach.

You have no idea do you? You simply followed Sapient like a kid following a warlord into a pit of despair.

And thank you for admitting that I've taught you a few things. Let me guess, you did attend the Public School System?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Yes, very good, that was an intentional equivocation. But in all senses of the word, yes, atheism is weak. Some dumb atheist named Sheila from FFRF said to an apologist, I will accept your apology now. She was an idiotic moron. At least mine stuck.

So tell me, why is weak atheism so popular with the young punks of today? I suppose LaVeyian Atheism is popular as well, but I'm speaking in referene to the strong vs. weak approach.

You have no idea do you? You simply followed Sapient like a kid following a warlord into a pit of despair.

And thank you for admitting that I've taught you a few things. Let me guess, you did attend the Public School System?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

Hehe, yes, public school, you got me pegged.  Well, I was in Romania's public system until I was 15.  Most of my education outside my field is self educated.  My field is telecom/networking, very dull for laymen and non-geeks. Smiling  

Actually, until I registered on this site, I haven't even heard of Sapient.  I really don't care what the popular atheistic view is.  You care about labels, to me, an atheist that doesn't think critically is on the same rank as any theist.  Also, people that claim to be atheists without having reasoned their position throughly are not really atheists, they're just rebellious teenagers in my opinion, and likely to go for some new-agey pseudo science crap in the near future.  I hold no value to that.  

I personally think religion has served it's purpose, along the lines of Dennett's equating religion with having a sweet tooth, it has served it's purpose evolutionarily when resources were difficult to obtain, and now it is actually damaging.  

As to the whole weak atheism thing... I consider myself a critical thinker, to claim that there is absolutely no god like being out there is as idiotic as claiming that there absolutely is a god like being out there.  Regarding the abrahamic god, I take a strong atheist stance.  

I also believe empiricism is the only fundamental way to gain knowledge, hence there are no absolutes just fluctuations, so how can I make an absolute statement? Let's just say that the probability is so extremely small that you are correct, that I may as well consider it to be zero.

 Edit: mistype.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Yes, very good, that was an intentional equivocation. But in all senses of the word, yes, atheism is weak. Some dumb atheist named Sheila from FFRF said to an apologist, I will accept your apology now. She was an idiotic moron. At least mine stuck.

So tell me, why is weak atheism so popular with the young punks of today? I suppose LaVeyian Atheism is popular as well, but I'm speaking in referene to the strong vs. weak approach.

You have no idea do you? You simply followed Sapient like a kid following a warlord into a pit of despair.

And thank you for admitting that I've taught you a few things. Let me guess, you did attend the Public School System?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

LaVey's atheism. LaVey is a satanist - atheists don't believe in Satan either as there is as much justification for the Satan concept as there is for the God concept (none).

I'm still waiting for yours, by the way.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi KTULA

Hi KTULA,

Romania is worse then America via public schooling. Are you a Marxist by chance? So you are not an atheist in the sense that there is no god absolutely, you're not sure. But you are sure that the abrahamic God is non-existent?

So you're really an agnostic. Just like Sapient and ALL weak atheists.

What makes you so sure that the abrahamic God is not real, but another God may be real? Your view on reason I get coming from an atheist.

You don't really have an answer over the strong and weak atheist popularity?

JCG, LaVey was an atheist. He taught that there is no God or Satan, but that we ought to live according to the fullest of our desires and the more we indulge in our desires, the more satanic we are. So LaVey was an atheist (on the surface). In that sense, LaVey was a consistent atheist. He was a murderer, liar, and everything else. His son told me he use to shrink heads. The guy ought to be a role model for all atheists.

Sarte was also an atheist. People don't underrstand that there are several denominations of atheism. Not just one.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
The heresy of John Calvin (Jean Chauvin)

CALVIN BELIEVED IN PREDESTINATION TO HELL

Calvin said, "We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or death."

CALVIN BELIEVED IN BEING A DICTATOR IN GENEVA

Calvin was forced to flee his native France and eventually found refuge In Geneva. A man of tremendous political and organizational talents, he manipulated himself, and his fellow refugees, into absolute control over the city which gave them protection against the Catholic Inquisition. What came to be known as Calvinism grew out of the policy and writings of John Calvin after he became the ruler and dictator of Geneva, Switzerland (1541-1564).

CALVIN BELIEVED IN RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

The outstanding work of Calvin, from a practical point of view, was his municipal dictatorship in the city of Geneva. The literature on the subject is exhaustive. Striking instances of discipline in Geneva are these:

A man was banished from the city for three months because he heard an ass bray and said jestingly, "He prays a beautiful Psalm."

Three men who had laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.

Three children were punished because they remained outside of a church to eat some cakes.

A child was whipped publicly for calling his mother a thief.

A girl who struck her parents was beheaded.

A person was imprisoned for four days because he wanted to call his child Claude (the name of a Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.

It can be seen from the above that many of the persecutions which John Calvin endured were not for "well doing" (1 Peter 2:15): they were for carrying on like a fool engaged in trying to "bring in his Kingdom."

In Geneva, a secret police was forged under the name of The Consistory. Every home was compulsorily examined and searched. The City was divided into districts and committees of the Consistory were empowered to search and interrogate all residents without previous notice. Attendance at public worship was commanded and watchmen were directed to see that people went to church. The one thing that Calvin did not endorse was religious liberty.

From 1541 to 1546, John Calvin caused 58 people to be executed and seventy six were exiled. His victims ranged in age from 16 to 80. The most common capital offense was the opposition to infant baptism. Today, baptism only for accountable believers, is a Baptist distinctive. In Calvin's time it was punished either by drowning, a drawn out and slow burning at the stake, or beheading. All this was done in public, with city residents compelled to watch the butchery. The executions were spaced out so as to exert a continuing policy of fear and terror. Others were killed for advocating local church autonomy; opposing the tie-in of church and state: and preaching that Christ died for all sinners (unlimited atonement). Press censorship continued in Geneva until the eighteenth century.

THE KILLING OF MICHAEL SERVETUS

It is Servetus1 religious views that we are now concerned with, for that is what got him killed. He was premillennial and rejected Calvin's doctrine of predestination. So far so good. Servetus was also strongly anti-Catholic. He referred to the Mass as "a Satanic monstrosity and an invention of demons." To these sentiments the Reformers could agree. So what was the problem with Servetus? His trouble was twofold: rejection of infant baptism and holding unorthodox views of the Trinity.

According to Servetus, infant baptism was "a doctrine of the Devil, an invention of popery, and a total subversion of Christianity." He wrote two letters to Calvin on adult baptism and exhorted him to follow his example. The marginal, notes against infant baptism that Servetus wrote in Calvin's Institutes were used as evidence against him during his trial. Servetus admitted at his trial that he had referred to infant baptism as a "diabolical invention and infernal falsehood destructive of Christianity." Regarding the Trinity, Servetus was not a Unitarian but had a strange view of the Trinity in a great measure peculiar to himself. Now although Servetus' Trinitarian views were not orthodox; they were by no means criminal. Calvin wrote in a letter, "Servetus lately wrote to me... He takes it upon him to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail."

While in Geneva, Servetus made the mistake of attending church on Sunday where he was recognized and arrested. It was on Calvin's information to the magistracy that Servetus was put in prison, which fact Calvin did not deny. The trial lasted over two months and Calvin himself drew up a document of thirty-nine accusations against Servetus.
On the way to the stake, Servetus besought God to pardon his accusers. On account of the use of green oak-wood, Servetus suffered for half an hour. His last words were: "Jesus Christ, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me!" At twelve noon on October 27, 1553, Servetus passed into his eternal destiny. Nine years afterward, Calvin still justified his actions.

The strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says intolerantly:

"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

The respected Lutheran historian, Mosheim (1694-1755), judged in favor of Servetus. The historian Gibbon remarked: "he was more deeply scandalized at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed in the Auto da Fes of Spain and Portugal. The zeal of Calvin seems to have been envenomed by personal malice, and perhaps envy."
A man who would burn another man at the stake for disagreeing with him doctrinally is not a man to be emulated or followed or admired.

WHAT DID CALVIN BELIEVE?

Calvin's Institutes just what it is claimed to be: a Protestant Reformed theology. If you want to know the truth about baptism, the Church, dispensations, the Millennium, or the Second Coming of Christ: don't waste your time looking for them in Calvin's Institutes. One of the few books in the Bible that Calvin never wrote a commentary on was the Book of Revelation - he acknowledged that he couldn't understand it.

The Reformed Faith is an amalgamation of biblical Christianity, Roman Catholicism, and allegorical speculations. When Loraine Boettner wrote his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, he told the plain truth: "predestination in the Calvinistic system is a Reformed doctrine just like the Catholic Mass is a Catholic doctrine."

THE HARM DONE BY CALVINISM HERESY

Among Baptists, the Five Points of Calvinism are often called the "Doctrines of Grace" to remove the stigma of being associated with the baby-sprinkling John Calvin.

In dealing with the Five Points of Calvinism, It is certainly fitting that five is the number of death, so the Five Points of Calvinism will kill anything near it. Just as it takes no keen intellect to see that five is the biblical number of death, so no insight is necessary, other than an ability to read the Bible, to see the flagrant perversion that the Five Points of Calvinism make of Holy Scripture. Satan, the angel of death is the fifth cherub (Ezek 28:14) and has the power of death (Heb 2:14). The first man dies in Genesis 5:5. In Acts 5:5, Ananias dies after being asked five questions about his sin ("The wages of sin is death" [Rom 6:23]). Paul was whipped five times (2 Cor 11:24). Jesus Christ had five wounds. In Revelation chapter five, we see the Lamb that was slain (Rev 5). During the Tribulation, locusts will torment men for five months (Rev 9:5) until they seek death (Rev 9:6). When the fifth seal was opened, John saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain (Rev 6:9). There were five men stoned in the Bible that died. The "sin unto death" is in First John chapter five. The greatest chapter in the Bible on death, describing two men whose deaths affected billions of people, is Romans chapter five.

The Five Points of Calvinism are the sum and substance of the Calvinistic system: it is the distinguishing mark which separates Calvinists from all other Christians. This is stated in no uncertain terms by the Calvinists themselves. Boettner says, "The Calvinistic system especially emphasizes five distinct doctrines. These are technically known as the Five Points of Calvinism, and they are the main pillar on which the superstructure rests."

Calvinism goes into a realm of human philosophy. It is NOT a Bible doctrine, but a system of human philosophy appealing somewhat to the proud mind. Consider first that what we are discussing is called "Calvinism." Dr. Loraine Boettner says, "It was Calvin who wrought out this system of theological thought with such logical clearness and emphasis that it has ever since borne his name". How strange that, after 1,400 years of Christianity, practically no one had understood the Bible to teach Calvin's doctrine of predestination until he formed the philosophy! What a strangely hidden doctrine, that New Testament Christians could go for nearly for 1400 years until the days of the reformers, when Calvin developed the doctrine fully. It is obvious that great groups of Christians have always found salvation by grace in the Bible. The Bible is very clear on that. It is also clear on every other great doctrine.

A doctrine cannot be unscriptural without doing actual harm. God's way is right; man's way is wrong. And when the doctrine on the matter of salvation is wrong, it is certain to hinder the cause of Christ. So the human philosophy of Calvinism, the doctrine that every detailed event that happens in all the world was foreordained of God and had to happen, every sin was ordained of God, every act of a Christian or of a sinner, and that everyone was either foreordained to be saved before he was born, without having any free choice in the matter, or was damned without any possibility of his being saved-that doctrine is hurtful and has done great harm to the cause of Christ.

CALVINISTS ACTUALLY HINDER AND OPPOSE SOUL WINNING

If it seems shocking to accuse any group of opposing Gospel preaching and hindering soul winning, a little thought here will show that Calvinists must inevitably oppose soul-winning activities of those who try to get every sinner to repent, of those who offer salvation freely as purchased on Calvary for every person.

One shocking example deals with a Baptist preacher who could easily preach two hours on predestination, but his own grown sons were unconverted, and the father was not only totally indifferent about that matter, but insisted that no one else should try to win them to Christ.

Of course there will be exceptions. Some people who are Calvinists do love Christ in their hearts and so feel His moving of concern for sinners. And most Calvinists will profess that they believe in the preaching of the Gospel to all the world. But in actual practice. Calvinism cuts the nerve of soul winning on the foreign mission field as it does at home.

Did a great foreign mission program arise through the teaching and preaching of John Calvin? Many Calvinists will regret this fact. But the simple truth is that today those most active and most burdened about soul winning on the foreign field among Presbyterians are not those who believe in Calvin's doctrine of predestination. In fact, nine out of ten Presbyterians do not believe it, and the great mission program of Presbyterians was not built by Calvinists.

As the Wesleyan revival spread in England, of course it affected many others besides Methodists and many besides Arminians. Most of the Bible-believing, soul-winning Christians in the world are NOT Arminian. But very few soul winners are unreserved Calvinists. Calvinism does not produce a passion for soulwinning.

Calvinism appeals to those who think that it is the only answer to Arminianism. There are very many Christians that are soulwinners, love God, seek the salvation of the lost and yet ARE NEITHER Calvinists nor Arminian.

BIBLE DOCTRINES SHOW THAT CALVINISM
IS MORALLY IMPOSSIBLE

God could not predestinate one to do right and another to do wrong, one to be saved and one to be lost. Those who believe that God predestined some people to be saved by God's coercive grace, and that others are predestined to be lost and cannot be saved because of God's deliberate choice, are foolishly wrong. They are wrong in having a doctrine that goes totally against so many emphatic Scripture statements inviting all to be saved, showing that Christ died for all, that God is not willing that any should perish. The Bible pictures man as a free moral agent capable of choice, he is morally responsible.

There is the nature of man as it is pictured in the Bible and as it actually exists. God breathed into Adam's nostrils and he "became a living soul." He was made in the image of God. And what is this about man that is God-like? He is a reasoning creature with a moral responsibility, a conscience toward right and wrong, with the freedom of choice in right and wrong. The simple truth is that men can make a computer which can go through complicated mental processes of adding, subtracting, remembering, judging, hundreds of times faster than man can do it! But the computer has no will, no conscience of right or wrong. Hence it has no personality. It lacks the God-given moral nature of man.

Why did God allow Adam and Eve to fall, and so bring a curse on the whole human race? It was inherent in the kind of being that God created; man must be allowed to choose. But knowing man sometimes would choose wrongly, God planned with His Son before the world began to offer an atonement for the salvation of sinning men! So Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: CALVIN

TGBaker wrote:

CALVIN BELIEVED IN PREDESTINATION TO HELL

Calvin said, "We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or death."

CALVIN BELIEVED IN BEING A DICTATOR IN GENEVA

Calvin was forced to flee his native France and eventually found refuge In Geneva. A man of tremendous political and organizational talents, he manipulated himself, and his fellow refugees, into absolute control over the city which gave them protection against the Catholic Inquisition. What came to be known as Calvinism grew out of the policy and writings of John Calvin after he became the ruler and dictator of Geneva, Switzerland (1541-1564).

CALVIN BELIEVED IN RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

The outstanding work of Calvin, from a practical point of view, was his municipal dictatorship in the city of Geneva. The literature on the subject is exhaustive. Striking instances of discipline in Geneva are these:

A man was banished from the city for three months because he heard an ass bray and said jestingly, "He prays a beautiful Psalm."

Three men who had laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.

Three children were punished because they remained outside of a church to eat some cakes.

A child was whipped publicly for calling his mother a thief.

A girl who struck her parents was beheaded.

A person was imprisoned for four days because he wanted to call his child Claude (the name of a Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.

It can be seen from the above that many of the persecutions which John Calvin endured were not for "well doing" (1 Peter 2:15): they were for carrying on like a fool engaged in trying to "bring in his Kingdom."

In Geneva, a secret police was forged under the name of The Consistory. Every home was compulsorily examined and searched. The City was divided into districts and committees of the Consistory were empowered to search and interrogate all residents without previous notice. Attendance at public worship was commanded and watchmen were directed to see that people went to church. The one thing that Calvin did not endorse was religious liberty.

From 1541 to 1546, John Calvin caused 58 people to be executed and seventy six were exiled. His victims ranged in age from 16 to 80. The most common capital offense was the opposition to infant baptism. Today, baptism only for accountable believers, is a Baptist distinctive. In Calvin's time it was punished either by drowning, a drawn out and slow burning at the stake, or beheading. All this was done in public, with city residents compelled to watch the butchery. The executions were spaced out so as to exert a continuing policy of fear and terror. Others were killed for advocating local church autonomy; opposing the tie-in of church and state: and preaching that Christ died for all sinners (unlimited atonement). Press censorship continued in Geneva until the eighteenth century.

THE KILLING OF MICHAEL SERVETUS

It is Servetus1 religious views that we are now concerned with, for that is what got him killed. He was premillennial and rejected Calvin's doctrine of predestination. So far so good. Servetus was also strongly anti-Catholic. He referred to the Mass as "a Satanic monstrosity and an invention of demons." To these sentiments the Reformers could agree. So what was the problem with Servetus? His trouble was twofold: rejection of infant baptism and holding unorthodox views of the Trinity.

According to Servetus, infant baptism was "a doctrine of the Devil, an invention of popery, and a total subversion of Christianity." He wrote two letters to Calvin on adult baptism and exhorted him to follow his example. The marginal, notes against infant baptism that Servetus wrote in Calvin's Institutes were used as evidence against him during his trial. Servetus admitted at his trial that he had referred to infant baptism as a "diabolical invention and infernal falsehood destructive of Christianity." Regarding the Trinity, Servetus was not a Unitarian but had a strange view of the Trinity in a great measure peculiar to himself. Now although Servetus' Trinitarian views were not orthodox; they were by no means criminal. Calvin wrote in a letter, "Servetus lately wrote to me... He takes it upon him to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail."

While in Geneva, Servetus made the mistake of attending church on Sunday where he was recognized and arrested. It was on Calvin's information to the magistracy that Servetus was put in prison, which fact Calvin did not deny. The trial lasted over two months and Calvin himself drew up a document of thirty-nine accusations against Servetus.
On the way to the stake, Servetus besought God to pardon his accusers. On account of the use of green oak-wood, Servetus suffered for half an hour. His last words were: "Jesus Christ, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me!" At twelve noon on October 27, 1553, Servetus passed into his eternal destiny. Nine years afterward, Calvin still justified his actions.

The strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says intolerantly:

"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

The respected Lutheran historian, Mosheim (1694-1755), judged in favor of Servetus. The historian Gibbon remarked: "he was more deeply scandalized at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed in the Auto da Fes of Spain and Portugal. The zeal of Calvin seems to have been envenomed by personal malice, and perhaps envy."
A man who would burn another man at the stake for disagreeing with him doctrinally is not a man to be emulated or followed or admired.
 

 

I can not read any more.  I just ate dinner and it is not sitting very well.

I agree with the last sentence emphatically. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:TGBaker wrote:

cj wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

CALVIN BELIEVED IN PREDESTINATION TO HELL

Calvin said, "We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or death."

CALVIN BELIEVED IN BEING A DICTATOR IN GENEVA

Calvin was forced to flee his native France and eventually found refuge In Geneva. A man of tremendous political and organizational talents, he manipulated himself, and his fellow refugees, into absolute control over the city which gave them protection against the Catholic Inquisition. What came to be known as Calvinism grew out of the policy and writings of John Calvin after he became the ruler and dictator of Geneva, Switzerland (1541-1564).

CALVIN BELIEVED IN RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

The outstanding work of Calvin, from a practical point of view, was his municipal dictatorship in the city of Geneva. The literature on the subject is exhaustive. Striking instances of discipline in Geneva are these:

A man was banished from the city for three months because he heard an ass bray and said jestingly, "He prays a beautiful Psalm."

Three men who had laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.

Three children were punished because they remained outside of a church to eat some cakes.

A child was whipped publicly for calling his mother a thief.

A girl who struck her parents was beheaded.

A person was imprisoned for four days because he wanted to call his child Claude (the name of a Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.

It can be seen from the above that many of the persecutions which John Calvin endured were not for "well doing" (1 Peter 2:15): they were for carrying on like a fool engaged in trying to "bring in his Kingdom."

In Geneva, a secret police was forged under the name of The Consistory. Every home was compulsorily examined and searched. The City was divided into districts and committees of the Consistory were empowered to search and interrogate all residents without previous notice. Attendance at public worship was commanded and watchmen were directed to see that people went to church. The one thing that Calvin did not endorse was religious liberty.

From 1541 to 1546, John Calvin caused 58 people to be executed and seventy six were exiled. His victims ranged in age from 16 to 80. The most common capital offense was the opposition to infant baptism. Today, baptism only for accountable believers, is a Baptist distinctive. In Calvin's time it was punished either by drowning, a drawn out and slow burning at the stake, or beheading. All this was done in public, with city residents compelled to watch the butchery. The executions were spaced out so as to exert a continuing policy of fear and terror. Others were killed for advocating local church autonomy; opposing the tie-in of church and state: and preaching that Christ died for all sinners (unlimited atonement). Press censorship continued in Geneva until the eighteenth century.

THE KILLING OF MICHAEL SERVETUS

It is Servetus1 religious views that we are now concerned with, for that is what got him killed. He was premillennial and rejected Calvin's doctrine of predestination. So far so good. Servetus was also strongly anti-Catholic. He referred to the Mass as "a Satanic monstrosity and an invention of demons." To these sentiments the Reformers could agree. So what was the problem with Servetus? His trouble was twofold: rejection of infant baptism and holding unorthodox views of the Trinity.

According to Servetus, infant baptism was "a doctrine of the Devil, an invention of popery, and a total subversion of Christianity." He wrote two letters to Calvin on adult baptism and exhorted him to follow his example. The marginal, notes against infant baptism that Servetus wrote in Calvin's Institutes were used as evidence against him during his trial. Servetus admitted at his trial that he had referred to infant baptism as a "diabolical invention and infernal falsehood destructive of Christianity." Regarding the Trinity, Servetus was not a Unitarian but had a strange view of the Trinity in a great measure peculiar to himself. Now although Servetus' Trinitarian views were not orthodox; they were by no means criminal. Calvin wrote in a letter, "Servetus lately wrote to me... He takes it upon him to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail."

While in Geneva, Servetus made the mistake of attending church on Sunday where he was recognized and arrested. It was on Calvin's information to the magistracy that Servetus was put in prison, which fact Calvin did not deny. The trial lasted over two months and Calvin himself drew up a document of thirty-nine accusations against Servetus.
On the way to the stake, Servetus besought God to pardon his accusers. On account of the use of green oak-wood, Servetus suffered for half an hour. His last words were: "Jesus Christ, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me!" At twelve noon on October 27, 1553, Servetus passed into his eternal destiny. Nine years afterward, Calvin still justified his actions.

The strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says intolerantly:

"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

The respected Lutheran historian, Mosheim (1694-1755), judged in favor of Servetus. The historian Gibbon remarked: "he was more deeply scandalized at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed in the Auto da Fes of Spain and Portugal. The zeal of Calvin seems to have been envenomed by personal malice, and perhaps envy."
A man who would burn another man at the stake for disagreeing with him doctrinally is not a man to be emulated or followed or admired.
 

 

I can not read any more.  I just ate dinner and it is not sitting very well.

I agree with the last sentence emphatically. 

 

Welcome to the origin of part of protestant Christianity and Jean's world.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Calvin was the Osama bin

Calvin was the Osama bin Laden of his time and like bin Laden, deserves nothing but contempt and scorn.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello TG

Hello TG,

Just as you have made a logical fallacy of grammar with the Logos of John verses the Logos of Philo and Heraclitus, so you make a fallay with Calvinism.

By Calvinism (I've said this numerous times), I am not taking about the man John Calvin, but the system of thought. Actually Luther developed the thinking along the lines more then Calvin. Calvin got the credit since he mentions it more directly in his institutes.

Also, Calvin was systemizing what was already understood by the entire Reformation via Luther, Bucer, and others. Also, Calvin and Luther quote one man more times then any other man for their resources. The man they quote is the one who started systemizing it, but stopped. His name was Augustine.

Calvin also drowned the ana-baptists in the river. I do think since it was law that witches ought to have been burned at the stake, possibly even now since they burn babies on the altar of their sacrifice.

Whatever the law of Geneva was, that was law. So via the state, the punishments were carried out in just. However, and once again, it is not Calvin we are talking about per sa, but the system of  thought identified by the lable. Other names are monergism, Augustianiam, PROTESTANTISM, Pauline theology, etc, etc, etc.

Regarding the logos, I will say again, terms don't determine concept, but rather concepts determine terms. John was speaking to an audience aware of the logos. He used the flavor of the language, to convey a Christian concept. Since the concept John implied is absolutely no way the concept Philo or Heraclitus implied, then on this issue also, your thinking has been measured, and found wanting.

That would be like me using a term chicken. Since I  own a KFC restaurant, and I fry chicken, that means I fry people who are scaredy cats. This is utterly absurd, and thus are comitting a logical fallacy of semantics, which begs to differ from the real issue of concept.

Thus that has been refuted. What was the next issue that you found problems with doctrinally. Was it something along the lines of the Trinity again, or did you move on to something else?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello TG,

Just as you have made a logical fallacy of grammar with the Logos of John verses the Logos of Philo and Heraclitus, so you make a fallay with Calvinism.

By Calvinism (I've said this numerous times), I am not taking about the man John Calvin, but the system of thought. Actually Luther developed the thinking along the lines more then Calvin. Calvin got the credit since he mentions it more directly in his institutes.

Also, Calvin was systemizing what was already understood by the entire Reformation via Luther, Bucer, and others. Also, Calvin and Luther quote one man more times then any other man for their resources. The man they quote is the one who started systemizing it, but stopped. His name was Augustine.

Calvin also drowned the ana-baptists in the river. I do think since it was law that witches ought to have been burned at the stake, possibly even now since they burn babies on the altar of their sacrifice.

Whatever the law of Geneva was, that was law. So via the state, the punishments were carried out in just. However, and once again, it is not Calvin we are talking about per sa, but the system of  thought identified by the lable. Other names are monergism, Augustianiam, PROTESTANTISM, Pauline theology, etc, etc, etc.

Regarding the logos, I will say again, terms don't determine concept, but rather concepts determine terms. John was speaking to an audience aware of the logos. He used the flavor of the language, to convey a Christian concept. Since the concept John implied is absolutely no way the concept Philo or Heraclitus implied, then on this issue also, your thinking has been measured, and found wanting.

That would be like me using a term chicken. Since I  own a KFC restaurant, and I fry chicken, that means I fry people who are scaredy cats. This is utterly absurd, and thus are comitting a logical fallacy of semantics, which begs to differ from the real issue of concept.

Thus that has been refuted. What was the next issue that you found problems with doctrinally. Was it something along the lines of the Trinity again, or did you move on to something else?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Dear John,

The logical fallacy lies within your domain.  I think it is a matter of the not being able to see the forest for the trees.  Because of the presuppositions help in maintaining your system of faith its lens is itself a hermeneutic that causes you your predecessors from Nicea on to eisegesis rather than exegesis. It is nce to be able to say that to someone who understands my meaning though.  I know that you are talking more generally about the Reformation or Reformed theology but just as you like to goad people with your tongue in cheek acidic and hyperbolic taunts I thought that I would counter your cannabis claims regarding my historical self with that of your assumed name. I am aware of much good from the Reformed movement (in fact my mentor was from the Reformed Church of South Africa) apart from Calvin and his acts as a result of corrupted power. I realize the heritage from Augustine until the fully evolved system of the 17th century. I disagree obviously with you in seeing it as an accurate presentation or interpretation of Paul's doctrines. That is why a quoted all that scripture a bit back.  Paul like most Pharisees presents a unresolved mixture of freewill and predestination which was a happy medium between the Saducess radical freewill and the Essenes fatalism.

I will say again the general flavor of Logos regardless of the school of philosophy of that period has a core meaning which was obviously believed by the Johannine community that are the creators of the Gospel of John (possibly in three stages). Hereclitus if I remember correctly did not actually use the logos terminolgy but was considered the early grounds of its development regarding the four elements and their transformations in creation. The term and concept has a general consistency that goes back to Philo and explains the change of Jesus from a Jewish messiah to that of a Divine Christ in the early writings you call the New Testament. Your ability to suspend your presuppositons in order to in turn prove them to me in a neutral presentation is found MEASURED, and found wanting leaving the recipe HALF-BAKED. There is no fallacy of semantics by you simply saying it is and which I can testify to through the power of Truth as not.  It is obvious that John 1 presents Christ as Logos:

Here is others as an example from the devil WIKI:

Logos in Hellenistic Judaism

Word and related terms in earlier Jewish tradition prepared the way for its use here to denote Jesus as revealer of the unseen God (see Wisdom 9:1-4, 9, 17-18; Ecclesiasticus 24:1-12).[1] The Jewish-Alexandrian theologian and philosopher Philo wrote extensively about the Logos in ways that are reminiscent of New Testament theology. For instance, his teaching that “the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated”[2] resembles Colossians 1:17.

[edit] Christ as the logos

Word of God Window at St. Matthew's German Evangelical Lutheran Church in Charleston, South Carolina

Christians who profess belief in the Trinity often consider John 1:1 to be a central text in their belief that Jesus is God, in connection with the idea that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are equals. Though only in this verse is Jesus referred to as the Word of God, the theme transposed throughout the Gospel of John with variations.[3] Renowned theologian N.T. Wright characterizes "Word" (logos) as being incomprehensible in human language. He claims that through belief the Logos will transform people with its judgment and mercy. According to Wright, John's view of the Incarnation, of the Word becoming flesh, strikes at the very root of what he terms "the liberal denial...of the idea of God becoming human...." His assessment is that when the "enfleshment" and speaking Word is removed from the center of Christian theology, all that is left is "a relativism whose only moral principle is that there are no moral principles, no words of judgment (because nothing is really wrong, except saying that things are wrong), no words of mercy (because you're all right as you are, so all you need is affirmation)." [4]

Theologian Stephen L. Harris and others say the author of John adapted Philo's concept of the Logos, identifying Jesus as an incarnation of the divine Logos that formed the universe[5] (cf. Proverbs 8:22-36).

Southern Baptist theologian Frank Stagg considered that Jesus is God.[6]

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello TG,

Just as you have made a logical fallacy of grammar with the Logos of John verses the Logos of Philo and Heraclitus, so you make a fallay with Calvinism.

By Calvinism (I've said this numerous times), I am not taking about the man John Calvin, but the system of thought. Actually Luther developed the thinking along the lines more then Calvin. Calvin got the credit since he mentions it more directly in his institutes.

Also, Calvin was systemizing what was already understood by the entire Reformation via Luther, Bucer, and others. Also, Calvin and Luther quote one man more times then any other man for their resources. The man they quote is the one who started systemizing it, but stopped. His name was Augustine.

Calvin also drowned the ana-baptists in the river. I do think since it was law that witches ought to have been burned at the stake, possibly even now since they burn babies on the altar of their sacrifice.

Whatever the law of Geneva was, that was law. So via the state, the punishments were carried out in just. However, and once again, it is not Calvin we are talking about per sa, but the system of  thought identified by the lable. Other names are monergism, Augustianiam, PROTESTANTISM, Pauline theology, etc, etc, etc.

Regarding the logos, I will say again, terms don't determine concept, but rather concepts determine terms. John was speaking to an audience aware of the logos. He used the flavor of the language, to convey a Christian concept. Since the concept John implied is absolutely no way the concept Philo or Heraclitus implied, then on this issue also, your thinking has been measured, and found wanting.

That would be like me using a term chicken. Since I  own a KFC restaurant, and I fry chicken, that means I fry people who are scaredy cats. This is utterly absurd, and thus are comitting a logical fallacy of semantics, which begs to differ from the real issue of concept.

Thus that has been refuted. What was the next issue that you found problems with doctrinally. Was it something along the lines of the Trinity again, or did you move on to something else?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You just made the case for Stalin and the Soviet Union dipshit. "Calvin didn't do it, the state did", Typical, just like the fictional invisible friend you stupidly buy into, "I didn't do it, it is your fault"

The control Stalin had over the state was DUE to the support of the Russian Orthodox Church. Christianity never left the Soviet Union. It's dictator god is the model Stalin used to become a dictator himself with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Stalin used the "appeal to authority" the god character is. Congratulations, once again you prove what a fucking prick of a dictator you worship.

Calvin was the state at the time and you have to gloss over his power and pretend he didn't have any. You are flat out lying and a delusional nutcase.

Tyranny of the state is no different than the tyranny of a religion and Calvin was no one's hero. He was a violent prick and the Christian Osama Bin Laden. Calvin, Stalin, Hitler and Iran are all the same animal simply with different names.

You worship a dictator concept, PERIOD. Calvin was a monster just like Stalin and Hitler. I shouldn't be shocked by your bullshit, you admitted that your god likes holding third parties hostage to make threats to me.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jean Chauvin

Brian37 wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello TG,

Just as you have made a logical fallacy of grammar with the Logos of John verses the Logos of Philo and Heraclitus, so you make a fallay with Calvinism.

By Calvinism (I've said this numerous times), I am not taking about the man John Calvin, but the system of thought. Actually Luther developed the thinking along the lines more then Calvin. Calvin got the credit since he mentions it more directly in his institutes.

Also, Calvin was systemizing what was already understood by the entire Reformation via Luther, Bucer, and others. Also, Calvin and Luther quote one man more times then any other man for their resources. The man they quote is the one who started systemizing it, but stopped. His name was Augustine.

Calvin also drowned the ana-baptists in the river. I do think since it was law that witches ought to have been burned at the stake, possibly even now since they burn babies on the altar of their sacrifice.

Whatever the law of Geneva was, that was law. So via the state, the punishments were carried out in just. However, and once again, it is not Calvin we are talking about per sa, but the system of  thought identified by the lable. Other names are monergism, Augustianiam, PROTESTANTISM, Pauline theology, etc, etc, etc.

Regarding the logos, I will say again, terms don't determine concept, but rather concepts determine terms. John was speaking to an audience aware of the logos. He used the flavor of the language, to convey a Christian concept. Since the concept John implied is absolutely no way the concept Philo or Heraclitus implied, then on this issue also, your thinking has been measured, and found wanting.

That would be like me using a term chicken. Since I  own a KFC restaurant, and I fry chicken, that means I fry people who are scaredy cats. This is utterly absurd, and thus are comitting a logical fallacy of semantics, which begs to differ from the real issue of concept.

Thus that has been refuted. What was the next issue that you found problems with doctrinally. Was it something along the lines of the Trinity again, or did you move on to something else?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You just made the case for Stalin and the Soviet Union dipshit. "Calvin didn't do it, the state did", Typical, just like the fictional invisible friend you stupidly buy into, "I didn't do it, it is your fault"

The control Stalin had over the state was DUE to the support of the Russian Orthodox Church. Christianity never left the Soviet Union. It's dictator god is the model Stalin used to become a dictator himself with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Stalin used the "appeal to authority" the god character is. Congratulations, once again you prove what a fucking prick of a dictator you worship.

Calvin was the state at the time and you have to gloss over his power and pretend he didn't have any. You are flat out lying and a delusional nutcase.

Tyranny of the state is no different than the tyranny of a religion and Calvin was no one's hero. He was a violent prick and the Christian Osama Bin Laden. Calvin, Stalin, Hitler and Iran are all the same animal simply with different names.

You worship a dictator concept, PERIOD. Calvin was a monster just like Stalin and Hitler. I shouldn't be shocked by your bullshit, you admitted that your god likes holding third parties hostage to make threats to me.

 

 

 

Yes an I would add to your excellent point Brian that his second hero Luther not only had the theses that he nailed on the Wittenberg Door that began Protestantism he also had a program with an area addrssed the "Jewish Problem".  He viewed them Christ killers, apsotates rejecting Christ who should not be interacted with, placed in a ghetto if there were continued problems and ultimately if necessary the Final Solution....extermination. Sound familiar. It finds its way from Luther to Wagner and Nietzsche to Hitler and much of non-Jewish Germany and its environs.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Dictators come in all

Dictators come in all flavors, religious and state, be it one person, one religion, or one state political party.

WHAT they all have in common is "appeal to absolute authority" JUST LIKE YOUR PATHETIC CHILDISH god claim.

You Jean have absolutely no morals whatsoever when you use your god claim and admit to it being willing to put a gun to someone else's head to make threats to us. Your god is as much a monster as China's communism and Iran's theocracy.

None of those exist without buying into the immoral concept of unchanging authority which is what your god is. That is not moral or loving. That is the same arbitrary "might make right".

You are pathetic and your arguments reflect your own selfish narcissism.

The god of Abraham is the perfect manifesto for how to run a dictatorship. Calvin's delusions of the same fictional super hero you worship lead him to his power and the horrible acts he did in the name of a fictional dictator. The same one you used to use Japan's tsunami to threaten us with.

I have absolutely no respect for such immoral absurd claims and no respect for you either Jean. You are a nutcase. How does it feel to be property Fido?

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Helo TG,

The names Jean. Anyway, Calvin the man was not bad. At the time, Roman pagansim were burning people at the stake. Witches, Protestants and Mother-in laws (I endorse the latter).

He has Rome that was constantly attacking him and his city. They were going behind his back to grab people via deception out of Geneva. His DEMOCRACY was the means to help people via the war between Rome and Geneva. It was not via a dictatorship, but was via Capitalism which America too as an example and copied for it's own country. So to say Calvin was a dictator communist is grossly not understanding history at all. Also, Calvin came out of Roman Catholicism, so the advancements he made were fantastic in light of his situation.

Calvin is the father of Capitalsim since it reflect Christian teacing.

But I find your assessment of him or anything hypocritial doubletalk. As an atheist, there are no objective ethics. Thus in order for you to assertain error on a Christians part, you must steal the ethics of the Christians in order to determine that their deeds were wrong, thus going in a circle. TG, you're influenced by Christianity still more then you think.

You must first come up with an atheistic form of absolute ethics and judge by that. Since this is not what you are doing, you area negating your self via your presuppositions of ethics.

While I may not agree with Calvin on everything, via the law of democracy of Capitalism, if you break the law, the punishment was well known. So thus, the laws were followed as thus in a form of government almost identical to America (almost).

_____________________

Regarding Philo, first off, Philo was Platonic. His view of the logos was similar to plato as the medium of the form and the matter. However, he viewed the forms as the very thoughts of God, while Plato did not. There is zero, none, no, notta, absolutely zero evidence that John copied Philo's concept of the Logos.

Via the law of usus loqundi, John used the term that was very much an idiom of the known world at that time. Since Philo made the term popular certain connotations were imbedded with that term via the culture.  Thus to say John copied Philo is an argument from silence.

Philo believed that the logos was influenced via the world as a means of a number of beings of transgression. Sometimes he uses it in a isoloated since, but often in a multi planetary sense of supernatural beings.

Also, the concept of the Logos was around way before Philo. The dabar of God. Also in the Targums via Aramaic was the Memra as the word of God. So John isn't the first one to use it. Since John knew of the TaNaK, it is more logical to infer that this is where he got the primary means of the word along with the fact that the word was popular in the culture of that day. See Proverbs 1:20-33, Proverbs 8:22-36.

This argument that John was influenced by Plantoic/Stoic thinking was first brought to light by the heretic Bultmann. But Bultmann has been refuted so many times, he is still spinning in his grave via the number of kicks he's gotten in this kind of refutation that I am doing now.

John's logos is unique witht he idiom of it's day. He moves beyond the platonic stocisim of Philo and states that the Logos was Jesus of Nazareth.

John does not view the logos as a thought, or wisdom, or as a gnostic demi-urge, but as God Himself. This is extremely unique, and the concept for the logos that John uses is antithetical to Philo and Hereaclitus. Even Bultmann himself, who started this argument from silent, argued that John 1:1 is has no hint of polytheism and the the Word is ontologically speaking via equality with God (the Father). This is different from Philo.

And since God is immutable, and Heraclitus rejected immutability in anything, that defeats the Heraclitus argument. The logos was very rich and philosophically popular in John's day. He used it like we would use the term empiricism. The empiricism of today is not the empiricism of Hume. Usus loquendi. You speak via silence. Thus, John's logos was unique.

You do need to address the issue of stealing Christians ethics to say that Christians are not ethical via the ethics which you reject. This is doubletalk absurdity. You have not completely left Christianity via influence. Thus you are very inconsistent as an atheist since an atheist must leave Christianity 100% in all ideology.

Also, N.T. Wright is now looked at as a heretic. He does not find that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is that important, and that he has friends that are Christians who reject the bodily resurrection. Since this is essential via orthodoxy, Wright is a weak example in your case study.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello TG

Hello TG,

Now that your rehashment of Bultmann has been refuted once again, if we could continue down your path of apostasy, that would be entertaining.

What was the 2nd issue you came across that inflicted you intelleuctally speaking.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Helo

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Helo TG,

The names Jean. Anyway, Calvin the man was not bad. At the time, Roman pagansim were burning people at the stake. Witches, Protestants and Mother-in laws (I endorse the latter).

He has Rome that was constantly attacking him and his city. They were going behind his back to grab people via deception out of Geneva. His DEMOCRACY was the means to help people via the war between Rome and Geneva. It was not via a dictatorship, but was via Capitalism which America too as an example and copied for it's own country. So to say Calvin was a dictator communist is grossly not understanding history at all. Also, Calvin came out of Roman Catholicism, so the advancements he made were fantastic in light of his situation.

Calvin is the father of Capitalsim since it reflect Christian teacing.

But I find your assessment of him or anything hypocritial doubletalk. As an atheist, there are no objective ethics. Thus in order for you to assertain error on a Christians part, you must steal the ethics of the Christians in order to determine that their deeds were wrong, thus going in a circle. TG, you're influenced by Christianity still more then you think.

You must first come up with an atheistic form of absolute ethics and judge by that. Since this is not what you are doing, you area negating your self via your presuppositions of ethics.

While I may not agree with Calvin on everything, via the law of democracy of Capitalism, if you break the law, the punishment was well known. So thus, the laws were followed as thus in a form of government almost identical to America (almost).

_____________________

Regarding Philo, first off, Philo was Platonic. His view of the logos was similar to plato as the medium of the form and the matter. However, he viewed the forms as the very thoughts of God, while Plato did not. There is zero, none, no, notta, absolutely zero evidence that John copied Philo's concept of the Logos.

Via the law of usus loqundi, John used the term that was very much an idiom of the known world at that time. Since Philo made the term popular certain connotations were imbedded with that term via the culture.  Thus to say John copied Philo is an argument from silence.

Philo believed that the logos was influenced via the world as a means of a number of beings of transgression. Sometimes he uses it in a isoloated since, but often in a multi planetary sense of supernatural beings.

Also, the concept of the Logos was around way before Philo. The dabar of God. Also in the Targums via Aramaic was the Memra as the word of God. So John isn't the first one to use it. Since John knew of the TaNaK, it is more logical to infer that this is where he got the primary means of the word along with the fact that the word was popular in the culture of that day. See Proverbs 1:20-33, Proverbs 8:22-36.

This argument that John was influenced by Plantoic/Stoic thinking was first brought to light by the heretic Bultmann. But Bultmann has been refuted so many times, he is still spinning in his grave via the number of kicks he's gotten in this kind of refutation that I am doing now.

John's logos is unique witht he idiom of it's day. He moves beyond the platonic stocisim of Philo and states that the Logos was Jesus of Nazareth.

John does not view the logos as a thought, or wisdom, or as a gnostic demi-urge, but as God Himself. This is extremely unique, and the concept for the logos that John uses is antithetical to Philo and Hereaclitus. Even Bultmann himself, who started this argument from silent, argued that John 1:1 is has no hint of polytheism and the the Word is ontologically speaking via equality with God (the Father). This is different from Philo.

And since God is immutable, and Heraclitus rejected immutability in anything, that defeats the Heraclitus argument. The logos was very rich and philosophically popular in John's day. He used it like we would use the term empiricism. The empiricism of today is not the empiricism of Hume. Usus loquendi. You speak via silence. Thus, John's logos was unique.

You do need to address the issue of stealing Christians ethics to say that Christians are not ethical via the ethics which you reject. This is doubletalk absurdity. You have not completely left Christianity via influence. Thus you are very inconsistent as an atheist since an atheist must leave Christianity 100% in all ideology.

Also, N.T. Wright is now looked at as a heretic. He does not find that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is that important, and that he has friends that are Christians who reject the bodily resurrection. Since this is essential via orthodoxy, Wright is a weak example in your case study.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

So does that make Communist China Calvinist too? They have taken our manufacturing model and are clobbering the shit out of us.

So if making money is what constitutes "capitalism", then China is full of Calvinists. They are beating the shit out of the United States in terms of making money.

Otherwise Calvin had nothing to do with inventing any fucking economic model and you still are justifying a dictator god.

Christianity had NOTHING to do with modern economics any more than Dante had anything to do with geology in writing the "Inferno".

Calvin was a monster who worshiped the same god you used to hold Japan hostage to make threats to us.

You worship a dictator. Dictators can be effective money makers too, which is why the dictators who run the Saudi Royal family are experts at making money off of oil.

You have no fucking clue about reality. You are merely a delusional nut who makes the same types of threats Muslim nuts do with Allah.

I am not impressed with your hollow threats. How does it feel to be property Fido?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

China's method of communism had led them down the road to poverty. They realized this. Thus they are implimenting capitalism into their country yet still calling themselves communist. They are at a crossroads.

China is beating us because of atheism. Atheism is the death to virture. When Christianity was the influence of our culture, we were unstopable. Now, in the realm of atheism, the wind blows where it may.

But Calvin was not a dictator. He was like a governer or Geneva that simply carried out the laws according to the law. He was a theologian and a politician.

I would recommend that you step away from MSNBC and actually learn things.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Helo

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Helo TG,

The names Jean. Anyway, Calvin the man was not bad. At the time, Roman pagansim were burning people at the stake. Witches, Protestants and Mother-in laws (I endorse the latter).

He has Rome that was constantly attacking him and his city. They were going behind his back to grab people via deception out of Geneva. His DEMOCRACY was the means to help people via the war between Rome and Geneva. It was not via a dictatorship, but was via Capitalism which America too as an example and copied for it's own country. So to say Calvin was a dictator communist is grossly not understanding history at all. Also, Calvin came out of Roman Catholicism, so the advancements he made were fantastic in light of his situation.

Calvin is the father of Capitalsim since it reflect Christian teacing.

But I find your assessment of him or anything hypocritial doubletalk. As an atheist, there are no objective ethics. Thus in order for you to assertain error on a Christians part, you must steal the ethics of the Christians in order to determine that their deeds were wrong, thus going in a circle. TG, you're influenced by Christianity still more then you think.

You must first come up with an atheistic form of absolute ethics and judge by that. Since this is not what you are doing, you area negating your self via your presuppositions of ethics.

While I may not agree with Calvin on everything, via the law of democracy of Capitalism, if you break the law, the punishment was well known. So thus, the laws were followed as thus in a form of government almost identical to America (almost).

_____________________

Regarding Philo, first off, Philo was Platonic. His view of the logos was similar to plato as the medium of the form and the matter. However, he viewed the forms as the very thoughts of God, while Plato did not. There is zero, none, no, notta, absolutely zero evidence that John copied Philo's concept of the Logos.

Via the law of usus loqundi, John used the term that was very much an idiom of the known world at that time. Since Philo made the term popular certain connotations were imbedded with that term via the culture.  Thus to say John copied Philo is an argument from silence.

Philo believed that the logos was influenced via the world as a means of a number of beings of transgression. Sometimes he uses it in a isoloated since, but often in a multi planetary sense of supernatural beings.

Also, the concept of the Logos was around way before Philo. The dabar of God. Also in the Targums via Aramaic was the Memra as the word of God. So John isn't the first one to use it. Since John knew of the TaNaK, it is more logical to infer that this is where he got the primary means of the word along with the fact that the word was popular in the culture of that day. See Proverbs 1:20-33, Proverbs 8:22-36.

This argument that John was influenced by Plantoic/Stoic thinking was first brought to light by the heretic Bultmann. But Bultmann has been refuted so many times, he is still spinning in his grave via the number of kicks he's gotten in this kind of refutation that I am doing now.

John's logos is unique witht he idiom of it's day. He moves beyond the platonic stocisim of Philo and states that the Logos was Jesus of Nazareth.

John does not view the logos as a thought, or wisdom, or as a gnostic demi-urge, but as God Himself. This is extremely unique, and the concept for the logos that John uses is antithetical to Philo and Hereaclitus. Even Bultmann himself, who started this argument from silent, argued that John 1:1 is has no hint of polytheism and the the Word is ontologically speaking via equality with God (the Father). This is different from Philo.

And since God is immutable, and Heraclitus rejected immutability in anything, that defeats the Heraclitus argument. The logos was very rich and philosophically popular in John's day. He used it like we would use the term empiricism. The empiricism of today is not the empiricism of Hume. Usus loquendi. You speak via silence. Thus, John's logos was unique.

You do need to address the issue of stealing Christians ethics to say that Christians are not ethical via the ethics which you reject. This is doubletalk absurdity. You have not completely left Christianity via influence. Thus you are very inconsistent as an atheist since an atheist must leave Christianity 100% in all ideology.

Also, N.T. Wright is now looked at as a heretic. He does not find that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is that important, and that he has friends that are Christians who reject the bodily resurrection. Since this is essential via orthodoxy, Wright is a weak example in your case study.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

First of all Philo was influenced by Stoics and only indirectly through polemics regarding Plato.  ACtually John and that community moves away from Jewish  and Stoic sense to a Platonic idealism.  Bultmann was not the first to present the Greek Logos concept nor has he been the last. J.B. Lightfoot in the previous century pops to mind.  Also the theosophical movement of the turn of the 20th century used Christian exegesis to incorporate Logos.  I think you need to read more sources than your seminary/bible college indoctrination books. COntrary to what you say John in verse 1:18 in the best texts presents the Logos as the only begotten god who resides in the bosom of the father and explains the Father. So Jesus did not become God Himself until a lot of pagan influences on early Christianities.

ACtually I believe Christianites steal a secular morality/ethic which is as objective as the concept of good health without all that  absurd primitive deontological woo woo. I agree that N. T. Wright is a heretic as probably are you. But he is the knight in shining armour for evangelicals along with Craig. There is no core for a case study and yours is but one example and not a core either. There are only Christianities and not one true form. I have no doubletalk perhaps its just a irritating echo between your ears.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Hi TG,

Testy today? lol.

Bultmann was the first to convey the Logos with gnosticism. Even though it has been discussed, Bultmann is credited with it.

Also, the logos is unique since it is via the Being of Jesus of Nazareth. There is no connection to Philo, only culturally via the mans of language, which happens in all cultures. B.A.G.D. demonstrates this.

Why would you quote a heretic as a support for liberal atheism. What on earth. If you knew he was a liberal? I quote liberals in my writings at times, but as an ad hominem. This served no purpose.

Since you have failed to address the dillemma of non-ethics of atheism to imply ethics of the Chrisitan kind via a contradiction on your worldview, it shows that you are still an atheist with no balls to roll.

Look, you are speaking via an argument of silence. There is no evidence that John copied Philo's concept, but quite the opposite.

Since John's Logos is unique up to that point of AD 98, then your silence is heard only by crickets laughing at you.

Now, again, since your first issue (not about the trinity) has been refuted, please, what was the 2nd issue of contempt that you had with Christianity, along your path of apostasy.

You do want to continue down your path of distraught? It would be fun for all to hear. Perhaps this deserves it's own separate thread.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

Testy today? lol.

Bultmann was the first to convey the Logos with gnosticism. Even though it has been discussed, Bultmann is credited with it.

Also, the logos is unique since it is via the Being of Jesus of Nazareth. There is no connection to Philo, only culturally via the mans of language, which happens in all cultures. B.A.G.D. demonstrates this.

Why would you quote a heretic as a support for liberal atheism. What on earth. If you knew he was a liberal? I quote liberals in my writings at times, but as an ad hominem. This served no purpose.

Since you have failed to address the dillemma of non-ethics of atheism to imply ethics of the Chrisitan kind via a contradiction on your worldview, it shows that you are still an atheist with no balls to roll.

Look, you are speaking via an argument of silence. There is no evidence that John copied Philo's concept, but quite the opposite.

Since John's Logos is unique up to that point of AD 98, then your silence is heard only by crickets laughing at you.

Now, again, since your first issue (not about the trinity) has been refuted, please, what was the 2nd issue of contempt that you had with Christianity, along your path of apostasy.

You do want to continue down your path of distraught? It would be fun for all to hear. Perhaps this deserves it's own separate thread.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

John-Boy,

Do you have any support for your "TG's wrong because I say so" argument?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi JCG

Hi JCG,

So, the dart throwing continues. LOL.

Of course I do. But the bottom line is the burden of proof is on TG, so show the evidence of John copying Philo's Logos ver badum. Since the burden fails upon the fool, then the argument is invalid.

in logic, an invalid logic does not have to be answered. But I did anyway.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

China's method of communism had led them down the road to poverty. They realized this. Thus they are implimenting capitalism into their country yet still calling themselves communist. They are at a crossroads.

China is beating us because of atheism. Atheism is the death to virture. When Christianity was the influence of our culture, we were unstopable. Now, in the realm of atheism, the wind blows where it may.

But Calvin was not a dictator. He was like a governer or Geneva that simply carried out the laws according to the law. He was a theologian and a politician.

I would recommend that you step away from MSNBC and actually learn things.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Listen to you you fuckwad.

Christianity did not invent pluralism or democracy. The Greeks and Romans did. Your blood cult merely currently wants to make a claim to it.

But if you want to go down this pathetic road, just remember your fictional camra in the sky ALLOWED China to beat us at our own game.

Unlike you, I don't attribute China's prior failure and current success to fictional beings. I attribute it to normal non fictional human competition. They are beating us because they are, not because of a fictional Satan or fictional god.

Seems that if God is on the side of the west he's doing a piss poor job helping us. That, or there is no such thing as a god and China is merely beating us economically because they watched and learned.

So not only do you worship a dictator, he seems to be a bit of a deadbeat too.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

You are so emotional, you are seeing things that aren't there. I never said anything about pluaralism. In America, what what was considered pluaralism was intended for Christian denominations. Not sacrificing virgins. Because of the decay of our culture, thanks to atheism, the framers never imagined where this would go.

Pluralism today is not the Pluralism of 1783.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

Testy today? lol.

Bultmann was the first to convey the Logos with gnosticism. Even though it has been discussed, Bultmann is credited with it.

Also, the logos is unique since it is via the Being of Jesus of Nazareth. There is no connection to Philo, only culturally via the mans of language, which happens in all cultures. B.A.G.D. demonstrates this.

Why would you quote a heretic as a support for liberal atheism. What on earth. If you knew he was a liberal? I quote liberals in my writings at times, but as an ad hominem. This served no purpose.

Since you have failed to address the dillemma of non-ethics of atheism to imply ethics of the Chrisitan kind via a contradiction on your worldview, it shows that you are still an atheist with no balls to roll.

Look, you are speaking via an argument of silence. There is no evidence that John copied Philo's concept, but quite the opposite.

Since John's Logos is unique up to that point of AD 98, then your silence is heard only by crickets laughing at you.

Now, again, since your first issue (not about the trinity) has been refuted, please, what was the 2nd issue of contempt that you had with Christianity, along your path of apostasy.

You do want to continue down your path of distraught? It would be fun for all to hear. Perhaps this deserves it's own separate thread.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

What was my first issue? I never actually stated that because most of my posts have simply been responsive. Testy you wanna give yourself shots in the stomach twice a day. Come a little closer sonny all the better to see you.  A bon chat bon rat. What have you refuted except in your own mind? Secondly morality is derived from animal behavior as is ours. It usually is kinder and and more moral than religious morality.  As to quoting a heretic. Anyone is a heretic to someone.  WHAT liberal theism?  Which post are you talking about and in which context?  I've got balls to big to walk you farted anal twit.  You are getting insulting again and I've got no problems with telling you to kiss off.

An objective morality can be obtained simply by imagining the worst place of suffering for the longest period of time to the most people ( Harris).  Any movement from that is toward well-being.  As I said morality is as secular and objective as physical health.  Physical health is a knowable and understood state by which we conduct medicine that has generalities but has specific application dependent on the situation. A morality built upon well-being is much the same neither deontological or situational. Just purely Satanic in order to relativize, fragment and overcome your  anal tight-ass world.

As to Logos in John. The parallels are to strong to say i am speaking of an argument from silence. SO JOhn's concept is not unique up until 98 CE.  AS can be seen in WIKI:

Logos (pronounced /ˈloʊɡɒs/, /ˈlɒɡɒs/ (UK), or /ˈloʊɡoʊs/ (US); Greek λόγος logos) is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric and religion. Originally a word meaning "word," "speech," "account," or "reason,"[1][2] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for the principle of order and knowledge.[3]

Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to "reasoned discourse"[4] in the field of rhetoric. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.

After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo (ca. 20 BC–AD 40) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.[5] The Gospel of John identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),[6] and further identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos.

Although the term "Logos" is widely used in this Christian sense, in academic circles it often refers to the various ancient Greek uses, or to post-Christian uses within contemporary philosophy, Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung.

Stoics

In Stoic philosophy, which began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, the logos was the active reason pervading the universe and animating it. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos, ("logos spermatikos&quotEye-wink or the law of generation in the universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos.[23]

The Stoics took all activity to imply a Logos, or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, to them, the Logos was anima mundi, a concept which later influenced Philo of Alexandria, although he derived the contents of the term from Plato.[24]
Logos in Hellenistic Judaism

In the Septuagint the term logos is used for the word of God in the creation of heaven in Psalm 33:6, and in some related contexts.
Philo of Alexandria

Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[5] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[25] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."[25] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."[26]

The Platonic Ideas were located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.[25] In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.[25]

It is a simply observation recognized by all except those who have doctrinal things to hide.  The uniqueness of John's usage of logos is its application to a maniestation in flesh as a historical person. Logos is the only begotten god of John 1:18 which requires a n eisegesis and hermeneutic to wiggle from the factual to a doctrinal and albeit orthodox determination. As to a separate thread I would consider it if you straighten up your act. I do not care for taunts , insults or what have you. That is not research or discussion. Find some one else otherwise.  My first real issue of Christianities was the contradictions and falsifications in a supposedly inerrant bible.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I just had a thought Fido,

I just had a thought Fido, did you make any plans past May 21st? You think you beat all other theists in the amount of nuttyness? I'd say the fool who thinks the world will end next week is nuttier than you. You cant even compete by drinking more Kool Aid than that?

You cant even compete against your own. Cant you come up with something more creative than "you're all going to burn in hell"?

Maybe find Jesus in toast? Come on man, get creative. This mundane bullshit bigotry "the sky is falling" is laughable but nowhere near as laughable as that.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Hi TG,

I am truly sorry about your cancer. You do know that if you don't repent for your apostasy though, and if you do not beat this cancer, your place will be hotter then most. I'm just saying.

Your form of ethics is not objective. Since YOU start with imagine. Since you yourself is a particular, and you imagine particulars, around the particulars, you end up with paraticulars. This is not objective, this is subjective. WOW. And if that is your form of ethics, then why did you use Christian ethics on Christian things?

The parralls are not to strong. Your fallacy of ad hoc ergo prompter hoc is glaring. Yes, there are similaries because the word logos was a COMMON philosophical word during the time of John in 98 AD. However, to describe the logos as Jesus Chist from Nazareth is not what Philo said. Also, since the Logos precedes Philo, this is absurd.

There is no evidence. Show me the evidence that John copied Philo via the concept of logos ver badum. Why would he do this if logos preceded Philo. Philo got the term from the TaNaK itself, and paganised it via Stocism and Platonic thought. LOL. WOW.

John never ever defined the logos through which all things are devine. He identifies the logos as Jesus Christ. Who is bound in time. This was prophesied in the Old Testament.

Philo stole the materal from the TaNaK, and paganismed it, again.

There were not platonic ideas in the logos (in Jesus Christ). Plato did left the idea of God uncertain within the forms. Also, Matter was not looked at as evil but as good since God created matter and thus saw that it was good. John in passing shows this.

Old arguments, very old.

So you agree that John's logos is unique? Then what are we discussing.

Look, since you are reprobate, you are going to be stubborn to the evidence.

1) You have not explained the notion of logos embedded in the langauge of John's time

2) YOu have not shown the means of teh logos before Philo, in the TaNaK.

3) You have not shown the platonic relations of John's logos, since matter is good, and God is clear in the logos

4) You have not discussed the logos in the Targums

5) You have not discussed the logos in intertestamental literature, via the psuedo-pigraphy

6) You have not discussed the radical differences of the logos that makes John's logos unique.

You have failed. Now of course, you're going to be stubbor and wicked as you are. Even in your pain and possible death. That is normal among apostates.

However, we will not see past this, so next objection. I created a forum just for this.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I just had a

Brian37 wrote:

I just had a thought Fido, did you make any plans past May 21st? You think you beat all other theists in the amount of nuttyness? I'd say the fool who thinks the world will end next week is nuttier than you. You cant even compete by drinking more Kool Aid than that?

You cant even compete against your own. Cant you come up with something more creative than "you're all going to burn in hell"?

Maybe find Jesus in toast? Come on man, get creative. This mundane bullshit bigotry "the sky is falling" is laughable but nowhere near as laughable as that.

 

Maybe we'll get really lucky and JC will be raptured and the we won't have him spamming the boards any more.  Wouldn't that be nice?  No, I don't think he is funny.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

The Bible talks about apostates and teachers having a hotter spot in hell then others. Since TG has cancer, he may or maynot beat it, only God will determine that.

Ironic, the God He hates is keeping him alive (for now). When God removes his hand, he will slip into eternal torture, forever. It's not an issue of creativity, but truth.

But, I'm sure the demons will find creative ways to torture him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi TG,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

I am truly sorry about your cancer. You do know that if you don't repent for your apostasy though, and if you do not beat this cancer, your place will be hotter then most. I'm just saying.

Your form of ethics is not objective. Since YOU start with imagine. Since you yourself is a particular, and you imagine particulars, around the particulars, you end up with paraticulars. This is not objective, this is subjective. WOW. And if that is your form of ethics, then why did you use Christian ethics on Christian things?

The parralls are not to strong. Your fallacy of ad hoc ergo prompter hoc is glaring. Yes, there are similaries because the word logos was a COMMON philosophical word during the time of John in 98 AD. However, to describe the logos as Jesus Chist from Nazareth is not what Philo said. Also, since the Logos precedes Philo, this is absurd.

There is no evidence. Show me the evidence that John copied Philo via the concept of logos ver badum. Why would he do this if logos preceded Philo. Philo got the term from the TaNaK itself, and paganised it via Stocism and Platonic thought. LOL. WOW.

John never ever defined the logos through which all things are devine. He identifies the logos as Jesus Christ. Who is bound in time. This was prophesied in the Old Testament.

Philo stole the materal from the TaNaK, and paganismed it, again.

There were not platonic ideas in the logos (in Jesus Christ). Plato did left the idea of God uncertain within the forms. Also, Matter was not looked at as evil but as good since God created matter and thus saw that it was good. John in passing shows this.

Old arguments, very old.

So you agree that John's logos is unique? Then what are we discussing.

Look, since you are reprobate, you are going to be stubborn to the evidence.

1) You have not explained the notion of logos embedded in the langauge of John's time

2) YOu have not shown the means of teh logos before Philo, in the TaNaK.

3) You have not shown the platonic relations of John's logos, since matter is good, and God is clear in the logos

4) You have not discussed the logos in the Targums

5) You have not discussed the logos in intertestamental literature, via the psuedo-pigraphy

6) You have not discussed the radical differences of the logos that makes John's logos unique.

You have failed. Now of course, you're going to be stubbor and wicked as you are. Even in your pain and possible death. That is normal among apostates.

However, we will not see past this, so next objection. I created a forum just for this.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

I am sorry that you are sorry for my leukemia. Actually it is because the place that I said " imagine" concerning  the worst suffering scenario  your belief system already has a fact. You just defined it as my destination: HELL. I do not use Christian ethics on christian things. Christian ethics are derived from human norms  ( my hypothetical secular morality).  I certainly agree that Philo derived his views from several sources and I am not saying that John is using specifically Philo. I am saying he is using the popular concept as seen in Philo and and contemporary Stoic and Hellenitstic jewish thought.  But it is a move from a Jewish Messiah to a divine pre-existence by its application.  John's Logos parallels again logos as seen in Philo  WHICH IS EMBEDDED in the philosophical language of John's time. The idea of word has more to do in many areas with the authority of God's speech or commands.  The idea of wisdo in Proverbs 8 comes closer to John than "word" in the OT. ThePlatonic notions of logos are more a responsive Stoic apologetic to Platonic thought and Cynicism than actually Platonic. It is t Neo-Platonic thought that develops by third century that effects the church's idea of logos as well as the hellenistic culture. ( i.e.;; Hermetica and post 70 Rabinnic literature...your Targums ...eventually the Kabalah). There is no need to discuss these as they are post Gospel of John.  

Douglas M Hamp

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

to keep from tyoing my fingers off thus showing the common understanding apart from your cultus:

 

Philo, the Jewish philosopher of the first century AD, dealt with a term which would eventually find its way into the theology of the Gospel of John. [22] The Logos, which is found in John 1: 1, has its roots in Jewish thought and philosophy as demonstrated by Philo.  Even though the book of John is said to have been written previous to 130 AD (Introduction to John, Dr. James W. Bryant), [23] we can still find evidence of Jewish thought.  Nonetheless, Philo’s use of Logos or Nous, demonstrates the conception of the ‘mind of God.‘ [24]

The Nous or Logos were equated by Philo to be the same as Wisdom as seen in the book of Proverbs chapter 8. Philo’s allegorization of Wisdom was, similar to the proverb itself, a personification of the term.  Wolfson, in his commentary on Philo says “Just as the Logos is described by Philo as an instrument ‘through which’ or ‘by which’ the world was made, so also is Wisdom described by him as that ‘through which (di es) the world came into existence’ or ‘was brought to completion.’ This is as should be expected, inasmuch as Wisdom is used by him as the equivalent of the Logos.”

I would also like to demonstrate the tension found in the conception of Logos which Philo portrays.  For even though the concepts of Wisdom and Logos were said to be equal, Philo then attributes the role of mother to Wisdom.  “…instead of applying to Wisdom the term instrument, he applies to it the term mother.” [25] This is particularly strange when cf.  Wolfson (pp. 258) Wisdom and Logos are identical. [26] Wisdom, then, is only another word for Logos, and it is used in all the senses of the term Logos.  Both these terms mean, in the first place, a property of God, identical with His essence, and, like His essence, eternal.”

Let us consider one further example of this concept’s ambiguity which would have led to the interpretation of the messianic figure as identical to the Logos or in Hebrew, the D’var…. the substitution of the words ‘obtained me’(Prov. 3:19) for the Septuagint ‘created me’ as a translation of the Hebrew kanani does not mean that he believed that Wisdom was not created by God but only obtained by Him after it had existed apart from God from eternity.” [27] What Wolfson is trying to say here I find to be extremely ambivalent.  In order to obtain something after it had ‘existed apart from God’ sounds like something other than a created entity.  For if God had created Wisdom then how should also obtain it at some point in pre-creation.  Furthermore, to exist apart the omnipotent creator from eternity (past?), is by definition existence without creation; is it not? [28] And, I think that the big problem is if the Nous is the mind of God, then why would he need to create it and more importantly; what was He using in the meantime?!

Whether Philo’s philosophies were known to the general public is difficult to ascertain.  However, we can infer, based on a statement by Mowinckle, that the general ideas of messianic thought, including Philo, were not foreign to the people within the apocalyptic circles (and that was most people).  He says, “But he (that is the Messiah) could also be referred to by the term ‘the Man’; and, in association with the apocalyptic world of ideas, the meaning of this term was immediately plain.”  Philo was not the only one to attribute such divine qualities to Wisdom/Logos.

In the Wisdom of Solomon, written most likely in the time of Pompey (63-48 B C), [29] we see that the author speaks of Wisdom as the inventor [30] of all, thus assigning the work of creation with her in contrast to God.  “For she that is the artificer of all things taught me, even wisdom.” Our author continues by listing the various attributes of wisdom which seem to point to a personification of her.

As to failing to show the uniqueness of John...I thought this was a discussion. I am not going to present long diatribes to address everything at once thoroughly I will deal with one topic at a time not s meandering confusion of suppositions. I did in fact state the uniqueness of John is that he applied the gernal concept of Logos to the historical jesus giving him a new attribute: pre-existence. Read more thoroughly be nice or shut up.  I don't have to discuss jag with you. If you as you said "wanna be friends" that's fine. But I don't put up with friends like that. It serves no purpose in the progress of knowledge  whether yours, mine or wjomever reads this junk.  ANd of course I see that you have failed. Stick to an issue until it is resolved.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The Bible talks about apostates and teachers having a hotter spot in hell then others. Since TG has cancer, he may or maynot beat it, only God will determine that.

Ironic, the God He hates is keeping him alive (for now). When God removes his hand, he will slip into eternal torture, forever. It's not an issue of creativity, but truth.

But, I'm sure the demons will find creative ways to torture him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

TG is being kept alive by doctors and whatever kills him will be the disease, not your god or any.

Cancer is not the result of Satan. God is not allowing him to have cancer, and god is not keeping him alive. His condition exists because of nature and evolution. And I am damned proud of him in his condition rejecting your superstitious bullshit.

His cancer is a result of cancer being a side affect of evolution. He is being kept alive by doctors. His death will be because of nature.

Your god is not needed to explain the good or bad in life.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The Bible talks about apostates and teachers having a hotter spot in hell then others. Since TG has cancer, he may or maynot beat it, only God will determine that.

Ironic, the God He hates is keeping him alive (for now). When God removes his hand, he will slip into eternal torture, forever. It's not an issue of creativity, but truth.

But, I'm sure the demons will find creative ways to torture him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Actually I don't hate god or various presentations Jean. I just conclude that He does not exist. Nor is he a reality since I can posit the idea of transcendence as potenitality qua Being and existence as only relative to being as actualization or actuality. The idea of hell does not even hold up well in scripture. It is a post canonical formulation like the trinity.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jean Chauvin

Brian37 wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The Bible talks about apostates and teachers having a hotter spot in hell then others. Since TG has cancer, he may or maynot beat it, only God will determine that.

Ironic, the God He hates is keeping him alive (for now). When God removes his hand, he will slip into eternal torture, forever. It's not an issue of creativity, but truth.

But, I'm sure the demons will find creative ways to torture him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

TG is being kept alive by doctors and whatever kills him will be the disease, not your god or any.

Cancer is not the result of Satan. God is not allowing him to have cancer, and god is not keeping him alive. His condition exists because of nature and evolution. And I am damned proud of him in his condition rejecting your superstitious bullshit.

His cancer is a result of cancer being a side affect of evolution. He is being kept alive by doctors. His death will be because of nature.

Your god is not needed to explain the good or bad in life.

 

Thanks Brian for your complements and thoughts. It is quite possible that my condition is the result of human action. As Dawkins says is homo sapiens ability to go against evolution or/ genetics and choose a different path because of consciousness. We of course or natural but we can become self aware and go against nature's evolutionary natural selection ( like when we breed dogs).  Leukemia is not hereditary though perhaps having more or less resistance such as alcoholism or some people breaking out all over from poison ivy while others can walk right through it... a genetic predisposition. Leukemia is caused by organic solvents, stronium 90 or  low level radiation, certain chemicals like benzene, or ELF ( extermely low frequency) electromagnetic fields (unconfirmed)etc.; There are clusters of cancer and leukemia pockets all over the US believed to be environmental :

http://www.brockovich.com/index.html

I have Philadelphia chromosome damage.  The ninth and 22nd chromosome confuse bits of each other and switch parts with each other.  Tyrosine kanise causes the bad white cells to multiply ill formed and immature clogging up my blood. My chemo reduces the tyrosine kanise and therefore the reproduction hopefully until I get a bone marrow transplant which will eat up the rest of my immune system and the stem cells of philadelphia chromosomes. It is a side effect of evolution and the pollution of our environment. And my death WILL be a result of nature. because we polluting humans are a part of nature.

 

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Hahaha. I see your point. Perhaps empiricial observation will be your means to understanding, which will take place in hell, as you observe your own torture for eternity.

The failure for YOU to Posit is not thus reality. Reality is not via visualiziation.

The councils were via heresy, not to add or make up doctrine. lol. Revelation 20 via the white throne judgement my friend. Revelation 20.

God holds all of us up by his hand. And removes it when it is the set time for your death. Perhaps TG's will be sooner then most.

The fact that you hate God (Romans 1:18, you know He is, but suppress it) in the possible last days of your life shows the evil that is truly in the world.

No wonder God thinks of the wicked as idiots.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Jean Chauvin

TGBaker wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The Bible talks about apostates and teachers having a hotter spot in hell then others. Since TG has cancer, he may or maynot beat it, only God will determine that.

Ironic, the God He hates is keeping him alive (for now). When God removes his hand, he will slip into eternal torture, forever. It's not an issue of creativity, but truth.

But, I'm sure the demons will find creative ways to torture him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Actually I don't hate god or various presentations Jean. I just conclude that He does not exist. Nor is he a reality since I can posit the idea of transcendence as potenitality qua Being and existence as only relative to being as actualization or actuality. The idea of hell does not even hold up well in scripture. It is a post canonical formulation like the trinity.

 

 

Yea, you and I both know that. But if one is to take his model for argument's sake only, such a being can only be called a prick under the conditions Jean claims are a reality. We don't even treat prisoners like that. Could you imagine our 2 million prisoners being purposely infected with any kind of deadly disease?

I hate god as a claim like I would hate Lex Luthor as a claim. They are not real beings, but the stories portrayed by the authors of such fiction are horrible in context and motif.

Especially not the vindictive prick Jean tries to peddle. I am glad such a fictional being does not exist, but fans of such absurd claims do try to sell this horrible motif an use it to blame you for your suffering. It is the worst type of emotional blackmail.

You got cancer because cancer exists and happens. You are surviving right now because of doctors and medicine. And when you die, it will be solely because death exists and cancer is one form of the road to such.

You are amazing to me and I only hope I can be as brave in my final hours. I would rather not see it coming, but if my own death is long and protracted, I hope I can have the same attitude you do.

Everyone here besides Jean wishes you a REAL comfort and as much REAL comfort as you can have considering. I wish you as much quality time with your loved ones with whatever time you have left and I hope you can be extended as long as possible to your own comfort.

Jean wishes you well, if he does, to earn brownie points for his god and only hopes you convert under gunpoint and threat. The sad part is when he dies, he wont even know that god doesn't exist.

The good part for you ultimately is that you won't have to suck up to a fictional prick and you don't have to suffer in a fictional hell. Your life will be just like it was before you were born. That is much more comforting to me than the prospect of emotional blackmail Jean peddles.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:TGBaker

Brian37 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The Bible talks about apostates and teachers having a hotter spot in hell then others. Since TG has cancer, he may or maynot beat it, only God will determine that.

Ironic, the God He hates is keeping him alive (for now). When God removes his hand, he will slip into eternal torture, forever. It's not an issue of creativity, but truth.

But, I'm sure the demons will find creative ways to torture him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Actually I don't hate god or various presentations Jean. I just conclude that He does not exist. Nor is he a reality since I can posit the idea of transcendence as potentiality qua Being and existence as only relative to being as actualization or actuality. The idea of hell does not even hold up well in scripture. It is a post canonical formulation like the trinity.

 

 

Yea, you and I both know that. But if one is to take his model for argument's sake only, such a being can only be called a prick under the conditions Jean claims are a reality. We don't even treat prisoners like that. Could you imagine our 2 million prisoners being purposely infected with any kind of deadly disease?

I hate god as a claim like I would hate Lex Luthor as a claim. They are not real beings, but the stories portrayed by the authors of such fiction are horrible in context and motif.

Especially not the vindictive prick Jean tries to peddle. I am glad such a fictional being does not exist, but fans of such absurd claims do try to sell this horrible motif an use it to blame you for your suffering. It is the worst type of emotional blackmail.

You got cancer because cancer exists and happens. You are surviving right now because of doctors and medicine. And when you die, it will be solely because death exists and cancer is one form of the road to such.

You are amazing to me and I only hope I can be as brave in my final hours. I would rather not see it coming, but if my own death is long and protracted, I hope I can have the same attitude you do.

Everyone here besides Jean wishes you a REAL comfort and as much REAL comfort as you can have considering. I wish you as much quality time with your loved ones with whatever time you have left and I hope you can be extended as long as possible to your own comfort.

Jean wishes you well, if he does, to earn brownie points for his god and only hopes you convert under gunpoint and threat. The sad part is when he dies, he wont even know that god doesn't exist.

The good part for you ultimately is that you won't have to suck up to a fictional prick and you don't have to suffer in a fictional hell. Your life will be just like it was before you were born. That is much more comforting to me than the prospect of emotional blackmail Jean peddles.

 

 

Thanks your natural and human compassion is certainly more legitimate than all those who pray and speak well because of their obligation to a god or fear of his Hell for lack of compliance. That to me is a perfect example of secular/ natural morality that religion regularly corrupts.  AS you say the beginning of my story (life) will be as before I was born. Plus its effects will spread out as a meme

to people who remember me, cared for me, hated me, was fathered by me, agreed with me or disagreed with me.  That contributes to the evolution of something greater than a soul that I don't have. It contributes to our species.  Really you have to be braver as a theist than an atheist. As you point out I have an eternal state as before I was poetic sleep.  Many theists go to their graves fearing they did wrong and thus ultimately hell.  They doubt themselves or god. The ones that are sure go in peace to a non-existing god and his non-existing heaven.  That is a very similar state to my ultimate non-existence. What they missed is in the living because of their superstition. But you carry from me, with me, and to me what they do not. ..A view of the real world in which we can therefore act and live in its wonder and its misery.  That dualism is a means of transcending depression for detachment and or bliss in the universe's granduer.  That to me is secular, natural and human spirituality.  Rock and roll and PEACE my friend.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Brian37 wrote:I

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I just had a thought Fido, did you make any plans past May 21st? You think you beat all other theists in the amount of nuttyness? I'd say the fool who thinks the world will end next week is nuttier than you. You cant even compete by drinking more Kool Aid than that?

You cant even compete against your own. Cant you come up with something more creative than "you're all going to burn in hell"?

Maybe find Jesus in toast? Come on man, get creative. This mundane bullshit bigotry "the sky is falling" is laughable but nowhere near as laughable as that.


 

 

 

Maybe we'll get really lucky and JC will be raptured and the we won't have him spamming the boards any more.  Wouldn't that be nice?  No, I don't think he is funny.

 

For once I wish magic was real, it would be nice if he went away and never came back. But I do find it funny, and sad at the same time. I have to laugh at him because he really does not have the power he thinks he does by crossing his fingers. I do find it sad that far too many people buy into fictional beings and use them to threaten others.

I think it is better to laugh at these clowns than to fear them. You know what Jefferson said about using ridicule. I cant think of a better target than Jean on this board right now.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Hahaha. I see your point. Perhaps empiricial observation will be your means to understanding, which will take place in hell, as you observe your own torture for eternity.

The failure for YOU to Posit is not thus reality. Reality is not via visualiziation.

The councils were via heresy, not to add or make up doctrine. lol. Revelation 20 via the white throne judgement my friend. Revelation 20.

God holds all of us up by his hand. And removes it when it is the set time for your death. Perhaps TG's will be sooner then most.

The fact that you hate God (Romans 1:18, you know He is, but suppress it) in the possible last days of your life shows the evil that is truly in the world.

No wonder God thinks of the wicked as idiots.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

yyyAAAWWWnnn

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Brian37

TGBaker wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The Bible talks about apostates and teachers having a hotter spot in hell then others. Since TG has cancer, he may or maynot beat it, only God will determine that.

Ironic, the God He hates is keeping him alive (for now). When God removes his hand, he will slip into eternal torture, forever. It's not an issue of creativity, but truth.

But, I'm sure the demons will find creative ways to torture him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Actually I don't hate god or various presentations Jean. I just conclude that He does not exist. Nor is he a reality since I can posit the idea of transcendence as potentiality qua Being and existence as only relative to being as actualization or actuality. The idea of hell does not even hold up well in scripture. It is a post canonical formulation like the trinity.

 

 

Yea, you and I both know that. But if one is to take his model for argument's sake only, such a being can only be called a prick under the conditions Jean claims are a reality. We don't even treat prisoners like that. Could you imagine our 2 million prisoners being purposely infected with any kind of deadly disease?

I hate god as a claim like I would hate Lex Luthor as a claim. They are not real beings, but the stories portrayed by the authors of such fiction are horrible in context and motif.

Especially not the vindictive prick Jean tries to peddle. I am glad such a fictional being does not exist, but fans of such absurd claims do try to sell this horrible motif an use it to blame you for your suffering. It is the worst type of emotional blackmail.

You got cancer because cancer exists and happens. You are surviving right now because of doctors and medicine. And when you die, it will be solely because death exists and cancer is one form of the road to such.

You are amazing to me and I only hope I can be as brave in my final hours. I would rather not see it coming, but if my own death is long and protracted, I hope I can have the same attitude you do.

Everyone here besides Jean wishes you a REAL comfort and as much REAL comfort as you can have considering. I wish you as much quality time with your loved ones with whatever time you have left and I hope you can be extended as long as possible to your own comfort.

Jean wishes you well, if he does, to earn brownie points for his god and only hopes you convert under gunpoint and threat. The sad part is when he dies, he wont even know that god doesn't exist.

The good part for you ultimately is that you won't have to suck up to a fictional prick and you don't have to suffer in a fictional hell. Your life will be just like it was before you were born. That is much more comforting to me than the prospect of emotional blackmail Jean peddles.

 

 

Thanks your natural and human compassion is certainly more legitimate than all those who pray and speak well because of their obligation to a god or fear of his Hell for lack of compliance. That to me is a perfect example of secular/ natural morality that religion regularly corrupts.  AS you say the beginning of my story (life) will be as before I was born. Plus its effects will spread out as a meme

to people who remember me, cared for me, hated me, was fathered by me, agreed with me or disagreed with me.  That contributes to the evolution of something greater than a soul that I don't have. It contributes to our species.  Really you have to be braver as a theist than an atheist. As you point out I have an eternal state as before I was poetic sleep.  Many theists go to their graves fearing they did wrong and thus ultimately hell.  They doubt themselves or god. The ones that are sure go in peace to a non-existing god and his non-existing heaven.  That is a very similar state to my ultimate non-existence. What they missed is in the living because of their superstition. But you carry from me, with me, and to me what they do not. ..A view of the real world in which we can therefore act and live in its wonder and its misery.  That dualism is a means of transcending depression for detachment and or bliss in the universe's granduer.  That to me is secular, natural and human spirituality.  Rock and roll and PEACE my friend.

 

 

Even this exchange, if I don't remember word for word, I will certainly until I die, remember you for giving me the dignity of this response in knowing I am ok.

I think it sucks when people WAIT till points like this to know what is really important in life. Somehow I think you never had that problem. And for you to take the time to respond to me, well, what can I say? I will never forget you and you don't know how much you are helping me right now. Thank you.

You are the best dude.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The Bible talks about apostates and teachers having a hotter spot in hell then others. Since TG has cancer, he may or maynot beat it, only God will determine that.

Ironic, the God He hates is keeping him alive (for now). When God removes his hand, he will slip into eternal torture, forever. It's not an issue of creativity, but truth.

But, I'm sure the demons will find creative ways to torture him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

More threats, nice. Like I said before, you would SUCK at any kind of sales job.

That would be like my boss at work saying, "Look dude, I am not telling you to do this, it is your choice, but if you go door to door and beat the shit out of people threatening  them into coming here, I won't stop you".

Your fear/bribery scheme is childish and immoral.

TG has cancer do to evolution and his genes and environment, not demonds or god/s allowing a hell. Neither god/s or demons exist. Nor does it work, even as a fictional story to put fear into TG. He's not scared of your fiction no matter how much you want him to be.

Your threats of demons are as hollow as threatening us with Lex Luthor. Threaten us with pink unicorns and it would still mean the same thing. Nothing. You are pissing in the wind with your superstition asshole.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The Bible talks about apostates and teachers having a hotter spot in hell then others. Since TG has cancer, he may or maynot beat it, only God will determine that.

Ironic, the God He hates is keeping him alive (for now). When God removes his hand, he will slip into eternal torture, forever. It's not an issue of creativity, but truth.

But, I'm sure the demons will find creative ways to torture him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

No, when he dies, when you die, when I die, that's it. There is no heaven, no hell, no comic book God or Satan. There is no Muslim hell or Jewish Hell, and voodoo dolls don't work either. Santa isn't real either nor will you get coal in your stocking from him.

You certainly didn't create the fiction you swallow, that was done by tribal goat hearders over 1,000 year period. You simply swallowed their crap. Hardly impressive or scary.

THAT is the truth. Your claim of Jesus will die at some point. It might morph into a newer superstition like Scientology was born out of Christianity. But ultimately whatever natural event causes the extinction of our entire species, all the god claims in human history will die, including your magic baby superstition. When our species goes extinct there will be no Allah, or Vishnu or Jesus or Thor or heaven or hell to sell to credulous gullible dip shits like you.

Your fictional gang leader and the book of fiction it was written in are all myth, both the God and the Satan. You might as well be threatening us with the Joker or Lex Luthor.

So go peddle your gang manual elsewhere. The cat is already out of the bag that it is a comic book and nothing more.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeff.Boone
Posts: 1
Joined: 2011-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:In

Jean Chauvin wrote:

In Postmodernism today, many Christians FEEL that if you offend somebody, you're not being spiritual. Or if you are not sensitive you are intolerant. If you call somebodies names (despite if it's true), you're being unspiritual.

But this is nonsense. God looks down on these puny atheists and calls them idiots. According to the Hebrew in some places, God even curses at these pathetic losers.

However, I shall give you some examples. It's to numerous to list them all. I will avoid Psalms 14:1 since that is the most popular one and is somewhat low key compared to the other ones.

So, as evidence, here are some verses that demonstrate that while these filthy low lifes are mocking God, it is actually God, that mocks them:

Quote:
Psalm 2:4 = He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.

Quote:
Psalm27:13 =  But the Lord laughs at the wicked, for He knows their day is coming

Quote:
Ps 58 But You, O Lord, Laugh at them, You scoff at all the nations.
 

Quote:
Proverb 1:26 =  I in turn will laugh when disaster strikes you; I will mock when calamity overtakes you—

These are only a sliver of examples.God even gets specific with His name calling at times. These fools (atheists) are as stupid (God refers to them as stupid) as they get. Now look atheists, I'm not calling you stupid, idiotic, moronic, freaks, and losers, (parable on my part), God is. So as I reflect the light of Scripture unto the pagan atheists, God tells you that you're an idiot.

I like the last one. When atheists die, or when the wicked parish, I'd rejoice. I'm not sure what happen with the shameful indian's dad on here, but perhaps God rejoiced and mocked you in your pain.

So, my worthless losers of friends on here, next time a Christian says He loves you or cares for you, you tell him that he's giving you bull shit.

Tell him, Jean sent you.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The Most Consistent Christian You Know!!!

your are an idiot . god is not stupid and you are. stop qua ting Scripture if you dint knot shat. the world was made for us humans. maybe your not smart enough to be a human

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jeff.Boone wrote:your are an

Jeff.Boone wrote:

your are an idiot . god is not stupid and you are. stop qua ting Scripture if you dint knot shat. the world was made for us humans. maybe your not smart enough to be a human

 

fink afor u rite, stoopid.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Jeff.Boone

iwbiek wrote:

Jeff.Boone wrote:

your are an idiot . god is not stupid and you are. stop qua ting Scripture if you dint knot shat. the world was made for us humans. maybe your not smart enough to be a human

 

fink afor u rite, stoopid.

lolz, the ceeling cat srsly purrz when jean speeks.  thnxby  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

Scientology was not an offshoot of Chrisitanity. It came via the Occult within the OTO via Crowley's friend Parson who was a Rocket Engineer.

L. Ron Hubbard was involved in trying to create a Moon Child. AiG ought to know what a moon child is since he claims to have been so high in the occult.

Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with moonchildren or OTO Satanism/Gnosticism.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Actually Christianity has a

Actually Christianity has a lot in common with gnostic beliefs, though such concepts were fairly unpopular at the time they did borrow some elements from it when they started blending the various ideas together to form the Christian orthodoxy.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

Scientology was not an offshoot of Chrisitanity. It came via the Occult within the OTO via Crowley's friend Parson who was a Rocket Engineer.

L. Ron Hubbard was involved in trying to create a Moon Child. AiG ought to know what a moon child is since he claims to have been so high in the occult.

Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with moonchildren or OTO Satanism/Gnosticism.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Hey dipshit, Scientology teaches that Jesus existed. They had to suck some dick to get the surrounding society of the time to buy into it. It is a common tactic to deny parts of prior culture (the magic of jesus) while saying "he was a nice man but".

The same thing happened in ancient Greece and Rome. You could suck up to any deity you wanted as long as you sucked up to the state gods in public.

It is an offshoot because it was created by a man who was disinfranchised with the current popular myth, and if he L Ron Hubbard had flat out said, "Jesus was fiction and his character was a dick" the cult never would have gotten off the ground. Thats why a Scientologist will say "Jesus was a nice guy, but just a man".

Thats why Muslims say the same thing, because they too are an offshoot of Christianity.

Your dead man on a stick cult is an offshoot of the Hebrews, which is why you incorporate Yahweh but call him God. The Hebrews are an offshoot of the polytheism of the Mesopotamian region. Which is why Yahweh, El, Baal are names ripped off from the polytheists which ended up in the OT.

And why if they were NOT trying to draw people away from popular myth would Scientology adapt the Christian cross as it's symbol?

You are a fucking moron. L Ron Hubbard had to incorporate Jesus and the christian cross to compete with the surrounding popular myth to make his grow. It was no accident that the Christian cross is used by Scientologists.

It is no different than Kwanza adapting the Menorah.

New religions pop up just like a new fast food joint pops up. It may serve different food, but it has to have the same marketing and incorporate similar objects and products to compete.

Scientology is an offshoot of Christianity, just like every other new religion started is a result of wanting to compete with established religion. New religions wouldn't pop up if they had nothing to compete with nor would they start if they didn't use marketing to draw people away from older ones.

THAT IS WHY SCIENTOLOGY USES A FUCKING CROSS DIPSHIT

"They don't have the same characters"

Misses the point that the new religion had to incorporate old names and symbols to compete.

I get the same stupid argument from Jews,

"The Hebrews don't worship the same god as the Caananites"

DUH!

That doesn't change the fact that THE NAME "YHVH" or "title" was ripped off from the polytheists, tweaked and changed by the hebrews.

Ideas do not exist in a vacuum and neither does religion.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Temper Tantrum

Hi Temper Tantrum,

The OTO which Hubbard was a part of believes they are the true Christians. They even sign their letters in Christ. Gnostic Satanism is truely the most dangerous, but that's not to say the OTO is the most dangerous. Though I did witness the Rite of Saturn once with my spouse. Pretty creepy.

The early Christian church had nothing to do with gnosticism. They had councils to REFUTE gnosticism, not to blend gnosticism. This is simply a form of ignorance of history and Church history.

No wonder you are called the joker.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi Temper

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Temper Tantrum,

The OTO which Hubbard was a part of believes they are the true Christians. They even sign their letters in Christ. Gnostic Satanism is truely the most dangerous, but that's not to say the OTO is the most dangerous. Though I did witness the Rite of Saturn once with my spouse. Pretty creepy.

The early Christian church had nothing to do with gnosticism. They had councils to REFUTE gnosticism, not to blend gnosticism. This is simply a form of ignorance of history and Church history.

No wonder you are called the joker.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The only joker here is you.

Religions don't magically appear. The newer ones look at the older ones, reject the things they don't like, kiss ass to draw people in, and mimic the older ones to draw people in. It is the most common marketing scam in human history.

Take a motif, reject the things you don't like, paint yourself as the underdog, kiss ass to draw people in and incorporate motifs and ideas from the competing cultures.

Religion exists for the same reason McDonald's exists. Marketing. You can sell ice cream to an Eskimo if they are gullible enough.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi Temper

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Temper Tantrum,

The OTO which Hubbard was a part of believes they are the true Christians. They even sign their letters in Christ. Gnostic Satanism is truely the most dangerous, but that's not to say the OTO is the most dangerous. Though I did witness the Rite of Saturn once with my spouse. Pretty creepy.

The early Christian church had nothing to do with gnosticism. They had councils to REFUTE gnosticism, not to blend gnosticism. This is simply a form of ignorance of history and Church history.

No wonder you are called the joker.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The early christian church had nothing to do with gnoticism because it did not exist nor did councils.  The early christianities that were not gnostic gegan to be serious about collection christian writings and putting them together because Marcion the gnostic created the first christian canon by rejecting the moral monster god of the old testament, Yahweh. Marcion put only things that did not support a link between Judaism and Christianity into his New Testament. He used only the gospel of Luke and Paul's writings.  So the first New Testament was Gnostic and at least rejected the hideous and evil god of the Old Testament.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism