-->
@disgusted
The very same that exists today in the form of The Orthodox Church.
Reading the Bible: Genesis - Noah's Flood Begins
Posts
Total:
105
I have said on numerous occasions that I do not think these stories were intended to be read as historical documents,
I think that if you went in a time machine back to 500 BCE and asked a Jew if they believed things happened exactly as it says in genesis they would say yes.
But unless you have a time machine we'll never know for sure!
-->
@Mopac
You have a nation in a church? Amazing! A nation of priests in fact. WOW, do you have any comprehension of what words mean?
-->
@keithprosser
As the great [sic] Kent Hovind once said:
HoW cAN yOu cLaiM to kNow whAt haPPeNed MilLIons of yEARs agO?!?! WerE yoU THeRe?!?! HAHAHA PWNED!!!
-->
@disgusted
It was not even uncommon for church fathers to refer to Christianity as being a race.
But yes, we are certainly called out as all Orthodox Christians are considered priests.
You are clearly critiquing the text by referencing and comparing to things outside of the text.
Mentioning texts other than the Bible? That is what you don't like? Have you no self-awareness whatsoever? Please go back and re-read some of your own posts and compare them to what you just said here.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The bible is meant to be read in the context of Church Tradition, not in the context of the pagan society or the heresy of gnosticism.
And so, you refuse sound advice to consult an Orthodox Priest because you are approaching this "reading" in the spirit of irreverence.
-->
@Mopac
I'm fairly sure the bible was written before there was any such thing as 'Church tradition'.The bible is meant to be read in the context of Church Tradition, not in the context of the pagan society or the heresy of gnosticism.
I think it was meant to be read as unvarnished truth - much as a sizeable fraction of Americans believes even today. Surely it was easier to accept it as simple reportage 2 or 3 thousand years ago.
-->
@keithprosser
Well, you are wrong, because the book itself was written by the ekklésia, or those called out from the world to be set apart as a nation of priests.
As it is even written in the book of Exodus, "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation."
That being the case, of course there was a Church Tradition.
-->
@Mopac
He's talking to you and you are an orthodox priest.
-->
@Mopac
The Jewish church.
-->
@disgusted
Well, technically you could say I am a priest I suppose. However, I am specifically referring to someone who can be present physically, preferably a presbyter. I am not a presbyter. These are usually what people think of as priests.
The Orthodox Church is the continuation of Israel.
As it is written in Peter's first Epistle...
"But ye are a chosen generation(the Greek word here is "genos", which is actually better translated as "race", "nation", or "kind") a royal priesthood, an holy nation(the Greek word here is "ethnos"), a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
So yes, we Orthodox of the Christian race are a nation of priests.
And The Orthodox Church is the very church of Jesus Christ. It is The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
-->
@Mopac
I don't say you are a priest, you do, you claim it again in this post. You don't understand a word you write, do you?
Jewish religion is what we were discussing and no your little church is not the continuation of that because the Jewish religion still exists.
I doubt that this Peter if he ever existed actually wrote any bloody thing.
The Catholics make that claim and your mob were kicked out of that religion.
-->
@disgusted
The "Jewish religion" that you see today is descended from an anti-Christian pharisaical sect that didn't get onboard. I don't expect you to believe that though. After all, you can't even believe that Peter existed! Strange.
It is obvious that Roman Catholicism broke away from Orthodoxy and not the other way around following a real study of church history. Besides that, their actions speak for themselves. Torturing and burning to death those that don't submit to The Pope, waging crusades, sexually abusing children for hundreds of years...
Really, you have much reason to prop up Roman Catholicism, because you of course would love Christianity to either be associated with that particular heresy or protestantism, which historically has not been much better when it comes to waging so called "holy wars" and persecuting those who don't step in line with their churches.
Well, I'll have you know that the ones who get blamed for it and tend to get killed over all this tend to be Orthodox Christians, and protestants in particular love to claim our martyrs as their own.
And by the way, people like you who follow the socialist religion? More Orthodox Christians have been killed by those following your religion than any other. The genocide your people commited against mine would make even the Muslims blush!
Well, we don't thirst for vengeance. Revenge is not very Christian. We bless those who persecute us, and pray for those who despitefully use us, as Jesus Christ instructed. And I would rather see you repent and be saved than tormented by your own wickedness.
-->
@Mopac
I'll give you a chance to try again.
I don't say you are a priest, you do, you claim it again in this post. You don't understand a word you write, do you?
Jewish religion is what we were discussing and no your little church is not the continuation of that because the Jewish religion still exists.
I doubt that this Peter if he ever existed actually wrote any bloody thing.
The Catholics make that claim and your mob were kicked out of that religion.
Oh and socialist religion, you poor thing reality is just to harsh for you.
-->
@Mopac
I think communication would be easier if you used the same definitions for words that other people use. I have said this before, but really imagine if I took a few words and just made up my own definition for them. People would rightly see me as a fool, even if they would agree with my claims if they used the same definitions as I.
If I said "Witches should be burned at the stake" people would tell me I am an idiot, and they would be right.
If I explained to them that my definition of a witch is "A person that rapes women every chance they get" and my definition of burning at the stake is "locked up in prison" people would tell me I am an idiot, and they would be right.
If I said "A person that rapes women every chance they get should be locked up in prison" people would not tell me I am an idiot, most would agree with me.
Using proper words is important.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You say you are an atheist, which means you don't believe in God.
Merriam-webster tells me that God is The Supreme or Ultimate Reality.
Oxford tells me that God is The Supreme Being.
Atheism is nihilism. Your stated belief is that you don't believe anything is ultimately real.
Seems to me that you have adopted an indefensible and patently self defeating position. An insane position. One that gives credibility to the psalm that reads, "Only a fool says in their heart there is no God".
In fact, most superstitions concerning God are contingent in bad language.
What bad language are you accusing me of using?
-->
@disgusted
Yet Paul, refering to the church in his letter to the Galatians writes "peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."
The Church certainly sees itself as Israel, and always has.
And socialism certainly is a religion.
Definition of religion courtesy of Merriam-webster...
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
And it is a very intolerant religion at that.
-->
@Mopac
Atheism is nihilism. Your stated belief is that you don't believe anything is ultimately real.
Any definition of the words 'athiest' and 'God'
that leads to the conclusion that I, in your words, "don't believe anything is real" is obviously a stupid definition. I believe toenails are real, for one thing. There are millions of other things too but I need only name one to disprove the notion that I "do not believe in anything".
I doubt that your apologetics match your theology. You would never describe God in this way if you were having an honest conversation about the concept rather than trying to convince people of a point. How transparent.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sorry, that is objectively wrong. The simple definition of genocide is "kill lots of people". That is what happened in this story. It is a story of genocide.Is it morally okay for God to commit genocide? that is a separate matter which I deliberately did not address in this OP. Notice how I did not once make any moral claims in the OP. That was very much intentional for a number of reasons.
I disagree with your explanation. Genocide like murder is not simply about people being killed. It requires particular elements to it. One of those is that it is committed by a person; namely a human. Murder cannot be committed by an animal. Animals do kill people, but they cannot be murderers. God is not a human. He cannot commit genocide - even if he kills the entire planet and everything on it. I am not talking morals here - I am talking definitions and concepts.
It is an absurdity to suggest that God is under the jurisdiction of human thinking. Perhaps your idea of God might be - but the God of the bible is not under such a jurisdiction. I often wonder whether the god you discuss is Aristotle's or Plato's god. A god who is subject to the laws of nature. This notion of god is quite different to the concept in Scripture of Almighty God. Other gods getting a mention in the bible probably fall into the same category as the Greek philosopher's to an extent.
Hence, I think the discussion about whether God may or may not be morally have justification to commit genocide - presumes much - and I do not concede that point at all. Btw - I think God could kill every human being and be justified. I take the view that he has not killed everyone a supreme example of mercy. Mercy means not getting what is deserved. Grace being its reverse - getting what is not deserved. humanity deserves rightly to be killed by God. The fact that he lets any survive is an act of mercy - and that they receive extended life - supreme grace.
-->
@Tradesecret
But as you've spent so much verbiage in this post already claiming what you as a human think about what your imaginary god does is absolutely meaningless. You people believe a book of lying contradictions and so you think that contradicting yourselves will convince people who think. Nah doesn't work.Btw - I think God could kill every human being and be justified
-->
@Tradesecret
If a god creates a universe, is he justified if he subsequently destroys it?I think God could kill every human being and be justified.
I haven't the faintest idea, but it's rather academic as the universe was not created by a god. I'd say if god was real then he could do what ever he likes - it's not as if gods have bosses to answer to.
Atheists sometimes come over as arguing that god exists but is a genocidal maniac, but that isn't what we atheists believe! The god YHWH depicted in he bible is not 'nice'. The ancients did not think of gods as being 'nice' - they were powerful and capricious rulers and had to be constanty placated with flattery and sacrifices. Step 1 is to see that much; step 2 is to see that gods are the imaginings of our superstitious past.
No-one is seriously proposing that YHWH is really a genocidal maniac. if he existed as desribed in the text he would be a maniac, but god does not exist in the first place.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, God is The Ultimate Reality, and that is how The Church has always understood God. I have read the church fathers and plenty of monastics. I am very confident about this.
In fact, not accepting this literally throws everything off. What is purifying the heart towards an idol or created thing? Nonsense. Self inflicted delusion. That isn't what the faith is, nor has it ever been.
But the west has forgotten the faith because it has never known anything but a heretical form of Christianity that inevitably leads to secularism and atheism.
So it is not about what you believe. Most atheists aren't nihilists. Most atheists don't know any better. It is about what your words mean, and when you are in denial of God, you are either saying that you don't believe anything is ultimately real or that there is no ultimate reality.
And I have to teach these things to those who believe in God as well, so you are wrong to say that I am simply trying to sound convincing. I am telling the truth plainly.
And I am certainly not claiming anything other than you don't know any better, not that you are truly depraved or a complete fool.
-->
@keithprosser
There is a huge difference in spirit between how the pagans worshipped their gods and how God is worshipped.
You can't tell the difference because you only see external things but fail to see the spirit behind it.
For example, you think sacrifices are for placating God. Maybe so with the pagans, but not the case for Israel. Neither will lip service will get you nowhere with God.
The Truth is God. That being the case, the religion we have that worships this God is about directing our hearts towards The Truth, to abide in The Truth, and to place no false god before The Truth.
You can't tell the difference between this and paganism, so you deny The Truth itself. In doing so, you make yourself the fool. But God is certainly long suffering towards your rebellion, and is forgiving and merciful towards those who repent from their evil deeds.
-->
@Mopac
you think sacrifices are for placating God. Maybe so with the pagans, but not the case for Israel.
It's all very well saying that the Israelites are different from pagans, but you don't tell us why the Israelites' reasons for sacrifices were any different.
-->
@keithprosser
I was giving you the opportunity to ask!
The purpose of it, like the entirety of the law, is to align the heart towards God, who is The Truth. It wasn't just any sacrifice that was accepted, but the firstfruits. This is a prioritizing God over anything.
Besides that, most sacrifices were also eaten. In fact, this is how the priests got fed!
But if the sacrifices themselves appeased God, it wouldn't be the case that the prophets constantly made a point that the sacrifices themselves did not do so. It was more important to live in mercy and truth.
So it is not about what you believe. Most atheists aren't nihilists. Most atheists don't know any better. It is about what your words mean, and when you are in denial of God, you are either saying that you don't believe anything is ultimately real or that there is no ultimate reality.
I believe in toenails. I do not believe in a being that created mankind, nor do I believe in an afterlife. This is a stupid strawman. Please find a better one.
-->
@keithprosser
Atheists sometimes come over as arguing that god exists but is a genocidal maniac, but that isn't what we atheists believe! The god YHWH depicted in he bible is not 'nice'. The ancients did not think of gods as being 'nice' - they were powerful and capricious rulers and had to be constanty placated with flattery and sacrifices. Step 1 is to see that much; step 2 is to see that gods are the imaginings of our superstitious past.No-one is seriously proposing that YHWH is really a genocidal maniac. if he existed as desribed in the text he would be a maniac, but god does not exist in the first place.
Yeah, this is obviously true and is just one of many reasons I have intentionally avoided making any moral judgement regarding the god of the Bible. If you ever notice me slipping out of the mindset of that fair and neutral view please correct me.
-->
@Tradesecret
I disagree with your explanation. Genocide like murder is not simply about people being killed. It requires particular elements to it. One of those is that it is committed by a person; namely a human. Murder cannot be committed by an animal. Animals do kill people, but they cannot be murderers. God is not a human. He cannot commit genocide - even if he kills the entire planet and everything on it. I am not talking morals here - I am talking definitions and concepts.
Genocide (v.) - The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
Nothing about being human there... unless you agree that only humans are capable of doing this, which as far as I know you don't.
It is an absurdity to suggest that God is under the jurisdiction of human thinking. Perhaps your idea of God might be - but the God of the bible is not under such a jurisdiction. I often wonder whether the god you discuss is Aristotle's or Plato's god. A god who is subject to the laws of nature. This notion of god is quite different to the concept in Scripture of Almighty God. Other gods getting a mention in the bible probably fall into the same category as the Greek philosopher's to an extent.
Definately talking about the Bible. The problem isn't your use of the word 'God', the problem is your use of the word 'genocide'.
Hence, I think the discussion about whether God may or may not be morally have justification to commit genocide - presumes much - and I do not concede that point at all. Btw - I think God could kill every human being and be justified. I take the view that he has not killed everyone a supreme example of mercy. Mercy means not getting what is deserved. Grace being its reverse - getting what is not deserved. humanity deserves rightly to be killed by God. The fact that he lets any survive is an act of mercy - and that they receive extended life - supreme grace.
Like I said before I am not the one saying genocide is morally abhorent. That would be your conscience saying that, not me.
You are the one that brought morality into it. Remember that.
-->
@Mopac
So same reason. You wanting it to be special really isn't.