Seriously, what is wrong with Christians?

Cite or retract. Perhaps you think anyone who is a Christian is dishonest and false? That would be par for what I've seen of this forum so far, low on debate and high on insult and rant.

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't even come up with one thing, you went back 200 posts for a cite where I didn't even do that. Pathetic.

 

What did Nicea believe that wasn't believed by the very early church? If the NFL rules on a question this year it doesn't mean they just invented football.

 

What was the purpose of the nicean council?
As for the NFL ruling on A question, not even related.

 

I would say to rule on the Arian heresy mainly. From Wikipedia: "The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Córdoba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east.[17] To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls."

Now do you want to answer my question on what Nicea believed that wasn't believed by the early church?

We disagree.

 

Here's a good example of your avoidance.
We spoke about this before, and I mentioned how you love to pick on Obama. He was elected by a fairly wide margin. Was the right conclusion reached? Are you happy with the result?
Last time you chose to ignore the questions.
They did exactly the same thing in Nicea.

 

As I said, childish insults. Want to cite a case of dishonesty, or am I just going to hear crickets chirping like when I ask Taikoo that question?

 

Or like when I asked you mine before.
You never answered.

 

What is the *right* conclusion for who should be president of the US? A better example would be to ask if the Supreme Court reached the right conclusion on a case in light of the Constitution. That doesn't mean they *invented* the Constitution when they issue a ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

Your what?

 

I asked you the same questions you are avoiding now.
You avoided them before by not answering them at all.
Now you choose not to answer again.

 

Have fun playing your games with someone else. I imagine it is easier than debating.

 

I have already provided you the example. Post 514, which you continually make minimalist comments about and then stop responding. You claim people say things that people have not said.

 

And in post 514, it was claimed I believe (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus (a Jew) was saying to exterminate Jews because he criticized particular Jews. That in itself is claiming someone said something that was not said. C'mon, the local atheists here claim I make things up all the time, surely you can come up with dozens of examples instead of a dodgy one from 200 posts ago? If I were you, I'd be blushing.

 

Rest my case.

 

Just this once I'll play your game.
Do you think the Supreme Court always comes to the right conclusion when they vote? Do they excommunicate the judges that don't agree?

 

They've been cited.
Are you just going to sit out there and hide?

 

I've already corrected you about two or three times already. You asked me where Jesus promoted anti-semitism, I provided you with a quote, you then claimed I was advocating that criticism meant that extermination was necessary.

 

Before the laws of Moses, they weren't under Mosaic Law,yes. Why do you think a law limiting the abuse to slaves would need to be created if they didn't need it ?

There is a difference between encouraging slavery and allowing it.In the OT,God allowed slavery along with a number of other practices he did not want his people to do.God made concessions under the Old Covenant for divorce, although he never wanted divorce to happen.

"Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (Matthew 19: God’s attitude toward slavery in the Old Testament would fall under the same category.

I Don't know, apparently it was just necessary.If something was necessary,let's say drone attacks that kill innocent people while trying to save a whole nation from terror, it that evil ?

Bad wording on my part.That's right, They wouldn't forgive him but they would be unjust to follow his old ways. They would no longer be justified under his new laws and for the purpose of this discussion, defeats your position. You could be ignorant to Hitler's new law's of good but that doesn't mean you could ever justify going back to his old ways with his new laws.

NO,not"inherently different about humans" but rather they weren't yet influenced by the particular kind of society that you are used to and not even close.

"Ashoka the Great banning the slave trade" - but he didn't ban slaves in the empire. Qin Dynasty overturned back into allowing slavery. Not sure why this matters anyway since Moses died around 1400 BC ...

Even in the New Testament, slave trading is categorized with all the other sins.

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make, would you please clarify ?

So what? You got the point even if you don't accept it.

Ok, I would not discourage you from doing so either but you said progress makes no sense in the presence of an all powerful and omniscient God and as I said before, in the confines of his creation and will, It makes perfect sense not to put your restrictions and allowances on God.

 

I really don't know the answer to this question,about what he could have done. It seems to me that humans are limited by their nature to some extent and I am basing my discussion on what God can do within the confines of his own creation and will.

 

its a necessary skill set if one is to swallow the fairy tales of talking donkey and
so forth.

 

So he created us without the capacity to understand morality?
Boy, does that open up a can of worms.

 

Sure we do but that doesn't mean that we will.

 

Didn't you say god was limited by the nature of his creation? Not their choice, but their nature.
I'm sure that was you.

 

There were no laws before Moses?

I find it appalling that you and God would think that divorce and slavery are on the same level of immorality.

I don't buy the argument that an omnipotent God couldn't have come up with a better solution than condoning slavery, rape, and genocide.

Who is they? I am talking about the actions of Hitler and God. If Hitler changed his views, that doesn't change what he has done. If God changed his views, that doesn't change what he has done.

Well no (*)(*)(*)(*), they weren't influenced, because God apparently didn't care to influence them or set them on the right track.

The point was to show that people even in ancient times had the ability to create rules that banned such abhorrent practices.

Okay, you claimed that Jesus would not have condoned slavery because of his philosophy, which was essentially "love thy neighbor as yourself", the Golden Rule. Jesus describes the Golden Rule as being the second most fundamental commandment of the Law. Slavery was a part of the Law. How could this be if the Golden Rule was in place?

It does? So you think that God's omnipotence could be hindered by the sheer circumstances of history?