namelesstavern.net

Wow, that was super duper funny. Very intelligent... /Cong you.

btw.. nullness wins.

Mindia wrote:No I do not feel that I represent all Seventh-Day Adventists. Many SDA's believe that people should be vegetarian. Many SDA's believe that Ellen G. White was a prophet. Many SDA's (especially on the east coast) do not wear wedding bands... they are more legalistic on the east coast. So, what point are you so cleverly trying to make here?

I am just curious how you view and compare yourself to your church and if you realize how ridiculous you can be at times and discredit that which you try to promote.

-Adam

10sun wrote:

Mindia wrote:No I do not feel that I represent all Seventh-Day Adventists. Many SDA's believe that people should be vegetarian. Many SDA's believe that Ellen G. White was a prophet. Many SDA's (especially on the east coast) do not wear wedding bands... they are more legalistic on the east coast. So, what point are you so cleverly trying to make here?

I am just curious how you view and compare yourself to your church and if you realize how ridiculous you can be at times and discredit that which you try to promote.

-Adam

I discredit nothing. Nice try.

Isn't one of the purposes of being a Christian to convert the about-to-be-damned? How can you do that effectively if you alienate everyone you talk to about it?

You make me want to disavow my beliefs because you give believing such a HUGE black eye.

Nice quote, Mindia, but you've still completely failed to address my point. Which is this:

One of oldest Bibles in the world, the Codex Sinaiticus, contains at the very least the following books in it:

Esdras 1
Esdras 2
Judith
Baruch
Machabees 1
Wisdom of Solomon

Finding more specifics of the exact chapters/verses/etc is difficult, since the Codex has not been digitized, and the earlier portions are somewhat damaged (not surprising in a book nearly 2000 years old). However, it's absolutely fact that those books listed above ARE in the Codex.

Now, this, as has been previously noted, is a book from roughly 350ish AD, and, based on the layout, is assumed to have been copied from much older papyrus scrolls, likely dating back to the 1st century.

Now, 350 AD is just a little bit before the 1546 your quoted article mentions, wouldn't you say? Only what, 1200 years? Now, lets lay things out here step by step, since I know you're simple and have trouble following, so I'll keep it easy for you.

1) The Codex Sinaiticus is a BIBLE from 350 AD.
2) The Codex Sinaiticus contains at the very least those 6 books mentioned above. (As does the Codex Vaticanus, with the exception that the Vaticanus doesn't have 1 Machabees)
3) Your source claims, "They were never in the Bible in the first place."
4) Given that we have 2 BIBLES, from the time of St. Constantine the Great, you know, the guy who actually converted Christianity from a underground cult to the state religion of the Roman Empire, and they DO have those books, that would seem to rather contradict your source, yes?

So again, I repeat:

1) Your splinter sect of Christianity claims that several of the books that exist in those 2 earliest bibles are not valid books that should be in the bible.
2) Those Bibles were put together by people who lived barely 300 years after Christ, and were transcribed from older works, that likely dated back to the 1st century, when there were still people who had known or heard Christ in person.
3) Therefore, given that those bibles have those books, and your sect says they shouldn't be there, your sect is claiming greater knowledge of what should and should not be in the bible than people at the very founding of Christianity itself.

So, by where does your splinter sect of Christianity claim to come by greater knowledge of what should and should not be in the bible than people from 350 AD, or indeed, since those are copied works from earlier, those from the time of Christ himself? It is an absolute, verifiable, incontrovertible fact that these early Christian Bibles contain those books, and this predates ANY factioning of Christianity; no Roman Catholics, no Orthodox church, no Protestants, nothing, these come from original, pure, unadulterated Christianity, as it was first founded. And you and your sect are claiming to know BETTER than they did?

Now, either answer the question, or admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Remember, it's not just me who wants to know this, Ganzo is interested too, and you've said repeatedly you respect his religious knowledge. (and he's quite obviously not a Catholic)

-Arlos

(My prophesy: Mindia will do one of the following: 1) Completely ignore this and not respond, 2) Insult me personally, 3) Post a 1 or 2 line post about how ignorant we are that we could ask this, 4) Claim he's being persecuted and no one understands him cause we are all satanists, or 5) post a link to something vaguely related, but that dodges the real question entirely.)

Not to start a big thread again on biblical translation (since I'm taking a course on translation, I do kind of have a handle on this topic), but I have a question.

Mindia,

Don't you feel that whichever translation of the bible you're relying on for teachings affects your overall interpretation of its teachings? We've studied a few sections briefly of the bible (mainly in Genesis) and there are a lot of word choice and idea inaccuracies due to its translation over the years. As in, older English translations vary a lot from current translations as our language changes over time.

Of course the general points still come across the same, but little discrepancies can change how someone interprets things.

Like I stated in another thread, I don't honestly feel that you're reading the real bible if you're not reading it in Latin, Greek, or Aramaic.

Martrae wrote:Isn't one of the purposes of being a Christian to convert the about-to-be-damned? How can you do that effectively if you alienate everyone you talk to about it?

You make me want to disavow my beliefs because you give believing such a HUGE black eye.

Stop being so narrow-minded then.

Arlos wrote:Nice quote, Mindia, but you've still completely failed to address my point. Which is this:

One of oldest Bibles in the world, the Codex Sinaiticus, contains at the very least the following books in it:

Esdras 1
Esdras 2
Judith
Baruch
Machabees 1
Wisdom of Solomon

Finding more specifics of the exact chapters/verses/etc is difficult, since the Codex has not been digitized, and the earlier portions are somewhat damaged (not surprising in a book nearly 2000 years old). However, it's absolutely fact that those books listed above ARE in the Codex.

Now, this, as has been previously noted, is a book from roughly 350ish AD, and, based on the layout, is assumed to have been copied from much older papyrus scrolls, likely dating back to the 1st century.

Now, 350 AD is just a little bit before the 1546 your quoted article mentions, wouldn't you say? Only what, 1200 years? Now, lets lay things out here step by step, since I know you're simple and have trouble following, so I'll keep it easy for you.

1) The Codex Sinaiticus is a BIBLE from 350 AD.
2) The Codex Sinaiticus contains at the very least those 6 books mentioned above. (As does the Codex Vaticanus, with the exception that the Vaticanus doesn't have 1 Machabees)
3) Your source claims, "They were never in the Bible in the first place."
4) Given that we have 2 BIBLES, from the time of St. Constantine the Great, you know, the guy who actually converted Christianity from a underground cult to the state religion of the Roman Empire, and they DO have those books, that would seem to rather contradict your source, yes?

So again, I repeat:

1) Your splinter sect of Christianity claims that several of the books that exist in those 2 earliest bibles are not valid books that should be in the bible.
2) Those Bibles were put together by people who lived barely 300 years after Christ, and were transcribed from older works, that likely dated back to the 1st century, when there were still people who had known or heard Christ in person.
3) Therefore, given that those bibles have those books, and your sect says they shouldn't be there, your sect is claiming greater knowledge of what should and should not be in the bible than people at the very founding of Christianity itself.

So, by where does your splinter sect of Christianity claim to come by greater knowledge of what should and should not be in the bible than people from 350 AD, or indeed, since those are copied works from earlier, those from the time of Christ himself? It is an absolute, verifiable, incontrovertible fact that these early Christian Bibles contain those books, and this predates ANY factioning of Christianity; no Roman Catholics, no Orthodox church, no Protestants, nothing, these come from original, pure, unadulterated Christianity, as it was first founded. And you and your sect are claiming to know BETTER than they did?

Now, either answer the question, or admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Remember, it's not just me who wants to know this, Ganzo is interested too, and you've said repeatedly you respect his religious knowledge. (and he's quite obviously not a Catholic)

-Arlos

(My prophesy: Mindia will do one of the following: 1) Completely ignore this and not respond, 2) Insult me personally, 3) Post a 1 or 2 line post about how ignorant we are that we could ask this, 4) Claim he's being persecuted and no one understands him cause we are all satanists, or 5) post a link to something vaguely related, but that dodges the real question entirely.)

Nice try to you. Take your propaganda and try to sell it somewhere else. I aint buyin it. I buy truth only. I knew you were gonna try to discredit what I posted before I even posted it. What a child.

Drem wrote:Not to start a big thread again on biblical translation (since I'm taking a course on translation, I do kind of have a handle on this topic), but I have a question.

Mindia,

Don't you feel that whichever translation of the bible you're relying on for teachings affects your overall interpretation of its teachings? We've studied a few sections briefly of the bible (mainly in Genesis) and there are a lot of word choice and idea inaccuracies due to its translation over the years. As in, older English translations vary a lot from current translations as our language changes over time.

Of course the general points still come across the same, but little discrepancies can change how someone interprets things.

Like I stated in another thread, I don't honestly feel that you're reading the real bible if you're not reading it in Latin, Greek, or Aramaic.

And that's your right to believe that. Go ahead and continue making excuses. See how far you get with it, then get back to me. Mkay? Great.

That's the best you can come up with? When I tell you YOU are hurting Christianity, I'm the one that's narrow-minded?

Martrae wrote:That's the best you can come up with? When I tell you YOU are hurting Christianity, I'm the one that's narrow-minded?

I am not hurting anything. You morons are just to egotistical to admit when you are wrong (or could be wrong).

You don't get it! With your "I'm always right" attitude and your quickness to jump on anything remotely religious with a soliloquy you are turning off the very people you are supposed to save (according to the bible).

People like you are why so many people turn from religion.

Mindia wrote:

Martrae wrote:That's the best you can come up with? When I tell you YOU are hurting Christianity, I'm the one that's narrow-minded?

I am not hurting anything. You morons are just to egotistical to admit when you are wrong (or could be wrong).

omg

I laughed til I cried

Martrae wrote:You don't get it! With your "I'm always right" attitude and your quickness to jump on anything remotely religious with a soliloquy you are turning off the very people you are supposed to save (according to the bible).

People like you are why so many people turn from religion.

No, it's people like you who don't want to hassle with the lifestyle restrictions that accompany Christianity. Nice facade you put up though.

Mindia wrote:

Martrae wrote:You don't get it! With your "I'm always right" attitude and your quickness to jump on anything remotely religious with a soliloquy you are turning off the very people you are supposed to save (according to the bible).

People like you are why so many people turn from religion.

No, it's people like you who don't want to hassle with the lifestyle restrictions that accompany Christianity. Nice facade you put up though.

Are you fucking serious? You CANT be that blind to your own actions.

Tuggan wrote:

Mindia wrote:

Martrae wrote:You don't get it! With your "I'm always right" attitude and your quickness to jump on anything remotely religious with a soliloquy you are turning off the very people you are supposed to save (according to the bible).

People like you are why so many people turn from religion.

No, it's people like you who don't want to hassle with the lifestyle restrictions that accompany Christianity. Nice facade you put up though.

Are you fucking serious? You CANT be that blind to your own actions.

Mindia wrote:

Martrae wrote:You don't get it! With your "I'm always right" attitude and your quickness to jump on anything remotely religious with a soliloquy you are turning off the very people you are supposed to save (according to the bible).

People like you are why so many people turn from religion.

No, it's people like you who don't want to hassle with the lifestyle restrictions that accompany Christianity. Nice facade you put up though.

So after a thread of flaming, arrogance, condescension, blatant lies, and more hubris than imaginable you lecture someone else about not wanting to act Christian?

Wow, maybe Hitler can pop out of the grave and start bitching about people's lack of compassion to others, too.

Lyion wrote:

Mindia wrote:

Martrae wrote:You don't get it! With your "I'm always right" attitude and your quickness to jump on anything remotely religious with a soliloquy you are turning off the very people you are supposed to save (according to the bible).

People like you are why so many people turn from religion.

No, it's people like you who don't want to hassle with the lifestyle restrictions that accompany Christianity. Nice facade you put up though.

So after a thread of flaming, arrogance, condescension, blatant lies, and more hubris than imaginable you lecture someone else about not wanting to act Christian?

Wow, maybe Hitler can pop out of the grave and start bitching about people's lack of compassion to others, too.

People on the NT who don't want to act Christian do so totally of their own accord. If you don't like the truth exposed about your precious Catholicism then don't come in here anymore. Either that or study your history.

Tuggan wrote::spam:

Mindia wrote:

Lyion wrote:
So after a thread of flaming, arrogance, condescension, blatant lies, and more hubris than imaginable you lecture someone else about not wanting to act Christian?

Wow, maybe Hitler can pop out of the grave and start bitching about people's lack of compassion to others, too.

People on the NT who don't want to act Christian do so totally of their own accord. .

Hey, everyone has already established that's you!

So explain to us why you act so completely unchristian here? Is it ok to be completely UnChristlike in your witnessing here and actually alienating people from religion? Why would you hurt your cause deliberately? If you are pushing people away from Christ, which it is obvious you are, would that not anger God? I'd talk to your spiritual advisors about this, chief!

I await your bizarre otherworldly answer!

I know you are, but what am I?

Well, I'm officially ignoring any more posts from Mindia about religion. Anyone else that wishes to discuss it, I'll join in and pretend Mindia-posts don't exist.

Martrae wrote:Well, I'm officially ignoring any more posts from Mindia about religion. Anyone else that wishes to discuss it, I'll join in and pretend Mindia-posts don't exist.

Thank you. It's about time.