Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 10-26-2010, 09:45 PM

. . . but it is stupid not to accept the trinity which is the simplest human concept of the godhead.

Chili · 10-26-2010, 09:57 PM

I have seen the Madeleine church in Paris but have never seen a St. Mark Catholic church. Is that just me or is there one that should not be there, or what?

Transient · 10-26-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

. . . but it is stupid not to accept the trinity which is the simplest human concept of the godhead.

Huh?
Calling someone stupid because they don't believe in the trinity is totally stupid. A sensible person would not believe any of the tripe thrown at them by the RCC, which includes the trinity doctrine, unless they had evidence outside of the propaganda book they call the bible.

Transient · 10-26-2010, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

My claim is that everyone in the empire really 'knew' that everything about Jesus was made up. Arius was not 'in on' the plot. He like the rest of the citizens in Alexandria and far beyond were simply innocent bystanders.

Oh, now I see it. Sorry that changes everything. :banghead: Now it seems so sensible.

What's the matter with you people? I point you in the direction of a physical building and the incontrovertable evidence that mountainman's theory just doesn't work. If you aren't familiar with the literary evidence from the period, how can you continue to agree with a claim which has no support among those WHO HAVE made themselves familiar with the material? It doesn't make sense.

There is a reason why no serious scholar would associate himself with this nonsense. The evidence can't support the claim that Christianity appeared suddenly at the time of Constantine. It's stupid to suggest something like that because it requires the wholesale rejection of literary traditions from and about the second, third and fourth centuries (i.e. the Passio Petri Sancti).

I find it amusing to refer to the three of you as an academy. I am not suggesting that anyone would be serious enough to devote yourself to something as idiotic as this theory. I think mountainman - as one participant from Germany noted recently - just wants to see how far spreading a lie that Christianity was invented ex nihilo by Constantine to see paradoxically if his implausible invention of this 'invention theory' can also take off in the contemporary age.

It's like a viral experiment to see how many fools he can convince to believe in bullshit IN SPITE OF THE FACTS TO THE CONTRARY in order to demonstrate that fools can indeed be fooled to believe in bullshit IN SPITE OF FACTS TO THE CONTRARY.

Guess what? You're fools who have been convinced to believe in bullshit in spite of all the facts to the contrary. Welcome to the academy of mountainman.

Maybe you should tone down your attacks mate.
They are obnoxious to say the least.
Reminds me of the sort of attacks by so-called christians on tweb.
It does nothing to engender confidence in the theories that you put forth at all. The more I see people use personal attacks the less inclined I am to trust their judgement on more important things.
I must state that Mountainman has restrained himself admirably as has Avi in the face of insults.
I cannot speak for Avi but I certainly have had no communication at all with Mountainman whoever he is.
Since we are dealing with things from the dim dark distant past, I think it would be wise to restrain from labelling people as fools or their theories as bullshit.
I personally think it is much more likely that Constantine merely saw the potential of coagulating the various groups together and squashed any others that wouldn't fit in but anything is possible almost and for all I know he may have done much more than that.

Chili · 10-26-2010, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

. . . but it is stupid not to accept the trinity which is the simplest human concept of the godhead.

Huh?
Calling someone stupid because they don't believe in the trinity is totally stupid. A sensible person would not believe any of the tripe thrown at them by the RCC, which includes the trinity doctrine, unless they had evidence outside of the propaganda book they call the bible.

Did I not call it a simple human concept? . . . and i understand why Arius could not accept it but it still is very simple . . . left brain, right brain and the relationship between these two.

Transient · 10-27-2010, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

mountainman

You always have this way of avoiding talking about the specifics of history. Almost no one outside of the Copts and a few pious believers actually accept that St. Mark visited Alexandria. This has no relevance to the topic at hand. I am interested only in establishing whether or not you have any reason to doubt the evidence from Epiphanius that Arius was the presbyter of the Martyrium of St. Mark. I have to take things one at a time because your brain likes to avoid specificity. Again do you have any reason to believe that Arius WAS NOT the presbyter of the Martyrium of St. Mark?

You have been caught out and are the one who is avoiding mate.
Answer the question put.
Your avoidance, cherry picking and personal attacks are getting very very very tiring and obvious to all here.

Transient · 10-27-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

If someone is going to claim that there wasn't a Church before Constantine and then someone else says 'look here I found a Christian landmark in Alexandria which dates to at least the third century' the guy making the ridiculous claim about the Church being invented in the fourth century better put up or shut up.

The photos you provided in this thread showed a 20th century structure, and the claims you have made so far about this 'Christian landmark in Alexandria which dates to at least the third century' seemed to apply to some future date.

So seeing you have brought up the well regarded matter of archaeological evidence I would like to ask you to point at some reports and/or photos and/or articles that describe this 'Christian landmark in Alexandria which dates to at least the third century'.

If indeed you have found evidence of "Christianity" before the 4th century, this discovery would have to rate as one of the top discoveries of the century, and the team involved would gain alot of credit for their work. But the Megiddo Prison Dig and other discoveries which have had this claim associated with their work have not produced the expected results that you are now claiming to be privy to.

Quote:

IN SPITE OF THE FACTS TO THE CONTRARY, IN SPITE OF THE FACTS TO THE CONTRARY, I point you in the direction of a physical building .....

So where is this archaeological evidence?

Stephan Huller - answer these questions without resorting to avoidance ans personal insults.

stephan huller · 10-27-2010, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Your avoidance, cherry picking and personal attacks are getting very very very tiring and obvious to all here.

Toto only mentioned one convert to the beliefs of mountainman not two. But transient seems to be the more aggressive defender of the absurdities of mountainman. Am I missing something? Both mountainman and transient originate from Australia. Is it generally accepted that they are one and the same person? Just asking?

avi · 10-27-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Toto only mentioned one convert to the beliefs of mountainman not two. But transient seems to be the more aggressive defender of the absurdities of mountainman. Am I missing something? Both mountainman and transient originate from Australia. Is it generally accepted that they are one and the same person? Just asking?

A perfect illustration of directing your energy to analyzing personalities of forum participants instead of analyzing, carefully, for a change, what has been written.
Please focus on the substance and not the fluff.

avi

stephan huller · 10-27-2010, 02:50 PM

Toto only mentioned one convert to the beliefs of mountainman not two. But transient seems to be the more aggressive defender of the absurdities of mountainman. Am I missing something? Both mountainman and transient originate from Australia. Is it generally accepted that they are one and the same person? I would presume that the moderator would be able to see IP addresses associated with avatars. mountainman the meek and mild exponent of the conspiracy position and transient as the defender. Just asking? Maybe I am reading too much into this but I would have expected Toto to have said that mountainman made TWO converts rather than one given transient's defense here.

It just seems to me at least that now that I have asked mountainman to get more specific about aspects of his theory this other figure emerges challenging me to a whole other set of questions in order to distract us from hearing mountainman's explanation.

I am not positing a strange theory about the origins of Christianity from Constantine. My opinions about the role of Constantine in the period are more or less in line with traditional scholarship. It is those arguing for some massive fourth century conspiracy who are obliged to offer specifics.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-26-2010, 09:45 PM	#61
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	. . . but it is stupid not to accept the trinity which is the simplest human concept of the godhead.

10-26-2010, 09:57 PM	#62
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	I have seen the Madeleine church in Paris but have never seen a St. Mark Catholic church. Is that just me or is there one that should not be there, or what?

10-27-2010, 02:50 PM	#70
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Toto only mentioned one convert to the beliefs of mountainman not two. But transient seems to be the more aggressive defender of the absurdities of mountainman. Am I missing something? Both mountainman and transient originate from Australia. Is it generally accepted that they are one and the same person? I would presume that the moderator would be able to see IP addresses associated with avatars. mountainman the meek and mild exponent of the conspiracy position and transient as the defender. Just asking? Maybe I am reading too much into this but I would have expected Toto to have said that mountainman made TWO converts rather than one given transient's defense here. It just seems to me at least that now that I have asked mountainman to get more specific about aspects of his theory this other figure emerges challenging me to a whole other set of questions in order to distract us from hearing mountainman's explanation. I am not positing a strange theory about the origins of Christianity from Constantine. My opinions about the role of Constantine in the period are more or less in line with traditional scholarship. It is those arguing for some massive fourth century conspiracy who are obliged to offer specifics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.