sotto voce

Or as Catholics or Orthodox.

Only on the internet.

The origin of the word 'catholic' is due to non-catholicity. It is not found in the NT. It arose because fake Christians, probably agents of the Roman Empire, probably with Jewish abetment, wanted to present themselves as the one true church, without competition from the real church, which was eventually driven out of the Empire. Mormonism has a parallel in its attempt to include deceased persons by proxy baptism. It's due to fear of controversion. Note that these people likewise give themselves an all-encompassing official name. The Jehovah's Witnesses likewise. It's a sign of cultic status.

The Orthodox so describe themselves because they are anything but orthodox, theologically; they react so venomously when questioned that it is obvious that they are conscious of it. It's interesting that they share some ideas with Islam. If one draws a line between Yorkshire (birth county of John Wyclif) and Mecca, one gets a rather neat progression of orthodoxy → heresy.

Christians call themselves catholic, but rarely make anything of the word because it is rarely applicable. It is a technical, rather redundant word.

steve_bnk

1. Go ahed and define, start a thread
2. It is only controversial if yiu make it so

rlogan

This OP is an example of a randugram.

A randugram is where any random ordering of the words conveys exactly the same amount of meaning.

la70119

There's another reason why stephan's definition is accurate and yours isn't. Some gay men don't like to bugger, and some other gay men don't like to get buggered. And both groups overlap. :devil1:

Vorkosigan

Haha. You post someplace, the overwhelming number of knowledgeable long-term posters engage with you for page after page of talk and then dismiss you.

Clearly, it must be their fault. Onward, Galileo!

mountainman

Is this thread really about Pizzas?

Adam

You mean like this kind of engagement,
in Post #610 in Gospel Eyewitnesses? It's strange that engagement (except innumerable insulting posts from Shesh) dropped to this level after I formulated my Gospel According to the Atheists in my posts #526, 534, 555, and 561. In response to people like Joe Wallack and Vork who dismissed my thesis a priori because of supernaturalism, I presented gospel sources that were free of supernaturalism. Thus they could not be automatically dismissed, Yet they were automatically dismissed without discussion. This gets to the point of this thread, is there a terror of the first domino to fall knocking down all subsequent dominoes. My #561 had firmed up the evidence for an eyewitness to the Passion Narrative, and this remains unchallenged.

spin fired off two long posts (612 and 618) at this point, but he limited himself to discussing my earlier material. No one was willing to deal with whether the first domino had fallen. Doug Shaver made several responses, but he April 8 abandoned FRDB as narrow in vision. "The kind of rank bigotry against religion expressed in this thread has become entirely too routine in this forum, and too few of the regulars seem to disapprove of it."
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....51#post7132751

This is also my response to Toto's #40, "As long as you continue to think that the only objection to the gospels is the supernaturalism, any discussion with you is futile." Yes, futile for you.

Toto

Adam: do you contend that anything that does not have supernatural elements must be true? Do you contend that any story with supernatural elements must be true if you remove the supernatural elements?

If so, why? If not, where do you get the idea that your Gospel is something that atheists would believe?

Adam

Once again,
would I ever have said that anything non-supernatural must be true? I have maintained instead that anything non-supernatural cannot be a priori rejected because of supernatural content. Regarding the Passion Narrative I have said clearly that it is such a simple statement of events in one week that it would not have been concocted decades later nor would it be the result of decades of legendary accrual. Nor do I accept that removing the supernatural from a story makes the rest of it history.

Reviewing the thread thus far, I see that the refusal to discuss HJ in the Passion Narrative continues, but the fault for the hi-jack falls on sotto voce. Have any of us not yet learned that no serious discussion is possible with someone whose sincerity in manner of posting is so questionable?

Toto

This is a bizarre statement. You underestimate the human capacity for narrative invention. Is there anything you can say to show that this is the case?

If I thought that there was any value to this thread, I could split out the digressions. But so far, you have just made references to your previous posts, which consist of references to previous posts, that were not persuasive the first time.