Anthony Burgoyne

@RealCalebKitson No really, you don't want to live in Alaska. Maybe the southern part of it, but even that is rainy, cold, and dark half the year.

Advice to the younger generation: Skip the degree. Buy virgin land in Alaska. Become a homesteader.

@DrAlanKurschner Don't need much of an argument when you have scripture like that. Whatever Jesus was referring to there, it happened long ago. (Or Jesus was a false prophet. Take yer pick.)

Tom represents the typical preterist. Long on assertions, but short on arguments.

@LatFilosof I'm not entirely convinced double-negatives like this aren't a good idea. ;)

@PracticalTheolo Im not entirely convinced he didn’t, but even if he did, so what?

Please, I am begging my fellow atheists, stop saying nonsense like this. Of course Jesus existed, denying it makes you, and the rest of us, look like a fools. Accepting that he existed in no way, shape or form forces you to think he was/is God.

None of these are Trinitarian, btw. Wonder why that is? 🤔

There is no such thing as an absolute 'proof'. Because people can always modify background beliefs to accommodate recalcitrant data.

@ScottSulli01055 KJV has prosaic English, but shouldn't be relied upon in isolation, imo.

@PracticalTheolo x.com/ScottSulli0105…

When Jesus asks his disciples "Who do you say that I am?", this incident is recorded in all 3 synoptic gospels. We have slightly different answers by Peter in each: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16) "You are the Christ." (Mark 8:29) "The Christ of God." (Luke 9:20) This incident occurs near the end of Jesus' ministry, before he makes his journey into Jerusalem, and reflects a decisive moment where we have a clear statement of what is important about his identity as far as the disciples' understanding, compared to what others are saying about Jesus at that time. 1. Shared by all 3 statements is that Jesus is the Christ. 'Christ' means someone chosen *by* God, and 'the Christ' here is a long-anticipated, prophesied figure. 2. Both Mark and Luke omit 'the Son of the living God', which suggests this phrase wasn't seen as crucial. The obvious way to explain this is that 'the Son of the living God' was roughly a synonymous phrase to 'the Christ' that simply helped pick out the prophesied figure being referred to. 3. There is nothing about Jesus being God in any of the answers. This episode with Peter, where in Matthew Jesus notes Peter is blessed and that this has been revealed to Peter by the Father, is the 'big reveal' of the 3 synoptic gospels. Yet Trinitarians often will hold that Peter's understanding of Jesus' identity here is insufficient, and instead that something that isn't mentioned (Jesus is actually God), is. Isn't that a bit odd?

3/10 want to have kids. Let's say 2 actually do. That's one couple, and how many kids does this couple have? Let's say they have 2 kids. That means your marginal cohort is 1/5th the size of the original cohort. 😬 Generation 1: 10 Generation 2: 2 On a larger scale, a generational population of 10 million -> 2 million in one generation. Iterate one more generation, and we go 10 million -> 2 million -> 0.4 million

If you ask a room of ten “non-religious” people under the age of 40, “How many of you want to have children?” Only THREE of them would raise their hand. If your view of life makes shut off creating life, when do start to question if you’ve fallen for a lie that is anti-life?

@KingVelesI There's lots of land like the one in the picture, near where I live. Cheaper to buy acreage with that sort of view in lots of places than to buy in the city.

You gotta love seeing all the doomers acting like they'd actually go and become farmers if only they had the money to buy a farm. Of course, they're conveniently "forgetting" the fact that there's cheap fertile land for sale on every continent these days (due to decades of rural exodus), as well as the fact that LOANS EXIST. Becoming a farmer is a very accessible goal for any man with healthy arms and legs, and a bit of brains. The problem is, the doomers don't want to be farmers. They want to stay in the pod and keep dooming. But, one can't doom properly without first convincing oneself that they are helpless. Thus, the "With what money, you f***ing r***rd???" cope comes in.

@ScottSulli01055 No, that's not what 'dynamic' means. Where are you getting this from?

@PracticalTheolo If it wasn't dynamic it would be translated in the same manner as the KJ is.

@ScottSulli01055 BSB isn't a dynamic translation. ? Or here's the ESV: "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:" The 'his' here refers to Israel. Sorry to burst yer bubble.

@PracticalTheolo 🤣 Only if you go with a dynamic translation

It gets some things right, imo. I was recently reading a Catholic book on sexuality, and theology of the body, for ex., definitely gets lots right. Catholicism has the most intellectual firepower packed into it of any denomination. But intellectuals get all sorts of things wrong.

@PracticalTheolo @IraPennygent @UOJ_America Catholic theology is right tho

Fr. Seraphim Rose warned the Catholic monk Thomas Merton to crucify his mind: to reject modernism, ecumenism, and syncretism and embrace Orthodox Christianity. When Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote to Thomas Merton, he echoed the warning of St. Gregory Palamas about the dangers of worldly wisdom. The philosophy of the pagans is like a mixture of honey and hemlock. Only the crucified mind, purified by fasting and prayer, can take the nectar while avoiding the poison. Merton ignored his advice—to his own peril.

@ScottSulli01055 That's right, Yahweh is repeated in the line, as is done quite often (sometimes more than twice) in the OT. Here's a better translation (BSB in this case): "Thus says the LORD, the King and Redeemer of Israel, the LORD of Hosts:"

@PracticalTheolo Do you not know that the word "Lord" for the King of Israel, and the "Lord" of hosts (his redeemer) are both translated from Yahweh?

@blockedbyjdub @IraPennygent @UOJ_America I'm not saying you agree with me on these theological topics, I'm saying he was wrong on all sorts of things. Within the constraints of Aristotelian philosophy, 13th century science, and Catholic theology, he did a bang up job, tho'.

@PracticalTheolo @IraPennygent @UOJ_America Sorry, *is true

@blockedbyjdub @IraPennygent @UOJ_America What?

@PracticalTheolo @IraPennygent @UOJ_America If true, can you finally give me one?

@blockedbyjdub @IraPennygent @UOJ_America Sure, icon veneration.

@PracticalTheolo @IraPennygent @UOJ_America Trinitarianism is true tho, can you give me another example?

@blockedbyjdub @IraPennygent @UOJ_America The most obvious from my perspective is Trinitarianism, which he inherited from the Catholic church.

@PracticalTheolo @IraPennygent @UOJ_America Tell me some about these theological errors of him

@ScottSulli01055 Yahweh is the only true God. (Jesus identifies the only true God as the Father, btw. John 17:3.)

@PracticalTheolo I do marvel at your consistency, I wonder if it is of your own reluctance or if it is part of why Jesus said He gave the Parables, so that those that don't want to believe don't So out of curiosity I wonder how you will deal with this:

Examples that you would agree with? Sure, he held to geocentrism. He thought there were 4 elements. No inertial motion. His views of how reproduction works were wrong. His belief about a vacuum. Moving to more purely theological views, he inherited all the errors of the Catholic church at that time (and ironically ran afoul of *later* Catholic dogmas) - if you're a Protestant, you probably disagree with various of his theological views.

@PracticalTheolo @IraPennygent @UOJ_America I’m asking for examples, could you give me some?

@blockedbyjdub @IraPennygent @UOJ_America He was relying on Aristotle, 13th century science, and previous Catholic dogmas. What could possibly go wrong?

@PracticalTheolo @IraPennygent @UOJ_America For example?