The disgrace of papal blessing for Ugandan homophobia | Jill Filipovic

[Morgana 9]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure-if we ignore the mangling of facts, we can credit her for being passionately inaccurate.

The same can be said of you. You passionately ignore facts and choose instead "faith". Faith in a religion that is clearly misogynistic. To your credit you do not mangle facts, you ignore them completely.

[Morgana 9]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I beleieve .

End of story.

Any facts to support your belief?

[Long Night Moon 13]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Not so much for women religious.

Are you saying they don't wok hard or put in long hours?

[Dan]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you saying they don't wok hard or put in long hours?

Don't think I did say that, no.

[snyper]

Morgana 9 wrote:

<quoted text>
The same can be said of you. You passionately ignore facts and choose instead "faith". Faith in a religion that is clearly misogynistic. To your credit you do not mangle facts, you ignore them completely.

Let's clarify something.

The Koine Greek word for "faith" is the same as the Classical Greek of the same period, but does it mean the same thing?

When we search extant Koine writings, there's some to go on, not a great lot, but a good amount.

The word hardly ever comes up except in the early writings of Xiandom. It's reasonable then to suggest that they were using the Classical Greek word.

Taken as a whole, the Classical Greek word for "faith" is not used in religious contexts, as in "belief in the gods". "Faith" is never used that way. They use the word for "believe".

So, in Greek "Faith" MUST mean something else, and does.

Taken in the contexts in which it is used "faith" means something somewhere around "moral certainty", in the sense of a verdict rendered to a moral certainty.

It's not an easy translation because it deals with abstracts, but it is certain that it does not translate as anything resembling "blind acceptance" or " blind belief"; in other words, not as it is used in practice by a great many today. There a perfectly good Latin-rooted word for THAT! lol "Fatuous".

[Morgana 9]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's clarify something.
The Koine Greek word for "faith" is the same as the Classical Greek of the same period, but does it mean the same thing?
When we search extant Koine writings, there's some to go on, not a great lot, but a good amount.
The word hardly ever comes up except in the early writings of Xiandom. It's reasonable then to suggest that they were using the Classical Greek word.
Taken as a whole, the Classical Greek word for "faith" is not used in religious contexts, as in "belief in the gods". "Faith" is never used that way. They use the word for "believe".
So, in Greek "Faith" MUST mean something else, and does.
Taken in the contexts in which it is used "faith" means something somewhere around "moral certainty", in the sense of a verdict rendered to a moral certainty.
It's not an easy translation because it deals with abstracts, but it is certain that it does not translate as anything resembling "blind acceptance" or " blind belief"; in other words, not as it is used in practice by a great many today. There a perfectly good Latin-rooted word for THAT! lol "Fatuous".

WOW! You are good! Are you in the teaching profession? You seem to have studied theology?

[snyper]

Morgana 9 wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW! You are good! Are you in the teaching profession? You seem to have studied theology?

I'm retired, sort of. Still teaching in the sense that I am a mentor to trainees at the formation house of my sect. We are literally not "christian", because we never accepted the "christ" heresy about Yeshua. We are one of the "ante-Nicene" sects. In fact we are far older. We are ante-Cappadocian.

A lot of what comes up in debate on threads like these is best referred to as "Saulianity", and that has very little to do with the teachings of Yeshua. Saul is mostly Greek philosophy, a little diaspora phariseeism, and a good bit of Philo of Alexandria.

Here's a fun and easy read about that:

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/...

It's solid and, once digested, is great ammo.

[Dan]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm retired, sort of. Still teaching in the sense that I am a mentor to trainees at the formation house of my sect. We are literally not "christian", because we never accepted the "christ" heresy about Yeshua. We are one of the "ante-Nicene" sects. In fact we are far older. We are ante-Cappadocian.
A lot of what comes up in debate on threads like these is best referred to as "Saulianity", and that has very little to do with the teachings of Yeshua. Saul is mostly Greek philosophy, a little diaspora phariseeism, and a good bit of Philo of Alexandria.
Here's a fun and easy read about that:
http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/...
It's solid and, once digested, is great ammo.

"Great ammo" against what?

One faith-based viewpoint is "ammo" against another, or is it just another faith-based viewpoint?

[Morgana 9]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm retired, sort of. Still teaching in the sense that I am a mentor to trainees at the formation house of my sect. We are literally not "christian", because we never accepted the "christ" heresy about Yeshua. We are one of the "ante-Nicene" sects. In fact we are far older. We are ante-Cappadocian.
A lot of what comes up in debate on threads like these is best referred to as "Saulianity", and that has very little to do with the teachings of Yeshua. Saul is mostly Greek philosophy, a little diaspora phariseeism, and a good bit of Philo of Alexandria.
Here's a fun and easy read about that:
http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/...
It's solid and, once digested, is great ammo.

Thank you for the link. What do you think of this website?

http://brotherofyeshua.com/

I see it deals with reincarnation. Do you know anything about the book of Origin?

[snyper]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
"Great ammo" against what?
One faith-based viewpoint is "ammo" against another, or is it just another faith-based viewpoint?

A side-by-side comparison of the writing of Saul with that of Plato, the Stoics and Philo of Alexandria has NOTHING to do with "faith-based" anything. It's right there in ink. It's literary and conceptual comparison.

Such may impact someones "faith", but the comparison and analysis require none at all.

[snyper]

Morgana 9 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for the link. What do you think of this website?
http://brotherofyeshua.com/
I see it deals with reincarnation. Do you know anything about the book of Origin?

Not very much, actually. I'm sorry. It's not up to my customary standard. Also sorry that that sounds snotty, but I don't know how else to say it.

[Dan]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
A side-by-side comparison of the writing of Saul with that of Plato, the Stoics and Philo of Alexandria has NOTHING to do with "faith-based" anything. It's right there in ink. It's literary and conceptual comparison.
Such may impact someones "faith", but the comparison and analysis require none at all.

You mentioned "sect" and "Yeshua".

Unless you're telling me "Yeshua" is sitting next to you or liuves down the street, your efforts are "faith-based", yes?

[Deja vu all over Again]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
You mentioned "sect" and "Yeshua".
Unless you're telling me "Yeshua" is sitting next to you or liuves down the street, your efforts are "faith-based", yes?

So are yours

[Dan]

Deja vu all over Again wrote:

<quoted text>
So are yours

Thanks, genius.

I never said otherwise.

snyper's making that claim, not me.

[snyper]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
You mentioned "sect" and "Yeshua".
Unless you're telling me "Yeshua" is sitting next to you or liuves down the street, your efforts are "faith-based", yes?

I thought you were referring to the link I provided.

My motivations are not "faith-based" in the sense that it is commonly used. I just as readily supply links to evidence and analyses that go counter to the traditions of my sect.

In this case, the person I was posting to would find the link useful, I presume in the effort to refute some sections of the writings under consideration. The link bears directly upon the validity of sources cited against our position, and which are used by others, including those mentioned in the topic article, as sufficient rationale to kill us.

You should be glad that I'm not passing live rounds, claymores, RPGs and Orlicons.

[Dan]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought you were referring to the link I provided.
My motivations are not "faith-based" in the sense that it is commonly used. I just as readily supply links to evidence and analyses that go counter to the traditions of my sect.
In this case, the person I was posting to would find the link useful, I presume in the effort to refute some sections of the writings under consideration. The link bears directly upon the validity of sources cited against our position, and which are used by others, including those mentioned in the topic article, as sufficient rationale to kill us.
You should be glad that I'm not passing live rounds, claymores, RPGs and Orlicons.

"Yeshua" wasn't in a link. You typed it.

any link in service to your beliefs in Yeshua respective to the thread are then faith-based, as Yeshua isn't here on earth.

[snyper]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
"Yeshua" wasn't in a link. You typed it.
any link in service to your beliefs in Yeshua respective to the thread are then faith-based, as Yeshua isn't here on earth.

That was a message to my interlocutor that my perspective was from a tradition older than that of our opponents, not part of the debate itself. It was a "sidebar".

Drop it.

[Dan]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
That was a message to my interlocutor that my perspective was from a tradition older than that of our opponents, not part of the debate itself. It was a "sidebar".
Drop it.

Did you not intend to type "Yeshua"?

You did type "Yeshua".

What perspective is from a tradition older than that of your opponents?

[Dan]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
That was a message to my interlocutor that my perspective was from a tradition older than that of our opponents, not part of the debate itself. It was a "sidebar".
Drop it.

Here's a message from your interlocutor-

Watch bloviating or you'll get hung up on it.

Even Yeshua would agree with that.

[snyper]

w/e