I prefer this thread.
I’d prefer if you’d shut the hell up.
Just kidding, I’d prefer if you’d post more.
Possessed is right. Catholicism didn’t come around until at least 250 years after the death of Christ, which in itself is LONG before Russian Orthodoxy (Russia wasn’t even a country yet, let alone having any exposure to Christianity). Churches in the Bible were not united in any way other than their connection to Paul, but seemed to exist purely to serve the people in whatever Roman province they were located in.
This is highly debatable. Irenaeus, writing in c. 180, listed all the bishops of Rome (the popes) up to his time, and described and defended the Church’s hierarchy and Apostolic Tradition.
St. Ignatius, writing in the late first century, also writes about bishops, the sacraments, etc. in a way that is virtually identical to what the Church teaches now. I’ve read some of his writings, so I’m not just basing that judgement off of Wikipedia or some website.
The notion that the churches were not connected is false, as surviving letters from the first and second centuries indicate. There were churches that did not follow the same teachings as the main body of churches, but their version of Christianity was condemned as heretical by Irenaeus and other writers of the time.
EDIT: Sorry to derail your thread, Frink. I’ll post an on topic post in a minute. 😉
This thread will not go the way I’m intending, so I left the title general enough to cover all the other ways it will go.
With that said, I’ll open with this - why are curse words like fuck and shit offensive? I have never understood this and I’m curious.
I just remembered one reason I’d read about for fuck and shit being offensive: after William of Normandy conquered England in 1066, the ruling class and aristocracy of England became French. English was a still a very Germanic language at that time, but eventually, the (Old) French and (Old) English of the time merged. However, though many words of Germanic origin, like fuck and shit, were not yet considered offensive, they did have a strong association to the language of the lower classes. Over time, the subjects they were associated with became taboo, and the words began to take on an offensive meaning, which grew over time.
Words of French or Latin origin, like defecate, urinate, copulate, fesces, etc. are not considered offensive because they belonged to the language of the upper classes (and eventually scientists), and were not used by the common people.
That’s part of the reason, anyway, but this isn’t the case in every language, or with every swear word.
^That’s very interesting.
Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.
Upper class people discussed defecation?
I doubt they discussed it, but they had to have had some way of referring to it, especially if they were a doctor…
Upper class people discussed defecation?
Not my favorite sketch, but relevant.
As much as I respect religious people despite my atheism, I will say “oh my god” as much as I damn well please as long as it says “In God We Trust” on my money.
It’s 2016. All words are offensive.
It’s 2016. All words are offensive.
Ha ha, true enough!
I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently.
RicOlie_2 said:
There’s nothing immoral about listening to music with swear words in it, as a priest assured me once.
That was probably just pillow talk.
As much as I respect religious people despite my atheism, I will say “oh my god” as much as I damn well please as long as it says “In God We Trust” on my money.
Interesting point. It’s kind of surprising it doesn’t say “Backed by Jesus” on the other side.
They do if you fold them into a Y shape and hold them up into the light.
As much as I respect religious people despite my atheism, I will say “oh my god” as much as I damn well please as long as it says “In God We Trust” on my money.
Interesting point. It’s kind of surprising it doesn’t say “Backed by Jesus” on the other side.
That would be unconstitutional as it is an endorsement of a specific religion.
The Person in Question
As much as I respect religious people despite my atheism, I will say “oh my god” as much as I damn well please as long as it says “In God We Trust” on my money.
Interesting point. It’s kind of surprising it doesn’t say “Backed by Jesus” on the other side.
That would be unconstitutional as it is an endorsement of a specific religion.
Since most religions think their “God” is the true one, is “In God We Trust” any different?
It should say “In gods and no gods we trust.”
As much as I respect religious people despite my atheism, I will say “oh my god” as much as I damn well please as long as it says “In God We Trust” on my money.
Interesting point. It’s kind of surprising it doesn’t say “Backed by Jesus” on the other side.
That would be unconstitutional as it is an endorsement of a specific religion.
Since most religions think their “God” is the true one, is “In God We Trust” any different?
It should say “In gods and no gods we trust.”
That’s basically the point. Its such a generalized blanket statement it can be read sincerely by almost anybody who is religious.
As much as I respect religious people despite my atheism, I will say “oh my god” as much as I damn well please as long as it says “In God We Trust” on my money.
Interesting point. It’s kind of surprising it doesn’t say “Backed by Jesus” on the other side.
That would be unconstitutional as it is an endorsement of a specific religion.
Since most religions think their “God” is the true one, is “In God We Trust” any different?
It should say “In gods and no gods we trust.”
That’s basically the point. Its such a generalized blanket statement it can be read sincerely by almost anybody who is religious.
You forgot the “no gods” part.
I think it is nice that the government acknowledges that they are not all powerful. Also, the founding fathers made clear that they believed liberty came from a power higher than man. It’s in the Declaration of Independence, is that unconstitutional?
The Person in Question
We’ve swerved into politics somehow, but our country grants us freedom of AND from religion. “In God We Trust” fails the second part of that.
Furthermore, the government acknowledges their lack of ultimate power through checks and balances, not devotion to a higher authority.
As much as I respect religious people despite my atheism, I will say “oh my god” as much as I damn well please as long as it says “In God We Trust” on my money.
Interesting point. It’s kind of surprising it doesn’t say “Backed by Jesus” on the other side.
That would be unconstitutional as it is an endorsement of a specific religion.
Since most religions think their “God” is the true one, is “In God We Trust” any different?
It should say “In gods and no gods we trust.”
That’s basically the point. Its such a generalized blanket statement it can be read sincerely by almost anybody who is religious.
ALMOST. Still an endorsement of monotheistic religions.
The first amendment says the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, so the money is hardly unconstitutional.
The Person in Question
We’ve swerved into politics somehow, but our country grants us freedom of AND from religion. “In God We Trust” fails the second part of that.
Furthermore, the government acknowledges their lack of ultimate power through checks and balances, not devotion to a higher authority.
Sorry, I should have said “to a higher and possibly made-up authority.”
We’ve swerved into politics somehow, but our country grants us freedom of AND from religion. “In God We Trust” fails the second part of that.
Out of curiosity, is this fact, or just your personal interpretation of the constitution? The reason I ask is because I often hear people make a distinction, saying that it grants freedom of but not from religion.
All the first amendment says regarding religion is that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Regardless of any of our personal opinions, have a reference to a nondescript deity on currency is not a constitutional matter.
The Person in Question
That’s what I thought. I don’t understand the whole “protection from religion” thing. People would think I was crazy if I demanded protection from non-religion…