Discussion Veganism

[Aedra]

That's what I meant, mb, when I mean evolution as the only base for morality I mean the strongest wins, aka there is no objective morality because the only one capable of imposing a standard is the strongest.

But a lot of atheists I encounter still argue that there is an objective measure for morality without God, but when I ask on what it basis itself I receive only sloppy answers

By believing in the demonic psyop we call evolution, you have already given the atheists ground to argue against you. You are letting them define reality. The Christian story of creation is the story of a fall from grace whereas the evolution narrative is the exact opposite, showing mankind's "rise" to being enlightened from the animal state to the human one. Of course your religion will not be very convincing when you try to mix it up with a contradictory narrative.

 

[Nihilma]

By believing in the demonic psyop we call evolution, you have already given the atheists ground to argue against you. You are letting them define reality. The Christian story of creation is the story of a fall from grace whereas the evolution narrative is the exact opposite, showing mankind's "rise" to being enlightened from the animal state to the human one. Of course your religion will not be very convincing when you try to mix it up with a contradictory narrative.

You've highlighted the only problem I still have with the theory if evolution yes. I don't think there's going to be a resolution to this problem any time near in the future yeah. Doesn't mean I'm going to completely dismiss it, but it means it's not completely likely either. James White defended this point well.

 

[Nihilma]

Atheists base their good versus evil morality on the Christian society that they grew up in. Ask an atheist why it is bad for me to kill them as soon as I encounter them and the reply is usually that killing other people is wrong. If thou shalt not kill is not universal then an atheist should have no problem explaining to me how he came about that opinion without referencing religion or a philosopher that did not take inspiration from Judeo-Christian theologians.

Yeah exactly, that's why they chimp out when I tell them to imagine I'm from a different culture somewhere in the world they've never heard off and that actually thinks that there is bravery and strenght in the domination of others by killing, and that thus killing is good, and ask them why should I be wrong in saying that.

 

[soy416]

Humanity evolved to the state that it is in now because we preyed on other animals. If you willingly deny the fruit that the fat and meat animals offer to you and the development of your body due to social trends that appeared after 20000 years of predation on animals, then I really hope you are ready to eat vitamins for every day of the rest of your life.

I think the same about humans and thus do not apologize for any of you "whites" our Germany killed

Atheists base their good versus evil morality on the Christian society that they grew up in. Ask an atheist why it is bad for me to kill them as soon as I encounter them and the reply is usually that killing other people is wrong. If thou shalt not kill is not universal then an atheist should have no problem explaining to me how he came about that opinion without referencing religion or a philosopher that did not take inspiration from Judeo-Christian theologians.

You think you cant be opposed to randomly killing people if you lack the petty waste products of hebrew philosophy contained in the old testament and all its garbage it brought upon the world? Read a book sweaty

soyjak

soyjak.download

 

[JC Denton]

soyjak

soyjak.download

Marge what is that website?

 

[Nihilma]

I think the same about humans and thus do not apologize for any of you "whites" our Germany killed

Well the Germany of your parents and mine lost in the end, you would've had a point if they had won, matter of fact if they had won nobody would question their actions and they'd prove themselves to be right. If the predator loses to the prey and gets eaten instead, the roles are reversed.

 

[Aedra]

Doesn't mean I'm going to completely dismiss it

Why exactly? Young earth creationism is the position that pretty much every church father of the patristic age believed in. The Ecumenical Councils also directly refer to the age of the earth. Theistic evolution has no leg to stand on, whether from a rational or traditional perspective. You just believe in it because it's le current thing.

Judeo-Christian

That's the equivalent of saying paganistic christianity. Judeo-Christianity doesn't exist. Kikes are heretics.

 

[Nihilma]

Why exactly? Young earth creationism is the position that pretty much every church father of the patristic age believed in. The Ecumenical Councils also directly refer to the age of the earth. Theistic evolution has no leg to stand on, whether from a rational or traditional perspective. You just believe in it because it's le current thing.

Yeah but they didn't exactly believe in young earth creationism as modern protestants did. For example, Augustine said that the account of genesis was allegorical and not to take literally, and in his mind God didn't create everything in seven days but instantly, in the blink of an eye. So to him the seven days teached something else than the historical precise way everything took place.
But then again Church Fathers were not all of one mind, some disagreed with each other.
I don't think we can completely dismiss was the book of nature teaches us. Also young earth creationism and evolution ar two different things, I know some who don't believe in young earth creationism nor in evolution, the Big bang theory and evolution are two vastly different things, were I have some problems with evolution I have virtually not a single problem with the Big Bang theory

 

[Aedra]

I have some problems with evolution I have virtually not a single problem with the Big Bang theory

So basically, you do think that the earth is gazillions of years old or whatever. That contradicts the Ecumenical Councils directly.

 

[Nihilma]

So basically, you do think that the earth is gazillions of years old or whatever. That contradicts the Ecumenical Councils directly.

Well tell me where in the 7 eucumenical councils is it stated the earth has to have been created in 7 days of 24 hours

 

[Aedra]

Well tell me where in the 7 eucumenical councils is it stated the earth has to have been created in 7 days of 24 hours

You are taking the argument some place else. I said believing the idea that the earth is billions of years old or some other fairy tale contradicts the ecumenical councils. Address that and we'll get to your question after it.

 

[Nihilma]

You are taking the argument some place else. I said believing the idea that the earth is billions of years old or some other fairy tale contradicts the ecumenical councils. Address that and we'll get to your question after it.

ok but I still don't see where, like literally I'm trying to do my research and find nothing, all I see online on EO theology is people saying the Church officially doesn't take a stance

 

[Aedra]

ok but I still don't see where, like literally I'm trying to do my research and find nothing, all I see online on EO theology is people saying the Church officially doesn't take a stance

Canon 3 of the Council of Trullo mentions the age of the earth at that time : 6109. That is, 6109 years old at 692 AD. Don't pay attention to random Amerimutts pretending they know shit about our theology.

 

[Nihilma]

First : The council in Trullo hasn't been accepted by all Christianity, it wasn't even supposed to teach anything reguarding theology but was meant as clarification for the 6th council.
Second, the year 6109th could literally mean anything, it doesn't have to mean year 6109 since the beginning of times.
We are in the year 2024 Anno Domini, doesn't mean the earth is 2024 years old.
This could very well be an account of years since adam and eve, because we know their ages as described in genesis, but before them there's a whole creation that's not being taken into account.
Also, just a number in a line addressing the marriages of priests is a very weak evidence for the rejection of very complex understanding of the world. You are ready to reject a theory about the world that was found by a christian priest ("Big Bang" was a mocking term used by atheists to mock the idea of a beginning to the universe), based on a number that you interpret as meaning the beginning of the world ?

 

[Aedra]

First : The council in Trullo hasn't been accepted by all Christianity, it wasn't even supposed to teach anything reguarding theology but was meant as clarification for the 6th council.
Second, the year 6109th could literally mean anything, it doesn't have to mean year 6109 since the beginning of times.
We are in the year 2024 Anno Domini, doesn't mean the earth is 2024 years old.
This could very well be an account of years since adam and eve, because we know their ages as described in genesis, but before them there's a whole creation that's not being taken into account.
Also, just a number in a line addressing the marriages of priests is a very weak evidence for the rejection of very complex understanding of the world. You are ready to reject a theory about the world that was found by a christian priest ("Big Bang" was a mocking term used by atheists to mock the idea of a beginning to the universe), based on a number that you interpret as meaning the beginning of the world ?

That's a lot of words to state you can't cope with the fact that you're wrong. But I'll address it regardless.

First : The council in Trullo hasn't been accepted by all Christianity, it wasn't even supposed to teach anything reguarding theology but was meant as clarification for the 6th council.

Doesn't matter, Eastern Orthodoxy accepts it and that's all that matters. The rest are heretics and their opinions are invalid.

Second, the year 6109th could literally mean anything, it doesn't have to mean year 6109 since the beginning of times.
We are in the year 2024 Anno Domini, doesn't mean the earth is 2024 years old.

This part displays your utter ignorance regarding the context the council took place. 6109 was the year in the Byzantine Era Calendar, which was the calendar used by all Orthodox until the 1700's or so. 6109 is referring to the years that have passed since the creation of the world. The current year would be 7532 in that calendar. With 5509 BC being the date of creation. Some numbers may not precisely add up at times and this is because the fathers were not concerned with precision when it came to determining the age of the universe, but they all agreed that it was more or less 5500 years old by the time of Christ's birth.

This could very well be an account of years since adam and eve, because we know their ages as described in genesis, but before them there's a whole creation that's not being taken into account.

Retarded argument because you're assuming there was anything before the literal date of creation, kek.

Also, just a number in a line addressing the marriages of priests is a very weak evidence for the rejection of very complex understanding of the world. You are ready to reject a theory about the world that was found by a christian priest ("Big Bang" was a mocking term used by atheists to mock the idea of a beginning to the universe), based on a number that you interpret as meaning the beginning of the world ?

Yes, I am fully willing and ready to reject a theory founded by a papist priest. Next question?

 

[Nihilma]

That's a lot of words to state you can't cope with the fact that you're wrong. But I'll address it regardless.

Doesn't matter, Eastern Orthodoxy accepts it and that's all that matters. The rest are heretics and their opinions are invalid.

This part displays your utter ignorance regarding the context the council took place. 6109 was the year in the Byzantine Era Calendar, which was the calendar used by all Orthodox until the 1700's or so. 6109 is referring to the years that have passed since the creation of the world. The current year would be 7532 in that calendar. With 5509 BC being the date of creation. Some numbers may not precisely add up at times and this is because the fathers were not concerned with precision when it came to determining the age of the universe, but they all agreed that it was more or less 5500 years old by the time of Christ's birth.

Retarded argument because you're assuming there was anything before the literal date of creation, kek.

Yes, I am fully willing and ready to reject a theory founded by a papist priest. Next question?

Did my research, the Byzantine Era callendar is not binding theology, it was merely used at the time to set the date at which the canons would be applicable for christendom. So you using this as a proof for young earth creationism as the only legitimate interpretation is dumb.
The current callendars used are the julian callendar, the revised jullian callendar and the gregorian callendar.

Also, adam and eve were not created on the first days of creations but on the 6th, so yes there was at least part of creation before them.

Also, the Byzantine Era Callendar again was not used by all Church Fathers, and as I said above not all Church Fathers agreed on the genesis account

Finally, your opinions on which Church has the truth and what you reject don't interest me.

 

[lifesucksthenyoudie]

Marge what is that website?

Catbox clone soot made long long ago, IIRC that’s the only part of the soyosphere he still controls

 

[soy416]

Marge what is that website?

Some site soot made back in the day, pdf rel is an example of retarded jew "morals"

 

[Aedra]

Also, adam and eve were not created on the first days of creations but on the 6th, so yes there was at least part of creation before them.

Are you slow? The year in the canon doesn't refer to years that have passed since Adam and Eve. It refers to the time that has passed since the creation itself. You can't just make a wild claim like that, because you are just re-interpreting what is directly written to suit your agenda.

Also, the Byzantine Era Callendar again was not used by all Church Fathers, and as I said above not all Church Fathers agreed on the genesis account

Even the all too often quoted Blessed Augustine agrees with me.

"Let us omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race...They are deceived by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have passed." (City of God, 12:10)

You cannot argue against the fact that pretty much all of them would find the idea of the world being billions of years old to be anathema. Whether they thought the creation days were literal or in a single moment is irrelevant. The fact is that they didn't believe it happened within billions of years.

Finally, your opinions on which Church has the truth and what you reject don't interest me.

Then don't assume you know the theology of my own church more than I do. Believe in whatever you want, you are free to destroy yourself and your church with your wicked ideologies. But don't attempt to subvert mine.

 

[Nihilma]

Are you slow? The year in the canon doesn't refer to years that have passed since Adam and Eve. It refers to the time that has passed since the creation itself. You can't just make a wild claim like that, because you are just re-interpreting what is directly written to suit your agenda.

Even the all too often quoted Blessed Augustine agrees with me.

You cannot argue against the fact that pretty much all of them would find the idea of the world being billions of years old to be anathema. Whether they thought the creation days were literal or in a single moment is irrelevant. The fact is that they didn't believe it happened within billions of years.

Then don't assume you know the theology of my own church more than I do. Believe in whatever you want, you are free to destroy yourself and your church with your wicked ideologies. But don't attempt to subvert mine.

It isn't because I don't agree with a certain theology that I don't know about it. I know what Jehovah's witnesses believe in and I understand parts of their theology, doesn't mean I agree with it, what is this kind of reasoning ?

Also yeah I do guess that Church Fathers would find the idea bizarre because they just weren't as knowledgeable about the natural laws as we are, no shit. But even then, they did see that to some things could be interpreted differently than what the initial text meant.

Also, the callendar was used from circa 600 to 1600 or so, augustine was long dead. The Fathers made approximations yeah, but neither were these approximations binding, nor was the callendar itself. It simply is this way.

And reguarding adam and eve, I was answering to before adam & eve there was nothing since you placed them on the date of creation

Retarded argument because you're assuming there was anything before the literal date of creation, kek.