Hellenic religion

[Philosopher]

You know, the "toy Soldier" thing is so Greek, it smells of the comments made by animals like BattlefieldofCockheads, ChrisPhilipov, etc, are they your friends by any chance?

Hhmm, I love history! And it seems you have a warped recollection of recent history as well. To clarify for you, my ignorant friend, over 75% of the people voted to keep me as Moderator in that forum, and it was higher than that before all the administrators Greek friends jumped on the wagon, but that is history, and you are incapable of maintaining an accurate memory it would seem.

Show me the quote and context you little monkey, this is the third time you have claimed to "seen a post" of mine which says things, show us your evidence or shut your mouth with your lies.

Quote and context, monkey.

I never gave anything to anybody that didn't have it coming to them, your sweeping statements are laughable, tell me, did I bully several of the members and former members of Maknews to come to this forum with me? Did I bully you into coming here?

Which people?

Yeah, I am still waiting for it. Fatso is your ace up the sleeve? Lol, you're pathetic...

You have become an arrogant and whining little bitch in the last few days, I suggest you chill out for a bit, I don't appreciate your attitude and you spreading lies and ill-informed stories about myself or any other member of this forum. You have a severe attitude problem and you should consider working on it prior to responding to me again, whatever has possessed you into thinking you are some kingdick hotshot in the last few days should end very soon.

Perhaps the Greeks you mentioned are my friends and brothers...but then again. perhaps not.

Whether 75% voted for you or not, I don't know. What I do know is that even if 75% voted to keep you, that still leaves 25% who wanted you out. Which means my statement "no small amount" is suitable. Notice I did not use the phrase "majority." 25% is certainly no small amount. I know, those 25% who voted against you were Greeks.

Would to God someone could bring up that post from Maknews and post it here for all of us to see and read!

The "Motherfuck..." was a post about Nato and Macedonia. You apparently had such a hard time dealing with that you decided to use the dirty appellation Western "Motherfuck..."

You can call me names all you want; what really irks you and irritates you is that I have refuted everyone one of your lies and made you look silly. You think you will capture me...you only managed to make a fool of yourself...again.

I am arrogant. My ability to articulate myself with eloquence, unlike your barbaric mantra, and with adroit, astute, reasoning is too laborious for you to grasp. My arrogance is based on my confidence in the subject at hand and my education. I am working on a Ph.D, you know.

My ability to grasp truth is too hard for your intractable head to grasp.

I am not afraid of you--so don't make silly threats about my arrogance and how I should think before I speak to you--who are you? Some low life loser who thinks he runs the Macedonian world.

From now on, I do not wish to converse with you...you're beneath me.

[Risto the Great]

Risto,

Whether you have used profanity on this forum, I don't know. I'm pretty sure you have used profanity on the Maknews forum. And I am positive that toy Solider has used profanity. I never wrote that you used profanity on this forum--I said I was not sure. But I'm pretty sure you have on the Maknews forum.

Risto, you and I debating this issue of faith is meaningless. In 90 AD and 200 AD, and 300 AD, no one saw the resurrected Christ. And yet you insist that in modern times Christianity is of faith. Then what about those who never saw Jesus or his resurrection in ancient times--namely, 60 AD, 80 AD, 120 AD? Faith, right? So what is your point about modern times and ancient? I don't get it.

As for the Muslims and the rest, we are waisting our time. We can agree to disagree. Muslims read the bible from the lens of the Qur'an, which means they won't understand it.

As I wrote before, I shall write again, you are free to believe what you want. Period.

You stated what faith is not. You said the following:

As for faith, faith as defined by the bible and faith as defined by modern usage are two different things. Faith as defined in the bible is not a blind faith hoping (without any evidence) that Jesus Christ is God and that he resurrected from the dead, that he died for the sins of his people, and that divinely inspired a book called the bible. If this were my religion, I would be an atheist.

You did not state what faith is. You stated "faith as defined in the bible". I asked you to state or define it and you have avoided this discussion. I really think this is the key and my inquiring mind would like to know. Because too many priests have used this wonderful tool of "faith" to manipulate far too many people.

Thanks for being "pretty sure" about my use of profanity. I am pretty sure you might answer this post in some lovely Olde English cut & pastes. But I am hopeful we can go further than that.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Whether 75% voted for you or not, I don't know.

So you don't know, yet you have made sweeping statements like you do know? Hhmm, to those that don't know but talk as if they do know, I usually say how about a nice big cup of shut the fuck up? So, how about it champ?

What I do know is that even if 75% voted to keep you, that still leaves 25% who wanted you out.

Which still leaves 75% and more, that was in support of me. Apply your standards to the population of the Macedonian Republic and wave that Albanian flag you zealot.

Would to God someone could bring up that post from Maknews and post it here for all of us to see and read!

You pretend to be the 13th apostle, why not ask God to email the link to you?

The "Motherfuck..." was a post about Nato and Macedonia. You apparently had such a hard time dealing with that you decided to use the dirty appellation Western "Motherfuck..."

QUOTE....and....CONTEXT....you imbecilic monkey, not a cut n paste half-sentence that you have manipulated in your deluded mind.

I have refuted everyone one of your lies and made you look silly.

LOOOLLLLL, a religious comedian, wonders will never cease, hahaha, did you see that when you saw the dragons and wild beasts flying by your dungeon window?

I am arrogant.

I know, I told you this about 10 posts ago, you only now seem to be accepting the label, and seemingly embracing it, as you have constructed some story that justifies your pathetic attitude towards fellow Macedonians.

I am working on a Ph.D, you know.

So you keep saying, I wonder why you feel the need to repeat that as if it gives you any credibility after your wonderful performance on this thread, seriously mate, like I said, people can say and claim anything over the internet, if you really are studying, you have been a colossal waste of money for your family. Change subjects, transfer to Horticulture or something, go and grow some more of those plants that you seem to have been smoking the past few weeks.

I am not afraid of you....

Of course you are, you're a little bitch, no shame there, you are what you are, embrace it as you do the 'arrogant' label, at least then it would sound a little tougher, like 'arrogant little bitch', lol.

who are you?

I am Soldier of Macedon. What's the matter, having memory problems again?

Some low life loser who thinks he runs the Macedonian world.

Lol, you're a funny idiot, I suppose there is some value in that.

[Philosopher]

You stated what faith is not. You said the following:

You did not state what faith is. You stated "faith as defined in the bible". I asked you to state or define it and you have avoided this discussion. I really think this is the key and my inquiring mind would like to know. Because too many priests have used this wonderful tool of "faith" to manipulate far too many people.

Thanks for being "pretty sure" about my use of profanity. I am pretty sure you might answer this post in some lovely Olde English cut & pastes. But I am hopeful we can go further than that.

The FACT that you have used four letter words on this forum (no matter how rare) means you have used them. And that, my comrade, is far worse than using the evil "ignorant." As for your usage on the other forum, if you used them here, you used them there. So don't act smirk.

As for your faith question and your belief that priests have used this word as a tool to manipulate people, here is my answer to you.

The word FAITH is used in two different senses in the Bible. When it speaks of "we are saved by the faith of Christ," it does not mean a "belief," as understood by the common modern usage. It means "faithfulness or steadfastness." This means that we are saved by Christ's perfection or complete obedience to God and God's law and not our own, since we are sinners.

This is where the idea of the atonement comes and the sacrfacial nature of the Lamb of God. To wit, God took the sins of humanity in exchange for HIS righteousness to sinners. Thus, Christ, the only sinless, perfect, human being could bear the punishment of sinners, being God and Man, and his righteousness would be imputed to those who accept him as Lord and Savior.

As for the other usage of faith in the Bible; the Bible defines FAITH as a confident conviction in God's message. The author of the book of Hebrews, chapter 11, explained FAITH thus "And Faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction...by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing..."

The Biblical Faith or confident conviction is not based on some blind belief that God exists and that the Bible is true because some tradition exists that states God wrote this book. Nay, my friend. The Biblical Faith is grounded on evidence. Principally, it is grounded on understanding the Bible to be the Word of God. This I went over already. If the Bible had no evidence of being written by God, and was a book full of stories that had no connection, coupled with contradictory views of God, then I would argue the Bible is a joke.

But there is abundant historic evidence to further buttress the veracity of the Bible.

My confident conviction, and that which the priests teach, is a Gift of God, which means one cannot be true a believer without God, along with man's seeking God, giving you eyes to see and ears to hear.

[Risto the Great]

FUCK FUCK FUCK ... I hope that clears the air for you Philosopher.

So "faith" in your interpretations is as follows:

1. We are saved by Christ's perfection OR by our complete obedience to God's law.
2. Having a confident conviction in God's message.

You said you would be an atheist if you had to rely on "blind faith". Do you accept that one must make a leap in order to embrace your definitions above? Is there an element of blindness that must be accepted? Surely we have to believe (amongst other things) that Jesus died for our sins on the cross. This belief must stem from the faith you describe. We also have to believe the bible has been written by God. You do. You feel that it is complete and satisfies you on every spiritual level. Good on you. What is "proof" to you is a bloody good read to other people.

You gave me the impression that your version of faith was superior to others. This is that strong Christian arrogance that I often see. It means they can afford to be "less than nice" given that they have a superior and the only correct spiritual agenda.

I am underwhelmed by your definition of faith as it is what I expected to hear. And I want to believe there is more to it. Priests often use the mystery of this faith to manipulate people. It revolts me. I know your answer will be that these people are not true priests but I will say to you that history has shown quite a track record of clergy with alternative agendas and the manipulation appears to be the norm not the exception.

How would you view the link with the Greek priest in the photo with the Bulgarian soldiers prior to commencing the attacks on the Macedonians?

[osiris]

risto its not proven that jesus aim was to create a new religion, i believe as do many historians he simply thought of himself as the jewish messiah and only wanted to reform judaism. his brother james who was head of the jerusalem church stuck faithfully to this direction. christanity as we know it now owes its ideas and success more to saul and constantine than to jesus.

[Philosopher]

FUCK FUCK FUCK ... I hope that clears the air for you Philosopher.

So "faith" in your interpretations is as follows:

1. We are saved by Christ's perfection OR by our complete obedience to God's law.
2. Having a confident conviction in God's message.

You said you would be an atheist if you had to rely on "blind faith". Do you accept that one must make a leap in order to embrace your definitions above? Is there an element of blindness that must be accepted? Surely we have to believe (amongst other things) that Jesus died for our sins on the cross. This belief must stem from the faith you describe. We also have to believe the bible has been written by God. You do. You feel that it is complete and satisfies you on every spiritual level. Good on you. What is "proof" to you is a bloody good read to other people.

You gave me the impression that your version of faith was superior to others. This is that strong Christian arrogance that I often see. It means they can afford to be "less than nice" given that they have a superior and the only correct spiritual agenda.

I am underwhelmed by your definition of faith as it is what I expected to hear. And I want to believe there is more to it. Priests often use the mystery of this faith to manipulate people. It revolts me. I know your answer will be that these people are not true priests but I will say to you that history has shown quite a track record of clergy with alternative agendas and the manipulation appears to be the norm not the exception.

How would you view the link with the Greek priest in the photo with the Bulgarian soldiers prior to commencing the attacks on the Macedonians?

Risto, it's not one or the other. It's not that we are saved either by the first definition of faith or the second.

The first definition of faith, namely, the faithfulness of Christ, is how we are able to be saved. We can't save ourselves, since we are all sinners.

Us having a confident conviction in the work of Christ, his faithfulness, is how we claim that salvation and righteousness for ourselves.

It is not a leap to believe in the things of Christ--his life, miracles, death, and resurrection. All these things are prophesied hundreds and thousand of years before he was incarnated. The problem is either (A) you don't have eyes to see; or (B) you don't accept the testimony God has given.

The Old Testament serves as a prophetic witness to the life of Jesus Christ. If such prophecies relating to the resurrection of Christ, his feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of bread and fish, his healing the sick, him being born in Bethlehem, Judea, his atonement on the cross, his twelve disciples, being like Moses and every prophet of the Old Testament (the concept of types), his establishing the New Covenant in his blood, that blood atones for the sin of the soul, that he who is hung on a tree is accursed, his being the seed of a woman, his being of the seed of Abraham, his crucifixion on the cross, etc. etc. etc, all came to pass in literal detail hundreds and thousands of years before his birth.

When such a picture is presented, is it really a matter of blind faith--or confident conviction that God is true?

Moreover, what we have in the resurrection of Christ are eyewitnesses who spilled their own blood proclaiming a message that either (A) they invented, though with no earthly benefits procured because of it; or (B) or were delusional that they saw a risen Christ for forty days after the resurrection; and (C) all the Old Testament information about this very event, to wit, the resurrection, is mere coincidence and hogwash.

As the for the priests, monks, and nationalism, as in the case of Macedonia, Greece, and Bulgaria, frankly this has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. Some of the worst human beings to have walked this planet, even till this day, are priests, Christian or not.

Religion either takes a back seat to nationalism or is used to promote nationalism. I for one am not against nationalism, but I am against misguided nationalism. And that is what we have in the Balkans.

[Philosopher]

risto its not proven that jesus aim was to create a new religion, i believe as do many historians he simply thought of himself as the jewish messiah and only wanted to reform judaism. his brother james who was head of the jerusalem church stuck faithfully to this direction. christanity as we know it now owes its ideas and success more to saul and constantine than to jesus.

I challenge you to provide me evidence that Christianity owes its ideas to Saul and Constantine.

And I ask you what this idea of a new religion is that Christ did not intend on creating? What do you mean by this?

Please be specific, since I am eager to learn of this information.

[Daskalot]

7-8 Greeks on the internet, each sharing the same delusion and all pretending (and registering) with multiples of online identities.

That's the strength of the Greeks on the internet, the're just a few delusional gius who dedicate themselves full-time to their delusions.

That's all they are.

So true and Istor is four of them!

[Daskalot]

.....RELIGION......

Religion will be discarded in the new world order, it is in sharp contrast to capitalism which is the current order of the world.

[Daskalot]

I challenge you to provide me evidence that Christianity owes its ideas to Saul and Constantine.

And I ask you what this idea of a new religion is that Christ did not intend on creating? What do you mean by this?

Please be specific, since I am eager to learn of this information.

Do you accept the Old Testament Philosopher?

[makedonin]

So "faith" in your interpretations is as follows

Risto, the faith is not a man's faith but given by God which is even more to twist the thins !

Read this one:

The answer we believe to be the most biblical, which does justice to the gospel and its life-changing effect, is that salvation is by faith alone. However, this faith is not of man, but of God. Furthermore, this faith does not come to man without simultaneously testifying to Christ and His moral commands. To protect the integrity of the gospel, which demands faithfulness to the Lord, is not to summon men to their own self-generated faith. Rather, it is to admit once for all that faith is given by God and it therefore produces a fruit of righteousness which cannot be divorced from ethical and moral transformation. (Luke 8:15) Faith given by God produces the man who "does the good." Faith self-generated by man is only filthy rags. Such as these will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Faith given by God is not intellectual assent. It is a full confidence in the finished work of God for salvation accompanied by a true desire to please God. The miracle of regeneration is that it produces faith in man that desires to obey after having clutched onto the righteousness of Christ alone as his only hope for deliverance. (Titus 2:14)

http://www.cwrc-rz.org/thlarchive/thla-010.php

See, it seems that this faith given by God is given only to people he choose, thus we get convicted from the first place!

It means, if God decides to give you faith, he will and you are saved, other wise you go to Hell.

I have lot of problems there.

I ask my self, "Why God left me out!, Why am I excluded from his mercy! He should give it to me even if I have to put my finger in Christs pits from the nails"

I guess it is a mystery as everything else God does, or is it only the Priests who did this confusion !?

Maybe they did not like this to happen:

77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

It is you and Jesus all the time mate, where ever you look at!

[Risto the Great]

Do you accept the Old Testament Philosopher?

Sorry to answer on Philospher's behalf. But by definition he HAS to believe in the Old Testament. He believes the prophecies from the Old Testament have come to pass in the New Testament.

I find the Old Testament a bit nasty in places. e.g. do the wrong thing by God and your grandchildren's grandchildren will suffer his wrath etc. etc.

[Risto the Great]

See, it seems that this faith given by God is given only to people he choose, thus we get convicted from the first place!

It means, if God decides to give you faith, he will and you are saved, other wise you go to Hell.

If it God's choice as to who gets the faith, then surely we get into the discussion that we must let Him into our lives in order for him to endow us with this faith.

But being omnipotent, he could do this whether we like it or not.

Faith given by God produces the man who "does the good." Faith self-generated by man is only filthy rags. Such as these will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Faith given by God is not intellectual assent. It is a full confidence in the finished work of God for salvation accompanied by a true desire to please God.

I quite like this comment. But can't help but imagine an ancient Hellene worshiping the magnificent Goat God and saying the same thing.

Faith given by God is not intellectual assent

I agree with this.
Do you Philosopher? It appears you might disagree because you seem to be relying on an ability to interpret the Bible with all its shadows and texts within texts. In other words, there appears to be an intellectual aspect of the Bible that appeals to you and gives you the confidence to project your stance.

[osiris]

sorry philospher i really cant be bothered proving jesus intentions to you, it would be a waste of my time, if you want to believe the bible as gods word you are welcome too.