How many True Christians are there? - Page 7

JJM 777 · 24th May 2012, 07:58 AM

42.

Dinwar · 24th May 2012, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

Please provide actual historical documents that this happened specifically as a sport of persecuting only christians. I think the Romans killed anyone they damn well pleased for sport if they were trouble to them.

The whole christians fed to lions (as I recall) is a made up christian martyr tale more than a historical fact.

Oh, I don't doubt that some were. Lions--as well as other large, fierce predators--weren't unheard-of in the Colosseum. Where the Christians go off the deep end is in thinking they're somehow special. The Romans had a rather twisted sense of humor, and gladiatorial games emphasized that. Releasing wild animals into the arena fits right in with the rest of what they did.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I think it's still reasonable to use the term to mean "denying believe in specific gods", ie, "atheistic with respect to those gods".

If by "reasonable" you mean "using a term in a way that no one has used it in so many years that the language it was spoken in when the term was used that way is now a dead language", then sure. If, however, by "reasonable" you mean "useful in communication of ideas", than no, it's not reasonable at all.

I'm tempted to go so far as to suggest the reason you'd like to use the term this way is that you're deliberately trying to muddy the waters of this conversation, as your interpretation is linguistically inconsistent. "Amoral" doesn't mean "lacking one specific moral precept". "Asocial" doesn't mean "not hanging out with one specific person". No coffee this morning, so I'm having trouble coming up with more, but I believe my point holds true: the prefix "a-" is never used to denote that only a particular subset of the thing is lacking. It means the ENTIRE thing is lacking--no social life, no morals, no gods.

Rasmus · 24th May 2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

No, I'm commenting on atheists telling Christians what they believe and demanding it fit in a particular category of Christianity. Obviously if someone believes something that entails believing that something else isn't true. How else can you believe something? What is bizarre is to not believe something and still insist that somebody else should.

Since I am very often guilty of that alleged crime:

It is not bizarre in the least.

Pretend I said "I belive i can fly. Like - literally flap my arms, leave the ground, ascend to an altitute of at least 12 meters, move forward, stear, and eventually touch down again safely."

Any sane person, or even just anybody significantly safer than that hypothetical me, would probably not belive in my flying ability.

But they would be justified in assuming I believed that I could cross that river without getting my feet wet, or be able to rescue this kitty from the tree top.

My ability to do those tihngs would follow directly from the truethfulness of the claim i made that I could fly.

It is entirely reasonable for someone to say "well, if you believe you can fly, you should also believe that you can fly from here to there."

Now, I might not belive that. But I have no reason to be surprised that others would think I do. It'd be my own fault, because i have given them misleading or errenous information.

If someone is a Christian, they must believe that there lived a guy called Jesus, who died and was magicially resurrected. If they do not belive that, we don't mean the same tihng when we say "Christian".

If the person does belive that, I am justified in assuming that they have reason to belief that absurd story, and to ask what that reason is, right?

The only reason s anybody can have, really, are divine relevation and reliance and churches and bibles. But if someone does rely on the Church and the Bible, i must assume that they rely on it completely. What reason could they have to doubt anything anyone tells them, if they belive the same source when it talks about the ressurection?

So I am very much jsutified in saying what they should believe. Not in the sense that I want them to belive it - i don't - but in the sense that one belief would follow form the other, and they need an explanantion to show that this is not so.

Halfcentaur · 24th May 2012, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

No, I'm commenting on atheists telling Christians what they believe and demanding it fit in a particular category of Christianity. Obviously if someone believes something that entails believing that something else isn't true. How else can you believe something? What is bizarre is to not believe something and still insist that somebody else should.

Kindly point me to the post you are refering to. Where is an atheist telling all Christians what they believe, and demonstrate they are not actually making commentary on Christians they've encountered and that they are basing criticism on known and established claims. And show me where they are applying this established claim to all Christians. If you would not mind.

Because it seems like you're saying none of these pre-established Christian beliefs were actually pre-established and that atheists made them up. And it seems like you're saying these atheists are now claiming certain Christians who did not profess their specific interpretation of Christianity are automatically subscribing to what these atheists invented.

Where did this happen in this thread?

It seems like you're just ignoring what millions of other Christians establish regularly because you don't subscribe to it but you go further and claim it was never established in the first place.

Am I misconstruing that? Can you show me which post you're referring to if not in the interests of clarity and accuracy. I'd love to know if I am making an error here, and I realize you have no obligation to accommodate me but I would truly appreciate it and be thankful for it.

Halfcentaur · 24th May 2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

Yeah, that kind of supports my point. Saying that you trust the book but not the church that assembled it doesn't really make much sense. The church always took precedence over the bible, for about a thousand years.

I actually agree with this by the way, but it is extremely rare for me to encounter a Christian who will agree with you unless you word this very carefully.

You will find nowhere in the bible that is was bidden by God that a book be collected in the form of the bible, no mention that a canon was to be established or that a canon was necessary to be established, no description of how to tell an authentic holy text from an inauthentic holy text, no mention of the books which were not selected ultimately in the Council of Nicea to be included in the canon and no mention of the proto-orthdox Christian sects from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, you will find no mention of anything but a reference to the writings each chapter was originally collected from.

But most Christians of the every day variety do not only not know of the Council of Nicea, they have no idea who Marcion of Sinope was, why Marcion inspired the Council of Nicea to establish a canon, and the majority of churches in the United States do hold the bible to be a sacred text that was divinely inspired by God.

tsig · 24th May 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

True, but I think that's mainly an artifact of God having become a monotheistic concept in our culture.

That is, the term has evolved to mean "no gods" because the tacit assumption is "one or none". So if someone wants to specify, I think it's still reasonable to use the term to mean "denying believe in specific gods", ie, "atheistic with respect to those gods".

That would make Christians and Muslims atheists.

dafydd · 24th May 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

Please provide actual historical documents that this happened specifically as a sport of persecuting only christians. I think the Romans killed anyone they damn well pleased for sport if they were trouble to them.

The whole christians fed to lions (as I recall) is a made up christian martyr tale more than a historical fact.

It very rarely happened. The Colosseum was mostly used for chariot racing and gladiatorial combat.

dafydd · 24th May 2012, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

That would make Christians and Muslims atheists.

Of course. Avalon is a Muslim atheist.

rcfieldz · 24th May 2012, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

Please provide actual historical documents that this happened specifically as a sport of persecuting only christians. I think the Romans killed anyone they damn well pleased for sport if they were trouble to them.

The whole christians fed to lions (as I recall) is a made up christian martyr tale more than a historical fact.

Ticket sales...bottom line.

dafydd · 24th May 2012, 12:34 PM

''ROMAN COLISEUM.
UNPARALLELED ATTRACTION!
NEW PROPERTIES! NEW LIONS! NEW GLADIATORS!
Engagement of the renowned
MARCUS MARCELLUS VALERIAN!
FOR SIX NIGHTS ONLY!

The management beg leave to offer to the public an entertainment surpassing in magnificence any thing that has heretofore been attempted on any stage. No expense has been spared to make the opening season one which shall be worthy the generous patronage which the management feel sure will crown their efforts. The management beg leave to state that they have succeeded in securing the services of a

GALAXY OF TALENT!

such as has not been beheld in Rome before.

The performance will commence this evening with a

GRAND BROADSWORD COMBAT!

between two young and promising amateurs and a celebrated Parthian gladiator who has just arrived a prisoner from the Camp of Verus.

This will be followed by a grand moral

BATTLE-AX ENGAGEMENT!

between the renowned Valerian (with one hand tied behind him,) and two gigantic savages from Britain.

After which the renowned Valerian (if he survive,) will fight with the broad-sword,

LEFT HANDED!

against six Sophomores and a Freshman from the Gladiatorial College!

A long series of brilliant engagements will follow, in which the finest talent of the Empire will take part

After which the celebrated Infant Prodigy known as

"THE YOUNG ACHILLES,"

will engage four tiger whelps in combat, armed with no other weapon than his little spear!

The whole to conclude with a chaste and elegant

GENERAL SLAUGHTER!

In which thirteen African Lions and twenty-two Barbarian Prisoners will war with each other until all are exterminated.

BOX OFFICE NOW OPEN.

Dress Circle One Dollar; Children and Servants half price.

An efficient police force will be on hand to preserve order and keep the wild beasts from leaping the railings and discommoding the audience.

Doors open at 7; performance begins at 8.

POSITIVELY NO FREE LIST.''-Mark Twain.

ddt · 24th May 2012, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

It very rarely happened. The Colosseum was mostly used for chariot racing and gladiatorial combat.

Don't forget the naval battles. The Colosseum was equipped to be filled with and drained from water in a handful of hours.

dafydd · 24th May 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

Don't forget the naval battles. The Colosseum was equipped to be filled with and drained from water in a handful of hours.

There is no conclusive evidence that any Christians were thrown to the lions in the Colosseum.

ddt · 24th May 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

There is no conclusive evidence that any Christians were thrown to the lions in the Colosseum.

I concur, and so does the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Quote:

The evidence, therefore, which we possess in the Roman Acts in favour of certain martyrs suffering in the Coliseum is, for these reasons among others, regarded by Father Delehaye as inconclusive. He does not deny that there may have been martyrs who suffered in the Coliseum, but we know nothing on the subject one way or the other.

And I don't think the Romans would have been so cruel to the beasts. Everyone knows that eating Christians makes the lions cross.

dafydd · 24th May 2012, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

I concur, and so does the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

And I don't think the Romans would have been so cruel to the beasts. Everyone knows that eating Christians makes the lions cross.

And they never fed them clowns because they taste funny.

ddt · 24th May 2012, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Pray.

Then help your neighbors smuggle the Jews out of Nazi territory.

Precedent:
"In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to arrest me; but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands. (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33 NKJV)"

Why did you leave out verse 30?

Quote:

30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying.

Paul clearly says this was a weakness of him. IMHO, it follows then that this is something that should not be followed. Moreover, in extension of Pup's comment on this: it's something Paul relates from his own life in a descriptive manner; whereas the passage in Romans 13 is clearly laid down as prescriptive rules for the whole community.

Bump.

dafydd · 24th May 2012, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

Bump.

Christianity seems to have the amorphous properties of a cross between a jelly fish and a melted marshmallow.

westprog · 24th May 2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

The Colosseum was mostly used for chariot racing

No. The arena of the Colosseum was too small for chariot racing. Tracks such as the Circus Maximus are where the races were typically held.

dafydd · 24th May 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

No. The arena of the Colosseum was too small for chariot racing. Tracks such as the Circus Maximus are where the races were typically held.

Fair enough, but no Christians were fed to the lions, that is the point.

24th May 2012, 08:09 AM	#242
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,974	Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella Please provide actual historical documents that this happened specifically as a sport of persecuting only christians. I think the Romans killed anyone they damn well pleased for sport if they were trouble to them. The whole christians fed to lions (as I recall) is a made up christian martyr tale more than a historical fact. Oh, I don't doubt that some were. Lions--as well as other large, fierce predators--weren't unheard-of in the Colosseum. Where the Christians go off the deep end is in thinking they're somehow special. The Romans had a rather twisted sense of humor, and gladiatorial games emphasized that. Releasing wild animals into the arena fits right in with the rest of what they did. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I think it's still reasonable to use the term to mean "denying believe in specific gods", ie, "atheistic with respect to those gods". If by "reasonable" you mean "using a term in a way that no one has used it in so many years that the language it was spoken in when the term was used that way is now a dead language", then sure. If, however, by "reasonable" you mean "useful in communication of ideas", than no, it's not reasonable at all. I'm tempted to go so far as to suggest the reason you'd like to use the term this way is that you're deliberately trying to muddy the waters of this conversation, as your interpretation is linguistically inconsistent. "Amoral" doesn't mean "lacking one specific moral precept". "Asocial" doesn't mean "not hanging out with one specific person". No coffee this morning, so I'm having trouble coming up with more, but I believe my point holds true: the prefix "a-" is never used to denote that only a particular subset of the thing is lacking. It means the ENTIRE thing is lacking--no social life, no morals, no gods.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,974	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

24th May 2012, 08:30 AM	#243
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by westprog No, I'm commenting on atheists telling Christians what they believe and demanding it fit in a particular category of Christianity. Obviously if someone believes something that entails believing that something else isn't true. How else can you believe something? What is bizarre is to not believe something and still insist that somebody else should. Since I am very often guilty of that alleged crime: It is not bizarre in the least. Pretend I said "I belive i can fly. Like - literally flap my arms, leave the ground, ascend to an altitute of at least 12 meters, move forward, stear, and eventually touch down again safely." Any sane person, or even just anybody significantly safer than that hypothetical me, would probably not belive in my flying ability. But they would be justified in assuming I believed that I could cross that river without getting my feet wet, or be able to rescue this kitty from the tree top. My ability to do those tihngs would follow directly from the truethfulness of the claim i made that I could fly. It is entirely reasonable for someone to say "well, if you believe you can fly, you should also believe that you can fly from here to there." Now, I might not belive that. But I have no reason to be surprised that others would think I do. It'd be my own fault, because i have given them misleading or errenous information. If someone is a Christian, they must believe that there lived a guy called Jesus, who died and was magicially resurrected. If they do not belive that, we don't mean the same tihng when we say "Christian". If the person does belive that, I am justified in assuming that they have reason to belief that absurd story, and to ask what that reason is, right? The only reason s anybody can have, really, are divine relevation and reliance and churches and bibles. But if someone does rely on the Church and the Bible, i must assume that they rely on it completely. What reason could they have to doubt anything anyone tells them, if they belive the same source when it talks about the ressurection? So I am very much jsutified in saying what they should believe. Not in the sense that I want them to belive it - i don't - but in the sense that one belief would follow form the other, and they need an explanantion to show that this is not so.
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

24th May 2012, 09:05 AM	#244
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	Originally Posted by westprog No, I'm commenting on atheists telling Christians what they believe and demanding it fit in a particular category of Christianity. Obviously if someone believes something that entails believing that something else isn't true. How else can you believe something? What is bizarre is to not believe something and still insist that somebody else should. Kindly point me to the post you are refering to. Where is an atheist telling all Christians what they believe, and demonstrate they are not actually making commentary on Christians they've encountered and that they are basing criticism on known and established claims. And show me where they are applying this established claim to all Christians. If you would not mind. Because it seems like you're saying none of these pre-established Christian beliefs were actually pre-established and that atheists made them up. And it seems like you're saying these atheists are now claiming certain Christians who did not profess their specific interpretation of Christianity are automatically subscribing to what these atheists invented. Where did this happen in this thread? It seems like you're just ignoring what millions of other Christians establish regularly because you don't subscribe to it but you go further and claim it was never established in the first place. Am I misconstruing that? Can you show me which post you're referring to if not in the interests of clarity and accuracy. I'd love to know if I am making an error here, and I realize you have no obligation to accommodate me but I would truly appreciate it and be thankful for it.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965

24th May 2012, 09:21 AM	#245
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	Originally Posted by westprog Yeah, that kind of supports my point. Saying that you trust the book but not the church that assembled it doesn't really make much sense. The church always took precedence over the bible, for about a thousand years. I actually agree with this by the way, but it is extremely rare for me to encounter a Christian who will agree with you unless you word this very carefully. You will find nowhere in the bible that is was bidden by God that a book be collected in the form of the bible, no mention that a canon was to be established or that a canon was necessary to be established, no description of how to tell an authentic holy text from an inauthentic holy text, no mention of the books which were not selected ultimately in the Council of Nicea to be included in the canon and no mention of the proto-orthdox Christian sects from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, you will find no mention of anything but a reference to the writings each chapter was originally collected from. But most Christians of the every day variety do not only not know of the Council of Nicea, they have no idea who Marcion of Sinope was, why Marcion inspired the Council of Nicea to establish a canon, and the majority of churches in the United States do hold the bible to be a sacred text that was divinely inspired by God.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965

24th May 2012, 10:51 AM	#247
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,479	Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella Please provide actual historical documents that this happened specifically as a sport of persecuting only christians. I think the Romans killed anyone they damn well pleased for sport if they were trouble to them. The whole christians fed to lions (as I recall) is a made up christian martyr tale more than a historical fact. It very rarely happened. The Colosseum was mostly used for chariot racing and gladiatorial combat.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th May 2012, 07:58 AM	#241
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	42.

24th May 2012, 09:51 AM	#246
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,796	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ True, but I think that's mainly an artifact of God having become a monotheistic concept in our culture. That is, the term has evolved to mean "no gods" because the tacit assumption is "one or none". So if someone wants to specify, I think it's still reasonable to use the term to mean "denying believe in specific gods", ie, "atheistic with respect to those gods". That would make Christians and Muslims atheists.

24th May 2012, 10:56 AM	#248
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,479	Originally Posted by tsig That would make Christians and Muslims atheists. Of course. Avalon is a Muslim atheist.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th May 2012, 12:16 PM	#249
rcfieldz Muse Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 819	sales Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella Please provide actual historical documents that this happened specifically as a sport of persecuting only christians. I think the Romans killed anyone they damn well pleased for sport if they were trouble to them. The whole christians fed to lions (as I recall) is a made up christian martyr tale more than a historical fact. Ticket sales...bottom line.
	__________________ http://www.mynvfi.org/

24th May 2012, 12:34 PM	#250
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,479	''ROMAN COLISEUM. UNPARALLELED ATTRACTION! NEW PROPERTIES! NEW LIONS! NEW GLADIATORS! Engagement of the renowned MARCUS MARCELLUS VALERIAN! FOR SIX NIGHTS ONLY! The management beg leave to offer to the public an entertainment surpassing in magnificence any thing that has heretofore been attempted on any stage. No expense has been spared to make the opening season one which shall be worthy the generous patronage which the management feel sure will crown their efforts. The management beg leave to state that they have succeeded in securing the services of a GALAXY OF TALENT! such as has not been beheld in Rome before. The performance will commence this evening with a GRAND BROADSWORD COMBAT! between two young and promising amateurs and a celebrated Parthian gladiator who has just arrived a prisoner from the Camp of Verus. This will be followed by a grand moral BATTLE-AX ENGAGEMENT! between the renowned Valerian (with one hand tied behind him,) and two gigantic savages from Britain. After which the renowned Valerian (if he survive,) will fight with the broad-sword, LEFT HANDED! against six Sophomores and a Freshman from the Gladiatorial College! A long series of brilliant engagements will follow, in which the finest talent of the Empire will take part After which the celebrated Infant Prodigy known as "THE YOUNG ACHILLES," will engage four tiger whelps in combat, armed with no other weapon than his little spear! The whole to conclude with a chaste and elegant GENERAL SLAUGHTER! In which thirteen African Lions and twenty-two Barbarian Prisoners will war with each other until all are exterminated. BOX OFFICE NOW OPEN. Dress Circle One Dollar; Children and Servants half price. An efficient police force will be on hand to preserve order and keep the wild beasts from leaping the railings and discommoding the audience. Doors open at 7; performance begins at 8. POSITIVELY NO FREE LIST.''-Mark Twain.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th May 2012, 01:57 PM	#251
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,329	Originally Posted by dafydd It very rarely happened. The Colosseum was mostly used for chariot racing and gladiatorial combat. Don't forget the naval battles. The Colosseum was equipped to be filled with and drained from water in a handful of hours.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

24th May 2012, 02:04 PM	#252
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,479	Originally Posted by ddt Don't forget the naval battles. The Colosseum was equipped to be filled with and drained from water in a handful of hours. There is no conclusive evidence that any Christians were thrown to the lions in the Colosseum.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th May 2012, 02:14 PM	#253
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,329	Originally Posted by dafydd There is no conclusive evidence that any Christians were thrown to the lions in the Colosseum. I concur, and so does the Catholic Encyclopaedia: Quote: The evidence, therefore, which we possess in the Roman Acts in favour of certain martyrs suffering in the Coliseum is, for these reasons among others, regarded by Father Delehaye as inconclusive. He does not deny that there may have been martyrs who suffered in the Coliseum, but we know nothing on the subject one way or the other. And I don't think the Romans would have been so cruel to the beasts. Everyone knows that eating Christians makes the lions cross.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

24th May 2012, 02:16 PM	#254
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,479	Originally Posted by ddt I concur, and so does the Catholic Encyclopaedia: And I don't think the Romans would have been so cruel to the beasts. Everyone knows that eating Christians makes the lions cross. And they never fed them clowns because they taste funny.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th May 2012, 02:16 PM	#255
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,329	Originally Posted by ddt Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Pray. Then help your neighbors smuggle the Jews out of Nazi territory. Precedent: "In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to arrest me; but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands. (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33 NKJV)" Why did you leave out verse 30? Quote: 30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. Paul clearly says this was a weakness of him. IMHO, it follows then that this is something that should not be followed. Moreover, in extension of Pup's comment on this: it's something Paul relates from his own life in a descriptive manner; whereas the passage in Romans 13 is clearly laid down as prescriptive rules for the whole community. Bump.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

24th May 2012, 02:38 PM	#256
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,479	Originally Posted by ddt Bump. Christianity seems to have the amorphous properties of a cross between a jelly fish and a melted marshmallow.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th May 2012, 03:43 PM	#257
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by dafydd The Colosseum was mostly used for chariot racing No. The arena of the Colosseum was too small for chariot racing. Tracks such as the Circus Maximus are where the races were typically held.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

24th May 2012, 03:47 PM	#258
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,479	Originally Posted by westprog No. The arena of the Colosseum was too small for chariot racing. Tracks such as the Circus Maximus are where the races were typically held. Fair enough, but no Christians were fed to the lions, that is the point.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.