NationStates Jolt Archive

I know, I know. Enough with the religion threads. I agree. But this one isn't necessarily a religion thread. This is me asking an honest question (not flaimbait or trolling). But first, for some argument material.

For starters:
This (http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=18) is what the Bible says about Satan, the Devil (although saitan is a Hebrew word that actually means "obstacle", but lets not get too specific.

First, the Bible did not come from the minds of men (2 Pet. 1:20 and 21), so “Satan” was not Marilyn Manson’s idea. Second, there is neither linguistic nor textual justification to assign non-literal interpretations to the many plain New Testament references to the Devil and his demons.

Third, anyone with occasional consciousness is painfully aware that there is indescribable evil, tragedy, and suffering all over the world. Any newspaper on any day is filled with tragic accounts of war, famine, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, suicide bombers, genocide, fatal household accidents, child abuse, pornography, a zillion kinds of diseases, murder, death, destruction, hate, prejudice, ad infinitum ad nauseam. And it’s not all due to sugar!
--I ought to be burned at the stake for using this link.:(--

Second: on a recent poll (http://earliestchristianhistory.blogspot.com/2006/07/do-you-believe-in-devil.html), people said the following about their belief in the Devil:

POLL QUESTION: Do you believe there is Biblical evidence for a literal "Devil" and that such a being exists?

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Yes, there is Biblical evidence and there is a "Devil", 25 votes, 52.08%
- Yes, there is Biblical evidence, but there is no "Devil", 11 votes, 22.92%
- No, there is no Biblical evidence for such a being, 11 votes, 22.92%
- I'm not sure, 1 votes, 2.08%

A couple of points which make this small sample poll particularly interesting. From the names I see on the group, and Jim can correct me if I'm wrong, it is a largely academic membership (am I right?). Biblical Studies now continues, if Jim doesn't mind me saying, after a small conservative group split off (am I right?).

Third, from 1991, The Catholic Church had the following statement (http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock91.htm) regarding the Devil:

Does the Catholic Church believe in the devil? I saw on television a priest who said this isn't official Catholic teaching.

The priest you saw on television, if he said what you say he said, is mistaken. Based on the teaching and example of Jesus (Matt. 4:1-11; 12:22-30; Mark 1:34; Luke 10:18; 22:31; John 8:44), the Catholic Church has always held that the devil is real, not a mythical personification of evil. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), in its decree condemning the Manichaean dualism of the Catharists, taught that "the devil and the other evil spirits were created good in nature, but they became evil by their own actions."

The Church's teaching on the subject is clear from its liturgy. At baptism, those to be baptized are called upon to reject Satan, his works, and his empty promises. The Church provides an official rite of exorcism, which presupposes, of course, the existence of Satan.

In 1975 the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a document called Christian Faith and Demonology. It explained the Church's teaching on the subject. This document quotes Pope Paul VI's teaching regarding the devil:

It is a departure from the picture provided by biblical and Church teaching to refuse to acknowledge the devil's existence; to regard him as . . . a conceptual and fanciful personification of the unknown causes of our misfortunes. . . . Exegetes and theologians should not be deaf to this warning.
Presumably this exhortation extends to priests who appear on television.

More recently, Pope John Paul II, in his general audience of August 13, 1986, expounded at length on the fall of the angels and, in speaking on the origin of Satan, said:

When, by an act of his own free will, he rejected the truth that he knew about God, Satan became the cosmic "liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44). For this reason, he lives in radical and irreversible denial of God and seeks to impose on creation — on the other beings created in the image of God and in particular on people — his own tragic "lie about the good" that is God.

Now, having read all this, and not taking into consideration anything Biblical (including creed/personal belief/lack thereof) or your proverbial Devil with black horns and red body, do you, as a person, believe in the Devil? If so, do you think the Devil believes in you and why?

Let the stoning of the Spaniard begin!

*piedras la señorita española bonita*

*piedras la señorita española bonita*

"Lapida" or "apedrea" is the word you were looking for there at the beginning, but I got the gist of it.

Well...since there is a goddesss, obviousl there turns out to be that there is some devilless, demonette or succubi...

Let me check what the holly scriptures say about this...




((OOC: I dont believe in god, neither in the devil... I dont believe in anything supernatural))

THE SPANISH INQUISITION MUST BE BURNED FOR HERESY! *Pokes Nanatsu with a fluffy pillow* CONFESS! CONFESS!

*piedras la señorita española bonita*

:mad:

I FOUND IT!!!!

Dyakovo... according to our Holly Scriptures speaking in spanish with out making any attemp to use verb conjugation ( http://www.conjugation.org/) is blasphemy... you are obviously the devil or its emisary...

*Prepares a pyre for Dyakovo* :D

THE SPANISH INQUISITION MUST BE BURNED FOR HERESY! *Pokes Nanatsu with a fluffy pillow* CONFESS! CONFESS!

You keep forgetting who I am, CM. I am the highest authority of Biblical bogus here on Earth. I am... THE SPANISH INQUISITON!!! HOW DARE YOU DEFY ME AND WANT TO BURN ME?!!! BLASPHEMY!!!!

Now, if you want to be saved, tell me: do you believe in the Devil and do you think the Devil believes in you?:eek:

THE SPANISH INQUISITION MUST BE BURNED FOR HERESY! *Pokes Nanatsu with a fluffy pillow* CONFESS! CONFESS!

Poking the Goddess any day but saturday is blasphemy!!! :mad:

*Looks at Dyakovo pyre* if there is place for one there is place for two... go on climb on the pyre!

THE SPANISH INQUISITION MUST BE BURNED FOR HERESY! *Pokes Nanatsu with a fluffy pillow* CONFESS! CONFESS!

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

You keep forgetting who I am, CM. I am the highest authority of Biblical bogus here on Earth. I am... THE SPANISH INQUISITON!!! HOW DARE YOU DEFY ME AND WANT TO BURN ME?!!! BLASPHEMY!!!!

Now, if you want to be saved, tell me: do you believe in the Devil and do you think the Devil believes in you?:eek:
*Sob* I confess! We believe in each other!:eek::D

I don't believe in the literal existence of the devil, anymore than I do god.

:mad:

I FOUND IT!!!!

Dyakovo... according to our Holly Scriptures speaking in spanish with out making any attemp to use verb conjugation ( http://www.conjugation.org/) is blasphemy... you are obviously the devil or its emisary...

*Prepares a pyre for Dyakovo* :D

Holly Scriptures? Don't you mean Holy?

:mad:

I FOUND IT!!!!

Dyakovo... according to our Holly Scriptures speaking in spanish with out making any attemp to use verb conjugation ( http://www.conjugation.org/) is blasphemy... you are obviously the devil or its emisary...

*Prepares a pyre for Dyakovo* :D




Edit: Also, I have special dispensation:
A saber, el hecho que no digo el español.
А именно, факт, что я не говорю на испанском языке.
A saber, o fato que não digo espanhol.
Nämlich, die Tatsache, dass ich Spanisch nicht spreche.

Holly Scriptures? Don't you mean Holy?

Nope... HoLLy is correct...

You seem to forget that Goddess Nanatsu dyed for our sins.

Now questioning me is not going to help you escape the pyre.

*ties Dyakovo and CM to the stake*

So many infidels so little firewood, its the High Priest burden.

Nope... HoLLy is correct...

You seem to forget that Goddess Nanatsu dyed for our sins.

Now questioning me is not going to help you escape the pyre.

*ties Dyakovo and CM to the stake*

So many infidels so little firewood, its the High Priest burden.

Need a hand gathering the firewood?

Edit: Also, I have special dispensation:
A saber, el hecho que no digo el español.
А именно, факт, что я не говорю на испанском языке.
A saber, o fato que não digo espanhol.
Nämlich, die Tatsache, dass ich Spanisch nicht spreche.

:mad:

No dispensations... speaking the hoLLY language of goddess Nanatsu in a grammatically incorrect fashion is blasphemy...

* lights up his flame thrower*

Surely the Devil is real, some of the people in this forum must have been near him...

Luke 8:11-12
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

Clearly that event has happened to more than a few people around here ;)

Surely the Devil is real, some of the people in this forum must have been near him...

Luke 8:11-12
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

Clearly that event has happened to more than a few people around here ;)

И больше бессмысленного цитирования священного писания от Лысого.

As with God, I don't care if he believes, provided he worships me and gives me 10% of his gross income.

Surely the Devil is real, some of the people in this forum must have been near him...

Luke 8:11-12
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

Clearly that event has happened to more than a few people around here ;)

WOW...so the devil took away de word from my hearts...so I dont believe...

HEY!!! then it isnt my fault...why Im been sent to hell anyway!!!

WOW...so the devil took away de word from my hearts...so I dont believe...

HEY!!! then it isnt my fault...why Im been sent to hell anyway!!!

Because Jehovah is a insecure bastard.

*walks to Ifreann with a loot bag full of gold ...and a flamethrower in the other hand*

Time to pay the Nanatsunism tithe.... 10% or take off your top.

Perhaps you haven't heard. I'm NNT's God, among other people's.

As with God, I don't care if he believes, provided he worships me and gives me 10% of his gross income.

*walks to Ifreann with a loot bag full of gold ...and a flamethrower in the other hand*

Time to pay the Nanatsunism tithe.... 10% or take off your top.

Nope... HoLLy is correct...

You seem to forget that Goddess Nanatsu dyed for our sins.

Now questioning me is not going to help you escape the pyre.

*ties Dyakovo and CM to the stake*

So many infidels so little firewood, its the High Priest burden.

Hey, don't you want to lean way, way over and see if the fire is hot enough?

He'd have to exist to "believe" in anything.

Perhaps you haven't heard. I'm NNT's God, among other people's.

Perhaps I didnt made myself clear...:mad:

10% of all your income.... take of your top...or....

*Points with the flamethrower at Ifreann*

Im pretty sure its hot enough... I use turbosine to light it up.

I don't think it is, I feel a little chilly

Perhaps I didnt made myself clear...:mad:

10% of all your income.... take of your top...or....

*Points with the flamethrower at Ifreann*

I'm a God. I don't tithe. I don't often wear clothes either :)


Also, is it just me or is the reply page new and different?

He'd have to exist to "believe" in anything.

KOL, You're back!:)

...

Oh fudge, you're back! :headbang:

Hey, don't you want to lean way, way over and see if the fire is hot enough?

Im pretty sure its hot enough... I use turbosine to light it up.

Acts 13:10
and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?

Piratacus....eh....I forget what chapter and verse.
In the beginning was the Word. And the word was Arrrgh

Because Jehovah is a insecure bastard.

Acts 13:10
and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?

Acts 13:10
and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?

Ya know Baldy, you used to be able to post without it being 100% scripture, what happened to the good old days?

KOL, You're back!:)

...

Oh fudge, you're back! :headbang:

Been working like a dog. This summer my posting will be less frequent.


I miss anything good?

Oh...well... you are lucky that not wearing clothes is fine with Nanatsunism faith...any way... :rolleyes:

*brings some clothes for Ifrean*

Put them on then hand over the top. :mad:

:confused:


O....k

I'm a God. I don't tithe. I don't often wear clothes either :)


Also, is it just me or is the reply page new and different?

Oh...well... you are lucky that not wearing clothes is fine with Nanatsunism faith...any way... :rolleyes:

*brings some clothes for Ifrean*

Put them on then hand over the top. :mad:

Been working like a dog. This summer my posting will be less frequent.


I miss anything good?

Apparently UB was deleted...

No, on both accounts. I am a Christian (for those of you who don't already know), but I see the Devil as portrayed in the Bible to be more of a allegory for temptation, rather than a physical or spiritual being. It makes me something of an atheist to Satanists, but hey. However, if there is a Devil, and he wants to believe in me, I welcome him to try.

No, on both accounts. I am a Christian (for those of you who don't already know), but I see the Devil as portrayed in the Bible to be more of a allegory for temptation, rather than a physical or spiritual being. It makes me something of an atheist to Satanists, but hey. However, if there is a Devil, and he wants to believe in me, I welcome him to try.

*believes in Kirav*

Been working like a dog. This summer my posting will be less frequent.


I miss anything good?

Only a bunch of bans, a couple of good posts, and the normal flood of political and religious threads.

No, on both accounts. I am a Christian (for those of you who don't already know), but I see the Devil as portrayed in the Bible to be more of a allegory for temptation, rather than a physical or spiritual being. It makes me something of an atheist to Satanists, but hey. However, if there is a Devil, and he wants to believe in me, I welcome him to try.

I have to say I'm not really sure what the devil believing in you would entail. I mean is the question does he believe I exist? Also, what could the significance of such a question be?

Only a bunch of bans, a couple of good posts, and the normal flood of political and religious threads.

From what I've seen the current run of religion threads is a bit more than normal (excepting periods around religious holidays).

From what I've seen the current run of religion threads is a bit more than normal (excepting periods around religious holidays).

yes, tis a good crop this year

The Devil is a fictional entity created so man would have something to blame evil on, when in fact evil is within man. Evil is like darkness - dark is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.

Satan DOES exist - he is the angel who argues against man, mentioned prominently in Job. The whole "red skin, horns, pointy tail" thing isn't accurate. A closer representation is an angel whose robe reads "Humans suck".

The Devil is a fictional entity created so man would have something to blame evil on, when in fact evil is within man. Evil is like darkness - dark is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.

Satan DOES exist - he is the angel who argues against man, mentioned prominently in Job. The whole "red skin, horns, pointy tail" thing isn't accurate. A closer representation is an angel whose robe reads "Humans suck".

Interesting. But then how do you explain...

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

It seems it is one and the same...

As to the description: A closer representation is an angel whose robe reads "Humans suck". I agree, that sounds about right.

Interesting. But then how do you explain...

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

It seems it is one and the same...

As to the description: A closer representation is an angel whose robe reads "Humans suck". I agree, that sounds about right.

:eek:

*quickly takes off his "Humans suck" t-shirt and burns it in Dyakovo pyre*

:cool:

Of course the Devil is real. He's my bombardier. :)

Of course the Devil is real. He's my bombardier. :)

Your plane must be awesome. What do you fly?

*believes in Kirav*

**claims adherant**

I have to say I'm not really sure what the devil believing in you would entail. I mean is the question does he believe I exist? Also, what could the significance of such a question be?

I suppose so. But it doesn't seem significant to me because I tend not to give about what an allegory thinks...because it can't think...so in Cartesian terms it shouldn't exist...Did Descartes believe in the Devil?

Well...since there is a goddesss, obviousl there turns out to be that there is some devilless, demonette or succubi...

There is indeed a deviless. I was once engaged to her.

Well...since there is a goddesss, obviousl there turns out to be that there is some devilless, demonette or succubi...

Let me check what the holly scriptures say about this...

((OOC: I dont believe in god, neither in the devil... I dont believe in anything supernatural))
:(
does this mean you don't believe in me?
I don't believe in the literal existence of the devil, anymore than I do god.
Does this apply to other people on here as well then?
И больше бессмысленного цитирования священного писания от Лысого.
does that translate as:
And more senseless quoting scriptures from Lysogo.
?
i used the translator thingy on Google.
how's life treating you Dyakovo?
He'd have to exist to "believe" in anything.
well depends on what the definition of existance and believe are really.
for example;
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow
although there is no guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow
If i believed in a God it is possible that the God might not exist, but not beyond possibility that he does exist, in the same way i believe in the sun rising.

Therefore it is quite possible for God to exist.

then i come to the problem of existance, and it's a big one.
I believe that i exist
God believes that itself exists
therefore if i exist then God must exist too.
(uh i think there's a problem in my second example but i'm not sure where. sorry. circular maybe?)
Been working like a dog. This summer my posting will be less frequent.


I miss anything good?
may i ask what you mean by posting?
welcome back
*dons welcome mat*

:(
does this mean you don't believe in me?



Are you a a sexy goddess willing to dye you hair red for our sins?

I guess no

so NO luck chump... get lost false god! :mad:

Interesting. But then how do you explain...

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

It seems it is one and the same...

As to the description: A closer representation is an angel whose robe reads "Humans suck". I agree, that sounds about right.

I'm Jewish.

Are you a a sexy goddess willing to dye you hair red for our sins?

I guess no

so NO luck chump... get lost false god! :mad:

hows about you take responsibility for your own sins you lazy git:D
besides that sounds alot like effort to me and really red? if you pay for it i'll have it dyed how does that sound?

don't call me chump, i keep thinking of a chipmunk for some reason

Δεν υπάρχει καμία ανάγκη να πιστεύουν στο διάβολο. Ο Θεός κάνει αρκετά καλή δουλειά που ο ίδιος.

Δεν υπάρχει καμία ανάγκη να πιστεύουν στο διάβολο. Ο Θεός κάνει αρκετά καλή δουλειά που ο ίδιος.

yeah but then again maybe God has a split personality disorder.
I mean who does he/she have to talk to?
must be very lonely as a God

hows about you take responsibility for your own sins you lazy git:D
besides that sounds alot like effort to me and really red? if you pay for it i'll have it dyed how does that sound?

don't call me chump, i keep thinking of a chipmunk for some reason

No way chump!!!

Religion is about NOT taking responsability...

We can do sacrifices and burn heretics for you.... but the money is for the church and the inquisition...not for the goddess.

Your plane must be awesome. What do you fly?

http://inquizition.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/deathstar.jpg

:)

To answer my own questions:

Yes, there is a bad entity on this earth (cue to Darth Vader´s voice), antagonizing the creative force that surrounds us (Neo B, it´s not the Force).

Would I call this bad entity the Devil? I wouldn´t go that far. Would I call the creative force God? I´m an agnostic, nope, I wouldn´t call it God. All I´ll venture to say is that this force is out there. (I can almost see Dyakovo grinning and Santiago having a fit)

Of course, those here who want to go that way, God vs. Devil, the epic battle, you´re more than welcome to.

Does believing in these two antagonizing forces makes, the Devil in question (or evil), believe in me? I don´t rightly know.

I heard this from the movie ¨Constantine¨ (OMG! Die Nanatsu, die for using such a reference! You´ll lose the small credibility you have left, woman!), that ¨the Devil does believe in you¨. Could that be possible? Could the devil believe in me, in my capability for wickedness or evil? I´ll let the Christians decide on that one, or lets just say I would like to read what they have to say on the subject. But of course, I would like to hear what people from other religious denominations think too.

And guys, for the love of Houdini, no flaming or trolling. I beg of you.

http://inquizition.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/deathstar.jpg

:)

Shouldnt Lord Vader be your co-pilot then?

He IS my Conscience

No way chump!!!

Religion is about NOT taking responsability...

We can do sacrifices and burn heretics for you.... but the money is for the church and the inquisition...not for the goddess.

oh so it's like that then is it? is it!
*shrugs shoulders*
okay
Actually Religion usually is about taking responsibility. in most cases, however i'm sure there are a few which are too crazy to work out what responsibility really is.

goddess?
what if i told you the inquisition was just a group of people with low self esteem trying to pick on others to make themselves feel like they have control?

sacrifices sound good, i think Ducks taste nice. eat one for me will you?

It shall be as you command, my Lady.:D

:D

So, I read you were engaged to the devil. How was that experience mate?:eek:

And guys, for the love of Houdini, no flaming or trolling. I beg of you.

It shall be as you command, my Lady.:D

Shouldnt Lord Vader be your co-pilot then?

He IS my Conscience

He wasn't evil enough. And I got sick of his whining about that chick with the silly hair styles. *nod*

To answer my own questions:

Yes, there is a bad entity on this earth (cue to Darth Vader´s voice), antagonizing the creative force that surrounds us (Neo B, it´s not the Force).

Would I call this bad entity the Devil? I wouldn´t go that far. Would I call the creative force God? I´m an agnostic, nope, I wouldn´t call it God. All I´ll venture to say is that this force is out there. (I can almost see Dyakovo grinning and Santiago having a fit)

Of course, those here who want to go that way, God vs. Devil, the epic battle, you´re more than welcome to.

Does believing in these two antagonizing forces makes, the Devil in question (or evil), believe in me? I don´t rightly know.

I heard this from the movie ¨Constantine¨ (OMG! Die Nanatsu, die for using such a reference! You´ll lose the small credibility you have left, woman!), that ¨the Devil does believe in you¨. Could that be possible? Could the devil believe in me, in my capability for wickedness or evil? I´ll let the Christians decide on that one, or lets just say I would like to read what they have to say on the subject. But of course, I would like to hear what people from other religious denominations think too.

And guys, for the love of Houdini, no flaming or trolling. I beg of you.

:eek:

*HAS A EPIC PROPORTIONS FIT*

by the way..yes you are right... let me show you the TRUE

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/04/07/funny-pictures-the-final-battle-for-our-souls-begins/

Im sorry Nanatsu I cant avoid trolling and flaming... Im a troll with a flame thrower...its my nature.

Cue to the Time Warps in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1!

oh so it's like that then is it? is it!
*shrugs shoulders*
okay
Actually Religion usually is about taking responsibility. in most cases, however i'm sure there are a few which are too crazy to work out what responsibility really is.

goddess?
what if i told you the inquisition was just a group of people with low self esteem trying to pick on others to make themselves feel like they have control?

sacrifices sound good, i think Ducks taste nice. eat one for me will you?

How is having a divine entity forgive all your sins taking responsability?

No seriously, if something annoys me about christians is their belief they can escape their sins with a prayer. It really makes my blood boil to see them pray or ask forgiveness to a priest instead to try to ask forgiveness to the REAL human being they hurted or to repair the mess they caused.

http://inquizition.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/deathstar.jpg

:)

Nice.

*fires proton torpedo into thermal exhaust port*

Cue to the Time Warps in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1!

Dont complain Nanatsu. I was timewrapped 6 posts and 1 page away today

Dont complain Nanatsu. I was timewrapped 6 posts and 1 page away today

I will complain all I bloody want in my own thread, thank you very much. <_< Drop down and give me 20.

How is having a divine entity forgive all your sins taking responsability?

No seriously, if something annoys me about christians is their belief they can escape their sins with a prayer. It really makes my blood boil to see them pray or ask forgiveness to a priest instead to try to ask forgiveness to the REAL human being they hurted or to repair the mess they caused.

ah no, i think if a God were to forgive your sins it would be similar to a human who brings up an animal, sure the animal might bite them or harm them, but usually it's in the persons interest not to harm the animal. Therefore they forgive the animals ignorance.
(i don't actually know much about Christianity, i'm just figuring this out from my own little matrix)

Well, i'm not sure prayer is wholly about asking for forgiveness.
Say i use the pet animal example, the animal might beg for more food, but you know that there's only so much food the animal can eat and remain healthy. in the same respect a God might not help people too much because it knows that they're better off learning for themselves how to deal with things.

Ah, as for asking forgiveness of a priest i think it's more a coping strategy with stressful events, in the same way you or I might chat to each other about what we should do the Christian might ask for help in how to deal with things. and if they use their religion or spiritual ideals then who am I to say they can't recieve help if they ask for it?

(again i'm not an expert on Christianity or what prayer is for, but i thought about it and this is what i got so make of it what you will).

To answer my own questions:

Yes, there is a bad entity on this earth (cue to Darth Vader´s voice), antagonizing the creative force that surrounds us (Neo B, it´s not the Force).

Would I call this bad entity the Devil? I wouldn´t go that far. Would I call the creative force God? I´m an agnostic, nope, I wouldn´t call it God. All I´ll venture to say is that this force is out there. (I can almost see Dyakovo grinning and Santiago having a fit)

Of course, those here who want to go that way, God vs. Devil, the epic battle, you´re more than welcome to.

Does believing in these two antagonizing forces makes, the Devil in question (or evil), believe in me? I don´t rightly know.

I heard this from the movie ¨Constantine¨ (OMG! Die Nanatsu, die for using such a reference! You´ll lose the small credibility you have left, woman!), that ¨the Devil does believe in you¨. Could that be possible? Could the devil believe in me, in my capability for wickedness or evil? I´ll let the Christians decide on that one, or lets just say I would like to read what they have to say on the subject. But of course, I would like to hear what people from other religious denominations think too.

And guys, for the love of Houdini, no flaming or trolling. I beg of you.

good, now i can answer the question, now that it is clearer what you meant by the devil believing in me, or not.

Obviously the devil believes in me otherwise he wouldn't bother trying to make us do evil stuff (see: Adam and Eve, book of Job, Jesus when the devil tries to corrupt him)

Nice.

*fires proton torpedo into thermal exhaust port*

Yeah. right. Like I'm gonna fall for that one again.

*fires pie cannon*

I will complain all I bloody want in my own thread, thank you very much. <_< Drop down and give me 20.

*Drops down and timewraps 20 times*

Hail Lucifer!

Nice.

*fires proton torpedo into thermal exhaust port*

you didnt turned off you targetting computer...neither used the force...so it surely hit the surface...

sorry... its a miss.

:D

So, I read you were engaged to the devil. How was that experience mate?:eek:

Well, I could say it was hellish, but for the full story you'd also have to ask every other guy (and girl) she was sleeping around with.

Well, she is wearing my underwear ....
Don't be arroused
By my confession
Unless you don't give a good goddamn about redemption
I know
Christ is coming
Well so am I
And you would too if the sexy devil caught your eye
She'll suck you dry
And still you'll cry
To be back in the bosom
To do it again
She'll make you weep
And moan and cry
To be back in the bosom
To do it again
Pray! - Shall I go blind?
Pray! - 'Cause nobody ever survives
Praying to stay in your arms just until I can die a little bit longer
Saviors and saints
Devils and demons alike
She'll eat you alive
Jesus is risen
It's no surprise
Even he would
Martyr his momma to ride to Hell between those thighs
The pressure is building
At the base of my spine
If I gotta sin to see her again then I'm gonna lie and lie and lie
She'll make you cry
I'll sell my soul to be back in your bosom
Gladly, now please suck me dry
And still you'll cry
To be back in the bosom
Do it again
Pray! - Shall I go blind?
Pray! - 'Cause nobody ever survives
Praying to stay in her arms just until I can die a little bit longer
Saviors and saints
Devils and demons alike
She'll eat you alive
My pulse has been rising
My temples are burning
The pressure is so overwhelming and building
So steady and heavy
I'm ready to blow
What is she - What is she - What is she waiting for?
Pray! - Pray 'till I go blind
Pray! - Sometimes nobody ever survives
Praying to stay in her arms just until I die a little longer
Saviors and saints
Devils and demons alike
She'll eat you alive...
'nuff said.

the Devil (although saitan is a Hebrew word that actually means "obstacle", but lets not get too specific.
The english noun "devil" is derived through late-latin "diabolus" from greek "diabolòn" (or "diabolòs", cannot remember whether it was masculine or neuter), which is a good theological rendering of "obstacle". See verb "diaballein" in ancient greek.

Third, from 1991, The Catholic Church...
More recent statements by JP2 and Ratzi point in a different direction, claiming that the Devil does exist.

Anyway about the OP, the Devil, being contradictory in nature (another meaning of "diabolòn": contradiction), both believes in me and not.

i believe in whatever nontangable awairnessess there are, and a very parallel nontagable parauniverse perhpase, but simply bearing little, if any at all resemblence, to anything anyone thinks they know about it.

so this idea that there has to be some big powerful nontangable destructive force, no, i think that's mostly just an invention of fanatics as an excuse for the harmfulness of their own evil.

i believe there ARE things we don't know anything about, and that certainly could, i even belive there are, nontangable awairnessess great and small, some or one, close enough for government work to call a god, but if something that big and powerful really wished us any harm, i mean, what are the chances we'd continue to exist, no matter how powerful something on the side of protecting us might be also?

so no, i think the chances of there being anything resembling some sort of a devil are somewhere between slim and none.

god or gods on the other hand sure, we may even all of us have met them, but devils or demons, no.

=^^=
.../\...

I can't believe no one has posted this yet...


Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was round when jesus christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
Who killed the Kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, um yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, um mean it, get down
Woo, who
Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!
Tell me baby, what's my name
Tell me honey, can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah
What's me name
Tell me, baby, what's my name
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mM-VvLvmV6o

Well, I could say it was hellish, but for the full story you'd also have to ask every other guy (and girl) she was sleeping around with.

Oh, nevermind then. I'll take your honest word for it. After all, if what I infer is correct, asking every single person she slept with would take me ages. And I'm no deviless myself. Or am I? <.<

The english noun "devil" is derived through late-latin "diabolus" from greek "diabolòn" (or "diabolòs", cannot remember whether it was masculine or neuter), which is a good theological rendering of "obstacle". See verb "diaballein" in ancient greek.

My Paleochristianity professor (who also happened to be a Jesuit priest), told us in class that there was no equivalent to the word "saitan" in Greek. That for some reason, the Greeks did understood the concept but mistook the meaning and subsequent translation of the word. Hence, the capitalization of Satan.

Now, checking the ethymology of the words you used does gives a good theological rendering of "obstacle", more so with diaballein than anything else. Thanks for that reference, Ris.

More recent statements by JP2 and Ratzi point in a different direction, claiming that the Devil does exist.

The proverbial Devil? Wow, the Catholic Church, as a whole institution, needs a good scrubbing of ideals.

Anyway about the OP, the Devil, being contradictory in nature (another meaning of "diabolòn": contradiction), both believes in me and not.

Hm... I like that idea.

I can't believe no one has posted this yet...




http://youtube.com/watch?v=mM-VvLvmV6o

I absolutely love the GNR rendering of that song!:fluffle:

My Paleochristianity professor

paleochristianity? what a puffed up way of saying 'early'

paleochristianity? what a puffed up way of saying 'early'

Be that as it may, that's the way I learned to call it. Is that problematic for you?

I absolutely love the GNR rendering of that song!:fluffle:

Blasphemy!:eek:

Blasphemy!:eek:

You don't like it?
:eek:

Heathen!!!

I think the Devil is a logical fallacy, thus I don't believe in its existence. And since I don't care about the belief system of non-existential entities, I don't care if the devil believes in me or not.

Be that as it may, that's the way I learned to call it. Is that problematic for you?

it just sounds silly is all. especially since the more standard usage of the paleo- prefix in academia is to attach it to actually old things; paleontology, paleoclimatology, paleolithic, paleo-indians, etc.

i mean, there is paleoconservatism, but that was just jokingly chosen in response to the neocons.

I think the Devil is a logical fallacy, thus I don't believe in its existence. And since I don't care about the belief system of non-existential entities, I don't care if the devil believes in me or not.

I too think the Devil is a logical fallacy. It's a figure created to personify what's evil and wrong in all of us. To me the Devil (alluding to the red body, horns and tail with the cute pitchfork) is humanity, in itself. Equally capable of the greatest good and the most horrendous evil.

The Devil (evil) it's you and it's me. We're real, we exist and believe, therefore, the Devil does believe in me and in you, I believe in me and in you. (theoretically speaking, of course)

it just sounds silly is all. especially since the more standard usage of the paleo- prefix in academia is to attach it to actually old things; paleontology, paleoclimatology, paleolithic, paleo-indians, etc.

i mean, there is paleoconservatism, but that was just jokingly chosen in response to the neocons.

But the term Paleochristianity is used. So it not so silly after all.

But the term Paleochristianity is used. So it not so silly after all.

it's not used enough to get its own wiki page. you mentioned jesuits - is it like a term of art within the catholic church to make themselves feel more important or something?

it's not used enough to get its own wiki page. you mentioned jesuits - is it like a term of art within the catholic church to make themselves feel more important or something?

No, it's not an artistic term used within the Catholic Church. It is a proper term used for the early period of Christianity, III, IV, V and VI centuries. This term is not only used to refer to that period, but also to describe every single aspect of it: culture, art, customes, etc.

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=2627&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
http://www.paulmyhill.com/main.html
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-175749/Early-Christian-art

As for Wiki, please, do you take that free for all encycopledia a trustworthy, internet source? I myself can edit whichever article appears there and people who aren't very familiar on a given subject can take my word for it. What if I'm lying through my teeth? Seriously.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-175749/Early-Christian-art

haha, so britannica doesn't use the term either, just notes that someone somewhere does.
i'm going with it being a technical term used by the catholic church, or perhaps in some language that isn't mine. because, while it seems to be associated with a couple unesco sites, googling it returns almost no hits at all. certainly not nearly so many as "early christian". we are talking multiple orders of magnitude here.

As for Wiki, please, do you take that free for all encycopledia a trustworthy, internet source?

of course. as should everybody, given certain limitations on how far you would credit it.

No, it's not an artistic term used within the Catholic Church. It is a proper term used for the early period of Christianity, III, IV, V and VI centuries. This term is not only used to refer to that period, but also to describe every single aspect of it: culture, art, customes, etc.

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=2627&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
http://www.paulmyhill.com/main.html
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-175749/Early-Christian-art

As for Wiki, please, do you take that free for all encycopledia a trustworthy, internet source? I myself can edit whichever article appears there and people who aren't very familiar on a given subject can take my word for it. What if I'm lying through my teeth? Seriously.

Actually, the Jesuits were a religious group (Christian) who were kind of like... Well, they were a lot of things. A suppose the most prominent parts were teaching and converting. Earlier on they tried to convert protestants back to Catholicism. I think that's about all I know, but it's not a term for a time period.

Actually, the Jesuits were a religious group (Christian) who were kind of like... Well, they were a lot of things. A suppose the most prominent parts were teaching and converting. Earlier on they tried to convert protestants back to Catholicism. I think that's about all I know, but it's not a term for a time period.

Wrong. The Jesuit order (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm) is a priestly order in the Catholic Church, they were never a group as you put it. The correct name is the Society of Jesus. They well known in the fielsd of education, and are known for being outstanding doctors of the church with a tremendous amoutn of knowledge and a dominion of languages that it's uncompared to anything. To study with a Jesuit is a privilege.

And to please the Wiki users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit :rolleyes:.

haha, so britannica doesn't use the term either, just notes that someone somewhere does.
i'm going with it being a technical term used by the catholic church, or perhaps in some language that isn't mine. because, while it seems to be associated with a couple unesco sites, googling it returns almost no hits at all. certainly not nearly so many as "early christian". we are talking multiple orders of magnitude here.

Shows how much you really know about the subject. Zilch. The term is used, in many languages. If it isn't used in English, it's of no concern. And since we're getting technical, and since you seriously lack an understandiong of the term, here, let me explain it.

Paleo- (paleo- or pale- or palaeo- or palae-)
pref.
1. Ancient; prehistoric; old: paleobotany.
2. Early; primitive: Paleozoic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Greek palaio-, from palaios, ancient, from palai, long ago; see kwel-2 in Indo-European roots.]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paleo-

Acceptable definition for the term referring to that beginning period of Christianity: Paleochristianity. Simplified for your cute mind, early Christians. But here we did get technical.

Now. do. you. understand?

of course. as should everybody, given certain limitations on how far you would credit it.

Wrong again. Wiki can be edited by anyone. And I've seen conflicting information on articles because of exactly that feature, and contradictory arguments and they're still there without the admins of Wiki bodering to fix anything. That's why Wiki isn't a fiable source of information. If you think it is, well... that speaks volumes.

Wrong. The Jesuit order (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm) is a priestly order in the Catholic Church, they were never a group as you put it. The correct name is the Society of Jesus. They well known in the fielsd of education, and are known for being outstanding doctors of the church with a tremendous amoutn of knowledge and a dominion of languages that it's uncompared to anything. To study with a Jesuit is a privilege.

And to please the Wiki users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit :rolleyes:.

The devil lives in constant fear of me. So yes, it is real.

The devil lives in constant fear of me. So yes, it is real.

Oh, that would explain the attraction.:p

it just sounds silly is all. especially since the more standard usage of the paleo- prefix in academia is to attach it to actually old things; paleontology, paleoclimatology, paleolithic, paleo-indians, etc.

You get Paleography, which can apply to things less than a century old.

You get Paleography, which can apply to things less than a century old.

weird. perhaps chosen because graphology had already happened and was off doing its own stupid thing already by the time?

'cause that's just silly.

Shows how much you really know about the subject. Zilch. The term is used, in many languages. If it isn't used in English, it's of no concern. And since we're getting technical, and since you seriously lack an understandiong of the term, here, let me explain it.

Paleo- (paleo- or pale- or palaeo- or palae-)
pref.
1. Ancient; prehistoric; old: paleobotany.
2. Early; primitive: Paleozoic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Greek palaio-, from palaios, ancient, from palai, long ago; see kwel-2 in Indo-European roots.]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paleo-

Acceptable definition for the term referring to that beginning period of Christianity: Paleochristianity. Simplified for your cute mind, early Christians. But here we did get technical.

Now. do. you. understand?

you seem to be confused. where did i show any indication of not knowing what paleo- means? i merely claim its usage when combined with christianity looks a lot like an overly pompous way to say something which all the scholarly work i have ever seen just calls 'early christian'. a brief search on google and in a couple scholarly indexes backs me up - while it isn't totally unheard of, paleochristian has orders of magnitude fewer uses than 'early christian'


Wrong again. Wiki can be edited by anyone. And I've seen conflicting information on articles because of exactly that feature, and contradictory arguments and they're still there without the admins of Wiki bodering to fix anything. That's why Wiki isn't a fiable source of information. If you think it is, well... that speaks volumes.

as opposed to all those dead tree sources, which are all unquestionably true, eh? no books anywhere have ever contradicted themselves, that's for sure.

i don't think you understand the point of either encyclopedias or my pointing out that in so far as wiki has a 'paleochristian' page, it merely redirects to 'early christianity'.

Wrong. The Jesuit order (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm) is a priestly order in the Catholic Church, they were never a group as you put it. The correct name is the Society of Jesus. They well known in the fielsd of education, and are known for being outstanding doctors of the church with a tremendous amoutn of knowledge and a dominion of languages that it's uncompared to anything. To study with a Jesuit is a privilege.
*Snip*
[/QUOTE]
I love medieval history. I've read at least thirty books on the reformation alone. I've searched the web. Every time they mention the Jesuits, Conversion always comes up. And don't quibble about group and order, one is just a more general term. Back then they were considered excellent doctors, yes. Then again, back then they considered bleeding the patient to be a good idea. I said that they taught, did I not? And the website you gave even affirms that they were originally created to convert people, although not protestants. Later they DID try that, but that's not the point.

And as a disclaimer, I know nothing about the modern Jesuits.

you seem to be confused. where did i show any indication of not knowing what paleo- means? i merely claim its usage when combined with christianity looks a lot like an overly pompous way to say something which all the scholarly work i have ever seen just calls 'early christian'. a brief search on google and in a couple scholarly indexes backs me up - while it isn't totally unheard of, paleochristian has orders of magnitude fewer uses than 'early christian'

And it´s the word I choose to use, because it´s also a proper term to describe the period in academia. Wether it´s pompous or not, that seems to be your perception, which does not really count. I think you´re the one who, intent on having an argument about word usage, do not understand at all what I´m trying to point out, but whatever.

as opposed to all those dead tree sources, which are all unquestionably true, eh? no books anywhere have ever contradicted themselves, that's for sure.

Once again, wrong. Books and internet sources DO contradict themselves. Wikipedia is the perfect example.

i don't think you understand the point of either encyclopedias or my pointing out that in so far as wiki has a 'paleochristian' page, it merely redirects to 'early christianity'.

Remit to the first part of this reply.

I love medieval history. I've read at least thirty books on the reformation alone. I've searched the web. Every time they mention the Jesuits, Conversion always comes up. And don't quibble about group and order, one is just a more general term. Back then they were considered excellent doctors, yes. Then again, back then they considered bleeding the patient to be a good idea. I said that they taught, did I not? And the website you gave even affirms that they were originally created to convert people, although not protestants. Later they DID try that, but that's not the point.

And as a disclaimer, I know nothing about the modern Jesuits.

No CM, obviously you do not know a thing about the Jesuit Order, otherwise you wouldn´t have posted this rant.

You used the past tense of ¨are¨, as in ¨they no longer exist¨ or as in ¨they´re completely different from the Medieval order¨, when that´s the farthest from the truth. You yourself used the verb ¨were¨.

As for groups, what? Are you under the impression that Jesuits are divided into an order and a group? Do you know what a monastic/priestly order is? Let me give you the scoop, since it´s quite evident you´re confused.
Priestly orders are: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_religious_order)
('Religious Institutes', cf. canons 573-746) are the major form of consecrated life in the Roman Catholic Church. They are organisations of laity and/or clergy who live a common life following a religious rule under the leadership of a religious superior. Many of these are enclosed monastic orders, others are not.

Jesuit is not a general term for anything but to refer to the Jesuit Order (whose actual name is The Society of Jesus). This priestly order is essentially the same in creed as it was during it´s inception in the 1500s. The only difference is that they´ve adapted to the times, like every other Catholic religious order. Once again, after this, you truly know nothing of this order, be it in the Middle Ages or nowadays.

Whatever its origins, that´s not what´s being discussed here. It´s funny that you get up in arms about it and treat me like I don´t know anything about the subject and you do because you´ve ¨read a lot of books on Medieval history¨. Guess what? So have I, and the only reason I brought up the Jesuits was because it was one of the doctors of that order who explained to me the etymological meaning of the Hebrew word ¨saitan¨ and it´s translation repercussions for Christianity. So spare me.

And it´s the word I choose to use, because it´s also a proper term to describe the period in academia.

no, it isn't. searching for it in various relevant databases turns up almost no hits - typically none at all.

as i said, this may be a translation issue. the term doesn't exist in english to any significant extent.

no, it isn't. searching for it in various relevant databases turns up almost no hits - typically none at all.

as i said, this may be a translation issue. the term doesn't exist in english to any significant extent.

It is a proper term used for it, and the problem is not one of translation.

When you search for the word, although most of the hits are about art, it is art related to the period you so avidly call Early Christianity (note, I´m not denying that name to the period). Hence it´s acceptable to use the term Paleochristianity, you yourself have seen it over and over again with the hits directing you to Early Christianity articles. Am I right? Both terms are acceptable to refer to this period of Christian history, one more commonly used than the other. I don´t know what about this you do not seem to understand?

It is a proper term used for it, and the problem is not one of translation.

When you search for the word, although most of the hits are about art, it is art related to the period you so avidly call Early Christianity (note, I´m not denying that name to the period). Hence it´s acceptable to use the term Paleochristianity, you yourself have seen it over and over again with the hits directing you to Early Christianity articles. Am I right? Both terms are acceptable to refer to this period of Christian history, one more commonly used than the other. I don´t know what about this you do not seem to understand?

no, i'm saying that it turns up no hits at all in most academic indexes or in the university library catalogs i've checked, and only a handful when it actually is found. it may very well be acceptable, but it ain't the term used in common academic practice in the english speaking world. which was what i thought originally before going out and checking, because i have never heard the term from either of the profs i know who specialize in early christianity.

no, i'm saying that it turns up no hits at all in most academic indexes or in the university library catalogs i've checked, and only a handful when it actually is found. it may very well be acceptable, but it ain't the term used in common academic practice in the english speaking world. which was what i thought originally before going out and checking, because i have never heard the term from either of the profs i know who specialize in early christianity.

And yet, I´ve heard the term being used by English speaking professors and scholars around here, which makes it acceptable too. It´s very odd to me that these professors you speak of have never heard or, more clearly, used the term, to the best your knowledge in class, if they have specialized on the period...

And yet, I´ve heard the terms being used by English speaking professors and scholars around here, which makes it acceptable too. It´s very odd to me that these professors you speak of have never heard or, more clearly, used the term, to the best your knowledge in class, if they have specialized in the period...

tell you what, you go run a search in an academic index that turns up a significant number of results and let me know where you found them.

tell you what, you go run a search in an academic index that turns up a significant number of results and let me know where you found them.

Sure. I´ll get back to you on the subject.

UPDATE:

The use of "Paleochristianity" in internet hits:

http://www.academicindex.net/cgi-bin/MTS4cgi/nph-x.cgi?mode=all&qry_str=Paleochristianity&category=web&per_page=10&timeout=10&depth=1

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paleochristian_art

http://www.yppo.gr/6/e6131.jsp?obj_id=98

http://giving.typepad.com/archives/2003/10/a_postpaleochri.html

Oh, that would explain the attraction.:p

Yes, a Succubi and the Devil would naturally go together. :cool:

Yes, a Succubi and the Devil would naturally go together. :cool:

Indeed.:D

Sure. I´ll get back to you on the subject.

UPDATE:

The use of "Paleochristianity" in internet hits:

http://www.academicindex.net/cgi-bin/MTS4cgi/nph-x.cgi?mode=all&qry_str=Paleochristianity&category=web&per_page=10&timeout=10&depth=1

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paleochristian_art

http://www.yppo.gr/6/e6131.jsp?obj_id=98

http://giving.typepad.com/archives/2003/10/a_postpaleochri.html

so not much then. i mean the first gets a single hit, while using the same search engine for 'early christian' brings up about 88. the 3rd is literally greek and doesn't actually say much of anything other than that somebody somewhere used the term (which i never denied). the 4th is a blogger who certainly isn't using the term in anything like you are.

so that leaves the second. which, you'll note, also seems mainly to confirm my hunch that what we have is a translation issue.

so not much then. i mean the first gets a single hit, while using the same search engine for 'early christian' brings up about 88. the 3rd is literally greek and doesn't actually say much of anything other than that somebody somewhere used the term (which i never denied). the 4th is a blogger who certainly isn't using the term in anything like you are.

so that leaves the second. which, you'll note, also seems mainly to confirm my hunch that what we have is a translation issue.

If you do not deny that the term is used, why did you kept on arguing or trying to disprove my point? It seems pointless to me. You use Early Christians while I use Paleochristians. Both terms are acceptable. If Paleochristianity weren't acceptable, then it wouldn't be used to refer to various subjects referring to the period, right? And yet, if you're to talk about Early Christian architecture or art, Paleochritian is the term used for these. That there goes to show that it's not an issue of translation at all. It's an issue of usage.

No offense, guys, but this argument is silly even by NSG standards.

No offense, guys, but this argument is silly even by NSG standards.

of course it is. but the question is, is it distracting from something less silly?

If you do not deny that the term is used, why did you kept on arguing or trying to disprove my point? It seems pointless to me. You use Early Christians while I use Paleochristians. Both terms are acceptable. If Paleochristianity weren't acceptable, then it wouldn't be used to refer to various subjects referring to the period, right? And yet, if you're to talk about Early Christian architecture or art, Paleochritian is the term used for these. That there goes to show that it's not an issue of translation at all. It's an issue of usage.

the point is that 'paleochristian' isn't used in english to any significant extent. not for art and not for anything else. this can easily be checked by searching for it in ebsco or isi web of knowledge or jstor or any other academic database. it just ain't used in english. this is a factual matter which even a google search clearly shows, let alone real searching.

the point is that 'paleochristian' isn't used in english to any significant extent. not for art and not for anything else. this can easily be checked by searching for it in ebsco or isi web of knowledge or jstor or any other academic database. it just ain't used in english. this is a factual matter which even a google search clearly shows, let alone real searching.

Your stubborness is epic, FS. Search for the term. You saying it isn't used at all in English is silly and it just shows that you just don't want to lose an argument you yourself started. Google the term, and you will get the information. It's also incredibly retarded to post that it's a factual matter when I have already provided enough evidence that it does appear and that it's used. I once again don't understand what about it all you don't seem to get.

Google the term, and you will get the information.

yes, and about half of it relates to a single unesco world heritage site - the word is used in its name.

a search for most anything will turn up something on google. the question is one of significant usage. and i'll just note that google seems a far cry from 'academic usage'. do you not have access to academic indexes to check? i mean, other than that one that got a single solitary hit for you before...

yes, and about half of it relates to a single UNESCO world heritage site - the word is used in its name.

a search for most anything will turn up something on google. the question is one of significant usage. and i'll just note that google seems a far cry from 'academic usage'. do you not have access to academic indexes to check? i mean, other than that one that got a single solitary hit for you before...

Yes, I do have access to academic indexes which also show instances on where the term is used. And once again, you use the term Early Christianity and I use Paleochristianity. These are the same and there's no reason, wether one is used more than the other, to keep up with such a ridiculous argument.

there's no reason...to keep up with such a ridiculous argument.

not even pure argumentativeness?

not even pure argumentativeness?

Tell me one thing: will this argument make you stop using one term and adopt the other?
It seems to me that no matter how long and hard we debate on this subject, neither of us will stop referring to this period of Christianity in the way we feel it´s best. Am I right?

Besides, isn´t this getting a bit old? Granted, it´s better than the silly debates going on about the forum. Wouldn´t you like to move on to another, more productive debate? I would like that very much.;)