Dubai Virgin Radio Dj fired for offensive comments on god (1 Viewer)

[rounder]

Byzantine is my thing and the Byzantine empire naturally goes together with the late Roman form of government, the Greek culture and the Ortodox Christianity

Since Juve Rev is a Greek-Ortodox Christian i'd enjoy a chat with him

I can tell you're a history freak

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

so it wasn't god who said that?

Jesus said it, "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." John 14:25-26

 

[Alen]

I'm vaguely familiar with Arian controversy. I know the church has disputed it greatly.

True.
Do you know why did they do it ? Where did they see the danger ? (of course, they said that the Arianism is dangerous to the salvation of souls, but that wasn't the real danger they saw in it)
What was the church getting if the council of Nicaea declared that the son was of the same substance as the father ? (i'm asking you all....i'd really like to see if Martin and Bes will know the answer)
And when you'll find out the answer of the above question, a logical question will come up....why didn't the emperor Constantine support Arius who said that the Son is only a creation and he's not equal to his father ?

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

True.
Do you know why did they do it ? Where did they see the danger ? (of course, they said that the Arianism is dangerous to the salvation of souls, but that wasn't the real danger they saw in it)
What was the church getting if the council of Nicaea declared that the son was of the same substance as the father ? (i'm asking you all....i'd really like to see if Martin and Bes will know the answer)
And when you'll find out the answer of the above question, a logical question will come up....why didn't the emperor Constantine support Arius who said that the Son is only a creation and he's not equal to his father ?

divine inspiration?

 

[Alen]

divine inspiration?

Nah...
think about it.....why is it so important for the church the father and the son to be of the same nature, to be equal ? Why is it bad for them if the son is only a creation, which will put him under the father in the hierarchy.

 

[Martin]

Alen, I have no idea about any of this.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

think martin, i am already overstretched with my thinking for today

 

[Alen]

Well....who is God's representative on earth and who comes from Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[Martin]

bes, people don't put me on game shows for a reason

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

alen, i think you're just gonna have to enlighten us on this

 

[Alen]

alen, i think you're just gonna have to enlighten us on this

Haha, ok.
Well, the ruler is God's representative on Earth while the church comes from Jesus of Nazareth.

It means.... The Ruler=God (the Father) while the Church= The Son.

If the father and the son are of the same substance (they are equal) then the church and the emperor are equal. But if they aren't of the same substance and if the father is above the son then it means that The Emperor is above the Church.

This is where the Church saw the danger if Arianism was to be accepted. It would mean that the emperor is above the church.

Logically, Arianism is good for the Emperor. If Arianism was accepted by the church then the church would have accepted that the emperor is the main guy.
But the Emperor Constantine the First didn't interfere and he didn't support Arius.
There are many debates why he didn't do it, but he was an extremely smart guy (he wasn't a Christian yet when these things were being decided) and he saw the failure of Diocletian's religious persecutions. He knew that he must work together with the christian church and he supported it.
The future proved him right because the co-operation of the Byzantine state and the Ortodox church is what made Byzantine exsist as a power for +1100 years.

Now, what if Constantine supported Arius on the council of Nicaea ? What if Arianism won back then ?
Were we going to talk about the trinity today ?

I was just trying to show you how the decision of one single man influenced the beliefs of some people today, 1700 years later.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

cheers, that makes sense

yet according to our friend here, religion goes beyond all the materialistic crap

 

[Alen]

cheers, that makes sense

yet according to our friend here, religion goes beyond all the materialistic crap

And if Juve Rev tells me that these things about the trinity were writen in the Bible, he should ask himself if there was a bible in Constantine's time and when was the bible canonised, when did they decide which books will be included in the bible ?
If Arianism won in Nicaea then in today's bible not a word of the trinity would have been mentioned.

 

[Martin]

god would find a way :wink:

 

[Zé Tahir]

Now tell us about the Councel of Trent

 

[Alen]

Now tell us about the Councel of Trent

What would you like to know about it ?

My favorite decision from this councel is when they decided that the Roman-Catholic Church is the only one that has the right to interpret the Bible and any Christian who won't accept church's interpretation of the Bible will be proclaimed a heretic. (and you know that this tag wasn't a pleasant one back then).
I have a feeling that if you had the power to do the same in the muslim world as the roman-catholic church did back then, you'd do it without thinking twice.

 

[Zé Tahir]

What would you like to know about it ?

My favorite decision from this councel is when they decided that the Roman-Catholic Church is the only one that has the right to interpret the Bible and any Christian who won't accept church's interpretation of the Bible will be proclaimed a heretic. (and you know that this tag wasn't a pleasant one back then).
I have a feeling that if you had the power to do the same in the muslim world as the roman-catholic church did back then, you'd do it without thinking twice.

I know the gist of the Councel of Trent but if you can elaborate that'd be great. Also, what do you know about Paul the Apostle and his involvement in the creation of Christianity?

It couldn't happen with Islam because we go off the Qur'an which to us is God's word. In the Qur'an there is a verse that reads that God himself will protect this book because the past books (Bible/Torah) were altered. Therefore no one would dare changing anything in the book.

 

[Osman]

Byzantine is my thing and the Byzantine empire naturally goes together with the late Roman form of government, the Greek culture and the Ortodox Christianity

Belisarius FTW!


That awesome mofo has the worst PR agent in the world, or wait, the whole fascinating Byzantine empire does

Naturally more interested in the classical age the "Byzantines" were the last of in some ways, but they are far too ignored like they are as boring and uncultured like the rest of ze barbarians that took over in that dark age after Rome, unfairly grouped together with them, when their blend of cultures is as fascinating in some ways.

Just to signify how unfairly obsecure they are in history, ask any of these mofos what they know of Byzantines (except they came after Romans, and were the predecessors of the Ottomans). Dont think you will get more then vague notions.

 

[Alen]

I know the gist of the Councel of Trent but if you can elaborate that'd be great.

Beh, not much to say about it. It's main point is the danger they saw from Protestantism. They tried to condemn its principles and doctrines and they failed.

Also, what do you know about Paul the Apostle and his involvement in the creation of Christianity?

Not too much, i'm afraid. He's way before "my time". I only know the well-known about him.

Belisarius FTW!
That awesome mofo has the worst PR agent in the world, or wait, the whole fascinating Byzantine empire does

Nice way to put everything you said in the rest of your post in one sentence.

Naturally more interested in the classical age the "Byzantines" were the last of in some ways, but they are far too ignored like they are as boring and uncultured like the rest of ze barbarians that took over in that dark age after Rome, unfairly grouped together with them, when their blend of cultures is as fascinating in some ways.

Just to signify how unfairly obsecure they are in history, ask any of these mofos what they know of Byzantines (except they came after Romans, and were the predecessors of the Ottomans). Dont think you will get more then vague notions.

Yeah, and it's a shame because it's a fascinating empire.
Btw, those who study diplomacy, its history, are the only ones who still rate the Byzantines. The Byzantine diplomacy is still unmatched in the world.

 

[Osman]

Indeed, not only did they do the rare thing of turning away from military authority to a civil administrative one that had all the power (lead to another way to think up solutions then just attack everything in sight), but also clever enough to allways know their limitations (when to wage war, with the awesome Belisarius , or when to smooth talk and out fox them), and when to bribe the heck out of the Hunts, Visigoths, Vandals , Persians etc (when whole of Europe, especially West Rome were busy getting raped by the Huns, they had the smarts enough to not only keep them at bay, but later hire the Huns as heir mercenary armies).

Their treaties were frigging unheard of (yeah not as glamorous as just fighting every opponent, so you havent heard of it, but way more effective), I mean Justinian frigging signed A 50 YEAR LONG peace treaty with the Persians (who were a massive threat), thats frigging unprecedented, in so many ways.

You arent the 2nd most long lasting Empire (after the Egyptians) for nothing. You dont survive and maintain yourself just by relying on your military might like too many ruffians in their days did (must have been weird for them to be the only civilized bunch in while of Europe, facing off primitive Europeans who were formidable fighters because they had a life time experience of non stop warring)).