And in a way they have, although one has changed and the other has not.
The Theotokos is Mary, since it literally means "Mother of God." My statement stands.
By 300 bad practices had entered the church? The Bible you currently read was not compiled by 300. In addition to that, the Bible you read (NKJV) was altered by the King of Scotland/England to change Jacob's name to James, just to satisfy his own vanity.
I agree that what the Bible says is holy, but just because something isn't holy doesn't mean it's evil. I don't even add what we need to worship.. what are you going on about? Christmas/Easter are merely commemorations of Jesus' birth and resurrection. Nobody says that considering these days holy is an integral part of being a Christian.
You'll note that many laws only written in the Old Testament are used by Christians to condemn acts they dislike. If things have changed so dramatically that God somehow now condemns instruments, then maybe he's also changed to not condemn other things?
Might I mention the office of Priest is obsolete and wrong. Theotokos is God Bearer, saying that Mary is the Bearer of God, a serious error. I think you're getting the KJV and the NKJV confused. Think about it, Holy is without Sin, Nothing on earth or anyone but God is Holy, so everything else is non-holy, with which means WITH Sin, Sin is evil and therefore everything is Evil, Including Us, Now Christ made a way for us to live but we are still evil and sinning.
We still sin, but we are not evil because we are made righteous through Christ. Holy does not mean sinless, it means set apart, we are holy because we are set apart by God to fulfill His plans.
I can definitively tell you that you are wrong, having known around ten Orthodox priests.
But have you challenged a thing he said, or did you just come for advice?
I have not personally challenged them, but I know that others have challenged them. One of them, by the way, serves on an international council for cloning ethics. Do you think he might be opposed by some of the scientific community for his positions on cloning? And yet he still talks with them on friendly terms.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
As evil as those countries were, let's examine this.
Twelve million people can be attributed to Hitler. Anywhere between 34-49 million can be attributed to Stalin alone. In addition, Nazi Germany lasted only twelve years to the Soviet Union's seventy-four.
While Mao did inadvertently cause many more people to starve from famine, this was by accident and was a matter of stupidity more than evil.
Mussolini's Italy... is completely irrelevant next to the above two.
Imperial Japan, while also committing awful atrocities, is nothing like the USSR or Nazi Germany.
The Taliban and ISIS are incredibly immoral, evil organizations, but their scope was control over small regions and the Taliban were in power for five years while ISIS still doesn't really hold power.
North Korea is horrible, and I'd say in many ways worse than the USSR, but I'd hardly call it more evil.
The Khmer Rouge regime was brutal, but only two million compared to the dozens of millions under the USSR.
Please educate us?
Yeltsin was an idiot, to be sure, but he hardly compares to Soviet Premiers in terms of being the worst in Russian history. When you add the old tsars to that...
I still wouldn't go so far as to call it the most evil country in history. Evilness can't really be measured, and there's no way to satisfactorily defend that statement.
I wouldn't go so far as to say much lesser regimes like Khmer Rouge were worse, though.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
And in a way they have, although one has changed and the other has not.
The Theotokos is Mary, since it literally means "Mother of God." My statement stands.
By 300 bad practices had entered the church? The Bible you currently read was not compiled by 300. In addition to that, the Bible you read (NKJV) was altered by the King of Scotland/England to change Jacob's name to James, just to satisfy his own vanity.
I agree that what the Bible says is holy, but just because something isn't holy doesn't mean it's evil. I don't even add what we need to worship.. what are you going on about? Christmas/Easter are merely commemorations of Jesus' birth and resurrection. Nobody says that considering these days holy is an integral part of being a Christian.
You'll note that many laws only written in the Old Testament are used by Christians to condemn acts they dislike. If things have changed so dramatically that God somehow now condemns instruments, then maybe he's also changed to not condemn other things?
Might I mention the office of Priest is obsolete and wrong. Theotokos is God Bearer, saying that Mary is the Bearer of God, a serious error. I think you're getting the KJV and the NKJV confused. Think about it, Holy is without Sin, Nothing on earth or anyone but God is Holy, so everything else is non-holy, with which means WITH Sin, Sin is evil and therefore everything is Evil, Including Us, Now Christ made a way for us to live but we are still evil and sinning.
Wrong may be your opinion, but how is it obsolete?
She... did bear Jesus in her womb. Jesus being God, this seems like an accurate statement? Unless you somehow think she didn't give birth to Christ.
Oh, I apologize. The NKJV was the newer, further revised version. My mistake.
Okay, so while "holiness" may equate "sinless" (it doesn't always), "not holy" may equate "it has sin." Everything has sin, but that doesn't make everything evil. Evil: "arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct;" "morally reprehensible." We may have sin, but that doesn't mean that everything is actively trying to do bad things. We're not perfect, but we're not Satan.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
I still wouldn't go so far as to call it the most evil country in history. Evilness can't really be measured, and there's no way to satisfactorily defend that statement.
I wouldn't go so far as to say much lesser regimes like Khmer Rouge were worse, though.
I see evil not just in numbers but in effect khemmer rouge may have killed 2 million people, that's 25% of the Cambodian populous, and achieved basically nothing. Culturally genocide in my openion is also horrific and mao's cultural revolution cant be justified with he didn't know what he was doing. He told the red youth to destroy traditional Chinese culture and they did. At No point did this happen in the ussr at the scale that it did in the PRC (Peoples republic of china). You can look at old soviet films and (propaganda) even ones during stalins time which emphasize the importance of preserving the heritage of Russia.
There is too much debate over which is best. They're all annoyingly... subtly different. Some of the more recent versions seem to exaggerate parts as an excuse to hate. It's quite sad really. Churches should be inclusive.
As long as the subtle differences still mean the same thing, it's okay. If any version changes the meaning of a phrase with the way they chose to translate it, that's not okay.
I have the KJV. It's weird when haters quote their Bible and I'm like "what". Some have huge differences. They don't really change the meaning, more make the meaning more forceful than it previously was. It actually makes it darker.
I wouldn't go so far as to say much lesser regimes like Khmer Rouge were worse, though.
I see evil not just in numbers but in effect khemmer rouge may have killed 2 million people, that's 25% of the Cambodian populous, and achieved basically nothing. Culturally genocide in my openion is also horrific and mao's cultural revolution cant be justified with he didn't know what he was doing. He told the red youth to destroy traditional Chinese culture and they did. At No point did this happen in the ussr at the scale that it did in the PRC (Peoples republic of china). You can look at old soviet films and (propaganda) even ones during stalins time which emphasize the importance of preserving the heritage of Russia.
I'm not justifying Mao, but I'm saying that in terms of evil it was much lower than what happened elsewhere.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
As long as the subtle differences still mean the same thing, it's okay. If any version changes the meaning of a phrase with the way they chose to translate it, that's not okay.
I have the KJV. It's weird when haters quote their Bible and I'm like "what". Some have huge differences. They don't really change the meaning, more make the meaning more forceful than it previously was. It actually makes it darker.
That's Interesting. Which versions, for instance?
I'm not really being sarcastic, by the way, I mean it, I'm interesting. Obviously there are some "translations" that are actually just paraphrases(The Message. grr. ), and some that dumb it down to the point of stupidity (I'm looking at you, Living Bible.)
But I haven't encountered any that have made it darker, so I was wondering which you meant.
I wouldn't go so far as to say much lesser regimes like Khmer Rouge were worse, though.
I see evil not just in numbers but in effect khemmer rouge may have killed 2 million people, that's 25% of the Cambodian populous, and achieved basically nothing. Culturally genocide in my openion is also horrific and mao's cultural revolution cant be justified with he didn't know what he was doing. He told the red youth to destroy traditional Chinese culture and they did. At No point did this happen in the ussr at the scale that it did in the PRC (Peoples republic of china). You can look at old soviet films and (propaganda) even ones during stalins time which emphasize the importance of preserving the heritage of Russia.
You are talking about destroying cultures, but didn't the Soviets basically try to destroy the entire Ukrainian people...? (Holodomor)
In the late 1700s-early 1800s, Spain controlled New Orleans, the mouth of the Mississippi River and the source for much of Kentucky's commerce. The Kingdom of Spain had closed the New Orleans ports for political reasons and Secretary of State Jefferson intended to repair good relations with the King of Spain even at the cost of Kentucky's economy by allowing this. Governor Isaac Shelby wrote a series of correspondences to Jefferson, iterating that Jefferson represented the American people and their interests and not the interests of the King of Spain, and that if Jefferson would continue to value the interests of Spain over those of his people, Shelby would use his own means to reopen the harbor. President Washington acquired American rights to shipping in New Orleans soon after.
That's from the Old Testament, we don't need that in the New Covenant, plus it says Wine, and Jesus drank Wine.
Just because we don't need it doesn't make it not wrong. I don't need to be on LMBE right now, but I am, and it's not a sin.
It does say "fruit of the vine," but that could mean grape juice. I'm sure it's not what Jesus was drinking, but it still works for communion. Maybe it does say wine in Greek, I don't know, but my point is that communion is symbolic and grape juice does not change the meaning.
It Involves the Old Covenant, plus nowhere is it found in the bible the Instruments were used in worship.
Well both Catholic and Orthodox say they kept the original faith. Okay, I meant Theotokis. Yes by 300 bad practices entered the church. I said I was a bible Christian, the Bible and what is says are holy, nothing here is, Tradition doesn't matter,God tells us what we need to worship, so you want to add to the Bible? Christmas isn't in the bible, neither is Easter, both are wrong. King David was in the Old Testamant, things changed since then. Actually I already have, plus Its not are business as Christians to make laws for nations.
Earlier you said it was wrong to make Christmas illegal, now you're saying it's wrong to celebrate Christmas at all? And why would it be wrong to celebrate Jesus' birth, or his Resurrection?
I celebrate Christ's birth and Resurrection everyday, we all should, I"m saying its not the part of Christians to make laws for Non-Christians.
), and some that dumb it down to the point of stupidity (I'm looking at you, Living Bible.)
