Roy Moore


So what? Flat earthers still exist (at least nominally, there is some evidence they may just be trolling), and they are demonstrably wrong.

Neither can you know every detail of it. You’re lucky to get accurate ‘broad strokes’. You have no more idea what every early Christian believed than I do. You can tell us what the organizers of the most successful branches of the early church agreed would become their orthodoxy. The fact that it needed to dealt with in council would seem prima facie evidence that there was some controversy on it. What were the views of the patriarchs? Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Abraham, Adam? What’s the real ‘original idea’ you mention to Susanna? See Gen. 3 8, 17 1-21, 32 22-31 etc. That doesn’t read as phenomenological to me.

I’m telling you, as a p.s.a., what it looks like to someone who doesn’t even have any dogmatic assumptions to be ‘defended’. Nuts to your offense.

How’d that work out?

That is still him making assumptions of things that cannot be known to say what God is not.

I expect my quote tags are hosed. I seem to recall that multi-quoting has some kind of ritualistic mumbo-jumbo requirement, but I can’t recall exactly what it is…

EDIT: Nope, worked like a champ. IDK how I did that,though… :confused:


I was being accused of making it up!

That was the reason I brought him and everyone else up!

The entire. damn. reason.

How many times do I have to say it?

No, read my 1st damn post.

My point was that this was apart of Christian theology.

Susanne and FC piped in and tried to deny it.

I don’t care, if some branches of Protestantism don’t agree with it, anymore than that those same branches might not agree with Confession being a sacrament.

As it’s not the damn point if not all Christians agree with it. The point is that it exists in Christian theology.

I wasn’t talking to those two originally, I was talking to CSbrown, to show him, that his conception of the truth, wasn’t completely in conflict with [original] Christianity.

Of course I’m not speaking for all Christians. Anymore than I would be if I said he could go to purgatory after he died.

It goes without saying that I speak for my branch, Catholicism, which is one of the oldest, and has this position, because it follows from the Early Church.

So everything I said, was correct.

The position is real, most of Christianity believes it, the Early Church believed it, so claiming it’s apart of Christian theology is a factual statement.

Nuts to whatever the hell else you thought this situation was, that’s what this is about. Nuts to my “not including everyone”, I wasn’t trying to, nor do I feel obligated to do so. I’m not PC, I will exclude whenever the hell I like.

I do because of this thing called apostolic tradition, and I was raised in it.

And unlike most of my generation, I took it seriously.

As to the patriarchs, go look at David James Dunn, or David Bentley Hart.

They’re both Eastern Orthodox theologians, and they both talk about this being their conception of God (since their Church’s inception), hence why Atheists get God wrong. Go read them if you care to know about it.


I don’t remember any biblical patriarchs by those names…


They studied the patriarchs, they have Apostolic Tradition the same as I do. Go read them, if you care.

If you don’t, IDC about what you have to say on it.

They know more about their Church, then you claim is possible, because you have no conception of how that knowledge is passed on, from generation to generation.


Quoting a bit more:

Their conception, AS, theirs, not the patriarchs’. What did the patriarchs believe?

So you’re contending that your tradition grants you insight into the minds of every single early christian? That’s pretty bold claim, especially in light of Mark 7:8. IIRC, there are other scriptures that caution against being bound by tradition.

Again, are you claiming that that first generation had all the knowledge about all the Christians at the time, and it has been passed on perfectly? That’s another bold claim you APPEAR to be making.


Apologies, posted a duplicate,


Hush, I’m having fun. :smiley: Got my razor down to a mono-filament edge, I’m ready to split hairs down to ANGSTROMS!!


Classical Theism. We know this, because Monotheistic faiths out of the Levant followed that approach on their creator. Tradition and archaeological findings, back that up.

There’s more evidence on this than you seem to realize. “Theirs” is “theirs”, because it was handed down.

I don’t need “every single Christian”, I need only tradition that those who compiled the faith handed down.

Oral traditions were created, sustained, and ultimately recorded communally. So trying to even limit this just to the circles of teachers, or the proto-Rabais is wrong. That’s not how the faiths worked.

And if you even try to tell me that Oral tradition isn’t reliable, I’m going to laugh at that ignorance.

Human memory is quite amazing when utilized properly, and structured oral tradition can keep consistent narratives going for millennia.

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

What you’re missing here, is the Tradition they’re speaking to. Cultural vs those of the faith. Equally, history vs practice.

All I need to establish is that Classical Theism is the approach of the faiths of the Levant, from a certain time period.

Can that be established? Yes. Because (oral & written) history & archaeology, which you conveniently seemed to have forgotten exist.

We know of traditions from faiths even older than Judaism; what you’re asking is not controversial in the slightest. The pretense that it is, is laughable.

You’re just another person, with incorrect perceptions of how history was perpetuated in ancient societies, likely because you’ve bought into the idea that ancient people were stupid, and had no idea of how time affected things.

Despite all the evidence we have to the contrary.


Oral traditions are KNOWN to be unreliable, AS. Have you read Genesis? It’s based entirely on the “oral tradition” of how we came about and is patently false…at least the part about the creation. That doesn’t mean that the creation didn’t HAPPEN, just that Moses’ “explanation” was designed so an unlettered, unsophisticated agrarian people could understand and believe in the concept of a creator and creation.


Reliable as in Consistent Dave, Consistent.

Genesis is a rendering of the symbolic order in which we live, not a literal history, you know that.


As a child, did you ever play a game called “Telephone?” A dozen or so kids sit in a circle and one starts by whispering a “secret” to his/her neighbor, who repeats it to his/her neighbor, and so forth until the circle is complete. The last person is asked to tell the “secret” which only RARELY bears any resemblance to the original. Passing along historical facts orally is simply unreliable and seldom convey the ACTUAL facts being discussed.


Somebody forgot to tell the writers of Genesis. There is nothing phenomenological about any of the stories of the patriarchs and their interactions with God that I can remember. It seemed fairly personal, to me. Now either the oral tradition missed getting passed to the writers of Genesis (meaning oral traditions are unreliable), or the writers of Genesis wrote down the correct ones, meaning at least some of the patriarchs experienced their religion ‘personally’ rather than phenomenologically. Either way proves my point.

Only the ones that agree with you, because any others don’t count?

No, you have to establish that “not a being, but being itself” was the original, the very first conception of God in the Judaic tradition, that no other ideas came before it. The book of Genesis tells a very different story, and you can’t hand-wave that away with oral traditions.

HAH, you’re just jealous because you can feel my awesome permeating the 'net!

No, I understand that, well enough. I also know how easy it is for information to become corrupted in a single human-to-human transfer. (SHRUG) Part of the human condition.

They were likely smarter than we are. A good bit, I’d say. They were facing a far more dangerous world than we do without 5000 years of history and technological development to lean on. And Darwin is a stone killer. Stuff your assumptions! :smiley:


That’s not what you’ve been saying. You’ve been saying that it is valid Christian theology.


Yes it was, I was accused of making it up.

It’s also valid.


That’s not a structured oral tradition, You need to learn what that is Dave, and you know who could tell you?
The Jews:


It affirms that he is metaphysical, existing outside of time, and outside the universe.

It also affirms other conditions, as you can read here:

Nothing about Genesis contradicts this, and Classical Theism does not deny that a personal relationship with God is possible. You’re reading too much into the names, and not enough into the claims.

What, Nestorians, Arians, Monophysitism, the Gnostics?

No. They don’t count. I only care about original tradition. What Paul was saying, the other apostles, the oral traditions they gathered/fostered in the 1st century, and the words of those who were attempting to follow the implications in the centuries following. This instead of trying to rewrite any of the former.

It’s what Jews believe, a Rabbai by the name of Arthur Green points out that “I AM” in Exodus, in Hebrew is written as Ayer Asher Ayer, or “I am, I am what is, I will be what I will be

It’s not the first conception; the Hebrews were once upon a time polytheists, but reformers like Moses were the ones who hammered those tendencies out of them.

It’s the conception of God the monotheists brought that Christianity inherited. Why it was you didn’t need a separate God of the mountain, the sea, or the harvest. How one God, metaphysically, was linked to it all.


You know, if the left wants green energy, they ought to just hook up a generator to Alaska Slim’s posting account; because whenever anyone tells him he’s wrong, it turns into a perpetual motion machine…


That’s what I thought.

Everything you bring up reinforces the fact that we can’t, in fact, know with certainty what the original doctrine was. That you accept your particular church’s dogma is no more than an article of your particular faith. That’s fine, but it’s faith, not knowledge.


Your claim on “I Am” wasn’t the whole story about it, and you made accusations of me, that were, for the record, wrong.

I didn’t make up the term “being itself”, I didn’t make up it’s claims, and I didn’t make up the language describing the debate. You claimed all of this. And it. was. wrong.

Be nice if you were honest enough to admit that.

But the truth is, you won’t, because your entire point here was never to understand what I claimed, only to preach to me, while also making the topic about me. You wear your desire to address me too eagerly on your sleeve for me not to notice.



Except of course for the trifling matter that I never claimed that you made it up; I simply said it was a contrived term, as demonstrated by its absence from my unabridged Merriam-Webster.

It would be nice if you refrained from spin doctoring things to death, but I know better than to hold my breath.

(Cue Alaska Slim’s next tirade in five… four… three… two…)