Serbia

[Trinnity]

FFS. This is about Serbia NOW, not its history or Christianity. Serbia is throwing in with Putin (natch). They're Orthodox. I'm wondering how many Serbians are in this fight and in what manner. I heard some things, can't remember exactly what, I read so much.

[Wildrose]

Look at the map. Look at which countries are majority Muslim and which are majority Christian. All jumbled up together.

Greece - Christian
North Macedonia, Christian (Muslim minority)
Kosovo - Muslim
Albania - Muslim
Bosnia (45% Muslim/33% Christian)
Serbia - Christian
Croatia - Christian
Bulgaria - Christian

If I got any wrong, someone correct me. Muslims and Christian together a lot in most if not all those countries. Serbia have been friendly with Russia for as long as I can remember. I think what binds many of these countries together is Slavic ethnicity (and Romani) and the Orthodox Christian Church.

I thought history was a snooze in High School. I wish I'd paid better attention.

They largely have been since the Roman Empire split into East and West and the Church diverged into what became the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

There was a big story about the Catholics and Orthodox churches reconciling with each other a few years back which was supposed to help with further stabilization.]

Putin only tolerates the Orthodox church because of it's political power but is purported to be an atheist himself.

[imaginethat]

I would imagine that either "gehenna" or "tartarus" (or, in the Old Testament, "sheol" would be more precise.

However, in order for the reader to properly understand it, it would be necessary for him (or her) to know that there was an evolving view of the matter among the ancient Hebrews. (At one time, death was viewed as mere annihilation; later, it was viewed as something occurring with full consciousness.)

The phrase "often projecting its belief at the end of a sword," is purely gratuitous--except, of course, for its prejudicial effect.

I think you have some decent knowledge of the history of the visible churches.

Therefore, you know that Popes ordered bloodshed. They used military force to enforce their doctrines. You know that the Spanish conquistadors had their priests along too, presumably so the soldiers could confess the sins they visited upon the savages. You know the churches drip with bloodguilt with their assurances that God is on their army's side.

And the exact number of churches teaching a particular doctrine is quite unimportant. The only question is whether or not it is correct. And that cannot be determined by simply comparing numbers. (Check out the logical fallacy known as the Bandwagon Fallacy.)



Any reasonable exegesis would ask the simple question: What would Jesus' disciples have thought he meant--not what could some esoteric meaning be?

I provided quotes of what they did say. You didn't address those.

Please elucidate.

An exclusionary Gospel is inconsistent with a loving Creator. An exclusionary Gospel requires a God who in full knowledge of doing so creates being set for an eternity in hell. An exclusionary Gospel creates us and them, hard hearts, "justifiable warfare," and haughty spirit. An exclusionary Gospel is not good news. It diminishes the love of God. It remakes God in human image.

Only someone who is first convinced of universalism could see these verses in that manner.

(This time, see the logical fallacy known as Confirmation Bias.)

John 8:31-32 — Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you continue in my word, you really are my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”


The truth is: Thanks to the unimaginable and irresistible love of God, all His children are saved. All are on a path to know God and to see Truth.

Amen and hallelujah.

[pjohns]

There are currently over 900 versions of the bible in print no two of which agree on everything so none of them can be completely accurate.

Some of these are word-for-word translations, whereas others are sense-for-sense translations (i.e. paraphrases).

Each has its strong points and its weaknesses.

[pjohns]

Therefore, you know that Popes ordered bloodshed. They used military force to enforce their doctrines. You know that the Spanish conquistadors had their priests along too, presumably so the soldiers could confess the sins they visited upon the savages. You know the churches drip with bloodguilt with their assurances that God is on their army's side.

And just how does this advance your argument, exactly?

As I said before: This point is "purely gratuitous--except, of course, for its prejudicial effect."

I really have nothing further to say to you on this matter.

Goodbye...

[Wildrose]

Some of these are word-for-word translations, whereas others are sense-for-sense translations (i.e. paraphrases).

Each has its strong points and its weaknesses.

That isn't possible because there isn't an exact word for every word they were written in, in the English Language.

A great example is, "Thou shall not Kill". That is an inaccurate translation but it's pretty much universally accepted in the western world when the actual translation is more accurately, "Thou shall not commit murder".