Golden Age of biblical principles?

Frakos conclusions concerning the realites that allow him to achieve such things are much like the Catholics misguided assumptions that because in a certain year, when they confirmed what everybody ALREADY KNEW concerning what constitued Gods word, the misguided conclusion was that they somehow gave us the Bible.Of course nothing could be further from the truth, the Holy Spirit gave us his Word and man was aware of it long before any council, passed it as acceptableFrako gloats in the fact that he has discovered, come upon Gods truths and gifts in the natural world, as if he is some sort of genius and science somehow gave us what was ALREADY THERE, by Gods hand in the first place.Hey frako you heard of the guy that challenged God to a creation attempt and God scooped up a handful of sand created a human and the scientist said no problemHe scooped up a handful of sand and God said "wait a minute, YOU GET YOUR OWN SAND."Made any sand lately, Frako?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well I was hoping you would have been able to see my direct and indirect implications in this instance, obviously not, so come on Ill take you by the hand and take it slow so even you can understand it.A golden age of reality or Gods Word is whatever man wishes it to be at any given time depending upon his faithfulness, ie, "Blessed is the nation whos God is Jehovah"The rise and fall of Gods tenets is not dependant upon its truths only but upon any group of people that wish to follow or accept it at any given timeIf I am not mistaken, that is still in place atleast in this country correct. I also believe you fellas, the non-believers are still in the very small percentage correct?I believe this nations God is still Jehovah correct, or did I miss a staff meeting that would suggest otherwiseIm here if you need help DrDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Oh by the way frako, nobody here hates science, but science is not God. I love science and scientists. Go scienceDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Nice dodge frako, the point was that the early church was well aware of what constituted writings by the apostles and which ones were not authentic.In the same way it is easy to recognize where the physical world came from. the fact that you and others can extract usages out of it, in no way makes science Godit seems that that the majority of the scientest can make these discoveries without assuming and jumping to the conclusions that you and a VERY few others do. The majority of us can keep it in its proper perspctive The same thing that deliberately keeps you from distinguishing between persons action and its religions tenets, keeps you from seeing anything that evidences God. That would be willful
stupidity, BTW how would you recognize him, when he told you he was God, you deny and doubt that as well Give me the parameters, in your mind, that would suggest that a certain ideology reigns supreme. perhaps you believe evolution or science reigns supreme in this countryAt any rate give me the parameters before you ask a loaded questionlets see what youve gotDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Temper temper, boy, calm down. As has already been indicated to you, it is a loaded nonsensical question. As I have inidicated to you are speaking about an ideology, in christianity. Its a rule of the heart and mind and many times landscan you think of a time or place where any ideology was believed and accepted by every single person, ouside the Church, or Judism, in this instanceDA, the question posed by Theo, seems to me to be nonsensicalBut Im sure there have been many instances throughout history where Christianity served as the rule of principles in individual placesWouldnt you say the 1800s in this country, were a time where Christianity dominated the thinking of both the land and the people? I wouldThen think of the numerous civilizations that have risen and fallen, that had Christianity as a part, at times, as its religion. Where it enjoyed the supreme rule in both the land and peopleThis is why I asked for parameters of his meaning. It seems such a silly query as Theo has threaded itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yes I disagree with it because its a stupid idiotic questionWhat part of, Christianity is an ideology and everyone everywhere is not going to adhere to said principles, because they have a freewill, do you not understandSince the thread has been put in the form of a question a couple of question are in order.What implication is being derived from the question posed?Are you saying because Christianity does not have rule all the time everywhere that it is therefore invalid?That it is ineffective or what.Even if Christianity was not always the rule somewhere is your implication that it is not from God?I gave you the example of the 1800s in this country to which you paid no attentionDawn Bertot

So just like DA you cant make a distinction between the tenets of a religion and peoples thwarted attempts to apply itChristianity has nothing to do with a persons failure to apply Christs commands correctlySo my contention about the 1800s is a clear example of a time when Christianity was the primary moral guide, peoples misapplication notwithstandingThere were many golden ages of Christianity, just the same way there were many golden ages of Islam and other countless religionsWe can do this all day long because it is a idiotic contemplation Theo has posedDawn Bertot

Wrong they excluded what was known to be frauds and fakes, because they were so close to thise individuals and times they knew the difference. the same way you would know that something was not Henry Longfellows.Now a thousand years from now, it will probably be questioned what was longfellows The simplicity with which you guys operate, never ceases to amaze me. Pigface, civilizations rise and fall, both the Bible and science have had success in numerous civilizations over many centuriesThis is why Theos posit is idiotic, it needs to reworded or refined with regard to Christianity for it to make any senseTo attack a concept like 'Golden age of Christianity' makes no sense, because there are many times when I can show it had success. One can only disagree with the word success, to which i will disagree with your disagreementDo you see how ignorant such a question is?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now how in the world do I respond to such a silly contemplation. If the moral is what anyone wants it to be in any given society, then there is no moral. So the ideology that follows that principle is worthless.Because at some point even gladiator games were sanctioned and approved. Murder was reworded to be acceptable Again "wrong side" is a relative term for a person that claims no morals. How would you know the bible is on the wrong side if your morals are relative to begin with? This is exacally why I asked the question of parameters. So you get to decide how the bible is successful, when and where it is successful. Now how much sense does that make.All that is needed to be counterfactual to your definition of sucess, is for me to disagree and show where in places and people it has had successSuccess is a relative term, that is why it is a silly topicDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And this is a final attempt to make you understand that "Why do you feel" is a relative concept, the conclusion of which is going to be relativeThere is no final answer except to say Christianity in the 1800s was shared and applied to most of the majority in that location, life was better because of its tenents, verses having no rulePeople followed Christs tenets to make life better.Perhaps you could answer a few of my questions above, or am I the only one required to respond to questionshere is a simple one for a simple person.How can you contentions concerning Christianity and its success be anything but relative andhow does your disagreement of mine make Christianity wrong and/or unsucessful?You think you could answer?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Because the answer is always going to be relative, depending on who is viewing the resultsWhy can you not see this point.If I am wrong define what success would be for Christianity and watch me disagreeDawn Bertot

You have not even attempted a rational explanation of what you mean by Golden age. Please provide that and lets see if its even reasonable to approachYes and i have given you a time when such was the case.And i will continue to ask the question, of what relevance is the question in the first place.One needs to establish the relevance of such a query for it to have any meaning Now you switch gears. I thought we were discussing a time when people honored the Christian principles more than others and when they were used as a rule of the landIm sure at this point you can begin to see why such a query as Theos is utter nonsenseAnybody can make a list of those things described above in any age.When I do answer your question you change directions and avoid the obvious pointDawn BertotMaybe you could answer that this time. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Do you mean this statement from the OP?From OPYes I read it, so what. My point is that because you do not understand the nature or purpose of the bible, your question makes absolutley no senseOr at best it is irrational unless you show why such a query is relevantCan you show why it is relevant?Give it a shotDawn Bertot

The obvious point is that the query makes no sense unless he can show relevance. I can repeat that again if yopu dont understand itDo you understand it?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Since Buz has not disagreed with my conclusions of Golden age, then maybe you could address my conclusions concerning that matterYou asked me for a answer I gave you one. Surprise surprise, you disagreed. What nextDawn Bertot