Introducing myself

[ephraimanesti]

=) Good thinking.

What doe ephraim mean btw?

MY BROTHER,

It originally meant "fruitfulness."

Then it became the name of the second born son of Joseph.

Then it became the name of one of the tribes of Israel.

And then it was taken as a name by one of the great saints of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Finally, Saint Ephraim became my Patron Saint when i was baptized into the Eastern Orthodox Church. Saint Ephraim is a wonderful Spiritual writer and poet with a rather quirky sense of humor. i hope to become just like him if and when i ever grow up.

Thanks for asking!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Certainly! Though we may have to make do with the digital versions of these. Second rate, admittedly. We will have our people work on it.

Thank you

Oh no, it was a reference to the intent, however tacit, of this fellow of whom we speak – not a reference to the bible at all. I don't hesitate to say that the old testament is a homophobe's wet dream (please pardon the pun) and the new testament is an entirely different animal. It seems to me that the Galilean messiah did not once mention homosexuality, and if we extrapolate from his other actions, we find a man who likely accepted homosexuals into his following as readily as any other person. A rather nice chap, he was.

He would absolutely have accepted them. He accepted prostitutes, tax collectors, murderers, the lead persecutor of His people... and He will have commanded them to sin no more. Jesus was the nicest chap of all time. He is also the holiest of chaps. He wasn't some weed-smoking, right-on liberal, no matter what many would try to convince themselves. He is pure love, and with that comes the exhortation to be holy, as He is holy.

Yes, it appears that I have misinterpreted. I do hope that you can forgive me – I did not intend to offend.

You didn't, at all. Chill out, biddy

Though one question does remain. When you use the word "unwell" do you reserve it for yourself, or extend it to any person who identifies as homosexual, past or present?

I believe homosexuality is unwellness in all cases. As in any form of sin. Sin leads to death, and away from God. This is perhaps at the very core of why so many are so anti-Christian and anti-God: people love sin. We love sin. But it's death, so when Jesus tells us to sin no more, He doesn't say that for His benefit - He says it for ours.

It is the Earl of Grey right now. Shall we share that cup, in spirit?

The Gentleman Atheist

It has Bergamot. It shouldn't be allowed. PG Tips?

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

MY BROTHER,

It originally meant "fruitfulness."

Then it became the name of the second born son of Joseph.

Then it became the name of one of the tribes of Israel.

And then it was taken as a name by one of the great saints of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Finally, Saint Ephraim became my Patron Saint when i was baptized into the Eastern Orthodox Church. Saint Ephraim is a wonderful Spiritual writer and poet with a rather quirky sense of humor. i hope to become just like him if and when i ever grow up.

Thanks for asking!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

Thanks for letting me know appreciate it.

And oh, never grow up. It's way more fun staying young.

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

Ah, another doubting Thomas! Felicitous greetings to you.

Please allow me to introduce myself...
I'm a man of wealth and taste.

For some reason, this sounds very familiar. Intentional, perhaps?
Who knows what I'm talking about?

I have failed to grasp the subtleties of your idiom. Whatever is it that you are talking about?

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

Darn--what a let-down! Just the old Darwinian mating impulse. I thought perhaps the lofty ideals of Love could have been a point of connection.

Au contraire, dear sir. I have something here better than anything discussed in the Symposium.

If that does indeed turn out to be the case--which i honestly hope it doesn't--i would think the shame would come from using a rather silly ruse to poke fun at a bunch of gullible Christians who tend to take people at their word--especially if the words give the illusion of gentleness, affability, and mannerliness.

I will assure you, as I have in the past, that I am every inch a gentleman, and have been since the day of my birth. Still, a haughtiness – even one born in absolute piety – should be able to withstand a few jabs of wit and sarcasm, do you not think so? These things keep us all on the side of sanity that we wish to remain on.

Might I also add that blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Hoping that you are well.

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

I just want to thank the gentleman athiest and all the other people who have made this the most enjoyable thread that I've ever stumbled upon at this forum!

Boneo, I am sure that I may speak for all of our contributors when I say that it has been our pleasure.

Here I would like to insert an apology to the forum for my recent absence. Pimm's season is upon us, and I seem to have developed a very nasty sensitivity to cucumber. I am slowly recovering, and will do my best to respond to your queries and interests in a timely manner.

Again, I thank you all for your contributions and your patience during my convalescence.

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

I believe homosexuality is unwellness in all cases. As in any form of sin. Sin leads to death, and away from God. This is perhaps at the very core of why so many are so anti-Christian and anti-God: people love sin. We love sin. But it's death, so when Jesus tells us to sin no more, He doesn't say that for His benefit - He says it for ours.

My dear, it is life which leads to death. Pimm's, in concert with certain gourd species, will greatly accelerate this, but life is the common factor here. Sin is merely a measure of how we live that life, is it not? If our actions cause no harm to any person at all, then do we still call this sin? To say the reverse, really doesn't seem like a 'christ-like' philosophy to me.

Dear lady, can you explain this for a dour old atheist like me, please?

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[Chesterton]

Sin is merely a measure of how we live that life, is it not?

Do you really "See No Evil", or are you just averse to acknowledging that you see evil?

"Don't say unconscious
No don't say doom.
If you got to say it
let me leave this room"

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

Do you really "See No Evil", or are you just averse to acknowledging that you see evil?

I'm afraid, dear sir, that I miss your point.

There certainly is evil in this world. I am not averse to acknowledging this as fact. In the context of our conversation above, what is the question that you are attempting to ask here?

 

[Chesterton]

I'm afraid, dear sir, that I miss your point.

There certainly is evil in this world. I am not averse to acknowledging this as fact. In the context of our conversation above, what is the question that you are attempting to ask here?

That is what I was asking - if you believe in sin/evil. It seemed like your response to GM said otherwise, where you said it was merely a measure of how we live, as if the idea were man-made.

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

That is what I was asking - if you believe in sin/evil. It seemed like your response to GM said otherwise, where you said it was merely a measure of how we live, as if the idea were man-made.

Oh, very good, Chesterton. I will explain.
Sin/evil is to knowingly and willfully harm other people for selfish reasons. So yes, I do believe in "sin," at least to the extent of this definition. I suppose, if we were to extend this definition to the context of our conversation here, that evil is man-made, yes.

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[ephraimanesti]

Au contraire, dear sir. I have something here better than anything discussed in the Symposium.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

We were not talking about Plato here, we are talking about God--as in, "God is Love." (I John 4:8) The corollary to this is, of course, "Know God, Know Love; No God, No Love." Just one of the reasons why believers are discouraged from serious relationships with non-believers--as in, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness. And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" (II Corinthians 6:14, 15)

I will assure you, as I have in the past, that I am every inch a gentleman, and have been since the day of my birth. Still, a haughtiness – even one born in absolute piety – should be able to withstand a few jabs of wit and sarcasm, do you not think so? These things keep us all on the side of sanity that we wish to remain on.

Poking sugar-coated fun from out of darkness directed towards those standing in the light does not strike me as being "on the side of sanity" i would wish to remain on. Misplaced "wit and sarcasm" are easily withstood, but to be pitied nonetheless.[/quote]

Might I also add that blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Indeed! However, the other end of the stick is, unfortunately, not nearly so rewarding.

Hoping that you are well.

yes, Yes, YES! OH, YES INDEED! CHRISTOS ANESTI! ALETHOS ANESTI!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

Oh my! Ephraimanesti, you have really lost me here. Your post is almost complete nonsense. I can comment on your Corinthians quote, which I believe is some nature of admonishment regarding my relationship with a christian woman.

Just one of the reasons why believers are discouraged from serious relationships with non-believers--as in, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness. And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" (II Corinthians 6:14, 15)

Poor Paul was a very disturbed fellow. I find myself feeling deep sympathetic pity for him when I read anything from his œuvre. This particular episode is easily categorized as xenophobic, and mirrors many of Paul's calls-to-arms against any number of people of whom he disapproved. It is a much-practiced method in many war-like activities, for one side – that hopes to obtain a "justified" righteousness in the eyes of their potential converts – to dehumanize their enemy. It makes it easier for other people to cast aside morality, and hate or even kill these "others". Have a read of Romans 1. Paul villainizes just about every single person who has any hint of a non-christian philosophy. In the final verse he even suggests the murder of at least some of these persons. This to me is a wonderful example of his psychopathy. What angers and confuses me is that people like, trust, and obey the rantings of this deeply disturbed individual.

Thankfully, most christians have a better-constructed rectitude, and do not go about wantonly slaying 90% of the globe's population. My christian life-partner (wife, if you will) can see beyond this vile propaganda and engage in a very healthy, sharing, and strong relationship with a gentleman such as myself. Thankfully, the natural human moral compass seems to be able to suppress the guidance of the "saint" Paul.

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[ephraimanesti]

Oh my! Ephraimanesti, you have really lost me here. Your post is almost complete nonsense. I can comment on your Corinthians quote, which I believe is some nature of admonishment regarding my relationship with a christian woman.

MY BROTHER,

Actually the "admonishment" was meant for the lady in question. Assuming she is a Christian and has a Bible and spends an appropriate amount of time and energy in reading same--she should most certainly know better without being admonished.

Poor Paul was a very disturbed fellow. I find myself feeling deep sympathetic pity for him when I read anything from his œuvre. This particular episode is easily categorized as xenophobic, and mirrors many of Paul's calls-to-arms against any number of people of whom he disapproved. It is a much-practiced method in many war-like activities, for one side – that hopes to obtain a "justified" righteousness in the eyes of their potential converts – to dehumanize their enemy. It makes it easier for other people to cast aside morality, and hate or even kill these "others". Have a read of Romans 1. Paul villainizes just about every single person who has any hint of a non-christian philosophy. In the final verse he even suggests the murder of at least some of these persons. This to me is a wonderful example of his psychopathy. What angers and confuses me is that people like, trust, and obey the rantings of this deeply disturbed individual.

Actually, Paul was God's chosen and precious vessel who was instrumental in spreading our Lord's teachings and the good-news of His Resurrection through the then-known world after being Graced with the privilege of a first-hand encounter with our Risen Lord.

As our Lord Himself described Paul, "This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel." (Acts 9:15)

So God holds him in high regard and trusts him explicitly with proclaiming His glory throughout the world. You, on the other hand, characterize him as a "deeply disturbed individual." Whose assessment of Paul's character should i give the most credence to. Hmmm, now let me think. . . .

Thankfully, most christians have a better-constructed rectitude, and do not go about wantonly slaying 90% of the globe's population. My christian life-partner (wife, if you will) can see beyond this vile propaganda and engage in a very healthy, sharing, and strong relationship with a gentleman such as myself.

But at what a terrible price! If God is her all--as must be the case with a Christian, what exactly can be honestly shared between a believer and a non-believer who have nothing of value in common? "What fellowship can light have with darkness? . . . What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?" (II Corinthians 6:14, 15)

Incidentally, no where does Paul ever suggest the killing of anyone, must less the murder of anyone suffering from the spiritual disease of unbelief. Such an evil act is the antitheses of Jesus' teaching, Christian beliefs, and of Paul's teachings in particular--Paul whose letters were filled with the message of forgiveness, peace, grace, and love. What a horribly distorted--Orwellian "new speak" kind of view--you have of reality! i have no idea to what verse you might be referring unless it be one you have fabricated out of whole-cloth and wishful thinking in your rush to judgment with Paul because he speaks truths which you do not wish to hear.

Thankfully, the natural human moral compass seems to be able to suppress the guidance of the "saint" Paul.

You are quite correct here--it does indeed seek to suppress the guidance of St. Paul, and able to do so quite easily for those who do no cleave tightly to God's revealed Truth. It is for this reason--the twisted workings of "the natural human moral compass--which necessitated God surrendering His only begotten Son that He might save us from this so-called (actually an oxymoron) "natural human moral compass." As King Solomon puts it, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." (Proverbs 14:12)

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

Ephraim,

Thankfully, most christians have a better-constructed rectitude, and do not go about wantonly slaying 90% of the globe's population. My christian life-partner (wife, if you will) can see beyond this vile propaganda and engage in a very healthy, sharing, and strong relationship with a gentleman such as myself.

But at what a terrible price! If God is her all--as must be the case with a Christian, what exactly can be honestly shared between a believer and a non-believer who have nothing of value in common? "What fellowship can light have with darkness? . . . What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?" (II Corinthians 6:14, 15)

Thankfully for all of the actors in this story – and indeed, for its readers – neither you nor Paul have any say in the private lives of this forums' participants. If I have to be the one to say it, then I will: Frankly, Ephraim, it is none of your damned business. I do find your sanctimonious bovine stercus to be awfully offensive, and I should hope that I would have the support of all of the other members of this forum – as I would duly offer my support to them when you pick on their personal concerns like a needling old maid – when I ask you to mind your manners.

I would like to add for the benefit of other readers that this brings us to a crucial point in this conversation. I will take this moment to thank all of the people who have contributed their stories to this thread. I have learned a great deal from you, and you have all contributed greatly to my understanding of the christian worldview. Still, I do have some remaining uncertainty about the things that can make for good relationships between christians and non-christians. You see, christianity is often represented by a very broad lot of evangelical twits, as you can clearly witness in this, and the preceding post. I do not, however, see this type of action, thought, or deed either in my life-partner or the helpful posters to this thread. My life-partner – let us call her "Lena" here – Lena, is quite an intelligent lady. In fact, she is a regular lecturer at one of our great nation's leading schools. It can shock an atheist sometimes – and here I must include myself – to discover that an intelligent person can believe in what so many regard as superstition and fairy tale. I now ask a second question – though related to the first – what is it that allows an intelligent christian to reconcile with the same christianity that unquestioning followers like Mr. Ephraimanesti follow without the slightest indication of critical thought.

I must apologize for my blunt demeanour, but I deal with Mr. Ephraimanesti in the same stroke of my pen. I do trust that intelligent readers will be able to discern this and be able to answer my question with the clarity that thought awards us.

I am eager for your responses.

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[PerrySB]

what is it that allows an intelligent christian to reconcile with the same christianity that unquestioning followers like Mr. Ephraimanesti follow without the slightest indication of critical thought.

Not all of us Christians developed out beliefs based on what some refer to as a fairy tail. Although I was raised in a home that taught Christian principles I rejected it as I became an adult. However there was always a nagging emptiness that left me wondering if there was any validity to the faith that my parents and others had.
I was given a book called “New Evidence that demands a Verdict” lengthy but very well documented I struck out to challenge this book but came away somewhat frustrated because of the solid arguments it presented. Next came a web site called “Reasons to believe” Dr. Ham made a very big impression on me. However I could still present reasonable arguments, or at least to me they seemed reasonable. How do we derive life from a non living source, it just doesn’t happen. To me DNA cried out intelligent design, and I found it very hard to argue with that.
Finally came what is referred to as “Near-Death experiences” and although the evidence was circumstantial the testimonies and many from atheist was quite an eye opener. However until I discovered testimonies of people that were clinically brain dead (Flat EEG and no blood flow to the brain” I was skeptical to say the least. (I’m well aware the brain can still have activity that the EEG will not record) The final was watching people die; I know it sounds gruesome but very much a fact of life. The peace seen in Christian deaths was very apparent to me.
Once I came to the conclusion there is a God or creator if you will I began studying other religions and come to the conclusion the only one that made sense to me was Christianity. You see with all that is written in the Bible to me it came down to Gods will for us is to love him with all our hearts, and to love others as ourselves and I have a very difficult time finding fault with that idea.

 

[ephraimanesti]

what is it that allows an intelligent christian to reconcile with the same christianity that unquestioning followers like Mr. Ephraimanesti follow without the slightest indication of critical thought.

MY BROTHER,

Why would you assume that just because i tend to be an obnoxious fool in many areas, that i am not capable, when push comes to shove, of critical thinking in eternally important areas that matter--such as my relationship with God and following His will in all things?

i well understand your taking offense at my comments--i would surely do likewise if our positions were reversed. However, it seems to me that my tact is the issue in question, not my ability to think critically.

Reading back over my input looking for misstatements, i would have to label it "true but offensive." You, on the other hand, appear to label it as "offensive and thus false." Obviously, i can't speak for you, but in my own case, i find that when i am offended it is because i know, a some level, that what has been said is true. That which i know to be false--for example your defamation of St Pau--usually elicits little more than a sigh.

Should i have bluntly told you the Scriptural view regarding the issues you raised--i honestly don't know. But i am assured, after re-reading what i previously wrote, that i correctly purveyed the Biblical view regarding that which you are so gallantly defending. The fact that you characterize God's chosen vessel, Paul, as "a very disturbed fellow" does not negate the fact that he was appointed by God to speak God's Truths to those willing to listen, and he discharged his assignment admirably, giving his very life doing so. As a result of my critical thinking and where it has led me, i will continue to take Paul at His Word.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[manicfaith]

Well, I just got through reading all fourteen pages of this thread. It is almost 1 am, but I couldn't help it. This is definitely one of the most entertaining threads I've found so far. At one point, I was laughing so hard my husband had to ask me what was going on.
To the Gentleman Atheist....may I ask a question? How old are you? Just curious, so if you would rather not answer, no problem.
Another question: Is the way you portray yourself here true to life, or is it a caricature? Again, just curious.

Thanks so much to everyone, especially for the laughs, but it's also been edifying. Ephraim, you may come across as brusque sometimes, but I think you're pretty great in spite of that or maybe because of it! I will definitely be looking up more of the threads you post on.

Okay, now I need to sleep...good night to you all, you wonderfully strange and interesting characters!

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

Greetings, Perry.

I was given a book called “New Evidence that demands a Verdict” lengthy but very well documented I struck out to challenge this book but came away somewhat frustrated because of the solid arguments it presented. Next came a web site called “Reasons to believe” Dr. Ham made a very big impression on me.

I have been recommended this book, "The new evidence," in other threads in this forum. I have also been warned against its pedestrian shortcomings by other christian posters, but I think that I may read it anyway, despite their caveats. If it truly forms a central basis of your creed, then it would be worth my time to investigate.
Who is this Dr. Ham that you mention? Are you able to provide a link to his site? (Maybe this against the forum's rules – but if you mention his full name, then I will have my librarian look him up.

However I could still present reasonable arguments, or at least to me they seemed reasonable. How do we derive life from a non living source, it just doesn’t happen. To me DNA cried out intelligent design, and I found it very hard to argue with that. Finally came what is referred to as “Near-Death experiences”…

Hmm… it doesn't sound as if you have researched these things very well.

The final was watching people die; I know it sounds gruesome but very much a fact of life. The peace seen in Christian deaths was very apparent to me.

I am most curious to understand what you might think of other, non-christian deaths which have been equally as peaceful. I think of my very atheist Aunt Edna, who gave the world so much, and told me personally, on her death bed that she felt absolute peace. She called her life, "an accomplishment of intellectual love." What a great lady she was! My uncle Aleister also said that he had, "no regrets at all," and felt that his atheist life had saved himself and others a great deal of pain and frustration. These two people were central to my education, and I feel that my philosophy owes to them a great deal.

Once I came to the conclusion there is a God or creator if you will I began studying other religions and come to the conclusion the only one that made sense to me was Christianity. You see with all that is written in the Bible to me it came down to Gods will for us is to love him with all our hearts, and to love others as ourselves and I have a very difficult time finding fault with that idea.

It sounds to me that if you had been born into a jewish family, you likely would have become a banker. Above, you say that your early experiences were informed by one creed, which you initially rejected, but had a "nagging emptiness that left you wondering". I can almost guarantee that you were not wondering if the islamists might be correct. Have you thought why perhaps these people (the islamists, as one example) have found so little value in your religion, but have chosen to throw their hearts into another creed? It is this thing that I do not understand about christians. What has validated this thing for you?

I do thank you for your post. I find it informative, but I do hope that you may expound upon the areas of interest that I mention above.

Sincerely,

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

However, it seems to me that my tact is the issue in question, not my ability to think critically.

Your lack of tact, is certainly a problem; however, I do not understand how you might think that to, "think critically," might involve making blanket assumptions about a person using data that you do not have. What a truly appalling lack of intellectual honesty.

Tell me, Ephraim, why should I even discuss any matter with you? What do you bring to the table that can be respected and considered without overlooking the profound shortcomings of its base crudities?

The Gentleman Atheist