User Profile: copo24


Member Since: April 20, 2013


  • [6] July 23, 2014 at 1:43pm

    Well, I guess that really sucks for the people who lived before the introduction of chapters and verses (the majority of Christian and Jewish history).

  • April 25, 2014 at 4:42pm

    Having the Ten Commandments up at a court house because they are historically significant because Jewish law had an impact on Canon law which combined with Roman law had an impact on modern law (both civil and common) and because they have cultural significance is one thing. Having a sign which tells someone to go to church, regardless of how good the message is, is another.

  • April 25, 2014 at 4:37pm

    A individual freely acting in his own capacity as an individual can express his faith on public property. An agent of the state or in this case a sign of the state cannot because in that capacity they are speaking for the state, which cannot endorse a particular religion (as per the First Amendment).

  • April 25, 2014 at 4:35pm

    I agree with the message and I wouldn’t be offended if it said “Its Ramadan, fast” or “Its the Sabbath, go to the synagogue”, but there’s this thing in the Constitution (the law of the land) called the first amendment which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, and a public school sign is essentially an agent of the state (though not as the term is usually used, to mean an employee of the state). Technically according to the letter of the law this is not a violation because this school is not Congress, but “the letter of the law” is not a legitimate approach for jurists. Interpreters of the law are to look to the framers of that law, and this is what one framer, Thomas Jefferson, said of this: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”. While some justices have taken this too far so as to outlaw public expression of faith, the principle that the state cannot endorse a Faith is held by all justices, from Sonia Sotomayor to Antonin Scalia.

  • March 14, 2014 at 11:43pm

    @Seek4Truth No, I do not. You apparently do not understand the difference between worshiping an idol and having a picture which conveys a message.

  • March 14, 2014 at 2:44pm

    If it is then it is apparently very very poor propaganda because that pastor is literally the only person who got the message. I haven’t seen it, but I don’t imagine that its “homosexual propaganda”. From what I’ve heard that’s about as much of a stretch as claiming that the Second Amendment only allows the military to have firearms.

  • March 13, 2014 at 5:01pm


    In your previous post you said that “FYI icon and idol are synonymous.” Apparently this is not the case, because as you even admit now God commanded statues of cherubim be put on the Ark.

    “I picked the Ark as my avatar because it represents the one thing that I know is true, the Covenant the Yahweh made with Israel that he has extended to all man kind by the blood of Messiah Yahshua, whereby we are grafted to the tree of Israel.”

    And we have icons of Christ because they depict the savior of the world.

    How is the Bible, according to your definition, not an idol. After all, its just a string of tens of thousands of simple images. So it MUST be an idol! Well, no. Those simple images are letters, and together letters form words. A string of words then forms a sentence or an idea, and transmits truth. The same is true of icons. The only difference between an icon of the Crucifixion and the Biblical Account is that the icon is much more complex and that everyone can “read” the icon, while not everyone can read the Biblical account. This is why icons were so important in the early Church. Before the modern era literacy was not high, and so biblical stories had to be told to people through means other than written word.

  • March 10, 2014 at 5:42pm

    @seek4truth interesting that someone with the ark of the covenant as their avatar thinks that all images are idols “And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.” Exodus 25:18-20. God instructing the Israelites to build statues of Cherubim.

  • February 24, 2014 at 10:16pm

    That fact of the matter is that computers will never perceive as we do or have life as we do. Even if they become self replicating and have artificial intelligence which emulates that of a human it will never be alive like we are. Computers will also never have the transcendent sub-creative power that humans have, and their reason will only go so far as our reason. They will be able to simulate much more quickly than we can, but they will never spawn genuinely new ideas on their own.

  • February 17, 2014 at 3:16pm

    To be fair the Roman Inquisition was too. Some in the Inquisition originally wanted to suppress his writings (because they were close with Galileo’s contemporaries who disagreed with him), and Cardinal Bellarmine eventually stopped that ensuring that the Copernican theory could be freely talked about. Galileo then insulted the Pope (who liked Galileo) and everything sort of went down the poop shoot. The story of Galileo isn’t a story of science vs religion but rather of stubborn people getting mad at each other for no legitimate reason.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 15, 2014 at 5:13pm

    “I guess, it is like anywhere else…. a bit of all…. some choose to just sit in the pew and listen, some study it for themselves… we should all be like the Bereans and study the answers from the Bible for ourselves..”

    “We also have a more sure word of prophecy…knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:19-21

    The Bible doesn’t say “study the Bible (which didn’t exist until 4 centuries after the Book of Revelation was completed, and which was compiled by the Catholic Church) on your own”, it says that “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15. In the Acts of the Apostles the Apostles do not say regarding circumcision “let everyone have their own personal interpretation”, they call an ecumenical council and make further define Orthodoxy.

  • February 15, 2014 at 5:05pm

    “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt 16:18

    This was originally spoken in Aramaic, and we know from Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5, I Cor. 15:5, and the Syriac Pesshita that this was originally rendered as “You are Rock (Kepha), and upon this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church”. The scripture cannot be any more explicit and clear.

  • February 14, 2014 at 12:50pm

    1. “Peter was not the first Pope”
    Matthew 16:18 says otherwise.
    2. “Peter was a Jew”
    By extension so is the Catholic Church.
    3. “Peter was never in Rome”
    Roman records, the Didache, the Letter of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians, other early church documents, and Peter’s corpse say otherwise.

  • January 25, 2014 at 8:27pm

    It should also be readily apparent that I do not deny God, given that I posted a link to a website called Catholic Education.

  • January 25, 2014 at 8:18pm

    1. It is a theological theory rooted in ideas held by some Church fathers, not dogma.
    2. I didn’t say anything about the tablet itself.
    3. I do not deny God, nor do I deny scripture. I do not hold dogmatically, though, to a particular interpretation which is not dogma.

  • January 25, 2014 at 3:42pm

    That’s the point. The Bible sanctifies pagan myths, and changes elements of them to show a contrast between God and the pagan deities of pagan mythology.

  • January 25, 2014 at 3:40pm

    Look up Tolkien’s theory of the Sanctifying Myth (It’s not his theory, as much as it is his codification of an age old theological idea). The Book of Genesis contains the myths of other cultures, but with changes that sanctify them and which show a stark contrast between Yahweh and the pagan deities. For instance, compare the Bible’s great flood story to the great flood story of Greek Mythology (which was very likely rooted in earlier myths like this). In the Greek Story Zeus vows to wipe out mankind due to overpopulation, creating the sense that somehow mankind is bad and must be destroyed. Some resourceful humans survived by building a raft, and Zeus allowed them to survive. In the Bible Yahweh starts the flood in order to purify mankind, and commands Noah to build an ark so that mankind may survive. The point of the story in the Bible is that God is merciful (unlike the pagan deities), and does not want to wipe out mankind but rather wants to sanctify us.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 25, 2014 at 3:34pm

    Further proof of Tolkien’s sanctifying myth theory regarding the literary origins of the Old Testament.

  • January 24, 2014 at 3:55pm

    Its sort of symbolic when the communion element under the species of wine is called the blood and that under the species of bread is called the body. The substances of body and blood both exist under each species (hence why receiving only one element still constitutes receiving the Blessed Sacrament.)

  • January 20, 2014 at 8:46pm

    “Any self-proclaimed Christian that dismisses Israel for another nation is an Orthodox Christian who accepts the faith passed down from the Apostles which has been faithfully preserved for 2000 years by Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

    Fixed it for you