celticlord said:
The etymology of a word is the history of that word. It is the evolution of that word.
Originally Posted by justone said:
Laila called it The belief . I called it the concept. Neither belief nor Concept are a word. When instead of addressing concept you address the word, that clearly proves that you are spinning into an intellectual dishonesty. You are not even wrong, you are intellectualy dishonesty. Concept is not a word, instead of addressing concept you address the word, which proves that you are spinning into an intellectual dishonesty. Picking a source – like dictionary, - which has to be void of historical details and perspective, because it is not the task of dictionary to provide historical details or perspective clearly demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. But please – pay attention to the bolded red. From Latin
Online Etymology Dictionary secular
c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state," from O.Fr. seculer, from L.L. sæcularis "worldly, secular,"
Exactly as I was stating, but with no historical perspective.
celticlord said:
The Torah was written in Ancient Hebrew. The New Testament was written first in Greek then translated to Latin--which language, by the way, predates the birth of Jesus of Nazareth by at least 500 years.
Originally Posted by justone said:
But please – pay attention to the bolded red. From Latin. The church teachings were written in Latin, then each language has translated them.
Bolded red is your own. You own it, not me.
Please point me to Greek in the etymology of the discussed concept or even the word secular.
Online Etymology Dictionary
‘’The church teachings’’ does not mean NT both in the text and in the context.
celticlord said:
Secular distinguishes temporal from ecclesiastical. It is not intrinsic to any church, any creed, nor any system of belief. Religious authorities are ecclesiastical, political authorities are secular--regardless of the religion.
Originally Posted by justone said:
Secular is Svetsky in Russian (translated from both Greek and Latin in the same way) , Anglo-French seculer Welsh hoedl - it is in the same way referring to activities outside the Church, activities which are not regulated by the Bible, are not belonging to the affairs of the Church, which are not spiritual, which are worldly
Online Etymology Dictionary secular, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," from L.L. sæcularis "worldly, secular,".
We are talking not about is, but about origination of the concept of secularity separating the Church from the King or from the Congress or from another worldly entity.
The word is traced to 1290, coming from Latin - approximately at the same time it came to use into Russian from Greek. Approximately at the same time we can trace or have evidence of Christian theological texts, both in Latin and Greek, because there are very few preserved texts written before that period. In all 4 languages it is used for separation of the Church and worldly businesses. The necessity of such a separation lays in the NT. The history of Christianity records the struggle with understanding of the concept of the separation of the Church and the state, it records enacting of the concept in Magna Carte. I gave reference to More as an example of Christians laying lives for the separation. It is all documented. The concept of secularity was born within Christianity, the word secular as worldly and not belonging to the Church regulations came from Christian writings, the concept was developed by Christian who fought for the separation, it was enacted in a legal document (Magna Carte) by efforts of the Christian church, it came to the 1st Amendment written by Christians, - while - at the same time - no other religion or system of beliefs thought about it or fought for it or was putting it in legal documents.
No other system of beliefs can provide such a documentation, moreover both teaching and practice of Islam and teachings and practice of atheism have been calling for unification of the state and religion. You wouldn’t find an atheist fighting for separation of atheism and the state. Turkey had to loose 2 million people before the founding father of the modern Turkey Mustafa Kemal went into the fight, and he was an exclusion from the Muslim order. Obama betrayed him too.
Atheists always point about the danger of a theocratic Christian state. Why do they do that? Because they wouldn’t be able to point to existence of any theocratic Christian state in reality, but everyone can point to existence of theocratic atheistic states and theocratic Muslim states. Atheists pretend to be fighting against Christian theocracy (unification of the state and the Christian Church) when we have no example of Christian theocracy in reality. Thus it is clear that in reality atheists fight for establishing another atheistic theocracy (unification of the state and atheism) and we have an abundant amount of examples of atheistic theocracy (unification of the state and atheism) existing in reality.
These are facts, this is the reality. And your posts, as well as posts of other atheists prove again and again that facts, reality and minimal rational are absolutely foreign to your beliefs and actions. No facts, no reality will make a dent in beliefs of atheists, - because such beliefs are not based on facts, reality or rational.
celticlord said:
Paul did address government. Romans 13:1-7.
Originally Posted by justone said:
4. Paul did not ever mentioned organization of a state or government, nor he demanded to follow Christianity while using toilet seats or writing a car driver’s manual.
The key word – organization, making.
Understanding Romans 13:1-7
All you post now is nothing more than going into circles with a bunch of strawmen, you misrepresent and twist my words and all I have to do is repost my original wards to show how you twist and misrepresent them. It is a typical tactic of atheists and they will never get exhausted in their avoidance of reality, because atheism itself is avoidance of reality.
celticlord said:
You brought it up, not me:
Originally Posted by celticlord said:
I need read no more than the Sermon on the Mount to marvel at the impiety of your intolerance and narrowmindness. (That whole bit about "blessed are the meek....") .
celticlord said:
I am also not a Christian. .
I never suggested you were. Your posts demonstrate that you obviously lack required rational and intellectual honesty.
celticlord said:
I am, however, in most regards, a tolerant man, and will countenance a great many things. I do not countenance hatred; .
I wouldn’t figure out either you are tolerant or you do not countenance… Your words are irrational. Your certainly do not countenance facts, reality and rational that do not fit your blind beliefs. It is typical for atheists.
celticlord said:
your words reek of hatred. I reject your words; I oppose them, and I oppose you. That is the order of things.
I am quoting these words of yours as another proof that your words reek hatred, and a very blind hatred.
Where atheists can see hatred in the quote you are replying to:
Originally Posted by justone said:
Using the Sermon to insult an opponent in a debate is quite a perversion, the same perversion as when you find yourself meek while addressing me with ‘’impiety of your intolerance and narrowmindness’’; there is no meekness is in your words, but a demonstration of a reality comprehension problem. If you wish to be blessed as a meek you don’t start from throwing insults or what you think are insults. I am intolerant, JC was intolerant, too; it is not like he said ‘’blessed be the murderers, thieves and child molesters’’.
I wouldn’t know. Where do you see hatred in these quote?
What words quoted by you do you oppose and why? - I wouldn’t know and you wouldn’t say, - because you hatred have no rational behind it.
celticlord said:
My message: Hatred is wrong; you are wrong. Set aside your hatred, then we may all rejoice.
I prefer the message of JS. Your message is not connected to any reality and thus it is completely irrational, I am not even mentioning how grim it is.
Who did bring the Sermon into discussion without any merits to do so but just with an intent of a personal attack? Who is now withdrawing the Sermon and substituting it with his own message without any merits to do so but only with the intent of a personal attack?
Atheists do such spins all the time. You did.
