http://pctii.org/cyberj/WARC.html

I suggest a basic perusal of the article. I would cite it, but I'm unsure of which part of the 23 pages (printed Microsoft 10-pt) and 97 or so points of resolution to cite.

I find it ironic, in a way, that we at Exosci hammer on basic issues of faith daily, while the "official" members of various of the institutions we criticize can do no better.

Anyway, I was wondering about ... okay, here's a part to cite. From point #3 of the report:

The committee noted that inmany places around the world, members of the Pentecostal and Reformed communities are uncomfortable with one another. Sometimes they are openly antagonistic toward one another .... The committee was concerned that there was no identifiable, formal way for these communities to relate to each other. These facts seemed to indicate that conversation between the various parties involved was not only advisable; it was essential.

We hear a lot about what it takes to be a Christian; simple belief or practice? quality of life versus demonstrations of faith? ad nauseam.

This report almost strikes on an aspect of a point I consider vital when considering religious faith. From point #93 of the report:

Reformed churches acknowledge that all Christians, as stewards of the rich gifts of God, are called to act in responsible faith toward all creation. Therefore, we are called to proclaim, both in word and deed, the will of God concerning more personal and social injustices, economic exploitation, and ecological destruction. Moreover, Reformed churches affirm that the Holy Spirit guides the faithful to work for both personal and structural transformation of society, thus participating in the ongoing process and realization of the prayer for the coming of the Kingdom of God.

And these aspects are there at my first perusal; I need to spend some time with this article, but my first impression is that anyone who believes Christian faith to be easy, obvious, definitive, or universally accessible should read the Hell out of this report.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

One thing is to declare identity, another is to acknowledge. The former involves an act of deliberate (and at least in principle optional) self-segregation. The latter merely states a fact concerning something that may not be deliberate or even arbitrary. For example, it's one thing to declare oneself to be Christian; it's another thing to declare oneself as a human male.

In a sense, we are all part of some herd at any time in our lives -- even if no other herd than the biosphere of our planet. Simply belonging to a herd does not demean an individual or indeed subtract from individuality. However, the individual is trampled and destroyed when the herd unites under a common cause. Perhaps the proper derogatory term is not the herd, but the mob. The trick for herd animals such as ourselves, is not to be swept up in the mob mentality even while being encircled by it. Ultimately, an individual is saved by independence -- if not physical then at least intellectual, and if not complete then at least attempted.

I'm going to read the article now...

The only issue I'll pick with your assessment of it is that I would qualify herd under sarcasm; to be honest, what I had in mind with the idea of being an individual because you're part of the herd has to do with reflections on the state of advertising in the US a few years back. Express your individuality by wearing the same clothes as everyone else (Levi's); express your individuality by watching the same television programs as everyone else (MTV). That sort of thing. I see it all the time in religions, where someone claims to be an individual and then reinforces their individuality with uncreative recitations of canned philosophy that essentially embody the ideas mentioned in Emerald's Definition of a Cult post. The poll, I admit, is much more sarcastic than the thread.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Boris
Ultimately, an individual is saved by independence -- if not physical then at least intellectual, and if not complete then at least attempted.

In essence, a drowning man is saved by independence from the herd of swimmers, or if not that, by independence from the herd of people attempting to assist him?

Drolleries aside, what, exactly, would such an independent individual be saved to?

After all, a drowning man may wish to be saved from death by drowning, but few would elect to be saved from drowning only to knowingly perish by fire, for example.
A drowning person would ordinarily wish to be saved to dry land.

It is one thing for intelligent people, such as yourself, to identify a need, or desire, to be saved from Christianity, but what would you be saved to?

It is one thing for intelligent people, such as yourself, to identify a need, or desire, to be saved from Christianity, but what would you be saved to?

Aside from being saved from religious people, there is no saving needed. The condition of threat then doesn't arise, and hence one needs no salvation. It isn't the idea of being saved "to" something; that's just an old rhetorical excuse by which Christians look forward to future glories instead of work out the immediate difficulties.

To be saved from Christianity means to be allowed to participate in the human race while considering what is best for the individual in that context--the context of being part of the human race.

To be saved from Islam would probably mean to extract a thinker from a jihad-like environment.

To be saved to something, though ... perhaps to life.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
To be saved to something, though ... perhaps to life.

This stuff isn't rocket science.

You are going to die.
How will you live?

A drowning man doesn't want to be saved to start a new religion, or maintain an old religion, or to prove a point.
He wants to be saved to life.

He wants to be saved to life.
I definitely do not need a Bible to figure this out.

But it only begs the question. Why, then, should a person numb oneself completely in theistic assumption? Why should a person be satisfied with an incomplete view of the Universe around them?

There are so many things in the Universe to learn, and only a mere human lifetime to do it. And yes, some of those things happen to overlap conceptual territory already marked off-limits by a number of religions. It seems to me that if one is going to declare something to be definitive in the Universe, that something ought to make sense. For the most part, religions don't. There is only one true statement that I know of concerning God, and it is generally of no help in practical matters.

So why would someone become born again to live within the constraints of a universe in which so much is assumed? Why limit reality to a book you can get out of a motel nightstand?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
I definitely do not need a Bible to figure this out.
I'm glad something is obvious.
What you might need a Bible for, is how to actually accomplish that.

But it only begs the question.
Wanting to live is begging the question?
Perhaps I've seriously underestimated the nihilism of your philosophy.

Why, then, should a person numb oneself completely in theistic assumption?
No reason to numb.

Why should a person be satisfied with an incomplete view of the Universe around them?
Why indeed?
I simply could no longer put up with an incomplete view of the universe myself.

There are so many things in the Universe to learn, and only a mere human lifetime to do it.
See, there you go, putting your finger on the one thing that limits you.

And yes, some of those things happen to overlap conceptual territory already marked off-limits by a number of religions.
You said yourself that one lifetime is all you have.
A number of other people have also realized this.
God knows it, too.

If one lifetime is all you have, why head off in directions known to shorten that one life?

It seems to me that if one is going to declare something to be definitive in the Universe, that something ought to make sense.
Why?
Living forever doesn't make sense given the current state of affairs, but it beats the alternative, dying, which also makes no sense.

Thus you get to choose between two things that make no sense.

So why would someone become born again to live within the constraints of a universe in which so much is assumed?
Perhaps you've been listening to people who don't understand what born again means.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
(John 3:5-7, KJV).

The same Devil whose been trying to cheat you all your life is also trying to cheat you out of eternal life.
He's actually got you, along with a bunch of others, convinced that "born again" is something that happens with no discernible outward change.
I think both you and I, and anyone else who speaks English, can see that "born again" is a relatively unusual claim.
Being that unusual means that something unusual should accompany such a new birth.

Well, sure enough, the Bible describes that new birth...

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
(John 3:8, KJV).

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
(Colossians 1:18, KJV).

Of course, at the time of his resurrection, Jesus was flesh...

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
(Luke 24:39, KJV).

But the difference comes later...

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
(1 Corinthians 15:50-54, KJV).

That doesn't sound like the limiting thing you've been trying to tell me it is.

Why limit reality to a book you can get out of a motel nightstand?
If that's all there were to it, I wouldn't bother.

As a matter of fact, read the posts on this entire site.
Practically every single one of them is written by a person who believes in living forever, one way or another, maybe not personally, but in some extended way.

Look at the entire mind-uploading concept, how to live forever using computer technology.

The Bible is the ultimate handbook on mind uploading, done right, with no power supply problems, guaranteed to last forever.

What you might need a Bible for, is how to actually accomplish that.

No, I think I'm pretty well programmed, genetically, to handle that without the Bible. Breathing is only difficult if I make it so, and my heart seems to get the gist of the whole thing.

Wanting to live is begging the question?

No ... if a man wants to be saved to life, why should he turn around and deprive himself of so much of it by assuming the contents of one book to be true? The Bible's all well and fine, but its demand of exclusivity is a little ludicrous. That's why Sufism intrigues me; if a dog has its place in The Way, then why not an atheist? Or a Buddhist? Or just anyone or anything in general? It seems to me that Sufism takes the position that God created this person or dog or tree or whatnot for reasons only God can figure out. Thus, all the Sufi can do for that person (&c.) is what God wants that Sufi to do for that person. If it happens to include actively promoting The Way, so be it.

But within the Bible is the groundwork for a myriad of sects of a religion which does its utmost to limit the scope of the Universe. If it was up to the religious, the Earth would still be flat and at the bright center of the Universe. Thankfully, some decided that such a seemingly nonsensical vision of the Universe was unsatisfactory.

Admittedly, the bit about the world being round was largely about money, but we eventually figured it out, eh?

No reason to numb.

If you stop perceiving or sensing an issue because it is already settled, as says God ....

I simply could no longer put up with an incomplete view of the universe myself.

So isn't reducing the Universe to a single book rather the expedient method of dealing with that part of the human condition?

See, there you go, putting your finger on the one thing that limits you.

Yeah, but you quoted the wrong part of my post. Religion is what limits a person. Christianity happens to be an especially demonstrative example.

God knows it, too.

Well, you'd hope so, wouldn't you, if God made it that way to begin with. You seem to have a knack for stating the obvious, even within your own frame.

If one lifetime is all you have, why head off in directions known to shorten that one life?

Ah, the possible answers ...

In the case of nicotine, there's at least a small amount of idiocy there. Caffeine the same. But bacon's good, man. People on cocaine are like people on nicotine, only more dangerous to themselves. People on heroin are usually already dead. Mountain-biking, I imagine, is fun. Ski-jumping is definitely fun. So is driving fast. And do I need to mention that sex, as potentially lethal as Reagan's America made it?

What I absolutely cannot figure out is what, aside from childhood conditioning and emotional blackmail, would compel someone to obey a religion that reduces life to conceptual pabulum and reinforces processes which make life on the whole unnecessarily difficult.

Living forever doesn't make sense given the current state of affairs, but it beats the alternative, dying, which also makes no sense.

Living forever has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, dying makes quite a bit of sense. Doesn't mean I like the idea, but to say that death makes no sense is to slander it.

The same Devil whose been trying to cheat you all your life is also trying to cheat you out of eternal life.
He's actually got you, along with a bunch of others, convinced that "born again" is something that happens with no discernible outward change.
I think both you and I, and anyone else who speaks English, can see that "born again" is a relatively unusual claim.
Being that unusual means that something unusual should accompany such a new birth.

There is nothing there that is not an assumption. Well, ok ... the fact that truly born-again Christians are far and few between. But that doesn't surprise me. Christians are few and far between. Oh, that's right, it's about the name Jesus. I forgot that you had cleared that up already.

That doesn't sound like the limiting thing you've been trying to tell me it is.

Don't look at me. I'm not the one who forfeits, by choice of religion, the right to select different sexual partners, or (in some cases) drink caffeine. I'm not the one who separates the human race from the animal kingdom. I'm not the one who thinks humanity is the center of God's concern. I'm not the one who has accepted folklore as an answer to the question, Why are we here? It might be terribly comforting to not have to think about these things, but some of us think that's what life is for. I exist in the Universe for a reason. I might as well perceive as much of it as my human condition directs me to. In other words, my Universe stops with my appetite to know it.

The only reason to live to the end of time is to see the credits roll. I mean, to know the whole lifetime of the Universe would be cool. But only if I had to put up with it the whole time.

As a matter of fact, read the posts on this entire site.

I'm quite familiar with the posts on this site.

Look at the entire mind-uploading concept, how to live forever using computer technology.

Yeah, so how does God feel about that?

The Bible is the ultimate handbook on mind uploading, done right, with no power supply problems, guaranteed to last forever.

Okay, Tony ... hand over the drugs.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
No, I think I'm pretty well programmed, genetically, to handle that without the Bible. Breathing is only difficult if I make it so, and my heart seems to get the gist of the whole thing.
Of course, when all of that stops, I guess you're genetically programmed to rot?

No ... if a man wants to be saved to life, why should he turn around...
Well, if you're on the wrong Way, and you want to remain on it, you won't need to turn around.
OTOH, if you want to live, then turning to God is the only way to do it.

But within the Bible is the groundwork for a myriad of sects of a religion which does its utmost to limit the scope of the Universe. If it was up to the religious, the Earth would still be flat

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
(Isaiah 40:22, KJV).

02329 chuwg {khoog}
from 02328; TWOT - 615a; n m
AV - circle 1, circuit 1, compass 1; 3
1) circle, circuit, compass

02328 chuwg {khoog}
a primitive root [compare 02287]; TWOT - 615; v
AV - compassed 1; 1
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle

Looks like round to me.

and at the bright center of the Universe. Thankfully, some decided that such a seemingly nonsensical vision of the Universe was unsatisfactory.
To replace it with the completely stupid nonsense of claiming to know where the center of the Universe is or isn't, without knowing where the edges are, is even worse.

Yeah, but you quoted the wrong part of my post. Religion is what limits a person. Christianity happens to be an especially demonstrative example.
I think I quoted the right part of your post.
Sufism might be a way if you had forever, but you don't.

In the case of nicotine, there's at least a small amount of idiocy there. Caffeine the same. But bacon's good, man. People on cocaine are like people on nicotine, only more dangerous to themselves. People on heroin are usually already dead. Mountain-biking, I imagine, is fun. Ski-jumping is definitely fun. So is driving fast. And do I need to mention that sex, as potentially lethal as Reagan's America made it?
Of course, I was talking about shortening it from infinity to a few years.

Living forever has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, dying makes quite a bit of sense. Doesn't mean I like the idea, but to say that death makes no sense is to slander it.
Well, what's the point of living in the first place, if you die anyway?

There is nothing there that is not an assumption. Well, ok ... the fact that truly born-again Christians are far and few between.
Really few and far between.
There is only one so far, Jesus.

In other words, my Universe stops with my appetite to know it.
Of course, that appetite stops along with your heart.

Yeah, so how does God feel about that?
He'll laugh.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:1-4, KJV).

See how everything you've addressed is in there.
"Vain thing" as in "no God" or proof thereof.
"Let us break their bands asunder" as in the restrictive thing you've mentioned.
And of course, the derision. Mind you, you only brought that up by way of question.

Okay, Tony ... hand over the drugs.

Hey man, I was sure you had 'em.

Of course, when all of that stops, I guess you're genetically programmed to rot?
No. I won't "rot". Specifically, I will be consumed by a diverse host of organisms. Or else thrown in a fire pit and reduced to ashes for expedience and cost considerations. My genetics have little to do with the genetics which compel bacteria, fungi, or worms to devour my corpse.

Well, if you're on the wrong Way, and you want to remain on it, you won't need to turn around.
OTOH, if you want to live, then turning to God is the only way to do it.

Again, I seem to be living just fine without God. I'm breathing. My heart is beating. Some would say my brain is even working too hard but I have yet to meet the MD who can prove it. There's a good many people who don't have God, and a greater number who don't have your God specifically, who are all carrying on just fine with their breathing and circulation and excretion and thinking and so forth. I don't see the necessity of adding a mythological burden to all of that just so I can thank that burden for making the burden possible.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
(Isaiah 40:22, KJV).

02329 chuwg {khoog}
from 02328; TWOT - 615a; n m
AV - circle 1, circuit 1, compass 1; 3
1) circle, circuit, compass

02328 chuwg {khoog}
a primitive root [compare 02287]; TWOT - 615; v
AV - compassed 1; 1
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle

Looks like round to me.

Sure. But you're forgetting that a circle is two-dimensional. Do you have a dime? Put it on the table. Now, go get a tennis ball. Are they the same shape?

To replace it with the completely stupid nonsense of claiming to know where the center of the Universe is or isn't, without knowing where the edges are, is even worse.
Outside of religious concepts, I am unaware of anyone declaring a center to the Universe. I'd love to see the report that does.

I think I quoted the right part of your post.
Sufism might be a way if you had forever, but you don't.

You seem to think a natural process of the Universe is more limiting than a contrived myth designed to restrict a person's experiences among natural processes.

Specifically, what was wrong with your citation is your obsession with death. Everything dies, there's no two ways about that. But you seem to be compensating for your fears quite nicely with delusions and denial.

Of course, I was talking about shortening it from infinity to a few years.

Nothing lives forever. Sure, the energy of my mass might remain somewhat cohesive for a time, but it will eventually become part of the order of the Universe. In the sense that the process that became me will always exist in the Universe, sure, I can live forever. But it's a tenuous metaphor that has no real value outside its ability to assuage hidden fears without ever exploring the root of those fears.

Well, what's the point of living in the first place, if you die anyway?

Many religions and philosophies have tried to answer that question, largely to no avail. This is why some people choose to veil themselves in religious myth; they get the false confidence of feeling that the answer is known, while reality tells us otherwise.

There is only one so far, Jesus.

I'll even agree with you here, insofar as I can say, "I think I know what you're getting after." I mean, the only minute issue I would pick is that Jesus was not "born again". If the myth is to be believed, he didn't have to be, because God got it right at birth. Of course, if God had gotten it right in Eden, we might have avoided some of this mess.

He'll laugh.

Perhaps. But your Bible quote sounds like God's blowing smoke. After all, it freaked him out when humans threatened to become his equal. After all, the Tree of Life was all that was needed to accomplish that. But you've read Genesis, so I'm sure you're aware of that.

See how everything you've addressed is in there.
"Vain thing" as in "no God" or proof thereof.
"Let us break their bands asunder" as in the restrictive thing you've mentioned.
And of course, the derision. Mind you, you only brought that up by way of question.

You're getting desperate.

When I think of vain things as related to God, I tend to think of people who, like you, seem fairly confident in the fact of their salvation.

Beside that ... your citation sounds like a political speech. Read the Apostolic Fathers and other early material from the church. And read the history of the times. You'll find that there are specific meanings to certain things in the Bible; the only consequence of these things is that you can't abusively decide what various passages mean.

And since you're quoting the Psalms, can I quote songs, too?

Got a gun, in fact I've got two. But that's okay, man, 'cause I love God. (Pearl Jam)

Can we be tired of you? Is that something that we're allowed to do? When even the blind change their view, it's time to try something new. (Savatage)

So what can I tell you, if life's the length of this play? Perhaps God gave the answers to those with nothing to say. The years are forgiving; God's forgiven in kind. Perhaps we'll all find the answers somewhere in time. (Savatage)

Pray your gods who hold you by your fears; for they are quick and ruthless punishers .... (Toad the Wet Sprocket)

[quote]God is dead, and no one cares! (Nine inch Nails)

There's also Perdurabo's Twenty-first Psalm:

THE BLIND WEBSTER


It is not necessary to understand; it is enough to adore.
The god may be of clay: adore him; he becomes GOD.

We ignore what created us; we adore what we create. Let us create nothing but GOD!

That which causes us to create is our true father and mother; we create in our own image, which is theirs.

Let us create therefore without fear; for we can create nothing that is not GOD.


And one last note:

Hey man, I was sure you had 'em.
I, generally, take great pains to make sure I can operate within a substance-infused environment. However, I have never had so fine of drugs as to cause such fanciful religious hallucinations. Not even that tab of Jesus Christ Superstar.

More to the point, though, something is demostratively impeding your perception. Don't make us stage an intervention; I despise interventions.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Sure. But you're forgetting that a circle is two-dimensional.
Of course, the earth is observed to be circular.
To get a sense of the spherical, one would have observe it from several different directions.
But, isn't that what "encircle" means?

Outside of religious concepts, I am unaware of anyone declaring a center to the Universe. I'd love to see the report that does.
There are the two words "or isn't" in my statement. Anyone who claims that the center of the universe is not the earth has no proof or evidence of any kind at all, either.

Specifically, what was wrong with your citation is your obsession with death. Everything dies, there's no two ways about that. But you seem to be compensating for your fears quite nicely with delusions and denial.
*chuckle*

I mean, the only minute issue I would pick is that Jesus was not "born again".
Once...
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; ...
(John 3:6, KJV).

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
(Matthew 1:18, KJV).

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
(Luke 2:7, KJV).

Twice...
...and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(John 3:6, KJV).

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
(Colossians 1:18, KJV).

Read the Apostolic Fathers and other early material from the church. And read the history of the times. You'll find that there are specific meanings to certain things in the Bible; the only consequence of these things is that you can't abusively decide what various passages mean.
The non-believer's guide to understanding the Bible?

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(2 Peter 1:20, KJV).

No private interpretation means not private to the times, not private to early church material, in other words, no private interpretation.

I, generally, take great pains to make sure I can operate within a substance-infused environment.
Newsflash?

I, generally, take great pains to make sure I can operate within a substance-infused environment.

This is hardly news to anyone in the sense you are attempting to comprehend it. Unfortunately, you've missed. The above statement, quoted from myself, reminds you that, unlike you, I attempt to make sure that I can operate while intoxicated.

Learn to hold your substance.

--Tiassa :cool:

The non-believer's guide to understanding the Bible?

What I don't understand is how it is that so many Christians who, like you, think they're intelligent can possibly fail this basic understanding of what history actually is.

As a written record, I admit it's generally a lie agreed upon. Remind an American that we started the Cold War, and they'll look at you like you have frogs crammed in your ears.

But also, as a written record, history is our only link to what was. The Bible is a piece of history, as well. To discount history does not permit the naysayer to pick and choose a "history" that suits him.

But Tony, how would you, born in the year you were, receive the Word of God if it was merely a dead scroll in a cave or a museum?

That is, without the church that murdered its way ruthlessly into the twentieth century, how would anyone have been able to teach you the Gospel?

This is why history is important. If Christianity endured a period in which it considered its heinous history and attempted to determine what mistakes can be avoided in the future, it would be taking a great step toward actually living up to itself. Certes it's not pleasant to think of the rape and torture and murder of thousands in the name of God; certes it chills the blood to think of these Inquisitors filled with a genuine feeling of righteousness.

In terms of the "non-believer's guide", you don't find it interesting to see how people came together to form the church which delivered the Gospel to your generation? That without the efforts of the people described in these letters, your precious Gospel may have disappeared beneath the trampling hordes of savages? We have some very old religious documents in our human heritage; it does not mean anyone still practices the religion. How would your Bible look all scrolled up on a shelf in a glass case alongside a bio that can be contained in 10-pitch Elite on a 3x5 index card? A memory ... described by the tyrants du jour as another failed philosophy that could not live up to its promises? What do you think the Crusades were about?

Your apparent distaste for the heritage you have chosen belies your confidence in salvation, and does little to warm the hearts of outsiders who wonder when the Christians will cease to deny their own countenances.

You ought to give your heritage at least the mildest perusal. It can be shocking and disconcerting at times. But if you take it with an open mind, it's a hell of a read.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
What I don't understand is how it is that so many Christians who, like you, think they're intelligent can possibly fail this basic understanding of what history actually is.
Who says I think I am intelligent?

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
(1 Corinthians 1:27, KJV).

But Tony, how would you, born in the year you were, receive the Word of God if it was merely a dead scroll in a cave or a museum?
Now you're onto something.
I wouldn't receive a dead scroll in a cave.
The Word of God is alive.

That is, without the church that murdered its way ruthlessly into the twentieth century, how would anyone have been able to teach you the Gospel?
Are you referring to the Catholic church?

I am not sure that the line of truth necessarily goes through the Catholic church, if that is the church you are referring to.

This is why history is important. If Christianity endured a period in which it considered its heinous history and attempted to determine what mistakes can be avoided in the future, it would be taking a great step toward actually living up to itself. Certes it's not pleasant to think of the rape and torture and murder of thousands in the name of God; certes it chills the blood to think of these Inquisitors filled with a genuine feeling of righteousness.
Again, you may define Christianity as including the Catholic church. I'm sure they do, too.
That may not necessarily be so.

In terms of the "non-believer's guide", you don't find it interesting to see how people came together to form the church which delivered the Gospel to your generation? That without the efforts of the people described in these letters, your precious Gospel may have disappeared beneath the trampling hordes of savages? We have some very old religious documents in our human heritage; it does not mean anyone still practices the religion. How would your Bible look all scrolled up on a shelf in a glass case alongside a bio that can be contained in 10-pitch Elite on a 3x5 index card? A memory ... described by the tyrants du jour as another failed philosophy that could not live up to its promises? What do you think the Crusades were about?

I'm not 100% sure what the Crusades were about, but here is one way that God can get his point across...

And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
(Numbers 22:28, KJV).

Your apparent distaste for the heritage you have chosen belies your confidence in salvation, and does little to warm the hearts of outsiders who wonder when the Christians will cease to deny their own countenances.
Here is my real heritage, as opposed to the heritage of the Catholic church...

Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.
(Psalms 119:111, KJV).

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
(Isaiah 54:17, KJV).

You ought to give your heritage at least the mildest perusal. It can be shocking and disconcerting at times. But if you take it with an open mind, it's a hell of a read.

Again, you may be trying to saddle me with a "heritage," but it isn't the right one.

Who says I think I am intelligent?
I stand corrected. Nobody would make that mistake.

Now you're onto something.
I wouldn't receive a dead scroll in a cave.
The Word of God is alive.
And you're dodging the question. The heritage you don't want is the one that made it possible for the words of the Bible to be recorded within your brain to whatever exent they have.

Are you referring to the Catholic church?

I am not sure that the line of truth necessarily goes through the Catholic church, if that is the church you are referring to.
Tony how hard is it for you to understand that without the history that occurred 'twixt the death of Christ and the day of your birth, the words of Christ would not have reached you? Are you really so numb to that idea? Great. You don't like Catholics. What, did Christianity just randomly spring up somewhere around the 16th century?

What if those Apostolic Fathers had not employed slander and propaganda, and thus had not won Roman favor? What if those early Christians had never grown numerous to withstand Rome? You'd be sweeping the Temple of Saturn with a pine and verbena broom, that's what.

Again, you may define Christianity as including the Catholic church. I'm sure they do, too.
That may not necessarily be so.
Here again we see that it is Tony who decides who is written in the Book of Life. :rolleyes:

I'm not 100% sure what the Crusades were about, but here is one way that God can get his point across...
Because you've never cared to look.

As an American, the one thing that drives me bonkers is our continual saga of mistreating our indigenous tribes. Throughout time, society has made both integration and segregation damn near impossible. And an audit of the Bureau of Indian Affairs run during the Clinton era revealed a decades-old pattern by which the federal government stole somewhere in the neighborhood of a half-trillion dollars from the tribes. What has happened here is disgraceful, and the only way to fix it is to say that we won't repeat the moral failures of history and to try to make that so. If we fail to account for our history, we will repeat its failures.

Why are you afraid of the history of the stewardship of the Word of God? After all, God designed life so that it should be this way.

Here is my real heritage, as opposed to the heritage of the Catholic church...
Denial is actually a psychiatric dysfunction. And my real heritage is Kryptonian.

You sound like an adopted child, in a way, who doesn't like his parents, and waits for his "real" parents to return, and take him to a better life.

Again, you may be trying to saddle me with a "heritage," but it isn't the right one.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Why do you hate what God has made His chosen way?

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Tony how hard is it for you to understand that without the history that occurred 'twixt the death of Christ and the day of your birth, the words of Christ would not have reached you?
How hard is it for you to understand that he promised it would reach me and didn't saddle me with all the crap you're trying to saddle me with.

Here again we see that it is Tony who decides who is written in the Book of Life.
Here we see tiassa unable to read English and know what the words "not necessarily" mean.

Why are you afraid of the history of the stewardship of the Word of God? After all, God designed life so that it should be this way.
Your favorite companions bear far more responsibility in these things than I do.

Denial is actually a psychiatric dysfunction. And my real heritage is Kryptonian.
Thank you for demonstrating with an example from your own life.

Why do you hate what God has made His chosen way?

I'm not Sufi, so I don't hate what God does.

How hard is it for you to understand that he promised it would reach me and didn't saddle me with all the crap you're trying to saddle me with.
Ah, the cliche of the Promise of the Savior. Come on, man ... by the same logic, we shouldn't be so hard on Neo-Nazis or hardline Communists. You seem to be afraid that you're expected to take personal responsibility for the crimes of the past. No, you're not. But you don't seem to care that the violent process that is the human manifestation of your beloved Gospels is the only way that He reached you.

Furthermore, what the hell is your problem with Catholics? It's kind of funny; I can't figure what you're more afraid of ... the Word's history of violence, or Catholics.
Here we see tiassa unable to read English and know what the words "not necessarily" mean.
You've blasted Catholics in an attempt to dodge a simple idea: Imagine that there were no Crusades, Inquisitions, feudalism, ad nauseam. Imagine that the stewards of the Word hadn't made their reputation slandering their Jewish neighbors; indeed, imagine that they hadn't sniveled and whined and denounced Judaism in a play for Roman favor. Imagine that those early Christians thrown to the lions had no movement behind them to wreak vengeance on the world for centuries. Maybe He "could have" chosen a better path for delivery, but "He" didn't. Therefore, it seems that without the atrocities and just bonkers philosophy that drove the church from ancient Rome in to the 20th century, you would have no Gospels of Christ available to you, except perhaps as a relic beside the Rosetta stone and Hammurabi.

God indeed works in mysterious ways; apparently entrusting the stewardship of his Word to people who have ... nothing to do with it?
Why are you afraid of the history of the stewardship of the Word of God? After all, God designed life so that it should be this way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your favorite companions bear far more responsibility in these things than I do.
I'll have to admit that I have no idea which companions these are. Elaborate, please. I'm most interested.
Thank you for demonstrating with an example from your own life.
My pleasure. Anything to help a fellow traveler back toward sanity.
I'm not Sufi, so I don't hate what God does.
That's another one you're going to have to explain. However, you very badly do seem to want to avoid the unpleasantness that God has decided is right and proper. What, are you wiser than the Lord Almighty?

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
But you don't seem to care that the violent process that is the human manifestation of your beloved Gospels is the only way that He reached you.
He didn't reach me the way you say.

Furthermore, what the hell is your problem with Catholics? It's kind of funny; I can't figure what you're more afraid of ... the Word's history of violence, or Catholics.
Neither.
You just seem to be insisting that I believe Catholic doctrines so that you can demolish them.

You've blasted Catholics in an attempt to dodge a simple idea: Imagine that there were no Crusades, Inquisitions, feudalism, ad nauseam. Imagine that the stewards of the Word hadn't made their reputation slandering their Jewish neighbors; indeed, imagine that they hadn't sniveled and whined and denounced Judaism in a play for Roman favor. Imagine that those early Christians thrown to the lions had no movement behind them to wreak vengeance on the world for centuries. Maybe He "could have" chosen a better path for delivery, but "He" didn't. Therefore, it seems that without the atrocities and just bonkers philosophy that drove the church from ancient Rome in to the 20th century, you would have no Gospels of Christ available to you, except perhaps as a relic beside the Rosetta stone and Hammurabi.
There's an unsubstantiated statement if I've ever heard one.
The general argument against Christianity is that unsubstantiated claims are made. At least those claims relate to this universe.
Your claims are in an alternate universe.

I'll have to admit that I have no idea which companions these are. Elaborate, please. I'm most interested.
Hunk-Ra's buddies.
Unless you're Boopsie, in which case Hunk-Ra's one of them.

My pleasure. Anything to help a fellow traveler back toward sanity.
A Kryptonian heritage is an example of sanity?

That's another one you're going to have to explain. However, you very badly do seem to want to avoid the unpleasantness that God has decided is right and proper. What, are you wiser than the Lord Almighty?
No.
I just don't believe in fatalism.

He didn't reach me the way you say.
I'll meet you halfway, Tony ... how did the Gospel of Jesus Christ come to your heart? By what means did God transport this wonderful story across space and time to touch you in the present?

* Start with Jesus himself; and then the whole of the New Testament. Even if we accept the contents of that holy book as 100% accurate historical fact, there arises the question of, What happened next?

* Thus, we reach what you call the non-believers handbook. The Epistles of Clement (of Rome), Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and others; the Didache (Teaching of the 12); the Epistle of Barnabas; the Epistle to Diognetus; and a host of others ... without their calls for the congregations to adhere to ecclesiastical succession and the social authority of the bishops; without the slander of the Jews in lap-dog appeals to Rome; without martyrs before the lions and the flame; without any of that work which delivered the Gospel to the early generations of believers, how would the good news have spread?

* What, also, of the political conventions? The Nicene Creed, the Trinity, and others? How have such compromises of faith and politics affected the development of the ideas people hold in regard to Christ?

* What if Irenaeus had never claimed solely four Gospels based on the four primary winds, the four primary compass points, ad nauseam? How would the heavy traffic of myriad Gospels have affected the formative response of the faithful to the church?

* What if the Roman church never acquired political authority? What if no popes ever dethroned emperors, or tampered with the states?

* What if the Christians had faced opposing ideas with the grace of their savior, instead of torturing and burning thousands?

* When the Pope flipped a coin for the Line of Demarcation, what would the difference be if Portugal had won the west side of the line?

* How different would European relations been with indigenous Americans without something so savage and godly-inspired as the Requerimiento?

Your callous disregard for history speaks much of your imagination. Is it simply that you cannot imagine such a scenario, or that you are afraid to? I will even offer you the cowardly option of feeling you don't need to, since that is the expected answer, anyway.
Neither.
You just seem to be insisting that I believe Catholic doctrines so that you can demolish them.
Nope. I'm just pointing out that Catholics are an important part of the history of Christianity. That you don't want to accept that is hardly my problem. When God asks you to explain what you were thinking, you will have a much better chance of your heart speaking true if you know what you're actually talking about. In the meantime, though, your stubborn hatred of history demonstrates your propensity toward the comfort and authority of faith, rather than faith itself.
There's an unsubstantiated statement if I've ever heard one.
Refer to the questions about history above.
The general argument against Christianity is that unsubstantiated claims are made. At least those claims relate to this universe.
Please elaborate. What (unsubstantiated) claims are you referring to that are so relevant to this Universe, as opposed to your own illusion of salvation?
Your claims are in an alternate universe.
By all means, please do elaborate.
Hunk-Ra's buddies.
Unless you're Boopsie, in which case Hunk-Ra's one of them.
Ah. So as you settle into this part of your machinations, do you have anything substantial to offer? Didn't think so.
A Kryptonian heritage is an example of sanity?
Sure; as long as I remember it comes from a comic book. Though I was hardly a D&D fan in my youth, I quote the X-Files episode "EBE": You don't play Dungeons and Dragons all the time and not learn a little something about courage.

I mean, the last reason I would ever find to believe myself Kryptonian would be because a book tells me so.
I'm not Sufi, so I don't hate what God does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's another one you're going to have to explain. However, you very badly do seem to want to avoid the unpleasantness that God has decided is right and proper. What, are you wiser than the Lord Almighty?

No.
I just don't believe in fatalism.
In other words, you know absolutely nothing about Sufism. Don't disparage ideas and cultures you know nothing about.

I think we covered it. But I'm going to quote a couple of issues from the topic post, and call you out on them. Since you've seen fit to avoid any real relevant subject of debate, and since I've seen fit to meet you on these silly ideas, I now ask, officially, if you have any comment related to the following, from the topic post:
The committee noted that in many places around the world, members of the Pentecostal and Reformed communities are uncomfortable with one another. Sometimes they are openly antagonistic toward one another .... The committee was concerned that there was no identifiable, formal way for these communities to relate to each other. These facts seemed to indicate that conversation between the various parties involved was not only advisable; it was essential.
Why is this important?
Reformed churches acknowledge that all Christians, as stewards of the rich gifts of God, are called to act in responsible faith toward all creation. Therefore, we are called to proclaim, both in word and deed, the will of God concerning more personal and social injustices, economic exploitation, and ecological destruction. Moreover, Reformed churches affirm that the Holy Spirit guides the faithful to work for both personal and structural transformation of society, thus participating in the ongoing process and realization of the prayer for the coming of the Kingdom of God.
Now, aside from dismissing the ideas because you belong to neither the Reform Church or the Pentecostals, do you have any thoughts to contribute to the matter?

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
* Thus, we reach what you call the non-believers handbook.
What I call the non-believer's handbook to understanding the Bible is your posts.

Your callous disregard for history speaks much of your imagination. Is it simply that you cannot imagine such a scenario, or that you are afraid to?
To shorten this up considerably, God woke me up after a three-day party and told me to go to church with a friend of mine. I went.

I'm just pointing out that Catholics are an important part of the history of Christianity.
The price of paper is an important part of the history of Christianity, but hardly germane to the true issue.
That you don't want to accept that is hardly my problem. When God asks you to explain what you were thinking, you will have a much better chance of your heart speaking true if you know what you're actually talking about. In the meantime, though, your stubborn hatred of history demonstrates your propensity toward the comfort and authority of faith, rather than faith itself.
Sorry for not believing the way you want me to.

Please elaborate. What (unsubstantiated) claims are you referring to that are so relevant to this Universe, as opposed to your own illusion of salvation?
My salvation applies to this universe, whereas your suppositions, not having actually occurred, must belong to some other universe.

I think we covered it. But I'm going to quote a couple of issues from the topic post, and call you out on them. Since you've seen fit to avoid any real relevant subject of debate, and since I've seen fit to meet you on these silly ideas, I now ask, officially, if you have any comment related to the following, from the topic post:
No.

Now, aside from dismissing the ideas because you belong to neither the Reform Church or the Pentecostals, do you have any thoughts to contribute to the matter?
No.

Originally posted by Bobby Lee
I can't speak for Tiassa, but I think she
tiassa, she?
is trying to get you to look at your own motive for writing this on the board. Also to look at your context in relation to other people rather than to yourself!
I highly doubt this.
tiassa's trying to demolish Christianity, except for the constant confusion between it and Catholicism.

We know you are well versed in the Bible, next get contextual application for what you have learned, for most of us old christians born in the 50's this was the way we reacted the first few years of our faith. Your not the first Tony and you wont be the last.
Oh, I know what the "contextual" application is...
It is: that verse doesn't apply the way I think it applies, it applies the way you think it applies.
Or it applies yesterday, or tomorrow, but not today.
Or it applies to the OT Jews or the NT Christians, but not to us.

Remember its just a conversation about two points of view!
What is this?
Are you a liberal Christian?

JESUS LOVE'S YOU TONY!
Thanks.

What I call the non-believer's handbook to understanding the Bible is your posts.
Yes, but do you have a point?
To shorten this up considerably, God woke me up after a three-day party and told me to go to church with a friend of mine. I went.
So you admit your brain was under the influence of substances which may have clouded your judgement?

Besides ... just be more responsible when you get loaded. How tough is that?
The price of paper is an important part of the history of Christianity, but hardly germane to the true issue.
Whatever you say, Tony. You're the one who asserted that the failure of the Gospel of reconciliation has nothing to do with that Gospel. You're the one who doesn't care what God has meant to your Christian neighbors. That you choose to be alone in your faith is your own choice, but it doesn't change the fact that your denial of history via a hatred of the Catholics is the very issue.
Sorry for not believing the way you want me to.
Hell, you can believe what you want. When you advocate irresponsible religion and proclaim falsehoods about your imagined superiority ... that's when it becomes an issue to me.
My salvation applies to this universe, whereas your suppositions, not having actually occurred, must belong to some other universe.
Please demonstrate your salvation in this Universe. Since you are defending a belief communicated to you through the Testament of Jesus Christ, I would suggest that you demonstrate it somewhere outside of that Bible.

Furthermore, please document the suppositions. Such pasty, retreating accusations get you nothing.

And yet even furthermore ... since you have no imagination about your own Universe, you must invent another for those things you are either unwilling or unable to recognize? Talk about a lack of perceptual empathy: it doesn't look right so it must be foreign. :rolleyes:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we covered it. But I'm going to quote a couple of issues from the topic post, and call you out on them. Since you've seen fit to avoid any real relevant subject of debate, and since I've seen fit to meet you on these silly ideas, I now ask, officially, if you have any comment related to the following, from the topic post:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, aside from dismissing the ideas because you belong to neither the Reform Church or the Pentecostals, do you have any thoughts to contribute to the matter?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.

Well, thank you for clarifying that. :rolleyes:

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Yes, but do you have a point?
Jesus is Lord.
So you admit your brain was under the influence of substances which may have clouded your judgement?
Sure, at one time I was just like you.

...[anything] Catholics is the very issue.
Here we go again.
I'm almost starting to feel sorry for you.
I'm sure you have a huge arsenal of stuff to shoot down the Catholics, but I'm just not Catholic.

Hell, you can believe what you want. When you advocate irresponsible religion and proclaim falsehoods about your imagined superiority ... that's when it becomes an issue to me.
As if you care.
You're just bored.
You're still bummed out that your anti-Catholic weaponry is so useless, because I'm not Catholic.

Please demonstrate your salvation in this Universe. Since you are defending a belief communicated to you through the Testament of Jesus Christ, I would suggest that you demonstrate it somewhere outside of that Bible.
OK, when you're in the middle of the lake of fire, I'll wave from the shore so you can see me.

Furthermore, please document the suppositions.
OK
Originally posted by tiassa
03-22-01 12:49 AM
You've blasted Catholics in an attempt to dodge a simple idea: Imagine that there were no Crusades, Inquisitions, feudalism, ad nauseam[. Imagine that the stewards of the Word hadn't made their reputation slandering their Jewish neighbors; indeed, imagine that they hadn't sniveled and whined and denounced Judaism in a play for Roman favor. Imagine that those early Christians thrown to the lions had no movement behind them to wreak vengeance on the world for centuries. Maybe He "could have" chosen a better path for delivery, but "He" didn't. Therefore, it seems that without the atrocities and just bonkers philosophy that drove the church from ancient Rome in to the 20th century, you would have no Gospels of Christ available to you, except perhaps as a relic beside the Rosetta stone and Hammurabi.
Emphases mine.

Emphases mine.
Which only goes to prove the point that God could not have made things any differently. Your staunch denial of the Catholic place in Christian history is a denial of the method by which the Lord Almighty chose to ensure that you, Tony1, could receive the Gospel. In other words, it was more important that God's gospel survive than that it worked.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Which only goes to prove the point that God could not have made things any differently. Your staunch denial of the Catholic place in Christian history is a denial of the method by which the Lord Almighty chose to ensure that you, Tony1, could receive the Gospel. In other words, it was more important that God's gospel survive than that it worked.
<ol><li>"did not" does not necessarily mean "could not."</li><li>interestingly, perhaps all of the Catholic stuff happened just to throw you off, since you do not choose the truth.</li><li>I don't deny the place of Catholicism in history at all. It happened.</li><li>I don't deny that God got me the gospel</li><li>the gospel works in spite of your saying it doesn't.</li></ol>

Since the first time I picked up on your total RC indoctrination, I've noticed that it is even more obvious now.

Your approach to religion now appears to be that, absent Catholicism, there is no religion at all.
That brings up an interesting question.
Are you channeling a "purely" Catholic spirit?

Briefly, sir, since I'm getting the impression that's all you're equipped for.

1) Could not/Did not: Tony, please explain, then, by what criteria God could have or would have made the Universe different. If God "could have" done it differently, what, then, are the degrees? Is this the best God could do, to short-circuit his own design? As I see it, if God could have done it differently, he would have. That he did not signifies that this Universe is in accord either with God's will, or the superlative force which governs God's abilities. If God could have done it differently, this implies both the capability of God to make mistakes, and the necessity that he should learn from them. Catholic, Christian, or whatever you want to call it, this does not seem to be a principle which has rooted firmly among the flock. The idea of God making mistakes is somewhat anathema, to my experience and also to my assessment of history.

2) Catholic stuff: Are you asserting that your anti-Catholocism is merely rhetorical deflection from more important issues? Or is it that you're assuming ... well, I'm not entirely sure. But your statement #2 seems to be a loaded assumption whereby you are trying to establish new constraints for the debate in order to tip the balance. Try your hardest, Tony. It doesn't change the fact that your rhetoric is both empty and unoriginal.

3) Denying Catholocism: Yet you exclude them from Christianity in a vain attempt to avoid issues of history and considerations of how past events affect contemporary perspectives. This rhetorical retreat is the issue I pick with your hatred of Catholics. Otherwise, it's fine with me if you hate them until you rot.

4) God and deliverance of gospel: And he did so in a manner most contrary to the nature of that gospel. Therein lies the key; as I said, it was more important, then, that the gospel reached you than that it worked.

5) The gospel works: To what end?

As to RC indoctrination ... do you recognize the Trinity? Do you recognize the four gospels as the only accurate gospels? You're still lock-stepping in that Catholic mode, as well, for these are Catholic "religion" innovations.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
This rhetorical retreat is the issue I pick with your hatred of Catholics.
Again, I don't hate Catholics. They need salvation the same as anyone else.

And you still can't come up with anything. Why did you even bother?

Bad Tony.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
And you still can't come up with anything. Why did you even bother?

I did come up with something.

The Catholics are in need of salvation, as are you.

You are not going to tell me that you exercise free will with your goddess, or succubus, coming around.
Just try doing or saying something contrary to what it, "she," says.
You'll quickly find out why it is you need salvation.

Tony, if there was ever proof that you have no clue what you're talking about, it's this last post of yours.
The Catholics are in need of salvation, as are you.
You have publicly declared before that Catholics are not Christians. As I understand it, everyone in the world needs saving, according to Christian faith. Thus, aside from you previous scandalizations of Catholics, you are doing nothing but repeating your standard emptiness.
You are not going to tell me that you exercise free will with your goddess, or succubus, coming around.
Just try doing or saying something contrary to what it, "she," says.
You'll quickly find out why it is you need salvation.
On the one hand, how dare you take your own stupid assumptions about the Universe according to what you think your God wills, and apply it accross the void to the goddess. To the other, you have demonstrated once again how little you have to say. We know, we know, Tony. It's much easier for you to try to tear down things you have no clue about than it is to demonstrate the power of your faith. Or is it just that your faith is in the ability to try to tear things down? Quit worshipping your own hatred.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
You have publicly declared before that Catholics are not Christians. As I understand it, everyone in the world needs saving, according to Christian faith. Thus, aside from you previous scandalizations of Catholics, you are doing nothing but repeating your standard emptiness.
Now, there's a pointless point if I've ever seen one.
Because Catholics aren't Christians, they need saving.
If they were Christians, they'd already be saved.

On the one hand, how dare you take your own stupid assumptions about the Universe according to what you think your God wills, and apply it accross the void to the goddess.
Nothing to it.

You don't know who or what your goddess is. I do.
I always thought you were channeling, now I see that your channeling isn't just playing around.

You are really in a bind now.
You have no choice but to defend your goddess.
If you fail in your defence of it, "her," you'll know plenty about torment without having to die.
On the other hand, if you "succeed," which you won't, all you'll have are suicidal thoughts.

Hear this, if you run into problems...

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Romans 10:13, KJV).

To the other, you have demonstrated once again how little you have to say. We know, we know, Tony. It's much easier for you to try to tear down things you have no clue about than it is to demonstrate the power of your faith. Or is it just that your faith is in the ability to try to tear things down? Quit worshipping your own hatred.
You realize that a person heading in the wrong direction must turn around and head back to square one before going in the right direction?

You can call it "tearing down" if you want to.

As for being "little," the gospel is really quite simple.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(Romans 10:9,10, KJV).

You wrote:
"Now, there's a pointless point if I've ever seen one.
Because Catholics aren't Christians, they need saving.
If they were Christians, they'd already be saved"

seriously Tony how hard is it to understand the word "christain"?? is it the part about following christ (which is what catholics do)??

and further if you accept christ as lord blah blah blah blah are you not saved??, again catholics accept christ as lord blah blah blah blah just like you tony...so what makes you a christain and a catholic something else?? I suggest the reason is your own bias and ignorance...but please enlighten me.

And finaly what "sect" of christainity do you align yourself with??

Wow, Tony ... you've presented yourself as unspeakably stupid.
If they were Christians, they'd already be saved.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
You don't know who or what your goddess is. I do.
How much dumber can you get? Your assumptive approach to everything, that you know of other people what they do not know of themselves, is a direct result of the brand of faith your Bible fosters. You have yet to escape your pattern of behaving according to the Cult of the Bible. You ought to try an approach that isn't as stale as the Apostolic Apologists.
You are really in a bind now.
You have no choice but to defend your goddess.
Further evidence that you have no clue.

One of the things you fail to understand is that I'm quite aware of where deities come from. They all are, without exception, human creations. My goddess, much like my religious structure, is not offended when my Universe becomes bigger than she. It comes from actively choosing to maintain theistic parameters. I find this mode of thought far preferable to being blackmailed by Jesus and his Daddy.
If you fail in your defence of it, "her," you'll know plenty about torment without having to die.
On the other hand, if you "succeed," which you won't, all you'll have are suicidal thoughts.
Alright, Tony. Hand over the drugs.

What the hell are you talking about?
You realize that a person heading in the wrong direction must turn around and head back to square one before going in the right direction?
That's why I like you, Tony. If I think of one who is headed in the right direction in the first place, I am thankful that you're there to prevent them from making a wrong turn down the Christian road. You're a wonderful product of your faith, sir, and demonstrative of its fullest potentials.
You can call it "tearing down" if you want to.
Since you can't be relevant about the little things, for after all you are not the Gospels, and who gives a rat's ass what God says one must believe, since that taints its credibility, I'll concede that yes, I can call it tearing down. Your dismissive approach to people's perspectives demonstrates your lack of respect. If you think you can "turn around" someone by disrespecting them, well, you're gambling on the pathetic state of human nature that such faith as yours has reduced it.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
You laugh, but those poor Catholics are going thru life thinking they're going to heaven.

How much dumber can you get?
As dumb as you?
Altho, it would take a while.
Your assumptive approach to everything, that you know of other people what they do not know of themselves, is a direct result of the brand of faith your Bible fosters.
I don't know you.
For all I know about you, you might not be as dumb as sack of hammers.

I do know your goddess and it has you completely spun out.
You think you are getting the wisdom of the ages from it ("her"), but it doesn't know the wisdom of the ages, anymore than you do.

You have yet to escape your pattern of behaving according to the Cult of the Bible. You ought to try an approach that isn't as stale as the Apostolic Apologists.
The "wisdom" of your goddess, otherwise known as stupidity, is as stale as a corpse.
To you it is new, so you think it's great stuff.

Further evidence that you have no clue.

One of the things you fail to understand is that I'm quite aware of where deities come from. They all are, without exception, human creations. My goddess, much like my religious structure, is not offended when my Universe becomes bigger than she.
Of course not, it knows that the universe is bigger than "she" is.
It also knows that Jesus is Lord.

What the hell are you talking about?
Simple, if you think your goddess is something you created, then do something opposing "her."
You'll quickly find out the only thing you created is the illusion of freedom.

Since you can't be relevant about the little things, for after all you are not the Gospels, and who gives a rat's ass what God says one must believe, since that taints its credibility, I'll concede that yes, I can call it tearing down. Your dismissive approach to people's perspectives demonstrates your lack of respect. If you think you can "turn around" someone by disrespecting them, well, you're gambling on the pathetic state of human nature that such faith as yours has reduced it.
Well, if you wish to be coddled to death, that's your business.

I've actually seen people who are being shot at, get pissed off for being dissed when you yell at them to duck.
They feel that they don't need to be yelled at.

For people like that, and you seem to be like that, I can only say, I hope you like the bullet better.

Because once again you have made me wonder if you are perhaps a provocateur attempting to discredit Christianity through your amazingly awful presentation of it. If this is the case, I must ask you to stop. Christianity may have its problems treating people correctly, but there is no reason to stoop so low. The behavior of a nation and world of Christians has produced certain effects on society that speak to its worth. One should not reinforce those effects in such a manner as your provocateur routine.

You laugh, but those poor Catholics are going thru life thinking they're going to heaven.
I know. But then again, you live under the same assumption. Oh, poor you :rolleyes:
How much dumber can you get?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As dumb as you?
Altho, it would take a while. What's nice about it, Tony, is that I know that, because of your faith, this is the Best that you can do. And so we're all real proud of you. :rolleyes:

Now, would you like to address the whole paragraph you're responding to? Or is that the point, that you're incapable because your faith compels you to go forth and behave this way for a lack of any better expression of much you require approval, for whom better to seek approval of than to assume a Creator of the Universe who loves you and wants you to treat the world as if you despise it.

Here's a hint:You don't know who or what your goddess is. I do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much dumber can you get? Your assumptive approach to everything, that you know of other people what they do not know of themselves, is a direct result of the brand of faith your Bible fosters. You have yet to escape your pattern of behaving according to the Cult of the Bible. You ought to try an approach that isn't as stale as the Apostolic Apologists.In other words, O Grand Wizard of the Anti-Catholics, stop arguing an approach that was stale and useless by the time Catholics actually showed up on the scene. To discredit something by assuming its motives is exactly how the catholic (as used by Ignatius of Antioch, as opposed to Catholic) assembly of Christians and their churches attempted to usurp the social station of their Jewish neighbors.
I don't know you.
For all I know about you, you might not be as dumb as sack of hammers.

I do know your goddess and it has you completely spun out.
You think you are getting the wisdom of the ages from it ("her"), but it doesn't know the wisdom of the ages, anymore than you do. On the one hand, Tony, I would argue with you on this, except that you still have no clue what you're talking about. To the other, why do you insist on employing the same processes that led to the rise of the Catholocism that you so hate? Your arrogance is so stereotypical; that is, the broadest, most offensive stereotypes assigned Christianity by its critics, you fulfill. You must make true believers cringe, yet here again I find myself looking at the phenomenon of who or where those true believers are. Based on all of my observations of society, you are merely another Christian, with Christian fancy and superstition, and just as full of hatred as the next. You're going to have to do better than to claim over and over that you know, and never provide anything else. I would say your credibility is on the line, but you've none left to put up. So, would you please assert the detail of your knowledge? Not of your Biblical superstition; hell, son, we've all heard allegedly intelligent people cite the Bible. But the simple fact is that it reduces their outward impression of intelligence. As far as I can tell, you haven't an original thought in your head, but that's merely based on a few observations:

* Nobody apparently understands your faith. Since anyone trying to address it seems to have the wrong perspective, though that's not hard because all we know about you is that you don't like the lable "Christian" and that you hate Catholics.
* You apparently know everything in God's Universe. Don't worry, most Christians seem to be under this delusion. I'd love to say that it will pass, but I have yet to see any evidence that it will. You will most likely continue to have the experience of having to call people stupid because you are so empty of human compassion and empathy that you cannot imagine why anyone would disagree with you.
* For someone trying to walk in Christ's path, you've got a high horse crammed way up there. Get off it. Show us some of that Christian spirit. As it is, you sound like a jealous child flinging Bibles at people because they won't believe that you know everything God intended in the Universe.
* You apparently have no point. Aside from slogans and canned, stale rhetoric, you come to these debates and disrupt them. Do you even recall what this topic was? You've already declared that you have nothing to say on that, so what in the world is your point? Thus far, you're merely defaming the faith you claim.
The "wisdom" of your goddess, otherwise known as stupidity, is as stale as a corpse.
To you it is new, so you think it's great stuff.
What in the hell are you talking about here? Would you please respond to the portion you actually cited: You have yet to escape your pattern of behaving according to the Cult of the Bible. You ought to try an approach that isn't as stale as the Apostolic Apologists.

Do you have a point at all? Ever?
Of course not, it knows that the universe is bigger than "she" is.
It also knows that Jesus is Lord.
Ah, the heart of the matter. The unsubstantiated declaration of faith that equals, "My dad can beat up your mom." You have no idea how Christian that is; by example, that is, as opposed to the repeated, hollow declarations of a people that will let their fellow humans starve so long as they can haul people into courtrooms and jails for bad music or good sex, or even both. At least they have their priorities clear, so I guess I should admire them.
Simple, if you think your goddess is something you created, then do something opposing "her."
You'll quickly find out the only thing you created is the illusion of freedom.
And here we find a significant aspect of your ignorance: I cannot oppose her. She is a celebrant of life, and I am a living soul. She has no need to intervene and punish when life itself will do that. I mean, if you can tell me anything about the Threefold Law that is remotely accurate, I would be impressed. I'll even give you a clue: What you sow, you also shall reap, three times over.

And here is an excellent opportunity to point out a fundamental difference 'twixt Christianity and other people. In this case, I'm curious what you see in the italicized phrase above. Because I'm almost willing to bet cash on the answer, but the people who would know what I'm betting on wouldn't, most likely, take up the bet. I await your assessment of the italicized summary of the Threefold Law.

But you keep looking at the Goddess as if someone is trying to replace your idea of God with her in their minds. Had you a shred of human empathy, you would attempt to perceive what they are seeing instead of comparing it to your God and saying it doesn't fit. Who ever said that God has to be as amazingly stupid as the one found in the Bible? (Only the Christians!) So again, sir, I ask you ... What the hell are you talking about?
Well, if you wish to be coddled to death, that's your business.

I've actually seen people who are being shot at, get pissed off for being dissed when you yell at them to duck.
They feel that they don't need to be yelled at.

For people like that, and you seem to be like that, I can only say, I hope you like the bullet better. Tony, what makes me smile here is that you have once again demonstrated the selfishness that I believe runs broadly through your brand of Christian faith. You have chosen to defend your method and make excuses for your own self rather than address what you're doing to God's credibility among humankind. It seems, by your answer, that you would rather "win the argument" than actually advance God's standing in the world. You're more concerned with your own human ego than you are with the work that your God allegedly wants you to do. And that is a result of your constructions of faith.

On the other hand, what happens if you do people the kindness of yelling, "Fire," in a crowded theatre when there is no fire? You have yet to establish that anyone's being shot at, or who has the gun. So stop yelling.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
I know. But then again, you live under the same assumption. Oh, poor you
Sorry, no.

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
(Revelation 21:2,3, KJV).

I'm not going to be living in heaven.

On the one hand, Tony, I would argue with you on this, except that you still have no clue what you're talking about. To the other, why do you insist on employing the same processes that led to the rise of the Catholocism that you so hate? Your arrogance is so stereotypical; that is, the broadest, most offensive stereotypes assigned Christianity by its critics, you fulfill.
Is that the blackest brush you can paint with?
Based on all of my observations of society, you are merely another Christian, with Christian fancy and superstition, and just as full of hatred as the next.
Your observations?
I'm sure you are very perceptive, and all.
You're going to have to do better than to claim over and over that you know, and never provide anything else.
You might consider something other than claiming that I don't know, and providing nothing else.

But the simple fact is that it reduces their outward impression of intelligence.
At this juncture, I am forced to ask myself if I care about your impressions.
I would be very pleased to have you consider me stupid.

What in the hell are you talking about here? Would you please respond to the portion you actually cited:
I'm responding to your statement that your goddess visits you.

Ah, the heart of the matter. The unsubstantiated declaration of faith that equals, "My dad can beat up your mom."
Your goddess is going to burn, and "she" will take you with "her."
You aren't the first to experience a "goddess," and you won't be the last.

And here we find a significant aspect of your ignorance: I cannot oppose her.
I can't be all that ignorant. After all, I said you wouldn't be able to oppose it, and here you are saying the same thing.

She is a celebrant of life, and I am a living soul. She has no need to intervene and punish when life itself will do that.
"She" is a deceiver, and a "celebrant" of death.
And make no mistake, "she" will punish, and quite severely at that, if you attempt to change your mind from the path of death that you are on.

But you keep looking at the Goddess as if someone is trying to replace your idea of God with her in their minds.
No.
I just know who the "goddess" is, and you don't.
Had you a shred of human empathy, you would attempt to perceive what they are seeing instead of comparing it to your God and saying it doesn't fit.
It fits perfectly with what God says.

Tony, what makes me smile here is that you have once again demonstrated the selfishness ... you would rather "win the argument" than actually advance God's standing in the world. You're more concerned with your own human ego than you are with the work that your God allegedly wants you to do. And that is a result of your constructions of faith.
You can "win" the argument if you want to.
You can go as far as the "goddess" goes, if you wish.
You just aren't going to get very far.

Tony,

Originally posted by tony1
Your goddess is going to burn, and "she" will take you with "her." You aren't the first to experience a "goddess," and you won't be the last.

You have just demonstrated the misogynous contempt for the Goddess which is the cornerstone of the patriarchal religions. How proud you must be to stand in the center of the sandbox shouting, "Your mama!" and loudly proclaiming that your dad can beat up our mom, as Tiassa so eloquently put it. Our mom is minding her own business, and isn't interested in a boxing match with the neighborhood ruffian.

"She" is a deceiver, and a "celebrant" of death. And make no mistake, "she" will punish, and quite severely at that, if you attempt to change your mind from the path of death that you are on.

Funny - this is how I see your "dad", who has been quite frank on these points, by the way.

I just know who the "goddess" is, and you don't.

How nice for you that you should be privy to all the secrets of the universe. :rolleyes:

I would like to recommend a book that might show you the other side of the coin, if you're interested in seeing it: <a href="http://www.goddessmoon.org/education/when_god_was_a_woman_-_merlin_stone.htm"><i>Book Review</i>: When God Was A Woman</a>

Emerald

I'm not going to be living in heaven. We know. We know.Is that the blackest brush you can paint with?No.Your observations?
I'm sure you are very perceptive, and all.Generally, people think so. I mean, sure, I tend to think so, but I'm a biased source on that.You might consider something other than claiming that I don't know, and providing nothing else. Never trust a man who says he knows what he's doing. Unless it has to do with the remote control, he's lying.At this juncture, I am forced to ask myself if I care about your impressions.
I would be very pleased to have you consider me stupid. To the first, that is an excellent question to ask oneself. To the other, you're making quite a statement to that effect.I'm responding to your statement that your goddess visits you.I take it back; terminal stupidity was not characteristic of the Apostolic Apologists. On the other hand, there is a sense of lunacy about it all, so you're still in classic form. After all, you were originally responding to the quote: You have yet to escape your pattern of behaving according to the Cult of the Bible. You ought to try an approach that isn't as stale as the Apostolic Apologists. Once again, you have demonstrated a few things about your grasp of reality. It's in your 5/5/2001 post. I'll even quote it for you:quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have yet to escape your pattern of behaving according to the Cult of the Bible. You ought to try an approach that isn't as stale as the Apostolic Apologists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "wisdom" of your goddess, otherwise known as stupidity, is as stale as a corpse.
To you it is new, so you think it's great stuff. So would you like to take another hack at it? What the hell are you talking about?Your goddess is going to burn, and "she" will take you with "her."
You aren't the first to experience a "goddess," and you won't be the last. I believe this has been covered a couple of times. If you don't get it, well ... fine. It's your right to maintain superstitions born of ignorance.I can't be all that ignorant. After all, I said you wouldn't be able to oppose it, and here you are saying the same thing. You have said that she would punish me if I oppose her. I have said that I cannot oppose her. You seem to think this means I am unable to muster the force. To correct you as gently as possible: You know that thing called free will which Christians often claim to possess in their relationship with God? I have it. Those things done in opposition to the Rede will bring their own justice: she needs do nothing. It's called Liberty, sir, and your contract with your God suspends it."She" is a deceiver, and a "celebrant" of death.
And make no mistake, "she" will punish, and quite severely at that, if you attempt to change your mind from the path of death that you are on. First off, why should she not celebrate death? Death is a much a part of life as birth. And here again we see you stating that I can oppose her and receive punishment. What is it, Tony? Can I oppose her or not? Really, when you don't have a clue what you're talking about, it's best not to embarrass yourself by waving your lack about like a battle crest.No.
I just know who the "goddess" is, and you don't.You know, statements like that do nothing to encourage my perception of your intelligence. Emerald's recommendation is a good one; see also Starhawk's Spiral Dance, or Adler's Drawing Down the Moon.It fits perfectly with what God says. Ooh! I'm convinced. :rolleyes:You can "win" the argument if you want to.
You can go as far as the "goddess" goes, if you wish.
You just aren't going to get very far.Tony, it's only about winning or losing because you choose that it should be so. Don't choose conquest over knowledge: that's so 16th-century Catholic. :rolleyes:

--Tiassa :cool:

I mean, if you can tell me anything about the Threefold Law that is remotely accurate, I would be impressed. I'll even give you a clue: What you sow, you also shall reap, three times over.C'mon, take a shot. Give us your best reflections. Oh, wait ... I'm sorry, I forgot the soulless don't have reflections. ;)

winks,
Tiassa :cool: