PDA

View Full Version : Agnostics are F****d



is4fun
20-05-2009, 21:43
I am interested in having a discussion on agnosticism and how one may benefit from this stance.. and why? I am not someone who ever sat on a fence, however, it would be interesting to have another point of view. What are the benefits of being an agnostic?

Qdos
20-05-2009, 21:53
The obvious frontline benefit is having a good reason not to pop money into any church collection boxes... :whisper:

is4fun
20-05-2009, 21:59
The obvious frontline benefit is having a good reason not to pop money into any church collection boxes... :whisper:

This must be a Protestant practice as I have never had the opportunity to give nor would I if asked to.

is4fun
20-05-2009, 22:05
I am seeking converstion with agnostics; fence sitters. Who are you and why have you not responded? You will remain anonymous, in this world anyway... :)

Wodin
20-05-2009, 22:10
Here's one Is4fun.

Now let me ask you a question...can you provide empirical proof, that can either be tested scientifically and that is unambiguous that:

a) a diety does exist and is responsible for the universe and all around us; or
b) that no such diety exists.

Qdos
20-05-2009, 22:19
I am seeking converstion with agnostics; fence sitters. Who are you and why have you not responded? You will remain anonymous, in this world anyway... :)

You did get a valid response, I've never believed in religion... why, well there are two reasons for my attitude...

1) All religion is based on superstition, myth, supposition, hype and faith.

2) Religion in all it's various guises has caused more killing and war than anything else the world has ever known - and I don't believe that a god would create the church for that purpose; thus I simply cannot believe the church has any connection with god - except in the minds of it's capatilist administration.

I have nothing against those who believe in religion, except those followers and members of the church who use it as an excuse for violence or a shield for performing sexual abuse against kids... ;)

is4fun
20-05-2009, 22:33
Here's one Is4fun.

Now let me ask you a question...can you provide empirical proof, that can either be tested scientifically and that is unambiguous that:

a) a diety does exist and is responsible for the universe and all around us; or
b) that no such diety exists.

Wodin, you are on the ball, however, my question was to agnostics. Either you believe or do not, no in-between!

Wodin
20-05-2009, 22:46
Wodin, you are on the ball, however, my question was to agnostics. Either you believe or do not, no in-between!

From Wiki:

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual-beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself, and it is occasionally argued that the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief.[2]

DDT
20-05-2009, 23:00
The easiest way to find out if God exists is to start going to a full Satanic Mass and offer yourself as a bride of Satan and you will soon see that Evil exists and you share this planet with the unseen. So, not only the laws of nature (for every action there is a reaction) by reason of logical extension; if there is satanic evil there is also God.

Wodin
21-05-2009, 00:04
The easiest way to find out if God exists is to start going to a full Satanic Mass and offer yourself as a bride of Satan and you will soon see that Evil exists and you share this planet with the unseen. So, not only the laws of nature (for every action there is a reaction) by reason of logical extension; if there is satanic evil there is also God.

First...there is equally no evidence that satan exists.

Second...even if "satan" existed, that does not logically demonstrate that a diety exists.

That is not to say that there isn't evil in the world or that there isn't good.

I therefore repeat. There is no way to conclusively prove that god either exists or does not.

DDT
21-05-2009, 01:24
First...there is equally no evidence that satan exists.

Second...even if "satan" existed, that does not logically demonstrate that a diety exists.

That is not to say that there isn't evil in the world or that there isn't good.

I therefore repeat. There is no way to conclusively prove that god either exists or does not.

Really? Then I dare you to solemnly invite Satan into your life in a Black Mass Ritual. I'll bet you even feel a little bit uneasy about the thought of it.

Kraven Morehead
21-05-2009, 01:35
I am interested in having a discussion on agnosticism and how one may benefit from this stance.. and why? I am not someone who ever sat on a fence, however, it would be interesting to have another point of view. What are the benefits of being an agnostic?
Do you actually know what an agnostic is?
Do you there are different forms of it and some that are very religious and others that are almost atheist.

Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

* Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")

—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

* Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")

—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

* Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)

—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]

* Agnostic atheism

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]

* Agnostic theism (also called "religious" or "spiritual agnosticism")

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)

* Ignosticism

—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious – discuss]

So which form are you looking to argue against?

Wodin
21-05-2009, 02:25
Really? Then I dare you to solemnly invite Satan into your life in a Black Mass Ritual. I'll bet you even feel a little bit uneasy about the thought of it.

That is quite a silly statement. May i suggest that you solemnly invite the tooth fairy into your life?
D'OH!

BigSpaseeba
21-05-2009, 02:35
That is quite a silly statement. May i suggest that you solemnly invite the tooth fairy into your life?
D'OH!

Actyully Wodin I would rather invite the tooth fairy than satan. i dont' believe in all that but there is some weird power to it. it's not something i would ever do even as a joke.

i would invite the tooth fairy into my life as a joke though.

Kraven Morehead
21-05-2009, 02:40
Actyully Wodin I would rather invite the tooth fairy than satan. i dont' believe in all that but there is some weird power to it. it's not something i would ever do even as a joke.

i would invite the tooth fairy into my life as a joke though.

Ok, but which would Luzhkov‎ invite a fairy or Satan to his house first?

BigSpaseeba
21-05-2009, 02:46
Ok, but which would Luzhkov‎ invite a fairy or Satan to his house first?


That's really funny...You would think the tooth fairy but Luzhkov isn't that kind and sweet. No, he would invite satan even though he is supposedly Russia's saviour against evil. I suspect that Luzhkov is evil disguised as good.

him and his wife would fit PERFECTLY well amongst stalin's inner circle.

Jack17
21-05-2009, 02:52
Really? Then I dare you to solemnly invite Satan into your life in a Black Mass Ritual. I'll bet you even feel a little bit uneasy about the thought of it.

:devilish: Isn't lewd and lascivious sex with young nubile virgins usually part of these Black Mass Rituals? If so, it's not a bad suggestion. I'll let you know how it goes.

Did you get your proof for god's existence from Aquinas' Summa Theologica; or did it just occur to you sui generis while you were at one of those satanic masses?

Let's see if I understand your argument:
Because there is evil, it follows there necessarily is a god, is that it; or, there are evil deeds, therefore it follows there is a devil and if there is a devil, then there must be a god?

From thread to thread DDT the brilliance of your logic never ceases to astound.

Jack17
21-05-2009, 02:58
Actyully Wodin I would rather invite the tooth fairy than satan. i dont' believe in all that but there is some weird power to it. it's not something i would ever do even as a joke.

i would invite the tooth fairy into my life as a joke though.

You're right BigS, satan is a little creepy; I'd only invite him if he brought the hookers and the booze.

Jack17
21-05-2009, 03:04
I am interested in having a discussion on agnosticism and how one may benefit from this stance.. and why? I am not someone who ever sat on a fence, however, it would be interesting to have another point of view. What are the benefits of being an agnostic?

I wouldn't worry about it Is4fun; there's better things to do. I have a strong hunch life after death is going to be a whole lot like life before birth.

Kraven Morehead
21-05-2009, 03:10
I wouldn't worry about it Is4fun; there's better things to do. I have a strong hunch life after death is going to be a whole lot like life before bearth.

It is not like you can control it.

BigSpaseeba
21-05-2009, 03:16
You're right BigS, satan is a little creepy; I'd only invite him if he brought the hookers and the booze.

well it would be better if some cute girls came over own their own with some good bottles of wine than satan's hookers...i'm sure we could tell the difference who was who and what was what though.

it would be creepy to be in a satan ritual with people who are really into it...even if you dont' belief in it.. i would rather spend my time some other way though.

i know people that did weird sh#t like that in the past..one guy even became a legendary musician.....i haven't seen him in years and i think he's come back from that but it screwed him up..maybe made him famous too but it's possible that he would have gone that far without the devil worshipping bs he did..or whatever he did. i dont' really know the details. i didn't like it back then because i had friends i cared for that were really close to it...

i wouldn't want to hang out with devil worshippers or any other fanatical belief group of people.

ps sorry for all the spelling mistakes..i'm not proofreading any postings and i'm mostly preoccupied with some very serious matters in my life. cool records on the technics though....

Jack17
21-05-2009, 03:24
You're right BigS; I'd never go to anything like that either. You can bet there'd be one big cover charge for that kinky of a floor show and there's better ways to get the same thing for less money.

BigSpaseeba
21-05-2009, 03:31
You're right BigS; I'd never go to anything like that either. You can bet there'd be one big cover charge for that kinky of a floor show and there's better ways to get the same thing for less money.

i've had fantastic times at festivals in BC...the Stein Valley festival, Vancouver folk festival....i think Burning Man would be an enlightning ceremony that would free us of our inhibitions. like a toxic cleansing..i'm going there one day with my wife and child...

it's better to create some positive energy which every one can do if they try. a satinic ceremony is a bunch of creepy guys (plus some tricked girls) getting together and acting like...like...like..well like creepy people all dressed in black...

Kraven Morehead
21-05-2009, 04:39
i've had fantastic times at festivals in BC...the Stein Valley festival, Vancouver folk festival....i think Burning Man would be an enlightning ceremony that would free us of our inhibitions. like a toxic cleansing..i'm going there one day with my wife and child...

it's better to create some positive energy which every one can do if they try. a satinic ceremony is a bunch of creepy guys (plus some tricked girls) getting together and acting like...like...like..well like creepy people all dressed in black...
Burning Man would be awesome!!!!

DDT
21-05-2009, 08:00
:devilish: Isn't lewd and lascivious sex with young nubile virgins usually part of these Black Mass Rituals? If so, it's not a bad suggestion. I'll let you know how it goes.
Yeah let me know what you think when suddenly her face goes white and pasty and the creases disappear and she starts making guttural sounds. That's what experienced witnesses with PHDs have reported!




Let's see if I understand your argument:
Because there is evil, it follows there necessarily is a god, is that it; or, there are evil deeds, therefore it follows there is a devil and if there is a devil, then there must be a god?
Simply put: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton's Third Law


From thread to thread DDT the brilliance of your logic never ceases to astound.Thank you. Thank you very much! Sorry I can't return the compliment!



After you have had sex with your "nubiles" at the local Black Mass you can look forward to being in this woman's shoes.

YouTube- Real Russian exorcism footage

Or this guy:

YouTube- Real Russian exorcism footage 2

YouTube- Freaky Exorcism video in Russian Orthodox Church

Exorcism Russia (http://exorcism.ru/video.html)
Be sure to listen to the Audio Secion

Carbo
21-05-2009, 12:16
DDT's posts have, like no others, the capacity to amaze me. Nowhere have I ever seen Newton’s Laws of Motion used as a crutch upon which the proof of the existence of a Christian God rests.

Astounding.

I'm atheist, really, but I am also aware that with something as fantastical and irrational as a God, it is literally impossible to truly prove matters either way. I do believe that what we know suggests that there is not a God, but again, I'm not going to pretend I can settle a debate that has remained unsettled despite the finest minds of humanity working on the problem for as long as human minds have reasoned.

So I guess that makes me agnostic.

Advantage of being an agnostic? That's a strange question. Like asking what are the advantages in agreeing with the epistemological work of John Locke.

Are there any advantages except the enriching process of study and gaining knowledge?

GaNozri
21-05-2009, 18:36
Ok, but which would Luzhkov‎ invite a fairy or Satan to his house first?

He doesn't need to invite anyone. He's already married to a satanic fairy.:yuk:

Jack17
21-05-2009, 19:09
DDT's posts have, like no others, the capacity to amaze me. Nowhere have I ever seen Newton’s Laws of Motion used as a crutch upon which the proof of the existence of a Christian God rests.

Astounding.

I'm atheist, really, but I am also aware that with something as fantastical and irrational as a God, it is literally impossible to truly prove matters either way. I do believe that what we know suggests that there is not a God, but again, I'm not going to pretend I can settle a debate that has remained unsettled despite the finest minds of humanity working on the problem for as long as human minds have reasoned.

So I guess that makes me agnostic.

Advantage of being an agnostic? That's a strange question. Like asking what are the advantages in agreeing with the epistemological work of John Locke.

Are there any advantages except the enriching process of study and gaining knowledge?

Actually, in all seriousness, DDT has stumbled onto something profound. He is saying that Newton's Third Law proves the existence of "God." Well, yes, but probably not the Christian, Muslim or Jewish "God" but rather the Hindu panoply of gods. He is saying, for every good action, there must necessarily be a bad reaction. Now, in terms of God or gods, I believe that exactly corresponds to Hindu beliefs where there are many gods, some good, some evil, with the point being that, they all equal out and acurately describe the life and social Hindu world.
Now, to be more accurate, DDT must admit that Einstein and Niels Bohr's laws also describe human life. An example of DDT's idea is Bernie Maddoff. He stole billions and lived like a prince for 40 years; but, conversely, he will die in prison. That's karma. But what about all those people who must have stole millions and have gone to their graves praised as good men? Well, that's because Quantom Mechanics says, it's all only a probability. I could go on and on; but this has already bored most people. You get it.

MickeyTong
21-05-2009, 19:19
Bohr also drew parallels between the Dance of Shiva and the constant creation/destruction that happens in the quantum world.
Is DVT a Hindu?

rusmeister
21-05-2009, 21:17
I think the great advantage of intelligent (as opposed to lazy) agnosticism is that one comes up against a solid realization of the limits of what one can know based on one's own personal authority and experience.

But for me, that's a step towards faith, when I realize that I simply cannot be the authority that understands and explains the universe. All knowledge that we claim is, in its beginnings, based on accepting some things on authority, and pretty much always external authority. that fact points toward the possibility that there could be an authority that actually has discovered (my belief is via revelation rather than individual effort/getting lucky) the key to the meaning of the universe.

Jack17
21-05-2009, 21:34
I think the great advantage of intelligent (as opposed to lazy) agnosticism is that one comes up against a solid realization of the limits of what one can know based on one's own personal authority and experience.

But for me, that's a step towards faith, when I realize that I simply cannot be the authority that understands and explains the universe. All knowledge that we claim is, in its beginnings, based on accepting some things on authority, and pretty much always external authority. that fact points toward the possibility that there could be an authority that actually has discovered (my belief is via revelation rather than individual effort/getting lucky) the key to the meaning of the universe.

Well said. And for me those authorities for the explanation of the universe are Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawkins, etc., etc. The implied question in your post is, what authorities? I'm sick; do I go to a medical doctor, chiropractor or shamen? I suppose we all, everyday, trust those who social convention considers authorities, i.e., medical doctors, accountants, certified auto mechanics, etc. The problem with these "meaning of life" questions is there are really two authoritative groups, theologians and physicists. I prefer the physicists; but others might consider Aquinas a better choice. And the debate continues . . .

MickeyTong
21-05-2009, 21:37
I think the great advantage of intelligent (as opposed to lazy) agnosticism is that one comes up against a solid realization of the limits of what one can know based on one's own personal authority and experience.

But for me, that's a step towards faith, when I realize that I simply cannot be the authority that understands and explains the universe. All knowledge that we claim is, in its beginnings, based on accepting some things on authority, and pretty much always external authority. that fact points toward the possibility that there could be an authority that actually has discovered (my belief is via revelation rather than individual effort/getting lucky) the key to the meaning of the universe.

Are you then left in the position of tossing a coin to choose an arbitrary absolute, or choose The Authority on the basis of your own personal preferences/predilections? Or does a Big Experience precede the leap of faith?

Jack17
21-05-2009, 21:49
Are you then left in the position of tossing a coin to choose an arbitrary absolute, or choose The Authority on the basis of your own personal preferences/predilections? Or does a Big Experience precede the leap of faith?

Your question's not to me, but I'll give an answer anyway. I think the empirical evidence shows there is no "The Authority" in anything. That's why people facing a big health problem always get a second opinion. I don't see any Big Experiences leading to a "leap" of faith; rather, I think we all just go with the ods (think Bohr).

DDT
21-05-2009, 22:03
Actually, in all seriousness, DDT has stumbled onto something profound. He is saying that Newton's Third Law proves the existence of "God." Well, yes, but probably not the Christian, Muslim or Jewish "God" but rather the Hindu panoply of gods. He is saying, for every good action, there must necessarily be a bad reaction. Now, in terms of God or gods, I believe that exactly corresponds to Hindu beliefs where there are many gods, some good, some evil, with the point being that, they all equal out and acurately describe the life and social Hindu world.
Now, to be more accurate, DDT must admit that Einstein and Niels Bohr's laws also describe human life. An example of DDT's idea is Bernie Maddoff. He stole billions and lived like a prince for 40 years; but, conversely, he will die in prison. That's karma. But what about all those people who must have stole millions and have gone to their graves praised as good men? Well, that's because Quantom Mechanics says, it's all only a probability. I could go on and on; but this has already bored most people. You get it.
Excuse me Dorkaronius but all I am saying is that if one finds Satan (and he's a lot easier to find) then it stands to reason that it is true that God exists.

andrich
21-05-2009, 22:27
Excuse me Dorkaronius but all I am saying is that if one finds Satan (and he's a lot easier to find) then it stands to reason that it is true that God exists.

I normally stay out of these conversations, but I'm just too curious to know what you mean by this comment. can you please elaborate further as at the moment it makes no sense to me?

Jack17
21-05-2009, 22:27
Excuse me Dorkaronius but all I am saying is that if one finds Satan (and he's a lot easier to find) then it stands to reason that it is true that God exists.

DDT, you are like the Guileless Fool of medieval romances; you head in the right direction even though you have no idea where you are going.

There's some wisdom in what you say; not much, but some: If you find Satan, then it follows there is a God. OK, so, how do you find "Satan" as opposed to people's evil deeds?

I'll give you a gathering more frightening than any Black Mass or Exorcism you may have attended, the Wannsee conference in January 1942 where a bunch of Nazis got together to figure out how to murder all the Jews in Europe. They were successful and it certainly proves that certain people's capacity for evil can be augmented by a factor of 10 when it's a conspiracy. But Satan? Well, I'm sure it's your belief "he" was there; but his name didn't appear on the guest list. So, Parzifal, I'm afraid you still have no proof, only a belief. But that belief may lead you in the right direction, not towards a theological degree, but perhaps to doing the right thing.

GaNozri
21-05-2009, 22:47
well it would be better if some cute girls came over own their own with some good bottles of wine than satan's hookers.......

So Satan is the head pimp? That would explain a lot about hookers and women in general!

BigSpaseeba
21-05-2009, 23:27
So Satan is the head pimp? That would explain a lot about hookers and women in general!

I respect women more than men. I've been disappointed by women a few times but generally i would prefer women having more power in the world and it has happened in the past and will again in the future.

it should be 50/50 but there's been a war between the sexes for thousands of years and the men are acting unfairly.

i believe that internally women are stronger and i'm happy about that. they help move the world forward because they care more then men.

but maybe i'm wrong...

GaNozri
21-05-2009, 23:49
BigS, if you try to be a bit more PC than you already are.., you'll turn into a warm!

BigSpaseeba
22-05-2009, 00:09
BigS, if you try to be a bit more PC than you already are.., you'll turn into a warm!

yeah right. you think that is a pc viewpoint?

i've believed that since i was a kid. many years before the phrase "politically correct" came into existence.

this is how i "feel". truly believe and feel. frick man. if you can't trust your mother and your sisters then who can you trust?

as james brown says:



This is a man's world, this is a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

You see, man made the cars to take us over the road
Man made the trains to carry heavy loads
Man made electric light to take us out of the dark
Man made the boat for the water, like Noah made the ark

This is a man's, a man's, a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

Man thinks about a little baby girls and a baby boys
Man makes then happy 'cause man makes them toys
And after man has made everything, everything he can
You know that man makes money to buy from other man

This is a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

He's lost in the wilderness
He's lost in bitterness

GaNozri
22-05-2009, 00:19
I like J.Brown, but you're still PC.:mml:

DDT
22-05-2009, 00:51
I normally stay out of these conversations, but I'm just too curious to know what you mean by this comment. can you please elaborate further as at the moment it makes no sense to me?I think it is self explanatory.
Well, if you read my earlier posts you will see that I am referring to the original poster who seems to be wondering if it is possible to know if God exists.

What I am saying is if you ask those people who are involved in certain occult activities they will tell you that Satan certainly does exist because they have seen him, talked to him and live with him. But another group of people also have contact with Satan. Certain priests, exorcists and deliverance workers. These people will also tell you that Satan is real because they also have seen him and or talked to him.

Now I posted some youtubes of a few rather mundane exorcisms but the really scary ones have not been videotaped or have not been able to find one, but they have been written about. Priests have been seriously injured before. It is written that one particular priest was thrown up against a wall by an unseen force and impaled through the anus by some object while the possessed victim shouted obscenities. The priest spent many weeks in hospital before being able to continue with the exorcism.

These priests and deliverance workers and those volunteers who help them and have been present at these exorcisms do no longer question Gods existence. That's is what I suggest all to think about!

Don't make the mistake of thinking that these exorcists are gullible fools. You may be surprised to know how deep the depth of their education is and how well read, level headed and wise about human nature they are. Also all of the persons who Catholic priests perform exorcisms on are rather extensively studied by a psychiatrist first. It is a requirement of the church.

DDT
22-05-2009, 00:52
I respect women more than men. I've been disappointed by women a few times but generally i would prefer women having more power in the world and it has happened in the past and will again in the future.

it should be 50/50 but there's been a war between the sexes for thousands of years and the men are acting unfairly.

i believe that internally women are stronger and i'm happy about that. they help move the world forward because they care more then men.

but maybe i'm wrong...

What?..............!!!!........Come 'ere boy....I'm gonna punch you!

BigSpaseeba
22-05-2009, 00:53
I like J.Brown, but you're still PC.:mml:

whatever. you can think what you want. in vancouver that kind of talk is prehistoric now...

i'm actually pretty radical but in a good way.

same with most of my friends in canada..

people hate us but we're right.

BigSpaseeba
22-05-2009, 00:54
What?..............!!!!........Come 'ere boy....I'm gonna punch you!

yeah try it. my sisters would kick the ssssshhhhhhhh out of you first.

Jack17
22-05-2009, 01:06
". . .priest was thrown up against a wall by an unseen
force and impaled through the anus by some object. . ."

DDT, I think you've just proven Satan is gay.

Jack17
22-05-2009, 01:15
"What?..............!!!!........Come 'ere boy....I'm gonna punch you!"

Come on DDT; you're putting us all on, aren't you! I think you're really Warren Buffet who's so bored with making billions of dollars, he poses as some lunatic old krank pot with the psuedonym "DDT" who posts totally insane messages everyday on expat.ru. That's the real truth of the matter; isn't it? No one is this crazy.

DDT
22-05-2009, 01:40
". . .priest was thrown up against a wall by an unseen
force and impaled through the anus by some object. . ."

DDT, I think you've just proven Satan is gay.
Good point Jacko! How did i miss this one? It is so obvious. .....Too bad the other thread on the gay parade is closed! .........Damn damn damn!

Actually by coincidence, I have been reading all the information I can find about possession and exorcism in the last few months and have just finished another non-fiction book on the subject: "The Rite" The making of a modern exorcist. By Matt Baglio. Interesting but not as good as Malachi Martin's "Hostage To The Devil" These authors contradict each other on certain important points, so I am now on a quest to solve this! Martin says an exorcism must be done as quickly as possible and not stopped until the job is done. However, in Baglio's examples these priests are sometimes taking 9 years to completely exorcise an entity by having the victim come back once a week. I suspect that Martin's examples are done in the traditional fashion while Baglio's, since they are very recent examples from the last couple of years, are done in accordance with the flawed Vatican II policies.

Anyway, I'll be buggering off now! Bye!

Carbo
22-05-2009, 11:51
Good point Jacko! How did i miss this one? It is so obvious. .....Too bad the other thread on the gay parade is closed! .........Damn damn damn!

Actually by coincidence, I have been reading all the information I can find about possession and exorcism in the last few months and have just finished another non-fiction book on the subject: "The Rite" The making of a modern exorcist. By Matt Baglio. Interesting but not as good as Malachi Martin's "Hostage To The Devil" These authors contradict each other on certain important points, so I am now on a quest to solve this! Martin says an exorcism must be done as quickly as possible and not stopped until the job is done. However, in Baglio's examples these priests are sometimes taking 9 years to completely exorcise an entity by having the victim come back once a week. I suspect that Martin's examples are done in the traditional fashion while Baglio's, since they are very recent examples from the last couple of years, are done in accordance with the flawed Vatican II policies.

Anyway, I'll be buggering off now! Bye!
How can there be a non-fiction book on exorcism? Surely a contradition in terms?

Your posts remind me of Borat regailing the story of how his brother became "retarded". He had a headache, and the villagers thought there was a demon in his head, so they drilled through his skull and put a gypsy tooth in his brain. But, according to Borat, the demon took revenge, and made his brother into a retard.

DDT
22-05-2009, 11:58
How can there be a non-fiction book on exorcism? Surely a contradition in terms?




You really are not very well informed aren't you! But it is understandable since even some of the Bishops who have sent their priest to Rome for training in exorcism don't even know what one is, and believe it or not, some don't even believe in a Biblical Satan anymore. So in order to prevent yourself from being even stupider than those types, may I suggest you do a little investigation on this subject before you take this one on.

Carbo
22-05-2009, 12:04
You really are not very well informed aren't you! But it is understandable since even some of the Bishops who have sent their priest to Rome for training in exorcism don't even know what one is, and believe it or not, some don't even believe in a Biblical Satan anymore. So in order to prevent yourself from being even stupider than those types, may I suggest you do a little investigation on this subject before you take this one on.
I suppose my study could be titled "Why Man Still Embraces a Prehistoric Understanding of Phsychology and Health".

I could start with witch doctors... and end there. I'll bet there's no difference.

DDT
22-05-2009, 12:20
I suppose my study could be titled "Why Man Still Embraces a Prehistoric Understanding of Phsychology and Health".


Read my posts so I don't have to repeat. The catholic policy is to send the victim back to the Shrinks BEFORE they will perform an exorcism. These people are those that the shrinks can't help! They don't have all the answers. Some priests work with a Psychiatrist and even have them present during the exorcism. As a matter of a fact on one case that I read about, which was rather violent, the Psychiatrist present got quite scared and freaked out when he saw what actually happened during the exorcism.

Like i said, i suggest you do some study before you get into this.

Carbo
22-05-2009, 12:23
Read my posts so I don't have to repeat. The catholic policy is to send the victim back to the Shrinks BEFORE they will perform an exorcism. These people are those that the shrinks can't help! They don't have all the answers. Some priests work with a Psychiatrist and even have them present during the exorcism. As a matter of a fact on one case that I read about, which was rather violent, the Psychiatrist present got quite scared and freaked out when he saw what actually happened during the exorcism.

Like i said, i suggest you do some study before you get into this.
Whatever.

Do you know how many books I have to get through? Why would I waste my time on stories about hokey superstitions?

DDT
22-05-2009, 12:36
Whatever.

Do you know how many books I have to get through? Why would I waste my time on stories about hokey superstitions?I see your point. So you can just read my posts and then you won't have to read up on exorcism!:)

MickeyTong
22-05-2009, 13:29
Huxley's "Devils of Loudon" is quite instructive.

Carbo
22-05-2009, 14:41
I see your point. So you can just read my posts and then you won't have to read up on exorcism!:)
I have exactly zero interest in learning about idiotic stuff like exorcism.

It's all utter bull.

I am shocked that anyone in the world believes in it, and if they do, have they tried exorcising Dick Cheney. That's something I'd pay good money to watch. Cheney's head spinning around, babbling in tongues and trying to anally penetrate himself with a cross, while Max Von Syodw does some wierd hokey witchcraft stuff.

Yeah, baby.

DDT
22-05-2009, 21:54
I have exactly zero interest in learning about idiotic stuff like exorcism.

It's all utter bull.

I am shocked that anyone in the world believes in it, and if they do, have they tried exorcising Dick Cheney. That's something I'd pay good money to watch. Cheney's head spinning around, babbling in tongues and trying to anally penetrate himself with a cross, while Max Von Syodw does some wierd hokey witchcraft stuff.

Yeah, baby.

Hmm....Let me get this straight. So far you have admitted.
That you know nothing about exorcism.
That you have zero interest in exorcism.
That you wouldn't waste your time reading about exorcism

Yet you somehow are able to draw the conclusion that it is "all bull".

Hmmm.....very good Carbo. I look ahead with great anticipation for reading more of your thoughtful opinions on this subject.

rusmeister
23-05-2009, 19:01
DDT, it seems to me that if you want to communicate the seriousness of Christianity, and get people to consider that things like miracles and exorcisms are not logically impossible, even though they are naturally impossible, you ought to try a more considerate and Christ-like tone (assuming here that you ARE a Christian). It's hard enough for them to see that without also being told it in tones that come across, intended or not, as unfriendly. Truth soaked in vinegar tends to get rejected, even if it IS true.

That said, I do agree that people can't reasonably decide that something is 'bunk' if they know little or nothing about it and what the bases are on which it is claimed. I find that most modern rejection of such ideas is generally baseless, because no one knows anything about theology anymore. If they did, they would know that the usual arguments have ready refutation and so they would stop bringing the same tired old arguments . They don't know that they are tired and old because they do not know the ancient refutations. That's why I suggest reading writers like Lewis and Chesterton, who make that pretty clear, and then going back and discovering the old theology - the early Church fathers, for example. If one really wants to knock Christianity, they need to show that they can defeat its best defenders, not its worst or even mediocre - they need to know the best arguments. I find that they generally always don't.

DDT
23-05-2009, 23:14
Well, Russmeister ol boy... I leave the the mild manners and reason up to you. If people reject what I say because of the tone then they reject because of their own pride and they will not listen anyway.

One thing I have never done is claim to be Christian, I simply put the facts out as I see them and call the cards as they lay.

But the more and more i study this entire issue of world religions the more I think that there is something different about Christianity. Why are people so quick to hate Christians today, when they are the most benign or reasonable out of the other religions. It seems prophetic in itself!

BigSpaseeba
24-05-2009, 00:41
Why are people so quick to hate Christians today, when they are the most benign or reasonable out of the other religions. It seems prophetic in itself!

are you kidding?

bush says he's a christian and god talks to him...reagan said he was christian....geezus...all usa presidents say they are christian and look what they've done.

yeah dropping bombs on iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, serbia, vietnam, cambodia, panama etc is the christian thing to do. oh yeah and the atomic bomb.

merry christmas

is4fun
24-05-2009, 01:09
I recon all are going to hell in a hand basket! LOL

GaNozri
24-05-2009, 01:12
Hmm....Let me get this straight. So far you have admitted.
That you know nothing about exorcism.
That you have zero interest in exorcism.
That you wouldn't waste your time reading about exorcism

Yet you somehow are able to draw the conclusion that it is "all bull".

Hmmm.....very good Carbo. I look ahead with great anticipation for reading more of your thoughtful opinions on this subject.

I've got to exorcise the shit out of this bitch. She's evil, I tell you! She won't , let me smoke a joint for 2 days, the cruel cunt! She'd be the devil, if it wasn't for her mouth!

is4fun
24-05-2009, 01:51
I suppose my study could be titled "Why Man Still Embraces a Prehistoric Understanding of Phsychology and Health".

I could start with witch doctors... and end there. I'll bet there's no difference.

Exactly! Which is why I carry a pouch on my side. A couple of eagle feathers, a bear claw and some rocks. I have a crystal dangling from the rear view mirror of my car, I keep a pyramid over my head and I get readings from my astrologist once a week. I think I am taken care of... LOL

Russian Lad
24-05-2009, 01:59
You are discussing a very interesting subject here, people.
Is there God? Yes and yes. But not the God of Christianity, something much more powerful, something that our brain is not fit to understand. It is enough to look at the endless stars to realize that there is a mystery to it all, beyond our current level of comprehension. But, well, being able to understand it is also an achievement. I am sure there is no Satan or Jesus in their traditional sense, we just made that up because we fear dying. Imagine the Earth without people - I think it would do just fine. Guess the Universe will continue to exist, as mysterious as ever, even the Earth itself explodes into sparkling dust. Let's not overestimate our abilities.

DDT, with your hate towards muslims and blacks, with your "let's kill em 'astards" attitude as a solution to many problems you are, if anything, a walking anti-Christianity advertisement, whether you realize it or not. Maybe you have been possessed and the demons need to be exorcised from your body? With the attendance of a shrink, of course, just to make sure, you know:). Give me a holler and I will come to the session with a camera, it looks like you need to make one little step further from reading up on the theory to the action itself.
Nice story about Borat, Carbo. You just reminded me -the Russian TV once showed a program about a Russian guy who had too much vodka somewhere in the village and hammered a huge nail right into his own head, a few cm deep inside, feeling that he is getting possessed by Devil. Evidently, he did not have much brain matter there, because the doctors saved him. He is somewhat a celebrity in the village now:).

BigSpaseeba
24-05-2009, 02:09
You are discussing a very interesting subject here, people.
Is there God? Yes and yes. But not the God of Christianity, something much more powerful, something that our brain is not fit to understand. It is enough to look at the endless stars to realize that there is a mystery to it all, beyond our current level of comprehension. But, well, being able to understand it is also an achievement. I am sure there is no Satan or Jesus in their traditional sense, we just made that up because we fear dying. Imagine the Earth without people - I think it would do just fine. Guess the Universe will continue to exist, as mysterious as ever, even the Earth itself explodes into sparkling dust. Let's not overestimate our abilities.

a big part of this mystery is mathematics and music.

watch this brilliant movie:

sorry they've changed it to a five minute preview only....i can't find the full version anymore.

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=50677

GaNozri
24-05-2009, 02:11
Kabbalah, Bnei Baruch - Kabbalah Education & Research Institute | kabbalah.info (http://www.kabbalah.info)

Russian Lad
24-05-2009, 02:19
a big part of this mystery is mathematics and music.

Again, Spaseeba, you are overestimating the human mind. I personally think that mathematics are infinitely more important to humans than music, though. Birds can sing, too. But no mathematical model will ever explain the infinite vastness of the Universe which does not seem to have a beginning or an end. Some artificial answers are provided, but they are laughable.

BigSpaseeba
24-05-2009, 02:28
Again, Spaseeba, you are overestimating the human mind. I personally think that mathematics are infinitely more important to humans than music, though. Birds can sing, too. But no mathematical model will ever explain the infinite vastness of the Universe which does not seem to have a beginning or an end. Some artificial answers are provided, but they are laughable.

it depends on what you mean by music. the sound of the planets moving through space is music. our ears can't perceive it though. it's there for us to hear in other ways and some people are closer to it than others.

i also believe that dreams are a huge part of the mystery.

the human mind is nothing without the spirit attached to it.

Russian Lad
24-05-2009, 02:53
i also believe that dreams are a huge part of the mystery.


So, you are ready to compare the mystery of human dreams with the mystery of the Universe? That is very selfish:). Again, if humans suddenly all die from a deadly virus, the Universe will still stay there, unperturbed. If the Universe disappears there will be no humans, for obvious reasons:). Dreams, actually, can have a very primitive explanation: you emotions that you had during the day are intertwined with some neurons dancing in your sleeping mind, and there you are - dreaming. Try to conduct a little experiment - stay with your eyes open (or closed - does not really matter) and try to visualize certain things like a galloping horse, for example, in your mind's eye. I am sure it will work. Similar processes are done by your brain when you are asleep.

rusmeister
24-05-2009, 06:34
Well, Russmeister ol boy... I leave the the mild manners and reason up to you. If people reject what I say because of the tone then they reject because of their own pride and they will not listen anyway.

One thing I have never done is claim to be Christian, I simply put the facts out as I see them and call the cards as they lay.

But the more and more i study this entire issue of world religions the more I think that there is something different about Christianity. Why are people so quick to hate Christians today, when they are the most benign or reasonable out of the other religions. It seems prophetic in itself!

Pride, to Christians, is the deadliest of sins. One big reason for this is because it is so subtle. It can strike anywhere, anytime, even a person deep in the most religious practice and succeeding in it. A person can become humble - and then suddenly take pride in their humility. Also, it is purely spiritual, and gets no pleasure out of things initially good, the way other sins generally do (as theft, rape, drunkenness, etc do), but whose pleasure is simply in having more of it than the next person - in lording it over others. Its opposite is humility (see below).

In short, when one begins speaking about the pride of others, that is the time to do the self check on their own pride.

If you're not Christian, then I guess it doesn't matter. (As long as everyone understands that.)

I agree on the special hate for Christianity found in the West, in particular, among the societies that were once part of what was called "Christendom". The true test here is the reaction of the mainline faith (as opposed to radicals, who we know are exceptions, not the rule) to being mocked (laughed at). What happens when other faiths are publicly mocked vs what happens when Christianity is the target. If it's (esp. Shiite) Islam, for example, they call for fatwa, most famously death, on the perpetrators. If it's Christianity they generally turn their backs, or ask that the offending image or text or whatever be removed, if possible. The best Christian responses 'grin and bear it' in a state of humility - the Christian ideal.

Chesterton addresses that special hate - or unreasonable bias, if you prefer) in the introduction to "The Everlasting Man" - the greatest book on history ever written in my opinion. It's a short read (2nd and 3rd paragraphs if you're really pressed for time) (especially the part about seeing the Cross as a swastika):
The Everlasting Man (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html#intro)

They won't know how reasonable it is if they only point to the worst examples (such as Bush or any frothing radical - ie, exception). They need to discover the reasonable parts and versions. I don't think Christianity benign at all, though - although it certainly calls its practitioners to be benign in the sense of 'do no evil'. It is absolute. If true, it is of absolute importance and demands a lot of us - more than we generally want to give. If not true, then it is of no importance and should be exposed as a humbug. But that IS the question.

is4fun
24-05-2009, 09:13
This post will hopefully convince the Agnostics to stop sitting on a fence and also confort those who believe... :)

I thought I would post some images of Jesus for sale on ebay. We have a chicken Jesus, a tortilla Jesus, an image of Jesus on Lay's Sour Cream & Onion Potato Chip (starting @ only $1.00) and so on...

For Sale: Jesus on Ebay (http://www.socyberty.com/Holidays/For-Sale-Jesus-on-Ebay.409345)

DDT
25-05-2009, 01:46
In short, when one begins speaking about the pride of others, that is the time to do the self check on their own pride.

Then I suppose there should be no preaching on "pride" from the pulpit or reading of Pauline letters too!

I'm afraid that I wouldn't make make a good Christian because I can see that the time for "talk" is clearly long past. I am more like Barabas than Jesus. But even I can see what is happening. I have drawn my line in the sand.

40 years ago most of the Western posters on this forum would have had the crap smacked out of them by whoever happened to be standing next to them, for even suggesting any of their loony attitudes to life. Perhaps we are too tolerant today! Look was is happening to Christians these days. Tell me you don't see what is happening too.

Google (http://www.google.com/webhp?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search#hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Faithful+Soldier+Storms++Beane+&fp=1pgcRPb1kBM)

Home: No place for Bible study (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98895)

Carbo
25-05-2009, 13:35
Hmm....Let me get this straight. So far you have admitted.
That you know nothing about exorcism.
That you have zero interest in exorcism.
That you wouldn't waste your time reading about exorcism

Yet you somehow are able to draw the conclusion that it is "all bull".

Hmmm.....very good Carbo. I look ahead with great anticipation for reading more of your thoughtful opinions on this subject.
Don't be dense, DDT.

That's the reason why I have no interest. Why on earth would I spend my spare time studying shamansim, or witch doctor techniques, or about how palm readers work?

There's no reason, because it's all hocus pocus.

Mind, it doesn't surprise me that a weak minded, hateful fool like you would believe in that kind of bull.

Wodin
25-05-2009, 16:09
Pride, to Christians, is the deadliest of sins. One big reason for this is because it is so subtle. It can strike anywhere, anytime, even a person deep in the most religious practice and succeeding in it. A person can become humble - and then suddenly take pride in their humility. Also, it is purely spiritual, and gets no pleasure out of things initially good, the way other sins generally do (as theft, rape, drunkenness, etc do), but whose pleasure is simply in having more of it than the next person - in lording it over others. Its opposite is humility (see below).

In short, when one begins speaking about the pride of others, that is the time to do the self check on their own pride.

If you're not Christian, then I guess it doesn't matter. (As long as everyone understands that.)

I agree on the special hate for Christianity found in the West, in particular, among the societies that were once part of what was called "Christendom". The true test here is the reaction of the mainline faith (as opposed to radicals, who we know are exceptions, not the rule) to being mocked (laughed at). What happens when other faiths are publicly mocked vs what happens when Christianity is the target. If it's (esp. Shiite) Islam, for example, they call for fatwa, most famously death, on the perpetrators. If it's Christianity they generally turn their backs, or ask that the offending image or text or whatever be removed, if possible. The best Christian responses 'grin and bear it' in a state of humility - the Christian ideal.

Chesterton addresses that special hate - or unreasonable bias, if you prefer) in the introduction to "The Everlasting Man" - the greatest book on history ever written in my opinion. It's a short read (2nd and 3rd paragraphs if you're really pressed for time) (especially the part about seeing the Cross as a swastika):
The Everlasting Man (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html#intro)

They won't know how reasonable it is if they only point to the worst examples (such as Bush or any frothing radical - ie, exception). They need to discover the reasonable parts and versions. I don't think Christianity benign at all, though - although it certainly calls its practitioners to be benign in the sense of 'do no evil'. It is absolute. If true, it is of absolute importance and demands a lot of us - more than we generally want to give. If not true, then it is of no importance and should be exposed as a humbug. But that IS the question.

Well said Rusmeister. However I do have to take issue with some of the things you mention. You say that when christianity is attacked in the West, christians tend to "grin & bear it". I put it to you that it was not always so. I also put it to you that it is now so simply because christianity has lost much of its former political power. I also put it to you that, if christianity were to regain political power, it would be just as intollerant as the other religion you mention. My basis for this assertion is events in those countries where christianity is still a political force, places like Spain, Ireland, Southern Italy, Phillipines. I therefore must conclude that, whether or not mandated by the religious dogma, since religions are "administerd" by people, then normal "social" rules apply.

My second point refers to the fact that you state that the naysayers argue against religion simply because they do not know the old theologies. I therefore ask you to kindly provide the proof set out in the old theologies that would conclusively demonstrate that (a) your God does in fact exist; or (b) that your God does not in fact exist. I believe that no such proof exists, not in any theology and that is why established religions all require their adherents to take their dogma on faith. This to me is no different to me asking you to take the religion of Wulla Wulla the abominable postman of Barbados on faith.

DDT
25-05-2009, 21:55
I also put it to you that it is now so simply because christianity has lost much of its former political power. I also put it to you that, if christianity were to regain political power, it would be just as intollerant as the other religion you mention. My basis for this assertion is events in those countries where christianity is still a political force, places like Spain, Ireland, Southern Italy, Phillipines.
You seem to be un aware of the real facts here. Christianity never HAD ANY political power. These two ideas are mutually exclusive to Christianity. EDIT: Just because kings and popes professed Christianity didn't they were part of the Movement.

The question is "Why is Christianity less popular than Islam?"

ANSWER: Because of the misguided hate in atheist's hearts, who would rather embrace their enemies than reexamine their own motives.

MickeyTong
26-05-2009, 00:02
.... Wulla Wulla the abominable postman of Barbados on faith.
Wulla Wulla was an apostate, renegade and a heretic! The Divine Message he claimed as his own was shamelessly stolen from the Holy Postbag of Ying Tong Yiddle I Po, the Venerable Mukkinese Postmaster.
Wulla Wulla will suffer from the dreaded Lurgi for Eternity!!!!

Wodin
26-05-2009, 13:53
You seem to be un aware of the real facts here. Christianity never HAD ANY political power. These two ideas are mutually exclusive to Christianity. EDIT: Just because kings and popes professed Christianity didn't they were part of the Movement.



Answer:

- The Papal States
- The submission of heads of state in the middle ages to Rome
- The power of the so called "Holy Inquisition"
- The jesuits
- The Catholic Churches in Latin America and Spain in the 17th Cent
- The Puritans...The Lord Protector
- The Protestant churces' domination of Prussia
- The anti-clericalism in 18th Cent France

More recent examples:
- The mobilisation of anti-divorce legislation activists by the Catholic Church in Ireland;
- The mobilisation of the anti-abortion activisits by the Catholic Church in Spain, Ireland, Italy;
- The political clout of Christianity in the US.

QED

DDT
26-05-2009, 14:04
I'm still waiting for you to mention Christians with political clout.

After all, Jesus said that just as He was persecuted, so would Christians face persecution

Carbo
27-05-2009, 17:22
I'm still waiting for you to mention Christians with political clout.
If you don't think that some of the people mentioned on his list had any political clout than noone has ever had any political clout.

Stop being dense, eh.

MickeyTong
27-05-2009, 17:29
If you don't think that some of the people mentioned on his list had any political clout than noone has ever had any political clout.

Stop being dense, eh.

No doubt he thinks those people were not true Christians.

rusmeister
29-05-2009, 20:32
Answer:

- The Papal States
- The submission of heads of state in the middle ages to Rome
- The power of the so called "Holy Inquisition"
- The jesuits
- The Catholic Churches in Latin America and Spain in the 17th Cent
- The Puritans...The Lord Protector
- The Protestant churces' domination of Prussia
- The anti-clericalism in 18th Cent France

More recent examples:
- The mobilisation of anti-divorce legislation activists by the Catholic Church in Ireland;
- The mobilisation of the anti-abortion activisits by the Catholic Church in Spain, Ireland, Italy;
- The political clout of Christianity in the US.

QED

I really have to agree with Wodin. It is ridiculous to say that Christians never had political power. But the whole point of Christianity is that God's kingdom is NOT of this world...

I do note the general reference and focus above on WESTERN Christianity (a general malaise is the lack of knowledge among westerners of Eastern Christianity).

rusmeister
29-05-2009, 23:07
Well said Rusmeister. However I do have to take issue with some of the things you mention. You say that when christianity is attacked in the West, christians tend to "grin & bear it". I put it to you that it was not always so.
I also put it to you that it is now so simply because christianity has lost much of its former political power.
I also put it to you that, if christianity were to regain political power, it would be just as intollerant as the other religion you mention. My basis for this assertion is events in those countries where christianity is still a political force, places like Spain, Ireland, Southern Italy, Phillipines. I therefore must conclude that, whether or not mandated by the religious dogma, since religions are "administerd" by people, then normal "social" rules apply.

My second point refers to the fact that you state that the naysayers argue against religion simply because they do not know the old theologies. I therefore ask you to kindly provide the proof set out in the old theologies that would conclusively demonstrate that (a) your God does in fact exist; or (b) that your God does not in fact exist. I believe that no such proof exists, not in any theology and that is why established religions all require their adherents to take their dogma on faith. This to me is no different to me asking you to take the religion of Wulla Wulla the abominable postman of Barbados on faith.

Hi Wodin!
On your first point - agreed (that it was not always so). The main thing that needs to be clear is whether the worldview that is Christianity (taken, not as a 'part' of your life, but as the entire definition of it) dominated in the society or not. Of course, if it dominates, then it is seen as the actual Truth; the true nature of the universe, and in such societies claims to the contrary are seen as the equivalent of insisting on teaching people that 2+2=5.

Therefore I also agree with your second point. That is indeed the case.

Third point - agreed. The only caveat is that "tolerance" needs to be understood in a broad sense - it is unwise to tolerate poison, or that which will kill you - in that event, intolerance is a virtue and greatly to be desired.

Also, you are right that religions are "administered" by people. Not sure what you mean by 'normal social rules applying', though.

Looks like we have some things in common! :)

DDT
29-05-2009, 23:10
I really have to agree with Wodin. It is ridiculous to say that Christians never had political power. But the whole point of Christianity is that God's kingdom is NOT of this world...

I do note the general reference and focus above on WESTERN Christianity (a general malaise is the lack of knowledge among westerners of Eastern Christianity).



Most of the examples posted were "Catholic".....notice?
One cannot make the claim that the Vatican was Christian Power or even that Popes were Christian!!!!

There was no Christian Power in the early Roman catholic Church!!!! How could there have been........as the same "church" called for the murder of True Christians all over Europe for hundreds of years? That's History!

If you don't know this then may i suggest that you begin re-educating yourself immediately! Try reading something NOT influenced by Catholics next time. Aren't you the one who quotes early catholic writers and supposed "Saints" as your source? Many of these people were already truly "lost" compared to Christians either before them or in the same era. (i.e. Christians living in Europe that the Popes had not destroyed yet) Yet, even today, these same "Saints" are quoted as if they possessed "knowledge".

You can not be taken seriously if you make the claim that the Vatican was "Christian Power."
One fact proves this:
The Vatican forbade the reading or possessing of Scripture! Under penalty of DEATH if you were a layman. Almost no priest had read the Bible!

This is a fact; see Martin Luther.

rusmeister
30-05-2009, 06:39
Most of the examples posted were "Catholic".....notice?
One cannot make the claim that the Vatican was Christian Power or even that Popes were Christian!!!!

There was no Christian Power in the early Roman catholic Church!!!! How could there have been........as the same "church" called for the murder of True Christians all over Europe for hundreds of years? That's History!

If you don't know this then may i suggest that you begin re-educating yourself immediately! Try reading something NOT influenced by Catholics next time. Aren't you the one who quotes early catholic writers and supposed "Saints" as your source? Many of these people were already truly "lost" compared to Christians either before them or in the same era. (i.e. Christians living in Europe that the Popes had not destroyed yet) Yet, even today, these same "Saints" are quoted as if they possessed "knowledge".

You can not be taken seriously if you make the claim that the Vatican was "Christian Power."
One fact proves this:
The Vatican forbade the reading or possessing of Scripture! Under penalty of DEATH if you were a layman. Almost no priest had read the Bible!

This is a fact; see Martin Luther.

Yes, I did notice that most references were Catholic. (These facts convince me that it was the Roman Church which made the system-wide error of establishing the power of one man as absolute - which lead to the break from the other Churches (which at the time- 1054 - were in Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria), but it was kind of inevitable with the collapse of secular power in Rome, but it was gradual and not sudden.

DDT, your claim that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is not Christian is easily refuted. The most widely accepted claim of what "Christian" is has always been the Nicene Creed of 381 AD. By that universal standard, Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Lutherans, etc are all Christians. They disagree on what the Church is - which is a serious division that has done tremendous damage to Christianity, but they are still Christians.

It appears you have a view of what "Christian" is that leaves out the Nicene Creed, and thus breaks with what has always been the accepted standard (I suppose I should leave out fundamentalist extremism of the late 19th and 20th centuries in the US, which often ignores historical Christianity and is generally ignorant of it).

I do agree that the evils committed by the Catholic Church (unlike the evils committed by other Christian faiths, and leaving out other religions and evils committed not in the name of religion altogether) do indeed demonstrate a 'system-wide failure', as some of the biggies were not merely in the name of the religion, but actually resulted from the structure of the religion itself - an important distinction. IOW, it was the official position of the RCC that directly resulted in the evils - unlike evils committed in the name of Orthodoxy, for example. (Protestantism inevitably makes the individual the ultimate authority; ie, he is free to dissent, break off and start his own church, something not possible in Catholicism or Orthodoxy, so while you may or may not be able to nail a particular institution, it is the ultimate philosophy of the Reformation that made this so - made everyone into their own Pope, so to speak).

As usual, knowledge of the history of the Christian Church(es) prior to the Reformation, especially prior to the Great Schism of 1054 is usually sadly lacking. But then, that's what agnosticism means - not knowing.

DDT
30-05-2009, 08:19
DDT, your claim that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is not Christian is easily refuted. The most widely accepted claim of what "Christian" is has always been the Nicene Creed of 381 AD.

It appears you have a view of what "Christian" is that leaves out the Nicene Creed, and thus breaks with what has always been the accepted standard (I suppose I should leave out fundamentalist extremism of the late 19th and 20th centuries in the US, which often ignores historical Christianity and is generally ignorant of it).


The Creed Nicene Creed is irrelevant, in that we already had the teachings of Jesus.

Furthermore the Creed was put together under the authority of the very same people (the Roman Church) who usurped Christianity in the first place and combined their power with the Roman State. They had already in earlier Creeds taken away the Passover from Christianity and instituted Easter (Ishtar) and then conferred the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Later at the Council of Ephesus instituting Mary Worship into this heretical church. At the Council of Valencia in 1229 the Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of Forbidden Books

The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion.

Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III, in the Lateran Council, in the year....1215

So you can see that having faith in the Nicene Councils or any Council or Creed of the Catholic Church to define Christianity is foolish.

It was a little like asking the Nazi Party and the Mussolini's Black Shirts to define Democracy.



Here a few more heresies adopted by the Pagan Catholics, which are NOT Christian:
Wax Candles introduced in church about....320

Veneration of angels and dead saints about....375

The M**** as a daily celebration, adopted....394

The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in....431

Priests began to dress differently from the laity in....500

Given all this, it seems that the power of the Vatican was not at all a Christian power after all!!


EDIT: One more important one:

The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible....1545

By tradition is meant human teachings.
The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God.

Convenient, hey! wink, wink, nudge, nudge!

Korotky Gennady
30-05-2009, 13:42
I am seeking converstion with agnostics; fence sitters. Who are you and why have you not responded? You will remain anonymous, in this world anyway... :)I can't help you becoz I'm not an agnostic. I'm an atheist. :)

:wavey:

rusmeister
30-05-2009, 14:33
The Creed Nicene Creed is irrelevant, in that we already had the teachings of Jesus.

Furthermore the Creed was put together under the authority of the very same people (the Roman Church) who usurped Christianity in the first place and combined their power with the Roman State. They had already in earlier Creeds taken away the Passover from Christianity and instituted Easter (Ishtar) and then conferred the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Later at the Council of Ephesus instituting Mary Worship into this heretical church. At the Council of Valencia in 1229 the Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of Forbidden Books

The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion.

Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III, in the Lateran Council, in the year....1215

So you can see that having faith in the Nicene Councils or any Council or Creed of the Catholic Church to define Christianity is foolish.

It was a little like asking the Nazi Party and the Mussolini's Black Shirts to define Democracy.



Here a few more heresies adopted by the Pagan Catholics, which are NOT Christian:
Wax Candles introduced in church about....320

Veneration of angels and dead saints about....375

The M**** as a daily celebration, adopted....394

The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in....431

Priests began to dress differently from the laity in....500

Given all this, it seems that the power of the Vatican was not at all a Christian power after all!!


EDIT: One more important one:

The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible....1545

By tradition is meant human teachings.
The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God.

Convenient, hey! wink, wink, nudge, nudge!

Really, DDT,
Now it's my turn to tell you to study history.
It is true that the Roman Church was united with the other Christian Churches in the first millenium; it is not true that it was the ONLY Church. Don't you know anything about Jerusalem or Constantinople, for example? They were never subservient to the Roman Church.

You seem to only have knowledge about the Roman Church, and zippo about the eastern Church, and what you do know is viewed through an essentially protestant lens - protesting against the wrongs of a Church that had gone wrong 500 years before the Reformation (earlier, actually, but the event that clearly identified the break was the bull of excommunication of 1054 - the process leading up to that was rather drawn out).

Also, if you throw out the Nicene Creed you do not have anything recognizably Christian left, and we have nothing by which to measure what the word "Christian" means. It becomes a meaningless word, something that anyone can mean whatever they want by it, and thus, useless for discussion or debate.

You cannot speak about "heresy" unless you first define what is "orthodox", and on what basis you see it as orthodox (right/true faith/worship). Practices are always introduced in any faith for various reasons. I will lay dollars to doughnuts that there was no "Vacation Bible School" in AD 34, for example, or that pews were used. Or are those just more "heresies" that you forgot to mention?

On your objections to the term "Mother of God" - you seem to think this means, "mother of the uncreated Father", which is decidedly not the case. Or do you deny that Jesus is God? If not, then "Mother of God" becomes an accurate term that confirms, above all else, the Godhood of Jesus Christ.

You seem to be unaware of the distinction between traditions of men, which Christ and the Apostles did condemn, and the Tradition of faith that they did teach and pass on (2 Thess 2:15 - which specifically commands the passing of both oral and written tradition). Thus, not all traditions are mere human teachings (if we accept that the Bible has valid authority to teach).

I doubt we can talk if you can't recognize that Catholics actually are Christians, however far they may seem to you to be from the Truth. It is illogical to accept a Bible whose canon was compiled by that same (not only Roman) Church and yet deny that that Church had any authority to compile that Bible that you put so much stock in. If the Church's authority was good enough to produce a trustworthy Bible that excluded, for example, the Gospel of Judas, then it had to be good enough to proclaim a valid Creed at approximately the same time.

DDT
30-05-2009, 23:23
I am more than aware of the Eastern Church. It is nothing more than an extension of the Roman Church with most of the same heresies. Therefore they are cast as one church, along with some of the Protestant churches.


Also, if you throw out the Nicene Creed you do not have anything recognizably Christian left, and we have nothing by which to measure what the word "Christian" means.


Again, if you need a man made creed to guide you, then perhaps you need to question whether or not you are a Christian too! We still have the same teachings of Jesus along with the Old Testament that the early Christians had available. If you need more than that then you are no longer Christian, falling under the passage from Jeremiah I think, "....the traditions of men make My words of no effect."

It is unlikely that you and I will agree on anything as i look at you as the Type responsible for the "falling away" from the truth and the reason that this Age rejects God. People today see the contradictions in the Church and run like hell, throwing the baby out with the bath-water. Look in the mirror, they run because of you. When you wonder why you can't convert your neighbor to the Truth.......go inside and look in the mirror.

You back the Church of Constantine (Emperor Constantine presided over the Council of Nicea in 325) and follow the teachings of scum like Augustine who was appointed bishop to destroy the North African Christians. Why? because you read only one side of history....the side of the Tyrant who tried to wipe out the True Christians.
Maybe the Catholics did some good but it was in spite of themselves not because of themselves. I suck at baseball, but even I can hit a home run once in a while!

rusmeister
31-05-2009, 23:04
I am more than aware of the Eastern Church. It is nothing more than an extension of the Roman Church with most of the same heresies. Therefore they are cast as one church, along with some of the Protestant churches.



Again, if you need a man made creed to guide you, then perhaps you need to question whether or not you are a Christian too! We still have the same teachings of Jesus along with the Old Testament that the early Christians had available. If you need more than that then you are no longer Christian, falling under the passage from Jeremiah I think, "....the traditions of men make My words of no effect."

It is unlikely that you and I will agree on anything as i look at you as the Type responsible for the "falling away" from the truth and the reason that this Age rejects God. People today see the contradictions in the Church and run like hell, throwing the baby out with the bath-water. Look in the mirror, they run because of you. When you wonder why you can't convert your neighbor to the Truth.......go inside and look in the mirror.

You back the Church of Constantine (Emperor Constantine presided over the Council of Nicea in 325) and follow the teachings of scum like Augustine who was appointed bishop to destroy the North African Christians. Why? because you read only one side of history....the side of the Tyrant who tried to wipe out the True Christians.
Maybe the Catholics did some good but it was in spite of themselves not because of themselves. I suck at baseball, but even I can hit a home run once in a while!

If you really WERE "more than aware" of the Eastern Church, you would know that it is by no means "an extension of the Roman Church. Perhaps you are thinking of the Uniates...? (but then you evidently still don't know what the Orthodox Church is).

Yes, I do back "the Church of Constantine". That much you are correct on. It is the only Church that has any historical evidence on its side at all in the first millennium. But "scum like Augustine...?" "the true Christians"? Pray tell, who were they? And what historical basis do you stand on in any such identification.

I'd rather not have someone who shows little knowledge of history being seen here as a prime defender of Christianity. Since you have said that you are not Christian, that should not matter so much. It's good that you have some sympathies toward Christianity, at least.

DDT
01-06-2009, 03:27
Yes, I do back "the Church of Constantine". That much you are correct on. It is the only Church that has any historical evidence on its side at all in the first millennium. But "scum like Augustine...?" "the true Christians"? Pray tell, who were they? And what historical basis do you stand on in any such identification.



That's partly because, as I said, the TRUE Christians were not a "Power." Romans burned much of the Apostolic Church's writings and Scriptures and later the Popes destroyed what they could too! True Christians were systematically murdered by the Popes; See for example the Waldenses

By 300 A.D., North Africa was the most important province of the Roman Empire and was teeming with cities:

By the third century, there were five or six hundred cities. Two hundred of them were in the rich farmlands of northern Tunisia. In places there were no more than six or eight miles apart, and in the valley of the River Bagradas (Medjerda) there was almost a kind of ribbon development along the main road from Carthage to Theveste (Tebessa). (Raven, Rome in Africa, p. 101).

By 300 A.D., Christianity was the dominant religion in North Africa:

By this time Christianity had taken a firm hold in North Africa. The Church had survived persecution under Severus, Decius, and Valerian, and was ceasing to be the religion of a poor minority. In contrast to the emptiness of pagan literature of this period there were the vigorous works of Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius. The Church was making its impact felt on all classes and in the farthest corners of the Roman provinces in Africa. (Frend, The Donatist Church)., p3.

Roman Emperors Diocletian and Galerius ordered all the Christians in North Africa to hand over the Scriptures for burning. They were also ordered to burn incense to the statues of the Caesars. Many refused to give up the Scriptures and worship Caesar, so Christian blood flowed like a river.

The last Great Persecution ended when Constantine became Emperor of the West. Together with Emperor Licinius, he issued an edict of toleration called the Edict of Milan.

This edict of toleration did not apply to Christians who would not join his new imperial "Christianity."

This edict excluded many of the North African survivors of the persecution. Those surviving Christians referred to people who handed over the Scriptures as traditores (traitors) and insisted on their rebaptism.

Emperor Constantine presided over the Council of Nicea in 325.

He condemned the surviving Christians in North Africa because they refused to join his new "Christian" Roman Empire.

From then on, North African Christians were called DONATISTS after a popular Christian leader named Donatus.
The North African Christians were first condemned a the Council of Arles for rebaptizing those who handed over the Scriptures during the persecution.
Later they were also condemned by Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea.

Donatus Magnus was a GREAT Christian leader of that period, who ordered the rebaptism of traditores (traitors) who turned over the Scriptures to the pagan magistrates. He was the Martin Luther of North Africa.



Very little is known about this remarkable man, who in Africa came to hold a position not unlike that achieved by his contemporary, Athanasius, in Egypt. In Donatus' case the Catholic damnatio memoriae has been particularly effective. His literary works have not survived, we know little of his background, his personal appearance, his friendships, and his way of life., We do know that he was a great orator and leader of men; wherever he went the enthusiasm was such as to be remembered fifty years after his death. In an age when religious controversy took something of the place occupied by ideological conflict in providing an outlet for popular discontent, Donatus was a dominating figure. (Frend, The Donatist Church, pp. 153-154).


Christianity soon recovered in North Africa, so Augustine was appointed a bishop to fight them with pen and ink. Augustine derisively referred to them as DONATISTS. Augustine had an intense HATRED for those uncompromising Christians who refused to join the Constantinean church.

Augustine was influential and was the originator of most of the false doctrines that emerged from his Roman church, they can be traced right back to him. Including, Original sin, Infant baptism, Purgatory and Clerical celibacy.
So, ah....yeah, he was a piece of scum! And so were the Vatican Councils such as the Nicenes.

In a way the Vatican paved the way for Islam!

rusmeister
01-06-2009, 07:46
It is well known that Constantine did a number of nasty things (which can be said about quite a number of saints, by the way). Again, so what? He wasn't the head of the Church. If you are trying to prove that the Church is not the Church because Constantine - a secular ruler - was a sinner, you'll get nowhere, because the Church teaches that all men are sinners. Yes, he called the first Ecumenical Council, but he didn't control it or make its decisions. As for wrongs he did in his life, those are his responsibility and not of the Church.

A basic level one assumption of traditional Christianity - that which really existed from the beginning, is that you are not free to believe and teach what you want regarding the Faith. You may do so - but then you are not part of the Faith. So being shocked that people who broke away from Church authority were denied continued Church membership in good standing is a merely modern reaction that places the opinion of the individual as supreme above all and actually opposes truth - it makes truth impossible to arrive at, as any individual may disagree and be "objectively" right. And the whole point of Christianity is that it is not an individual opinion, but the Truth with a capital 'T', and not subject to individual opinion. (This makes traditional Christianity really unpopular with modern pluralists.) Things like being re-baptized actually ARE heresies, as they essentially deny the effectualness of Baptism, but I won't debate that - you have to first identify the authority that decides that, and there we already disagree.

Finally, your reference is exclusively to Rome and to one rather isolated incident. The Church was actually older in Jerusalem and Antioch, but the real point is that Rome is not the be-all and end-all of the Church in the 1st millennium., although it was (and remained) an important Church center. You're never going to convince an educated Orthodox Christian of anything if you show knowledge only of Rome or present Rome as the only authoritative representative of Christianity. I personally agree that the shadow on Rome grew over the first millennium, especially after the Popes (head Roman bishops) essentially took on many of the functions of secular rulers following the collapse of the Roman Empire, something which didn't happen in the East, something that was instrumental in the ultimate claims by the Roman bishops of the supremacy of said bishops over all of the Church (which is why I see Rome to have ultimately broken with the actual Church and to no longer be a part of it).

By the way, I find your supposition that the Roman actions paved the way for Islam to be interesting and plausible. I would be interested in reading a little about that connection - but only if such charges are backed up by primary sources - I'm not interested in the mere opinions of historians without good back-up.

DDT
01-06-2009, 09:30
It is well known that Constantine did a number of nasty things (which can be said about quite a number of saints, by the way). Again, so what? He wasn't the head of the Church.
There are those who will argue that Constantine indeed was the first Pope of the Roman Church.



So being shocked that people who broke away from Church authority were denied continued Church membership........ They didn't break away from the Church! The Roman Church usurped authority and installed heresy creating a new and false church.



Finally, your reference is exclusively to Rome and to one rather isolated incident. Those were just examples. I could show you other examples where the Roman Church trampled Christians all the way from North Africa to Scotland.



The Church was actually older in Jerusalem and Antioch,Yes, but they were not the new Roman Church. And this is my point.



You're never going to convince an educated Orthodox Christian of anything if you show knowledge only of Rome or present Rome as the only authoritative representative of Christianity. I don't believe that Rome ever was as authoritative representative of Christianity.



(which is why I see Rome to have ultimately broken with the actual Church and to no longer be a part of it).
Yes but, I see the Roman Church breaking from true Christianity at the time of Constantine, and your Eastern Church as simply the Roman Church "Lite", with most or all of the same heresies instituted by the Roman Church. Both churches follow the traditions of men.



I have to wonder that the N African Christians were not condemned by the Roman Church, for rebaptizing the Traitors, not because it was Scripturally wrong but rather because the Roman Church didn't think that the Traitors were "traitors".



By the way, I find your supposition that the Roman actions paved the way for Islam to be interesting and plausible. I would be interested in reading a little about that connection - but only if such charges are backed up by primary sources - I'm not interested in the mere opinions of historians without good back-up. I am still working on this. I think it may correspond with Marxism unhinging the traditional religion in Europe, leaving the door open for Islam.

rusmeister
01-06-2009, 16:19
There are those who will argue that Constantine indeed was the first Pope of the Roman Church.
There are also those who will argue that no one ever landed on the moon, as well. That doesn't make what they say any closer to the truth.


They didn't break away from the Church! The Roman Church usurped authority and installed heresy creating a new and false church.
Really? Who on earth did they "usurp" authority from?


Those were just examples. I could show you other examples where the Roman Church trampled Christians all the way from North Africa to Scotland.
And sticking to the point that your view assumes that the Roman Church was the only one and being ignorant of the Eastern Church. Also, any other examples will be equally isolated. There is simply no evidence that there were hordes of people struggling to reveal truths and being suppressed by the Church. The exceptions (Montanists, Arians, etc) are well-known and documented. See any list of first-millennium heresies widely accepted to be such.


Yes, but they were not the new Roman Church. And this is my point. Again, any historical challenge to the Roman Church being not part of the general Christian Church in the first millenium faces the difficulty of a complete lack of historical evidence. Ditto for those that would claim that "the real Church" was "somewhere else". Such claims tend to come from certain protestant and cultist groups which have no historical backing for their faith.



I don't believe that Rome ever was as authoritative representative of Christianity.
OK. But see above.



Yes but, I see the Roman Church breaking from true Christianity at the time of Constantine, and your Eastern Church as simply the Roman Church "Lite", with most or all of the same heresies instituted by the Roman Church. Both churches follow the traditions of men.
Again, you love that phrase "traditions of men" - how about 2 Thess 2:15 - is that also a tradition of men that Paul is selling the Thessalonians, when he is saying that both the oral and the written traditions are important? As for the rest, without solid historical evidence you are just making unsupported allegations. The overwhelming weight of all historical evidence is against you.

ahmettombak
01-06-2009, 16:38
Agnostism means i don't know if there is a god and i don't have the ability to see everything so I don't know shit and because i don't know shit there may be a god. Very clear lol

Wodin
01-06-2009, 18:09
Again, any historical challenge to the Roman Church being not part of the general Christian Church in the first millenium faces the difficulty of a complete lack of historical evidence. Ditto for those that would claim that "the real Church" was "somewhere else". Such claims tend to come from certain protestant and cultist groups which have no historical backing for their faith.


Just curious Rusmeister, but would you not consider the Cathars to have been non-christian? From what I have read about their beliefs they seem to have contradicted some of the more basic tenets of christianity? The Crusade ordered aginst them is reasonably well documented historically.

rusmeister
01-06-2009, 19:44
Just curious Rusmeister, but would you not consider the Cathars to have been non-christian? From what I have read about their beliefs they seem to have contradicted some of the more basic tenets of christianity? The Crusade ordered aginst them is reasonably well documented historically.

They don't meet the test of the Creed. Basically a sect that named the name of Jesus, but essentially non-Christian.

Like I already said, I think that the RCC had gone wrong well before the Great Schism, and its sins are indicative of the "system-wide failure" I mentioned. Thus I do not accept the post-Schism RC Church as the genuine Christian Church. So all proofs of Catholic outrages just support my position.

DDT
01-06-2009, 19:54
They don't meet the test of the Creed. Basically a sect that named the name of Jesus, but essentially non-Christian.

This describes the Roman Church to a 'T', aswell!

Jack17
01-06-2009, 20:52
They don't meet the test of the Creed. Basically a sect that named the name of Jesus, but essentially non-Christian.

Like I already said, I think that the RCC had gone wrong well before the Great Schism, and its sins are indicative of the "system-wide failure" I mentioned. Thus I do not accept the post-Schism RC Church as the genuine Christian Church. So all proofs of Catholic outrages just support my position.

Do you accept any church(s) as representing the "genuine Christian Church" today?

From my layman's knowledge of religious history, it would seem difficult to point to anything as "genuinely" Christian since what we consider as Christian is such an amalgam of centuries of Eastern mystery religions and European paganism. Has any respected theologian been able to trace anything in the New Testament to an actual man or god-man? Since there is no birth certificate for a Jesus of Nazareth; I'm rather of the opinion that the figure venerated as "Christ" in churches of the same name, is really a compilation of many figures and faiths.

Returning to the original question in this thread, I feel an examination of any religion's history leads one to conclude there is scant evidence for anything devine in any of them; rather, what one sees is a plethora of myths. Since I believe all myths are created equal, my personal favorite is Mormonism. There can't be another myth that combines more strains from a wider variety of cultures and beliefs than Mormonism. If you're going to base your life and actions on a myth, I say, base it on a good one. My runner up pick would be Rastafarianism. :rasta: Any belief that holds the smoking of weed as an article of faith can't be all bad.

DDT
01-06-2009, 21:01
There are also those who will argue that no one ever landed on the moon, as well. That doesn't make what they say any closer to the truth.
However, there is a lot more reason to believe that Constantine was the first Pope because HE started the Roman Church when he joined it with the Roman State. I hope you don't actually believe the myth that the Apostle Peter would have ever associated himself with the Roman church/state!



Really? Who on earth did they "usurp" authority from?There was no church/state until Constantine! Power was usurped from every Christian's heart when Rome decided that THEY would be the middle man to God. If you can not see this, you have a long way to go before you can call yourself a Christian.



And sticking to the point that your view assumes that the Roman Church was the only one and being ignorant of the Eastern Church. Also, any other examples will be equally isolated. There is simply no evidence that there were hordes of people struggling to reveal truths and being suppressed by :cool:I never said that Rome was ignorant of the Eastern Church. The Eastern Church is/was irrelevant because they are as lost and as far for the truth as the Roman Church. Don't pretend that your church is any different to the Roman church. You still believe in UNCHRISTIAN and pagan stories such as purgatory and confessing sin before a priest and saint worship, Easter and a host of other early pagan ceremonies.





Again, any historical challenge to the Roman Church being not part of the general Christian Church in the first millenium faces the difficulty of a complete lack of historical evidence. Ditto for those that would claim that "the real Church" was "somewhere else". Such claims tend to come from certain protestant and cultist groups which have no historical backing for their faith.
You have no understanding of early Christianity! Christianity had not only spread to N Africa before the Roman Church came to power. Christianity had spread into every crevice of the Roman Empire and even further. Since they were observing true Christianity still, they had no formal power other than the Word of God. When Roman friars reached the far regions of the Empire they found Christians ALREADY living there in many cases but since they were not Roman Catholic they were treated as heretics. Iona, Scotland was an example. The Christians there still kept the original 7th day Sabbath. When the false Roman Church finally made it to Scotland, Columba argued against the implementation of the Roman Catholic/Pagan policies, before the emissary from Rome and the local King. Unfortunately, the well educated Roman emissary's smooth words won the King over to the Roman /Pagan Church "standards" .

Since the Roman Church had the Power of the State backing it up, it was not too hard to re write history to agree with their point of view, but if you really wanted to, even you could find out what really happened. The fact that you don't already know these things not checking things out thoroughly, and profess to be an educated Christian is disturbing. I wonder how many people you have beguiled into your false church.






Again, you love that phrase "traditions of men" - how about 2 Thess 2:15 - is that also a tradition of men that Paul is selling the Thessalonians, when he is saying that both the oral and the written traditions are important? As for the rest, without solid historical evidence you are just making unsupported allegations. The overwhelming weight of all historical evidence is against you.
It is quite CLEAR from the text that Paul is referring traditions from God, not from men. "Oral" traditions meant that they came from the Apostles themselves or their letters which were recited......I think you know that!

Your church follows traditions of men. There are no scriptures to back up your heresies.

Jack17
01-06-2009, 21:14
So DDT, what is your church? Are you a Mormon; or have you established your own church as some tax scam? And all this RCC bashing! I say any church with a Sistine Chapel can't be all bad - painted by a gay guy you know.

is4fun
01-06-2009, 21:54
So DDT, what is your church? Are you a Mormon; or have you established your own church as some tax scam? And all this RCC bashing! I say any church with a Sistine Chapel can't be all bad - painted by a gay guy you know.

He's an agnostic and according to Scripture he will never enter the Kindom of God. LOL

MickeyTong
01-06-2009, 22:10
From my layman's knowledge of religious history, it would seem difficult to point to anything as "genuinely" Christian since what we consider as Christian is such an amalgam of centuries of Eastern mystery religions and European paganism. Has any respected theologian been able to trace anything in the New Testament to an actual man or god-man? Since there is no birth certificate for a Jesus of Nazareth; I'm rather of the opinion that the figure venerated as "Christ" in churches of the same name, is really a compilation of many figures and faiths.


Jesus was a Mushroom......

http://www.phreak.co.uk/debespace/John_Allegro___The_Sacred_Mushroom_And_The_Cross.pdf

BigSpaseeba
01-06-2009, 22:47
Jesus was a Mushroom......

http://www.phreak.co.uk/debespace/John_Allegro___The_Sacred_Mushroom_And_The_Cross.pdf

I saw jesus when i was on shrooms.

rusmeister
02-06-2009, 07:46
This describes the Roman Church to a 'T', aswell!
Not at all. The only difference with the Creed of 381 is the Catholic addition of the Filioque (the "and the Son" clause - that the Holy Spirit, according to them, proceeds from the Father AND the Son.)

The problem in any discussion with you here, DDT, is that your view is not built on historical evidence. What evidence you do offer is either opinion (what exactly constitutes heresy, and on what basis), or evidence of where the Roman Church began to go or had gone wrong, which does not disprove its membership in the general Christian Church of the first millennium, or anything at all regarding the Orthodox view. Simply thinking Orthodoxy as "Catholicism lite" does not make it so, indeed, you reveal to any serious student of Orthodoxy your lack of knowledge about it. And evidence that "the real Church was elsewhere" is zippo - based on wishful thinking. Unsupported opinion at its very best.

I welcome confronting solid evidence and hard questions - they either reveal holes in my knowledge or cause me to consider certain aspects of the faith in history more carefully. However, if this is what all of your debates are like, then I'll find better ways to spend my time. You've got to offer evidence, not mere unsupported opinion, if you want to interest me. I'd suggest you learn more about the Orthodox view and bases for it if you want to continue discussion.

rusmeister
02-06-2009, 08:38
Do you accept any church(s) as representing the "genuine Christian Church" today?

From my layman's knowledge of religious history, it would seem difficult to point to anything as "genuinely" Christian since what we consider as Christian is such an amalgam of centuries of Eastern mystery religions and European paganism. Has any respected theologian been able to trace anything in the New Testament to an actual man or god-man? Since there is no birth certificate for a Jesus of Nazareth; I'm rather of the opinion that the figure venerated as "Christ" in churches of the same name, is really a compilation of many figures and faiths.

Returning to the original question in this thread, I feel an examination of any religion's history leads one to conclude there is scant evidence for anything devine in any of them; rather, what one sees is a plethora of myths. Since I believe all myths are created equal, my personal favorite is Mormonism. There can't be another myth that combines more strains from a wider variety of cultures and beliefs than Mormonism. If you're going to base your life and actions on a myth, I say, base it on a good one. My runner up pick would be Rastafarianism. :rasta: Any belief that holds the smoking of weed as an article of faith can't be all bad.

Hi Jack,
Yes, I do, and I'll admit it looks strange "from the outside" at first.

It's funny you mention myth - that was one of the ideas that lead C.S. Lewis to accept the Christian faith - precisely that it was a myth - with the caveat that this one is true. As a hint, I'll say that the presence of a thousand counterfeit bills is not proof that a real one does not exist, but on the contrary, is evidence that one does.

On what basis do you believe that all myths are created equal? That is an odd dogma to hold, and definite and critical differences can be shown between existing mythologies and the philosophies behind them, most famously, Greek vs Norse mythology.

The evidence that Christ actually existed is strong. I get what you are saying about supposing Him to be a compilation of myths, but given the texts that we do have, this is highly unlikely. They were compiled in too short a period and too locally to make that a realistic possibility.

I do agree on basing your life on a good Myth, though! :)

DDT
02-06-2009, 09:33
Not at all. The only difference with the Creed of 381 is the Catholic addition of the Filioque (the "and the Son" clause - that the Holy Spirit, according to them, proceeds from the Father AND the Son.)

The problem in any discussion with you here, DDT, is that your view is not built on historical evidence. What evidence you do offer is either opinion (what exactly constitutes heresy, and on what basis), or evidence of where the Roman Church began to go or had gone wrong, which does not disprove its membership in the general Christian Church of the first millennium, or anything at all regarding the Orthodox view. Simply thinking Orthodoxy as "Catholicism lite" does not make it so, indeed, you reveal to any serious student of Orthodoxy your lack of knowledge about it. And evidence that "the real Church was elsewhere" is zippo - based on wishful thinking. Unsupported opinion at its very best.

I welcome confronting solid evidence and hard questions - they either reveal holes in my knowledge or cause me to consider certain aspects of the faith in history more carefully. However, if this is what all of your debates are like, then I'll find better ways to spend my time. You've got to offer evidence, not mere unsupported opinion, if you want to interest me. I'd suggest you learn more about the Orthodox view and bases for it if you want to continue discussion.





If you look at the all the early church in general you will find a big difference in them to the Roman/eastern church. You, like most people have have probably ignored this your entire life. It challenges your faith. Had you been aware you would not be Orthodox still.

There were many more changes made than what you mentioned and i have already made note of some in previous posts. Go back and read them and tell me where in Scripture purgatory is mentioned. I can't have a debate with you if you ignore my posts. Here's another biggy.
The early Christians did as Jesus did, and one of the things that Jesus did was observe the sabbath day, not Sunday. There is nothing in the New Testament to say that the day was changed to Sunday. If you read the Catholic literature themselves the Catholics proudly claim to be the responsible party to the change to Sunday......not the Apostles! Some Catholic writers have even gone so far as the say the all Protestants who are Sunday worshipers are giving full acknowledgment to the supremacy of the Roman Church by doing so. "Catholic Lites"

That said, documentation of those Christians who followed true Christianity (the real Church) in the first millennium, who were not Catholisized can be easily found.

The 17th century historian William Cave reported that the early Christians, both Jews and those in Asia Minor, kept the Sabbath.

The Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath. Gieseler’s Church History, Vol. 1, ch. 2, par. 30, p. 93.



"The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews . . . therefore the Christians, for a long time together, did keep their conventions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council." The Whole Works of Jeremy Taylor, Vol. IX, p. 416 (R. Heber’s Edition, Vol. XII, p. 416)...

SPAIN – Council Elvira (A.D. 305)
"Canon 26 of the Council of Elvira reveals that the Church of Spain at that time kept Saturday, the seventh day. "As to fasting every Sabbath: Resolved, that the error be corrected of fasting every Sabbath." This resolution of the council is in direct opposition to the policy the church at Rome had inaugurated, that of commanding Sabbath as a fast day in order to humiliate it and make it repugnant to the people..."

Sabbath-keeping in Asia Minor was publicly still going on to at least 364 A.D. or else the Eastern Church would not have convened a Council in Laodicea to excommunicate any who rested on the seventh day. Notice what the Council of Laodicea declared.

CANON XXIX. CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ (THE COMPLETE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA).

Notice what the so-called Apostolic Constituitions, written in Syria around 250 A.D. states:
XXXIII...Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord's day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord's day of the resurrection (Apostolic Constitutions - Didascalia Apostolorum Book VIII, Section IV).

Also in the fifth century, the historian Socrates noted:
For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.(Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter XXII. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890.

Irenaeus, A.D. 178, says that the church in his time was spread throughout the World; and especially mentions the churches in Germany, Spain, Gaul, and Britain. He adds: "There is no difference of faith or tradition in any of these countries."...

In the biography of Augustine who came from Rome A.D. 596, to convert the heathen Saxons, we are told that he found the people of Britain in the most grievous and intolerable heresies, "being given to Judaizing, but ignorant of the holy sacraments and festivals of the church." That is to say, they kept the Bible Sabbath and were ignorant of the Roman "Sunday-festival." (Mrs. Tamar Davis : "History of Sabbatarian Churches," p. 108. Phila 1851.) ...

A professor of church history at Princeton wrote, “It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labor. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week.” Professor James C. Moffat, The Church in Scotland, p. 140.

The early Celtic Church kept the seventh day or Saturday as God’s holy rest!“It was the Sabbath among the Briton Christians 596-664, and then was still so with those who withdreww to the Isle of Iona and to Ireland rather than to submit to the laws commanding and enforcing Sunday observance.” Alonzo T. Jones, Lessons From the Reformation, p. 360.

Even St Patrick was NOT Catholic! He was a Sabbath keeper.
You have been lied to!

I could go on and on but needless to say the early Christians BEFORE the paganization of Roman influence they were entirely different bred of Christian. In over 100 languages the word for "Saturday" is translated 'Sabbath" ....Why is that, if this is incorrect?



Even Russia was not immune form the Roman deception. The Russian word for Saturday (suborta) is also transles to "sabbath".

I think it is easy to see that the Roman Church and the Eastern church, up into 9th and 10 th centuries, systematically converted true Christians to Roman and orthodox catholics all across Britain, europe and Russia.

rusmeister
02-06-2009, 17:48
If you look at the all the early church in general you will find a big difference in them to the Roman/eastern church. You, like most people have have probably ignored this your entire life. It challenges your faith. Had you been aware you would not be Orthodox still.

There were many more changes made than what you mentioned and i have already made note of some in previous posts. Go back and read them and tell me where in Scripture purgatory is mentioned.

Speaking to the audience now, I'll just say that I was raised as a Baptist, left it as a young adult and spent 20 years as a lazy agnostic. I converted TO Orthodoxy because of what I learned, and have not been ignorant of something that is not in fact true at all.

Regarding changes, some practices (something actually distinct from doctrine, believe it or not) were added. For example, the early Church confessed their sins IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH. The confession to God before the priest only was a change necessitated by the rise of nominal Christianity, inevitable when it became a state religion and no longer cost one one's life to accept and practice it. (You couldn't confess sins before all if a dozen or more people who were not serious believers would go blab all around town with the goal of ruining you or flattering their own egos, for example) That's not "heresy" and does not represent any change of doctrine; that's common sense.

By making Sola Scriptura ("tell me where it says in the Bible...") your first assumption, we already part ways. I hold that you logically cannot accept the Bible without accepting the Church that canonized it.

If you think that Purgatory is an Orthodox teaching, well, that shows what you know about Orthodoxy. And what the rest of your opinions about Orthodoxy are worth. And doesn't speak well to your knowledge of what the early Church practiced and believed, either. Anyone can make any claims whatsoever about the early Church. The question is which claims are actually supported by available historical evidence.

I don't think there's any point in speaking with you further, DDT. With all due respect, I withdraw.

Jack17
02-06-2009, 18:26
Hi Jack,
Yes, I do, and I'll admit it looks strange "from the outside" at first.

It's funny you mention myth - that was one of the ideas that lead C.S. Lewis to accept the Christian faith - precisely that it was a myth - with the caveat that this one is true. As a hint, I'll say that the presence of a thousand counterfeit bills is not proof that a real one does not exist, but on the contrary, is evidence that one does.

On what basis do you believe that all myths are created equal? That is an odd dogma to hold, and definite and critical differences can be shown between existing mythologies and the philosophies behind them, most famously, Greek vs Norse mythology.

The evidence that Christ actually existed is strong. I get what you are saying about supposing Him to be a compilation of myths, but given the texts that we do have, this is highly unlikely. They were compiled in too short a period and too locally to make that a realistic possibility.

I do agree on basing your life on a good Myth, though! :)

Rusmeister, I sincerely respect your erudition and well written prose. Your reply to DDT is certainly on the money.

To answer your question regarding my view that "all myths are created equal" I say this because each grows out of a culture with its own peculiar needs and predicaments for which its myth provides solace and answers. In that sense, I do consider all of them equal. But have you answered my question? What particular church or denomination do you consider truly Christian? There are many and knowing which you consider true would provide insight into your understanding of Christianity; that is why I ask.

You'll have to excuse my obvious synicism. I consider the study of religion and myth an extreemly valuable pursuit, much in the way that Karl Jung was an astute analyst of the subject. But I don't believe in an empiracle God; I'm afraid that's a gift of faith I haven't received.

My knowledge of the early history of Christianity is far too slight to argue the existence of an actual Christ or Jesus of Nazareth. But I am aware there are theologians in a position to advance such an argument. By your posts, I wouldn't be surprised if you hold a theology degree or are ordained, so allow me to probe a little deeper. You say the texts we do have were composed in too narrow a time frame; but I recall the earliest gospel of Mark to have been written perhaps 50 to 75 years after the alleged death of Christ and the gospel of John to have been written perhaps 1 or 2 hundred years later. Luke was a Roman physician and Matthew and Mark were clearly Jewish while John wrote his gospel most probably in Greece (Potmos?). That says nothing of all the gospels such as those of Thomas and Judas that were ultimately droped from the orthodoxy. Consider the similarities between Christ and Mythra: born of a virgin, cruxified, rose from the dead, etc. and Mythraism was only the most popular of many mystery religions of the time. My point is that there is also a strong case to be made that there never was an actual "Christ;" rather, there were many myths with similar tenants to modern Christianity that coalasced over hundreds of years BC and AD to form modern Christianity. Actually, I believe that Mornmonism provides a modern day glimpse into the same process that produced the Church of Rome. Whether Paul or Joseph Smith, you have a charismatic individual who tailors a compelling message from a variety of souces that attracts followers in particular communities. I feel religions are created much as are nationalities and ethnic groups, from the constant influx and invasion of other ideas and peoples blending ultimately into a single cohesive group or orthodoxy.

DDT
03-06-2009, 10:49
Speaking to the audience now, I'll just say that I was raised as a Baptist, left it as a young adult and spent 20 years as a lazy agnostic. I converted TO Orthodoxy because of what I learned, and have not been ignorant of something that is not in fact true at all.

Regarding changes, some practices (something actually distinct from doctrine, believe it or not) were added. For example, the early Church confessed their sins IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH. The confession to God before the priest only was a change necessitated by the rise of nominal Christianity, inevitable when it became a state religion and no longer cost one one's life to accept and practice it. (You couldn't confess sins before all if a dozen or more people who were not serious believers would go blab all around town with the goal of ruining you or flattering their own egos, for example) That's not "heresy" and does not represent any change of doctrine; that's common sense.

By making Sola Scriptura ("tell me where it says in the Bible...") your first assumption, we already part ways. I hold that you logically cannot accept the Bible without accepting the Church that canonized it.

If you think that Purgatory is an Orthodox teaching, well, that shows what you know about Orthodoxy. And what the rest of your opinions about Orthodoxy are worth. And doesn't speak well to your knowledge of what the early Church practiced and believed, either. Anyone can make any claims whatsoever about the early Church. The question is which claims are actually supported by available historical evidence.

I don't think there's any point in speaking with you further, DDT. With all due respect, I withdraw.

It sounds to me that you just prefer to believe man's traditions over Scripture! No where did Jesus ask anyone to confess sins before him or his disciples. It is written, and you know it, that the only intercessory between man and God is Jesus. But if you want to believe that a priest is empowered to accept cofession, then you will.

The Church did not not write the Bible. The Bible existed amongst Christians long before the Church. If the Church canonized the correct letters it was by accident or Providence, not because the Church was True. God only knows if they even got it right!

You have ignored all the history of early Christians and only read the Church's version. The same Church that burns people at the stake and the Church that buggars little boys. You may want to stop taking their word for it! It's not hard to investigate and I've given you plenty of leads. Before you preach to others you should know what you are preaching.

Jack17
03-06-2009, 17:56
Is "Orthodoxy" an organized Christian Church? Well, I respect what you have to say for many reasons, not least of which is your inability to find anything coherent in DDT's rants. I suppose saying that about him isn't very Christian of me; but then, I'm not a Christian.

DDT
03-06-2009, 23:06
Is "Orthodoxy" an organized Christian Church? Well, I respect what you have to say for many reasons, not least of which is your inability to find anything coherent in DDT's rants. I suppose saying that about him isn't very Christian of me; but then, I'm not a Christian.
If you are not Christian how would you even remotely know that my information is incorrect? RM is educated in Christianity and even he has not been taught the facts as I have presented them on early Christianity. You won't hear this stuff that I have presented very often, so I suggest that you take notice now while you the opportunity. Keep in mind that the Scripture says, that Gods followers will be "the few, not "the many." Jesus said that his followers will be "persecuted and hated."

Don't be fooled by Russmeisters smooth words. his Church is huge and powerful, part of the "many" He is neither "Hated" nor "Persecuted"! His Church has a long tradition of beguiling the innocent and he himself is also a victim.

is4fun
03-06-2009, 23:14
You won't hear this stuff that I have presented very often, so I suggest that you take notice now while you the opportunity.

I thank the Lord (or whatever to appease the half and whole believers) that I can simply do a simple search of all DDT's quotes and zone-in on the answers, which I need to enter the kingdom of Gid. Spelling is fine... LOL

MickeyTong
03-06-2009, 23:19
DDT is the Truth and the Way!!! :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

Jack17
03-06-2009, 23:28
If you are not Christian how would you even remotely know that my information is incorrect? RM is educated in Christianity and even he has not been taught the facts as I have presented them on early Christianity. You won't hear this stuff that I have presented very often, so I suggest that you take notice now while you the opportunity. Keep in mind that the Scripture says, that Gods followers will be "the few, not "the many." Jesus said that his followers will be "persecuted and hated."

Don't be fooled by Russmeisters smooth words. his Church is huge and powerful, part of the "many" He is neither "Hated" nor "Persecuted"! His Church has a long tradition of beguiling the innocent and he himself is also a victim.

DDT you're correct, I'm not a Christian. All I have to guide my understanding of Christianity is eight years of Jesuit education and more theology classes in high school and college than I can count. I'm afraid the good Jesuit fathers did too good of a job in my case; they created a critical thinker. By your treatment on this web site at the hands of most posters DDT, you may certainly count yourself among the "persecuted and hated." In this thread DDT, I really can't critisize anything you say because, frankly, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. It all sounds to me like some Pentacostal speaking in tongues. As for Russmeister, his thoughts are very clear and expressed exceptionally well. I may not agree with everything he says, but I respect the integrity and clarity of his expression. There's only one thing I'd wish he'd fess up to and that is what is his Church? Maybe you know DDT, is there such a Church named Christian Orthodoxy? You seem to know. If his Church is "huge and powerful" then what the hell is it? Russmeister certainly isn't RC; he claims to be a former Baptist; I certainly don't think of Presbyterians as "huge and powerful." All this talk about restored othodoxy sound a lot like LDS. Maybe he's a Mormon. Holy smokes, those folks are heavy into witnessing for their faith; what's his reluctance to say? Shucks, I like Mitt Romney's views on marriage. He said during the campaign that he believes "marriage is only between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman. . . . " Sounds good to me if you can afford it.:thumbsup:

MickeyTong
03-06-2009, 23:37
I believe Russmeister is an adherent of the Russian Orthodox Church.

DDT
03-06-2009, 23:44
One more thing while I am at it: Russmeister has conveniently alluded that I know nothing. He has alluded that Orthodoxy does not believe in Purgatory! But he has been less than truthful about the issue of the heresy of "purgatory".

Orthodoxy may not use the word "purgatory" but they still believe in the concept. I suppose we could call it "Purgatory Lite"!

Now since you all think that YOU know all there is to know on Christianity, and the lowly DDT is uneducated I will post links and quotes from "educated" peoples view on this subject.



In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Latin Church fully on both of these points. In practice, we routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf. We would not do so if we did not agree with the above two dogmatic points.

But again, we do not use the word "Purgatory" for two reasons. First, it is a Latin word first used in the Medieval West, and we use Greek words to describe our theology. Second, the word "Purgatory" still carries specific Medieval baggage that we aren't comfortable with.

Co the Eastern Catholic Church believe in purgatory? - Catholic Answers Forums (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=179025)





The Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, held in 1672, declared that "the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness,

Purgatory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory#Eastern_Orthodox_Church)

As you can see both Catholics and Orthodox agree on a state after death where prayers of the living can still save them. Some call it Purgatory. Some don't... but it is the same UNCHRISTIAN heresy adopted by the Roman Church/State.

Russmeister has withdrawn from the debate in the hopes that the splendor of his Church, the magnificence of her churches will cover the lies she speaks. And the lowly DDT will be heard only as the voice of the nut from the wilderness. Sounds like a familiar tactic, don't it?

Jack17
03-06-2009, 23:46
DDT, don't post anything for my benefit; all you believers may as well be arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Jack17
03-06-2009, 23:59
I believe Russmeister is an adherent of the Russian Orthodox Church.

That is great! Thanks Mickey. I knew there was a reason I liked Russmeister! The Russian Orthodox Church is my absolute favorite.
Some of my most moving experiences have occured in the churches of Jaroslavl.

The music, the vestments, the Ikona - it is the perfect religion and, with the Greek Orthodox Church, the one most faithful to the pagan rites of the ancient Roman state. The Metropolitan is far closer to the Pontificus Maximus than the Pope.

The Russian Orthodox Church is so steeped in mysticism that the illogic of religion in general no longer matters. This is the problem with Protestanism, it attemps to rationalize something that is at its core irrational. The magnum mysterium is alive and well in the Russian Church.

GaNozri
04-06-2009, 00:14
[QUOTE=DDT;535856]If you are not Christian how would you even remotely know that my information is incorrect? RM is educated in Christianity and even he has not been taught the facts as I have presented them on early Christianity. You won't hear this stuff that I have presented very often, so I suggest that you take notice now while you the opportunity. Keep in mind that the Scripture says, that Gods followers will be "the few, not "the many." Jesus said that his followers will be "persecuted and hated."/QUOTE]

Does Jesus talk to you, as he did to Rev. G.W. Brush? We are sorry that we even compare our heathen Orthodox faith to your direct word of God. We are not worthy. Forgive us, DDT.

DDT
04-06-2009, 00:18
Does Jesus talk to you, as he did to Rev. G.W. Brush?
Nope. Just studied the Bible without any church looking over my shoulder (the way we are inteneded too!)

rusmeister
04-06-2009, 06:25
I believe Russmeister is an adherent of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Hi Mickey,
It would be more accurate to say that I am an adherent of Eastern Orthodoxy (Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Icon-Pentecost.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e3/Icon-Pentecost.jpg/150px-Icon-Pentecost.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/e/e3/Icon-Pentecost.jpg/150px-Icon-Pentecost.jpg, whose members generally refer to it as "the Orthodox Church"), and am a member of the Russian Church by virtue of the fact that I live in Russia. There is no division, other than purely administrative, between "Greek Orthodox", "Russian Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox", etc. They are all part of the same Orthodox Church (provided that they are in Communion - there are such things as independent (schismatic) churches. Point is, I can walk into a Greek, Serbian, Antiochian, Orthodox Church of America (OCA) or whatever church and worship and receive Communion without it being a big deal. Thanks to the reunion of the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR) with the Moscow Patriarchate, I can go there, too now. They're like different flavors of ice cream, the differences being the language/s the services are held in, certain orders of worship, certain holidays... But doctrinally they are all united.

Hopefully that answers Jack's question.

Oh, and it's "Rusmeister" with one 's'. :)

Jack17
04-06-2009, 06:52
Hi Mickey,
It would be more accurate to say that I am an adherent of Eastern Orthodoxy (the Eastern Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church), whose members generally refer to it as "the Orthodox Church"), and am a member of the Russian Church by virtue of the fact that I live in Russia. There is no division, other than purely administrative, between "Greek Orthodox", "Russian Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox", etc. They are all part of the same Orthodox Church (provided that they are in Communion - there are such things as independent (schismatic) churches. Point is, I can walk into a Greek, Serbian, Antiochian, Orthodox Church of America (OCA) or whatever church and worship and receive Communion without it being a big deal. Thanks to the reunion of the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR) with the Moscow Patriarchate, I can go there, too now. They're like different flavors of ice cream, the differences being the language/s the services are held in, certain orders of worship, certain holidays... But doctrinally they are all united.

Hopefully that answers Jack's question.

Oh, and it's "Rusmeister" with one 's'. :)

Thanks Rusmeister. I do believe the Russian Orthodox Church is as close as we can come to a genuine Christianity. Of course, DDT, as a faithful diciple of Martin Luther, will vehemently disagree, but c'est la vie.

rusmeister
04-06-2009, 07:08
Rusmeister, I sincerely respect your erudition and well written prose. Your reply to DDT is certainly on the money.

To answer your question regarding my view that "all myths are created equal" I say this because each grows out of a culture with its own peculiar needs and predicaments for which its myth provides solace and answers. In that sense, I do consider all of them equal. But have you answered my question? What particular church or denomination do you consider truly Christian? There are many and knowing which you consider true would provide insight into your understanding of Christianity; that is why I ask.

You'll have to excuse my obvious synicism. I consider the study of religion and myth an extreemly valuable pursuit, much in the way that Karl Jung was an astute analyst of the subject. But I don't believe in an empiracle God; I'm afraid that's a gift of faith I haven't received.

My knowledge of the early history of Christianity is far too slight to argue the existence of an actual Christ or Jesus of Nazareth. But I am aware there are theologians in a position to advance such an argument. By your posts, I wouldn't be surprised if you hold a theology degree or are ordained, so allow me to probe a little deeper. You say the texts we do have were composed in too narrow a time frame; but I recall the earliest gospel of Mark to have been written perhaps 50 to 75 years after the alleged death of Christ and the gospel of John to have been written perhaps 1 or 2 hundred years later. Luke was a Roman physician and Matthew and Mark were clearly Jewish while John wrote his gospel most probably in Greece (Potmos?). That says nothing of all the gospels such as those of Thomas and Judas that were ultimately droped from the orthodoxy. Consider the similarities between Christ and Mythra: born of a virgin, cruxified, rose from the dead, etc. and Mythraism was only the most popular of many mystery religions of the time. My point is that there is also a strong case to be made that there never was an actual "Christ;" rather, there were many myths with similar tenants to modern Christianity that coalasced over hundreds of years BC and AD to form modern Christianity. Actually, I believe that Mornmonism provides a modern day glimpse into the same process that produced the Church of Rome. Whether Paul or Joseph Smith, you have a charismatic individual who tailors a compelling message from a variety of souces that attracts followers in particular communities. I feel religions are created much as are nationalities and ethnic groups, from the constant influx and invasion of other ideas and peoples blending ultimately into a single cohesive group or orthodoxy.
Hi Jack,

I hope my answer to Mickey satisfies your question on what I see to be true. But no, I have no formal theological education (which I regret and therefore am making amends, although I'll admit that I am especially drawn to apologetics).

Your own education (recognizing that faith is also a gift, for example) is also telling.

On the dating of the Gospels: Taking the common denominators of sources, Matthew - most likely 70-75 AD
Mark - about 65-70 AD
Luke - about AD 80
John - circa 90-95 AD

Your sources appear to be from 'maximalist' scholars who are in a clear minority. I'm going with the average mean on what most agree on. In short, they were all written within one lifetime of Christ's death (it is generally agreed that John was very long-lived for his time). It's funny how we readily accept memoirs from people about their lives,and accept as true account what they say about events, say, 50-60 years past, but when it comes to the Gospels we immediately see that kind of time-frame as a barrier. A special kind of prejudice... I still have no problem remembering the exact words my first love said to me when she spurned me almost 30 years ago, for example. The words were burned on my heart and got constant playback. Of course that doesn't prove the validity of the Gospels, but it certainly denies the idea that they must be invalid.

I think your Jesuit education gives you a head start in some areas on most. I would submit to you, however, (since you ARE a critical thinker) that your understanding of Christianity was arrested in childhood (at the point when you abandoned it). I abandoned the Baptists in a similar way (and evidently age - I was going on 19). The potential trouble with that (a syndrome, imo) is that it leaves the adult with what I call "a second-grader's version of Christianity". They do not often go back and discover the teachings from an adult point of view. Also, if that version does leave valid complaints (as the Baptist one did for me) it does not mean that there is not a version that does not have any of these objections - therefore leaving open the possibility that it could actually be true.

I wonder if you have read GK Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html)? I bring it up because you say "consider the similarities". (The book deals extensively with the idea of similarities/differences.) I wonder if you have similarly considered the differences? It is what is different that proves the idea of similarity wrong. If you haven't, I should warn you - C. S. (aka Jack) Lewis was an atheist logician until he was about 30 years old - and it was "The Everlasting Man" that turned him away from atheism and put him on the path that lead to his conversion and subsequent world-wide fame.


each grows out of a culture with its own peculiar needs and predicaments
Just as a teaser thought, it is worth considering that the cultures of humanity also have common needs and predicaments, and these are far more important than the peculiar ones.

rusmeister
04-06-2009, 07:37
One more thing while I am at it: Russmeister has conveniently alluded that I know nothing. He has alluded that Orthodoxy does not believe in Purgatory! But he has been less than truthful about the issue of the heresy of "purgatory".

Orthodoxy may not use the word "purgatory" but they still believe in the concept. I suppose we could call it "Purgatory Lite"!

Now since you all think that YOU know all there is to know on Christianity, and the lowly DDT is uneducated I will post links and quotes from "educated" peoples view on this subject.
Co the Eastern Catholic Church believe in purgatory? - Catholic Answers Forums (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=179025)





Purgatory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory#Eastern_Orthodox_Church)

As you can see both Catholics and Orthodox agree on a state after death where prayers of the living can still save them. Some call it Purgatory. Some don't... but it is the same UNCHRISTIAN heresy adopted by the Roman Church/State.

Russmeister has withdrawn from the debate in the hopes that the splendor of his Church, the magnificence of her churches will cover the lies she speaks. And the lowly DDT will be heard only as the voice of the nut from the wilderness. Sounds like a familiar tactic, don't it?

DDT, I find it useless to respond to you, because you can't hear me.
Even your source for information makes my point, that what little you may have ever heard about Orthodoxy you don't even bother to get from Orthodox sources. If you want to know what we teach, you have to ask US. Not Catholics, not Baptists, and not even Wikipedia. But you don't even ask. You just start crying "heresy!" without troubling to honestly inquire as to what basis we hold certain beliefs and practices. It does tend to make you look like the nutcase.

If you would convince anyone of anything, you must first learn on what bases they believe differently from you (and it ought to be axiomatic that you examine your own position thoroughly) and then what, if any, are the holes in reason. But you have to identify the first principles first. As long as you apply your first principles without looking to see whether others agree with them, you'll never convince anybody of anything.

I think you do have some things right, and in those respects, are closer to the truth than others. But it won't avail us much as long as you don't attempt to understand others.

Jack17
04-06-2009, 07:49
Hi Jack,

I hope my answer to Mickey satisfies your question on what I see to be true. But no, I have no formal theological education (which I regret and therefore am making amends, although I'll admit that I am especially drawn to apologetics).

Your own education (recognizing that faith is also a gift, for example) is also telling.

On the dating of the Gospels: Taking the common denominators of sources, Matthew - most likely 70-75 AD
Mark - about 65-70 AD
Luke - about AD 80
John - circa 90-95 AD

Your sources appear to be from 'maximalist' scholars who are in a clear minority. I'm going with the average mean on what most agree on. In short, they were all written within one lifetime of Christ's death (it is generally agreed that John was very long-lived for his time). It's funny how we readily accept memoirs from people about their lives,and accept as true account what they say about events, say, 50-60 years past, but when it comes to the Gospels we immediately see that kind of time-frame as a barrier. A special kind of prejudice... I still have no problem remembering the exact words my first love said to me when she spurned me almost 30 years ago, for example. The words were burned on my heart and got constant playback. Of course that doesn't prove the validity of the Gospels, but it certainly denies the idea that they must be invalid.

I think your Jesuit education gives you a head start in some areas on most. I would submit to you, however, (since you ARE a critical thinker) that your understanding of Christianity was arrested in childhood (at the point when you abandoned it). I abandoned the Baptists in a similar way (and evidently age - I was going on 19). The potential trouble with that (a syndrome, imo) is that it leaves the adult with what I call "a second-grader's version of Christianity". They do not often go back and discover the teachings from an adult point of view. Also, if that version does leave valid complaints (as the Baptist one did for me) it does not mean that there is not a version that does not have any of these objections - therefore leaving open the possibility that it could actually be true.

I wonder if you have read GK Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html)? I bring it up because you say "consider the similarities". (The book deals extensively with the idea of similarities/differences.) I wonder if you have similarly considered the differences? It is what is different that proves the idea of similarity wrong. If you haven't, I should warn you - C. S. (aka Jack) Lewis was an atheist logician until he was about 30 years old - and it was "The Everlasting Man" that turned him away from atheism and put him on the path that lead to his conversion and subsequent world-wide fame.


Just as a teaser thought, it is worth considering that the cultures of humanity also have common needs and predicaments, and these are far more important than the peculiar ones.

To your last point first, yes, myths, as cultures, have more similarities than differences. As for the rest, it wasn't only my understanding of Christianity that was arrested in childhood; my understanding of women is similarly deficient - but that's a story for another thread. Truly, the Russian Orthodox service is the only religious service I enjoy attending because no one is lecturing or making arguments for anything - it just is, as is the Alpha and Omega; as it was in the beginning, is now and always will be.

kirk10071
04-06-2009, 10:37
Threads like this get us nowhere. Christianity this, Muslim that. History is on my side and I have proof that at some point during the Bronze Age that or that happened that proves I am right.

Believe what you want. If your Bible tells you that you shouldn't eat pork or you should cover your head or you should pray facing Pittsburgh or you must marry your rapist if you did not cry out during the rape, then don't eat pork and cover your head and pray facing Pittsburgh and hope you are raped by George Clooney.

But when you start with "other people should" or "other people will go to hell" or "you shouldn't this" or "she mustn't that" then you go too far.

If you are not an agnostic but think that agnostics are "f****d", then why do you give a s**t? Go about your business and think about your imaginary friend Jesus and how many good times you will have hand-in-hand on the sunny beaches of heaven after you die and forget about the agnostics and the athiests and the gays and everybody else and what they are doing, etc.

After all, who are YOU to determine what will happen to agnostics? Read Zecharia 13:3.

kirk10071
04-06-2009, 10:39
DDT, don't post anything for my benefit; all you believers may as well be arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I don't know why we give DDT the time of day. It's like when the dog watches you masturbate. Even if you know what he's thinking, it couldn't possibly matter.

rusmeister
05-06-2009, 07:54
Threads like this get us nowhere.

One wonders what kind of threads would get us anywhere on the issue of the true nature of the universe? (Pauses for caustic response from Kirk; obligatory laugh track provided)
Nothing has done so much to make us, collectively speaking, stupid so fast as the modern denial that there is any truth to be found.

MissAnnElk
05-06-2009, 09:32
What about this idea:

YouTube- La Realidad es una Ilusión (1 de 2)

DDT
05-06-2009, 12:44
New Age Psychobabble!............16055

Carbo
05-06-2009, 12:49
New Age Psychobabble!............16055
Hippies may smell, DDT, but nobody stinks the house out quite like you.

kirk10071
05-06-2009, 12:59
One wonders what kind of threads would get us anywhere on the issue of the true nature of the universe? (Pauses for caustic response from Kirk; obligatory laugh track provided)
Nothing has done so much to make us, collectively speaking, stupid so fast as the modern denial that there is any truth to be found.

Search for truth all you want to. Nobody is stopping you. In your quest, however, keep your preaching and your moral code away from me. That is my only point. [Pause as Rusmeister cluck clucks in righteous indignation; applause from athiests and sexual liberals.]

And if you think you'll find your "truth" in this thread, then keep going. I think it leads nowhere, but, hey, if DDT reveals unto you something you are looking for, then no one is happier about that than me. God bless.

DDT
05-06-2009, 13:40
I don't know why we give DDT the time of day.

it's called the Jerry Springer Factor!

Wodin
05-06-2009, 14:07
Nothing has done so much to make us, collectively speaking, stupid so fast as the modern denial that there is any truth to be found.

That, I think, is slightly unfair. I see it as not so much as there being a denial that a single truth exists as there now being an acceptance that there may be many "truths" out there and that unless a truth can be proven then it is as "valuable" and as "correct" as any other truth.

In other words, while up to a few hundred years ago I would probably have been burnt at stake for my beliefs by those who argued that their truth alone should exist, the advent of freedom and liberalism has now meant that my truth is exactly as valuable as your truth, since neither can be proven or disproven one way or another.

Carbo
05-06-2009, 15:10
I don't know why we give DDT the time of day. It's like when the dog watches you masturbate. Even if you know what he's thinking, it couldn't possibly matter.
I think it's like the local pub. You go there to chat with your buddies and maybe talk about the latest happenings in the world, but there's always one man who sits in the corner preaching his racist, hateful views to the world. "I'd have 'em all strung up", "Strikes should be bloody banned -- stick 'em up against a wall, I say", "Hitler was an evil man, but he had the right idea about the gypsies and jews" -- that kind of thing.

At first, you roll your eyes, tolerate, and maybe have a little giggle with your other friends, but eventually he says something so mind-blowingly stupid or so toe-curlingly offensive that you have to engage him in the most aggressive terms.

That's DDT: the hateful, racist, white guy who sits in the corner complaining that everyone who isn't a white, protestant male are inferior, are destroying his culture, but also have all the advantages in the world.

Carbo
05-06-2009, 15:27
One wonders what kind of threads would get us anywhere on the issue of the true nature of the universe?
Do you actually wonder?

Surely a sane person would immediately realise that on most issues this forum is the intellectual equivalent of a group of people debating politics and religion in a bar -- or the Russian Kitchen, if you prefer -- and therefore is about as likely to get us to the true nature of the universe as a cat is to meow an intelligible explanation of Dirac's work in quantum mechanics.

I suggest, if you're looking for truth, that a more logical starting point would be a book written by a real philosopher or intellectual, rather than bar-room philosophers like me.

I recommend that you start with Bertrand Russell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Bertrand_Russell_1950.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Bertrand_Russell_1950.jpg/150px-Bertrand_Russell_1950.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/da/Bertrand_Russell_1950.jpg/150px-Bertrand_Russell_1950.jpg

rusmeister
05-06-2009, 18:53
That, I think, is slightly unfair. I see it as not so much as there being a denial that a single truth exists as there now being an acceptance that there may be many "truths" out there and that unless a truth can be proven then it is as "valuable" and as "correct" as any other truth.

In other words, while up to a few hundred years ago I would probably have been burnt at stake for my beliefs by those who argued that their truth alone should exist, the advent of freedom and liberalism has now meant that my truth is exactly as valuable as your truth, since neither can be proven or disproven one way or another.

It's not unfair if you consider that I am not speaking about individual truths (such as the law of human nature or the existence or nature of evil or love) but about the issue of the possibility of a worldview, taken as a whole, of actual being correct; ie, correctly describing the nature of the universe, and its cause(s) to boot. That is the issue.

Thus I can concede that other views have a grasp on a great many truths, while being ultimately incorrect in their understanding of the true nature of the universe (the sum of their worldview). I can even concede that I do not grasp all truths (thank God for that!); as it is not me at all, but the source of my worldview (in my case the Orthodox Church) which gets the credit for the correct understanding. The question is, whose worldview is the most correct?

Wodin
05-06-2009, 20:14
The question is, whose worldview is the most correct?

...and that, my friend, is the one question that neither of us can answer with absolute sincerity and certainty until after we breathe our last.

Jack17
05-06-2009, 20:26
...and that, my friend, is the one question that neither of us can answer with absolute sincerity and certainty until after we breathe our last.

Oh, it's not that difficult for me to answer; I vote for Einstein's - at least until someone else can come up with a unifying theory of physics.

is4fun
06-06-2009, 00:30
Threads like this get us nowhere. Christianity this, Muslim that. History is on my side and I have proof that at some point during the Bronze Age that or that happened that proves I am right.

Believe what you want. If your Bible tells you that you shouldn't eat pork or you should cover your head or you should pray facing Pittsburgh or you must marry your rapist if you did not cry out during the rape, then don't eat pork and cover your head and pray facing Pittsburgh and hope you are raped by George Clooney.

But when you start with "other people should" or "other people will go to hell" or "you shouldn't this" or "she mustn't that" then you go too far.

If you are not an agnostic but think that agnostics are "f****d", then why do you give a s**t? Go about your business and think about your imaginary friend Jesus and how many good times you will have hand-in-hand on the sunny beaches of heaven after you die and forget about the agnostics and the athiests and the gays and everybody else and what they are doing, etc.

After all, who are YOU to determine what will happen to agnostics? Read Zecharia 13:3.

Part of your post rings true to the initial intent of the thread, however, the latter confuses me greatly. “If you are not an agnostic but think that agnostics are "f****d", then why do you give a s**t?”
This is purely curiosity as I am neither an agnostic nor believer.
The idea behind a forum is to stimulate conversation that encourages varied opinions, tastes, new ideas, and so on... As you feel threads such as this does not get us anywhere, where else can they be discussed? True, the title of the thread is provocative and may indeed offend but the core of the theme remains the same. I have read Zecharia 13:3 and found no relative answer to the initial question that I posed as there are certainly many other quotations which seem to contradict yours.

John 3:3: "...no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
John 3:15: "...everyone who believes in him [Jesus] may have eternal life."
John 3:18: "...whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
John 14:6: "Jesus answered: 'No one comes to the Father except through me'"
Acts 3:23: "And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people." (ASV)
Acts 4:12: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved"
Romans 10:9: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"
Hebrews 9:28: "...he [Christ] will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him"
John 5:12: "...he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

If you were upset by this thread because you are indeed an agnostic it has partly fulfilled its purpose. I thank you for your contribution and will consider reading any threads that you consider to start if they peak my interest.

DDT
06-06-2009, 00:51
That, I think, is slightly unfair. I see it as not so much as there being a denial that a single truth exists as there now being an acceptance that there may be many "truths" out there and that unless a truth can be proven then it is as "valuable" and as "correct" as any other truth.

In other words, while up to a few hundred years ago I would probably have been burnt at stake for my beliefs by those who argued that their truth alone should exist, the advent of freedom and liberalism has now meant that my truth is exactly as valuable as your truth, since neither can be proven or disproven one way or another.
The only way to make sense of your version of the word "truth" is to redefine the meaning of it to fit YOUR belief. Perhaps you should just invent your own new word instead of changing the meaning of an existing word. Either way, you seem to fit in perfectly with what RM was talking about!

DDT
06-06-2009, 00:53
I think it's like the local pub. You go there to chat with your buddies and maybe talk about the latest happenings in the world, but there's always one man who sits in the corner preaching his racist, hateful views to the world. "I'd have 'em all strung up", "Strikes should be bloody banned -- stick 'em up against a wall, I say", "Hitler was an evil man, but he had the right idea about the gypsies and jews" -- that kind of thing.

At first, you roll your eyes, tolerate, and maybe have a little giggle with your other friends, but eventually he says something so mind-blowingly stupid or so toe-curlingly offensive that you have to engage him in the most aggressive terms.

That's DDT: the hateful, racist, white guy who sits in the corner complaining that everyone who isn't a white, protestant male are inferior, are destroying his culture, but also have all the advantages in the world.

Why don't you go fishing in somebody else's pond and take your retardo agenda with you! Mullet!

elis
06-06-2009, 01:18
Have any of you read this thread in reverse (i.e from latest to earliest postings)? Highly amusing . . . really!!!

rusmeister
06-06-2009, 06:55
...and that, my friend, is the one question that neither of us can answer with absolute sincerity and certainty until after we breathe our last.
That is just another way of saying "seeing is believing".
But seeing is not believing. If I went only with that, if I saw trees swaying in the wind, I would think that the movement of the trees caused the wind. In such cases, the reality is what we can't see - and turns out to be stranger than fiction.

One can be sincere (I don't think we can be "slightly sincere" or "moderately sincere") now. And certainty can be based on faith without having seen something - if a $100 bill of yours disappears from a room that your oldest and most trusted friend of 30 years was in, you will likely be certain that he did not take it. (Granted, a quick and cheesy example - just trying to point out the KIND of certainty that can spring from faith, understood as a conscious choice.)

One of my favorite cinema moments is from "Miracle on 34th St", in the very end, when little Natalie Wood is sitting in the car and saying to herself, "I believe, I believe, it's silly but I believe..." (a modern version of the man in the Gospel who said 'I believe, Lord! Help my unbelief!" - with tears in his eyes, regarding his dying son). Choosing, in spite of what we perceive, to believe; IOW, our reason and experience trump our perceptions and enable us to make the seemingly less likely choice.

rusmeister
07-06-2009, 16:57
I recommend that you start with Bertrand Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell)
Unfortunately, I read Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" (recommended by an atheist friend) and found Russell's understanding of Christianity to have been arrested, evidently in his childhood. He had objections, and easily brushed aside the straw-man arguments he created himself. However, his view of Christianity was limited largely to recent Protestant history in English-speaking countries, which rules out most of historic Christianity. Put another way, he attacks something that I don't defend.

Many people have what I call a "second-grader's knowledge of Christianity". This means they were taken to church as children, picked up various ideas of theology, understood on a child's level, and left to party at college (or in the Army or wherever) as soon as they could. Such people never learned anything of depth on the history or theology of the faith they were raised in, and yet they believe they 'know what the faith teaches' because they were raised in it. They never attain an adult understanding. This is obviously the case with Russell (based on said essay). Given that, I can't really be further interested in his work.

MickeyTong
07-06-2009, 18:09
YouTube- Frank Zappa - Cosmik Debris

MickeyTong
07-06-2009, 18:28
Unfortunately, I read Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" (recommended by an atheist friend) and found Russell's understanding of Christianity to have been arrested, evidently in his childhood. He had objections, and easily brushed aside the straw-man arguments he created himself. However, his view of Christianity was limited largely to recent Protestant history in English-speaking countries, which rules out most of historic Christianity. Put another way, he attacks something that I don't defend.

Many people have what I call a "second-grader's knowledge of Christianity". This means they were taken to church as children, picked up various ideas of theology, understood on a child's level, and left to party at college (or in the Army or wherever) as soon as they could. Such people never learned anything of depth on the history or theology of the faith they were raised in, and yet they believe they 'know what the faith teaches' because they were raised in it. They never attain an adult understanding. This is obviously the case with Russell (based on said essay). Given that, I can't really be further interested in his work.

Is your position not a return to a pre-pubescent relationship with authority? "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3.
Human beings like "closure". We like to feel that we "know" and are not comfortable with uncertainty and doubt.

Jack17
07-06-2009, 20:46
Unfortunately, I read Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" (recommended by an atheist friend) and found Russell's understanding of Christianity to have been arrested, evidently in his childhood. He had objections, and easily brushed aside the straw-man arguments he created himself. However, his view of Christianity was limited largely to recent Protestant history in English-speaking countries, which rules out most of historic Christianity. Put another way, he attacks something that I don't defend.

Many people have what I call a "second-grader's knowledge of Christianity". This means they were taken to church as children, picked up various ideas of theology, understood on a child's level, and left to party at college (or in the Army or wherever) as soon as they could. Such people never learned anything of depth on the history or theology of the faith they were raised in, and yet they believe they 'know what the faith teaches' because they were raised in it. They never attain an adult understanding. This is obviously the case with Russell (based on said essay). Given that, I can't really be further interested in his work.

A question and a comment. For RM: Does the Orthodox church believe in transubstantiation of the Eurcharist? And, are Orthodox priests confessors? Just curious.

My comment is that I am amazed how the more our understanding of physics grows, particularly astrophysics, the more it seems to parallel the elements of most religions. In part, religions, certainly Christianity, embrace the unanswered questions of life, the magnum mysterium. Though my knowledge of morndern physics is limited, it seems the more we expand our knowledge beyond the Newtonian view, the more mysterious the universe becomes, i.e., black holes, parallel universes, relativity of time and space, chance, etc. In short, the rigid world of Newton becomes more mysterious and problematic.

Then again, it's interesting to me why some questions prey on peoples' minds; such as, 'What will happen to me after death?' In the West, we've come up with all sorts of answers: heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, etc. I'm content answering this great question by saying - beats me? Maybe life after death will be a lot like life before birth? But I don't know. While I feel most comfortable with the Russian Orthodox service and find it the most edifying religious experience (there is something inherently good about kissing ikona and venerating the saints), I admire Mormonism for positing that we actually did have a life before birth as a spirit. So, for the Mormon, life is a continuum that extends in both directions from one's birth. There's a consistency in that belief that is admirable - as beliefs go. In fact, Mormons claim, if we think real hard, we can conjur memories of that earlier spirit life before birth. I've tried that, but all I can come up with is some vague memory of being stuck in a long line at the Aeroflot counter at Sheremyetevo behind Germans arguing with the Russian babushkis behind the counter (sort of a microcosm of WWII) - it wasn't a pleasant experience. I can only hope my experiences, after leaving this life, are not similarly dismal.

is4fun
07-06-2009, 23:01
YouTube - Frank Zappa - Cosmik Debris (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uv3ia0cFWI)

I was listening to Zappa for a few hours today before I seen your post. I think the last time I actually listened to him was a few years ago. I miss him :)

rusmeister
07-06-2009, 23:22
Is your position not a return to a pre-pubescent relationship with authority? "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3.
Human beings like "closure". We like to feel that we "know" and are not comfortable with uncertainty and doubt.
Mickey, I
if I applied your words to science, then we might as well condemn all scientific experiment and research because it just reveals our insecurity with not knowing. There's another simple explanation - simply that we want to find out; that we want to know what the Truth is.

rusmeister
07-06-2009, 23:32
A question and a comment. For RM: Does the Orthodox church believe in transubstantiation of the Eurcharist? And, are Orthodox priests confessors? Just curious.

My comment is that I am amazed how the more our understanding of physics grows, particularly astrophysics, the more it seems to parallel the elements of most religions. In part, religions, certainly Christianity, embrace the unanswered questions of life, the magnum mysterium. Though my knowledge of morndern physics is limited, it seems the more we expand our knowledge beyond the Newtonian view, the more mysterious the universe becomes, i.e., black holes, parallel universes, relativity of time and space, chance, etc. In short, the rigid world of Newton becomes more mysterious and problematic.

Then again, it's interesting to me why some questions prey on peoples' minds; such as, 'What will happen to me after death?' In the West, we've come up with all sorts of answers: heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, etc. I'm content answering this great question by saying - beats me? Maybe life after death will be a lot like life before birth? But I don't know. While I feel most comfortable with the Russian Orthodox service and find it the most edifying religious experience (there is something inherently good about kissing ikona and venerating the saints), I admire Mormonism for positing that we actually did have a life before birth as a spirit. So, for the Mormon, life is a continuum that extends in both directions from one's birth. There's a consistency in that belief that is admirable - as beliefs go. In fact, Mormons claim, if we think real hard, we can conjur memories of that earlier spirit life before birth. I've tried that, but all I can come up with is some vague memory of being stuck in a long line at the Aeroflot counter at Sheremyetevo behind Germans arguing with the Russian babushkis behind the counter (sort of a microcosm of WWII) - it wasn't a pleasant experience. I can only hope my experiences, after leaving this life, are not similarly dismal.

The use of the term "transubstantiation" implies Catholic understandings, which attempt to explain, almost scientifically, what happens with the Eucharist. Orthodoxy is far more agnostic; we cheerfully admit that we don't understand the "hows"; only that the bread and wine does truly become in a way beyond our senses the Body and Blood of Christ.

Orthodox confession is a little different in that the priest is far more of a witness - the penitent confesses TO God BEFORE the priest; not 'TO the priest".

I relate to your comment on how our growing understanding reveals only more how much we don't understand. It gives the lie to the idea that science will solve everything and answer all questions - which it can't.

I get a sense (perhaps mistaken) that the question of what will happen to you after death does not greatly concern you yet. I would say that in most cases this is because people really don't think about death or see that it is inevitable for them (not that that is necessarily your case). I don't think that we'd be able to communicate much honestly until the question really became relevant for you - it would be just some kind of intellectual game without consequences.

MickeyTong
07-06-2009, 23:43
My remark about not being certain was in reference to the questions "where does the world come from?" and "what happens to me when I'm dead?"
What I mean by pre-pubescent relationship with authority is believing that authority is always right, in the same way that it doesn't occur to pre-pubescent kids that adults may be wrong, or even evil. A retort to your, not uncommon, remarks about the "arrested" and child-like (mis)understanding of Christianity found in people who reject it.

Qdos
07-06-2009, 23:50
I've seldom read so much religious bull$hit in any thread in my life, how about live and let live, no religion is proven, fact - so why should anyone be forced or expected to adopt particular beliefs just because others choose to?

May I hypothesise that *ALL* religion stems from mans conscious recognition that clinical death is an inevitability, which leads to the logical claim that the concept of all faith in religion is therefore based on the notion of insecurity.

These facts applied equally to the authors of the gospels two thousand years ago as they do to todays ministers, worshippers, hindus, christians and jews.

Religion is therefore a complete fabrication, a manifestation based on fear of the unknown...:focus:

is4fun
07-06-2009, 23:56
I've seldom read so much religious bull$hit in any thread in my life...

I must have started a monster or something. LOL Must admit I did have a good chuckle from you comment...

Qdos
08-06-2009, 00:04
I must have started a monster or something...

Why do I suspect you knew exactly that when you first posted the topic... :suspect:

is4fun
08-06-2009, 00:09
Why do I suspect you knew exactly that when you first posted the topic... :suspect:

That's show biz baby LOL

Jack17
08-06-2009, 00:21
I've seldom read so much religious bull$hit in any thread in my life, how about live and let live, no religion is proven, fact - so why should anyone be forced or expected to adopt particular beliefs just because others choose to?

May I hypothesise that *ALL* religion stems from mans conscious recognition that clinical death is an inevitability, which leads to the logical claim that the concept of all faith in religion is therefore based on the notion of insecurity.

These facts applied equally to the authors of the gospels two thousand years ago as they do to todays ministers, worshippers, hindus, christians and jews.

Religion is therefore a complete fabrication, a manifestation based on fear of the unknown...:focus:

Oh, "fear of the unknown" is a common human frailty Qdos. It's not only fear of death that propels people to illogical conclusions; but fear of others' life styles and sexuality that often lead some to irrational conclusions.

For example, I suspect you and RM are alike in your belief that gays are sinners.

Qdos
08-06-2009, 00:27
Fear of others' life styles and sexuality that often lead some to irrational conclusions. For example, I suspect you and RM are alike in your belief that gays are sinners.

And are you Jack, a sinner... I'm sorry if you have a guilt complex, best thing which I can suggest is to slip into a confessional cubicle with a priest and see if you can't 'ease your frustration...' :mooooh:

What have your comments actually got to do with this thread, or are you going to troll the entire board ad-nauseum because you found a number of others did not have views which coincided with your own in another thread?

It's getting tedious for everybody. Grow up please.

Jack17
08-06-2009, 00:41
The use of the term "transubstantiation" implies Catholic understandings, which attempt to explain, almost scientifically, what happens with the Eucharist. Orthodoxy is far more agnostic; we cheerfully admit that we don't understand the "hows"; only that the bread and wine does truly become in a way beyond our senses the Body and Blood of Christ.

Orthodox confession is a little different in that the priest is far more of a witness - the penitent confesses TO God BEFORE the priest; not 'TO the priest".

I relate to your comment on how our growing understanding reveals only more how much we don't understand. It gives the lie to the idea that science will solve everything and answer all questions - which it can't.

I get a sense (perhaps mistaken) that the question of what will happen to you after death does not greatly concern you yet. I would say that in most cases this is because people really don't think about death or see that it is inevitable for them (not that that is necessarily your case). I don't think that we'd be able to communicate much honestly until the question really became relevant for you - it would be just some kind of intellectual game without consequences.

I would say in my case RM, it's not so much a fear of death as a reluctance to leave life behind. I enjoy my wife, chidlren, travel, art and baiting Qdos over his homophobia so much, that I just don't want to give it up. It's like having to leave a really fun party early in the evening. I paid a visit to my internist recently and he told me if he takes me off a particular medication I could just drop dead one day from a pulmonary embolism. I replied, trying to be stoic, that I was already almost twice Mozart's age and dropping dead was a whole lot better than lingering with cancer - so, what's the problem?
Anyway, all jokes aside, no one wants to die. It remains to be seen if before I breath my last if I call out to God for forgiveness or just say - so long and thanks to everyone for making it a geat life.

Qdos
08-06-2009, 00:44
I enjoy baiting Qdos over his homophobia so much, that I just don't want to give it up.

You're quite the Master-Baiter aren't you my lad... :trampoline:

Jack17
08-06-2009, 01:01
The use of the term "transubstantiation" implies Catholic understandings, which attempt to explain, almost scientifically, what happens with the Eucharist. Orthodoxy is far more agnostic; we cheerfully admit that we don't understand the "hows"; only that the bread and wine does truly become in a way beyond our senses the Body and Blood of Christ.

Orthodox confession is a little different in that the priest is far more of a witness - the penitent confesses TO God BEFORE the priest; not 'TO the priest".

I relate to your comment on how our growing understanding reveals only more how much we don't understand. It gives the lie to the idea that science will solve everything and answer all questions - which it can't.

I get a sense (perhaps mistaken) that the question of what will happen to you after death does not greatly concern you yet. I would say that in most cases this is because people really don't think about death or see that it is inevitable for them (not that that is necessarily your case). I don't think that we'd be able to communicate much honestly until the question really became relevant for you - it would be just some kind of intellectual game without consequences.


And are you Jack, a sinner... I'm sorry if you have a guilt complex, best thing which I can suggest is to slip into a confessional cubicle with a priest and see if you can't 'ease your frustration...' :mooooh:

What have your comments actually got to do with this thread, or are you going to troll the entire board ad-nauseum because you found a number of others did not have views which coincided with your own in another thread?

It's getting tedious for everybody. Grow up please.

Matthew 18:3 — "Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." :10189:

Qdos
08-06-2009, 05:28
Matthew 18:3 — "Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." :10189:

Have you familiarised yourself with the statement at the head of this sub-forum I wonder? :rules: :rolleyes: :devil:


Religion Announcements of services and meetings, discussion of religious topics. [Please note that proselytising & preaching are not permitted in this forum].

Jack17
08-06-2009, 08:55
Have you familiarised yourself with the statement at the head of this sub-forum I wonder? :rules: :rolleyes: :devil:



Qdos, you're as wonderfully thick headed as you are thin skinned. The only thing I'm proselytising for is fare mindedness and a sense of humor, two qualities you sorely lack.

rusmeister
08-06-2009, 09:14
I've seldom read so much religious bull$hit in any thread in my life, how about live and let live, no religion is proven, fact - so why should anyone be forced or expected to adopt particular beliefs just because others choose to?

May I hypothesise that *ALL* religion stems from mans conscious recognition that clinical death is an inevitability, which leads to the logical claim that the concept of all faith in religion is therefore based on the notion of insecurity.

These facts applied equally to the authors of the gospels two thousand years ago as they do to todays ministers, worshippers, hindus, christians and jews.

Religion is therefore a complete fabrication, a manifestation based on fear of the unknown...:focus:

A few quick comments, Qdos -
1) No one is talking about forcing a particular view of the universe (faith or lack thereof). However, if you really see something as really true and not merely your opinion, even if it includes a belief that no ideas are true and everyone should keep their ideas to themselves, would you not promote that belief?

2) I think religion stems from unconscious as well as unconscious impetus. The realization of death would only be one factor in interesting a person in the nature of life and death, which is what religions deal with, and the best of which clearly deal with that which science cannot answer, have well-developed thought (aka "theology") that a majority of people today are largely unaware of.

Insecurity is the natural state of man, so casting it as something foolish is pretty much the same as saying that man is foolish (as if you were something above and apart from that; as if you were somehow "secure").

Much of religion IS fabricated, inasmuch as it is organized and formed by men. The question of whether any of them actually have grasped or received revelation from a Force outside of this universe, aka a Creator, is of course "unprovable" in any scientific sense. Only, the best religions make it pretty clear that their claims are not based on science in the first place.

I don't think you can honestly claim to know for certain that the authors of the Gospels, etc did not in fact receive such external revelation (you can do so on a dogmatic basis - flatly stating that such revelation is impossible) - but that's just your dogma, at least as unfounded (and I think more unfounded) than those who do accept mysticism, that there are things inexplicable in terms of science.

rusmeister
08-06-2009, 09:29
My remark about not being certain was in reference to the questions "where does the world come from?" and "what happens to me when I'm dead?"
What I mean by pre-pubescent relationship with authority is believing that authority is always right, in the same way that it doesn't occur to pre-pubescent kids that adults may be wrong, or even evil. A retort to your, not uncommon, remarks about the "arrested" and child-like (mis)understanding of Christianity found in people who reject it.

That depends on the authority, Mickey.

Here I'll refer to the rule, rather than the exception, that the overwhelming majority of parents love their children and desire their welfare. Speaking from that, as you point out, as far as a four-year-old is concerned, his parents are always right - certainly so much more right than he is that the distinction doesn't matter - and if you embark on a study of a discipline, you must take the same attitude, generally speaking, regarding your teachers, until you learn much more and begin to be able to see which authorities are more correct than others. In short, we must acknowledge some valid authority somewhere if we are ever to learn anything. if the only authority we acknowledge is ourselves, then we are condemned to forever reinvent the wheel and to not get very far in any learning about anything.

So, if you find valid authority, how often do you find it to be right? How thoroughly does it explain the nature of whatever it is teaching, and to what extent does that coincide with your experience? If you are lucky enough to find one for which the answer is always or nearly always, then you can to the extent that you find it to be correct and superior to your own understanding accept it as valid authority. That is quite different from the pre-pubescent relationship (by which I think you mean "non-thinking relationship") you have in mind.

Regarding the Orthodox Church, I am, thankfully, not required to 'check my brain at the door'. I consistently find its explanations to be deeper and superior to my own knowledge, and that the strange shape of the key fits the strange shape of the lock - it makes sense of everything I see. I begin to see why people try to do good and most often fail. Why drivers cut each other off in traffic. Why there is suffering in the world, why people screw each other over, etc, etc. The explanations cover the facts - just as in good science.

MickeyTong
08-06-2009, 13:23
Regarding the Orthodox Church, I am, thankfully, not required to 'check my brain at the door'. I consistently find its explanations to be deeper and superior to my own knowledge, and that the strange shape of the key fits the strange shape of the lock - it makes sense of everything I see. I begin to see why people try to do good and most often fail. Why drivers cut each other off in traffic. Why there is suffering in the world, why people screw each other over, etc, etc. The explanations cover the facts - just as in good science.

Intelligent, educated believers in any religion would say the same things.

Qdos
08-06-2009, 13:41
Qdos, you're as wonderfully thick headed as you are thin skinned. The only thing I'm proselytising for is fare mindedness and a sense of humor, two qualities you sorely lack.

Errhm, no. You keep steering threads off topic to satisfy your overwhelming desires to attack anyone whose views you cannot respect, and whose views do not happen to coincide with your own.

I'm of the opinion, albeit differs to your own of course, that it is I who has the greater sense of humour for instance - but what on earth would make you want to publish a claim about your sense of humour in a thread about agnosticism?

Please desist from spoiling discussions in this way. If you want to flip back to the original gay pride matter then start another thread, but do so with the thought in mind that the original thread was locked by Ezik.

http://www.expat.ru/forum/current-affairs/148730-expected-gay-protest-rally-got-broken-up-35.html#post530532

rusmeister
08-06-2009, 16:35
Intelligent, educated believers in any religion would say the same things.
Thank you! :)
That just goes to show that faith and reason (or intelligence and education) are quite compatible and not at all opposed, as some moderns would have us believe.