Notre Dame: An Omen - and why I think it's almost a prophetic event ...

a reply to: Raggedyman

The Spanish looted South America in the name of a catholic queen, money, you seem to have a little in common

What have I looted - oh thats right you're getting personal again.

Talk all you like about looting and ignore the conversions. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

If his visions and conversion are suspect then so else is all that follows


www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com...

Why Paul had such an effect on people is not easy to tell. What he said to cause such hatred, we can only guess. To a disinterested reader, however, Paul's personality would seem decidedly odd. He has visions that are suspect in the extreme. He gives three contradictory accounts of his conversion and claims divine intelligence that was denied to the apostles.

a reply to: St Udio

Will the Notre Dame roof/spire Destruction signal a future attack which might become the 21st Century replay of the Vienna ouster of the Muslim invasion of Europe back in the year 1683 

Seems like a massive stretch . But interesting take on it.

Christians are being slaughtered all over the globe, in numbers greater than ever before. And main stream news ignores it.

a reply to: CthruU

Or maybe a message to Catholicism to stop molesting little boys and abusing nuns.

2nd commandment? Doesn't the cross violate the 2nd commandment then?

Prophetic? It's an old ass building. Time ravages all things. It was only a matter of time. There's nothing prophetic about it. This is absurdity. Just because this particular building, one of millions of building that burn each year, happened to be old and religious does not make it #ing prophetic. What the hell is wrong with people...

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Christians are being slaughtered all over the globe, in numbers greater than ever before. And main stream news ignores it.

Mainstream ignores alot of stuff. Do you ever hear them talk about a 300% increase in drone strike casualties to civilians during the trump admin? Id bet most of those civilians were Muslims.

The left msm even hates trump and they rarely will mention drone strikes.

Fact is, all over, msm sucks on most subjects.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Amongst those Christians being slaughtered are also Atheists, gays, other religions, and people not of the right sect of islam to the murderers. But focus on the Christians only. Kind of like the holocaust was only about the Jews. As long as Christians only care about Christian persecution and ignore and pretend all the other people being persecuted beside them by the same people don't exist, is it any surprise their cries fall on deaf ears? I know, lot's of Christians don't particularly care for Atheists and gays, and other religions due to dogma, but see that's the point. Christians don't care, and as a result others don't care. Is a whole bunch of no one caring, because everyone only cares about their particular group, especially if their beliefs don't line up.

I'll join in the second it's about all those persecuted and not one person's special interest group and # all the rest.

Also it isn't even helpful, the focus is on the wrong thing. It's on Christians in particular, focusing entirely on Christians. The focus should be on the groups doing all this persecuting, and on that these particular groups are persecuting lots of different people and groups. I mean what's the goal of focusing on Christians specifically and not the groups doing al this persecution? I dunno could it be special protections and privileges for Christians, rather than doing something about the groups doing this themselves?

Is like black lives matter, focused on police corruption towards blacks, rather than the real issue which is police corruption of which they happen to be the most common victims. Fix the corruption and you fix the issue, but they need to make it about skin color, and that just leads to potentially dumb policies of protections for people with black skin and does nothing to combat the actual issue which is police corruption.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I never said you looted anyone just that you seem to have a keen interest in money


You have offered an opinion on the Apostle Paul and I disagree
Paul was very much in favour of women’s equality

I am unsure of the conversions you are talking about and judging by the link and the authority you sit under, not really interested either
Cheers

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Gogmagog

A hint is in your name - who they say are Gog and Magog since the 70's in biblical eschatology exegesis by born again end of times Pentecostal Armageddon type christians - are actual opposites

- hint - an altar has symbolic power, and yet derives power from worship

further hint - the church has been hijacked

With all respect, my name references many things, from ancient oaks to the final fantasy games. But yes, theres is, as you say, an eschatological meaning.

If you are trying to say that the catholic church has been hijacked by luciferian gnostics, and also that worship confers power, yes. That may well to be the case. I came to this site originally to discuss just such matters, but for the main part I was ignored.

Never the less, I find that picture of the altars survival, and the stained glass beyond it, to be a picture of hope, that there can be survival when all seems lost.
Although my considerations of notre dame are primarily archaeological and architectural.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I never said you looted anyone just that you seem to have a keen interest in money

Is English not your 1st language? Aren't these your words or do you act dumber than you are when it suits you. You do this hundreds of times when you barge in on evolution threads, and then obfuscate, goalpost change and when all is lost name call or go "nah nah nah"

The Spanish looted South America in the name of a catholic queen, money, you seem to have a little in common

What have I in common - this should be funny

Paul was very much in favour of women’s equality

Then it should be easy for you to prove -

www.christiantoday.com... .htm

The Apostle Paul never told women to be silent in church and the Bible passage that indicates he did was a later addition by scribes, scholars have said – though others have rebutted their claims. It remains one of the most controversial clauses in the New Testament and has fuelled centuries of misogyny as well as supporting the belief women should not be ordained.

I am unsure of the conversions you are talking about

We're talking about mass conversions of the Indians and other South Americans into Christianity - history not your strongpoint?

judging by the link and the authority you sit under,

I do not sit under an authority - you who follow the bible blindly clearly do

a reply to: Raggedyman

not really interested either

Of course you take your ball and run away when called out. I responded to incoserv and you used that as a point to attack with name calling and then run away as usual. It's be funny if is wasn't so pathetic - you're debating skills - not you personally.

a reply to: Gogmagog

Cool -

If you are trying to say that the catholic church has been hijacked by luciferian gnostics, and also that worship confers power, yes. That may well to be the case. I came to this site originally to discuss just such matters, but for the main part I was ignored.

We're ignored because again - too painful to deal with - the whole edifice comes crashing down. Most people only see symbols in advertising and walk right past symbols in churchs or Govt buildings courts or even this

a reply to: Gogmagog

Never the less, I find that picture of the altars survival, and the stained glass beyond it, to be a picture of hope, that there can be survival when all seems lost. Although my considerations of notre dame are primarily archaeological and architectural.

True, hope remains that a redeemer may come - the latest missives from Rome - hardly inspires confidence that the Church has learnt from their errors - allowing Ratzinger to ....

Former Pope Benedict Blames Priest’s Abuse On Sexual Revolution of 1960s
truththeory.com...

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: KansasGirl

Origen?

Evolving doctrine - whether you call that revealed "theology" or another tool to convert pagans and incorporate the Roman Pantheon is your choice

en.wikipedia.org...

Whether the earliest Church Fathers believed in the Trinity or not is a subject for debate. Some of the evidence used to support an early belief in the Trinity are triadic statements (referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) from the New Testament and the Church Fathers. The view that the Son was 'of the essence of the Father, God of God...very God of very God' was formally ratified at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The Holy Spirit was included at the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD), where the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one substance (ousia) and three co-equal persons (hypostaseis) was formally ratified.[1

I don't think you know what "polemic" means.

BTW I'm Greek so I think
1) know the meaning of polemos

2) - your snarkiness back at ya

wiki

Polemical writings were common in medieval and early modern times. ... Medieval Christian writings were also often polemical; for example in their disagreements on Islam. Martin Luther's 95 Theses, nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg, was a polemic launched against the Catholic Church.

Have you ever truly studied the Bible? On your own? Without prior assumptions?

"Much deliberation and polemic went into deciding..." that's YOUR non-sensical use of the word "polemic." You don't even have the correct form of the word.

So, what is "polemic?". Not the word "polemos," but the word YOU USED, "polemic." In your own words, what is it?

The other question I asked, which you didn't address: "Jupiter became Jehovah, pagan sites were converted to Christian sites."

Gonna answer that one? Which pagan sites? Where were they, what were they? When were they converted to "Christian sites?" What "Chriatian sites" are they known as now? And "Jupiter became Jehovah." Let's have an explanation for that one.

By the way, you do yourself zero favors by using Wikipedia as your source, especially when your use of it doesn't even address the point you're supposedly defending.

Have YOU actually studied the bible? While using sources other than Wikipedia and youtube videos and new agey websites? Let's see some sources other than Wikipedia, which should be easy for you to cite (unless of course, Wilipedia is your only source).

In your own words, when did "Jupiter become Jehovah?" What country or geographical area and culture was Jupiter worship practiced? When and where do we first see Jupiter worship? What country or geographical area and culture had "Jehovah" worship? When did that diety first appear, and in which culture, which geographical area? What were the characteristics of both Jupiter and Jehovah, and when and where and and in which culture did "Jehovah replace Jupiter?"

Sources other than Wikipedia, if you want to be taken seriously on this issue.

But I'll tell you what- if you can answer the questions above, in your own words, using a respectable source will be less critical. Answer each question, without leaving any out, which of course you should be able to do, if you actually have studied what you say you have. Looking forward to your reply.

P.s.

Friend, in reading back over my reply, I see that "snark" is a generous term you used to describe my tone. Thank you for being kind.

The reason I'm so snarky (I would say bitchy and condescending is a more fitting description) is because yes, I have attempted to study the bible, without prior assumptions. I do it every day.

It's hard to do it without prior assumptions though (and I would say no one can really truly do it without prior assumptions), because I was brought up in a very fundamentalist Christian household, where much of the bible was interpreted literally, and questions that I had with obvious contradictions and just plain non-sensical teachings were either not answered at all, or were answered with more literal interpretations that made no sense. In any case, so I grew up with a deep deep conviction that I could never live up to what was expected of me from "God" and even worse, none of it made any logical sense.

So in adulthood, I rejected the bible completely. I did "studies" on my own, but what I used for study was sources like Wikipedia and websites and books that took a superficial look at the texts and made zero effort to evaluate the culture and worldview of the people who wrote the bible, and most times came out with things like "Christains say 'amen,' and that's a reference to the Egyptian God Amen-Ra!'" Or, "The name Jeaus comes from the name Zeus! Jesus is a Christian re-imagining of the god Zeus" and etc etc. Other more complicated concepts too, but using methods just as spurious. Anyway, so I came to believe that the bible was written by men to gain power and control over societies.

Then I had a series of events that had me looking into the bible again. I came to realize that both views I had been subjected to were based on poor interpretation methods and both take the reader far, far afield from what the bible is probably really attempting to portray.

So, if you're still reading, I'm sorry for my condescension and bitchness. It doesn't make it right or excuse it, but the reason I'm such a bitch here is because I've had to work to undo the effects of misguided and just plain bad methods of explaining the contents of the bible. Both sides I've mentioned here, both sides are crappy and both bring the person to misunderstanding, and then spreading, crappy explanations and beliefs. I believe you're doing that here, but being a bitch probably doesn't do me any favors.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Gogmagog

Never the less, I find that picture of the altars survival, and the stained glass beyond it, to be a picture of hope, that there can be survival when all seems lost. Although my considerations of notre dame are primarily archaeological and architectural.

True, hope remains that a redeemer may come - the latest missives from Rome - hardly inspires confidence that the Church has learnt from their errors - allowing Ratzinger to ....

Former Pope Benedict Blames Priest’s Abuse On Sexual Revolution of 1960s
truththeory.com...

I am on neither side of the equation. I see a war playing out between two sides. The abrahamic religions (christianity, islam and judaism) on one side, while gnostics, atheistic satanists, and humanists on the other.
I do not know which side is truth. I seek for truth but have not yet found it.

The aeons change, and change will come. Religions will fall, the time of the great monotheisms is ending in blood and in fire. Yet I have hope that something good, something better will be born from the ashes.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I thought about that.


If it were terrorists, giving them the fame and attention they want, is not very wise. I also agree with you that nothing good would come out of that knowledge being shared.


Starting a Johnson County War, won't undo the damage, and there would be no winners among the people.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Raggedyman

I never said you looted anyone just that you seem to have a keen interest in money

Is English not your 1st language? Aren't these your words or do you act dumber than you are when it suits you. You do this hundreds of times when you barge in on evolution threads, and then obfuscate, goalpost change and when all is lost name call or go "nah nah nah"

The Spanish looted South America in the name of a catholic queen, money, you seem to have a little in common

What have I in common - this should be funny

Paul was very much in favour of women’s equality

Then it should be easy for you to prove -

www.christiantoday.com... .htm

The Apostle Paul never told women to be silent in church and the Bible passage that indicates he did was a later addition by scribes, scholars have said – though others have rebutted their claims. It remains one of the most controversial clauses in the New Testament and has fuelled centuries of misogyny as well as supporting the belief women should not be ordained.

I am unsure of the conversions you are talking about

We're talking about mass conversions of the Indians and other South Americans into Christianity - history not your strongpoint?

judging by the link and the authority you sit under,

I do not sit under an authority - you who follow the bible blindly clearly do

Few posts back you complained about losing money, wasn’t me

Paul wrote a letter addressing a particular congregation where the women were unruly, he addressed individuals not every woman. You may disagree but it was mentioned once, in isolation
There are many other verses that make women equal to men but you choose the only verse that supports your opinion to base your theology on, lazy
www.versebyverseministry.org...

I don’t believe in mass conversions by Catholics, you are talking at me not to me.
No thanks, I won’t justify the Catholic Church in South America and there deplorable actions. It was a money grab to build an army/navy by Spain. Christianity was an excuse not a purpose

I don’t follow the bible blindly, in fact I have stated on this site many times I think it contains errors
I didn’t suggest you followed the bible blindly, just those who whisper sweet words, confirm your bias

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Raggedyman

not really interested either

Of course you take your ball and run away when called out. I responded to incoserv and you used that as a point to attack with name calling and then run away as usual. It's be funny if is wasn't so pathetic - you're debating skills - not you personally.

I have a ball and bat, you have yours
We play a different game, why play when your rules and mine are so different

Your argument is based on false assumptions, not interested

Paul,stood for equality, youmdisagree, what value is it to me to suggest otherwise.
Beating a dead horse, not good for you or me, you just seem to want to waste time

As for creation or evolution
I ask for evidence, ball is in your court

originally posted by: CthruU

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: CthruU

Or maybe a message to Catholicism to stop molesting little boys and abusing nuns.

2nd commandment? Doesn't the cross violate the 2nd commandment then?




Yes indeed it does, look up definition of graven image. The cross is openly honored as a symbol of sacrifice, made of wood generally.
Thou will honor no symbol, idol or graven image in my name blah blah blah.
Plain as day really. Like how dumb is humanity for the most part?