The Catholic Church: Deceptions and Control

Originally posted by bogomil
Hi IAM

In my own grumpy way, I almost like you (but please don't let it disturb you, I haven't come around to call you 'Bro' yet).

I love you too my friend.

Originally posted by bogomil
You have identified many of the more important bits of the great jigsaw-puzzle of existence; now you just have to put them together.

Why put them together when they are just as beautiful scattered about?

Originally posted by bogomil
If you achieve total enlightenment before me, please send me a U2U. I'll do the same for you.

My friend, you are already there.

It's always a pleasure seeing you pop up in a thread. Keep doing your do!

With Love,

Your Brother

IAM

only a small addition. Read your post just above to adjensen; nice, follow you all the way.

Hi Lambs to Lions

thanks for your open invitation. And apart from my ambition to get a job writing texts for 'South Park' (that's my real reason for being on ATS. I hope, they'll notice my witticisms), I'll try keep up to the good intentions of the OP.

And don't worry about IAMIAM and me. Since I discovered, that he's not a revival-meeting (as I first suspected), we just measure his compulsary niceness against my equally compulsary grumpyness. There's no discord, we're united in both being holy madmen; at least when it suits us.

Which, through the inscrutable ways of the occasionally, but truly, mad, leads me to a point: There is a slight difference on the 'path' towards ultimate reality, if you compare the eastern and western ways. Most, but not all (there's very few ALLs for me presently) eastern ways are reluctant to refer to an 'aim'. It's said, that concentration on an aim will be a mental stumbling block, just like in the famous zen-anecdote about the zen-master overflowing the teacup.

In a recent post I mentioned the method of 'doing by non-doing'. I 'do' as little as possible (based on the idea of finding inner silence). I let my ordinary-life attention and activity 'simmer', just enough so I can nudge things, instead of pushing them. I croon to my stormy thoughts and emotions, until they are unafraid enough to relax.

After centuries of this practise, I have discovered, that it's easier for me to think in patterns, when I return to 'normal' life. And thinking in patterns in its turn makes it easier to come back to inner silence. It's very honky-dory.

The western way you already know much of. End of sermon. And ...

...it was just a suggestion.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re Adjensen

You don't think, you're overdoing the popular method of insinuating incompetence, lying or worse in your opponents? In the present case with Michael Cecil suggesting he's mentally unstable. You're just yapping.

Let's see. He sent out his press release to every newspaper in the country. They all ignored it, so he is censored and suppressed. His local paper also ignored it, "because it is a threat to Notre Dame." If that's not delusional thinking, I'm not sure what is. Someone who claims that he would be treated by the US government as the "worst terrorist ever" as a result of making prophetic posts on ATS exhibits paranoid, delusional behaviour, as well.

I'm not casting an aspersion on his character, for pity's sake. What someone says in an anonymous Internet forum isn't necessarily reflective of their true person, and he could be the nicest guy on Earth and still be delusional.

"Secondly, and this is where you fail, as well, he cannot answer simple questions regarding logical contradictions in what he proposes to be the truth. It is one thing to answer incorrectly, or to answer illogically, but to not even bother trying indicates that the arguer bases his faith on WANTING it to be true, and little else. Again, wishful thinking."

If that is the case, I can't see, how it differs from what you are doing. You've been chasing your own tail from practically our first clash.

Not hardly. I have defended my faith from a logical, historical and reasonable perspective. You have yet to do much more than put forth unsubstantiated claims, then disappear when you are asked to provide credible facts that support it.

I have formerly stated, that I have no possibility of evaluating "Christ's teachings", as I can't be sure, if the man existed or if it's him described in NT. What I HAVE said is that (according to the edited NT), Paulus was in conflict with the original disciples and apostles.

What original disciples and apostles? By what source do you claim he was in conflict? How does this conflict demonstrate that Paul is wrong, if you don't even know what right is? If the Bible is unreliable ("edited") perhaps it was edited to discredit Paul?

You don't like Paul, for whatever reason, so you run around looking for some minor point on which to hang the whole of his worth, ignoring the fact that Paul is in harmony with the teachings of Christ in the Bible, which is the only real source of said teachings, so if you don't believe that, why do you believe anything associated with Christianity?

And on this I have already answered you on earlier, but as you took the liberty of changing the words from a post of mine and send the edited result out as a quote from me, I kind of lost faith in your honesty. Especially as you soon after called me a liar.

Kindly show me where I have changed the text of something you posted and I'll apologize for it, as well as correct the text. If your proof consists of a post of yours that shows an edit date later than my post, I'll be disinclined to believe you, though.

You know, you'd gain a fair bit of credibility if you'd just say "sorry, I was wrong about Constantine and the Council of Nicaea" instead of continuing to ignore it.

adjensen

Thread: Satan and Science, His Creation to Mislead. 5/9-2010 p.8 03:02 PM

and p. 9 06.18 PM

I am not wrong about Constantine. His political messing around did influence the outcome of how the bible was edited. What's so exceptional about that?

It is helpful to provide links, which I have done below:

Thread: Satan and Science, His Creation to Mislead. 5/9-2010 p.8 03:02 PM

Which is this post, yours: www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here is my reply:

and p. 9 06.18 PM

Here is that post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, you will have to forgive me, but I don't see anything in my post that is me rewriting your post. On the contrary, my point in the reply is that you took something that I said, trimmed out the relevant bit, and used that in your argument.

Your complaint that I give your words "just a little twist" to change their meaning isn't valid -- I read what you say, and if I disagree with it, I say so. In that case, you claimed that one of Paul's failings is the belief that one is saved through faith alone, as he is saying that you can "do whatever you want and just ask for forgiveness" (well, words to that affect, I'm not going to go find your exact quote) which is exactly what he (and James) are NOT saying, explicitly.

So, no apology -- I didn't mis-quote you, and I stand by my statement that your claim, that Paul encourages immoral action by his statement that we are not saved by works, is patently false.

I am not wrong about Constantine. His political messing around did influence the outcome of how the bible was edited. What's so exceptional about that?

So we've gone from "Constantine determined Biblical canon" to "Constantine influenced the editing of the Bible." I suppose that's progress, but if this is a correct statement, please provide examples of text which predates Constantine that says one thing, along with later text which is fundamentally different and reflects the policies of Constantine.

adjensen

if you can't find the misquote, you can't. Strangely enough I can.

Isn't redemption all about prepaid forgiveness of alleged 'original sin'? If you grovel and pray, you get harp and halo. Give me any religion, any time, which demonstrates compassion, love or whatever through soupkitchens without sermons as part of the bargain.

Such people I can respect.

Constantine excommunicated the two bishops, who stood against the (Nicaea)-council in the end. If he had no power in churchmatters, how could he do this? If this isn't an answer to you, you'll have to dig around a bit and do your own homework. In spite of your position of authority in your church, you seem to be sadly uninformed about christian history outside the official version of your denomination.

reply to post by bogomil

Constantine excommunicated the two bishops, who stood against the (Nicaea)-council in the end. If he had no power in churchmatters, how could he do this? If this isn't an answer to you, you'll have to dig around a bit and do your own homework. In spite of your position of authority in your church, you seem to be sadly uninformed about christian history outside the official version of your denomination.

I wasn't aware of the excommunications! It doesn't surprise me in the least. I think it is supremely naive to believe that in his dominant position, Constantine would not of had an equally dominant influence. I think that this is as rational way of thinking as possible. History will tell us only what those who are responsible for recording history decide to tell us. In small matters, history may be taken at face value, atleast in general. However, anytime that something of grand scale occurs, you can be sure that a certain amount of gamemanship is present. Since men are incapable of absolute honesty, this will always be the case. In addition, there will always be those in power who make decisions, and cite "its for their own good."

Originally posted by bogomil
adjensen

if you can't find the misquote, you can't. Strangely enough I can.

Well, then point it out, please.

Isn't redemption all about prepaid forgiveness of alleged 'original sin'? If you grovel and pray, you get harp and halo. Give me any religion, any time, which demonstrates compassion, love or whatever through soupkitchens without sermons as part of the bargain.

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?

Constantine excommunicated the two bishops, who stood against the (Nicaea)-council in the end. If he had no power in churchmatters, how could he do this? If this isn't an answer to you, you'll have to dig around a bit and do your own homework.

How can I do homework on your misconceptions?

As to your comment regarding the Bishops, I assume one of them is Arius, who had been in trouble long before Nicaea, but it came to a head at the Council, because one of the main points (aside from a unification of the East and West Churches) was the discussion of the nature of the Trinity, and Arius' view, that there was a hierarchy, was not accepted. Not accepted by the rest of the Bishops, but it was hardly railroaded through by the Emperor as a pet project or something.

Kicking people out of the church for heresy (which simply means "wrong teaching", it's not evil) is hardly indicative of anything other than telling people that if they want to preach something that is not officially part of church doctrine, they can find somewhere else to be. It happened long before Nicaea, and it's the same today, rightly so.

The issue that Nicaea found so contentious with Arius didn't go away with him, and was the tipping point in the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, when the West's addition of the words "and the son" (the Filioque) in the bit of the Nicene Creed that regards the nature of the Holy Spirit (creating another hierarchical problem) was sufficient for the East to tell the West to bugger off.

is it possible that Constantine had Hebrew advisers?

is it possible that most of this was written much later by Hebrew scholars?

lets not believe so fast what seems to be "accurate" history.

many things "written" are coming from sources "close to the Fox" (in the hen house).

would YOU believe an "inventory of chickens" coming from the "Fox accounting firm"?

the Romans actually had an elaborate book-keeping system .. much like modern Jewish accounting? maybe their (the Romans) people "behind the scenes" were the Hebrew scholars of the times (much like our current systems).

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by bogomil

 

Constantine excommunicated the two bishops, who stood against the (Nicaea)-council in the end. If he had no power in churchmatters, how could he do this? If this isn't an answer to you, you'll have to dig around a bit and do your own homework. In spite of your position of authority in your church, you seem to be sadly uninformed about christian history outside the official version of your denomination.

I wasn't aware of the excommunications! It doesn't surprise me in the least. I think it is supremely naive to believe that in his dominant position, Constantine would not of had an equally dominant influence. I think that this is as rational way of thinking as possible.

Consider, please, where we've gone with this. From "Constantine settled on Biblical Canon" to vague claims of editing the Bible, to now people who are in positions of authority in the church being removed from office for holding views that the remainder of the church found significantly out of order.

The Council of Nicaea was the first Ecumenical (world-wide) meeting that brought together Bishops and church leaders from all over the world. Put the technical state of the world at that time into context -- communication and travel, particularly, made unity difficult, if not impossible, so bringing the thinkers and leaders of the church together to get some consistency in teaching was critical in order to have a universal church.

Many of the ideas that were being considered at this time were being considered for the first time, so it is not surprising that there was division. I'll avoid the theology unless you really want to hear it, but creating a hierarchy between Father, Son and Spirit is very problematic, so it is not surprising that the concept would be rejected. Arius would not have been kicked out of the church if he had lost the argument, taken his lumps, and said "okay, you're right and I'm wrong."

Though he wasn't uninformed on the subject, Constantine was no theologian, so it seems unlikely that he would be pushing for this perspective from a religious angle, and I truly fail to see any political benefit to either side of the argument, so I would suspect that some church leader, who DID see the theological problem and felt it of supreme importance got Constantine's ear and swayed him to that side.

Originally posted by xuenchen
Is it possible that most of this was written much later by Hebrew scholars?

We discussed this yesterday, remember?

No, it is not possible. Not unless they had time machines.

You're missing a bet, though -- the Bible, pretty much all of it, WAS written by Hebrews! A good chunk of the New Testament was written by a Hebrew scholar, too.

But I think it highly unlikely that Paul, John and all the rest were involved in a conspiracy, particularly since just saying "oopsies, sorry, I recant all of this" would have saved their lives. Sadly, it was written "in place" and you'd be putting an awful lot of prophesy into Paul's hands to have him know in 60AD that those handful of churches he started for the Gentiles would eventually evolve into the world's largest religion.

reply to post by adjensen


I've got some questions pertaining to your faith, that is if you don't mind. If you do feel free to disregard them. I ask not really because of an agenda, but because I am ignorant of your beliefs.

Do you believe in the Homoousian perspective. Meaning Jesus and God are but one in the same? Or, do you percieve Jesus as Son of God? Or, do you have another belief?

Do you believe that "heretics" are capable of performing a successful babtism?

If it is okay with you, I may have some other questions for you...I'm honestly just curious. Thanks.

Originally posted by lambs to lions

History will tell us only what those who are responsible for recording history decide to tell us.

Precisely right.

So, let's just look at this one issue for right now, specifically with regards to the Albigensians of southern France from about 800 years ago.

I have been to the Notre Dame library and have read every book I could possibly find on the Albigensians and the Albigensian Crusade. And not one of those books says that the Albigensians taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' in conformity with the Teaching of Jesus.

Why not?

Because no such book would be published by an academic press.

Why not?

Because, if that Truth were published, even some 800 years after the Albigensian Crusade, the Albigensian Crusade would have been for naught. The purpose of the Albigensian Crusade was not only to exterminate the Albigensians; but, also, their Teaching, which was a fundamental threat to the Roman church.

What is said is that they taught a doctrine of "reincarnation". What is said is that they have been referred to as "Western Buddhists". What is said is that the Roman church destroyed all of those writings so it is not really possible to say exactly what the Albigensians taught.

Which, however, leaves out another possibility: that someone will have a memory of a life as an Albigensian and what their Teaching was and how they were tortured to death for that Teaching.

This is one of the reasons why the Roman theologians I have encountered have been so 'reluctant' to acknowledge the reality of memories of previous lives.

And I dare say that the thought-control fascists of Wikipedia would not allow this to be mentioned in any discussion of the Albigensians either; it not being an "official" minority position; not having any citations, of course, in the "official" literature of the Albigensians which has received the Imprimatur of the 'most demonic' Roman church.

Michael

Originally posted by adjensen
that those handful of churches he started for the Gentiles would eventually evolve into the world's largest religion.

My friend,

You make this sound like the spread of Christianity after the counsel of Nicea was due to the benevolence of the faith established there. This does not match up with historical record. Constantine implemented this once "Cult of Peace" by brute force. Pagan shrines were dismantled and for a time, Pagans had to go to Christian churches to practice their rites. This practice did not last long though and the Pagan alters were tossed out from the church. If you were a craftsman you had to convert to Christianity to work in the rebuilding of Constantinople. Stone Masons in particular had to convert or leave the empire. Even their mason marks had to change from pagan symbols to symbols reflecting the new "Faith".

This wasn't enough for the Emporer. As his empire spread, neighboring kingdoms were forced to convert or lose precious trade. Many a king during the dark ages converted for the mere fact of wealth than for any idea of love of Christ. Then we get into the Inquisition. Here the church satiated its taste for blood even further by sending out inquisitors to ensure the correct doctrine was in force, at least this is the cover, by really it was about maintaining the churches authority over the kingdoms.

Follow this up with the crusades, the perscution of the Puritans in England, the salem witch trials, numerous offenses in Africa. This Bible you defend so vehemently is a perversion of Christs teachings thoroughly sanctified by the blood of many. The Church formed at the counsel of Nicea is one of the darkest most unholy Empires ever to disgrace God's Kingdom.

And, here we are today, still blessing that unholy book with more blood in the middle east and even in our own streets.

The word of God is Holy, the love of Christ is its greatest example, the Bible is still an abomination.

People might be convinced of the truth within, if those who preached from it were able to demonstrate its goodness.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven."

"The meek shall inherit the earth"

"Cast not pearls before swine, they will trample them underfoot, then turn and rend you to pieces"

"The Kingdom of God is within you"

"Father forgive them they know not what they do"

"Give unto Caesar, that which belongs to Caesar"

I have always asked this of Christians and none have yet to answer. Name one man that Jesus himself condemned. There is none. He loved the Pharisees, He loved the Gentiles, He loved Judas, He loved Pontius Pilate, He loved Barnabas. He loved ALL, and condemned none.

With Love,

Your Brother

Re: Lambs to Lions and xuenchen

Rather unusual for the protocolkeeping-obsessed romans, the records of the Nicaea council were very sparse, to say the least.

It can't possibly be because somebody wanted something kept secret, can it? Such wild speculations lead directly to conspiracy theories, and authority could crumble. All kinds of authority.

But it all ended good. Jesus got divine status, so he could play cosmic creditcard, and the holy spirit was definitely not female. Heavens, think of a woman involved in divine business.

It ended with Constantine making a small speech, where he addressed the bishops as "my fellow bishops". Maybe he was appointed honorable bishop at the spur of the moment, because he'd made paulinism statechurch.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
He loved ALL, and condemned none.

"Nest of vipers" and "whited sepulchures full of dead men's bones" are compliments, I suppose?

This Rainbow Bright, pixie dust doctrine of "loving all" is not to be found in the Psalmsof David, for example.

It is considered to be in violation of the requirement of justice.

Michael

Re adjensen:

Your quote:

"How can I do homework on your misconceptions?"

My idea was,. that you did homework on your own misconceptions.

And in any case, it's now YOUR turn to prove yourself and disprove me, instead of the other way round.

After all it's your fairytale, we're talking about, not mine. And try to do a little better this time instead of presenting sources like "kingdavid8". It was the worst trash I've read, since a fundie lady called environmentalists for 'satanic'.

But on one thing I agree with you: Constantine didn't give a fig, if the trinity was this or that. He was a politician, and just gave power to the group he could get most out of, and in return he put political muscle behind the pauline fights against the jewish and gnostic factions.

Originally posted by lambs to lions
Do you believe in the Homoousian perspective. Meaning Jesus and God are but one in the same? Or, do you percieve Jesus as Son of God? Or, do you have another belief?

The Doctrine of the Trinity is very difficult to understand, but is summarized by Augustine's seven parts:

1) The Father is God
2) The Son is God
3) The Holy Spirit is God
4) The Father is not the Son
5) The Son is not the Holy Spirit
6) The Holy Spirit is not the Father
7) There is only one God

I have seen a number of ways that people try to clarify this, such as "aspects" (I have a daughter, so I am a father, and I am also my parents' son) but I've yet to see anything that really does it, sorry. Augustine is as close as I can come. However, it is a critical part of Christian theology. If one does not accept Christ's divinity, one cannot be called a Christian.

Do you believe that "heretics" are capable of performing a successful babtism?

Baptism is a sacrement of the church. Depending on the denomination, it may be one of many, or one of very few, but I'm not aware of any Christian denomination that doesn't include it. As a sacrament, it is considered a holy rite, not just someone dumping water on your head.

Because of this, if a person has not been baptized by a recognized Christian church, if you wish to join a church, you will be required to be baptized in order to become a member. The most obvious case is Mormonism -- if you have been baptized in the Mormon Church and wish to become a Methodist or Catholic, you will need to be baptized, as the LDS is not a recognized Christian church.

So, to answer your question, I suppose it depends on the heresy, but I'd lean toward saying no, this would not be a baptism that most churches would say is valid.

If it is okay with you, I may have some other questions for you...I'm honestly just curious. Thanks.

Feel free to ask away :-)

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by adjensen
that those handful of churches he started for the Gentiles would eventually evolve into the world's largest religion.

My friend,

You make this sound like the spread of Christianity after the counsel of Nicea was due to the benevolence of the faith established there.

You're doing some impressive "reading between the lines" there, friend-o, if that's what you were able to pick out of my sentence!

The word of God is Holy, the love of Christ is its greatest example, the Bible is still an abomination.

Why do you keep using the term "Christ"? You realize that this is a title which is indicative of him being the Messiah, it's not his last name, right? As you do not believe him to be the Messiah, you are misusing the address.

I have always asked this of Christians and none have yet to answer. Name one man that Jesus himself condemned. There is none. He loved the Pharisees, He loved the Gentiles, He loved Judas, He loved Pontius Pilate, He loved Barnabas. He loved ALL, and condemned none.

I find it unlikely that no one has even answered, but I'll save you the trouble of saying it in the future by answering you. You are correct, he condemned no one. Nor do I. Nor should you.

And that's kind of the whole point of Christianity. Sorry that you don't see it.