Originally posted by bogomil
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.

Prove what?

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'.

Geez, you're still on about that? Good grief, man, let it go. As I told you at the time, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel for your benefit, so I googled up whatever it was, that came up as the top link and I posted it after a quick glance said that it addressed the issue.

At any rate, let me make this clear, again. It is not my responsibility to convince you of anything, I honestly don't care if you believe in Christianity or not. If you want to be a Jew, Gnostic or follower of Pan, knock yourself out, I think that's fine.

However, if you attempt to discredit Christianity, make misstatements about it, or wedge Jesus into your Thor worship, I'm going to correct you.

I am an apologist, not an evangelist.

Originally posted by adjensen
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!

My apologies, when ever I see the word evolve, I read it as Ev Love. It's a habit I have formed seeing evolution as proof of divine love.

Originally posted by adjensen
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.

Because I did not think you would understand me if I used XPTO.

Originally posted by adjensen
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.

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

Does it take so much blood and condemnation to not condemn in his name?

I am sorry that you do not see the amount of pain Christianity as we know it has brought the world. But, I have also seen good works done under that banner, (though always accompanied by conversion attempts), so I will close one eye to the bad, and keep one open to the good. Did I ever mention I was blind in one eye anyway?



Peace my friend. I am going back to spectator mode for a bit.

Judge not, love all, be at peace

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by adjensen
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.

Does it take so much blood and condemnation to not condemn in his name?

I am sorry that you do not see the amount of pain Christianity as we know it has brought the world.

And I am sorry that you see the need to blame the acts of people on a faith. Have bad things been done, by people, in the name of God in the past? Sure. Have bad things been done, by people, outside of the realm of religion in the past? Sure. What's the common denominator in those two statements?

Would the total amount of evil people do to each other be reduced in the absence of organized religion? Probably, though I'd say it would be by a pretty marginal amount -- most of the things that people blame on religion are really about power, and some other motivator -- racism, nationalism, whatever -- would be used to manipulate people instead.

Would the total amount of good that happens, both on an individual level and within the community (and world) be reduced in the absence of organized religion? Yes, and I would say by a significant amount.

So, a matter of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, without any reason for doing it at all.

Originally posted by adjensen
So, a matter of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, without any reason for doing it at all.

You are right my friend. People are nasty to each other for all sorts of reasons, usually stemming from judging each other at their very root. I just find it particularly distasteful that the supposed followers of the ONLY Man in history who taught true peace and died to prove the extents to which we should love each other, would do so.

I am not saying you are in that group. Only you know what's in your heart. I hope it is the love that Jesus demonstrated. Love for all. The world is changing. For it to change for the better, that kind of love will be needed in abundance.

Ok, if you don't talk to me any more, then I am really going into spectator mode.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by adjensen

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 prefer Occam's Razor, as validated by the Quran: "Do not unnecessarily postulate multiplicity."

In other words, the simplest explanation is the best explanation.

In other words, there is only one God.

And any "trinity" is at least violation of Occam's Razor.

Worse, it is idolatry.

And, as stated in the Quran: "Idolatry is worse than bloodshed."

Why?

Because idolatry results in bloodshed; and the idolatry of worshipping Jesus as 'God' resulted in the demonization of "the Jews" and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.

Yet, even more than 60 years after the Holocaust, Christians still insist that Jesus was 'God'.

Michael

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

So, who are you to accuse me of being an elitist?

So, does one need to have a Ph.D. in Christian theology in order to get into heaven?

You say that the Doctrine of "resurrection" refers to the physical raising of a dead body from the grave, which results in any number of utterly unanswerable questions:

What happens to someone who has been eaten by a shark....And then someone else catches that shark and eats the shark meat, for example? What happens to the millions of babies that have been aborted? Will they be raised from the dead as clumps of cells, as fetuses, or will they be magically advanced a few months or years in age? How many months or years? And why that specific number of months or years? And how will their parents recognize them? What about a pregnant mother who dies at 24 years of age in a car accident, but her child survives and lives to 95 years of age...how will she recognize that child?

Yet I say that the "resurrection" is a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'--really a quite simple statement--and you accuse me of being an "elitist".

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
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

My friend,

Do you think loving All is a doctrine for the weak? Who is more weak, the man who can love the man who puts him to death, or the man who puts another to death out of some misshapen idea of justice?

To love all is to put your trust 100% in God's will. This is not weakness my friend, but the ultimate faith in God.

The will of Man is strong, no doubt, but let me see a man increase his stature by one inch using will alone, and I will be convinced he is equal to God. God's will is strength. Trusting in his will, following his will, is strength.

The alternative is using your own will to subdue anothers in a false idea of justice. Those who do that may find success for a time. However, the will of God catches up with all.

So yes, Love all, that IS strength.

With Love,

Your Brother

Re adjensen:

Your quote

"Religion, the doctrine and theology, ensures that, regardless of route, you'll wind up in the right place, if you happen to subscribe to that religion."

You've earlier stated, that only one religion can be true (or most 'truest'), but with your usual semantic fabulations, it's now convenient that all the numerous 'christian' sects suddenly only disagree on which scenic route, they are taking. I'm sad to repeat it, but you should really consider doing some homework, and general semantics and epistemology would be a good place to start.

You'll not re-invent the wheel for me, but I'll take the time to introduce you to the world of functional communication.

'The map is not the territory'.

A sentence not so difficult to understand to any person with average intelligence. Nonetheless you seem to suffer from the illusion, that if you only present a 'christian' map, repeat a few zillion times that it's the true map of a true territory, then (contrary to all common sense and other epistemological tools) your fairyland-territory will exist. And not only that, it will be the 'true' fairyland.

You are your own living proof of a need to get outside the holy bubble and get some contact with the real world outside. The scholastics used your kind of manipulative argumentation, but that's centuries ago, and the world has moved on. These days a map must prove it's value, but...

.....your quote: "Prove what?"

Obviously you still have the impression, that your authority alone is enough to silence opposition. That's how you run your congregation, like some miniature totalitarian system? You tell people how to think, you dig up dirt, misquote... as you've done here?

Your quote:

"Religion is the ultimate search for the truth."

To me it looks like the ultimate search for lies.

Your quote:

"I do not believe that IAMIAM, Bogomil or Michael has the correct path, and it is incumbent on me to, at the very least, give you a clear understanding of Christianity (not Gnostic Christianity or "checkbox Christianity") to allow you to accept or reject it on its own terms."

How can YOU give anybody a clear understanding of christianity, seeing as you obviously know less about it than most individuals on this thread. You have accused a participant here of paranoia, to me it seems more likely, that you yourself suffer from megalomania.

Your quote:

"The decision is yours, not mine. And, although it may seem insensitive, I don't really care whether you accept it or not, because although I would be happy to have another member of Christ's community, your decision is between you and God."

Oh dear, oh dear. You really do believe your own semantic shufflings, don't you? You reek of missionary zeal, but you don't 'care' if you can bring a few more lambs to your dark masters? And what 'God'? Your god, the demiurge, who just wants blood and submission (I'm convinced he exists). Or IAM's God (I hope he exists).

Do you really believe, that you can fool anyone (except the zombies), by selling the same old manure just by giving it a new wrapping?

Originally posted by adjensen
I don't know, think of it as religion being a map. If you are going from point A to point B, sometimes you want to go direct, sometimes you want to meander around a bit and take the scenic route. Religion, the doctrine and theology, ensures that, regardless of route, you'll wind up in the right place, if you happen to subscribe to that religion.

I'm a Methodist, so my map is somewhat different than a Catholic's, somewhat different than a charismatic's, or an evangelical's, but we'll all pretty much wind up in the same place. No offense intended to IAMIAM, Bogomil or Michael, but our maps are way different, and there's little chance that we'll wind up in the same place (metaphorically,) unless there's a lot more latitude granted than most people, including myself, think.

My friend,

You use a map to try and find the destination. I have no need of a map, for I have already found the destination. Love is the destination. Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. Read your map while being afraid to take the steps it shows, and your journey will be long. Read your map and take a step a day, and your journey will be short. Put your map away and follow your heart, and your journey will be over.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

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

So, who are you to accuse me of being an elitist?

So, does one need to have a Ph.D. in Christian theology in order to get into heaven?

Where did you read that in what I said? I didn't say you HAD to understand it, I said that it's hard to understand. I'm a subscriber of the Doctrine of the Incomprehensibility of God -- that he is beyond our complete understanding, but that doesn't mean that we can't study, learn and contemplate.

You don't need to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Christian, but if it is something that interests you, it is there for your spiritual and intellectual exploration.

Originally posted by bogomil
You've earlier stated, that only one religion can be true (or most 'truest'), but with your usual semantic fabulations, it's now convenient that all the numerous 'christian' sects suddenly only disagree on which scenic route, they are taking. I'm sad to repeat it, but you should really consider doing some homework, and general semantics and epistemology would be a good place to start.

What are you talking about? How have I contradicted myself with this statement? I have said, over and over, that I believe the doctrine of the different churches is not a critical component of the heart of Christianity, it is one of many tools that helps ground a person in the faith. In the Methodist church, we do not use wine in Communion. The Lutherans do. This is a doctrinal difference -- for the Methodists, it is an aspect of our views on temperance. It's one of the reasons that I am a Methodist. But does it really matter to salvation, to my relationship with God? No.

Yes, only one religion can be correct. For me, that is Christianity. Differences in denomination are differences in opinion between people, and so long as the core Christian faith remains, the rest is largely a personal choice.

.....your quote: "Prove what?"

Obviously you still have the impression, that your authority alone is enough to silence opposition. That's how you run your congregation, like some miniature totalitarian system? You tell people how to think, you dig up dirt, misquote... as you've done here?

Run what congregation? I'm a software engineer, not a minister, lol.

I'm not telling you what to think, I'm correcting your misstatements about the Christian faith. You aren't a Christian, so you don't care about whether your statements are right or wrong. I am, so I do.

How can YOU give anybody a clear understanding of christianity, seeing as you obviously know less about it than most individuals on this thread. You have accused a participant here of paranoia, to me it seems more likely, that you yourself suffer from megalomania.

Oh, come on. Even a casual observer would disagree with your statement that I don't understand my own faith. You've shown that your knowledge is limited to a distorted view that arises from an irrational hatred of Paul, for reasons you've yet to articulate, and conspiracy books that claim things, such as Constantine's involvement in selecting Biblical Canon, with no evidence, and in the face of actual evidence that conflicts.

"The decision is yours, not mine. And, although it may seem insensitive, I don't really care whether you accept it or not, because although I would be happy to have another member of Christ's community, your decision is between you and God."

Oh dear, oh dear. You really do believe your own semantic shufflings, don't you? You reek of missionary zeal, but you don't 'care' if you can bring a few more lambs to your dark masters? And what 'God'? Your god, the demiurge, who just wants blood and submission (I'm convinced he exists). Or IAM's God (I hope he exists).

Do you really believe, that you can fool anyone (except the zombies), by selling the same old manure just by giving it a new wrapping?

I will again state that I am not an evangelist. If you said "sorry, I don't believe you" and dropped the whole matter, I'm not going to come after you and pester you about being wrong. An evangelist is driven to "save your soul", I am not, as I believe that it is your responsibility to sort things out, not mine.

But people can't sort things out if there are distortions, misunderstandings or a lack of knowledge in Christianity, which is why I have, am, and will continue to correct your misstatements about the faith. Want to proselytize about Gnosticism that doesn't involve claiming Jesus was the bringer of Gnosis? Knock yourself out, doesn't matter to me.

You have yet to demonstrate support for your perspective on Christianity which withstands scrutiny. Instead, you resort to an ad hominem attack on my character, because you don't seem to like people who have strong convictions and the ability to critically defend something you don't agree with.

It seems, that the pauline version of selling religious snake oil is an evergreen; and I would like to summarize my impression of what has happened sofar on this thread (and elsewhere).

While it's still common to use open violence in political or economical contexts, increasing global education has made it more difficult to justify a religious message of 'love', if you have weapons in reserve should propaganda fail.

So while religious violence still happens, it's mainly minor groups of young 'christian soldiers' with small defiant beards (or jihadists with big defiant beards), who mostly yell obscenities to homosexuals, competing 'satanic' religions or other manifestations of liberal society.

The religious effort of indoctrination these days has been moved to a level equalent to what happened in the cold war. Steamroller-like repetition of the same clichées, dirt-digging as in politics, using pseudo-logic, plain cheating and generally any other known method of bringing opposition to silence through propaganda means.

All the arguments for and against paulinism (which also could be used in context with other 'christian' factions) have been sent back and forth, and no knock-outs or even 'winning' on points take place. Ofcourse not; .... in a context of fabulated 'reality', no arguments, no demonstration, no epistemology, no general semantics, no logic, no nothing has any meaning for the 'saved'.

Maybe the saved consider my expression 'the holy bubble' as just a derogatory label. But basically I mean it as something else. It graphically defines the borders of an existential, epistemological and methodological cut-off-from-outer-reality system, which on the inside has an elaborate set of interconnected pigeon-holes of categorisations and classifications. It's by indoctrination impossible for the 'believer' to transgress the bubble-limits. 'Information' can go out, no information can go in.

And for the saved 'the aim justifies the means'. Part of the bubble is to make it bigger by any means.

As John L. Lash has commented: "The greatest problem with tolerance is, that it has to accept intolerance".

So I have made my own experiments, trying to find my own limits for when I meet violence with violence or invasion with invasion (and thus in any case loosing myself, my cause and my credibility). And I must admit, that my-almost-friend IAM has been a great consolation for me. It's good to have some compass-points, so you don't loose yourself completely.

On my part, I want to return to a more on-topic direction now, away from my analysis of semantics; just thought I would finish the recent free-wrestling rounds with a somewhat selfconfessional and tear-eyed post.

I have some suggestions on relevant directions:

The mostly ignored fact, that paulinism is based on one man's postulated claims of divine contact, information and inspiration.

The secreted-away or destroyed information from the mysterious older religions like what the Easter Island religion really was about, or what the South American Popul Vuh was about (in both cases the church secured copies and destroyed the rest).

The possibility, that NT is not only highly edited, but actually partly is a falsification seen from a historical perspective.

The more scholarly approach of the above mentioned John L. Lash, (who's a brilliant researcher in world class), taking a closer look at the 'inner workings' of 'christian' doctrine and history. E.g. why the gnostics were THE enemy.

Or maybe a closer look at a conspiracy-perspective of abramic religion. Who's behind all this?

Originally posted by adjensen

You don't need to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Christian...

But, apparently, you have to believe it.

And it seems I remember Stevie Wonder saying something to the effect: "When you believe in things you don't understand, superstition rules the land."

So, are you suggesting here that Christians should simply believe what they are told and sit down and shut up rather than trying to understand things?

I would say that that is not a religion at all.

I would say that is merely a collection of superstitions.

Michael

Originally posted by bogomil

The religious effort of indoctrination these days has been moved to a level equalent to what happened in the cold war. Steamroller-like repetition of the same clichées, dirt-digging as in politics, using pseudo-logic, plain cheating and generally any other known method of bringing opposition to silence through propaganda means.

You forgot one crucial element: the absolute, universal, and unrelenting censorship of any seriously opposing viewpoint.

The Albigensians were murdered for what they taught. But the reason to burn their writings was to annihilate that Teaching itself.

This is why Wikipedia will NOT allow any discussion of the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' on its page on "resurrection".

Similarly, the rabbis of the Neturei Karta organization--very staunch anti-Zionists, firmly believing that the state of the Israel is a vicious and flagrant violation of the Law and the Torah--are simply excluded from any "inter-faith dialogue" for the purpose of achieving genuine Peace between Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

For Jewish rabbis to provide an "anti-Zionist" perspective is considered to be much too de-stablizing for the status quo.

Michael

Originally posted by bogomil
The mostly ignored fact, that paulinism is based on one man's postulated claims of divine contact, information and inspiration.

I agree. Paul is Paul, he is not John, he is not Peter, and he is not Jesus.

However, you have yet to demonstrate how Paul is not in harmony with Christ's teachings. Your answer, that you don't know what Christ's teachings were, is not an answer, because even in your lack of knowledge, you cannot say that they are not harmonious.

It seems clear that Paul's role (whether chosen by God, as claimed, or self-appointed, as you likely believe) is the broadening of the faith and the Covenant to include the Gentiles. Conflict between Paul and the Apostles was largely centered on the question of whether one needed to be a Jew to be a Christian.

If you believe that the differences between Paul and the Apostles are the root of what you perceive Paul's corruption of the church is, then your argument is that you believe one does need to be a Jew in order to be a Christian, be an adherent to the Law, including circumcision and live as a Jew, according to all the dietary and cultural rules. Prior to Paul, a Gentile who wished to follow Christ first needed to convert to Judaism.

Paul taught, rather, that the New Covenant fulfilled the old and, effectively replaced it, for those who were not Jewish. The Law, still there, today, for Jews who wish to be bound to it. But for Gentiles, or for Jews who were followers of Jesus, it was fulfilled in Christ, so following his commandments, and accepting his sacrifice, were sufficient for reconciliation to God.

That is the difference between Paul and the rest, which would not have mattered, were he not ministering to the Gentiles, and which was accepted (with minor conditions) by the rest of the Jerusalem church after he made a case for it.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
So, are you suggesting here that Christians should simply believe what they are told and sit down and shut up rather than trying to understand things?

Again, you are finding meaning in my words that is not there. I have never said this, and it is dishonest of you to imply that I did.

You do not need to understand how an internal combustion engine works in order to drive your car. However, if you wish to learn how it works, you can study it and maybe you'll have a different experience in driving your car, maybe you won't.

You, similarly, do not need to know how gasoline is refined and transported to the petrol station in order to understand how your internal combustion engine works. But you can learn, if you like.

You can continue to drill down, learning about oil, fossilization, ancient life, DNA, atoms, quantum particles, and so on. Eventually, you will most likely get to a point where you are not able to comprehend what is going on.

Doesn't change your ability to drive the car, though, right?

Yes, you need to believe in Christ's divinity to be a Christian. That's inherent. If you question the nature of that divinity, you can explore and learn to your heart's content. You may get in there and decide that Christ cannot be divine, in which case you leave Christianity, or you may decide that he is, or you may throw up your hands and say "I don't really get this stuff".

If one wishes to understand Christian theology, there is nothing standing in their way. If one does not wish to approach their faith from that direction, there is nothing to say that they have to. It's completely an individual choice.

Re adjensen

your quote:

"If you believe that the differences between Paul and the Apostles are the root of what you perceive Paul's corruption of the church is, then your argument is that you believe one does need to be a Jew in order to be a Christian, be an adherent to the Law, including circumcision and live as a Jew, according to all the dietary and cultural rules. Prior to Paul, a Gentile who wished to follow Christ first needed to convert to Judaism."

No; I don't believe, that 'the differences between Paul and the apostles are the root of what you perceive Paul's corruption of the church is etc...'

I believe, that Paulus basically was a corrupted person through and through, and that would manifest in all his dealings with anyone daring to oppose him.

Why on earth should I care about doctrines of eating soft-boiled eggs upside or down. The important aspect is, that such mad attitudes (about eggs etc) become dangerous, if the involved parts want to set the world on fire because of it. Besides no-one can be that insane all by him/herself concerning eating eggs this or that way, so a good conspiracy-theory is looming at the horizon.

You have already pointed in that direction yourself. I'll just wait and see, if there's public interest in your suggestion.