Fundamentalist/Conservative Christianity isn't really Christianity at all, just a tool of the PBT

reply to post by bogomil

The 'christian' tactics have usually been: Infiltrate, annex and then declare opposition as 'heretic'. Suddenly individuals with a legitimate and autonomous religion, have become 'heretics' inside this new hybridized religion, which was once their own.

Ignorance again. A 'heretic" is someone who claims to be a Christian yet denies basic foundational beliefs of Christianity, (a wolf in sheep's clothing). People with their own religion are not heretics, but "unbelievers". Christians are to love the unbeliever, the only harsh bitter words in the NT are directed at the heretics, not the unbelievers.

Re Djin:

for all practical purposes, we're on the same team, so don't take my words as opposition.

I'm quite sure, that NO MORE to 'christian' invasion is necessary. But after taking a look at some of the more hysterical of the christian self-pity/hate sites, I'm rather convinced, that these guys are their own worst enemies.

So just keeping them encouraged in their own direction will often be enough.

Re NoturTypical:

You wrote:

"A 'heretic" is someone who claims to be a Christian yet denies basic foundational beliefs of Christianity, (a wolf in sheep's clothing)"

Your definition of heretics seems to differ from post to post. If you wish, I can in the future help to keep record for you, on what you say. I can even interpretate you for you, should you feel a need.

And while I don't want to be impolite, I will very strongly decline your offer of 'christian' love to unbelievers. Europeans have seen 'christian love' for 1500 years and we generally agree, that things are much better without it.

reply to post by bogomil


If you're European most likely you experienced "CATHOLIC" love, not Christian. My fellow Christians were on the burning stake end of the Catholic love as well.

And a "heretic" has always been someone who claimed to be Christian, yet denied fundamental beliefs of Christianity. The prerequisite for a person to be a heretic is they first must say "Hey, I'm a Christian too."

reply to post by The Djin

Natural law ???

What the hell are you talking about ? Where in nature id there written a law and which part of nature authored it ?

I am speaking of natural law and the nature of humans. You are mixing the nature of animals with that of man. Man has the ability to reason in which his choices are made.Animals do not. Humans have choices weather or not to have sex regardless of the sex same or not.Animals do not.

You may not like it if I pick my nose by the table but picking my nose is perfectly natural "TO ME".

Picking your nose is indeed "natural" however, picking your friends nose would not regardless if someone likes it or not.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


A very good post and so very true.
I don't have time to waste as well.
Star for you and

NOTur Typical

Sadly enough, I don't master the art of shading quotes, so here's a simpler version.

Above you posted this:

Quote 1/ "Ignorance again. A 'heretic" is someone who claims to be a Christian yet denies basic foundational beliefs of Christianity, (a wolf in sheep's clothing)."

17/9 10.48 you posted this as an answer to some earlier comments of mine:

Quote 2/ "What makes someone a "heretic" is someone who doesn't declare one of the fundamental doctrines of scripture."

My comment: In this definition, this could e.g. be a buddhist.

Quote 3/ You have no authority to deny me anything, you're a wolf in sheep's clothing. You're a heretic.

My comment: In this definition, I (Bogomil) am a heretic. But you know, I'm not a christian, as requested by your defintion in quote 1. So how can I be a 'heretic'?

As you see, your definition of 'heretic' indeed does differ from post to post. So I will repeat my offer of help to organize your thoughts into coherency.

Now here's a few more on the same theme:

The followers of John the baptist call the NT pauline Jesus for "The deciever Messiah". Now who are the heretics here. Paulines or the followers of John the baptist.

When the antagonism between the roman and eastern orthodox church culminated, BOTH sides called the other heretics!

Is the answer, that only 'REAL christians' are not heretic? And that YOU are such a 'REAL christian'?

I believe, that the subject of who 'the real christians' are would be much in line with this thread.

I'll agree that Jesus was the son of God, since we are all children of God, but keep in mind that "mainstream" Christianity, in other words, the controlling tool of the elite, believe Jesus WAS God. You mention the two commandments Jesus gives, about loving God and loving thy neighbor, and neither state that Jesus is God. In the book of John, Jesus says that the Father is greater than himself. Christianity originally started as a gnostic philosophy of perceiving directly the vision of God, and the church later corrupted this to mean that Jesus IS God.

As the Hindu Upanishads state: Tat Tvam asi "I am That." meaning what I am at the core of my being is the absolute reality Brahman, or translated into modern day, God, the highest state of existence possible. This means that what I truly am is not a human but the essence of reality. My soul is The Soul. Tat Tvam Asi. I am That.

"Truly, you are That." -Upanishads.

Re Filosofia

You wrote:

".......since we are all children of God,...."

Sorry, I'm not member of that club. I resigned, when I was 15.

I do not say this to antagonize you, but when Dog's wrath descends on all heretics, I don't want to be sitting next to you.

Re Mamabeth:

Killroy was here too, but he didn't have time to stay either.

He didn't even mention, which side he gives moral support to, which is kind of wishy-washy. Not like your eloquent support of the son of light.

reply to post by bogomil


[The followers of John the baptist call the NT pauline Jesus for "The deciever Messiah"]

where and which one is that?

reply to post by filosophia


[In the book of John, Jesus says that the Father is greater than himself.]

John-
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Daniel-
He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

1John-
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

[Christianity originally started as a gnostic philosophy of perceiving directly the vision of God, and the church later corrupted this to mean that Jesus IS God.]

John1-
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

1Peter-
He was chosen before the creation of the world

Hebrews-
because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him

Re Rustami:

The material is quite extensive, so it's better you choose yourself.

If you google on: 'Ginza'; 'Mead: Book of John the baptist'; 'deceiver messiah', you'll maybe find something to your liking.

Otherwise write again, and I'll try to help.

reply to post by bogomil


I'm definately aware of alot of decievers and "their" writings abounding everywhere, I was looking more for you to show something in the scriptures from John? how is it Paul calls the same Jesus of Nazareth Lord that John did? are you saying the Paul that heard a voice say "I am Jesus..of Nazareth" was not?

1Corinthians-
no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

The words of J.W. McGarvey are helpful here:
"Blasphemy against the Son may be a temporary sin, for the one who commits it may be subsequently convinced of his error by the testimony of the Holy Spirit and become a believer (I Tim. 1:13). But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is in its nature an eternal sin, for if one rejects the evidence given by the Holy Spirit and ascribes it to Satan, he rejects the only evidence upon which faith can be based; and without faith there is no forgiveness."

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Re Rustami:

For some of us there is actually more to life, common sense, co-existence, reality or whatever than the bible.

If you choose to use the bible as your only authoritative source for anything, you're free to do so. But then your communication basis will be drastically reduced.

You can then only talk with those agreeing with you or preach at the rest of us. And you may have noticed, that there's a growing opposition to being preached at. Such belongs in churches, where no dialogues are expected.

The sources I gave you are outside the bible, it's your decission to use them.

I like your post OP, the corruption of the true teachings have lead to much misery for many people. I would only disagree on one fact and that would be that, personally, I don't think you need to believe that Jesus was the son of God any more than we are all sons and daughters of God. I feel that all you need to do is follow his teaching of the two commandments and study those teachings which regard enlightenment, but perhaps that is my own opinion.

Most of what we know as "Christianity" today is a conglomeration of pagan religions, 2,000 years of politics and the obvious influence of darker forces all built around the basis of a simple concept of universal love and forgiveness.

There is one simple way you can test the voracity of something you learn from a pastor, priest, preacher or other "Christian". If the teaching is true then it will be a universal truth, it will apply to all, regardless of race, sexual orientation or exterior appearance. If it is not a universal truth then there is no way they are talking about God, they must be talking about something lower, God is universal and did not create one universe for Christians and a separate one for Buddhists.

What Jesus taught was simple, know the love of the Divine and spread that love to your fellow man, we are all saved because we are all of God. Jesus wasn't here to save us in a mystical sense, he was here to wake us up, to open our eyes to the omnipresence of the Divine.

reply to post by bogomil


exactly what do you think I should say or talk about when the subject is God? should I just tell you/whomsoever over an over that before I knew any scriptures while making fun of God anything and especially Christians when I used to say it was just something for the weakminded- I heard a voice say "I am Jesus" also as in like what happened with Paul (and kept quiet about it until found certain scriptures and of course the surrounding details are different as I am)? should I repeat/post what other men who have'nt heard or seen what I have say?

reply to post by oliveoil


I

am speaking of natural law and the nature of humans. You are mixing the nature of animals with that of man. Man has the ability to reason in which his choices are made.Animals do not. Humans have choices weather or not to have sex regardless of the sex same or not.Animals do not.

Dude, don't be ridiculous, when blokes don't get laid they go mental and will hump almost anything by your reasoning the fact that priest happen to force themselves to be celibate has no bearing on the fact that they happen to rape children.

Again, by your reasoning, if the Bonobo doesn't have the luxury of choice of what it humps then clearly the jesus god is the author of anal sex ! Needless to say, this would go some way to explaining the mystery the mystery of why a man should have an erogenous zone in the arse.



You may not like it if I pick my nose by the table but picking my nose is perfectly natural "TO ME".

Picking your nose is indeed "natural" however, picking your friends nose would not regardless if someone likes it or not.

Dude, there is nothing unnatural about picking someone elses nose, it may not be something you see every day so may not be conventional. But we are a species that have evolved to cooperate and if that entails helping a brother out with some booger excavation then it is most certainly natural not unlike bathing the disabled.

Hi Rustami,

you asked a genuine and legitimate question in your post. This entitles you to a polite answer (to the best of my ability); not to the hostility I often manifest, when people throw predigested doctrines my way.

There are some 6-7 billion relationships to 'reality' on this planet, a somewhat specific one for each individual (and that's just mankind). Very few, if any, of these relationships to 'reality' are static; the dynamics of life constantly expose us to polarized situations, where needs and drives emerge. Individually from experiencing hunger if you're starving, to wanting complex, abstract conceptual models of 'meaning' (e.g. a method or ideology trying to 'explain' a greater coherent pattern).

In the case of 'meaning', there's no end of different approaches used by mankind. All kinds of 'tools' have been used, from intellectual logic to practical meditational efforts of symbiotic harmonization. By themselves none of these 'tools' are perfect either, the understanding or answers derived from any of them aren't better than what the 'tool' intrinsically allows.

I apologise for this convoluted philosophy, but I can't see any way around it, if I am to present 'from where I am coming'.

My belief is, that curiosity and some ability to make choices are prominent parts of how mankind create 'tools' or 'maps'. Also here the individual range is great. From a scientism clockwork universe or a theological predestination model to potential ultimate 'freedom'. Those deciding on a clockwork universe/predestination actually have used the option of choice. ONCE. They have chosen the model, which makes further choices un-necessary. And consequently curiosity will be restricted to observing how 'god's will' or the clockwork mechanism manifest.

Alternatively (and that's my option) one can choose to choose more. Maybe 'free will' can be encouraged and cultivated, and maybe curiosity doesn't kill the cat always.

Rustami, if you're still around and doesn't reject my premises completely, the above is my rather weird 'answer' to your question about how one can talk about 'god'. At the present: We can't talk ultimatively about 'god'.

Neither from the exclusive, passive model of: No choices, restricted curiosity, based on limited fundamentalistic un-researchable assumptions. Assumptions which from the start contains botht the questions and the answers. I don't want to be rude, but a passive acceptance of un-examined assumptions mostly leads to conflicts with other models based on different assumptions.

But NOR does the option of an open, inclusive model of choices and endless curiosity automatically lead to conclusive understanding or knowledge. The best we can hope for here is an increasing approximation of 'truth'. From this option much critic has been voiced against closed, doctrinal fundamentalism, callling fundamentalists spineless and 'clinging to straws'. I think, this is nobody's business, if some people individually need 'straws'. We open-system individuals aren't always that omniscient or 'integrated' either.

So am I only enamoured by my own megalomaniac ruminations, presenting endless wishy-washy cosmetic relativity and we-don't-know despair, or is there a kind of up-and-down which can be used between open and closed ideological systems?

For me the answer is easy: It lies in social skills (defined extensively). If the 'straw-clingers' decide that their answer must be pushed, enforced or established as a monopoly, we're out of the area of 'ideology' and into psycho-sociology. It's no longer a question of 'truth' or 'reality', but of very disturbed personalities, in extreme cases bordering on sociopathy, where ego-gratification is the major motive. A 'truth' doesn't become more true, because it's backed by invasive methods.

Naturally the inverse situation, invasive suppression of 'straws' is an abomination also, and places the suppressor in the exclusive group too.

So the first position of 'talking about god' is in a social context. Sounds crazy, but I said 'talking', not yelling or bringing out the flaming swords.

Sorry about this long post, and to make sure: It hasn't made Bogomil less grumpy. Until the finer points in 'social skills' have been aired (and that could be a long process), I'll stay with my usual, unpleasant character, yapping. This post is an exception.

reply to post by bogomil



So what? That simply means at the time I called you that I was under the impression you were a Christian. My error doesn't change the definition of a "heretic". Moot point. A heretic is someone who claims Christ, yet denies fundamental Christian beliefs. A heretic is someone who says, "Hey, I'm a sheep.", but really is a wolf. Someone who says "Hey, I'm a squirrel." is not a heretic.