Assumptions and wrong conclusions.

[stfd]

I decided to start a thread;

I'd like to ask everyone arround here: why does everyone judge Christianity and Christians in general by the actions of the Catholic block and sects such as Mormons, Jehova's whitneses etc .

Thanks

[dlb2007]

I wish more people would judge Christianity according to the Catholic faith,(not catholics) instead of protestant evangelists, protestant political leaders etc.

[oddblock]

Organised Religion.

[planetsadhana]

jesus's message was of love.....do you think he wanted his name used for hundreds of religious sects argueing over whos was the correct message.

which has led to centurys of bloodshed

unconditional love is what jesus asked for...

millions of people starve and the catholic church hordes more riches than any establishment on earth.

jesus asked not to be followed , but to be an example

religion has been hijacked by dark forces who wish to control by fear

[stfd]

Organised Religion.

well i can't seem to find anything wrong with being organized, something that isn't organized could lead to chaos ( but then abviously thats part of the plan).
So yea please consider this:

Catholics are schismatics unfortunatelly. It is also unfortunate what followed after the separation.
Don't judge before you've considered everything , and as 'everything' is humanly impossible to consider ---> try not to judge.

[checkmate]

We all seek our own truth, the only problem I have with organized religions is that they try to force their beliefs on others.

[stfd]

We all seek our own truth, the only problem I have with organized religions is that they try to force their beliefs on others.

Again, AFTER the Schism ,since the westerners had an 'expansionist' view they indeed used the Catholic Church in general and Papacy in particular to subdue,influence and trick if you like.
In many cases they used force and indeed, the very core of what Christianity stands for was the opposite of what they(Catholic conglomerate) did.
Unfortunatelly people nowdays fail to recognize and properly differentiate between Church as institution and Church as concept. Religion as a form of propaganda and religion as way of being. Christianity as peace,love and understanding (all blended together) and deliberatelly twisted/altered form(s) of Christianity which do nothing more that further division,grief and mass disbelief.

[eternal_spirit]

Again, AFTER the Schism ,since the westerners had an 'expansionist' view they indeed used the Catholic Church in general and Papacy in particular to subdue,influence and trick if you like.
In many cases they used force and indeed, the very core of what Christianity stands for was the opposite of what they(Catholic conglomerate) did.
Unfortunatelly people nowdays fail to recognize and properly differentiate between Church as institution and Church as concept. Religion as a form of propaganda and religion as way of being. Christianity as peace,love and understanding (all blended together) and deliberatelly twisted/altered form(s) of Christianity which do nothing more that further division,grief and mass disbelief.

Okay then you're obviously not Catholic. What brand of Christianity are you?

[tehuti]

Here's my theory on this.
Jesus came with a message so in a way you could say he was here for a purpose, without that purpose he would not have been here.
He himself, says in a chapter "I do not come of my own accord"
Problem is, I'm not satisfied christians know what this message was. If they had grasped the message they would not have squabbled for millenia over whether he was really the son of God, "virgin birth", "crusades" "the holy trinity etc".
As i mentioned before "I do not come here of my own accord" imagine then God sending him over here so people could argue /kill over the afore mentioned topics.
Just doesn't add up not only christianity though.
It's biggest flaw is it became a political tool.
Once agan it's the message "stupid".

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations; stfd:

I was a Roman Catholic since
birth, even served as an 'Altar Boy', and I must say: I was never sexually abused, Halleluyah! I knew and understood the entire mass in Latin. Hardcore.

Decades of life, many, many Paths. Finally decided to 'look into' the Roots of this most amazing and contentious Book, the Book of Yahweh; Bible.

It began with a verse from Kings or Chronicles: 'They built a grove on the high places and it angered the Lord'.

So I was like: 'whats up with that? what do they mean.

Check your Hebrew Lexicons; it means they built/erected an Ashera Pole. What we see today as Obelisks. Like in the Vatican/City of London and Washington DC.

So I decided to explore the Roots.

The Hebrewa were originally known as the Yahdaim-People of YHWH. The rest is History.

I perceive Judaism and All Christianity as: watered down Yahwism.

Both groups have overlayed Yahwism with their own mortal Traditions and customs. Remove the man created Traditions and you have Yahwism.

the Root.

As long as the Judaic and Christian peeps follow the Traditions of mortals, they will not fully embrace our Heavenly Father Yahweh.

First to the Yahdai, then to the Greek.


sorta says it all. :)


Kind Regards

[stfd]

Okay then you're obviously not Catholic. What brand of Christianity are you?

No i am not Catholic;
Christians dont come in 'brands' like chinesse products on WalMart shelves.
One is either Christian or not , there isnt a middle road.
As to what i am , i find it irrelevant given the circumstances.
One of the things i want to have people think about is that not 'religion' or 'church' or anything abiguous that caused all the crap we've been faced with for 2000 years, but people who used those things and 'labeled' themselves as part of this group or that group for the sole purpose to cause troubles; to divide ,weaken and obviously after all has been divided and weakened - to conquer.

It is pretty sad that people think the Catholic block determines the ins and outs of Christianity as a movement. i advise everyone to go and do some research.
Catholics broke from the oiginal Christian Church at about 1050; Christian Church already had hundreds of years of activity when the Schism occured.

[eternal_spirit]

No i am not Catholic;
Christians dont come in 'brands' like chinesse products on WalMart shelves.
One is either Christian or not , there isnt a middle road.
As to what i am , i find it irrelevant given the circumstances.
One of the things i want to have people think about is that not 'religion' or 'church' or anything abiguous that caused all the crap we've been faced with for 2000 years, but people who used those things and 'labeled' themselves as part of this group or that group for the sole purpose to cause troubles; to divide ,weaken and obviously after all has been divided and weakened - to conquer.

It is pretty sad that people think the Catholic block determines the ins and outs of Christianity as a movement. i advise everyone to go and do some research.
Catholics broke from the oiginal Christian Church at about 1050; Christian Church already had hundreds of years of activity when the Schism occured.
So you'd rather not say what brand you are?
:D But they do have many many different groups and don't interpret the Bible the same and have different laws they practice. (pointing out the obvious)

The 10 commandments of the Catholics isn't so bad, in fact they have more freedom and freewill than most if not all other Christian groups/sects/Churches etc etc add infinitum.

Catholicism = No genital mutilation of babies, unlike Judaic/Christianity and Islam. Judaism on the whole preaches hatred towards Christ and Christians and Islam wants Jihad and believes all humans should convert to Islam. It's 2008 buddie wake up see what's happening Today. Catholics are the scapegoat and have been persecuted/killed for along time.

For me personally all the religions that came to Britain are all brought here by foreigners who were religious fanatics of foreign religions. And we the people of Britain are Between the Jews Talmudic rantings and the Islamic Jihadists wish they'd fuck off back to where they brought their religions from.

[lizzy]

For me personally all the religions that came to Britain are all brought here by foreigners who were religious fanatics of foreign religions. And we the people of Britain are Between the Jews Talmudic rantings and the Islamic Jihadists wish they'd fuck off back to where they brought their religions from.

;)......that's sounds harsh , as it it exactly what tptb want us to think......so I say.....no more immigration and let's sort out the problems we have now and get peeps 'awake'

[armoured_amazon]

jesus's message was of love.....do you think he wanted his name used for hundreds of religious sects argueing over whos was the correct message.

which has led to centurys of bloodshed

unconditional love is what jesus asked for...

millions of people starve and the catholic church hordes more riches than any establishment on earth.

jesus asked not to be followed , but to be an example

religion has been hijacked by dark forces who wish to control by fear

Exactly. And yet many judge us as though we follow the elite form of Christianity and not the beatitudes/Jesus teachings.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

So you'd rather not say what brand you are?
:D But they do have many many different groups and don't interpret the Bible the same and have different laws they practice. (pointing out the obvious)

The 10 commandments of the Catholics isn't so bad, in fact they have more freedom and freewill than most if not all other Christian groups/sects/Churches etc etc add infinitum.

Catholicism = No genital mutilation of babies, unlike Judaic/Christianity and Islam. Judaism on the whole preaches hatred towards Christ and Christians and Islam wants Jihad and believes all humans should convert to Islam. It's 2008 buddie wake up see what's happening Today. Catholics are the scapegoat and have been persecuted/killed for along time.

For me personally all the religions that came to Britain are all brought here by foreigners who were religious fanatics of foreign religions. And we the people of Britain are Between the Jews Talmudic rantings and the Islamic Jihadists wish they'd fuck off back to where they brought their religions from.

Hello es;

Your latest missive is really quite intrigueing; as you make statements/declarations that leaves me, at least, curious asto what sources you have 'drawn theseconclusions'.

You; yourself, have declared you have never read The Bible, so naturally this would be a Factor concerning your ability to 'weigh' matters Biblical.

That deficit of a Prerequisite aside, we have ascertained that you have been informed by 'Alternative Means'; perhaps the opinions of those you deem Scholarly & Erudite, perhaps it was the 'Process of Osmosis' which you 'came by' your information, which you have taken 'on board' and if we are to trust you; you actually believe this information is True, and you are not willfully 'mis-informing'.

If the Former; rather then the Later is the 'Case'. I am behooved, compelled, to inform you, you are mistaken on several 'points'.

TO WIT!

er........es? are you sitting down? If not, do so.

There are no catholic commandments.

those Commandments you Posted the other day are mis-translations of Father Yahwehs Commandments. They are drawn from Yahwehs 613 Laws; Judgements and Statutes.

This is a very important point. Even those who, unlike you, have actually read the Entire Bible miss a very, very crucial verse. When YHWH Proclaims that these Laws are His Laws. They are Yahwehs Laws, not the Jewish Laws, or the Catholic or Christian Laws. They are Yahwehs Laws

In the New Testament, an Apostle Declares: First to the Yahdai, then to the Greek.


Contemplate

http://lh4.ggpht.com/abramsv/R_hI8vXRnTI/AAAAAAAANmw/pIACAD6Da4M/s720/suspension.jpg

Even though the Roman Catholic Church 'uses' some of the words of Yahwehs Laws, Yahwehs Intent was not Honoured or Obeyed.

Rather the church changed the weekly sabbath day to 'venerabili de sol', the venerable day of the sun.

YHWHs Weekly Sabbath begins Friday at sundown, and end saturday at sundown. 24 hours, not a few minutes on sunday mornings.

And that is exactly what the vatican does to ALL of Yahwehs Laws, they reverse them 180 degrees.

When Yahshua Messiah was queried by a scribe of the pharisees asto what is the greatest Commandment? Yahshua replied without hesitation: Love Father Yahweh with all your heart, with all your mind and with all your might, the second greatest is like that. Love your neighbour as you love yourself. On these two Laws depend the whole of the Law.

So you see; es, the vatican is in error on many matters; Biblical.

This; is why Yahweh has removed His Name from their mouths.


Your quote below is unrestrained National Socialist Hatespeak
Judaism on the whole preaches hatred towards Christ and Christians

a Half Truth is a Whole Lie

There are millions of Messianic Jews

It's Ironic that you do not realise that the demise of the Verdant and Green Vales and Hills of Bonnie ol' England are the end result of the vaticans socio-political/spiritual machianations.

here es; get informed. you want to read Deuteronomy.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

your most welcome in advance :)

[eternal_spirit]

Cordial Felicitations; stfd:

I was a Roman Catholic since
birth, even served as an 'Altar Boy', and I must say: I was never sexually abused, Halleluyah! I knew and understood the entire mass in Latin. Hardcore.

Decades of life, many, many Paths. Finally decided to 'look into' the Roots of this most amazing and contentious Book, the Book of Yahweh; Bible.

It began with a verse from Kings or Chronicles: 'They built a grove on the high places and it angered the Lord'.

So I was like: 'whats up with that? what do they mean.

Check your Hebrew Lexicons; it means they built/erected an Ashera Pole. What we see today as Obelisks. Like in the Vatican/City of London and Washington DC.

So I decided to explore the Roots.

The Hebrewa were originally known as the Yahdaim-People of YHWH. The rest is History.

I perceive Judaism and All Christianity as: watered down Yahwism.

Both groups have overlayed Yahwism with their own mortal Traditions and customs. Remove the man created Traditions and you have Yahwism.

the Root.

As long as the Judaic and Christian peeps follow the Traditions of mortals, they will not fully embrace our Heavenly Father Yahweh.

First to the Yahdai, then to the Greek.


sorta says it all. :)


Kind Regards



Blimey Snoops out the frying pan and into the fire or vice versa. If you're not telling porkies about being raised a Catholic, then you now follow 613 Jewish/Yahweh laws instead of 10 commandments (catholic)

You got a bum deal buddie and an unfair trade off of freedoms.

[armoured_amazon]

Blimey Snoops out the frying pan and into the fire or vice versa. If you're not telling porkies about being raised a Catholic, then you now follow 613 Jewish/Yahweh laws instead of 10 commandments (catholic)

You got a bum deal buddie and an unfair trade off of freedoms.

rofl

[stfd]

So you'd rather not say what brand you are?
:D But they do have many many different groups and don't interpret the Bible the same and have different laws they practice. (pointing out the obvious)

The 10 commandments of the Catholics isn't so bad, in fact they have more freedom and freewill than most if not all other Christian groups/sects/Churches etc etc add infinitum.

Catholicism = No genital mutilation of babies, unlike Judaic/Christianity and Islam. Judaism on the whole preaches hatred towards Christ and Christians and Islam wants Jihad and believes all humans should convert to Islam. It's 2008 buddie wake up see what's happening Today. Catholics are the scapegoat and have been persecuted/killed for along time.

For me personally all the religions that came to Britain are all brought here by foreigners who were religious fanatics of foreign religions. And we the people of Britain are Between the Jews Talmudic rantings and the Islamic Jihadists wish they'd fuck off back to where they brought their religions from.

Okay so it seems my 'brand' is of high importance for you.
I am Orthodox, and if you would take your sweet time and throughtly verify what the origins are and how it all started, you would undoubtedly find few things you weren't aware of.
Of course i dont actually expect you would do that as deep inside you know you wouldn't want to find any proof that stuff you actually believe could be wrong(sounds familiar?)

If however you do go and check it out for yourself , hell maybe let me know how it went !

[lizzy]

I decided to start a thread;

I'd like to ask everyone arround here: why does everyone judge Christianity and Christians in general by the actions of the Catholic block and sects such as Mormons, Jehova's whitneses etc .

Thanks

so your an orthodox jew? (just a question )

[stfd]

so your an orthodox jew? (just a question )

No, i'm Orthodox Christian.
Orthodox were called those who remained with the 'old' Christian teachings at the time of the great Schism.They adopted the name'Orthodox' after the official separation of the western block aka. Catholics.

The old values remained unchanged for 2 thousand years. How?

Well because, for example the Council(governing body at that time up to these days) rejected the westerners request of an elected individual at the head of the Church - one who would have powers close to those of an emperor. Or because they refused to interfere with 'civil' affairs or with wars and expansionist policies.

Why?

Because if they would have accepted those requests (in which case the Schism would have never happened) then they felt they couldn't exactly called themselfes Christians.
It was against the rules to go and invade another country and kill tens of thousands. It was against the rules to manipulate the mases via 'religious' indoctrination in order to achieve something,anything material.
It was against the rules to put a man on top - was much safer with a governing body in the form of something close to a 'senate'.

thanks

[phildee3]

well i can't seem to find anything wrong with being organized, something that isn't organized could lead to chaos



Chaos is beautiful!
Have you ever studied fractals?
The chaos in them is pure beauty, -
the "islands of order" are boring.

Organization is Satan's work.
Chaos is God's.

[stfd]

Chaos is beautiful!
Have you ever studied fractals?
The chaos in them is pure beauty, -
the "islands of order" are boring.

Organization is Satan's work.
Chaos is God's.

Now i'm sure one could go and talk for hundreds of hours on this order/chaos thing, one can find pros and cons for both depending on the context.
However consider this:

If you have a mass of highly ignorant,irresponsible,disrespectful, agresive etc individuals who (let's assume) suddenly 'answer' to anything being it god,country,family or/and dont have any kind of allegiance then you would ultimatelly end up with a mass which has absolutelly no form or shape.
Such 'mass' cant possibly 'advance' or 'progress' into anything - ever.

I won't even start debating onto how easily such 'mass' can be manipulated.

[lizzy]

No, i'm Orthodox Christian.
Orthodox were called those who remained with the 'old' Christian teachings at the time of the great Schism.They adopted the name'Orthodox' after the official separation of the western block aka. Catholics.

The old values remained unchanged for 2 thousand years. How?

Well because, for example the Council(governing body at that time up to these days) rejected the westerners request of an elected individual at the head of the Church - one who would have powers close to those of an emperor. Or because they refused to interfere with 'civil' affairs or with wars and expansionist policies.

Why?

Because if they would have accepted those requests (in which case the Schism would have never happened) then they felt they couldn't exactly called themselfes Christians.
It was against the rules to go and invade another country and kill tens of thousands. It was against the rules to manipulate the mases via 'religious' indoctrination in order to achieve something,anything material.
It was against the rules to put a man on top - was much safer with a governing body in the form of something close to a 'senate'.

thanks

thanks stfd,;)

it would have been better had the whole of christianity gone this route. Nations of consciencious objecters....no fodder for the elite to feed on.

[stfd]

And to go back to the original question:



I'd like to ask everyone arround here: why does everyone judge Christianity and Christians in general by the actions of the Catholic block and sects such as Mormons, Jehova's whitneses etc ?

Why is that ?

Anyone ?

[phildee3]

And to go back to the original question:

I'd like to ask everyone arround here: why does everyone judge Christianity and Christians in general by the actions of the Catholic block and sects such as Mormons, Jehova's whitneses etc ?

Why is that ?

Anyone ?



Well, to set aside the order/chaos question for a bit, I find this question rather biased towards a minority premise.
First, the use of the word "everyone" is entirely inaccurate (I, for one, don't)
and secondly, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered to be sects (ie. denominations) of the canonical church.
In fact I think that very few people judge Christians, on the whole, by the actions of these two "cults," which are considered by most (I think) to be non-Christian.

[stfd]

Well, to set aside the order/chaos question for a bit, I find this question rather biased towards a minority premise.
First, the use of the word "everyone" is entirely inaccurate (I, for one, don't)
and secondly, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered to be sects (ie. denominations) of the canonical church.
In fact I think that very few people judge Christians, on the whole, by the actions of these two "cults," which are considered by most (I think) to be non-Christian.

Yea , sorry, didn't mean it to come out like that.

As for the Mormons and Jehovists they may not be considered considered sects by the Catholics but i can tell you for a fact the the Orthodox Ecumenical Council has rejected them as sectarians.
The fact is also that it took almost 500 years for the Orthodox to accept the Catholics as actually being Christian;that was of course based on the Schism issues. Aditionally, the Protestants aren't recognazied as Christian.
Just something to look into.

[coshh]

millions of people starve and the catholic church hordes more riches than any establishment on earth.

People can't eat art. If the Vatican sold it, it would have to sell it TO someone, for either money or lets simplify this by going straight to the need, for food. If that person has the excess food to feed the starving, why not get on their backs about it instead of the Vatican who's wealth (and they're running a deficit right now) is basically tied up in art, relics and buildings.

[coshh]

Chaos is beautiful!
Have you ever studied fractals?
The chaos in them is pure beauty, -
the "islands of order" are boring.Chaos is just fuzzy grey. The patternedness, the intricate regularity is what makes fractals beautiful.

Organization is Satan's work.
Chaos is God's.
Is there any reason to suppose this apart from your saying so?

[phildee3]

Yea , sorry, didn't mean it to come out like that.

As for the Mormons and Jehovists they may not be considered considered sects by the Catholics but i can tell you for a fact the the Orthodox Ecumenical Council has rejected them as sectarians.
The fact is also that it took almost 500 years for the Orthodox to accept the Catholics as actually being Christian;that was of course based on the Schism issues. Aditionally, the Protestants aren't recognazied as Christian.
Just something to look into.



This is interesting to me.
Can I trust you to be honest with me and enlighten me further? You are obviously more knowledgable about orthodoxy than I am and it would save me some time if you could answer a couple of questions.
But first, could I ask you to say "Roman Catholic," rather than "Catholic" when referring to RCs? There are many Catholics who are independent of Rome (such as myself) and it would save alot of confusion.

Are you saying that the Orthodox Ecumenical Council considers LDS and JWs to be Christian sects while Anglicans are not?

[haukipesukone]

I decided to start a thread;

I'd like to ask everyone arround here: why does everyone judge Christianity and Christians in general by the actions of the Catholic block and sects such as Mormons, Jehova's whitneses etc .

Thanks

If it's just those sects of Christianity that are corrupt then it's up to the other "good" Christians to fight for "true" Christianity. You let them soil the name of Christianity.

To me a Christian is a Christian. I don't care what denomination they belong to. It's the same God you worship, isn't it? I don't care about sects, they just get in the way, and stop people from thinking for themselves. "The sect I was brought up in says this so I have to believe this." Blah.

[tracker]

I decided to start a thread;

I'd like to ask everyone arround here: why does everyone judge Christianity and Christians in general by the actions of the Catholic block and sects such as Mormons, Jehova's whitneses etc .

Thanks

guess what ?

i wish you would stop judging me hence you asked every one to stop judging christianity etc so therefor the request was also to me .

so yes , i might concider it , if you stop judging me like everyone else .

:cool:

otherwise , i have a really brown hole just for the licking , lol.:D

[phildee3]

Chaos is just fuzzy grey. The patternedness, the intricate regularity is what makes fractals beautiful.



I disagree.

It is not the repetition in fractal "self similarity" that makes them beatiful, it is the differences in the patterning.



Organization is Satan's work.
Chaos is God's.

Is there any reason to suppose this apart from your saying so?



Uniformity (ie. exact copies) is ugly, hateful, violent and mindless. That's why it is used by the military to unify the troops and order them to destroy the "enemy."

It is order that is grey!
Diversity is colourful!

[haukipesukone]

Uniformity (ie. exact copies) is ugly, hateful, violent and mindless. That's why it is used by the military to unify the troops and order them to destroy the "enemy."

It is order that is grey!
Diversity is colourful!

I agree wholeheartedly. Except I love a woman in uniform.


"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations."

[phildee3]

I love a woman in uniform.



you probably have a masochistic streak! :)

[haukipesukone]

you probably have a masochistic streak! :)

I'm a masochist, but I don't know anything about a streak.

[eternal_spirit]

I'm a masochist, but I don't know anything about a streak.

Well if that's you with your clothes on in avatar NO streaking from you thankyou.

[haukipesukone]

Well if that's you with your clothes on in avatar NO streaking from you thankyou.

Can't say the same thing about you.

[stfd]

This is interesting to me.
Can I trust you to be honest with me and enlighten me further? You are obviously more knowledgable about orthodoxy than I am and it would save me some time if you could answer a couple of questions.
But first, could I ask you to say "Roman Catholic," rather than "Catholic" when referring to RCs? There are many Catholics who are independent of Rome (such as myself) and it would save alot of confusion.

Are you saying that the Orthodox Ecumenical Council considers LDS and JWs to be Christian sects while Anglicans are not?

Well first of all i am not enlightened therefore i couldnt possibly enlighten you.
Yes, Roman Catholics are the latin people (however romanians for example are latin but are orthodox)such as italians, spanish, portuguese etc there are also Greco Catholics for example, however, on the top of their 'piramid' is still the Papacy. No Catholics are 'independent' from rome. Even if they relativelly operate separatelly, the Pope is still the High Pontiff.

So it happened roughly like this :

At the begining , after Jesus was crucified, the Christian movement was born, at that time there weren't ant Catholics , Protestants or any kinf of division.Christianity was all one block.
It continued to evolve as movement and as oganized practice for few hundred years.They had as 'earthly' leaders a Council (which is something close to a Senate of our days) which DID NOT interfere in 'civil' stuff, and DIN NOT seek to exapnd it's 'borders' by force nor did it atempt to use sacred text,words and use their potential'power' in order to enslave the mases through manipulation. No, they didn't, as that would have been AGAINST what they were standing for...

At 1050ish the leaders of the western countries sought to use that which was forbiden to be used in such way(religious belief) in order to advance their 'earthly' agendas.As a result they sent diplomats to the "capital' of Christianity at the time - Constantinople - requesting from the Ecumenical Council that certain policies be changed.
they requested that the Council be disolved and be replaced with a single, near limiteless in powers, Pontiff, that the church should play a 'more activ' role in 'civil' society, that priest should no longer be allowed to get married and have children etc etc...
ALL of the requests were REFUSED.

[phildee3]

Well, stfd,

I know all of that,
but you didn't even remotely address my question.

I thought that you were more knowledgable about orthodoxy than I
so I gave you that respect by asking you about it.

But instead of sharing your expertise, you presume to tell me about mine!

You are dead wrong about independent Catholics!
I have been one since 1983 and have no ties to Rome whatsoever!

[stfd]

Well first of all i am not enlightened therefore i couldnt possibly enlighten you.
Yes, Roman Catholics are the latin people (however romanians for example are latin but are orthodox)such as italians, spanish, portuguese etc there are also Greco Catholics for example, however, on the top of their 'piramid' is still the Papacy. No Catholics are 'independent' from rome. Even if they relativelly operate separatelly, the Pope is still the High Pontiff.

So it happened roughly like this :

At the begining , after Jesus was crucified, the Christian movement was born, at that time there weren't ant Catholics , Protestants or any kinf of division.Christianity was all one block.
It continued to evolve as movement and as oganized practice for few hundred years.They had as 'earthly' leaders a Council (which is something close to a Senate of our days) which DID NOT interfere in 'civil' stuff, and DIN NOT seek to exapnd it's 'borders' by force nor did it atempt to use sacred text,words and use their potential'power' in order to enslave the mases through manipulation. No, they didn't, as that would have been AGAINST what they were standing for...

At 1050ish the leaders of the western countries sought to use that which was forbiden to be used in such way(religious belief) in order to advance their 'earthly' agendas.As a result they sent diplomats to the "capital' of Christianity at the time - Constantinople - requesting from the Ecumenical Council that certain policies be changed.
they requested that the Council be disolved and be replaced with a single, near limiteless in powers, Pontiff, that the church should play a 'more activ' role in 'civil' society, that priest should no longer be allowed to get married and have children etc etc...
ALL of the requests were REFUSED.

Part II


So they left Constantinople, and within few weeks they declared that they no longer answer to the Council;created the 'Papacy' and quickly elected a 'Pope' as supreme leader.
the Council excomunicated,those who caused the Schism, and to make it really funy, the schismatics 'excomunicated' the Council.
Upon the Schism, Rome decided to change the name of the Church from simply 'Christian' to Catholic.Additionally Those who remained 'unseparated' at Constantinople adopted a second name to better differentiate from the schismatics, that was 'Orthodox' which in old greek means 'the right/original one'.
After few hundred years, for the sake of peace and frindship the Council Revised the 'excomunication' thing and decided to call it off.

As different groups were breaking of Catholicism (protestant factions) it was becoming increasingly complicated to determined the ruth from the lie and the right from wrong. The Orthodox Council reunited and rejected all Protestant forms of " Christianity" as truly upholding the banner for which "Christianity' stood for.

More to come , upon request.

[phildee3]

Q. Are you saying that the Orthodox Ecumenical Council considers LDS and JWs to be Christian sects while Anglicans are not?

A. Yes, Roman Catholics are the latin people



Huh???

[stfd]

Well, stfd,

I know all of that,
but you didn't even remotely address my question.

I thought that you were more knowledgable about orthodoxy than I
so I gave you that respect by asking you about it.

But instead of sharing your expertise, you presume to tell me about mine!

You are dead wrong about independent Catholics!
I have been one since 1983 and have no ties to Rome whatsoever!

Woa , relax dude , i can only type so fast (besides im at work :D )

Read the previous post, yes the protestants werent accepted.

[stfd]

Huh???

what's LDS and JWS ?

[stfd]

what's LDS and JWS ?

You there ? let me know what those are and ill answer if i can.

[phildee3]

Q. Are you saying that the Orthodox Ecumenical Council considers LDS and JWs to be Christian sects while Anglicans are not?

A. yes the protestants werent accepted.



Are you saying, then, that the OEC considers LDS and JWs to be Christian and that Anglican's are not?

[phildee3]

You there ? let me know what those are and ill answer if i can.



LDS = Mormons
JWs = Jehovah's Witnesses

[stfd]

LDS = Mormons
JWs = Jehovah's Witnesses

ok ok got it,
the OEC sees the Anglicans as "Protestant" faction. They did go separate from Rome.As i said above it never acknoledged ANY protestants as Christians , which includes Anglicans.
Rome however recognaized them, but then they themselves ARE schismatic.

Hope i answered the question finally(told ya im at work , cant respond as fast as would like)

regards

[stfd]

ok ok got it,
the OEC sees the Anglicans as "Protestant" faction. They did go separate from Rome.As i said above it never acknoledged ANY protestants as Christians , which includes Anglicans.
Rome however recognaized them, but then they themselves ARE schismatic.

Hope i answered the question finally(told ya im at work , cant respond as fast as would like)

regards

And to add, OEC does not recognaize any forms of Protestant or any sects (mormons or jehova's whitneses or any others)

[phildee3]

ok ok got it,
the OEC sees the Anglicans as "Protestant" faction. They did go separate from Rome.As i said above it never acknoledged ANY protestants as Christians , which includes Anglicans.
Rome however recognaized them, but then they themselves ARE schismatic.

Hope i answered the question finally



nope.
My question was not regarding Protestants (you made it clear at the outset that they are not considered "Christian."
It was regarding the LDS and JWs who you call "sects" (implying that they are Christian denominations).
They are not sects of the "Roman bloc," so what are they sects of?

[stfd]

nope.
My question was not regarding Protestants (you made it clear at the outset that they are not considered "Christian."
It was regarding the LDS and JWs who you call "sects" (implying that they are Christian denominations).
They are not sects of the "Roman bloc," so what are they sects of?

Ok, i'm sure they didn't break off the "Catholic" bloc, i'm surethey were offshots of some "protestant" faction , i'm just not sure which one.

[stfd]

nope.
My question was not regarding Protestants (you made it clear at the outset that they are not considered "Christian."
It was regarding the LDS and JWs who you call "sects" (implying that they are Christian denominations).
They are not sects of the "Roman bloc," so what are they sects of?

Additionally, i wouldnt even call them Christian denomination, they are by no means Christian in any way. Those people's sole reason for existance (imho) is to cause further dissention. To further twist the already distorted 'image' of Christianity.

[armoured_amazon]

Omg why do people care? Jesus never left instruction for anyone to be a LDS, JW or even be called a Christian. Splitting hairs is such a waste of time. Indulging in anything Jesus didn't say is following a cult religion so instead of arguing over the details, get off the fence.

[stfd]

Omg why do people care? Jesus never left instruction for anyone to be a LDS, JW or even be called a Christian. Splitting hairs is such a waste of time. Indulging in anything Jesus didn't say is following a cult religion so instead of arguing over the details, get off the fence.

:)

[phildee3]

i wouldnt even call them Christian denomination, they are by no means Christian in any way. Those people's sole reason for existance (imho) is to cause further dissention. To further twist the already distorted 'image' of Christianity.



I agree, and since the orthodox, the RCs, Anglicans, and all the other "canonical" sects do not accept them then they are not sects of Christianity (even if they were "offshoots" - which they are not).

So what are they sects of???

[phildee3]

Indulging in anything Jesus didn't say is following a cult religion



...like indulging in a David Icke forum?

[stfd]

I agree, and since the orthodox, the RCs, Anglicans, and all the other "canonical" sects do not accept them then they are not sects of Christianity (even if they were "offshoots" - which they are not).

So what are they sects of???

woa ! hold on...

You just called the Orthodox and R.Catholics sects.
By definition a sect is a cult or religious movement, a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs or/and a subdivision of a larger religious group.

By no mean could the Orthodox be such thing as a sect since they broke of anything.
Secondly the Catholics, even after breaking away, were/are too large to even consider it.

Now i -think- that mormons are ofshots of presbyterians, i'm not sure so dont take it for a fact. I wont even go and check it out as it really doesnt make a difference for me. Presbyterians are a sect themselves so it doesnt matter.

[armoured_amazon]

...like indulging in a David Icke forum?

I don't worship David Icke or anyone here, nor subscribe to their guidelines for life. So NO.

[phildee3]

I'm sorry to have to burst your bubble, stfd, but the church which became divided in 1054 was founded by the Roman emporer, Constantine, in the early fourth century through the most bloody and brutal anhilation of the earlier church founded by the apostles.
The orthodox church, then, is itself the product of an even greater schism -between the "Holy" Roman Empire (which the orthodox were originally a part of) and the Celtic Church, which had been in existence for three hundred years - founded in Europe by the apostles themselves.

[stfd]

I don't worship David Icke or anyone here, nor subscribe to their guidelines for life. So NO.

What's this comment supposed to mean anyway?

I hope nobody here actually 'worships' Icke nor takes what he says for granted.

[phildee3]

You just called the Orthodox and R.Catholics sects.



The word sect is the root of the word section.
It means a part.

Now if you consider the orthodox church to be the only Christian church, then it is not a sect of Christianity, but neither are any of the other churches, which you claim are not Christian.

If, however, you consider all the canonical churches to be Christian (as I do) then they are all sects.

[stfd]

I'm sorry to have to burst your bubble, stfd, but the church which became divided in 1054 was founded by the Roman emporer, Constantine, in the early fourth century through the most bloody and brutal anhilation of the earlier church founded by the apostles.
The orthodox church, then, is itself the product of an even greater schism -between the "Holy" Roman Empire (which the orthodox were originally a part of) and the Celtic Church, which had been in existence for three hundred years - founded in Europe by the apostles themselves.

You arent 'bursting my buble'.
The Christian Apostolic Church is the name used prior to the schism in 1050.
The Orthodox werent part of nor broke appart of anything.
Go do your homework better:)
Constantine wasn't actually roman per se, nor did he reside in Rome, but Constantinople- hence the name of the city.
Again , go and do your homewok better , dont post before making sure what ur saying is accurate.
Otherwise you are risking athers to believe it.

So yea again , no bubble was bursted :D

[phildee3]

I don't worship David Icke or anyone here, nor subscribe to their guidelines for life. So NO.



But Jesus didn't say to indulge in a David Icke forum, so by your own claim to do so is "following a cult religion."

[stfd]

The word sect is the root of the word section.
It means a part.

Now if you consider the orthodox church to be the only Christian church, then it is not a sect of Christianity, but neither are any of the other churches, which you claim are not Christian.

If, however, you consider all the canonical churches to be Christian (as I do) then they are all sects.

Ok, you are playing with words now.
To which 'churches' are you refering : " but neither are any of the other churches, which you claim are not Christian." ?

[armoured_amazon]

What's this comment supposed to mean anyway?

I hope nobody here actually 'worships' Icke nor takes what he says for granted.

It was in response to this comment. :)

...like indulging in a David Icke forum?

But Jesus didn't say to indulge in a David Icke forum, so by your own claim to do so is "following a cult religion."

I guess I need to break down my usage of the word 'indulge' :rolleyes:

To live by the laws of Roman Catholicism/Protestantism/etc etc is not from Jesus. So to indulge in such earthly cults is a waste of time.

[stfd]

But Jesus didn't say to indulge in a David Icke forum, so by your own claim to do so is "following a cult religion."

Jesus never said we should play videogames nor play cars, watch Formula1, or cheer for Ajax Amsterdam. Yet some of us do !

hmmm interesting ...

Dude are you okay ?
you make no sense

[armoured_amazon]

But Jesus didn't say to indulge in a David Icke forum, so by your own claim to do so is "following a cult religion."

Jesus never said we should play videogames nor play cars, watch Formula1, or cheer for Ajax Amsterdam. Yet some of us do !

hmmm interesting ...

Dude are you okay ?
you make no sense

He's just resorting to pedantry.

[stfd]

It was in response to this comment. :)





I guess I need to break down my usage of the word 'indulge' :rolleyes:

To live by the laws of Roman Catholicism/Protestantism/etc etc is not from Jesus. So to indulge in such earthly cults is a waste of time.

i know , i was adresing that to phildee3 tho :D

[phildee3]

The Christian Apostolic Church is the name used prior to the schism in 1050.



The name is irrelevent.

That church contained the seed of orthodoxy

and it was, itself, the result of a schism with the Celtic church.

I've done my homework very thoroughly, thank you!

[phildee3]

Jesus never said we should play videogames nor play cars, watch Formula1, or cheer for Ajax Amsterdam. Yet some of us do !



Hey, I'm not the one claiming that we shouldn't do anything that Jesus didn't say.

[phildee3]

To which 'churches' are you refering : " but neither are any of the other churches, which you claim are not Christian." ?



All of them.

Oh, no.
Wait a minute.
You said that the RCs have more recently been accepted as Christian.
There are therefore two Christian sects (according to the OEC), Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

[oiram]

I never liked from young age any religious organizations because I did not like to become like them!
Do I hate them no; the only thing I hate is corrupter's manipulators & murderers
no matter which Religion they follow including the once which don't follow any Religion!
So simple really & I think the real Divine God told me to think like this he must be looking after me!
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/sheepa.gif
Yes all Religion have the function in cooperation with the Governments to create the herds of dumb-down illogical sheep!
If people say they believe in God what does it really mean without understanding what God & his ways are!
If Religious groups really would have the function they proclaim they have they would not fight each other "Right!"
So in the end I know that I made the right choice to keep far away from all Religious Organizations!
Thanks God that I don't have this problem to fight & hate other Religions!

[stfd]

The name is irrelevent.

That church contained the seed of orthodoxy

and it was, itself, the result of a schism with the Celtic church.

I've done my homework very thoroughly, thank you!

This Celtic Church you are reffering to has no link whatsoever with Orthodoxy which has it's roots in balkan-pontus area and surroundings.
And no your homework isnt done properly :(

[stfd]

Hey, I'm not the one claiming that we shouldn't do anything that Jesus didn't say.

No, but you are playing with words in very convenient fashion.

[phildee3]

This Celtic Church you are reffering to has no link whatsoever with Orthodoxy



Correct.
It was wiped out long before the Orthodox church ever existed.

[stfd]

Correct.
It was wiped out long before the Orthodox church ever existed.

Hence, As the CC has been wiped outa existance like you said,How could the Orthodox be an offshot ?

[phildee3]

Hence, As the CC has been wiped outa existance like you said,How could the Orthodox be an offshot ?



Via the so-called "Christian Apostolic Church."

[stfd]

Via the so-called "Christian Apostolic Church."

Ill have to drop this one for a bit as your timeline and overall view over what happened at the time is off.

Instead lets discuss, if you would like, how did it come to such a separation?

[phildee3]

lets discuss, if you would like, how did it come to such a separation?



Which one?

[stfd]

Correct.
It was wiped out long before the Orthodox church ever existed.

Actually i need to clarify one thing first.
If for example you have an apple , and you cut it in two pieces.You keep one piece in the fridge for conservation and the other you use to make a pie.
How would you call the apple used as an ingredient allng with others to make a pie?
Well it will be just another ingredient to make that pie.
However the piece you kept in the fridge has been conserved as a distinct piece of the original fruit; as opposed to the other who now has been turned into shreded paste which went in the pie.

Same thing with the Orthodox.
Orthodox is the piece whch remained conserved in the fridge, the other piece who went astray is the R.C.

[phildee3]

Actually i need to clarify one thing first.
If for example you have an apple , and you cut it in two pieces.You keep one piece in the fridge for conservation and the other you use to make a pie.
How would you call the apple used as an ingredient allng with others to make a pie?
Well it will be just another ingredient to make that pie.
However the piece you kept in the fridge has been conserved as a distinct piece of the original fruit; as opposed to the other who now has been turned into shreded paste which went in the pie.

Same thing with the Orthodox.
Orthodox is the piece whch remained conserved in the fridge, the other piece who went astray is the R.C.

Okay.
The whole apple, then, was the "Christian Apostolic Church."
It sat on the table for 700 years.
Right after it was harvested (by Constantine) he cut down the apple tree and burned it.

g'night

[phildee3]

Okay, stfd,
I'll let you in on a little secret.
When Constantine destroyed the apple tree and took control over the apple, a few other apples lay hidden in the grass.
Unnoticed - they quietly germinated and became small, but healthy replicas of the original tree.

These are the independent catholics.

[stfd]

Okay, stfd,
I'll let you in on a little secret.
When Constantine destroyed the apple tree and took control over the apple, a few other apples lay hidden in the grass.
Unnoticed - they quietly germinated and became small, but healthy replicas of the original tree.

These are the independent catholics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "independent" ; If however you mean independent from the Vatican then you are either joking or simply wrong.
No Catholic Church has ever been independent. The Papacy always exerted at least indirect control over national or regional Catholic Churches. :)

[stfd]

Okay, stfd,
I'll let you in on a little secret.
When Constantine destroyed the apple tree and took control over the apple, a few other apples lay hidden in the grass.
Unnoticed - they quietly germinated and became small, but healthy replicas of the original tree.

These are the independent catholics.

And i mean , is cool, you obviously did get this info you keep throwin' at me from somewhere. I however , have different information which happens to be different than the one you got. Which is also cool.

As we are obviously never gonna agree on this is maybe better to change the subject :D
What do you think?

[coshh]

I disagree.

It is not the repetition in fractal "self similarity" that makes them beatiful, it is the differences in the patterning.



Uniformity (ie. exact copies) is ugly, hateful, violent and mindless. That's why it is used by the military to unify the troops and order them to destroy the "enemy."

It is order that is grey!
Diversity is colourful!
Order is not uniformity.
Order is organisation - it requires diverse forms to be organised. Order inherently means difference. Without organisation things tend toward laziness. That is they do what takes the least energy. THAT leads to uniformity.
Without an overall pattern there can be no "differences" in the patterning.

[phildee3]

I'm not sure what you mean by "independent" ; If however you mean independent from the Vatican then you are either joking or simply wrong.
No Catholic Church has ever been independent.



I am not joking and I am not wrong.
I was confirmed, and took minor orders, in 1983.

Look up "episcopi vagantes."

If you don't look for something, you ain't gonna find it!
Independent Catholic Churches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[phildee3]

Order is not uniformity.
Order is organisation - it requires diverse forms to be organised. Order inherently means difference. Without organisation things tend toward laziness. That is they do what takes the least energy. THAT leads to uniformity.
Without an overall pattern there can be no "differences" in the patterning.



There are two types of order,
i) imposed (by force/laws), and
ii) natural (self-organising - out of chaos).

i) tends towards uniformity.
The military is hardly lazy!!

ii) tends to alternate between chaos and order, - it's very dynamic.
It can be seen not only in fractals but also in cymatics.

[stfd]

I am not joking and I am not wrong.
I was confirmed, and took minor orders, in 1983.

Look up "episcopi vagantes."

If you don't look for something, you ain't gonna find it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Catholic_Churches

Ah , okay, i know those guys.
I mean i knew they existed, can't comment on them as i dont know much about the implications.
Now that you opened the subject, does the Vatican recognize them as 'Catholics' ?
Just curious.

[phildee3]

does the Vatican recognize them as 'Catholics' ?



You're really intent on denying us independent status, aren't you?

We meet all the criteria that the Vatican use to define "Catholic."

[stfd]

You're really intent on denying us independent status, aren't you?

We meet all the criteria that the Vatican use to define "Catholic."


:D i'm curious now, who is 'us' you mentioned?

[phildee3]

i'm curious now, who is 'us' you mentioned?



sigh!

Independent Catholics.

[stfd]

sigh!

Independent Catholics.

aight :D

[coshh]

There are two types of order,
i) imposed (by force/laws), and
ii) natural (self-organising - out of chaos).

i) tends towards uniformity.
The military is hardly lazy!!

ii) tends to alternate between chaos and order, - it's very dynamic.
It can be seen not only in fractals but also in cymatics.All order is imposed. "Self organisation" is just order that is imposed by natural law (by which I mean physical law not some kind of moral theory). To deny consious beings their right to order their environment because they are consious of what they are doing is a bit hypocritical. If I build a house according to my design instead of living in a naturally developed cave, well viva order.

[tjohn]

I decided to start a thread;

I'd like to ask everyone arround here: why does everyone judge Christianity and Christians in general by the actions of the Catholic block and sects such as Mormons, Jehova's whitneses etc .

Thanks I don't! I judge Christian belief (not the people themsleves) as being an offshoot of Judaism which can be shown as mostly fabricated lies.

[armoured_amazon]

I don't! I judge Christian belief (not the people themsleves) as being an offshoot of Judaism which can be shown as mostly fabricated lies.

Belief becomes action; thus you do judge the people.

[stfd]

In -my opinion- this whole religion issue that so many seem to have, or think they have, should be looked at from a a much simple perpective.

Basically, and again in my opinion, all that is simple/straight forward is infinitelly easier to decipher/understand.
As soon as PEOPLE start and purpously complicate things then the image becomes increasingly distorted.

I am sure that we will get to fully understand one day, and it will be sooner rather than later; but what untill then ?!
Smashing our heads together so to speak , becasue we have different views on things, is not gonna make our passing easier.
So then what ?

I'd start with trying to listen to what the 'other guy' has to say before flaming him. And MAYBE , maybe, we get to learn a bit.
Sounds alright?

[phildee3]

All order is imposed. "Self organisation" is just order that is imposed by natural law (by which I mean physical law not some kind of moral theory).



No law (natural or otherwise) imposes.
Law enforcement does.

And natural law is not enforced. All things comply to it naturally as it is a part of the system. Natural law is what we observe to be what all things naturally follow in order to exist.



To deny consious beings their right to order their environment because they are consious of what they are doing is a bit hypocritical.



I'm not suggesting this.
To do so would be to impose.



If I build a house according to my design instead of living in a naturally developed cave, well viva order.



There is a third option.
Bricolage.

It does not impose order but allows you to build your house following natural laws.

[emerald]

A thread to waste ur time and energy on...

[phildee3]

a thread to waste ur time and energy on...



yru?

[stfd]

It has to do with the thread-title, check this out :

Change? Not
A viewpoint on Americans and President Elect Barack Obama

I happen to like Americans. I’m legally one of them, but I wasn’t born here. Most of the Americans I have known in the four decades I have lived here have not been warmongers or racists or contemptuous of culture and intellect. Even the so-called uneducated ones have a core of neighborly decency and tolerance that seems rooted in a cheerful attitude of live-and-let-live.

Their culture is malleable and adaptable and eventually inclusive. They have refined the discourse of human rights, feminism, and anti-authoritarianism. They have developed great universities. They are indefatigable inventors and innovators. They have perfected the rhetoric of rights and actually enjoy some of them. They are not snobs. And they are quick on the uptake when lies and chicanery are in the offing. The last eight years in the vertiginous rise and fall of Bushist triumphalism and bluster attest to that.

But.

These are the people. Their government is something entirely different, and they are beginning to realize it. It frightens them -- this pending gap and potential divorce between themselves and their government. The election of Barack Obama restores hope -- after all, they have elected a black American, and, to them, this is a huge paradigm shift. In the horrible, long, and contorted history of racialist America, this single act gives them the illusion that their government can now be trusted again to be in tune with their sentiments because it includes an outsider -- a person of color.

Except.

Barack Obama is not an outsider. He has chosen the establishment over the people. But this is hard for Americans to understand because they have no concept of class -- which is to say the concept that class is a relation of power. They think in racialist terms. They think that color determines politics. Or maybe they don’t, but they have no other tool of analysis than race.

How else to explain the enthusiasm over Obama, a man whose policies and advisors are indistinguishable from Clinton’s, who was a dismantler of welfare, a neo-liberal free-trader, and an ardent warmonger? A man who put power and profits before the people?

This is a tragedy in the making. Possibly the last disillusionment. After all, this new president is never going to say what Martin Luther King said when the awful truth about the war in Vietnam caught up with him, “The greatest purveyor of terror in the world today is my own government.” How could he when he has chosen to defend that power in a relation of class solidarity with the economic elite?

And it needs to be said again. Or nothing will change.

pasted from www.globalresearch.ca --> good informational site

[coshh]

It does not impose order but allows you to build your house following natural laws.

Technically that is just me manipulating natural laws, in exactly the same essential manner (though using a different technique - and I admit, a cool one!) as building it out of wattle and daub.

[phildee3]

Technically that is just me manipulating natural laws,



Natural laws cannot be manipulated - by definition.

[coshh]

Natural laws cannot be manipulated - by definition.Yes they can, if I build a paraglider I can manipulate (not by changing it, but by turning it to my advantage) natural laws such as air resistance to enable me to glide.

Being without a will of their own and unable to adapt to my attempts to use them to attain my own will natural laws are entirely subject to being manipulated.

[phildee3]

Yes they can, if I build a paraglider I can manipulate (not by changing it, but by turning it to my advantage) natural laws such as air resistance to enable me to glide.



According to the dictionary, to manipulate is to change:

"to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose." MERRIAM WEBSTER

"to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage." ONLINE DICTIONARY

[coshh]

According to the dictionary, to manipulate is to change:

"to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose." MERRIAM WEBSTER

"to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage." ONLINE DICTIONARY
Then let me clarify, when I say manipulate, I mean to turn a thing apart from myself to my own ends.

[phildee3]

Then let me clarify, when I say manipulate, I mean to turn a thing apart from myself to my own ends.



So you mean "utilise."
Yes, we all do this.
The engineer and the bicoleur both utilise natural laws,

the difference being that the "engineer" imposes his will while the "bricoleur" works to attain his needs and, simultaneously, the needs of the whole system which he is conscious of being part of.

[coshh]

So you mean "utilise."
Yes, we all do this.
The engineer and the bicoleur both utilise natural laws,

the difference being that the "engineer" imposes his will while the "bricoleur" works to attain his needs and, simultaneously, the needs of the whole system which he is conscious of being part of.

It's still an imposition of will.
Are they getting the biomatter to vote on the ends to which it may be directed? No, they're just using it - the fact that they can get stuff they want by giving it back something doesn't make it any less imposing any more than if as a slave I am fed I am not a slave, generally slaves get fed.

Its still an imposition of order. And there is still nothing inherently wrong with that.

[phildee3]

Are they getting the biomatter to vote on the ends to which it may be directed?



Yes.
That's exactly what bricolage is.
Well put!

[coshh]

Yes.
That's exactly what bricolage is.
Well put!no it isn't

[phildee3]

no it isn't



bri·co·lage
n. Something made or put together using whatever materials happen to be available. RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY.

So what is the process of deciding what is to be available if not by "vote" of the biomatter?

[stfd]

bri·co·lage
n. Something made or put together using whatever materials happen to be available. RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY.

So what is the process of deciding what is to be available if not by "vote" of the biomatter?

The thing is that we are composed of atoms which are -organized- in a certain way/patern.If they weren't -organized- in such way we could have been frogs,butterflies or potatoes. Yet , due to this fine -organization- of atoms we have this phisical body.
Same goes with planets , stars ,nebulas,clusters - the whole univers.

Of course one might say that all this 'arrangement' of atoms and particles was completelly random and that our 'making' and this universe's 'making' is purely accidental ... BUT --->
One phrase which i want to mention here is from Genesis-Old Testament,where it sais God created man to match His exact appeareance.
Hence it wasn't a random event but planned, therefore organized 'process' .

[phildee3]

... it sais God created man to match His exact appeareance.
Hence it wasn't a random event but planned, therefore organized 'process' .



So is this creator god a bricoleur or an engineer?

[stfd]

So is this creator god a bricoleur or an engineer?

Deffinetelly not a bricoleur, yet engineer doesnt say it all.
I'd say designer,engineer,maker and caretaker , all at the same time.

[phildee3]

Deffinetelly not a bricoleur



So from what did s/he fabricate creation?

[newdecades]

the 'god created us in his image' thing doesn't make any sense to me. i doubt god has an 'image'. god is probably more like a 'force' or 'energy'. i think we have tried to make god in our image.
now if by 'god' they mean extraterrestrial beings, that would make more sense.:)

[phildee3]

the 'god created us in his image' thing doesn't make any sense to me. i doubt god has an 'image'.



Another translation says "in his likeness," which is probably more accurate.




god is probably more like a 'force' or 'energy'.



...and so are we.

[coshh]

bri·co·lage
n. Something made or put together using whatever materials happen to be available. RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY.

So what is the process of deciding what is to be available if not by "vote" of the biomatter?
Um, it's just stuff happening. The matter is incapable of such choices.

[phildee3]

Um, it's just stuff happening. The matter is incapable of such choices.



Of course.
That's why I put "vote" in quotation marks.

So first you say it's an "imposition of will" (msg. 106),
now you say the opposite - "it's just stuff happening."

You are now correct,
but the way in which it happens, and the form that the order takes, is determined by the degree of potency of the "stuff" (this is how it "votes").

[coshh]

Of course.
That's why I put "vote" in quotation marks.

So first you say it's an "imposition of will" (msg. 106),
now you say the opposite - "it's just stuff happening."

You are now correct,
but the way in which it happens, and the form that the order takes, is determined by the degree of potency of the "stuff" (this is how it "votes").

But when man gets it to work for him, to get what he wants or needs, then it IS an imposition of will.
We have a capacity for choice and forward thought and planning, why rob us of that?

[stfd]

So from what did s/he fabricate creation?

He 'fabricated' the universe from 'within' Himself. After, He created us by using as ingredients parts/pieces/chunks/particles of the already created universe.

[stfd]

the 'god created us in his image' thing doesn't make any sense to me. i doubt god has an 'image'. god is probably more like a 'force' or 'energy'. i think we have tried to make god in our image.
now if by 'god' they mean extraterrestrial beings, that would make more sense.:)

And what do you actually mean by "extraterestrial" ?
Do you mean simply - not from this planet?

[newdecades]

...and so are we.

and so are animals, trees, etc. but the bible doesn't say he created the beasts of the earth in his image. it seems like the bible is hinting that god was more 'human' like. maybe i'm wrong though. in my opinion everything is created in god's image because god is a part of everything and not one particular thing. maybe by 'in his image/likeness' they mean more like god created us the way he IMAGINED us or LIKED us to be like?

[newdecades]

And what do you actually mean by "extraterestrial" ?
Do you mean simply - not from this planet?

yeah, human like beings from another planet.

[stfd]

and so are animals, trees, etc. but the bible doesn't say he created the beasts of the earth in his image. in my opinion everything is created in god's image because god is a part of everything and not one particular thing. maybe by 'in his image/likeness' they mean more like god created us the way he IMAGINED us or LIKED us to be like?

No ... animals,plants and the surrounding nature in general was not created in God's immage, only man.
Those things were created to 'serve' man , or to be of 'use' to him.
God isn't part of 'the everything' He IS 'the everything'.

[stfd]

yeah, human like beings from another planet.

In Bible, at the beginning, in Genesis, it is mentioned that before creating 'man' and before creating plants , beasts, seas,oceans, mountains etc etc .... so BEFORE that , he made ALL that is seen and all the cannot be seen.
Hence those 'human like beings from another planet' you mentioned might be our 'brothers' NOT our 'fathers'.

[newdecades]

No ... animals,plants and the surrounding nature in general was not created in God's immage, only man.
Those things were created to 'serve' man , or to be of 'use' to him.
God isn't part of 'the everything' He IS 'the everything'.

i disagree. god is a force/energy. just like animals, humans, trees, etc. so we are all in gods 'image'.
i agree that god is everything.

[newdecades]

In Bible, at the beginning, in Genesis, it is mentioned that before creating 'man' and before creating plants , beasts, seas,oceans, mountains etc etc .... so BEFORE that , he made ALL that is seen and all the cannot be seen.
Hence those 'human like beings from another planet' you mentioned might be our 'brothers' NOT our 'fathers'.

i wouldn't call them 'fathers' i just mean possibly these 'beings' came to this planet, found us when we were less 'intelligent' more 'animal' like, and maybe mixed their dna with ours so we would be more like them. in their 'image/likeness'.

[stfd]

i wouldn't call them 'fathers' i just mean possibly these 'beings' came to this planet, found us when we were less 'intelligent' more 'animal' like, and maybe mixed their dna with ours so we would be more like them. in their 'image/likeness'.

You can believe whatever you want , and so can i and everyone else.
Ultimatelly it is only One which has,is and will always be.
I believe it will all be clear sooner rather than later.

Cheers

[newdecades]

You can believe whatever you want , and so can i and everyone else.
Ultimatelly it is only One which has,is and will always be.
I believe it will all be clear sooner rather than later.

Cheers

agreed:)

[phildee3]

But when man gets it to work for him, to get what he wants or needs, then it IS an imposition of will.



Man does not need to "get" it to work for him to supply his needs. It already does, as it does for all the other creatures (read Matthew 6:28-30).

If you have any wants beyond that then, yes, one must impose one's will.



We have a capacity for choice and forward thought and planning, why rob us of that?



All things benefit from the forward thought and planning of the bricoleur
but the aquisition of the materials required by the engineer, created by his forward thought and planning, robs the natural environment (and all things that depend upon it).

[phildee3]

and so are animals, trees, etc. but the bible doesn't say he created the beasts of the earth in his image.



That's because the bible was written for man.



in my opinion everything is created in god's image



I agree with this.
Everything has soul.

[phildee3]

God isn't part of 'the everything' He IS 'the everything'.



S/he's both.

Everything is in God,
and God is in everything.

[coshh]

Man does not need to "get" it to work for him to supply his needs. It already does, as it does for all the other creatures (read Matthew 6:28-30).

So then what's the deal with all the stuff in genesis about man having to toil to get the earth to give up its fruits?
I mean if you want to do the whole (yawn) finding isolated bible passages to support a view thing.

[phildee3]

He 'fabricated' the universe from 'within' Himself.



"From within"??

So he placed it outside of himself?

But you said:
"God ...IS 'the everything'."

You can't have an "inside" without having an "outside."
If you go in (to perform the operation on oneself) where are you coming from?

[phildee3]

So then what's the deal with all the stuff in genesis about man having to toil to get the earth to give up its fruits?



That's the OT.
Different god.

[coshh]

That's the OT.
Different god.
On what basis do you suppose that?

[phildee3]

On what basis do you suppose that?



Pretty obvious, isn't it?
The OT god gives out reams of rules and regulations which you must obey or else he punishes you.
The NT testament god gives out just one rule - "love one another." If you don't you punish yourself.

[coshh]

Pretty obvious, isn't it?
The OT god gives out reams of rules and regulations which you must obey or else he punishes you.
The NT testament god gives out just one rule - "love one another." If you don't you punish yourself.
Again I find the whole quoting bible passages annoying but I might as well do it, what of the "I came not to do away with the law but to complete it"?
And as for only one rule, I pretty much got that there were two (under which all other rules were just the consequences of the two described) love God and love man for God's sake.
Plus... where in the NT does it talk about punishing yourself???

Personally I do not find it obvious. Having enjoyed the OT as a child and then reading the NT once I was an adult I find that the one compliments (and yes, fulfills) the other very well. I get a great sense of continuity between them.

[phildee3]

Again I find the whole quoting bible passages annoying but I might as well do it, what of the "I came not to do away with the law but to complete it"?



What of it?
He did.



And as for only one rule, I pretty much got that there were two (under which all other rules were just the consequences of the two described) love God and love man for God's sake.



Yes, but he said that what we do to one another we do to him.



Plus... where in the NT does it talk about punishing yourself???

Personally I do not find it obvious. Having enjoyed the OT as a child and then reading the NT once I was an adult I find that the one compliments (and yes, fulfills) the other very well. I get a great sense of continuity between them.



There comes a time when we must lay aside (get weaned from) the milk of "the word" and feed on the meat of direct experience of him.

[coshh]

There comes a time when we must lay aside (get weaned from) the milk of "the word" and feed on the meat of direct experience of him.

What happens when your experience contradicts that of another?

[stfd]

"From within"??

So he placed it outside of himself?

But you said:
"God ...IS 'the everything'."

You can't have an "inside" without having an "outside."
If you go in (to perform the operation on oneself) where are you coming from?

That is , puting it through the prism of our mortal perception.
You need to stop this wordplay, wont get you anywhere:o

[armoured_amazon]

Having enjoyed the OT...and then reading the NT...I find that the one compliments (and yes, fulfills) the other very well. I get a great sense of continuity between them.

Me too. :)

[phildee3]

What happens when your experience contradicts that of another?



Then you know it's not s/he who is the Truth.

Make a mental note of it - what it feels like, what it tastes like - so you will be able to recognise the deceiver when s/he comes round again!

[coshh]

Me too. :)

http://danielmitsui.tripod.com/aaaaa/allegorical.html
Had mediaeval artists confined themselves to historical cycles there would be no reason to dwell on them further, but there was in the thirteenth century another and infinitely more curious reading of the Old Testament. The artists preferred for the most part to adhere to the spirit rather than the letter. To them the Old Testament seemed a vast figure of the New. Following the guidance of the doctors, they chose out a number of Old Testament scenes and placed them in juxtaposition with scenes from the Gospel in order to impress on men a sense of the deep underlying harmony. While the windows in the Sainte-Chapelle tell a simple story, those at Chartres and Bourges show forth a mystery.

Such a method of interpretation was entirely orthodox. But since the Council of Trent the Church has chosen to attach herself to the literal meaning of the Old Testament, leaving the symbolic method in the background. And so it has come about that the exegesis based on symbolism of which the Fathers made constant if not exclusive use, is today generally ignored. For this reason it seems useful briefly to set forth a body of doctrine which so often found expression in art.

God who sees all things under the aspect of eternity willed that the Old and New Testaments should form a complete and harmonious whole; the Old is but an adumbration of the New. To use mediaeval language, that which the Gospel shows men in the light of the sun, the Old Testament showed them in the uncertain light of the moon and stars. In the Old Testament truth is veiled, but the death of Christ rent that mystic veil and that is why we are told in the Gospel that the veil of the Temple was rent in twain at the time of the Crucifixion. Thus it is only in relation to the New Testament that the Old Testament has significance, and the Synagogue who persists in expounding it for its own merits is blindfold.

[phildee3]

http://danielmitsui.tripod.com/aaaaa/allegorical.html



There is no limit to the deception and lies of the Jewish/Roman conspiriacy.
They justify their murderous ways by calling it "The Will of God."

Yes, there is continuity of Yahwism from the Jews through the Romans. Of course, their hands are both covered in the blood of the humble servant of the Eternal One, Jeshua.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Phildee3, rather than casting baseless accusations, provide some Tangible Evidence.


Yahweh has nothing to do with Roma, and Roma has nothing to do with Yahweh.

The Pharisee/Talmudists & the Vatican/RCC USURP the Teachings and ADD their own Imprimature, like you, and it is unsupported by the actual scripture.

This is why you will not answer three simple queries.

1: why does Yahshua Messiah and His Apostles constantly subject themselves to the Authority of Yahweh, and they Cite and Quote ALL the Patriarchs and the Prophets of Yahweh? And tell us to heed them.

No, the Romans were not the Authors of the NT.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=382725&postcount=3

Define Righteous/ness

Define Sin

When Yahshua Messiah and His Apostles tell us to 'search the scriptures', and the say: 'It is written'. They are referring to the Tanakh, the Old Testament.

Where does King Melchizedek fit in your scheme? He is Cited in both Testaments.

My opinion is: you have transformed the New Testament into a Babylonian Mystery School, which is incorrect.

Come back to the gnosticism thread and make your Case. I know you can't, but you should at least try to support your baseless conclusions.

I'll be there later.

[phildee3]

the Romans were not the Authors of the NT.



Very true.
They were the revisers of it.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

When Yahshua Messiah and His Apostles tell us to 'search the scriptures', and the say: 'It is written'. They are referring to the Tanakh, the Old Testament. Why do Yahshua Messiah and His Apostles Cite and Quote the Patriarchs and Prophets and tell us to heed their words

Where does King Melchizedek fit in your scheme? He is Cited in both Testaments.

Answer these two queries phil, old buddy, old pal. I'll be in the gnosticist thread about 10 pm. EST.

[stfd]

That's because the bible was written for man.



I agree with this.
Everything has soul.

Would you kindly expose to me how rocks or cats have a soul?
I'm very curious to hear.

[phildee3]

Would you kindly expose to me how rocks or cats have a soul?
I'm very curious to hear.



Only those with ears can hear.

God, you humans are so arrogant; -
to assume that only you have souls!

[stfd]

There is no limit to the deception and lies of the Jewish/Roman conspiriacy.
They justify their murderous ways by calling it "The Will of God."

Yes, there is continuity of Yahwism from the Jews through the Romans. Of course, their hands are both covered in the blood of the humble servant of the Eternal One, Jeshua.

As is said before, the perception of being two gods (one in the Old Testament another in the New Testament) is incorrect.
There is only one God in both.
The change in 'policy' if u wanna call it so happened after Jesus sacrificed Himself for us.

[stfd]

Only those with ears can hear.

God, you humans are so arrogant; -
to assume that only you have souls!

Never said -only-humans have souls.
I did say that the 'nature' surrounding humans on this Earth doesnt have however.
Hence not only humans have a soul.

[merlincove]

As is said before, the perception of being two gods (one in the Old Testament another in the New Testament) is incorrect.
There is only one God in both.
The change in 'policy' if u wanna call it so happened after Jesus sacrificed Himself for us.

i probably need to read the bible again, with new eyes.

i can not realy get my head around God in the OT being so wrathfull toward mankind, ie hauling Adam and Eve out of Eden, the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing, and all the business with craven gods when Moses returned to is people. There seems to have been a lot of smitting going on in the OT?

My take on God is that he gave us free will and that he will and does love us all equally.

Mankind judges itself for its own tyranny. The OT i think backs up that self judgement in that within faith we are sinners and that that sin shall be judged and a wrathful vengence delivered upon all who are lacking. That's just masochistic bullsh!t to keep the masses in line. And i believe that the OT, in part, was written with that agenda - to set aside a private anguish for every individual who feels that they have sinned, for in that book God is a vengeful judge who alows no recompense for crimes commited.

Now that to me does not sound like a God who embodies pure love and understanding, such as the New Testament gives to us, from the words of Christ and his disciples. The OT version of God kicks ass, the Nt god forgives and loves us eternally. Sounds like two Gods to me.

But i feel, not two Gods, One God - for both books were written by man for man and were used as a tool for subjugation of the masses through fear.

God is love absolute. And even God is a word given to us in descript of the great force of creation by man and as such is not an accurate name in itself.

I am that I am, even, are the words of man to describe the concept of God.

Christ was a true light bringer, his message was one of inspiration and beauty. It is odd that He touches so many religions; Buddhism, Sikhism, Catholicism, Judaism, Christianity, Muslim. His energy was one of unity, it is a pity that the various Churches did not realise that. Church is not about religion, it is about power, corruption and money – Christ was against the Church, he wanted to set an example rather than be followed, he wanted to be a teacher rather than a guru.

Our whole concept of religion hinges on separation and control, and as we look at the biblical texts as being a record given to us by man, can we assume that it is also a tool for control?

God is love and beauty, and I don’t believe the depiction of God in the OT fits that description. And we are seeing, within those texts, an attempt to convert and subjugate the believers of other Gods – or even the believers of personal power – to the concept of one god, and if you choose not to accept that one god, then you shall fall victim to his wrath.

The word of man can not be taken as the word of God, and the words of man exist within biblical texts. Those original texts have been translated and translated and translated – copied from the ‘original’ by monks, whose copies were copied then again by other monks and on and on. Anyone could have chosen to leave a bit out or change a bit here, add a bit there – because of their own agenda’s.

Will God judge me if I choose not to accept the bible or the words of the church, will He turn his back on me even if I live a pious and blame-free life simply because I do not atone myself to the works of man?

God did not smite Sodom and Gomorra, and nor did he smite the people of Moses, he did not banish Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden.

Adam and Eve chose to leave to gain experience, to live and learn as mortal’s.

God’s wrath is a tool of fear and oppression wielded by the hand of those who would seek our allegiance to their own doctrine. God does not smite his children for using the gifts that he gave them freely – free will. He allows us top walk our journey, knowing that we shall return to him when we understand our heart and his love.

Yes stfd, I feel that there is one God, but I feel that mankind manipulated our understanding of him through the bible, for the God depicted within the old Testament is different to the one depicted in the new.
Just my opinion, of course, and I do not mean it to offend.

:)

[stfd]

i probably need to read the bible again, with new eyes.

i can not realy get my head around God in the OT being so wrathfull toward mankind, ie hauling Adam and Eve out of Eden, the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing, and all the business with craven gods when Moses returned to is people. There seems to have been a lot of smitting going on in the OT?

My take on God is that he gave us free will and that he will and does love us all equally.

Mankind judges itself for its own tyranny. The OT i think backs up that self judgement in that within faith we are sinners and that that sin shall be judged and a wrathful vengence delivered upon all who are lacking. That's just masochistic bullsh!t to keep the masses in line. And i believe that the OT, in part, was written with that agenda - to set aside a private anguish for every individual who feels that they have sinned, for in that book God is a vengeful judge who alows no recompense for crimes commited.

Now that to me does not sound like a God who embodies pure love and understanding, such as the New Testament gives to us, from the words of Christ and his disciples. The OT version of God kicks ass, the Nt god forgives and loves us eternally. Sounds like two Gods to me.

But i feel, not two Gods, One God - for both books were written by man for man and were used as a tool for subjugation of the masses through fear.

God is love absolute. And even God is a word given to us in descript of the great force of creation by man and as such is not an accurate name in itself.

I am that I am, even, are the words of man to describe the concept of God.

Christ was a true light bringer, his message was one of inspiration and beauty. It is odd that He touches so many religions; Buddhism, Sikhism, Catholicism, Judaism, Christianity, Muslim. His energy was one of unity, it is a pity that the various Churches did not realise that. Church is not about religion, it is about power, corruption and money – Christ was against the Church, he wanted to set an example rather than be followed, he wanted to be a teacher rather than a guru.

Our whole concept of religion hinges on separation and control, and as we look at the biblical texts as being a record given to us by man, can we assume that it is also a tool for control?

God is love and beauty, and I don’t believe the depiction of God in the OT fits that description. And we are seeing, within those texts, an attempt to convert and subjugate the believers of other Gods – or even the believers of personal power – to the concept of one god, and if you choose not to accept that one god, then you shall fall victim to his wrath.

The word of man can not be taken as the word of God, and the words of man exist within biblical texts. Those original texts have been translated and translated and translated – copied from the ‘original’ by monks, whose copies were copied then again by other monks and on and on. Anyone could have chosen to leave a bit out or change a bit here, add a bit there – because of their own agenda’s.

Will God judge me if I choose not to accept the bible or the words of the church, will He turn his back on me even if I live a pious and blame-free life simply because I do not atone myself to the works of man?

God did not smite Sodom and Gomorra, and nor did he smite the people of Moses, he did not banish Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden.

Adam and Eve chose to leave to gain experience, to live and learn as mortal’s.

God’s wrath is a tool of fear and oppression wielded by the hand of those who would seek our allegiance to their own doctrine. God does not smite his children for using the gifts that he gave them freely – free will. He allows us top walk our journey, knowing that we shall return to him when we understand our heart and his love.

Yes stfd, I feel that there is one God, but I feel that mankind manipulated our understanding of him through the bible, for the God depicted within the old Testament is different to the one depicted in the new.
Just my opinion, of course, and I do not mean it to offend.

:)

Absolutely no offence taken :) in fact im happy there are still some reasonable people arround !

God does not punish His creation for exerting it's given wright of making choices freely. He only judges after the wrong choice has been made - big difference.

He punished Sodom and Gomora for beying totally corrupt; Moses's people for idolatry; Adam and Eve for listening to the snake/eating the apple. All those people have freely made their choices prior to god punishing them.
God rightfully allowed them to make their choices by presenting them with all the available options.

[marpat]

I decided to start a thread;

I'd like to ask everyone arround here: why does everyone judge Christianity and Christians in general by the actions of the Catholic block and sects such as Mormons, Jehova's whitneses etc .

Thanks

Because it provide good excuse to demonise them. If you want to attack anything you have to find faults with it, even if that means people rather than principles.

[stfd]

Because it provide good excuse to demonise them. If you want to attack anything you have to find faults with it, even if that means people rather than principles.

It does , doesn't it !

[merlincove]

Never said -only-humans have souls.
I did say that the 'nature' surrounding humans on this Earth doesnt have however.
Hence not only humans have a soul.

i do think also, that everything within Gods creation has a soul, it has an energy – and our soul is just that, it is the energy that drives us. We may not be able to fully comprehend, for example, the soul of a rock, or an ant, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Every thing that has been created by God holds within it a core concept of His divinity – and that concept is its soul.

i do think however, that those things that we perceive as being capable of cognisant thought, beyond the simple conceptions of survival, are more easily recognised as having soul energy.

Cats, dogs and horses are perfect examples, as they have the ability to love. We are more able to accept the presence of soul when we can recognise familiar attributes.

Then, of course we can look at the lion, wolf and wild horse as fair comparison – and again I consider that these animals have a soul. They may not have an outward show of affection yet they are still a part of creation, they have an energy, they have a soul.

Their soul may represent itself in what we perceive to be a lower vibration frequency – and yet it is a part of creation, just like us. It is made up from the same atoms and amino acids, strands of life strung together within a harmonic construct; an equal variant of our own makeup. Every variant of creation is home to a soul.

Evolution is not just a physical thing, it is a spiritual thing and as we evolve spiritually we find that our physicality changes as a embodiment of our inner changes. Our physical form has evolved over millennia to house our expanding awareness – we have learned over thousands of years how to think cognisantly, how to respond emotively to stimulation and we have learned how to ‘feel’. These three aspects, thinking, loving and feeling are all aspects of the soul, and as we have learned those aspects we have come to evolve into a physical form that can accept and reflect those changes. Humanity now finds itself at the threshold of discovering its own spirituality, we feel that we are at the peak of evolution both physically and spiritually, yet I am sure that there is so much more for us to learn – we are not quite ready to ascend just yet. And yet we see aspects of humanity breaching the ascension process, and that process is available to those learned souls who are ready to accept it.

The animals reflect in their own way their own souls progression and journey. As they learn, as they in turn develop and grow, their soul grows and they bring about their own evolution – they begin to move through the process of understanding.

Of course it isn’t quite as simple as that. It never is. There will sometimes come the requisite for an advanced soul to incarnate in a lower degree to affect teaching on a higher level. Cats and dogs for example can all bring great comfort and healing into our lives – not all of them, but some of them are able to touch us in more beautiful ways than we can describe.

There may very well be a fragmentation of the animal soul throughout the animal kingdom, with each singular part of the whole being home to a part of the overall soul group, a part of the overall learning experience, I feel that this is the case, that that soul energy is working at a different level rather than being a requirement of advancement through evolution and ascension. And that in itself is probably a debate for a different thread?

But I believe that everything has a soul, mother earth has a soul and as such the reflection of that sees that mountains, rocks and plants are ‘simply’ reflections of that higher soul level, as are we, in effect.

Sorry for the long post and wandering off topic a little, I’m a bugger for waffling…

[stfd]

i do think also, that everything within Gods creation has a soul, it has an energy – and our soul is just that, it is the energy that drives us. We may not be able to fully comprehend, for example, the soul of a rock, or an ant, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Every thing that has been created by God holds within it a core concept of His divinity – and that concept is its soul.

i do think however, that those things that we perceive as being capable of cognisant thought, beyond the simple conceptions of survival, are more easily recognised as having soul energy.

Cats, dogs and horses are perfect examples, as they have the ability to love. We are more able to accept the presence of soul when we can recognise familiar attributes.

Then, of course we can look at the lion, wolf and wild horse as fair comparison – and again I consider that these animals have a soul. They may not have an outward show of affection yet they are still a part of creation, they have an energy, they have a soul.

Their soul may represent itself in what we perceive to be a lower vibration frequency – and yet it is a part of creation, just like us. It is made up from the same atoms and amino acids, strands of life strung together within a harmonic construct; an equal variant of our own makeup. Every variant of creation is home to a soul.

Evolution is not just a physical thing, it is a spiritual thing and as we evolve spiritually we find that our physicality changes as a embodiment of our inner changes. Our physical form has evolved over millennia to house our expanding awareness – we have learned over thousands of years how to think cognisantly, how to respond emotively to stimulation and we have learned how to ‘feel’. These three aspects, thinking, loving and feeling are all aspects of the soul, and as we have learned those aspects we have come to evolve into a physical form that can accept and reflect those changes. Humanity now finds itself at the threshold of discovering its own spirituality, we feel that we are at the peak of evolution both physically and spiritually, yet I am sure that there is so much more for us to learn – we are not quite ready to ascend just yet. And yet we see aspects of humanity breaching the ascension process, and that process is available to those learned souls who are ready to accept it.

The animals reflect in their own way their own souls progression and journey. As they learn, as they in turn develop and grow, their soul grows and they bring about their own evolution – they begin to move through the process of understanding.

Of course it isn’t quite as simple as that. It never is. There will sometimes come the requisite for an advanced soul to incarnate in a lower degree to affect teaching on a higher level. Cats and dogs for example can all bring great comfort and healing into our lives – not all of them, but some of them are able to touch us in more beautiful ways than we can describe.

There may very well be a fragmentation of the animal soul throughout the animal kingdom, with each singular part of the whole being home to a part of the overall soul group, a part of the overall learning experience, I feel that this is the case, that that soul energy is working at a different level rather than being a requirement of advancement through evolution and ascension. And that in itself is probably a debate for a different thread?

But I believe that everything has a soul, mother earth has a soul and as such the reflection of that sees that mountains, rocks and plants are ‘simply’ reflections of that higher soul level, as are we, in effect.

Sorry for the long post and wandering off topic a little, I’m a bugger for waffling…

No is cool and it makes perfect sense.
I however i meant 'soul' from a religious/divinity perspective.

That beying said, i will take a cat as an example in my response here.
Say you or i or someone else makes his/her choices in this life whatever they may be, freely constrained by nothing.At the end of the road receives judgement for this life which has passed.
Now a cat, is not even remotely close to such feats. Yes the cat's 'composition' is the same as ours only in a different arrangement; yes both us and the cats have a life-force that drives us. However, after cats die , is over , kaput, finished. We however continue on , exactly because we posses this soul i mentioned.
Hope i make myself understood here :cool:
P.S. this is my belief.

[coshh]

Only those with ears can hear.

God, you humans are so arrogant; -
to assume that only you have souls!
You claiming you're not human?

[phildee3]

You claiming you're not human?



Correct.

[coshh]

Correct.

What pray do you claim to be then?

[phildee3]

What pray do you claim to be then?



Divine.

As David does.

[coshh]

Divine.

As David does.

And does so claiming make much difference? Do you truly believe there is a fundamental difference between you and those of us you deride as "humans"?

[phildee3]

And does so claiming make much difference?



Well, it's made a difference to this thread as it's got you posting stuff that you would not have otherwise.



Do you truly believe there is a fundamental difference between you and those of us you deride as "humans"?



It depends on what you mean by "fundamental."

The essence is the same.

The difference is a matter of awareness.

[coshh]

Well, it's made a difference to this thread as it's got you posting stuff that you would not have otherwise.
Well I meant a difference to you...

[phildee3]

Well I meant a difference to you...



Well, it's made a difference to me in that I'm writing responses to your questions - which I would not have done otherwise - yes.

[phildee3]

Well, it's made a difference to me in that I'm writing responses to your questions - which I would not have done otherwise - yes.



I'm off to bed now.
Hopefully that will make even more of a difference. ;)
Sweet dreams...
and may you realise your own divine nature through them!

[stfd]

Divine.

As David does.

:eek: so umm you are god then ?
Woah that's pretty awesome dude !

To put aside the joke , it was precisely this mistake , that Lucifer has done...
Think himself equal to God and forget he also was created by God.
Is really getting hot in here !

[coshh]

I'm off to bed now.
Hopefully that will make even more of a difference. ;)
Sweet dreams...
and may you realise your own divine nature through them!
Curiosity makes me ask if you accept the Nicene creed?

[merlincove]

No is cool and it makes perfect sense.
I however i meant 'soul' from a religious/divinity perspective.

That beying said, i will take a cat as an example in my response here.
Say you or i or someone else makes his/her choices in this life whatever they may be, freely constrained by nothing.At the end of the road receives judgement for this life which has passed.
Now a cat, is not even remotely close to such feats. Yes the cat's 'composition' is the same as ours only in a different arrangement; yes both us and the cats have a life-force that drives us. However, after cats die , is over , kaput, finished. We however continue on , exactly because we posses this soul i mentioned.
Hope i make myself understood here :cool:
P.S. this is my belief.

Thank you for you kind reply stfd

I have been having a think about that, and me and my girlfriend have discussed it a little.

The human soul yes reaches that point of return. The point of the ascension process being the ultimate goal, the ever lasting life as Christ called it.

Within Buddhism we can understand that the eternal soul relives through many lives, incarnating again and again until that perfect state of enlightenment, purity and beauty is reached. At the ascension point there is a choice, to move on into buddhahood, or to return in order to populate that enlightenment within the earth plane and help others reach that perfect state. I don’t think that this is the sole preserve of Buddhism, rather it is – whether it is an accepted concept or not – typical of the human soul condition.

And I feel a similar occurrence happens within the animal kingdom, a point of ascension that is reflected within its own animalistic confines happens within that aspect of creation also. I don’t feel that a cat can reincarnate as a human, or visa versa, the process follows the particular energetic constraints as a whole.

For instance, not all cats are wise, not all cats have that extra something. In the same way we can look into a dogs eyes and see the unspoken knowledge that lies there, we can see that old soul and the true beauty of peace and knowing. And in another dogs eyes we can see a young child, playing and being carefree, and in another the low guttural aspect of the pack mentality – one step removed from the wolf. And this is a perfect mirror for the re-integration of soul, in the same way that the human soul re-incarnates, I feel the same happens within the animal kingdom. Those souls return in order to understand experience and experience understanding, to help not only itself, but also others, both human and same species, which it comes into contact with.

The expansion of growth then occurs throughout all of creation, finding the perfect alignment for itself, within its given perameters of species. Once every aspect has been fully understood, once every soul part has found its ultimate accord it returns to wholeness and sourse through the ascension process -and perhaps at this point it has the ability to change again, to fold itself around a new construct to experience understanding and to understand experience from a higher view point?

Given the concept of Divinity, did the bible speak of the human ascension into the angelic kingdom? i thought that Enoch, and Ezekiel transformed through an acute understanding of the divine into angelic beings? if so is that level of ascension available to mankind today, that we can transcend physicality and guide base and go directly to that realm?

[phildee3]

Curiosity makes me ask if you accept the Nicene creed?



Ah, the Nicene Creed!

The epitome of hypocracy in the fake "Church,"
deeply divided over three, irrelevent, three letter words which are immediately followed by "we believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church."!

[phildee3]

it was precisely this mistake , that Lucifer has done...
Think himself equal to God and forget he also was created by God.



Lucifer forgot nothing.

[lhaull]

Personally I would have a wee bit more time for Christians if they would stop damming me to their fictitious Hell.

Oh it has happened. I have been told that 'Its such a shame a nice man like you, who does so much for people is going to burn in Hell.'

My response.

'Wait, what about all the kids in the world who know nothing about Jesus, are they going to Hell?'

Reply. 'Yes.'

Bollocks to Hell and Bollocks to Christians and any other insular religion who promote fear and damnation as a tool to frighten children into line.

Bollocks to the lot of them.

[phildee3]

Personally I would have a wee bit more time for Christians if they would stop damming me to their fictitious Hell.

Oh it has happened. I have been told that 'Its such a shame a nice man like you, who does so much for people is going to burn in Hell.'

My response.

'Wait, what about all the kids in the world who know nothing about Jesus, are they going to Hell?'

Reply. 'Yes.'

Bollocks to Hell and Bollocks to Christians and any other insular religion who promote fear and damnation as a tool to frighten children into line.

Bollocks to the lot of them.



Hell is a Jewish concept that was adopted by the Roman, fake "Church" to frighten everybody into line as they kept the authority to themselves!

Nothing to do with actual Christianity which empowers and authorises each and every one of us.

[coshh]

Hell is a Jewish concept that was adopted by the Roman, fake "Church" to frighten everybody into line as they kept the authority to themselves!

Nothing to do with actual Christianity which empowers and authorises each and every one of us.
Roman "fake" Church even says that those kids in who've never heard of Christianity may attain salvation, since although we are bound by the sacraments, God is not, and He can extend His mercy to anyone He pleases.

[phildee3]

Roman "fake" Church even says that those kids in who've never heard of Christianity may attain salvation, since although we are bound by the sacraments, God is not, and He can extend His mercy to anyone He pleases.



Don't get me wrong.
There's alot of things that the RC's have right.
Most importantly, imo, the validity of the sacraments -
which I share with them sometimes.

Much of their dogma is politically agenda driven though
but the above is a refreshingly beautiful exception.

Thanks, coshh.

[coshh]

which I share with them sometimes...

Much of their dogma is politically agenda driven though
but the above is a refreshingly beautiful exception.

Thanks, coshh.

Although I am grateful for your thanks it pains me that you would avail yourself of the sacraments without being in full communion with the Church.:(

[stfd]

Hell is a Jewish concept that was adopted by the Roman, fake "Church" to frighten everybody into line as they kept the authority to themselves!

Nothing to do with actual Christianity which empowers and authorises each and every one of us.

Man ... you just keep contradicting yourself ...
How cute.

[phildee3]

Although I am grateful for your thanks it pains me that you would avail yourself of the sacraments without being in full communion with the Church.:(



The edict which states that I am not in communion with Rome is a purely politcal one.
I am confirmed by a bishop in an RC line of apostolic succession (among others) and I have never been excommunicated. Therefore, I am spiritually in communion.

There is but one church (spiritually) and one communion.
I do not participate in the political process which divides it.

Are you a member of the RC sect?

[coshh]

The edict which states that I am not in communion with Rome is a purely politcal one.
I am confirmed by a bishop in an RC line of apostolic succession (among others) and I have never been excommunicated. Therefore, I am spiritually in communion. No offense but you don't even accept the Nicene creed and admit various other heresies. It is at best disrespectful to recieve under those conditions, and is possibly much worse.


Are you a member of the RC sect?

:o I am not yet.

[phildee3]

No offense but you don't even accept the Nicene creed and admit various other heresies.



...which are only pronounced "heresies," by political process, by a sect.
Other sects do not consider them heresies.
I have never been a member of a sect, nor made vows to one.
I am therefore not bound to the dogma of any sect.

The sacraments are universal.

I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church.
I don't believe anything contained in the Nicene creed which contradicts this.
To do so would be hypocracy - which itself is unholy!

[phildee3]

It is at best disrespectful to recieve under those conditions,



Correct.
I do not respect politics.
But I have total respect for the sacraments, and for the priesthood.



and is possibly much worse.



Like being sent to hell by the pope?

That can't happen because I do not recognise the pope as being any more than a bishop.

[coshh]

Correct.
I do not respect politics.
But I have total respect for the sacraments, and for the priesthood.



Like being sent to hell by the pope?

That can't happen because I do not recognise the pope as being any more than a bishop.It's not a matter of being sent to hell by the pope. It's a matter of receiving communion unworthily. Do you go to confession?

[lhaull]

Hell is a Jewish concept that was adopted by the Roman, fake "Church" to frighten everybody into line as they kept the authority to themselves!

Nothing to do with actual Christianity which empowers and authorises each and every one of us.

Ok I am confused, does that mean Christianity has nothing to do with Christ?
Or does it mean that Hell is not a Christian Teaching?

[phildee3]

It's not a matter of being sent to hell by the pope.



I know.
I was being a bit facetious there!



It's a matter of receiving communion unworthily. Do you go to confession?



Yes.
I participate fully in all the sacraments.

[phildee3]

No offense but you don't even accept the Nicene creed and admit various other heresies. It is at best disrespectful to recieve under those conditions, and is possibly much worse.



One man's heresy is another man's sacred truth.
There are even disageements within each sect as to what is a heresy and what is not (eg. the use of icons in Anglicanism).

I think it was Augustine who said that one cannot be a true saint without being a heretic!

[phildee3]

Ok I am confused, does that mean Christianity has nothing to do with Christ?
Or does it mean that Hell is not a Christian Teaching?



The latter.
It is an Augustinian teaching - late fourth century.

[coshh]

The latter.
It is an Augustinian teaching - late fourth century.

The Orthodox don't take much Augustine (they for instance reject his take on original sin, which by the way, is not required in the Catholic Church either, although is the mainstream view) and yet they believe in Hell.

Gee and these guys are all pre-4th century:
Ignatius of Antioch

Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2 [A.D. 110]).

Second Clement

If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

Justin Martyr

No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).

[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (ibid. 52).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3 [A.D. 155]).

Athenagoras

We [Christians] are persuaded that when we are removed from this present life we shall live another life, better than the present one. . . . Then we shall abide near God and with God, changeless and free from suffering in the soul . . . or if we fall with the rest [of mankind], a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere incidental work, that we should perish and be annihilated (Plea for the Christians 31 [A.D. 177]).

Theophilus of Antioch

Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God.... [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortally by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . , For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus

The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire," they will be damned forever (Against Heresies 4:28:2 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

Standing before [Christ's] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: "Just is your judgment!" And the righteousness of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them (Against the Greeks 3 [A.D. 212]).

Minucius Felix

I am not ignorant of the fact that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, would rather hope than actually believe that there is nothing for them after death. They would prefer to be annihilated rather than be restored for punishment. . . . Nor is there measure nor end to these torments. That clever fire burns the limbs and restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them, just as fiery thunderbolts strike bodies but do not consume them (Octavius 34:12-5:3 [A.D. 226]).

Cyprian of Carthage

An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life (To Demetrian 24 [A.D. 252]).

[phildee3]

The Orthodox don't take much Augustine



They took as much as the Romans did until the eleventh century because they were one and the same!



Gee and these guys are all pre-4th century:



Anything that early is of questionable authenticity!
It doesn't take much imagination to envision the Romans, desperate to stop the spread of genuine Christianity, fabricating all of this to bring the people back into subjection.

Thank you for this coshh. I had been looking for evidence to support my thesis that The Confessions of St. Patrick was fabricated. These quotes provide it; especially the last one - classic!

[coshh]

They took as much as the Romans did until the eleventh century because they were one and the same!
Au Contrair, there was much divergence of the east and west long long before the schism. Linguistically, theologically and liturgically.


Anything that early is of questionable authenticity!
It doesn't take much imagination to envision the Romans, desperate to stop the spread of genuine Christianity, fabricating all of this to bring the people back into subjection.I can imagine many things that may not be true.

I had been looking for evidence to support my thesis that The Confessions of St. Patrick was fabricated. These quotes provide it; especially the last one - classic!How are they evidence of that?

[phildee3]

I can imagine many things that may not be true.



Things that may not be true may also be true.
That's why I used the word "questionable" rather than "provable."



How are they evidence of that?



They're a wee bit theatrical, aren't they?
Just a weeny bit overstated??

[coshh]

They're a wee bit theatrical, aren't they?
Just a weeny bit overstated??

Not being a student of the period I cannot say how normal that is. But certainly it is culturally normative in the Antioch area today to be dramatic in that way.

[phildee3]

Not being a student of the period I cannot say how normal that is. But certainly it is culturally normative in the Antioch area today to be dramatic in that way.



...and the Antiochans would have been primary targets for the Romans.

Look, I'm not going to try to prove it.
I'm just saying there is plenty of room for doubt
and there would have been more than enough motive for the Romans to do this.

What is more to the point is that we can know inwardly by knowing Christ.
It is not in his nature to cast us into eternal damnation!

Every time I've been to confession I've been scared shitless of the penance that I've deserved to be given and yet, every time, he gave me a blessed gift instead of demanding something from me.

That is his absolute nature!!

[coshh]

What is more to the point is that we can know inwardly by knowing Christ.
It is not in his nature to cast us into eternal damnation!
You are saying God is not just?

That said, I am allowed to hope all will be saved. I am just not allowed to presume as much.

[phildee3]

You are saying God is not just?



That's not justice, it's retribution.

[coshh]

That's not justice, it's retribution.

What is justice in your view?

[phildee3]

What is justice in your view?



This is going off into a whole different discussion,
one which my head is not into right now.
I'm getting ready for bed.