Attack on Christianity? and other concepts I have a problem with.

[UBERDOINK]

Perhaps you should go back to school. History doesn't seem your strong suit.

FYI Wikipedia isn't understanding history I can see how you missunderstood this fact.

and again, you can't seem to separate Christianity from Catholicism, and again use broad statements that I can tell you haven't studied up on or understand.

 

[rwahrens]

Again, the Catholics did a lot of persecution I agree, Christian's did not.

Ok, that's it, You are definitely from a different dimension from us. Please check your network connection.

You mean that Catholics are not christian?

 

[rwahrens]

FYI Wikipedia isn't understanding history I can see how you missunderstood this fact.

and again, you can't seem to separate Christianity from Catholicism, and again use broad statements that I can tell you haven't studied up on or understand.

who the hell said anything about Wikipedia? I sure didn't. No wonder your facts are so screwed up!

Oh, please explain how Catholics aren't christian, would you? I'm sure the forum is dying to find out!

 

[UBERDOINK]

As for the difference between assimilation and substitution, in this case I'd say it's paper thin.

Could you qualify why it's paper thin? is it simply paper thing because it servers your argument better to categorize it as such?


besides which, we're still TALKING about the Egyptians, the Greeks/Romans and their temples still stand (not to mention just about every official building of significance is based on their architecture) so in every appreciable, physical sense their cultures and religions survive, they simply aren't practised anymore.

Sooo... architecture = philosophical thinking now? again, could you be clear on how the physic's of building a structure and those principles being handed down is the same as human sacrifice to a goddess?


What do you think communion is? Bread=body, wine=blood, supplanting the previous rites of animal and human sacrafice through symbolic representation (Christ is "lamb of God" after all). Tithing IS sacrafice.

We were talking about HUMAN sacrifice, if you use your above way of interpreting it, then me not watching my favorite TV show is "sacrifice"

 

[UBERDOINK]

please explain how Catholics aren't christian, would you? I'm sure the forum is dying to find out!

I can tell this forum needs to understand the difference. Can you explain to me where in the text's you will find a call for Rome to establish a "church" to hold onto its power base?

If you can then, yes I agree, the Catholic church, is the same thing.
(NO INSULT TO Catholics as I do think they are good people and have done quite a lot of good things in the modern era)

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

I cannot justify the need to sacrifice humans to BAAL but can apply the tenets of Christianity to my daily life.

The sacrificial atonement, the blood of the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty, finds its most cruel and barbarous expression in Christianity. God sends his innocent son to be murdered as compensation for the sins of mankind. Yes, I see it: blood serves as an inter dimensional currency, purchasing from God the forgiveness of our sins. What gruesome Paganism! How is this any different from human sacrifice in other cultures? Both you and the Aztecs believe that God requires innocent blood to be spilled before granting forgiveness.

 

[rwahrens]

What do you think communion is? Bread=body, wine=blood, supplanting the previous rites of animal and human sacrafice through symbolic representation (Christ is "lamb of God" after all). Tithing IS sacrafice.

We were talking about HUMAN sacrifice, if you use your above way of interpreting it, then me not watching my favorite TV show is "sacrifice"

Plenty of biblical scholars agree that the symbolism of the Eucharist is pure and simply, sacrifice. Christ even says it himself. The RCC says that on their alters, in every Mass, Christ dies again in the physical presence of the bread and wine.

Again, you fail to understand your own religion!

 

[Schuyler]

and again, you can't seem to separate Christianity from Catholicism, and again use broad statements that I can tell you haven't studied up on or understand.

For what? a thousand years or so, Christianity WAS Catholicism, at least in our neck of the woods (Eastern and Russian Orthodox, etc.). Rome ruled western civilization. It wasn't until Luther, King Henry VIII and his reformers, etc. began to make a dent in the rule of the Vatican that you could say Christianity did not equal Catholicism. During this thousand or so years the Catholic church consolidated its power, preserved the texts it decided were proper, and destroyed everything else.

To compare today's completely fragmented Christian sects to that thousand years and claim there was always such a difference is, I think, disingenuous.

 

[rwahrens]

I can tell this forum needs to understand the difference. Can you explain to me where in the text's you will find a call for Rome to establish a "church" to hold onto its power base?

If you can then, yes I agree, the Catholic church, is the same thing.
(NO INSULT TO Catholics as I do think they are good people and have done quite a lot of good things in the modern era)

For over a thousand years, there WAS no difference! The RCC WAS christianity! Yes, today there are other sects and denominations, but for the first thousand years or so, they were synonymous. Your wording sure makes it sound as though you were keeping the two separate!

 

[UBERDOINK]

For over a thousand years, there WAS no difference!

again, where is your sources for this information? it can't be history books because NONE of them will agree with you?

before the catholic church was ever established Christianity existed, growing in influence which is why Rome adopted it. Once Rome took over they tried to control it, thus you have Catholics.

It wasn't "spread with violence" till the Catholic era, it was instead spoke about, persecuted and Christians were mayrtered defending the faith with their words not arms. It spread through the minds of people and that was what Christianity is, which is a huge difference.

 

[rwahrens]

again, where is your sources for this information? it can't be history books because NONE of them will agree with you?

before the catholic church was ever established Christianity existed, growing in influence which is why Rome adopted it. Once Rome took over they tried to control it, thus you have Catholics.

It wasn't "spread with violence" till the Catholic era, it was instead spoke about, persecuted and Christians were mayrtered defending the faith with their words not arms. It spread through the minds of people and that was what Christianity is, which is a huge difference.

Ok, since you like wikipedia so much, here's a quote:

Martin Luther (German pronunciation: [ˈmaʁtin ˈlʊtɐ] November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) changed the course of Western civilization by initiating the Protestant Reformation.

Since Constantine legalized the christian church as the RCC in 324, this means for over a thousand years, the two were synonymous.

As I've noted in the other thread, this is getting ridiculous. You are ignorant of the simplest facts, yet quote from authorities as if you know what the heck you are talking about.

good night.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Ok, since you like wikipedia so much, here's a quote:
.

again, your wrong, but as David pointed out, no need to keep this up.

FYI the wikipedia ref you keep using was a digg at you, about where you get your info. But I guess like everything, you don't understand what you read.

 

[rwahrens]

again, your wrong, but as David pointed out, no need to keep this up.

FYI the wikipedia ref you keep using was a digg at you, about where you get your info. But I guess like everything, you don't understand what you read.

Had to get the last word in, didn't you? I also note it wasn't notable, just an insult.

 

[Experiencer7]

Organized religion is nothing more or less than a societal control mechanism. They crumble and topple as a result of internal and external stresses., only to make way for the next one. Christianity baaaad!, Science gooood! Here's our new messiah., ain't he grand?

 

[CapnG]

Could you qualify why it's paper thin? is it simply paper thing because it servers your argument better to categorize it as such?

Qualify it? Sure. I have eyes and I use them, that's how I qualify it. It's paper thin because it's OBVIOUSLY so, not because it conviently matches my argument but because my argument is based in a clear, observable, verifiable fact of reality.

Sooo... architecture = philosophical thinking now? again, could you be clear on how the physic's of building a structure and those principles being handed down is the same as human sacrifice to a goddess?

Not without writing an unecessarily long essay, no. Suffice it to say that aesthetics are deeply connected to philiosophy by way of psychology. Ancient temples and modern banks and courthouses look similar for a reason. As to how they relate to sacraficial concepts, keep reading...

We were talking about HUMAN sacrifice, if you use your above way of interpreting it, then me not watching my favorite TV show is "sacrifice"

Not really, it doesn't cost you anything to NOT watch tv. To give up your money to the church means not spending it on yourself. THAT IS SACRAFICE. If you still don't see the connection, might I recommend an optometrist?

 

[Experiencer7]

Anyone ever think the explaination for that could be much simpler than something mystical? Maybe it's misty, there's a haze on the sea, the sails on the boats are mostly white so they blend in to the horizon, etc, etc. It could be a perfectly true account and yet have everything to do with the diffusion of light and nothing to do with beliefs.

Just a thought.

Nope., elfin magic.

 

[cprisk]

I am slow getting to this specific topic, but the last couple of interviews have not set well with me, just like some of the past, and I found this topic fit my feelings, so I will comment here. I want to speak concerning the treatment of the spiritual Christian aspect to this mystery of UFO's and apparitions. Christian point of view is pushed out of the picture entirely by most UFO researchers and most UFO researchers have no concrete proof of what they believe either. I just think that the particular point of view that LA Marzulli offered a couple of weeks ago was just as possible as all the others. It has just become "fashionable" for people to take all their frustrations out on Christians and Christian points of view. I suppose it is a backlash for the past, but such a happening would be "in" LA Marzulli's view of the world. Yes, Christians are not perfect, and that is nothing new, but "surprise", neither are you (that refers to us all). If your minds are truly as open, as you all profess, any point of view should be in consideration. I am actually surprised that you both treated him decently on the show, as you have not treated others decently that have crossed your point of view. However, the next week you both had to talk about this man, as you have others you disagree with, "on the next show". You did not talk about him respectfully as I would expect people with open minds to talk about others and their views, but you had to deride him and his point of view. BTW the definition of deride means to speak ill of someone with contemptuous mirth. (I just wanted to describe what you do with the right words.) I tried to put this habit of you both aside and listen to your interviews, but I really cannot any longer. I do hope you find your truth. In the meantime, I am going to listen to the VERITAS show, where the interviewer is very good and treats all guests with respect as he really wants to find the "truth" and he expects us to be able to make our own judgments concerning the truth.

 

[David Biedny]

The Veritas show is definitely more your speed, have fun. We'll miss you, oh yeah.

In the world I inhabit, respect is something that is earned, not just handed to anyone who demands it. But then again, we're not all at that same place.

I hear the voice of Bob™, it's best I go now.

dB

 

[Gareth]

I am going to listen to the VERITAS show, where the interviewer is very good and treats all guests with respect as he really wants to find the "truth" and he expects us to be able to make our own judgments concerning the truth.

different target market.

Anyone who takes delight in Bassett proclaiming that "he[Mel Fabregas/The Veritas Show] is a key part of the exopolitical movement" is not someone I really want to listen to for "truth".

I enjoyed some of Mels interview (before he started charging for them), but he needs to be more careful with who he interviews and associates his name with IMO (Webre, Harris, Sereda, Lear, Salla et al.).

 

[Schuyler]

The problem, cprisk, is that Christians often take even mild criticism as an 'attack on the faith.' It's not that the Christian viewpoint should not be considered. It should. There are Biblical stories that DO suggest, at least, an alternative explanation. Some, such as Ezekiel's Wheel, are very straightforward with no need to invoke pixies.

When Christians like Marzulli weigh in on the subject, they aren't simply suggesting the Christian point of view might be a fruitful approach that is actually worthy of study. Instead, they INSIST on it. They won't accept any alternative explanation, PERIOD. It's their way or the highway. Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior or you will go to Hell. That is effectively Marzulli's approach. He wants to control the debate. Further, he doesn't present it very well. He's so steeped in his own explanations that he uses his own explanations to prove his explanations. This circular logic is lost on people who aren't immersed in apocolyptic Christianity. It cannot be followed.

THAT is why the 'Christian' point of view is not well received. More often than not, it is presented in an obnoxious and totalitarian manner. It's hard to consider and explore a point of view when someone is preaching and yelling at you. I would welcome a book on this phenomenon by a thoughful Christian who was capable of making a well-reasoned argument.