Religion

[pianistimo]

ok - our main difference is that i want to see a religion that resembles what Jesus Christ taught.  he taught openly.  he didn't have to shut doors.  only when he prayed.  there was no real secrecy to His ideas. 

this luigi cardinal dadaglio recently died - but had significantly changed the way indulgences were granted.  how can the church change things to suit the whim of technology.  and, what gives him the right to grant indulgences in the first place? 

https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E0DE133BF931A15751C1A963948260

[mike_lang]

these traditions were not taught by the disciples. 

I'm sorry - have you read any of the writings of the Church fathers?  Your scriptural argument is eroding before your eyes...

just as 'indulgences' are wrong in any case

Do you know what an indulgence is?  From the catechism:

1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.

What is an indulgence?

"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."81

"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin."82 The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.NT

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.83

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."84

have you ever read about babylonian worship?  i'll give you some sites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon

And so you begin with that paradigm of credibility, the wiki-pedia?

[mike_lang]

ok - our main difference is that i want to see a religion that resembles what Jesus Christ taught.  he taught openly.  he didn't have to shut doors.  only when he prayed.  there was no real secrecy to His ideas. 

The Catholic faith is indeed what Christ taught, and is taught openly.  And what secrecy do you refer to in the Catholic Church?

[pianistimo]

sexual abuse.  warnings to popes not to use black mass.  things like that.

who can actually remove sin.  NOT ANY CATHOLIC IN ANY STRATA.

indulgences are medieval thought processes brought into the 20th century.  they were PAID for them.

ok. best secret.  do you know who has killed the most muslims AND christians?  who has used the inquisition as a method for easy killing?  if you didn't agree to catholic doctrine - what happened?  right. your head was chopped.  and what about their own carmelite nuns?  maybe a little of their own medicine? 

[mike_lang]

indulgences are medieval thought processes brought into the 20th century.  they were PAID for them.

This was an abuse of indulgences - a sinful abuse by members of the Church.  Although the Church is Holy and infallible, instituted by Christ himself, its members are human and are of course capable of sin.  The sins of its members do not deprive the universal Church of its authority and sanctity.

[pianistimo]

what authority. they killed peter.  it's documented.  'and i saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of witnesses of Jesus.  (peter was a witness)  and when i saw her, i wondered greatly....'

the disciples (peter especially) was a threat to rome.

[mike_lang]

ok. best secret.  do you know who has killed the most muslims AND christians?  who has used the inquisition as a method for easy killing?  if you didn't agree to catholic doctrine - what happened?  right. your head was chopped.  and what about their own carmelite nuns?  maybe a little of their own medicine? 

The Inquisition - another abuse by the members of the church.  Do you not think that Satan acts from within as well as from without?  The executions performed during this time were not intended by the Fathers, and are condemned by the Church today.  After all, St. John Chrysostom said: "To consign a heretic to death is to commit an offence beyond atonement."  Scandal will shake the foundation of the Church but will not prevail over it.

[mike_lang]

what authority. they killed peter.  it's documented.  'and i saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of witnesses of Jesus.  (peter was a witness)  and when i saw her, i wondered greatly....'

the disciples (peter especially) was a threat to rome.

Your tedious stream-of-consciousness prose notwithstanding, I fail to see your point...?

[pianistimo]

so who pays for this.  the dead are dead.  God will judge the catholic church and find her wanting because of the blood of the saints.

peter is enshrined in rome, yes. (actually his ossuary was found in jerusalem)  but, how did he die?  at who's hands?  it is interesting but secret history.  (who would think to crucify him upside down?)

change churches before it's too late.  it's full of secrecy that normal catholics don't care or want to know.  why?  because it's embarrassing.  why not switch to a normal church that doesn't have all this 'agenda.'

do you realize the catholic church is IN on the new world order?  why? because they are also into occultic practices and help them supposedly 'see' the future. and why did the UN allow the pope to speak?  is he a political figure?  yes.  why no other religions?  because they are NOT in on the one-world order.

get out while you can!

[mike_lang]

Peter is entombed in Rome, yes.  But how did he die?  At whose hands?  It is interesting, but secret history.

Peter was crucified - upside down.  What is the secret?

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV

[pianistimo]

peter was not only crucified (called their 'Lord'- in rome) - but there is NO PROOF that he wanted or claimed the title 'bishop of rome.'  in fact, he merely witnessed to those that wanted his power and then was killed.  the 'annuario pontificio' lists him as the first 'pope.'  but typically after peter- the title for the pope was 'vicar of peter.'  after some time - it was changed to 'vicar of Christ.'  so which is it?  is peter becoming peter and peter again?  or is he representing Christ himself - forgetting peter altogether.  i'm confused.  anyways - he was done in much like caesar was.  by the mafia. 

why would secular rome care anything about peter?  Jesus was dead supposedly.  but, the romans also knew that peter had spiritual powers.  now - here is where mithraism gets it's heady start with the catholic church.  somebody even drank peter's blood.  hmmm.

'drunk with the blood of the saints....'

if you study the catecombs of rome - you'll find that some of the funerary cups have dried blood in them.  who started this.  probably the roman soldiers who were mithraite converts and mocked the christian rites.  but, simon magus soon usurped the church with 'magical rites.'  he is very interesting to read about.  if he was responsible for peter's death - then he was also responsible for his blood - of which i don't doubt he drank some too - in thanks for giving him the powers of the church.

the disputation of simon magus with emperor nero is found here and is a source for a famous painting of similar name:
https://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/goldenLegend/peter.htm

[mike_lang]

peter was not only crucified (called their 'Lord'- in rome) - but there is NO PROOF that he wanted or claimed the title 'bishop of rome.' 

To argue in your fashion, neither is there proof that he did not want this title.  Nevertheless, this is what he was.  To borrow your musical method of analogy, one might examine the subject of music theory.  Which comes first, the idea of a triad consisting of three notes - a major third from the bass and a fifth from the bass - and its tonal function; or is it the practice of this idea, which is then defined for understanding?  Need Peter declare himself Bishop of Rome to be what the Bishop of Rome is?  The Church has simply defined his function.

in fact, he merely witnessed to those that wanted his power and then was killed.  the 'annuario pontificio' lists him as the first 'pope.'  but typically after peter- the title for the pope was 'vicar of peter.'  after some time - it was changed to 'vicar of Christ.' 

The Pope in fact has several titles (another of which is Servant of the Servants of God).  In fact, the Pope is first and foremost the vicar of Christ, acting in persona Christi.  He is additionally the successor of Peter and occupies Peter's seat, as an apostolic successor.  You see, the two titles are not mutually exclusive, though one takes precedence over the other.

[mike_lang]

why would secular rome care anything about peter?  Jesus was dead supposedly.  but, the romans also knew that peter had spiritual powers.  now - here is where mithraism gets it's heady start with the catholic church.  somebody even drank peter's blood.  hmmm.

Mithraism was a heretical movement.  Why do you join it to the Catholic Church?

[mike_lang]

by the mafia. 

I suspect you are a closet conspiracy theorist in other areas as well.

[pianistimo]

simon magus was the true start to the catholic mysteries.  he worked out a deal with nero.  'i'll do peter in, you give me the church powers.  perhaps we can share some money?'

[mike_lang]

simon magus was the true start to the catholic mysteries.  he worked out a deal with nero. 

In what way was he a "start" to the Catholic mysteries?  Magus' school is distinct from Catholicism - it was headed by Merrander.

[mike_lang]

he worked out a deal with nero.  'i'll do peter in, you give me the church powers.  perhaps we can share some money?'

Would you kindly share your source, dear Susan?

[pianistimo]

josephus,  justin (apologia 1 26, 56) and another would be the books of clement (the next pope) even though it was thought there were two between him.  clement was a bit heady and admitted to wanting the crown of rome as well.  i believe that he was heretical.  you see - i think after peter it was all about POWER.

possibly the reason the other two popes were considered - is they were attached or baptized by paul.  clement was the first baptism of peter, wasn't he?  in any case - simon magus got to all of them.

simon thought he could be baptized for money.  clement was already baptized but became apostate when he sought the crown as well as the spiritual title.  it wasn't until constantine that we have the union of the crown and church (albeit a bit wierded out).

the holy roman empire.

[ahinton]

If I may be permitted a brief intrusion into what has lately become something of a two-part contention here, I think that it is fair to say that Thal's earlier reference to a "world record" (if anyone remembers that - it was, after all, so many words ago) relates to the sheer quantity of words pouring forth here from one particular source.

It seems to me that the very fact and extent of the disagreements and differences of emphasis and interpretation between Susan and Michel here reveal a fundamental flaw not in religion itself but in any realistic anticipation of its universal application, even within what might be thought of as a religious community. Whilst the majority of posts in this thread has emanated from just two sources (one persistently verbose, the other largely succinct) and concentrated almost entirely on substantial differences of viewpoint within one religion only - that of Christianity - the very fact that two Christians can see so many aspects of it so very differently will inevitably risk suggesting to non-Christians such as myself that the very notion of universal truth might be suspect, or at the very least far from perfect.

Any interpretations put upon Biblical texts, for example, must take account of all those caveats that I have previously mentioned elsewhere; for those that may not have seen them, they include but are not necessarily limited to the following:

1. The Bible as we know it today may be incomplete.

2. The Bible as we know it today was written by several authors over a substantial period of years without overall editorial supervision, co-ordination and control, so even its status as a kind of multi-author symposium is thereby compromised.

3. This compliation that we know as the Bible was written in the Middle East some two millennia ago, since which time there have been massive global changes and developments in language, arts and their application and reception, knowledge of physics, biology, chemistry and other disciplines, climate, population movement, education, racial intermarriage, social interaction and communication, working patterns, political activity and many other fundamental things, not least religion itself.

4. The Bible is an arbitrary mix of historical chronicling, journalism, poetry and fantasy (and none of these is meant as a pejorative criticism of it as it currently stands).

Studying, contemplating and "interpreting" the content of the Bible today is therefore at the very least not unakin to listening to a Palestrina Mass, a Bach fugue and a Beethoven quartet with ears well accustomed to the atheist Delius's A Mass of Life, a Sorabji fugue and Xenakis's quartet piece Tetras; there is no conceivable way in which it can "mean" to the present-day reader the same as it did to its various authors at the time of writing, since none of those writers could hope to have the prescience to imagine, let alone recognise and understand, the environment in which people read it today. To continue briefly the musical analogy (for all its flaws and inadequacies, which I nevertheless fully recognise), even our efforts in the realms of authentic performance practice, fascinating and enlightening as they can be and often are in and of themselves, cannot render it possible to listen to Haydn or Chopin just as those composers and the listeners of their times did.

This brings me to conclude that, whilst I do at all not seek to undermine anyone's sincerely held religious beliefs, one fundamental problem with certain such believers' religious attitudes seems to be that of an inflexibility born of a desire to prioritise certain things regarded as constant and give insufficient consideration to what Tagore described as the "ceaseless patterns of change" that always and inveitably revolve around such constants; whether this is in part some kind of manifestation of the "comfort factor" that may be observed in certain religious practice I cannot say, but it could - not unreasonably - be seen that way by anyone on the outside of it all, as I am.

Now I know well, of course, that Sister Susan will argue at the very least with this last statement, since of course no one is really such and "outsider" in her book - not even a certain living Scottish composer!...

Ah, well. At least Susan, Chapter 123, verse 4567 is being posted in an appropriate place for once! I suppose that I should at least graciously accept, recognise and be grateful for that small mercy...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

lies are always lies.  what we want is the truth.  was peter seeking the title 'papa?'  Father?  no. in fact, he didn't only preach to rome.  this is documented in the 'acts of the apostles' and the books of peter in the bible.  'peter, an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens (who do not partake in pagan rituals and combine holy with profane), scattered throughout pontius, galatia, cappadocia, asia, and bithynia, who are chosen ACCORDING TO THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey JEsus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood....'

now, peter also made trips to jerusalem at various times but his last two years he was imprisoned in rome.  why?  why imprisoned?  because simon magus wanted to usurp his church authority and didn't want the gospel preached elsewhere. 

[ahinton]

lies are always lies.  what we want is the truth.  was peter seeking the title 'papa?'  Father?  no. in fact, he didn't only preach to rome.  this is documented in the 'acts of the apostles' and the books of peter in the bible.  'peter, an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens (who do not partake in pagan rituals and combine holy with profane), scattered throughout pontius, galatia, cappadocia, asia, and bithynia, who are chosen ACCORDING TO THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey JEsus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood....'

now, peter also made trips to jerusalem at various times but his last two years he was imprisoned in rome.  why?  why imprisoned?  because simon magus wanted to usurp his church authority and didn't want the gospel preached elsewhere. 

Susan, how DO you ever find time even to look at a piano, never mind play one?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

good question, alistair.  frankly, i am quite interested in archeology and the bible and it's a toss up between that and piano. 

ok.  as i've read passages - simon magus took on the name simon peter magus and probably (i am guessing here) took over power of the church whilst peter was imprisoned the last two years of his life.  this is where the story gets tricky.  simon peter magus believed himself the literal son of God and tried to convince nero (as peter was standing on) that he had not only the right to the church - but the very power of God.

now, in the bible - he tried to pay for the Holy Spirit after He was baptized (to obtain the laying on of hands and the power of the Holy Spirit) - but He did not receive it because the apostles knew that when he said that - he was not truly converted.  He was attempting to buy the Spirit of God. 

so, in front of peter and a large group of roman citizens - he attempted to show that peter was weak and he was actually the one that should be head of the church.  they assumed that whomever could show god-like powers was the 'vicar' - although peter never sought to be a leader in rome anyways.  jerusalem was always 'the Holy City.'  back to the story - simon magus attempted to show people he could fly.  but, when peter prayed - simon magus's 'wings' collapsed and he fell headfirst.  he died about three days later. 

during the two previous years (whilst peter was imprisoned) simon peter magus had convinced his followers that the literal drinking of saints blood gave them the Spirit, that babylonian ideas could easily be mixed with christian, and that occultic ideas were a way to move large masses of people.  not exactly hypnotism - but a form by saying things over and over and over.  a sort of 'black mass' as it were.

now - the masses were supposedly a start from christian times and christian 'popes' - but there was nothing (used to be) markedly different from jewish liturgy at first - excepting that they kept introducing more and more of their own words and less and less of the bible. changing a few words here and there - and twisting the gospel to be less about the kingdom of God (and Christ) and more about the authorities here on earth and their ability to dispense salvation.  sometimes for a price.  also, they were in collusion with the government of rome.

how else would a religion have survived the emperor nero.  he was a madman anyways- and would have only tolerated a false religion in power. 

so - we come to the second (seemingly first) pope clement.  now - after the two years of indoctrination with simon magus - he knew that 'pope'  Father - whatever you want to say - was all about people worshipping HIM.  he enjoyed the power and wanted the crown, too.  all this heresy was introduced at the same time as the idea of the 'pope' - papa  was being introduced to people.  they didn't argue - so it became a title.  there is no title like this for peter in the bible.  only 'apostle'  and he mentions to whom he went - which was all over the roman empire at the first and not just rome.  he didn't sit on a chair and conveniently make other people go do his bidding.  he worked!

sorry to go on - but this whole thing makes me realize how much people need to know truth so they can identify false religion from true religion.  if a religion starts out badly - how can it be any better at the end?

https://sword_of_the_spirit.tripod.com/magus.htm

[pianistimo]

galatian 2:7-8 shows that peter wasn't even sent to the gentiles.  he was sent to the circumcised (probably jewish people)!  and he preferred jerusalem from the first.  paul was the one sent to the gentiles.  i believe, in my mind, that peter came to help paul when he first encountered trouble from simon magus.  they both, interestingly, died on or near the same day as they had been helping one another preach the true gospel and avoid people believing heresies.

romans 15:16 tell us that paul was commissioned to preach to the romans.  in fact, he wrote a book to them.  what does that tell you?  he IS the 'apostle to the romans' as stated in that verse.

romans 1:11 says paul was officially the one to found the church of rome.

romans 15:20 says paul would never 'build upon another man's foundation.'  so peter couldn't have founded the church first (in the reign of claudius).  he may have visited - but never sought power in rome!  and, paul wasn't fighting with him.  peter was happy in jerusalem.  after all - that is where Christ instructed him - from the Holy City of Jerusalem.

at the end of paul's epistle to the romans - he mentions about 28 people.  why did he omit peter?  perhaps peter wasn't there at the time?

acts 28:17 mentions that paul called the leaders of the jewish groups together - and they had never heard the gospel.  if peter was there - he surely would have fullfilled his commission and preached to the 'circumcised.'  paul was the first to talk to them!

II timothy 4:16 - if peter was in rome when paul was on trial - he surely would have spoken for him.  their differences were nothing - when God revealed the dream to peter about paul speaking to the gentiles (the dream with the foods that were pronounced clean).  yet paul doesn't mention anyone - let alone peter - standing up for him.  peter WASN't THERE!

II timothy 4:11 - says - that only luke was his helper (c. 65 AD)

john 21:18-19 witnesses that Christ told peter how he would die if he followed him - and yet - at that time he had not yet set foot in rome.  it was only wayy after this point that he was in rome.  acts 12:3-4 he was imprisoned in JERUSALEM.  i peter 5:13 - he was in babylon!  he was preaching to the jewish converts wherever he went - whether there or in asia minor (parts of the roman empire).  he never truly founded the church in rome at all!

[pianistimo]

ok.  so we have simon magus who also called himself simon peter magus - and who was usurping church authority from the start.  where did he get christian ideas?  well, he was baptized - but did not receive the laying on of hands and therefore was only granted repentance at the time - but not the gift of the Holy Spirit.  he was a samaritan and was practicing 'sorceries.' 

https://www.reformation.org/simon_peter_versus_simon_magus.html  he basically came up the structures of the organization!  the following 'popes' attempted to follow this one-time jewish convert - who was really a samaritan - and therefore denying the idea that the gospel is from and to 'the jew first.'  he was never an apostle from the beginning.  and he could never buy apostleship.  so what did he do?  steal it.  then, passes it on to the next 'popes' who are also - NOT from the line of the apostles themselves.  even paul was a jew!  from tarsus. 

they stole basically only the jewish liturgy and some songs and stuck them into masses.  catholicism even downplays the fact that Jesus (or Yeshua) was jewish and the idea that the Sabbath was holy or that the Holy Days of the OT were holy - went out the window.  mithraism was popular at the time with the roman soldiers and to get lots of converts - they worshipped the sun.  and Sunday!  it is a historical fact that the true church went underground and still kept the Sabbath.  also, they did not worship with masses on sunday morning facing the sun.  and, they would not have thought that the blood of their savior was literally drinking blood, and they would not have 'outward' show of garments.  in fact, the only garments Christ and the Apostles wore were just basic tunics (probably white for the services) and nothing with shells (depicting venus and the other astronomical deities that you see combined with christian).  nor, would they have wished to be depicted at all!  idolatry was what it was called. 

and, they never worshipped the queen of heaven (astarte) with 'cakes.'  or otherwise Mary!  Jesus never asked anyone to worship his mother - and when directly asked said that all who believe his words are His mother, brother, sisters.   finally, in regards to the 'temple' - it would never be built with obelisks outside it.  that was definately from babylon and egypt.   

[jlh]

mithraism was popular at the time with the roman soldiers and to get lots of converts - they worshipped the sun.  and Sunday!  it is a historical fact that the true church went underground and still kept the Sabbath.  also, they did not worship with masses on sunday morning facing the sun. 

Sabbath is Sunday?  Since when historically? 

[m]

what we want is the truth.  

First, who are those "WE"?

Second, if YOU want the truth then the truth is that that fellow from Beithlehem was an impostor, somebody who betrayed beliefs of his nation. Somebody smart enough to trick people, but the fact remains the fact--he was a betrayer, a person who pretended himself as someone else and this fact by itself already speaks enough about him.

The truth is, somehow the history twisted things around and your beloved Christians were exterminating entire Jewish nation just for one reason of being faithful to its own religion and the real betraer became an icon of millions and millions.

On the other hand, we see such things every day in our everyday life, so what is the big deal?

[pianistimo]

my beloved christians are not those that you imagine.  they are the literal saints mentioned in the bible and those that followed them - and Jesus Christ's own words.  if they killed jews - they were certainly not jewish themselves (would they be?)

peter was a JEW!  he had a wife.  he was never the first pope.  that is the truth!  he never worshipped on sunday.  the jewish sabbath was saturday.

peter never subscribed to the notion of foregoing the mosaic law (so THERE IS NO BETRAYAL!)  Christ only did away with the sacrifices.  do you still want animal sacrifices or something?  i think Christ's atonement is much better!

simon peter remained a jew to the end of his life.

there is no betrayal among christians.  only among the apostate.  not all christians are jews.  but, what i am saying is that there is NO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION here in the catholic faith - as the deem that there is.  constantine was responsible for burying actually SIMON MAGUS's bones under the st. peter basilica.  st. peter's were found in jerusalem.  he was a JEW and burial in roman times meant that his body would go to a jewish cemetary.

marik, christianity under nero WAS a betrayal.  and apostolic succession was taken over by simon magus (who was a samaritan!) 

[pianistimo]

i believe that there is no betrayal of Jesus Christ at all to the jews.  in fact, he said 'to the jew first.  why?  because it goes back to abraham (who actually came out of the land of ur of the CHALDEAS).  later joseph married into the egyptian line (princess asenath) and had two children ephraim and mannasah - which would have been half egyptian.

there is no racial prejudice in the bible - as one imagines there is.  there is no betrayal to ANYONE.  anyone who accepts the words of God is treated fairly and equally.  did you know that aseneth forsook the egyptian Gods and worshipped the God of joseph.  he convinced her within a week that he worshipped the true God.

but many people can betray him within a week, as well.  simply disbelieving that He is.  that He was.  and that He is to come.  the jews still believe that He is to come.  they set a place for elijah at the passover.  why?  because elijah is said to prepare the way.  but, you know -elijah has already come and prepared the way.  whoever preaches the gospel (the true gospel) - it is said 'how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of them that bring good tidings.....'  of what?  of the kingdom of God!

so - if a church does not tell you about the second coming of Jesus Christ or that He is to soon be a KING - you are in the wrong church.  the bible is very plain!  it does not have a lot of dictums.  you don't have to go to mass.  just pray and read your bible.  it will tell you the times that you live in RIGHT NOW.  just like the days of noah.  everyone has been warned.  now - it's going to happen.  everything that was written in revelations.  the trumpet shall sound - and the dead shall be raised.  just like Jesus said! (but before that - war, famine, pestilence, etc).  it's just that it's only 3 1/2 years.  can you make  it through?  of course!  anyone with God can do pretty much anything!

the true apostolic succession IS THE LINE OF DAVID!  do you know - the davidic throne is seated in britain.  not that race matters, mind you - because when a person is 'changed in a twinkling of an eye....' they become SPIRIT.  you are no longer flesh.  does it matter then what color of skin you have?  no.  if there is any betrayal - it is by man himself and satan - who deceives mankind into thinking one race is superior to another.  God simply called 'a people' to deliver his law and ways to everyone else.  that's all.

some speculate that princess diana could have had children by dodi - if allowed to marry.  this would not have fit with the designer of the universe's plans for her and for her sons.  they should not have any competition - that her ancestor (king david - himself) should see her sons and rejoice that his line survived until today thru prince charles and her line.  and yet - the bible mentions that many are 'grafted' into this spiritual vine.  the vine represents not flesh and blood - but eternal designs that every person should be a 'king' and 'priest' to God.  it is a pattern for us to see - and believe.  that kingship is granted by God.

[pianistimo]

revelations mentions that Jesus Christ is saving up crowns!  for us!  the greatest betrayal would be to have someone take your reward.  (he also mentions 'many mansions...and if it were not so - i would have told you....')  how one lives in the spirit and wears a crown - i have no idea.  Jesus Christ could present himself in the flesh and also at the same time be translated to Spirit.  in other words,  He could do anything!  He did with the disciples by suddenly appearing in the room they were in.

i believe that kingship is over this literal earth for 1000 years.  otherwise - why the parable of one city and ten cities.  the rewards of rulership have to do with how we live and treat people now.

[m]

i believe that there is no betrayal of Jesus Christ at all to the jews. 

That's what you believe. Jews however believe differently, so how can you tell where is the truth?

[pianistimo]

it is in their rewards for sufferring.  of all people - they have seemingly sufferred the most (excepting Christ's own sacrifice of himself - which was torturous).  they sufferred with Him and so will gain the most rewards in terms of service or 'priesthood.'  the priesthood always belonged to the jews.  they still are the keepers of the law and the calendar.  in a sense they are the closest to God - because they keep the torah.  God's own law.  they do not waiver as many religions do - and fluctuate...but remain constant.  i would think the love of God would waft over them as the ancient cloud over israel and the incense from the holy of holies.  they are granted into that inner room where God himself will show them His face FIRST.  also, they are closest to where He is said to return.  Jerusalem.  the temple mount.  mount of olives - where so many jews are buried.  the ark of the covenant belongs to the jews, too! 

but, it also says - 'every eye will see Him....' so there is no excuse for someone to say 'i am not chosen.'  everyone is chosen - because we are all in His image - and it does not yet appear 'what we shall be...but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him....'

[m]

it is in their rewards for sufferring.  of all people - they have seemingly sufferred the most (excepting Christ's own sacrifice of himself - which was torturous).  they sufferred with Him and so will gain the most rewards in terms of service or 'priesthood.' 

Well,

First, unlike you want to twist it the extend of sufferring was "little bit" different, to say the least. JC was only one to suffer and only once, and let me remind you the simple fact that Jews were taken their entire land first, and then suffered and were tortured by millions in exhile for milleniums (!!!). Needless to say, with years passing by the tortures were more and more elaborate and painful. Hopefully you understand the difference in extend of those events.

Second, JC was suffering for his own ambitions, while Jews were suffering for their belief and ultimatly, they suffered not with him, but BECAUSE OF HIM.

And BTW, there is nothing more utterly absurd and ridiculous than idea of living life just for sake of some hypothetical reward for suffering  .

Just think of that.

[ahinton]

Susan - I really do think that you need help. Believe me, I am not being patronising in so saying. I am concerned for you. Really.

Best,

Alistair

[wotgoplunk]

Oh, the incredible irony of this thread.

[pianowolfi]

What is religion?

[m]

What is religion?

On a practical level, religion is a some sort of idea invented by people in order to justify that it is OK for one group of people to kill another one for their believes or disbelieves, while preaching that to kill is a sin.

Hope it helps.

[ahinton]

On a practical level, religion is a some sort of idea invented by people in order to justify that it is OK for one group of people to kill another one for their believes or disbelieves, while preaching that to kill is a sin.

Hope it helps.

Without wishing to sound unsympathetic, no, it doesn't help. There is far more to religion than that, just as there was far more to Pavarotti than Nessun Dorma (see the Pavarotti is Dead thread); what I suspect may in part makes you feel the way that you express yourself here is the activities and antics of certain avowed practitioners of religion rather than the religions themselves. Can you just imagine, for example, what Jesus Christ would have made of the often irascible cut-and-thrust in His name betweem Susan and Michel here? Unlike Susan, I didn't know Jesus Christ personally, but what little I think I know about Him certainly does not appear to suggest that His principal aim was to cause confusion and division between believers - very much the reverse, in fact. But then what do I know? - I am an outsider, an onlooker in this kind of thing...

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

On a practical level, religion is a some sort of idea invented by people in order to justify that it is OK for one group of people to kill another one for their believes or disbelieves, while preaching that to kill is a sin.

Hope it helps.

Yes it does help, to me, though I didn't think it would help when I read it first. I don't say it's my view but since I don't participate in religious debates anymore I am just interested what everyone's conception is about it.

"Religion can be watching this little ladybird crawling up your finger and then flying away"

 

[pianochick93]

Oh, the incredible irony of this thread.

That was exactly what I was about to post. I read a few posts on the first page that seemed to want to stop this kind of thing happening. A discussion for a board to move religious discussion to has turned into a religious discussion!

Hello!?!?!?!?!

[pianistimo]

i started only one religious thread entitled 'relativity.'  did you know there are many religious topics?  including witchcraft.  the reason that people get irate about christianity is there is more momentum to destroy it?  why?  because people don't really want Jesus Christ to come back!  wierd, I know.  at a time that is the closest in the entire history of man that he IS coming back.

1/3 of the bible is prophecy about this event. 

[ahinton]

i started only one religious thread entitled 'relativity.'  did you know there are many religious topics?  including witchcraft.  the reason that people get irate about christianity is there is more momentum to destroy it?  why?  because people don't really want Jesus Christ to come back!  wierd, I know.  at a time that is the closest in the entire history of man that he IS coming back.

1/3 of the bible is prophecy about this event. 

I don't think that anyone here is accusing you of starting this thread - which you obviously didn't in any case. The major problem that I have had and continue to have with your religious rantings is when you introduce them into threads where they have less than no business to belong and, as you will hopefully have noticed, I made a point of exonerating you from that here, since this particular thread topic is indeed about "religion".

That said, what the topic has done is encourage you to spout forth even more of your incomprehensibilties than usual.

Perhaps I've gotten this all wrong, but religion is, to me, supposed to be a concept whose principal purpose is to provide some kind of positive and constructive (not, as in your case, constrictive) guide for the manner in which one conducts one's life - not a rule-book as such, but at least an influential factor behind the way in which one seeks to interact with others. It seem to me that you have let it get the better (or rather worse) of you to the extent that you allow it not only to fuel these prattlings of yours but also take such a hold of you so that you seem somehow incapable of thinking any longer about anything without that Bible in your hand; this is both potentially dangerous and actually unhealthy. I really do not think that Jesus Christ Himself would have derived any joy from the realisation that your take on religious matters had become such as to sway and control your intellect and your emotions as you so obviously let it do; indeed, I can well imagine that He wouold have been dismayed by it.

The prospect (unreal as I know it to be) of sitting with Jesus Christ and discussing all manner of important things about humanity over some good fish and good wine seems to be almost the very opposite of reading your incessant quotations of this, that and the other Biblical text as though you are somehow ramming a very specific proscriptive interpretation of a flawed text down the throats of anyone who will have the patience to read what you write.

Jesus Christ isn't "coming back" soon, later or at any other time. This is patently ridiculous. That said, the effect of Jesus Christ's teachings ought to be such that He has never actually gone away.

Susan - do please try to get a grip on things - for your own sake.

Best,

Alistair

[m]

Without wishing to sound unsympathetic, no, it doesn't help. There is far more to religion than that, just as there was far more to Pavarotti than Nessun Dorma (see the Pavarotti is Dead thread); what I suspect may in part makes you feel the way that you express yourself here is the activities and antics of certain avowed practitioners of religion rather than the religions themselves. Can you just imagine, for example, what Jesus Christ would have made of the often irascible cut-and-thrust in His name betweem Susan and Michel here? Unlike Susan, I didn't know Jesus Christ personally, but what little I think I know about Him certainly does not appear to suggest that His principal aim was to cause confusion and division between believers - very much the reverse, in fact. But then what do I know? - I am an outsider, an onlooker in this kind of thing...

Dear Alistair,

Let me assure you, I am perfectly aware of some other sides of religion and realize perfectly well that there is much more powers in religion... including (as a little example) powers which were driving Bach to write his Passions, Mendelssohn his Elija, or Rachmaninov his Vespers, among others.

Indeed, I find it almost entertaining to argue about religion with people, who memorizes some passages from Bible and after that preatching them without real understanding and ability to interpret events.
Noticably, with missionaries, who usually cannot connect even two ideas together and whose best answer to question "WHY" is "BECAUSE IT IS SO" argument, as well as with some members on this board. 
 
In any case, (that there would be no confusion) as I wrote earlier, I have a very deep respect  to people who truly and deeply (i.e. they understand in what they) believe in ANY God. And will prefer to shut up and listen, should the discussion start. It is interesting to point out, people who truly believe prefer not to talk about it... 

As a side note, ironically, in some respect I find a lot of similarities between Communism and religion. For some reason people bash Communism, while in fact it is a wonderful idea. Somehow it just did not work in life.
Likewise, religion might be a wonderful idea, the concept which has put light on lifes of millions and millions, something that inspired many Men to create the most magnificent pieces of art--literature, sculpture, architecture, music, painting, etc.
However, nobody will deny there are ugly sides of religion, as well. That's the reason I started my previous message with "on a practical level", as where start interests of different groups of people, start manipulation, corruption, inevitably leading to killing.

[mephisto]

Jesus Christ isn't "coming back" soon, later or at any other time. This is patently ridiculous. That said, the effect of Jesus Christ's teachings ought to be such that He has never actually gone away.

Best,

Alistair

Maybe I am wrong, but doesn't the Bible tell that Jesus IS in fact going to come back?

I don't believe in any religion but the way I see it, it is impossible to be christian without believing that Jesus Christ is going to come back.

And you cannot "destroy" Christianity only with that one sentence. Or maybe I misunderstood you.

[ahinton]

Maybe I am wrong, but doesn't the Bible tell that Jesus IS in fact going to come back?

I don't believe in any religion but the way I see it, it is impossible to be christian without believing that Jesus Christ is going to come back.

And you cannot "destroy" Christianity only with that one sentence. Or maybe I misunderstood you.

You certainly do misunderstand me on this occasion! What the Bible may "tell" us about this is open to question, as are so many things in what we know of the Bible today. Not every Christian believes in the "second coming " of Christ", but the point here is that I am not in any sense seeking to "destroy" Christianity just because I happen, like yourself, not to be a Christian; I could not do any such thing, nor would I wish to.

Best,

Alistair

[rimv2]

Religion vs Semi-Religion

The saga continues

[pianistimo]

history itself is always open to question.  if archeology has proven the bible true - then one should follow this truth from the first century down to our time to 'prove all things.'  is apostolic succession a truthful thing? 

what i am attempting to show here and perhaps it is unwise - is that in the book of acts - paul (who was sent to the gentiles and rome itself) told them that philosophy was not a christian concept - although could be construed as a religion after the first popes. 

why do i say this?  well, simon magus was not only a magician, but an astute follower of the school of alexandria (not jerusalem - btw) which was at his time called 'catechetical school at alexandria.'

now, just as with our day - if a christian goes to a school - they may not subscribe to all the 'wonderments' but have attended and began a project of learning that may coincide with their beliefs or throw them in the dust.  this happened with st. mark (who was sincerely a disciple of Christ) who was sent to alexandria (BUT NOT THE SCHOOL - and DID NOT START THE SCHOOL - this is a boldface lie). 

do you know who started this school?  stoics - philosophers.  they were inclined to mix religion at that time with philosophy.  so here goes the 'rest of the story.'  the first pope (which is often called the third or fourth pope - because people couldn't get their lists straight) CLEMENT (who was actually a contemporary of peter and paul, btw) - went to this school of alexandria.  he was called 'clement of alexandria.' 

ok.  this clement was also known by simon magus and he favored the idea that simon magus had about being the 'son of God' and wanted the title, too.  you see - power!  he had much instruction from philosphizing not only at alexandria - but his trips to india in which he was not indoctrinating them but they him.  he came back.  went to alexandria and then on to rome.  where - happily for him - he found followers who thought he WAS the 'son of God' just like simon magus.  why cannot people find his first books?  BECAUSE THEY WERE HERETICAL. 

tell me anything clement wrote that was in any way similar to the bible and the gospels!  it is all about philosophy.  the very thing that paul - an apostle of Jesus Christ - warned against!  and, we can prove by history that clement never studied in jerusalem!  he wasn't interested in jerusalem - BECAUSE HE WAS A GREEK.

now - how can you trace 'apostolic succession' when clement never met peter or paul anyways.  he wasn't 'into' jews.  although he put up with one deviant one called 'pantaenus' or 'pantnus' or 'pantreanus.'  that was HIS apostolic FATHEr from the 'catechetical school at alexandria.'

[mike_lang]

history itself is always open to question.  if archeology has proven the bible true - then one should follow this truth from the first century down to our time to 'prove all things.'  is apostolic succession a truthful thing? 

what i am attempting to show here and perhaps it is unwise - is that in the book of acts - paul (who was sent to the gentiles and rome itself) told them that philosophy was not a christian concept - although could be construed as a religion after the first popes. 

why do i say this?  well, simon magus was not only a magician, but an astute follower of the school of alexandria (not jerusalem - btw) which was at his time called 'catechetical school at alexandria.'

now, just as with our day - if a christian goes to a school - they may not subscribe to all the 'wonderments' but have attended and began a project of learning that may coincide with their beliefs or throw them in the dust.  this happened with st. mark (who was sincerely a disciple of Christ) who was sent to alexandria (BUT NOT THE SCHOOL - and DID NOT START THE SCHOOL - this is a boldface lie). 

do you know who started this school?  stoics - philosophers.  they were inclined to mix religion at that time with philosophy.  so here goes the 'rest of the story.'  the first pope (which is often called the third or fourth pope - because people couldn't get their lists straight) CLEMENT (who was actually a contemporary of peter and paul, btw) - went to this school of alexandria.  he was called 'clement of alexandria.' 

ok.  this clement was also known by simon magus and he favored the idea that simon magus had about being the 'son of God' and wanted the title, too.  you see - power!  he had much instruction from philosphizing not only at alexandria - but his trips to india in which he was not indoctrinating them but they him.  he came back.  went to alexandria and then on to rome.  where - happily for him - he found followers who thought he WAS the 'son of God' just like simon magus.  why cannot people find his first books?  BECAUSE THEY WERE HERETICAL. 

tell me anything clement wrote that was in any way similar to the bible and the gospels!  it is all about philosophy.  the very thing that paul - an apostle of Jesus Christ - warned against!  and, we can prove by history that clement never studied in jerusalem!  he wasn't interested in jerusalem - BECAUSE HE WAS A GREEK.

now - how can you trace 'apostolic succession' when clement never met peter or paul anyways.  he wasn't 'into' jews.  although he put up with one deviant one called 'pantaenus' or 'pantnus' or 'pantreanus.'  that was HIS apostolic FATHEr.

Are you quite done yet?

[pianistimo]

no.

this clement or 'titus flavius clemens' as he was called at the school also developed an idea about the Holy Spirit being a woman and giving birth - as it were - to Jesus Christ (the Logos) - and developing the first ideas about the Son being 'created' before the rest of creation and before His becoming 'incarnate.' 

now - I really don't know anything other than what the bible says about this - because to ALL it is speculation.  the bible doesn't speak in philosophical terms about the nature of God.  this is merely man speculating and creating doctrine.  in fact, the word 'trinity' is nowhere in the bible.

but, this mr. clement decides that he wants to tell people that the Holy Spirit's name is Sophia.  ok.  well. fine.  and then - he says Sophia gives birth to Jesus.  is this a bit wierd.  yes.  well all of philosophy is wierd.  it tries to use greek formulas to encapsulate the Holy Spirit.

[ahinton]

Are you quite done yet?

Has day yet stopped following night?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

history itself is always open to question.  if archeology has proven the bible true - then one should follow this truth from the first century down to our time to 'prove all things.'  is apostolic succession a truthful thing?

"If" is not a word that you tend to use very often, but I appreciate your use of it here, since it is of the very essence...

what i am attempting to show here and perhaps it is unwise - is that in the book of acts - paul (who was sent to the gentiles and rome itself) told them that philosophy was not a christian concept - although could be construed as a religion after the first popes. 

why do i say this?  well, simon magus was not only a magician, but an astute follower of the school of alexandria (not jerusalem - btw) which was at his time called 'catechetical school at alexandria.'

now, just as with our day - if a christian goes to a school - they may not subscribe to all the 'wonderments' but have attended and began a project of learning that may coincide with their beliefs or throw them in the dust.  this happened with st. mark (who was sincerely a disciple of Christ) who was sent to alexandria (BUT NOT THE SCHOOL - and DID NOT START THE SCHOOL - this is a boldface lie). 

I think that you mean a "barefaced lie" (even if it isn't necessarily anything of the kind), as a "boldface"[d] one is the kind for which you'd be expected to account in boldface and, since you customarily exercise such economy even in your use of capital letters, anything quite so obviously emphatic in appearance would presumably be out of character from you...

do you know who started this school?  stoics - philosophers.  they were inclined to mix religion at that time with philosophy.  so here goes the 'rest of the story.'  the first pope (which is often called the third or fourth pope - because people couldn't get their lists straight) CLEMENT (who was actually a contemporary of peter and paul, btw) - went to this school of alexandria.  he was called 'clement of alexandria.' 

Oh, mon Dieu (may I say that here without being accused of blasphemy?), I want to reach for the nearest bottle of Pape Clément; I have just one 1982 left, but feel that I should discipline myself to leave it intact for a more important occasion...

ok.  this clement was also known by simon magus and he favored the idea that simon magus had about being the 'son of God' and wanted the title, too.  you see - power!  he had much instruction from philosphizing not only at alexandria - but his trips to india in which he was not indoctrinating them but they him.  he came back.  went to alexandria and then on to rome.  where - happily for him - he found followers who thought he WAS the 'son of God' just like simon magus.  why cannot people find his first books?  BECAUSE THEY WERE HERETICAL. 

Woo! CAPITAL LETTERS!...

tell me anything clement wrote that was in any way similar to the bible and the gospels!  it is all about philosophy.  the very thing that paul - an apostle of Jesus Christ - warned against!  and, we can prove by history that clement never studied in jerusalem!  he wasn't interested in jerusalem - BECAUSE HE WAS A GREEK.

now - how can you trace 'apostolic succession' when clement never met peter or paul anyways.  he wasn't 'into' jews.  although he put up with one deviant one called 'pantaenus' or 'pantnus' or 'pantreanus.'  that was HIS apostolic FATHEr from the 'catechetical school at alexandria.'

I hope that someone here is following your line of reasoning, for I lost it ages ago. In more general terms, however, I cannot help but feel that your religious persuasion has led you into numerous and various states of intellectual confusion, which is surely not at all what it is supposed to do...

Best,

Alistair