Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Christia

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8100
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:51 pm

For my money the Reformation completely invalidates the entire Christian project.
Why would you assume so? Do you accept at face value the Roman Catholic Church's claim to be "the True Church?" Why would you concede that? Indeed, most Christians would not.

Or then, is your assumption that to contradict that "True Church" somehow invalidates the whole idea of Christianity? Or is it your assumption that in order to be "true" a viewpoint must be expressed in a unified, monovocal way? Again, why would you assume that? I can't see that it follows rationally.

This seems prematurely dismissive, unless you've got some line of reasoning that shows it isn't. I'd be interested to see what that is.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Greatest I am » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
begotten
This word is a mistranslation. Only the translators of the KJV need to answer for it.

It means "only, unique," "one-of-a-kind." Christianity does indeed hold that Christ is unique.
Indeed. A unique scapegoat and whipping boy that they will cheer the whipping of in order to get into heaven.

Christians are quick to forget that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs they have done, --- so that they might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

They do not care for morality. Just for salvation of their immoral souls.

Regards
DL

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Greatest I am » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:57 pm

ReliStuPhD wrote:[]
Again, just because you think such a thing is not possible does not mean it's not possible. Obviously the Christian understanding of a Trinitarian God is compatible with monotheism. To say otherwise is not to understand what the Christian means by the "Trinity."

As for the fathers and mothers thing, if God exists then God is capable of miracles on the order of the Immaculate Conception. Now, you may disagree that God exists, but you would be hard-pressed to make any sort of logical case that God could not do such things if "he" did exist.

What is clear to me in all of this is that you're debating a caricature of RCC beliefs on this issues, rather than the beliefs themselves. There is obviously no "rule" that you have to believe reality is ordered the way the RCC sees it, but there is something of a rule that, when trying to show the incoherence of an opponent's position, you must first show that you understand said position. You have consistently displayed gross ignorance with respect to RCC teachings on the subject. What you are doing is building up then knocking down straw men. If you want to base your take-down of the RCC on fallacious thinking, be my guest, but you'll find that only fools or the ignorant will take you seriously. Of course, if that's your audience, keep on keeping on. In the immortal words of George W. Bush: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.” ;)
The Christian understanding of the Trinity is quite stupid. Only those with pretzel minds even bother trying to explain it's idiocies. Perhaps that is why Constantine had to force the vote his way. Only force could make intelligent people accept such a stupid concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsN3IG1HtQ

Regards
DL

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8100
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:34 pm

Pejorative, ad hominem and insubstantial.

Got a proposition worth tackling? Or are we just firing insults today?

User avatar
ReliStuPhD
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:28 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by ReliStuPhD » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:Pejorative, ad hominem and insubstantial.
And as to his general argument, I'm sure we could add "Argument from Incredulity," "Proof by Assertion," "Appeal to Ridicule" to the already growing list of fallacies. ;)

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8100
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:27 pm

Actually, I don't know quite to think of the poster of this thread.

It's not the overblown declaration right at the start that he's the "greatest" (which, if true, should hardly need stating, of course), but the fact he's calling himself "Greatest I am."

Now, if he put that last word in all caps, that might signal his familiarity with Hebrew idioms, which might convince me of his scholarship; but then, it would also mean he was claiming to be God. That would be a little weird...but hey, whatever. :?

On the other hand, if that's not right, then maybe he actually means "Syntax I Have Not." :lol:

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Greatest I am » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote:Actually, I don't know quite to think of the poster of this thread.

It's not the overblown declaration right at the start that he's the "greatest" (which, if true, should hardly need stating, of course), but the fact he's calling himself "Greatest I am."

Now, if he put that last word in all caps, that might signal his familiarity with Hebrew idioms, which might convince me of his scholarship; but then, it would also mean he was claiming to be God. That would be a little weird...but hey, whatever. :?

On the other hand, if that's not right, then maybe he actually means "Syntax I Have Not." :lol:
In the Hebrew Bible, there are multiple descriptions of Yahweh presiding over a great assembly of Heavenly Hosts. Some interpret these assemblies as examples of Divine Council:


"The Old Testament description of the 'divine assembly' all suggest that this metaphor for the organization of the divine world was consistent with that of Mesopotamia and Canaan. One difference, however, should be noted. In the Old Testament, the identities of the members of the assembly are far more obscure than those found in other descriptions of these groups, as in their polytheistic environment. Israelite writers sought to express both the uniqueness and the superiority of their God Yahweh."[1]

Adam and Eve became as Gods when they gained a moral sense and no longer had their mind cut off from intelligent thought. As our primordial ancestors, we inherit that same trait even though Christianity wrongly thinks that to be evil and a fall. Retaining dominion over the earth, humans never revoked this inherited trait of a moral sense, --- and the right for man to judge himself. Jesus highlights this when he took the seat of judgement at God’s right hand.

When I use terms like “I am God”, or “you are God”, I am not speaking of the traditional miracle working God of scriptures and myths. He does not exist as far as we can know as he has never made an appearance to prove his reality.

What I am trying to convey to you by saying that you are a God in your own right is to be master of yourself and you need not be a sheep. You can, as Jesus says, pick up your burdens and responsibilities for your sins and follow his mind set. Be a shepherd. Lead by example.

What I am trying to convey is that the only God you can ever know is the good you find within yourself. It's your ideal of God and of the Jesus or Christ mind. That is quite different from me or someone thinking they are the traditional creator God, or thinking that they are more than anyone else. Both Jesus and the Christ in these myths are for equality. Not the misogyny that we presently enjoy. That is another topic though. We are to be co-equal with Jesus.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Jesus would explain this concept as one just seeing that they have joined God’s Divine Council by embracing his own Christ mind. Or better said, as this is the more eastern Jesus, we activate our pineal gland and open our third eye.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council

Regards
DL

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8100
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:54 am

What I am trying to convey to you by saying that you are a God in your own right is to be master of yourself and you need not be a sheep. You can, as Jesus says, pick up your burdens and responsibilities for your sins and follow his mind set. Be a shepherd. Lead by example.
Nice idea of your own. It was never His idea, clearly.

When reading anything, it's very important to respect the context. Context almost always illuminates single statements in very important ways. It's important to read all ideas in their natural context, or what you end up doing is springing wildly into guess-making.
What I am trying to convey is that the only God you can ever know is the good you find within yourself.

This is, in fact, the dead opposite of what Jesus said.
We are to be co-equal with Jesus. Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Wrongly applied and wildly out of context. In fact, if you read the verses around, you'll clearly see that according to the passage, without the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, this prospect is simply not available at all. Go check. You'll see I'm telling you the straight goods. In fact, if you just put it in the context of another verse you quote,
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
"If a man love me...keep my words..." That's what's called a "conditional phrase," which means that unless the "if" happens, the rest does not happen either. And it certainly does not say, "If a man love
himself
..."
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
This one is just a case of bad translation. The word "within" there is a translators error from the KJV. The real Greek word is rightly translated "among," speaking then of Christ Himself, not of some inner quality of human beings. Check it out. You'll see I'm telling you the truth.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Greatest I am » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:39 pm

LOL. Translation and context eh. You prefer to look at those instead of what this particular Jesus was actually saying.

You have Jesus promoting slavery to God while the Jesus I see preached self-assertiveness and self-ownership.

Jesus indicates that the Sabbath was created for man and not man for the Sabbath. IOW. Man can choose to ignore God and work on the Sabbath.

That tell me that that Jesus is preaching that God was created for man and not man for God and we can ignore God all we like because he is a human construct.

Jesus makes man supreme here while believers foolishly make an invisible sky daddy supreme.

Regards
DL

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8100
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:54 pm

LOL. Translation and context eh. You prefer to look at those instead of what this particular Jesus was actually saying.
Can it be you are actually so completely uninformed of how text and language actually work? Now I'm starting to think you're trolling...surely everybody knows what "context" means, and how essential it is to interpretation.

Look, you cannot even interpret the word "horse" without context. Is it a noun, an animal? Is it the verb meaning "to fool around"? Is the adjective indicating "from or possessed by an equine entity"? Or is it the adjective before "chestnut"? Without context, you don't even know that much! How much less do you know about the words of Jesus if you have no interest in context?

I'll ignore the rest of the cavilling. It's unfocused and merely vituperative. Pick a line and stick to it.

Now I'm really beginning to think "troll." One of the hallmarks of sincerity is holding a line of thought. One of the hallmarks of trolling is barraging with irrelevant abuse, and with no interest to following a line of thought.

Hmm...I should probably just ignore you now...

I'll give you one more message to prove me wrong, though, if you wish to take it. It's up to you.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Greatest I am » Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
LOL. Translation and context eh. You prefer to look at those instead of what this particular Jesus was actually saying.
Can it be you are actually so completely uninformed of how text and language actually work? Now I'm starting to think you're trolling...surely everybody knows what "context" means, and how essential it is to interpretation.

Look, you cannot even interpret the word "horse" without context. Is it a noun, an animal? Is it the verb meaning "to fool around"? Is the adjective indicating "from or possessed by an equine entity"? Or is it the adjective before "chestnut"? Without context, you don't even know that much! How much less do you know about the words of Jesus if you have no interest in context?

I'll ignore the rest of the cavilling. It's unfocused and merely vituperative. Pick a line and stick to it.

Now I'm really beginning to think "troll." One of the hallmarks of sincerity is holding a line of thought. One of the hallmarks of trolling is barraging with irrelevant abuse, and with no interest to following a line of thought.

Hmm...I should probably just ignore you now...

I'll give you one more message to prove me wrong, though, if you wish to take it. It's up to you.
I do not have time to try to prove anything to anyone who is not interested in knowing what religion is all about and who thinks it can be found in a book of myths, the bible.

Regards
DL

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8100
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:01 pm

I do not have time to try to prove anything to anyone who is not interested in knowing what religion is all about and who thinks it can be found in a book of myths, the bible.
That's very, very funny. :lol:

Sonny Jim, you have no idea what I do or do not know. Classic. You actually suppose I'm "not interested in knowing what religion is all about," and now you're going to tell me? Oh, please, chum...my sides ache. If you had any idea...

Meanwhile, in the land where you live, this passes as a kind of argument?

Surely thou trollest.

Well, you had your chance and muffed it.

Cheerio.

User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Lev Muishkin » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:18 am

ReliStuPhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:It had to be a human sacrifice as God cannot die.
Not if God is a Trinity.
Not that your thought is relevant.
But the Trinity is an example of syncretism. It is not part of Judaism nor can it be found anywhere in the Bible.

As the virus of christianity spread through the R. Empire it adopted local beliefs. The trinity is of Celtic/Pagan origin.
You don't have to take my word for it. Just consult the works of Isaac Newton, and many others.

Image

User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Lev Muishkin » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
For my money the Reformation completely invalidates the entire Christian project.
Why would you assume so? Do you accept at face value the Roman Catholic Church's claim to be "the True Church?" Why would you concede that? Indeed, most Christians would not.

Or then, is your assumption that to contradict that "True Church" somehow invalidates the whole idea of Christianity? Or is it your assumption that in order to be "true" a viewpoint must be expressed in a unified, monovocal way? Again, why would you assume that? I can't see that it follows rationally.

This seems prematurely dismissive, unless you've got some line of reasoning that shows it isn't. I'd be interested to see what that is.
Christianity is a long list of incompatible beliefs claiming to follow the instructions and wishes of a single god. They cannot ALL be right, and I have no reason to think that ANY of them are right. And why would I?
What is more damaging the idea of "god", whatever that is, is that both Judaism and Islam also claim to know the right way to life in god, and that their god is the same god.
The whole thing is broken.
Why can't you see that?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8100
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Chri

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Feb 23, 2015 1:37 pm

As the virus of christianity spread through the R. Empire it adopted local beliefs.
With your indulgence, Lev, I'll just ignore the word "virus." As (apparently) a secular Jewish person (?), you'll appreciate that name-calling religions is, at best, not helpful to clear thought and at worst a prelude to pogroms and inquisitions.

You're speaking now of Constantine et al? Or are you speaking of Gibbon's thesis? Then the former is quite true, but only of the Roman Catholic group, and the latter is a now-discredited historical hypothesis. In light of Mideast history, I'm sure you'll agree that the notion that the Roman Empire was something profoundly worth preserving indefinitely is, in any case, rather romantic at best.
But the Trinity is an example of syncretism. It is not part of Judaism nor can it be found anywhere in the Bible.
Admittedly, the word "Trinity" is a late coinage. The concept, however, is quite ancient...and thus we need some name for it. If not "trinity," then what?

It's no part of *modern* Judaism, perhaps, but I would suggest to you that it's definitely in Torah. The very first passage in which it occurs is in Genesis 1, actually. Of course, it does not say "trinity," but the concept is quite clear in the triune creation narrative.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Skepdick, surreptitious57 and 6 guests