Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Although, sure, not being a religious scholar myself, what do I know?

It doesn’t take a scholar, just someone who has read a bit on the evolution of law and punishment in religious communities.

It always goes this way when the topic of homosexuality and other sexual deviancies from the norm are brought up.

[phyllo]

Did Jesus support those sorts of punishments?

It doesn't seem so, given what he said and did. For example, he wasn't in favor of stoning the adulterous woman.

So why are those things being linked to Christianity?

Hmm...

Was or was not Jesus Christ of the New Testament the Christian God of the Old Testament?

Is or is not the Old Testament literally the Word of God?

And, if it is literally the Word of God, what do you suppose He meant by all those "put to deaths"?



Note to IC:

Just out of curiosity, did that ever come up in those videos?

Jesus established a New Covenant.

[Harbal]

It always goes this way when the topic of homosexuality and other sexual deviancies from the norm are brought up.

Only because people like you, who are sick in the head, bring up the subject.

[promethean75]

Why is Leviticus trippin so much on relations? relations is a beautiful thing... it's nothing to be ashamed of

[Alexis Jacobi]

It always goes this way when the topic of homosexuality and other sexual deviancies from the norm are brought up.

Only because people like you, who are sick in the head, bring up the subject.

In fact it was Flannel Jesus who mentioned it. My interest in it is in the context of wide ranges of other topics and considerations relative to Catholicism and Christianity (and other religions as well).

Just a few decades back, or a generation or two, a certain tolerant aversion was the norm in most societies. I am interested in how our societies have been socially engineered.

I do note your assignation of a mental sickness diagnosis — a veritable transvaluation of values! — and that is pretty amazing. The sick are termed well, the well are termed sick. It is interesting to observe how these labels are shifted and get turned around.

However, sick or well, rightly or wrongly, I see social deviancy as gaining in intensity and I don’t see the results as positive.

But I do not have a clear sense of why nor what could countermand it.

[iambiguous]

Did Jesus support those sorts of punishments?

It doesn't seem so, given what he said and did. For example, he wasn't in favor of stoning the adulterous woman.

So why are those things being linked to Christianity?

Hmm...

Was or was not Jesus Christ of the New Testament the Christian God of the Old Testament?

Is or is not the Old Testament literally the Word of God?

And, if it is literally the Word of God, what do you suppose He meant by all those "put to deaths"?



Note to IC:

Just out of curiosity, did that ever come up in those videos?

Jesus established a New Covenant.

Ah, so God can change His mind. Meaning that for all we know the next New Covenant is right around the corner. Christ returns and those once thought to be among the Left Behind are instead the ones ascending up to Heaven.

Still, the Muslims and the Jews and the Hindus and the Shinto and the Deists and the Pantheists and the Buddhists and all the rest who are not Christians among these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are probably still fucked.

Well, unless of course the Covenant of Irrellus prevails.

[iambiguous]

Although, sure, not being a religious scholar myself, what do I know?

It doesn’t take a scholar, just someone who has read a bit on the evolution of law and punishment in religious communities.

It always goes this way when the topic of homosexuality and other sexual deviancies from the norm are brought up.

Though it does take a scholar to encompass philosophically why homosexuals and other sexual deviants are not on par with heterosexuals...rationally? emotionally? morally? scientifically? Especially Northern European white heterosexuals?

Then it comes down to imagining what those who think this would do with them -- to them? -- if they themselves were in power in any given community.

Starting here -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t141 ... gender-cis -- perhaps, or going all the way out to Hitler?

So, where do you fit in?



Same with you Christians here. There's what you think about "homosexuality and other deviants" and there's what you believe a Christian community ought to do about them. Conversion therapy, of course, but what if that doesn't work?

Put them to death as the Old Testament commands? Or toss the Word of God there in the trashcan and embrace Christ's New Covenant instead?

Speaking of which, what does the New Covenant tell us about homosexuals?

[Immanuel Can]

Note to IC:

Just out of curiosity, did that ever come up in those videos?

You're so funny!

First you post this long, self-righteous rant about how unfair it is that I won't pick something out of the videos and serve it up to you -- and now you betray that you haven't even watched the videos yourself, so your real motive, in all that ranting, is nothing other than either perverse laziness or such paralyzing fear of the result that you won't even look!

Priceless.

You've said all that needs to be said, I think. I couldn't add a thing.

But no, those are not the subjects of any of the videos. They're mostly exactly the kinds of scientific and reason-based arguments you asserted were impossible. But if you'd watched them, you'd know...and you wouldn't have asked.

Ask me when you've watched them.

[phyllo]

Put them to death as the Old Testament commands? Or toss the Word of God there in the trashcan and embrace Christ's New Covenant instead?

Should. Christians embrace Christianity???

That is a tough question.

[iambiguous]

Note to IC:

Just out of curiosity, did that ever come up in those videos?

You're so funny!

First you post this long, self-righteous rant about how unfair it is that I won't pick something out of the videos and serve it up to you -- and now you betray that you haven't even watched the videos yourself, so your real motive, in all that ranting, is nothing other than either perverse laziness or such paralyzing fear of the result that you won't even look!

Priceless.

You've said all that needs to be said, I think. I couldn't add a thing.

But no, those are not the subjects of any of the videos. They're mostly exactly the kinds of scientific and reason-based arguments you asserted were impossible. But if you'd watched them, you'd know...and you wouldn't have asked.

Ask me when you've watched them.

Wow. Thanks for allowing me yet again to remind folks here of just how preposterous it is that you won't bring to our attention the video you believe comes closest to demonstrating that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven:

Once again...

Note to others:

Please explain to me how and why this [too] is not completely ridiculous.

Forget about me. He has these videos that he is convinced offers evidence that [beyond a leap of faith] the Christian God resides in Heaven. He is convinced the evidence is so strong that it enabled him to jettison a Kierkegaardian leap of faith to God or to place a Pascalian wager. Instead, the videos were so powerful he is now able to believe that in fact if others watch them, they too will surely know that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

So why for the sake of others, is he unwilling to link us to the video he is convinced offers the most compelling proof of the Christian God's existence.

He wants others to choose carefully but he refuses to provide them with any concrete evidence...corroborative proof that will actually establish the incentive for them to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. And to achieve salvation for their very soul on Judgment Day.

Would anyone else here who had such hard evidence for the existence of their own God not bring it to our attention?

How can all if this not indicate instead that even he knows the evidence is such that a leap of faith or a wager would still be required.



Damnit are all if you blind to what is at stake here?!!!

He claims to have videos that would convince even me that the Christian God resides in Heaven. So, for Christ's sake ask him to link to you the most persuasive video of them all. Then if it blows you away and right on the spot you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you can link all the rest of us to it.

[phyllo]

Isn't this just harassment?

[Harbal]

Just a few decades back, or a generation or two, a certain tolerant aversion was the norm in most societies. I am interested in how our societies have been socially engineered.

In Britain, Homosexuality has something in common with Catholicism. They were both illegal, then were tolerated, and are now quite acceptable, although some do still have an aversion to one or both of them. I'm not comparing the two in any other respect, Catholicism is far more offensive.

I do note your assignation of a mental sickness diagnosis — a veritable transvaluation of values! — and that is pretty amazing. The sick are termed well, the well are termed sick. It is interesting to observe how these labels are shifted and get turned around.

You would oppress a group of people who are not breaking any laws, and are not harming anyone, simply because you do not approve of their lifestyle, and you frequently try to influence others to adopt the same attitude as yours. Now, technically, that may not be sickness, but it's certainly not a sign of a healthy character.

However, sick or well, rightly or wrongly, I see social deviancy as gaining in intensity and I don’t see the results as positive.

You seem to see any deviancy from your opinion of what social norms should be as something that should be condemned out of existence, and when people like you exist in sufficient numbers to exert an influence, I don't see the results of that as positive.

[attofishpi]

I hope a few comments of mine will not rouse too much ire.

Of course not, as long as you extend the courtesy in any discussion with me of refraining from omitting what I have stated during our discourse and address all of my replies to you.
It’s rare to find anyone on the forum these days that keep the conversation in its entirety which is a shame, and cowardly in my opinion.

First, I must say that I have read Atto for months and months now and, I notice, that he has next to zero comprehension of the inner structure of the Christian religion and philosophy.

RE: Christianity - I've got a lot more than 'zero comphension' of it - I know enough to know that I don't agree with the interpretations of the Bible that have created "Christianity".
I know that I am a Christian (and apparently a good one, as sage/God have stated to me about three times: "Good Christian").

I could not say this in such a way that it is not a critique, that would be dishonest, and what I note is odd and peculiar but not atypical: raised in Catholicism, but the post-Vatican ll perversion of it (that according to traditional Catholics), he shows what happens when one becomes separated from the 'inner structure' of the religion as a religion and philosophy.

Yes, raised through Catholic school system, I learned to accept people for who they are and help those in need.
Since then, and with regards to the Catholic stance on homosexuality and contraception, they can shove it.
So, I am a Christian regardless of Christian "philosophy".
You are clearly homophobic. I think I was slightly, until about the age of 18 when a friend told me the story of his homosexual brother. At that point, I understood that sexual attraction is not clearly defined, certainly not by what is between one’s legs.

RE: Philosophy. - Since joining this forum I have stated many times that I have barely read a word that any philosopher has written. I like to read books on physics and science in general.
Part of the reason I have kept away from writings of philosophers is that I always wanted to develop my own ideas about things but always with a view (now) to start reading more on the area. Over the years, if ever there was a philosophical subject area I was not familiar with, I would at least do some research to comprehend what people are debating.
Philosophy requires an extremely good comprehension of applying ones rational, logic to subject matter. I have nothing lacking in this ability.
In fact, the original term for philosophy being "love of wisdom", I consider my approach to be very wise. Not only do I comprehend, and love Christ and learnt a great deal about God and the nature of reality through my faith, I balance this with my understanding of scientific theories and technology.

When that happens, all relationship to the substantial structure of the religion, which is based in clearly expressed doctrines, is lost. Atto cannot, for reasons of ignorance (of these doctrines) make any intelligent statements about Christianity and, oddly but predictably, he regards any such statements and allusions to such doctrines as superfluous. In any case this is what I have gathered.

Again, shove man's ridiculous interpretations of the Bible, if you feel I cannot make any intelligent statement about Christianity because I don't agree with its poorly reasoned tenets, then clearly you are rather daft.

I naturally draw a distinction between the intensely subjective and idiosyncratic nature of Atto's experience (which he refers to as something like the true and honest inner dimension of Christianity)..

There you go, an irrational statement. My extensive experience of God has little to do with man’s creation of the religion labelled "Christianity", so you certainly should not infer from anything I have written that I consider my comprehension of God as a true and honest "inner dimension of Christianity". You need to differentiate my own Christian faith, from that of the established religion Christianity. I don’t disagree with everything with mainstream Christianity, but I disagree with what I consider contradictory to what Christ is believed to said and done.
Most of those that adhere to “Christianity” would scoff at my analysis of experience and remain in belief with what is preached by those with NO actual experience of God (Priests\Pastors etc..)..and thus their BIGOTRY will remain.

But Atto can be studied (examined, questioned, looked at) as an example of the destructiveness of the various 'reform' processes of Vatican ll which have, again according to Catholic traditionalists, led to extremely destructive currents entering the Church itself. It is a difficult topic, I admit, but their arguments are not incoherent.

You are ignorant of anything I have written, you have not examined my "Simulation or Divine Reality" thread, and I doubt you would have the intelligence to comprehend it. You are knowledgeable, and a wordsmith enjoyable to read, but not particularly skilled where analytical comprehension of subject matter is concerned (like so many "philosophers" here).

Lex orandi, lex credendi: the rule or influence of what one's prayers are composed of, the content of one's enunciated prayers (which can be extended to mean all that one honestly and truly believes and therefore recites as part of one's "lived liturgy"), determine what one "believes", which I take to be more than simply statements that one makes about some aspect of doctrine, but the entire way that one lives life -- this is what Lex orandi, lex credendi actually means.

Such WONDERFUL knowledge. I said a prayer about an hour before the sage introduced himself to me from the aether. I asked for the pain in my fractured arm to go (since I had no pain killers, screw up with a hospital prescription)
"Would you like me to erase that?" - was the reply - "Yes" I said.
All the pain in my fractured arm dissapeared...for 10 mins, and then the pain started to return.
"Do you understand?" was said to me.
At the time I didn't, but I can reason why now, in hindsight.

So prayers above as you state require true belief in doctrine I guess with your poor, vague comprehension of what I believe re doctrine, is bollocks.

It is curious to me that one of the major oppositions to traditional Christianity comes from those on the front of *radical sexuality*. First, it was homosexual rights. And incrimentally it progresses from those rights (granted) to ever-new demands for the *right* to give oneself justification for many other radical (or "liberated") sexual forms. The *curious* part is that it will not stop. It is in the nature of sexual license that once permission is granted or attained, that a next step is inevitable.

Provide anything from Bible scipture that you feel support doctrine within Christianity opposing homosexuality.

Realmente haces suposiciones mal fundamentadas sobre mí.

[Harbal]

First, I must say that I have read Atto for months and months now and, I notice, that he has next to zero comprehension of the inner structure of the Christian religion and philosophy.

RE: Christianity - I've got a lot more than 'zero comphension' of it

When he says you have zero comprehension, he means you have zero comprehension of the creatively constructed Alexis Jacobi interpretation of Christianity. I would say that is a good thing, atto.

[attofishpi]

First, I must say that I have read Atto for months and months now and, I notice, that he has next to zero comprehension of the inner structure of the Christian religion and philosophy.

RE: Christianity - I've got a lot more than 'zero comphension' of it

When he says you have zero comprehension, he means you have zero comprehension of the creatively constructed Alexis Jacobi interpretation of Christianity. I would say that is a good thing, atto.

Well, at least he gave me the opportunity to explain myself...at least that I respect.