Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sherapy
This post will be considered out in left field, but I cannot help myself. Skeptics will likely tear it apart, but I don't care. I was reading these back and forth posts, and they are all quite well written, and while I was debating about what to respond to, it really got me thinking about something else. Does any of it really matter? Really think about that. When one talks about God it is so easy to state, well God is this way because my scripture says this, then someone else says no, God is this way because my scripture says this. Nonsense!! All nonsense!! We are talking about a metaphysical being who is so far beyond our pathetic sensory perception and attempts to understand same, that all you have left is a quagmire of differing viewpoints all based on the idealogies and words of man, which, in the end, has absolutely nothing to do with God. I mean, do you honnestly think that Almighty God cares which theologian said what???? We believe in certain ways because it is merely easier for us to do so. It is easier to conceptualize God, and therefore create the delusion that you KNOW GOD, because He is so far beyond understanding, we have to drag Him DOWN to OUR level of understanding. You know God because of what you read in a book, or what some ancient theologian said. Absurd. A chasing after the wind.

Most people view God all wrong, IMO, they view religion as the ENDING POINT, when it should in fact, be the starting point. You read a set of scriptures or whatever, you identify with it, then it becomes you, this is God, I now know God.

But who really knows the mind of God? Origen? Eusebius? Augustine? Can they point the way for YOU to know God?

God, a transcendental being, outside of time and space, we KNOW, in time and space, because we read it in a book???? Is this all there is to God, what is contained in these books and these writings throughout the centuries? I highly doubt it.

If one truly sought God, then it is my view, that dogma and religion would disappear. Because God is far greater than these things, these products of man, these outward works.

If man is truly the image of God, then to know God, one has to know self. Look INWARD to find God. He waits for us in the silence, not amidst the words.

The proof of God, lies not in the books, but within inner, personal, mystical experiences. If you lay aside all of your divisions, your pre-concieved notions, and seek Him, not with a mind tossed about by the tides of its own thoughts, but in utter stillness, there, THERE, you will find God! If you truly knock, it shall be opened to you.

You can debate about God all you want to from the things that have gone before you, but you exist, here, in this present moment to find God FOR YOURSELF. Why waste the opportunity, the rarity of a human life, debating about foolish things and not seeking the truth that starts from within?????

hmm sounds like an agnostic posit.....IMO

Edited by Tangerine Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Jorel, i donot conclude that there is reincarnation..DR. D has shown very masterfully that the bible infers reincarnation and that scripture can be interpreted in many ways which refutes your claim...

in argumetation one concludes for themsleves there is no preference on how one concludes, one articulates a counter to support thier posit and the other counters we are looking at the merit of your claim which is that the bible is absolute and interprets itself.....

So far it isn't holding weight...

So are you saying that it's OK to reinterpret the Bill of Rights even if it's necessary to leave out some words, or sentences, or change one word here and there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
So are you saying that it's OK to reinterpret the Bill of Rights even if it's necessary to leave out some words, or sentences, or change one word here and there?

son :

do you have a counter or not to DR D"s posit ?

Edited by Tangerine Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

It is really sad that you should think this way and that you actually seem to believe this lie, you yourself just did what you accused the superficial reader of doing in the above text. Remeber how you quoted Luke 9:18-19? Was what you were trying to push on us based on your "thorough" knowledge of the Koine Greek language of the time?

First of all, what lie? And obviously you missed the point . . . . everyone is a superficial reader, Jo-rel . . . . the divinity professor at Oxford to the levels of me and you. You are the one who has lamented on occasion that people have opinions about Scripture but no true expertise, and yet the degree of expertise necessary negates the most common man from every truly understanding. And yes, he will be a superficial reader because that is his plight and if he wants to depend upon others for his information, he will suffer under the yoke of exegesis that tends only to serve what vested interests view as “the truth.”

But if there truly is a lie here, it will be found in your statement . . . . "your 'thorough" knowledge of the Koine Greek language" . . . . a claim I never made and it is wrong for you to suggest I did.

This saddens me even more, quite different from the Expatriate I came to know before. Maybe that's why you changed your name...

When people do not agree with me, I do not lower myself to personal attacks. I changed the name because several posters thought my statements were akin to Dr. House with all his cynicism. It is equally wrong for you to suggest any lesser motive existed for a personal decision.

I am the same person with the same beliefs and I defend them in the same way. But I will respect your opinions, Jo-rel and will display the compassion and understanding that you, as a Christian, are required to have.

Beside being the biggest load of beeswax I've ever heard, from someone who is supposed to be informed on the bible.

Oh, I see . . . . the Bible was never amended? There were never insertions . . . . additions? Then why was Eusebius known as the "great Bible forger" in his own lifetime? Why did Origin complain of the forgeries? Why did Eusebius state that he had included all that would serve Christianity and deleted all that would discredit it? I suppose the likes of Gibbon, Wilken, Wheless, Remsburg, Werner and many others were all wrong when the made the same charge that I have?

Do you know we can reconstitute the entire New Testament except for 3 verses just from the works of the early church fathers up until 200 AD?

To the satisfaction of who? All Christiandom? A particular denomination? A particular divinity school? A particular scholar? A particular congregation? A particular Christian?

And this was before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. When we examine later texts from the later sources and compare them to the DSS, gues what we find?

I’ll take the word of someone as renowned as Frank Moore Cross, Hancock Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University, “ . . . . the biblical manuscripts which predate Christian times differ radically from the received text found, for example, in the King James version.”

Leaving out the early church fathers personal interpretations of those verses, they in effect supply us with an abundance of evidence that the entire New testament was around already by 100 AD, and that we have the entire ORIGINAL works of the New Testament Today.

What a dream . . . . and what about the earliest known reference to the Book of Mark from the Morton Smith discovery? It had no resurrection scene so I guess it indicates that we have the entire ORIGINAL works of the NT?

If the church had "adapted" and "adjusted" the bible, we would today know about it and guys like you would be the 1st to bandy that evidence about, the fact that you don't and are talking merely from supposition based on flawed scholarly criticism is quite evident.

Why is any knowledge that does not conform to traditional thought considered to be assumption? Mosheim was driven to write, “Base audacity of those who did not blush to palm their own spurious productions on the great men of former times, and even on Christ himself and his apostles, so that they might be able, in the councils and in their books, to oppose names against names and authorities against authorities. The whole Christian Church was, in this century, overwhelmed with these disgraceful fictions."

Do we dare pretend that the Bible is pure in its present state, untampered and unedited? If so, it would be an error that no amount of seminary apologetics could erase.

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.

Secular historians, I presume. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt with the condition that a historian show me evidence supporting the slaughter of the innocents.

The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many 25,000 ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.

This is a worn out argument of every Christian apologist. Let’s not distort fact or exaggerate them. About 85% of all New Testament manuscripts are found in the Byzantine or Majority Text form. Any valid translator will admit that the Byzantine text type is the worst in having the ability to preserve any original text. They will also tell you that throughout later New Testament manuscripts are evidences of smoothing, harmonizing and forgery.

There is a saying among linguists, “Manuscripts are weighed, not counted.” The implication, of course, is that there is no numerical defense for the accuracy of the New Testament and 25,000 copies of bad manuscript do not tend to prove that any of it is original. So, in reality do you have 25,000 ancient manuscripts or 25,000 copies of a few manuscripts? The difference is profound. It is like having a million experiences in life or one experience a million times.

The importance of the vast number of manuscripts copies cannot be overstated. This abundance of manuscripts makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy.

Oh, but it can be overstated and consistently is. No matter how many manuscripts the apologists claim to have, the argument has no value unless the traditions of all are exact and in agreement. Not even two manuscripts of the New Testament show this agreement. An interesting fact is that there are more differences within these manuscripts than there are words in the entire New Testament. (Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy, pg. 412)

The well prepared layman can correctly read scripture because scripture is self evident in understanding for the most part and part of the preparation for any "self respecting" christian is to learn the history of the church and what was said by the church fathers, including all their thoughts on certain passages that are considered problematic.

If this were true, the Church would never have invented exegesis. Considering all the debates and divisions within the fathers of the early church, apparently Scripture was not so “self evident” or perhaps they were not “self respecting.” This "self evident" meaning of Scripture is, as often as not, made evident by teachers, professors, ministers and priests, bishops and archbishops . . . . making interpretation as truth and telling all that it is, indeed, self evident. Being so self-evident, why is it suggested . . . . even by you . . . . that extended study be done to truly understand it?

Yes they can even when they can't actually read the text because they make a point of familiarizing themselves with Jewish culture and thought. More times than not, they are more knowledgable of Jewish beliefs and traditions than the Jews are themselves.

You make many sweeping statements Jo-rel . . . . I seriously doubt that “more times than not” any layman Christian would know more about Jewish beliefs than Jews themselves . . . . do you?

Because that is why scholars write papers and there are scholarly debates on these issues, all one has to do is follow the debates and they quickly become conversant on those issues. We as christians don't have to go out and invent the wheel personally anymore, we can and do rely on experts to learn the most of what the texts have to offer.

Christian experts, of course. Would you consider studying the works of Bart D. Ehrman who wrote, “ . . . . but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes . . . . altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original works of the New Testament?”

And if so, would you study him with any sense of objectivity?

Hans Harker? Dr. Jeffrey Ream? Dr. Elizabeth Holstrum? Would these qualify as "scholars" in your pursuit of Biblical knowledge?

Maybe Christians don't need to invent the wheel . . . . but perhaps others have the wheel and the cart.

What you neglect to tell your readers is that the Book of Daniel is part of the Septuagint which was composed over a 15 year period in 285 BC and that chapter 4 of the book of Daniel is recognized to be part of this work, wheras the prayer of Nabonidus is an Aramaic text belonging to the Dead Sea scrolls: four scraps of parchment from Cave 4, usually called 4Q242, copied from an older original in the second half of the first century BCE. The story is similar but not exact. Since Daniel predates the prayer of Nabonidus by almost 250 years, I find it interesting that you bring this up. Who exactly are you trying to kid?

Careful, your Christian antagonism is showing . . . . I was trying to kid no one. If you would be fair, you would have noted that I used this fragment to demonstrate how traditions entered the belief system. That a tale originated from the Babylonian Jews had endured to be included into the writings of Qumran. Is that so misleading?

I could have, of course, pointed out that the name of the king had been changed as was the illness that plagued Nabonidus . . . . probably to make it conform with the tale in Leviticus. And so traditions enter Scripture, get stuck there until they are presented as truths from people behind pulpits.

You know, this is called slander in todays mainstream language, and it can be proved as slander. I just did, earlier on this post. But I'll add something more here.

No . . . . slander is spoken . . . . libel is written . . . .

I would like to state that textual conspiracies such you suggested would be practically impossible - there is no way that the church could have eliminated ALL known readings of a given text!

As I mentioned earlier, the earliest copy of Mark ended with, “"And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." So who inserted the resurrection scene into the present Book of Mark?

If you want to talk about scholarship of “self respecting” Christians, why doesn’t it include the letters from Clement that criticized totally the corruptions of early manuscripts? In them one would find the morality of early Christianity . . . .

“For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.”

“Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.”

“To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men." For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly," teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind."

Even Ehrman [Ehr.OxC, 46n], though he has only found a few dozen corruptions - which he was able to identify because original readings were still preserved! - cannot resist speculating that there are actually "hundreds" of undiscovered corruptions.

You are cherry picking a bit with Ehrman’s many quotes, but it’s okay. It is a bit contradictory, however, that you can here say, “he found only a few dozen corruptions” while earlier contending that the New Testament was intact and accurate.

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct "any" book of the ancient world.

Well, Ehrman is notably more objective than apologists. That, however, is typical. But is it necessary for a text to be totally corrupted to be corrupted? Isn’t that his point?

You say so but the evidence says otherwise, don't you know we can check these assertions easily online?

Then you are welcome to do so.

Interesting quote, where exactly did you find this because according to his own interpretation of Colossians, it is an origianl work of Paul.

One reference to it can be found in the Cambridge History of the Bible, pg. 253 in the opening lines of the page.

He does state that there was division regarding this issue but he does not side with those that would make this letter a forgery. As for the verse you quoted I found absolutely no reference to it being a later insertion but rather a parallel to gnostic thought, which is one of the reasons given for this letter being put in doubt as one of Pauls works.

Goodspeed made the comment when addressing the difficulties of accurate translations and did not suggest that the verse itself was a forgery, rather that some verses are so complex and of such poor language quality that it is often difficult to separate poor writing from poor additions. Perhaps I should have had a prelude to the phrase.

Please provide evidence of the above, it shouldn't be hard since you are the one paraphrasing him.

Origin’s Commentary on Matthew XIV, 13

Actually yes we can deny categorically that the church pictured Mary as the Holy Ghost.

You’re doing it again . . . . I do not mind your disagreement but I do ask that you disagree with my correct statements. In this case I stated that “early church writings” held that Mary was part of the trinity.

E.M. Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary of the Quran. Sura 4:169[171]

And yes it is true that there were fake versions of the gospels being circulated, but it is interesting that we don't have them today. It seems that the early church fathers who knew which of the Gospels was true, made sure of the destruction of the others.

No, Jo-rel . . . . they destroyed the works that did not agree with the common Christian belief . . . . in many minds that deserve respect, that is far different from truth.

You mean to say that you have gnostic tendencies just as he had and thus that is where you are truly at...

Whatever religious persuasion I hold is of no importance. What is most interesting is the indignation you display because someone dares disagree. My points cannot be valid because they are not endorsed by Christian dogma? The early fathers destroyed writings because they did not represent “the truth?”

I respect your faith, Jo-rel. I do not see it as an antagonistic enemy to mine. Nor do I dare be so arrogant as to suggest that all I believe can be defined as truth. But it is what I believe and what I hold the right to defend. Saying that, I wish you happiness and comfort in all that you hold as dear and true.

I would caution you about the aggression you use in defending Christianity. It echoes of the fires that consumed Bruno and the countless epileptics who died at the stake. We see this attitude often with many and it endorses only one Christian belief . . . . that it is indeed unchanging.

Edited by Dr. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl
So are you saying that it's OK to reinterpret the Bill of Rights even if it's necessary to leave out some words, or sentences, or change one word here and there?

Yes, it's how the US Legal System works. The Bill of Rights and every law in the US is challenged and reinterpreted on a daily basis by judges (criminal court, civil court, Supreme Court, et cetera) and lawyers and legislators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D
This post will be considered out in left field, but I cannot help myself. Skeptics will likely tear it apart, but I don't care. I was reading these back and forth posts, and they are all quite well written, and while I was debating about what to respond to, it really got me thinking about something else. Does any of it really matter? Really think about that. When one talks about God it is so easy to state, well God is this way because my scripture says this, then someone else says no, God is this way because my scripture says this. Nonsense!! All nonsense!! We are talking about a metaphysical being who is so far beyond our pathetic sensory perception and attempts to understand same, that all you have left is a quagmire of differing viewpoints all based on the idealogies and words of man, which, in the end, has absolutely nothing to do with God. I mean, do you honnestly think that Almighty God cares which theologian said what???? We believe in certain ways because it is merely easier for us to do so. It is easier to conceptualize God, and therefore create the delusion that you KNOW GOD, because He is so far beyond understanding, we have to drag Him DOWN to OUR level of understanding. You know God because of what you read in a book, or what some ancient theologian said. Absurd. A chasing after the wind.

Most people view God all wrong, IMO, they view religion as the ENDING POINT, when it should in fact, be the starting point. You read a set of scriptures or whatever, you identify with it, then it becomes you, this is God, I now know God.

But who really knows the mind of God? Origen? Eusebius? Augustine? Can they point the way for YOU to know God?

God, a transcendental being, outside of time and space, we KNOW, in time and space, because we read it in a book???? Is this all there is to God, what is contained in these books and these writings throughout the centuries? I highly doubt it.

If one truly sought God, then it is my view, that dogma and religion would disappear. Because God is far greater than these things, these products of man, these outward works.

If man is truly the image of God, then to know God, one has to know self. Look INWARD to find God. He waits for us in the silence, not amidst the words.

The proof of God, lies not in the books, but within inner, personal, mystical experiences. If you lay aside all of your divisions, your pre-concieved notions, and seek Him, not with a mind tossed about by the tides of its own thoughts, but in utter stillness, there, THERE, you will find God! If you truly knock, it shall be opened to you.

You can debate about God all you want to from the things that have gone before you, but you exist, here, in this present moment to find God FOR YOURSELF. Why waste the opportunity, the rarity of a human life, debating about foolish things and not seeking the truth that starts from within?????

My full support, mate! The descriptions of God I can read here are clearly copied from that old Indian fable, when a group of blind is offered to describe what the Elephant looks like, so they start to crawl over this elephant and sense it all around, and then they come and say their opinions. One says "elephant looks like a column", another says "elephant looks like a rope", or "elephant looks like a snake" et cetera.

I guess you are on the right track and in the right age already to expect seing the full elephant suddenly :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
son :

do you have a counter or not to DR D"s posit ?

Actually, Jor-el presented the counter pages ago: Just because you can interpret the Bible to support your view does not mean that it's a valid interpretation. The more you have to ignore context in order to make the Scripture support your view, the more you have to focus on just a few verses and ignore any verses that IN CONTEXT oppose your view, the less realistic your contention that your view is supported by the bible becomes.

Yes, it's how the US Legal System works. The Bill of Rights and every law in the US is challenged and reinterpreted on a daily basis by judges (criminal court, civil court, Supreme Court, et cetera) and lawyers and legislators.
Sorry, but they don't "re-interpret" it by ignoring whole Amendments or changing words... at least not successfully. Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

This is to all because what I need to say counters no one individual. My words have angered some, intrigued others and found agreement with a few. That is of no importance. But the driving force of my words are of the greatest importance.

My opposition here has been interpreted by some as “taking Scripture out of context” or “interpreting wrongly” and all the accusations have been sprinkled with those magic words, “the truth.”

I have repeated often that there are no experts on the Bible. I have contended that there is no absolute truth. And the combination of those two postures forms the ultimate message.

Jo-rel, Sam and all others here who have quoted Scripture to defend Scripture, made the definitive statement that the book was the ultimate truth and that a singular path exists for the salvation of the human soul, to you these words are intended and, to me, represent that greater truth that still remains less than absolute.

If you had been born in the foothills of the Himalayas, you would honor the smallest beast with a total conviction that within it might rest the soul of a past loved one. And if someone told you of a distant faith wherein a man once died for the sins of all, you would chuckle at its absurdity.

In countless other parts of the world you would have inherited other beliefs and accepted them with the innocence of a child until they were fastened to your mind and heart as absolute truths.

God is no more found in a Bible than he is in the smoke of incense. And if part of mankind believes that their soul returns in a progression of experiences, then God recognizes that for what it is . . . . a form in which men believe. He is not offended as are some of you. And if you want to believe that a man who once walked the earth was His son, I am certain he accepts that as still another form of man’s search for something meaningful after death.

You cannot confine God to a church. You cannot characterize him through a dogma. You cannot reduce him to words within any book. He will not be found in rituals or ceremonies . . . . because all that only represents man’s feeble efforts to make God and all He really is, understandable to the limits of the human mind.

If you find offense within these words, then imagine if I posted them here under your name. I would claim that you “inspired” me to write them. While you could not prove that my words were false, you would be nonetheless discouraged by my efforts to

define you through my own imagry.

Our world has 6 billion people and 60 billion have lived before our times. They came from different lands and cultures and within each they formed a concept that there was something greater than themselves. That is God. That is the singular evidence He gives us. And He cares not if He is called Yahweh, Llyr, Atua Fafine, Allah or Ne Zha. He instilled in all that innate awareness of His being and to try to discard those beliefs that do not conform with one particular belief is nothing less than wrong.

Are these the words of a heretic? So be it. It was never the skeptic or explorer who menaced mankind, rather the ideologies and moral stubbornness. No heretic ever burned anyone at the stake or tortured a pagan.

Edited by Dr. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
Actually, Jor-el presented the counter pages ago: Just because you can interpret the Bible to support your view does not mean that it's a valid interpretation. The more you have to ignore context in order to make the Scripture support your view, the more you have to focus on just a few verses and ignore any verses that IN CONTEXT oppose your view, the less realistic your contention that your view is supported by the bible becomes.

Sorry, but they don't "re-interpret" it by ignoring whole Amendments or changing words... at least not successfully.

Does this include, Iams, ignoring the Ancient Hebrew language usage to support a particular biblical pov?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl
Sorry, but they don't "re-interpret" it by ignoring whole Amendments or changing words... at least not successfully.

Sorry, but your response said: "...even if it's necessary to leave out some words, or sentences, or change one word here and there" and that is exactly what happens daily in American courts and in the legislature. Laws are rewritten, reinterpreted, "tweaked" and voted upon every day (almost every day)--and that, IamsSon, is an undeniable fact regardless of your opinion. Nowhere did you say "ignoring whole Amendments" in that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

Actually, Jor-el presented the counter pages ago: Just because you can interpret the Bible to support your view does not mean that it's a valid interpretation.

Does it mean it is an invalid interpretation?

The more you have to ignore context in order to make the Scripture support your view, the more you have to focus on just a few verses and ignore any verses that IN CONTEXT oppose your view, the less realistic your contention that your view is supported by the bible becomes.

And who decides what is "context?" Is that not merely selecting what supports an opposing view? By what authority is this "context" correct?

Sorry, but they don't "re-interpret" it by ignoring whole Amendments or changing words... at least not successfully.

Who changed words?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
This is to all because what I need to say counters no one individual. My words have angered some, intrigued others and found agreement with a few. That is of no importance. But the driving force of my words are of the greatest importance.

My opposition here has been interpreted by some as “taking Scripture out of context” or “interpreting wrongly” and all the accusations have been sprinkled with those magic words, “the truth.”

I have repeated often that there are no experts on the Bible. I have contended that there is no absolute truth. And the combination of those two postures forms the ultimate message.

Jo-rel, Sam and all others here who have quoted Scripture to defend Scripture, made the definitive statement that the book was the ultimate truth and that a singular path exists for the salvation of the human soul, to you these words are intended and, to me, represent that greater truth that still remains less than absolute.

If you had been born in the foothills of the Himalayas, you would honor the smallest beast with a total conviction that within it might rest the soul of a past loved one. And if someone told you of a distant faith wherein a man once died for the sins of all, you would chuckle at its absurdity.

In countless other parts of the world you would have inherited other beliefs and accepted them with the innocence of a child until they were fastened to your mind and heart as absolute truths.

God is no more found in a Bible than he is in the smoke of incense. And if part of mankind believes that their soul returns in a progression of experiences, then God recognizes that for what it is . . . . a form in which men believe. He is not offended as are some of you. And if you want to believe that a man who once walked the earth was His son, I am certain he accepts that as still another form of man’s search for something meaningful after death.

You cannot confine God to a church. You cannot characterize him through a dogma. You cannot reduce him to words within any book. He will not be found in rituals or ceremonies . . . . because all that only represents man’s feeble efforts to make God and all He really is, understandable to the limits of the human mind.

If you find offense within these words, then imagine if I posted them here under your name. I would claim that you “inspired” me to write them. While you could not prove that my words were false, you would be nonetheless discouraged by my efforts to

define you through my own imagry.

Our world has 6 billion people and 60 billion have lived before our times. They came from different lands and cultures and within each they formed a concept that there was something greater than themselves. That is God. That is the singular evidence He gives us. And He cares not if He is called Yahweh, Llyr, Atua Fafine, Allah or Ne Zha. He instilled in all that innate awareness of His being and to try to discard those beliefs that do not conform with one particular belief is nothing less than wrong.

Are these the words of a heretic? So be it. It was never the skeptic or explorer who menaced mankind, rather the ideologies and moral stubbornness. No heretic ever burned anyone at the stake or tortured a pagan.

Dedends on your interpretation of Heritic.

I think it was heratics who did exactly that, burn people at the stake.

I agree there is no one path to God, we all learn at diferent speeds, some get ther through Music some through Philosophy and some through the Spirit Of Love . The last one is My Path, and there are Many other ways of achieving The love Of God IMO.

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Dedends on your interpretation of Heritic.

I think it was heratics who did exactly that, burn people at the stake.

I agree there is no one path to God, we all learn at diferent speeds, some get ther through Music some through Philosophy and some through the Spirit Of Love . The last one is My Path, and there are Many other ways of achieving The love Of God IMO.

Love Omnaka

A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heretic

Of course, people who dissented from the views of Protestant churches were later also called heretics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heretic

Of course, people who dissented from the views of Protestant churches were later also called heretics.

Church Heretics

Find Church Heretics and Compare prices at Smarter.com.

www.smarter.com

I was not really looking to compair Prices I know where to find them for next to nothing. LOL.

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D
A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heretic

Of course, people who dissented from the views of Protestant churches were later also called heretics.

This is what heresy is according to the church (this is from RCC but all related to it churches, which are Schisms and Heresies, also support it and see RCC as a schism and heresy by itself)

The term heresy connotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or State.

Josephus applies the name (airesis) to the three religious sects prevalent in Judea since the Machabean period: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes (Bel. Jud., II, viii, 1; Ant., XIII, v, 9). St. Paul is described to the Roman governor Felix as the leader of the heresy (aireseos) of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5); the Jews in Rome say to the same Apostle: "Concerning this sect [airesoeos], we know that it is everywhere contradicted" (Acts 28:22). St. Justin (Dial., xviii, 108) uses airesis in the same sense. St. Peter (II, ii, 1) applies the term to Christian sects: "There shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition [aireseis apoleias]". In later Greek, philosophers' schools, as well as religious sects, are "heresies".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

I suggest you to look at the whole artile, as it clears many things - that there is Heresy and there is Apostasy; the first relates to the deviations from the dogma withing one religion, the other to adherence to different religions. Heresy only makes sense when both sides are remaining Christians, but with different understanding of the Dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

Example: Suni, Shia and Wakhabbi would be the heresies within Islam. Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran - would be heresies within Christianity. Islam and Mormonism would be Apostasies related to Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Example: Suni, Shia and Wakhabbi would be the heresies within Islam. Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran - would be heresies within Christianity. Islam and Mormonism would be Apostasies related to Christianity.

The concept of heresy was invented by Roman Catholics . . . . how could they be heretics themselves when they were the ones defining what it was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Church Heretics

Find Church Heretics and Compare prices at Smarter.com.

www.smarter.com

I was not really looking to compair Prices I know where to find them for next to nothing. LOL.

Love Omnaka

You said it depends on how you define heresy. There is a standard definition which I provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
You said it depends on how you define heresy. There is a standard definition which I provided.

I already defind What I belive/ Know, you sent me to a search engine which had many interpretations The first one is what I Quoted even though I know that's not what you were pointing to Maybe next time just give the definition, so I don't have to go through them all and try figure out what you mean, Or even give a link with out so many choices.

That was the first thing in the link you sent, and I was trying to be funny :D .

Sounds like by the responses that Herasy can be defined By the relitive beholder of the Relative word, depending on who is right and who's wrong.

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D
The concept of heresy was invented by Roman Catholics . . . . how could they be heretics themselves when they were the ones defining what it was?

Thats wrong! Not by Roman Catholics, but by Catholics - these are different things. Catholic church was one only Christian churh before the Schism; all who originate from it are still Catholics, it is only Roman church uses this word and Armenian church, but all Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans are still Catholics. Different heresies in one religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

Dr D - Roman Catholics are a Christian heresy, started by the Bishop of Rome, who assumed INFALLIBILITY, proclaiming himself to be successor of Christ on the basis of the geographical location of his church. This caused the Schism inside Catholic church, and a large part of it separated from Roman church and announced Bishop of Rome a Heretic and Devil's incarnate - but they are still Catholics! They only disagree on the dogma about Pope, but they accept Nicene Creed the same way and consider each other Christians - so, relatively to each other they would be heretics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Thats wrong! Not by Roman Catholics, but by Catholics - these are different things. Catholic church was one only Christian churh before the Schism; all who originate from it are still Catholics, it is only Roman church uses this word and Armenian church, but all Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans are still Catholics. Different heresies in one religion.

Oh . . . . the Catholic Church was not centered in Rome prior to the schism? I mean, you're talking about 10 centuries after the foundation of the church and it was not Roman Catholic???? It had 152 popes before the schism and it was not Roman Catholic????

Your identification of Lutherans and Angelicans as Catholics may be a nice opinion, but would be opposed by those demoninations themselves.

Catholic means only "universal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

I pushed the wrong button and posted before I was finished . . . . sorry.

In reality your insistence that there was a difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic is a matter of semantics. The early church was Catholic simply because there were no others with which to compare it. Once others came into beting through the schism and the advent of protestantism, it became identified as a church being in Rome.

But my point is, so what? Was the church any different? It was centered in Rome, had the same structure and policies. So what is the point here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Dr D - Roman Catholics are a Christian heresy, started by the Bishop of Rome, who assumed INFALLIBILITY, proclaiming himself to be successor of Christ on the basis of the geographical location of his church. This caused the Schism inside Catholic church, and a large part of it separated from Roman church and announced Bishop of Rome a Heretic and Devil's incarnate - but they are still Catholics! They only disagree on the dogma about Pope, but they accept Nicene Creed the same way and consider each other Christians - so, relatively to each other they would be heretics.

Heresy is like beauty . . . . it remains in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D
I pushed the wrong button and posted before I was finished . . . . sorry.

In reality your insistence that there was a difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic is a matter of semantics. The early church was Catholic simply because there were no others with which to compare it. Once others came into beting through the schism and the advent of protestantism, it became identified as a church being in Rome.

But my point is, so what? Was the church any different? It was centered in Rome, had the same structure and policies. So what is the point here?

Early Catholic Church was not centered in Rome. It was not centered anywhere, as it was consisting of many local churches and therefore was called "Catholic", "universal". The only difference was that the Bishop of Rome was automatically seen as successor of St Peter, this position was not of a today's Pope. It was pretty much like today it still is in Orthodox church - Patriarch is not a "Pope", it is just a senior bishop without any special qualities attributed to this position. You may notice that the Council, establishing the church guidelines was not in Rome but in Nice, and another one in Constantinople. Rome those days was a small provincial town, it is only name of it was used for the Empire due to traditions. Modern Orthodox church has several Patriarchs - of Moscow, of Jerusalem, of Constantinople, of Georgia, Catholicos of Armenia etc. None of them ever claimed infallibility, this is against the dogma. As a heretic, Roman Pope can not even enter many countries, like Georgia and Armenia for example; and Russia accepts him only as a Head of State but not as a Church leader. RCC would easily let Russian Patriarch to serve liturgy in, say, Notres dame le Paris - but Pope is not allowed to serve in Orthodox churches, the fact that he accepts this difference proves that he accepts his own status as a heretic and schismatic, but still works to persuade the opponents to join Ecumenism. Same time Patriarch of Moscow would gladly liaise with Atchbishop of Canterbury, as Anglicans are not heretics in Orthodox view, same as Lutherans; in fact they are seen almost as the same Orthodox. I know families in Australia, who migrated in 1900s when there was no Orthodox church there- so these all families are now Anglicans, they just went to the nearest similar church.

Bishop of Rome was one of many bishops - until the political needs of the Western Empire turned him into the Church Leader and infallability was assigned to him. This made possible for the Pope to absolve the sins - and this contradicted with the concept of God and sin accepted by the rest of the Catholic Church, so the Schism happened. Political side of it was that Eastern Empire did not want any guidance from the Western Empire, so it chose to have it own church and proclaimed Roman Church a heresy (because of the sin concept differences and Pope's infallibility). The rest of Catholic church takes RCC as "papist heresy".

I suggest you read more on the early Church history and on the early Popes, who they were. What you are saying contradicts to what Roman Catholics themselves say, as they recognise the other divisions as Catholics too. This is precisely why Roman Church has a policy of Ecumenism, trying to restore the unity of the church. One should remember that it was not only St Peter and St Paul teaching Christianity and establishing churches, but the other Apostles as well - say St Andrew who was teaching in the East and was crucified on the X-shaped cross (still used for Russian naval flag); and the full name originally used for the Church was Catholic Apostolic Church, where is a mentioning of Rome in this name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.