'Bad Religion'

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
‘Jaypierce’ I think it’s time for me and MAYBE ‘Kingkai’ to let you in on something here,
and that is, the events in Revelation likely took place in Nero’s time, and that
Nero was the “beast”, The Book of Revelation never mentions the term “AntiChrist” not even
once BTW, The Bible ALREADY specifically defines what an “AntiChrist” is elsewhere in Scripture.
The Mark Of The Beast is not some chip or Tattoo, it was more of an Allegiance thing with Nero,
I don’t think people realize what an Epic Christian Persecution it was during his reign.

So I believe You’re coming in from a false foundation, and how arrogant for us to even fathom John The
Revelator was writing about some 21st Century scenario from Patmos, I was mistaken earlier, and learned that Revelation was written much EARLIER, at around 65 AD duing Nero’s reign, rather than 95 AD, during the reign of Domitian…This concept alone changes EVERYTHING, I mean EV-ER-Y-THING, regarding the difference in
reference to whether the Events in Revelation is still in the Future, or already happened in the past.
[/quote]

I agree, Karado. The time of Domitian is the most likely time, which DOES put a different spin on everything going on in Revelation. Since Jay can’t follow long arguments, I’ll just make a couple of statements - Old Testament prophetic imagery (especially that of Daniel) is reworked in Revelation to describe both a once AND future conflict, but the future conflict is purposely kept nebulous. The central beast figure is modeled after BOTH Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler who persecuted the Jews in the second century, AND the Roman Emperor Nero, the worst persecutor of Christians up until that time; Rome, not the Roman Catholic church, is Babylon. [/quote]

The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, and had a golden cup in her hand full of abominations. That’s the Vatican, for sure.

The beast she rides on has seven horns, representing the seven hills. That’s Rome.

“And the woman which you saw is that great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth”. Again, that’s the Vatican. No one has commanded the kings of the world more than the pope.[/quote]

No, that’s ROME for sure. This is where knowledge of history comes into play. At the time revelation was written, “Rome” referred both to the empire AND the capital city of that empire. And the beast does not have seven horns ; it has seven heads . These seven heads don’t only represent seven hills; if you read in context, they ALSO represent seven kings (Rev. 17:9). In any case, the CITY of Rome was built UPON the seven hills; thus the woman, whom the text identifies as a city (Babylon the Great - Rev. 17:5) is the CITY OF ROME.

Moreover, just so you know, the Vatican is NOT situated on one of the seven Roman hills, so that rules it out automatically as a possible referent. (Thank you, Dr. Sandy, for making this excellent point two semesters ago in our class on Revelation.)

Finally, Christians began to refer to Rome as Babylon (the quintessential oppressor of God’s people) long before Revelation was written (1 Peter 5:13). Thus, Rome is a much more likely referent for “Babylon” than the Vatican, which was not linked to Christianity at this time.

Revelation is an apocalypse, NOT an Old Testament-style prophecy. It’s intended function was to comfort and encourage believers experiencing persecution at a particular time in history, NOT to provide a series of Nostradamus-like riddles detailing the precise end of the world hundreds of years in the future. Teaching about the end of the world or events several hundred or even several thousand years later would have been useless to the seven churches to whom the apocalypse was addressed; they needed something to make sense of their suffering THEN, not an account about the future that they could not POSSIBLY have understood.

If you understood genre categories and their significance, you would understand why it matters that Revelation is an apocalypse, NOT an Old Testament-style prophecy.

[Tiribulus]

So this is how I’m gonna get your eschatology huh? =]

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

Okay, I’m asking for one solid answer, dude. Do you then admit that you have changed your mind since you said on 7/05 at 10:14 am on page 9 of this thread that, “The Father himself wrote the entire Bible through the hands of men?” It’s very clear that you realized you misspoke. Frankly, I understand what your point is NOW, but I don’t care what your point is NOW; MY POINT is that the statements you made earlier in this discussion are inconsistent with the claims you are NOW making.

Simple as that. You said “the Father” wrote the entire Bible; you said large portions of the Bible deceive; therefore, by implication, “the Father” deceives. So OBVIOUSLY, you either have to take back what you said before about “the Father” writing the entire Bible, or else admit that “the Father” deceives. This is simple logic. [/quote]
Nope. The Father planned it all from the beginning. He allowed Satan to deceive us, allowed that deception to be written down; spoke through the prophets and made sure that was written down; sent Christ to teach us the Truth in person and admonish our sins, and made sure that was written down; allowed Satan to deceive and teach his perversions once again; and spoke prophesy through John, and probably the rest of the real Apostles (though, thanks to the Catholic church destroying those things they didn’t want you to read, we’ll probably never know what they wrote)

All to see if you could follow that knowledge of good and evil He gave you back in the garden.

The Father doesn’t make mistakes, and there are no coincidences.

[quote]
False - you ignored the second half of my argument, probably because (if you could understand it) you didn’t like being called out. You only took the summary statement that seemed to comport with your claims. That’s not boiling my statements down to what’s relevant; that’s taking my statements out of their context, just like you do with every single passage of Scripture you quote.[/quote]
lol. You didn’t ‘call me out’ you tried to rope me with the most basic of ruses. I saw through it, and you’re mad because I didn’t play your little game.

And I already understand what you are trying to say. I know you think your ideas are complex, Jay; I know you do. But I grew up in the church; I’ve sat through hundreds of sermons and bible studies. I’ve heard more insightful points and complex ideas spouted by teenagers in a youth group than you have said here.

My ideas are not complex. That’s where you’re wrong. The church has made it much more complicated than it needs to be. Your intellect is your stumbling block.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINTS. What you don’t get is that you are too unsystematic in your thinking. There are holes and gaps ALL throughout your arguments. The point of MY arguments is that your claims lack the necessary foundation to remotely convince anyone, especially people more skilled and knowledgeable than you. That’s not an insult; that’s a fact, as is the fact that your only interesting points are the ones made by heretics nearly 2000 years ago.

I don’t need to be ‘systematic’. Deceptions are ‘systematic’. The truth is just the truth.

Your pride… I forgot to mention your pride as a stumbling block, too.

Do you know what the definition of heretic is?

[quote]
Cult leader? You give your money to listen to someone preach the teachings of someone who contradicted Christ. You believe them when they tell you that they use that money for God’s purposes. You believe that the man you call ‘father’ knows what THE Father wants you to do, and that’s put money in the plate, even though Christ told you to give to the poor. And you want to point fingers about cult leaders?!?!

I ask for nothing. I will continue to ask for nothing. It is our job to spread the good news, no matter who opposes it, and expect nothing in return. How do I know this is right? Because Christ said it.[/quote]

Lol seriously, man, you need to go to church. You really do. You wouldn’t say such embarrassingly inaccurate things if you were under the oversight of a solid pastor and heard the word preached properly each week. [/quote]
If you understood the simplicity of The Word, you would understand that the church doesn’t need a building. Or a preacher. And most church-goers would be better off staying at home reading the Bible, instead of having someone else tell them what to believe.

THe man I call Father? I don’t call the pope Father - I’m not a Catholic. If you even just paid attention to other forums where you could maybe learn something about history and theology (like the Catholic Q & A), you would know that I am not a Catholic.

You didn’t know that ‘pastor’ means father?

And if you went to church, you would know that the purpose of giving money to your local church is (1) to support the ministers and their ministry (Matt. 10:9-10) and (2) to provide funds to help the poor and destitute in the community. Believe it or not, the Catholic church is one of the most generous institutions in the world, but even the smallest local churches I know collect money to give the poor. My church certainly does. I am the pastoral assistant, and I know for a fact that my pastor gets NO paycheck from our small church because, as he has said, “that wouldn’t leave any money for the poor.” So my pastor works another full time job in addition to pastoring in order to support his family.

Aaaaah… Now this explains everything.

On the payroll!

Why in the world would I give money to someone else to give to the poor?!? And miss out on the joy of direct giving??? You’re crazy!!!

[Tiribulus]

Do you live alone JP?

[JayPierce]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Are you ultimiatly saying ALL Catholics are going to Hell or sumthin’?
Luther was no Saint either, and he’s responsible for fragmenting Christainty
into Thousands of Denominations, each one claiming to have a corner on the Truth.
Then again, What IS Truth?
I’m sure when Jesus, Paul Or John said something, they meant it in one way,
and not in thousands of different ways.
Confusing, ain’t it?[/quote]

"I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.

The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will." - Saint Thomas Aquinas, STh IIa-IIae Q5 A3[/quote]
That is the biggest bunch of tripe ever.

let me paraphrase for those who want to skip the drivel

1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.
2. If you mention something we didn’t tell you to believe, we will correct you.
3. If you still don’t adhere to rule #1, we’ll call you bad names.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
The Truth is that Satan has fooled the entire world, with few exceptions.[/quote]

What? [/quote]
Yep. Sorry. It’s in there.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I couldn’t agree more. Christ told us to love each other, not torture/kill/terrorize.

Satan, on the other had, has been very busy whispering in people’s ears:

to Mike; “did you hear what Todd said about your god? You gonna take that?”
to Todd; “did you hear what Mike said about your god?”
And then the demons are all like “Fight! Fight! Fight!”[/quote]

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches to torture kill and terrorize? [/quote]
No! No, no, no! That’s just what they did!

No, to teach that kind of stuff would be so… obvious.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I still love you…Kai. [/quote]

Great. now it just got weird.[/quote]
Loving each other is weird? Why? Because we’re men? I love my Father, my dad, and my neighbor, too. Is that weird?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< That is the biggest bunch of tripe ever.

let me paraphrase for those who want to skip the drivel

1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t believe any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.
2. If you mention something we didn’t tell you to believe, we will correct you.
3. If you still don’t adhere to rule #1, we’ll call you bad names.[/quote]LOL!! I am not siding with this guy against you Chris, but that, while not all of it, is pretty much what Tommy gun said in that quote. I told you JP was not a moron.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I love my Father, my dad, and my neighbor, too. Is that weird? >>>[/quote]Are these all three perchance the same person to you?

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

No, that’s ROME for sure. This is where knowledge of history comes into play. At the time revelation was written, “Rome” referred both to the empire AND the capital city of that empire. And the beast does not have seven horns ; it has seven heads . These seven heads don’t only represent seven hills; if you read in context, they ALSO represent seven kings (Rev. 17:9). In any case, the CITY of Rome was built UPON the seven hills; thus the woman, whom the text identifies as a city (Babylon the Great - Rev. 17:5) is the CITY OF ROME. [/quote]

Yes, I mistakenly wrote ‘horns’ when I meant ‘heads’.

Actually, what you just wrote disqualifies Rome from being the woman and signifies it as the beast. The woman rides on the beast

Moreover, just so you know, the Vatican is NOT situated on one of the seven Roman hills, so that rules it out automatically as a possible referent. (Thank you, Dr. Sandy, for making this excellent point two semesters ago in our class on Revelation.)

Again. The woman is on the beast, not part of it.

Finally, Christians began to refer to Rome as Babylon (the quintessential oppressor of God’s people) long before Revelation was written (1 Peter 5:13). Thus, Rome is a much more likely referent for “Babylon” than the Vatican, which was not linked to Christianity at this time.

The founder of the universal church was a Babylonian magician, not Peter. There are plenty of Babylonian and other traditions mixed in with the church (prostitutions), as well as dates of Christian festivals being changed (Christmas itself).

[quote]Revelation is an apocalypse, NOT an Old Testament-style prophecy. It’s intended function was to comfort and encourage believers experiencing persecution at a particular time in history, NOT to provide a series of Nostradamus-like riddles detailing the precise end of the world hundreds of years in the future. Teaching about the end of the world or events several hundred or even several thousand years later would have been useless to the seven churches to whom the apocalypse was addressed; they needed something to make sense of their suffering THEN, not an account about the future that they could not POSSIBLY have understood.

If you understood genre categories and their significance, you would understand why it matters that Revelation is an apocalypse, NOT an Old Testament-style prophecy.[/quote]
So, let me get this straight:

God shows a vision to John, and you think He only meant it in the context of the literary genre category of the time period?

Your arguments are very intricate and complicated, and you are obviously very educated on history, but you do not strike me as a man who seeks the heart of the Father. I wish I could change that, but Christ said a few words about that as well.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I love my Father, my dad, and my neighbor, too. Is that weird? >>>[/quote]Are these all three perchance the same person to you?
[/quote]

See, you have this snide way of insulting people while claiming not to insult.

It doesn’t bother me. I just want you to know that I see right through you. You’re the type who thinks he’s so clever that other people can’t figure out what he’s really saying, and that denial is just a tool at his disposal.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Your arguments are very intricate and complicated, and you are obviously very educated on history, but you do not strike me as a man who seeks the heart of the Father. I wish I could change that, but Christ said a few words about that as well.[/quote]For the record boys n girls? THIS is the kind of judgement Jesus warns about int he 7th of Matthew. Entirely subjective on one hand and assumed from a series of horrendous misrepresentations of the scriptures on the other. Jesus is saying that YOU don’t get to judge, which is not the same as declaring the clear judgement of God. JP, I implore you to consider where you are veering off to now. You are claiming to know this man’s relationship with God based on YOUR private interpretations of the scripture, plagiarized though they are. Interpretations testified uniformly against in all of history by the whole vast body of those who have properly worn the name of Jesus. You own that as a badge of honor, but it is a sure indication of cultic heresy. Repent, I pray thee. Forsake these idols and beg forgiveness of the true and living Christ. Lest thou be found clinging to a phantom savior and a gospel of air at the judgement seat. We will be the ones praying for you. I mean that.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

Nope. The Father planned it all from the beginning. He allowed Satan to deceive us, allowed that deception to be written down; spoke through the prophets and made sure that was written down; sent Christ to teach us the Truth in person and admonish our sins, and made sure that was written down; allowed Satan to deceive and teach his perversions once again; and spoke prophesy through John, and probably the rest of the real Apostles (though, thanks to the Catholic church destroying those things they didn’t want you to read, we’ll probably never know what they wrote)

All to see if you could follow that knowledge of good and evil He gave you back in the garden.

The Father doesn’t make mistakes, and there are no coincidences.
[/quote]

Thank you. That is as close as you’ve come to admitting that you’re denying your previous claim that “the Father” wrote the entire Bible.

False - you ignored the second half of my argument, probably because (if you could understand it) you didn’t like being called out. You only took the summary statement that seemed to comport with your claims. That’s not boiling my statements down to what’s relevant; that’s taking my statements out of their context, just like you do with every single passage of Scripture you quote.[/quote]
lol. You didn’t ‘call me out’ you tried to rope me with the most basic of ruses. I saw through it, and you’re mad because I didn’t play your little game.

Cute, Jay. Too bad you couldn’t understand the content of my supposed “ruse.”

And I already understand what you are trying to say. I know you think your ideas are complex, Jay; I know you do. But I grew up in the church; I’ve sat through hundreds of sermons and bible studies. I’ve heard more insightful points and complex ideas spouted by teenagers in a youth group than you have said here.

My ideas are not complex. That’s where you’re wrong. The church has made it much more complicated than it needs to be. Your intellect is your stumbling block.
[/quote]

Really? Then why did you say just the other day that you are not good at communicating complex ideas?

[quote] JayPierce said:

I don’t need to be ‘systematic’. Deceptions are ‘systematic’. The truth is just the truth.
[/quote]

Without any sort of systematic method, there is no legitimate way of testing to determine if something is true. All we have is your claim to illumination, which isn’t convincing anyone.

Your pride… I forgot to mention your pride as a stumbling block, too.

And your’s, as evidenced by you inability to admit when you are wrong, inconsistent, and flip-flopping.

Do you know what the definition of heretic is?

Indeed I do, though I would love to hear YOUR definition of it. Considering the sheer number of inaccurate statements I’ve called you on the last few days, it’s only fair that I give you another shot, especially since you’ll need to make up for your embarrassing misunderstanding of “pastor” below…

If you understood the simplicity of The Word, you would understand that the church doesn’t need a building. Or a preacher. And most church-goers would be better off staying at home reading the Bible, instead of having someone else tell them what to believe.

Having someone else tell you what to believe could save your soul, dude. Once you start distinguishing between the God of Israel in the Old Testament and “the Father” of Jesus, and identifying the God of Israel with Satan, you are on DANGEROUS ground.

You didn’t know that ‘pastor’ means father?

This is embarrassing. Can you not do ANY research before you speak, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEANING OF WORDS? For goodness’ sake, dude, I’ve studied Greek and Hebrew for the last seven years, and I majored in English literature as a undergraduate! You don’t think I’m going to be able to spot your linguistic gymnastics EVERY time?

No, pastor doesn’t mean “father.” Pastor derives from the Latin word for “shepherd,” NOT the Greek for “father.”

[quote] JayPierce wrote:
Aaaaah… Now this explains everything.

On the payroll!
[/quote]

You have the inferential capabilities of a stone. Yes (says KingKai sarcastically), I take money from my tiny little church to assist the pastor with work he doesn’t take a dime for.

I am a volunteer, not an employee. I get paid nothing.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
That is the biggest bunch of tripe ever.

let me paraphrase for those who want to skip the drivel

1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.
2. If you mention something we didn’t tell you to believe, we will correct you.
3. If you still don’t adhere to rule #1, we’ll call you bad names.[/quote]

Wow. If this isn’t the definition of reductionism…

I see you’re resorting to the common intellectual weapons of internet atheists…reductionism, ridicule, and red herrings.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I still love you…Kai. [/quote]

Great. now it just got weird.[/quote]
Loving each other is weird? Why? Because we’re men? I love my Father, my dad, and my neighbor, too. Is that weird?[/quote]

Nope. That’s not it.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< That is the biggest bunch of tripe ever.

let me paraphrase for those who want to skip the drivel

1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t believe any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.
2. If you mention something we didn’t tell you to believe, we will correct you.
3. If you still don’t adhere to rule #1, we’ll call you bad names.[/quote]LOL!! I am not siding with this guy against you Chris, but that, while not all of it, is pretty much what Tommy gun said in that quote. I told you JP was not a moron.
   [/quote]

You really need to read up on your internet troll website. You’re not even picking up on common fallacies.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I love my Father, my dad, and my neighbor, too. Is that weird? >>>[/quote]Are these all three perchance the same person to you?
[/quote]

See, you have this snide way of insulting people while claiming not to insult.

It doesn’t bother me. I just want you to know that I see right through you. You’re the type who thinks he’s so clever that other people can’t figure out what he’s really saying, and that denial is just a tool at his disposal.[/quote]That was snide. (in a non malicious way) I wish you could see yourself clearly JP. There are three protestants and a Catholic (Big C) who, while disagreeing on quite a bit sometimes, are all in full agreement that whatever this is you are proclaiming here, it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. The only ally you’ve managed to gather is a foaming God hating unbeliever. THAT alone should give you serious pause, but alas, it probably will not.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I couldn’t agree more. Christ told us to love each other, not torture/kill/terrorize.

Satan, on the other had, has been very busy whispering in people’s ears:

to Mike; “did you hear what Todd said about your god? You gonna take that?”
to Todd; “did you hear what Mike said about your god?”
And then the demons are all like “Fight! Fight! Fight!”[/quote]

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches to torture kill and terrorize? [/quote]
No! No, no, no! That’s just what they did!

No, to teach that kind of stuff would be so… obvious.[/quote]

I see. So, you’re saying the Church does not teach to torture/kill/terrorize and works for Christ and is his Body, but yet we’re against him. How can we be of Christ and against Christ?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< That is the biggest bunch of tripe ever.

let me paraphrase for those who want to skip the drivel

1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t believe any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.
2. If you mention something we didn’t tell you to believe, we will correct you.
3. If you still don’t adhere to rule #1, we’ll call you bad names.[/quote]LOL!! I am not siding with this guy against you Chris, but that, while not all of it, is pretty much what Tommy gun said in that quote. I told you JP was not a moron.
   [/quote]You really need to read up on your internet troll website. You’re not even picking up on common fallacies. [/quote]That is not nice Chris. How is what JP said NOT the substance of the point of the quote? It is. BTW, whatsa “internet troll website”? I honestly don’t know what you’re referring to.