Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
762

[quote]Matthew 28:19
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”[/quote]
Fishlips wrote:[quote]
You’re not saying anything here. To see the trinity in this verse you have to believe in it first then super-impose it on what the verse says. An easy test is to replace ‘Father’ ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Ghost’ with Tom, Dick and Harry and see if you still believe Tom, Dick and Harry to be all the same person. Change who you’re talking about and suddenly it doesn’t seem to be calling those three guys the same guy. Funny isn’t it?[/quote]
mertdawg wrote:[quote]
OK were making progress. We don’t hold that they are the same person.

Maybe this all boils down to a semantic issue. Three persons=One God. Although if I can’t describe what I mean by the trinity how can I expect you to agree. Hopefully Stella can find a good, Orthodox explanation of the trinity to the best of our ability to comprehend the mystery.[/quote]
Fishlips wrote:[quote]
Therein lies the problem. You can’t even explain what God is according to the trinity, a pagan idea adopted from the Egyptians and Babylonians.
[/quote]
That’s a cheap shot. Just because the Holy Trinity is an unfathomable mystery doesn’t mean it’s an invalid dogma. Humans simply lack the mental capability of comprehending this aspect of God’s Essence.

You could put a thousand monkeys in front of a thousand keyboards for a thousand years and they’d never write a Shakespearean novel. That doesn’t mean a Shakespearean novel was never written. You are like one of these monkeys. Trying to rationalize that which you are not equipped to do. Speculate to your mind’s desire, but the Holy Trinity is unfathomable. This dogma was revealed to the Apostles and Saints noetically, in the heart, where they experienced the uncreated energies of God.

I’ve provided a similar analogy in this thread but I’ll re-iterate. The properties and actions of a flame help to describe the Holy Trinity.

God the Father is a flame while God the Son is the light radiating from the flame and God the Holy Spirit is the warmth which is generated by the flame (which also travels with the light). The flame can not exist without emitting light and warmth. As soon as the light travels away from the flame, it is not the flame but carries with it the original properties of the flame. Similarly, the light travels away from the flame bringing warmth and heat, again, original properties of the flame. Without the heat there is no flame. Without the light there is no flame. Without the flame there is no light or heat. That’s the Holy Trinity. Each Person of the Holy Trinity is an essential component to the Essence of God.

763

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
…a God who commands us to turn the other cheek.
[/quote]

I always wondered: What are you to do, once you’ve been hit on both cheeks? Do you present the first one anew?

764

Not if it’s a lucky soul, like mine.

I lost it once by accidentally cutting the silver thread while astrally projecting. But would you know it, I found it right next to the bed when I woke up the next morning. It had a few holes in it and was a little worn on the back, but still quite useable.

If that’s not luck, I don’t know what is.

765

[quote]pookie wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
…a God who commands us to turn the other cheek.

I always wondered: What are you to do, once you’ve been hit on both cheeks? Do you present the first one anew?
[/quote]
Turning the other cheek means to express your humility and forgiveness. It’s the exact opposite of being prideful and egotistical. It has more of a spiritual connotation than a physical one, although in both senses this command is significant. If someone is smacking you silly, it’s not wise remain there and offer yourself for further abuse. If you know martial arts and can block a couple of shots, that’s good too. When the Apostles and early Christians were being persecuted by the Jews and pagans, they often fled. The ones who decided to stand their ground were making a strong impact by showing the non-Christians, “you can physically torment us, but we’ll never betray our Faith and will respond with love, peace, and forgiveness since Jesus Christ reacted likewise during His Crucifixion”. Jesus Christ being the model of perfection.

To seriously answer your question, I’d encourage you to offer the first cheek anew (if you were spiritually strong enough to react with love, peace, and forgiveness too). If not, then filing a police report or departing from him or her who slapped you would be the next best idea. Everyone should respond to the best of their abilities. In a fit of rage, if you end up beating down that other person, repentance is key as it’s obvious you’ve lost your self-control. We’re all brothers in this world, and we’re held to the standard of loving our neighbors and all of God’s creations. We war not against flesh & blood (each other), but against the wickedness of this world.

Peace be with you.

766

Stellar,

Even if someone was to actually believe everything you’ve written on this thread, there is nothing you’ve written that makes your God seem worthy of praise. Great, he died for our sins. Seems kind of stupid when he could have snapped his fingers to forgive us of our sins. Hell, he could have just not invented sin to begin with.

He comes off as either a spoiled brat who wants things exactly his way (“That’s not how I said to be baptized, you’re gonna burn forever”) or a middle management goofball who is hung up on protocol (“Umm, I don’t know if you got the memo, but we’re putting the new cover sheets on all TPS reports now”). There is no reason to worship him other than fear of retribution.

I realize you and Mertdawg get a warm fuzzy feeling inside you when you think about him, but that’s pretty weak compared those Hindus who stick huge needles in their cheeks or Buddhists burning themselves without screaming.

767

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
b[/b] Aside from written tradition which supports the dogma of the Holy Trinity, the Orthodox Christian Church (est. 33 AD) has also preserved this dogma via oral tradition for the last 2,000 years.[/quote]

And the Liturgical tradition practiced from the Apostles which ENTAILS the biblical tradition. If you want to know what early Christians believed and taught read the Liturgy of the Word with the appropriate Epistle and Gospel for a yearly cycle.

768

[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
3) Pookie and Lothario: there are logical reasons to argue that humans invented God for psycholocial/societal/evolutionary needs. Aside from an overreaction to the corruption of religious institutions throughout history, it is not any more logical to START with the premise “no creator” than the premise “creator”.

Is there evidence in favor of one or the other? You can certainly argue that if a creator wanted to reveal himself clearly, it would be very easy, yet God has not been revealed to you clearly. The Orthodox argument is the God is evident, but that human nature is fallen, obscuring the evidence.

Since there is no evidence for the existence of a creator, it is then more logical to start from the “no creator” side of the argument. Why suppose the existence of an entity if there is no proof to support its existence.
[/quote]

Well, we instinctively use terms like “all of creation” and call animals “creatures.” Humans see something, let’s say the Cosmos, and we may somethimes by logic categorize it as something that has been created.

I do have a perhaps interesting, not particularly Christian arguement about a creator.

  1. If the universe is infinite, then a being powerful enough to go back in time and create the universe will eventually evolve.

  2. If the universe is not infinite, then what does it exist RELATIVE to? It must have something outside of itself to which it can exist relative to.

Again, not trying to WOW anyone here, just some thoughts.

769

You have not been able to explain how the Bible became, mystically, the sole source of truth about God. You REFUSE to believe anything that you can not comprehend, and so you refuse to believe in the true God.

At any rate, you obviously are using a heretical Arian version of the bible which can be clearly traced by historians. I’m just wonder why people keep coming back to Arianism and the other great Heresies. There must be a very powerful Demon who infects some with the Arian heresy from time to time.

770

Let’s recap:

[quote]b[/b][/quote] Fishlips agrees that worldly knowledge does not necessarily bear witness to spiritual Truth. Therefore, reason alone does not lead us to the fullness of Truth to which we’re all called. Knowledge and reason emanate from the mind, but Christian theology blossoms in the heart (or nous) where God reveals Himself to humans.

[quote]b[/b][/quote] Genesis 1:26 clearly refers to the plurality of God. Fishlips, extol7extol, mertdawg, and I agree on this. If we are to believe in the plurality of God, we must either profess belief in a Triune God (the dogma of the Holy Trinity) or polytheism. Fishlips needs to specify his final verdict.

[quote]b[/b][/quote] 1 John 5:7 with the reference to the Holy Trinity was cited by Fathers of the Church even before the Bible was compiled (even as early as the 2nd century). As further proof, we also have the Liturgy of the Holy Apostle James which professes the Holy Trinity (c. 40 AD). There’s no question about it - the Apostles and the early Church clearly preached the dogma of the Holy Trinity in written tradition and continues to do so today unwaveringly via oral tradition. Fishlips has yet to provide us with any scriptural support which refutes the dogma of the Holy Trinity, either from the Bible or from Patristic writings.

[quote]b[/b][/quote] Matthew 28:19 Jesus Christ commands that all humans be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. extol7extol, mertdawg, and I agree that God instructs us to be baptized in the Names of His three Persons. Fishlips needs to elaborate on why God would have us be baptized in any other name(s) than God’s.

[quote]b[/b][/quote] John 1:1 refers to the Word being God and the Word being with God. extol7extol, mertdawg, and I agree that this passage refers to Jesus Christ as the Word of God and that Jesus Christ is God Himself. Fishlips disagrees. Fishlips reports that there are many gods in this universe. Fishlips needs to specify whether Jesus Christ is a true god or a false god.

[quote]b[/b][/quote] John 8:58 and John 10:30 both indicate that Jesus affirms His Divinity to the Pharisees and they acknowledge His proclamation by picking up stones and accusing Him of blasphemy; they, in their hardness of heart, like Fishlips, fail to acknowledge Jesus Christ’s dual natures.

771

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Oh I’m baptized I’m just leaving my religious affiliation out for now so we can focus on the Bible. Sounds like your starting to ‘reach’ here.

stellar_horizon wrote:
Unless your baptism was conducted by triple immersion in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by one who bears Apostolic succession (Apostolic teachings + Apostolic lineage), your baptism is invalid.

Massif wrote:
Wow. That is some offensive shit right there.

stellar_horizon wrote:
Although He spoke nothing but Truth, I guess you find Jesus Christ offensive as well then Massif…
St. Matthew 11:6
“And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.”

Massif wrote:
Jesus didn’t offend me - All I did was point out that that is probably the most offensive thing written in these pages. If you can’t see how that quote is offensive to just about every Christian on the planet, then there is little hope for you in any discussion, theological or otherwise.

Massif, you’re probably reacting this way because you don’t fit the criteria of undergoing an authentic baptism. My statement was & is completely accurate; but just because I’m eager for as many Christians to enter the kingdom of heaven by outlining the most basic of prerequisites, I’m conveyed as being “offensive”. Take it or leave it. I’m not here to sugarcoat the Truth. The Truth is strong medicine so if you aren’t ready for the medicine, just be cognizant that you’re going to remain spiritually sick.

Jesus Christ commands that all Christians be born again in water and the spirit [baptism]. He entrusted His Apostles to baptize all Christians and empowered them by the authority and grace of the Holy Spirit to fulfill this ritual. The Apostles baptized according to the manner which Christ instructed. If anyone has NOT been baptized according to these guidelines, it would be in their best interest to find an Orthodox Christian priest (one who is likewise empowered by the Holy Spirit in authority and grace as the Apostles were) to participate in an authentic baptism. You only have one soul. It’s ludicrous to leave anything up to chance. You’ve been educated about the need for an authentic baptism, and being that Christians are required to adhere to early Church tradition, you have a decision to make. Will you seek out someone who bears Apostolic succession to baptize you?

Peace be with you.
[/quote]

I have said previously in other similar threads that I personally believe that many people, including yourself, SH, put too much emphasis on the words that were written and not the message behind them. I believe this the same way that you believe everyone else is wrong.

The entire point of Baptism is to welcome Jesus into your heart and soul. In the end, I do not believe that Jesus would sit back and think “Screw this guy. The priest didn’t even say it in Aramaic”.

I don’t even believe that a person has to be a member of a church to be “saved”. If a person welcomes Jesus into their heart and lives a good life, I believe that to be enough.

Being a Christian is not about following every word ever written about Jesus to the letter. It is about believing in Jesus and the Big Man Upstairs, living a good, wholesome life, and helping your fellow man to do the same. Jesus never said “Follow the Orthodox Church to the letter”, he said “Believe in me”.

Like I said, these are personal beliefs. What do you personally believe, SH? Not what scripture can you quote me, but what do you believe?

772

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Well, we instinctively use terms like “all of creation” and call animals “creatures.” Humans see something, let’s say the Cosmos, and we may somethimes by logic categorize it as something that has been created.[/quote]

Instinctively? We simply use the language has it as evolved throughout the ages. When you say “creature”, your mind does not think about “creation” but about some “being” of which you make mention. Simply because the concepts of faith, god, hell, heaven, the afterlife etc. exist with words to describe them does not make them true or valid. The words “santa claus”, “tooth fairy”, “elves” and “vampires” also exist, but do not make what they designate any more real because of it. You make it sound as if language existed before man invented it and we were simply “discovering” its use…

[quote]I do have a perhaps interesting, not particularly Christian arguement about a creator.

  1. If the universe is infinite, then a being powerful enough to go back in time and create the universe will eventually evolve.[/quote]

Really. I find that nonsense completely ridiculous.

Maybe the laws of the universe (infinite or not) don’t allow for such a being to evolve.

Maybe you can’t travel in time, either backwards or forward.

Traveling back in time to create the universe who allowed you to “evolve” is circular and paradoxical.

And why travel back in time to create the same universe? Why not simply create a new one.

You simply posit the possible evolution of a “god-like” being; give it arbitrary powers; and then guess at his possible motivations? THAT’s your argument for a creator?

On this thread, though, your idea makes as much sense as anything else being posted. You just invented a different god and haven’t had time to make up enough “fluff” (scripture, dogmas, commandments, moral laws, etc.) to make him an interesting alternative to what’s already available on the religious marketplace.

In one version of the big bang theory, there is nothing outside the universe, as the universe creates space and time from the onset of the big bang. So there is nothing “outside” the universe, and no “time” before the big bang. Asking those questions was the equivalent of asking “What’s north of the North Pole?” In other words, nonsensical.

More recent theories, which include superstring or M-theory principles now have the universe arising from a “sea” of superstring; so there would be an “outside” and a “before” and probably an infinities of other universes. Check out the May 2004 Scientific American for details…

The only thing that wows me is the willingness of people to accept any idea, no matter how bizarre, at face value and not even think about even the slightest logical implications it might have. In fact, the weirder and more nonsensical something gets, the more people seem willing to accept it.

A good example is the explanation of the “monotheistic” Trinity posted a few pages earlier in this thread. The argument goes on for 3 paragraphs saying that God is only one being; but God is 3 beings; 3 distinct entities, but only 1 entity and so on. I guess eventually the “faithful” deduce that they aren’t smart enough to understand and it makes the mystery of God “greater” for them. It’s just nonsensical gobbledygook and double-talk. Just take two opposite ideas and repeat them ad nauseam until your mind goes numb and your eyes glaze over. You are then “at peace with God.”

Uncreated Essence. Meaningless. What’s essence? Uncreated Energies. That’s using the word “energy” in a way that has no relation to the it’s usual meaning. Just make it up as you go along. If it’s hard to understand, or better, impossible to understand and it sounds good, you’ve got a winner.

773

[quote]Massif wrote:
I have said previously in other similar threads that I personally believe that many people, including yourself, SH, put too much emphasis on the words that were written and not the message behind them. I believe this the same way that you believe everyone else is wrong.

The entire point of Baptism is to welcome Jesus into your heart and soul. In the end, I do not believe that Jesus would sit back and think “Screw this guy. The priest didn’t even say it in Aramaic”.

I don’t even believe that a person has to be a member of a church to be “saved”. If a person welcomes Jesus into their heart and lives a good life, I believe that to be enough.

Being a Christian is not about following every word ever written about Jesus to the letter. It is about believing in Jesus and the Big Man Upstairs, living a good, wholesome life, and helping your fellow man to do the same. Jesus never said “Follow the Orthodox Church to the letter”, he said “Believe in me”.

Like I said, these are personal beliefs. What do you personally believe, SH? Not what scripture can you quote me, but what do you believe?[/quote]

Let me state (and not to butt in here) that Orthodoxy holds that Catechumans (those seeking the true path-the desire for which is planted by God in their hearts) are joined to Christ’s body by their death even if they do not reach the stage of Baptism. The problem is that we believe baptism brings the grace of the Holy Spirit to discern right from wrong in troubling cases where logic may fail us. If I were asked, is someone DAMNED if they are not baptised, I would say, not if they are on the true path that leads to Christ through the church, but for someone to say OK, I don’t need baptism would be for them to be treading on thin ice because they are easily subject to temptation which may seem to them to be the right choice. Not accepting baptism would be like someone with poor vision running off in the morning without their glasses on. And, I believe that all are saved (whether they reach baptism or not) through the Orthodox church which is Christ’s body, and the fact that they exist in some relationship (knowingly or unbeknownst) to it which is Christ’s body. If someone does not find the church in their lifetime, they might be saved, but they surely will be Orthodox Christian in the next life.

774

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Turning the other cheek means to express your humility and forgiveness. It’s the exact opposite of being prideful and egotistical. It has more of a spiritual connotation than a physical one, although in both senses this command is significant. If someone is smacking you silly, it’s not wise remain there and offer yourself for further abuse. If you know martial arts and can block a couple of shots, that’s good too.[/quote]

Can you back that up with a quote from the New Testament? My Bible seems to be lacking the Kung-Fu Jesus part…

That brainwashed dimbulbs were willing to die for their beliefs does not impress me in the least. Are you tempted to convert to Islam whenever a 14 year old suicide bomber blows himself up for Allah?

Sounds good on paper, but doesn’t fly for long if the aggressor is not playing by the same rules.

[quote]Everyone should respond to the best of their abilities. In a fit of rage, if you end up beating down that other person, repentance is key as it’s obvious you’ve lost your self-control. We’re all brothers in this world, and we’re held to the standard of loving our neighbors and all of God’s creations. We war not against flesh & blood (each other), but against the wickedness of this world.

Peace be with you.[/quote]

Must I conclude from that that you don’t support your government, its policies and having troops in Irak? I’m curious because it seems to me that the more “faithful” a christian is, the more conservatives his politicals views (ie, the “evangelical” support for Bush). And none of your government’s policies follow any of what you’ve written here.

775

[quote]Massif wrote:
I have said previously in other similar threads that I personally believe that many people, including yourself, SH, put too much emphasis on the words that were written and not the message behind them. I believe this the same way that you believe everyone else is wrong.[/quote]

I don’t believe it! Someone here actually makes sense! Alleluia!

Churches also charge for it (or at least “expect” a donation). They also get your name, your family’s name and other assorted infos that are quite useful for when they’ll need further “donations.”

Yes, I am a cynical man.

You’re on the right track. Have you noticed that you can have a good heart and lead a good life without Jesus? The message existed long before he ever came along (ie, the “Golden Rule”).

If you must have some kind of “scripture” or written guidelines and principles, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pretty good guide.

“Living a good, wholesome life, and helping your fellow man to do the same.”

The rest is fluff.

776

Cheers, Mert. I appreciate your candour and the analogy. The last part has me intrigued. It sounds a little like Buddhist philosophy in that you keep coming around until you get it right.

Once again, it was good to actually communicate with someone about this, instead of having scripture quoted at me and words put in my mouth.

777

[quote]pookie wrote:
No problem. I’m taking Stupidity 101 as we speak. [/quote]

Well that explains why you’re still an atheist. (-;

778

[quote]pookie wrote:
Must I conclude from that that you don’t support your government, its policies and having troops in Irak? I’m curious because it seems to me that the more “faithful” a christian is, the more conservatives his politicals views (ie, the “evangelical” support for Bush). And none of your government’s policies follow any of what you’ve written here.[/quote]

Theology has a very small impact on my political affiliation. I don’t think it’s proper for church and state to intermingle. It’s obvious that on a theological basis, I’m against abortion and capital punishment, but on a secular basis I don’t want to force my theology upon anyone else. I DO NOT think the government should ban abortion based on religion. I also DO NOT think the government should ban capital punishment based on religion. For the former, those who abort their fetuses will be judged, not me. For the latter, I’m against the death penalty because of the high cost of death row, appeals, and the actual execution/burial ceremony (a higher tax burden on the state budget).

As far as Bush is concerned, his evangelical facade is transparent. I’m in awe about how many people he’s deceived. Say God a few times and the evangelicals go berserk. Meanwhile, nobody realizes how he’s funded Islamic institutions in this country and how he was painting Islam to be a peaceful religion after 2001. So much for rooting out all the evil in the world. Two words on Bush and his alleged association with Christianity - diplomatic ploy.

779

[quote]pookie wrote:
Massif wrote:
I have said previously in other similar threads that I personally believe that many people, including yourself, SH, put too much emphasis on the words that were written and not the message behind them. I believe this the same way that you believe everyone else is wrong.

I don’t believe it! Someone here actually makes sense! Alleluia! [/quote]

It’s weird, I know. I have been accused of making sense in the past.

[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t even believe that a person has to be a member of a church to be “saved”. If a person welcomes Jesus into their heart and lives a good life, I believe that to be enough.

You’re on the right track. Have you noticed that you can have a good heart and lead a good life without Jesus? The message existed long before he ever came along (ie, the “Golden Rule”).

If you must have some kind of “scripture” or written guidelines and principles, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pretty good guide. [/quote]

Of course I noticed that people can lead good lives without being Christian. Good is in a person’s actions and their heart, not whether they carry a bible or not.

I have never read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I pretty much outlined my principles in my post. Do they line up?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Being a Christian is not about following every word ever written about Jesus to the letter. It is about believing in Jesus and the Big Man Upstairs, living a good, wholesome life, and helping your fellow man to do the same. Jesus never said “Follow the Orthodox Church to the letter”, he said “Believe in me”.

“Living a good, wholesome life, and helping your fellow man to do the same.”

The rest is fluff.
[/quote]

I said “Being a Christian”, so that would sort of imply that you had to believe in Jesus and the Big Man Upstairs. For non-Christians, I believe you could do a lot worse from following “Living a good, wholesome life, and helping your fellow man to do the same.”

Cheers!

780

[quote]pookie wrote:
Massif wrote:
I have said previously in other similar threads that I personally believe that many people, including yourself, SH, put too much emphasis on the words that were written and not the message behind them. I believe this the same way that you believe everyone else is wrong.

I don’t believe it! Someone here actually makes sense! Alleluia![/quote]

Regarding the phrase by Massif, “you believe everyone else is wrong” and Pookie’s hearty agreement with it:

A while back Pookie said the following to me:

Pookie ALSO said this to me:

Pookie, can you allow for the possibility that “my beliefs” are just as valid as yours? I was just wondering since you said in the first quote that one problem with my “belief” was that I could not allow that other beliefs were valid (including your atheistical beliefs). Now, is this a problem with your beliefs as well? Is it a problem for me to say other beliefs are invalid, but it is NOT a problem for you say other beliefs are invalid?

You atheists dogmatically assert that “everyone else is wrong”(i.e., all “theists”). Massif, rebuke Pookie, for he too, thinks that “everyone else is wrong” (i.e., those theists who believe in fairy tales). NOTE: I am by no means endorsing all theists etc. This is simply to expose Pookie’s hypocritical dookie.

Am I putting too much emphasis on the words that were written by Pookie? The words “valid” and “invalid”-- and not the message behind them, which is “I will apply a standard to you which I am not willing to apply to myself.”

781

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
pookie wrote:
Massif wrote:
I have said previously in other similar threads that I personally believe that many people, including yourself, SH, put too much emphasis on the words that were written and not the message behind them. I believe this the same way that you believe everyone else is wrong.

I don’t believe it! Someone here actually makes sense! Alleluia!

Regarding the phrase by Massif, “you believe everyone else is wrong” and Pookie’s hearty agreement with it:

A while back Pookie said the following to me:

“The problem with your “belief” is that while you can see that others hold different “beliefs”, you can’t allow for the possibility that those “beliefs” are just as valid as yours.”

Pookie ALSO said this to me:

“But I’m not a Christian. I do not accept your christian axioms. So for me, by definition, your axioms are invalid.”

Pookie, can you allow for the possibility that “my beliefs” are just as valid as yours? I was just wondering since you said in the first quote that one problem with my “belief” was that I could not allow that other beliefs were valid (including your atheistical beliefs). Now, is this a problem with your beliefs as well? Is it a problem for me to say other beliefs are invalid, but it is NOT a problem for you say other beliefs are invalid?

You atheists dogmatically assert that “everyone else is wrong”(i.e., all “theists”). Massif, rebuke Pookie, for he too, thinks that “everyone else is wrong” (i.e., those theists who believe in fairy tales). NOTE: I am by no means endorsing all theists etc. This is simply to expose Pookie’s hypocritical dookie.

Am I putting too much emphasis on the words that were written by Pookie? The words “valid” and “invalid”-- and not the message behind them, which is “I will apply a standard to you which I am not willing to apply to myself.”
[/quote]

Extol - I believe that Pookie was “wholeheartedly” agreeing with me saying that some people put too much emphasis on the written word and not the message. Anyway, it is not my place to tell you what Pookie thought, so I won’t do that.

Likewise, it is not my place to rebuke anyone for anything they haven’t said to or about me. If you have issues with Pookie, I recommend that you address them with him, and not me.

The part where I stated “I believe this the same way that you believe everyone else is wrong” simply means that I have faith that it is the message that is important the same way that SH has faith that everybody who isn’t an Orthodox Christian is a heratic and will burn in the fires of Heaven.

If there was anything else that you wanted me to address, could you please reitterate it for me. For some of your post it was unclear whether you were addressing Pookie or myself.

Cheers.