[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< There is some serious misinterpretation of Chris’ meaning going on here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]This was a great post. Seriously, however, I cannot promise responses anymore. I stand by the other one I promised you still, but I just do not have time for everything going on in these forums.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< There is some serious misinterpretation of Chris’ meaning going on here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]This was a great post. Seriously, however, I cannot promise responses anymore. I stand by the other one I promised you still, but I just do not have time for everything going on in these forums.
[/quote]
No problem, Tirib. I understand you are going through some seriously hard times right now. Do what you need to do. I sent you a PM a while back, btw. Did you not get it?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Maybe? I expect the trolls to question my integrity, but now you’re doing the same?
EDIT: Knowing you, you probably didn’t mean it this way, and if so you can disregard the above. I just get tired of having my integrity questioned, particularly by people whose opinions I actually value and respect.
On understanding the bible, can we not agree that just because someone has a different interpretation doesn’t mean they have spent fewer years in study, are less intelligent, or are less sincere?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<<No, it is just the usual practice when you make a statement you usually have to produce proof of that being true.[/quote]Proof? You don’t mean certainty again do ya? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Hammer of Thor, conveniently makes a nice cross.
Pagan shrines work very nicely as Christian Shrines.
Pagan temples with a little furniture adjustment makes for a very nice Cathedral.
Pagan Greek philosophy on angels and demons works very well with Christian understanding of angels and demons.
We’ve been known since the Great Commission to take what is truth and toss what is not. We never claimed to come with every fact, we only claimed to be looking for every fact.[/quote]And this is why YOU’RE so confused. This mindset is so utterly foreign to the scriptures it takes something like… oh I dunno… the Roman Catholic magesterium? to attempt to declare something so pagan as being of God. When Aristotle is your spiritual and intellectual patriarch I guess you can’t expect much more. You are in for a heartbreakingly tragic rude awakening when you find out that whatever light that church of yours ever had was LOOOOOONG ago taken away Chris.
Thanks for the bible BTW. Without it I’d have no way of confirming how anti Christian that abomination in Rome actually is. Oh how precious is the sense of irony and yes humor displayed by the most high God in this regard. Shoulda kept it under wraps Chris. Now that the reformers, former papist insiders, have let the scriptures outta the bag, people are able to see clearly that whatever else that church may be, it has nothing to do with those ancient books. The canon came just in time. The radical departure (the biblical term is apostasy) was already in full swing. Just as promised btw. I know where the bible came from. I also know where the Christ came from. A nation that did and still does reject Him. This is not new.
[/quote]
Come on now Tirib and push. There is some serious misinterpretation of Chris’ meaning going on here.
He’s talking about the standard Catholic practice of presenting, not CHANGING, truths to new populations in a manner that they will be familiar and comfortable with and, most importantly, that they will understand. If there was actually some kind of pagan transformation going on, it would be extremely easy to identify, as the Catholic mass is standardized across all countries and languages. There is NO difference between the Mass in Mexico, the one in Japan, and the one in the USA. I can personally confirm this.
Perhaps the examples Chris provided were poor ones, but I can give an example from personal experience. The conversion of the Aztecs. I’m sure both of you will still turn up your noses at my mentioning of Our Lady of Guadalupe, but that’s a different debate for another time. In addition to the Spaniards dismantling the Aztecs’ Templo Mayor among other structures and using the same stones to build their Cathedrals, the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe and her resultant image on the tilma were extremely instrumental in the mass conversion of hundreds of thousands of Aztecs, turning Mexico from the most atrocious pagan nightmare state into a state of devout, (mostly) peaceful Catholics practically overnight. There are many, many direct correlations to the Aztec culture contained in that image, and the Aztecs immediately understood those symbols (such as Mary’s standing upon the serpent…Quetzalcoatl) and converted in mass despite the fact that the Spaniards, who were bringing this message to them, had VERY recently diseased, massacred, mistreated, enslaved, raped and done all manner of injustice to them. When you look at the actual historical manner in which that history unfolds, it is downright friggin unfathomable that such a society could go from one extreme to completely the other end in such a short period of time.
I know, I know, we’re little more than pagans ourselves, traded one Aztec god for another,hyperdulia, yadda yadda. I just wanted to clarify what I am pretty sure Chris was trying to get at. There is no “compromise,” ever. We subsume those cultures without forcing them to conform to an alien culture. They don’t get to keep the pagan shit, they get to retain their own culture while adopting an entirely new set of beliefs and values. If that’s a “compromise,” the Catholic church is not the one doing the caving.
[/quote]
Reminds me of the Borg 
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
No, you just took down the upper class and created a new on it’s place. It was a race against the orthodox church before anything else. The actual conversion took several hundred years.
Above is a picture of one of your saints in the making.[/quote]
What are you talking about?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Proof? You don’t mean certainty again do ya? [/quote]
What?
You mean irony in that you are claiming that Jesus lied to his Church, that he wouldn’t stay with her forever?
I don’t find that ironic at all, I find that blasphemous.
What are you talking about, letting scriptures out of the bag?
[quote]The canon came just in time. The radical departure (the biblical term is apostasy) was already in full swing. Just as promised btw. I know where the bible came from. I also know where the Christ came from. A nation that did and still does reject Him. This is not new.
[/quote]
So you admit it, you think Jesus lied when he said that he would be with and protect his Church and would not let the gates of Hell win for all of time? Glad we found out that Calvinists love to proof-text once again.
You can keep up with your private interpretations, but remember what the St. Peter said, no private interpretations allowed. 
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Come on now Tirib and push. There is some serious misinterpretation of Chris’ meaning going on here.
[/quote]
…serious? This isn’t misinterpretation of what I meant, this is straw man. I never said we took their theology and made it ours, I said we took their pagan ways and made it Christian.
Does anyone here use a Christmas tree, how about a Christmas wreath? Both pagan origins. Do you use the word Thursday, that is definitely pagan? How about Monday? How about an empty crucifix? Do Protestants still burn yule logs? How about the Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Anglicans does your clergy still wear vestments? Greek and Roman pagan clothing, formerly known as a toga.
Do you still call the planets Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn? Pagan names of pagan gods. How about August you still use the word August? Pagan Ruler. How about July, another pagan ruler. How about January? Pagan god. March? Pagan god of Mars.
Holy moly, guess we’re all a bunch of gospel-less heathens just compromising with the pagans.
No, they didn’t misunderstand me. They saw a chance to attack the Church, and they did but the failed to even address my argument. Straw man, is all I got for them.
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
more evidence of child abuse in clergy officials
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/31/church-child-protection-chief-caught-with-4-000-child-porn-pictures-115875-23308972/[/quote]
I’ll point out that your title is miss leading because 1) the man is not clergy and 2) the Church sacked him as soon as they found out.[/quote]
No, the Church sacked him after they learned of the police investigation. MUCH different.[/quote]
So you are assuming the Church had knowledge of it before the investigation?
Great show the evidence. You can’t because you’re stretching what the article says into a different meaning.
The guy responsible for catching people looking at porn is looking at porn himself…so who was supposed to report him? Well, the police did and he got sacked as soon as it was found out. Don’t make it more than it is.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<<No, it is just the usual practice when you make a statement you usually have to produce proof of that being true.[/quote]Proof? You don’t mean certainty again do ya? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Hammer of Thor, conveniently makes a nice cross.
Pagan shrines work very nicely as Christian Shrines.
Pagan temples with a little furniture adjustment makes for a very nice Cathedral.
Pagan Greek philosophy on angels and demons works very well with Christian understanding of angels and demons.
We’ve been known since the Great Commission to take what is truth and toss what is not. We never claimed to come with every fact, we only claimed to be looking for every fact.[/quote]And this is why YOU’RE so confused. This mindset is so utterly foreign to the scriptures it takes something like… oh I dunno… the Roman Catholic magesterium? to attempt to declare something so pagan as being of God. When Aristotle is your spiritual and intellectual patriarch I guess you can’t expect much more. You are in for a heartbreakingly tragic rude awakening when you find out that whatever light that church of yours ever had was LOOOOOONG ago taken away Chris.
Thanks for the bible BTW. Without it I’d have no way of confirming how anti Christian that abomination in Rome actually is. Oh how precious is the sense of irony and yes humor displayed by the most high God in this regard. Shoulda kept it under wraps Chris. Now that the reformers, former papist insiders, have let the scriptures outta the bag, people are able to see clearly that whatever else that church may be, it has nothing to do with those ancient books. The canon came just in time. The radical departure (the biblical term is apostasy) was already in full swing. Just as promised btw. I know where the bible came from. I also know where the Christ came from. A nation that did and still does reject Him. This is not new.
[/quote]
'Cause it’s better to make shit up like Calvin did and have you killed if you didn’t like it…
You believe a lie from a liar tirib. Repent. Christ did not choose to you condemn you, you can only decide to do that to yourself…
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, google tells me that these laws aren’t decreed obsolete in the bible and you’re cherry picking which verses to follow… but I doubt that’s what you wanted me to find
[/quote]
Google nor anyone else told you any such thing, DisingenuousTime. You know it. I know it. Your mom knows it.
The only cherry picker is Tony-the-pseudo-Bible-scholar-Tiger. Your posts and mine reflect that. You have no idea what you’re talking about it; you’re simply arguing because you’re on the internet. You’re throwing stuff up hoping it will stick. You’re certainly more capable talking about medieval Irish history but you’re hopelessly out of your league here.
[/quote]
http://www.atheistperspective.net/p/bible-verses.html << Oh well, you can’t win em all…
Seriously though, you can find any expressed opinion on Google… It just wasn’t a smart move to try and call me out on something than could be shown to be true simply by using Google to find a site that suggests Christians cherry-pick.
I don’t know why you’re trying to make it out as though I came here to argue with you. YOU responded to ME. I’m not forcing you to respond to my comments and you’re free to not respond to me anytime.
This is a very simple game of logic; God has condemned wearing clothes with mixed fibers, eating shellfish, etc. You say these laws are obsolete so I ask you were in the bible these laws have been decreed as such. If this can’t be done (and I don’t think it can) then I guess these things are still banned as far as God’s concerned. [/quote]
Have you ever read the bible? Or are you criticizing something you’ve never read? I am guessing the latter…I had the feeling this was another set up. Another pseudo genius atheist who thinks he found reason in the unreasonable tenet of atheism.
I’ll give you the one main reason atheism is flawed at it’s very core. It posits that something can come from nothing and the things can happen for no reason what so ever. Now, what makes it even more ridiculous with all this belief and trust in science is that there is not a single solitary mircofragment of evidence to even remotely support such a ridiculous notion.
The difference between you and I is that believe in something that is actually possible and you believe in something that is verifiable impossible…Now that you let the cat out of the bag of your true intentions, let’s see how smart you are:
Prove something can come from nothing, as an atheist you MUST believe this to be true or you are not an atheist. It’s that simple…
I won’t be holding my breath.[/quote]
That’s great and all but… where exactly did I say I was an atheist again?
I won’t be holding my breath. ;)[/quote]
You said you don’t believe in God, so, same thing.[/quote]
And where did I say that?[/quote]
“TigerTime wrote:
I cannot believe in any such God.”
[/quote]
You’re deliberately taking this quote out of context. Even within what you’ve quoted anyone can see I’ve added the qualifier “such” as in reference to “such” a God who would eternally punish a man for a finite infraction.
I see now that this conversation is going nowhere. Please, go bother somebody else. [/quote]
I actually took this quote from somebody else who apparently took your quote out of context.
So do you believe in God or not?
You still haven’t answered the question, did you read the bible? But I will take you lack of answer your young age to mean no …And I’ll bother who I please, your not the boss of me. You have the freedom to ignore me. You have the freedom to criticize a book you’ve never read.
But how can you comment intelligently on something you actually have no real knowledge about? [/quote]
Alright, your questions are fair, so I’ll let you bother me a little while longer.
First, you’ll have to define God. In your own words of course.
Yes I read the bible. My grandfather died four years ago and I got his bible. I’ve read it and re-read it and continue to re-read it as needed (though the internet has largely removed the need to read any hard-copy). Sorry, I know you were REALLY looking for another reason to dismiss my points (regardless of if they are actually correct or not), but it looks like not this time. ;)[/quote]
Why do I have to define God? God is creator of existence. Anything else is not God.
You’ve read the bible several times at 18? Fair enough, I cannot prove otherwise. So when I question I will question as if you have an in depth knowledge of scripture as someone who has been through it in multiples should.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Come on now Tirib and push. There is some serious misinterpretation of Chris’ meaning going on here.
[/quote]
…serious? This isn’t misinterpretation of what I meant, this is straw man. I never said we took their theology and made it ours, I said we took their pagan ways and made it Christian.
Does anyone here use a Christmas tree, how about a Christmas wreath? Both pagan origins. Do you use the word Thursday, that is definitely pagan? How about Monday? How about an empty crucifix? Do Protestants still burn yule logs? How about the Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Anglicans does your clergy still wear vestments? Greek and Roman pagan clothing, formerly known as a toga.
Do you still call the planets Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn? Pagan names of pagan gods. How about August you still use the word August? Pagan Ruler. How about July, another pagan ruler. How about January? Pagan god. March? Pagan god of Mars.
Holy moly, guess we’re all a bunch of gospel-less heathens just compromising with the pagans.
No, they didn’t misunderstand me. They saw a chance to attack the Church, and they did but the failed to even address my argument. Straw man, is all I got for them.[/quote]
This ^ is in fact the straw man (geez I get tired of that stupid term along with “ad hominem”, both are overused online).
It’s not what I was talking about but you did nicely twist things around. Good job.[/quote]
I understand tirib because he hates Catholics and has destined them to hell, but why is push hating on Catholics? I know tirib believes we’ve been predestined to go hell, in the face of tons of scripture to the contrary. Why is push hating Catholics?
Push are you calvinist or arminianist? Are you in the ranks of the Calvinist who claims that God created most men to condemn them to hell because God has predestined this?
Well, at least tell me what’s going on…It’s apparently to spread out to detect it’s origin.
Heh.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You mean irony in that you are claiming that Jesus lied to his Church, that he wouldn’t stay with her forever? >>>[/quote]No, I mean irony that the visible church He would use to canonize the scriptures would in time be proven utterly apostate by the very scriptures she was used to canonize. Jesus will NEVER leave or forsake His bride. Nor will he allow the gates of hell to prevail against her. The fact that both have been done to the Roman church, according to your own scriptures, is proof positive she ain’t no bride of Christ. Only by a-priori abandoning your brain to Rome in advance can doing so be seen as a good idea. The disdainful irony drips from the winnowing fork of the most high God. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< What are you talking about, letting scriptures out of the bag? >>>[/quote]If the papacy had had it’s way us peons would never see a bible in our lives. Much easier to tell people what to believe when they have literally only your word to bank on and no way to confirm. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You can keep up with your private interpretations, but remember what the St. Peter said, no private interpretations allowed. :)[/quote]Once again Chris. For the 25th time. READ the passage prayerfully for yourself sans the necrotic spiritual vise grip of your leadership. HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE. HE IS TALKING ABOUT PRODUCING SCRIPTURE. His point is that the source of scripture is not man, but God. He is saying nothing about interpretation, in the sense of extracting the intended meaning, at all. His declaration is “make no mistake. scripture did not come to be because some guys came up with some good stuff”. Yes that is what he’s saying and if you’d get your face outta the pope’s rump for a couple minutes you’d see that. He goes on to clarify that very thing.
Actually the NIV, which I am not a huge fan of, gets it right on here. 2nd Peter 1:20-21 NIV. [quote]<<< 20-Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophetâ??s own interpretation. 21-For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. >>>[/quote] AMEN! THAT is exactly a superb rendering of those verses.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I understand tirib because he hates Catholics and has destined them to hell, <<<>>> I know tirib believes we’ve been predestined to go hell, in the face of tons of scripture to the contrary. >>>[/quote]You’re a liar Pat. A vitriolic, irrational, blind liar. I defy you right now to quote me even once saying anything even vaguely approaching what you’ve here put in my mouth. I dare ya. You are a liar like your father who is the father of lies. Bring it or shut your filthy lying mouth once and for all. I will quote myself for pages saying exactly the opposite TO YOU PERSONALLY and expose your dead lying heart for exactly what it is in the broad daylight in front of all these people. You have been doing this to me for months and I have beaten myself silly trying to believe you just weren’t reading me right, but this is enough. You first. Where? Where have I said these things? QUOTES OR SHUT UP. Open your big fat lying mouth and substantiate your accusations and when you can’t I will show you for the idolatrous pagan deceiver you are. Is this post Christian? You better believe it is.
Hey what color bandanas are we supposed to be wearing. I’m afraid I’m late, and must’ve missed the gang color designations. I’d prefer if the Catholics could get blue. Oh, and have we come up with gang signs yet?
Seriously though, maybe put each other on ignore for awhile and take a break? Doesn’t seem like continued interaction is helping…
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< Seriously though, maybe put each other on ignore for awhile and take a break? Doesn’t seem like continued interaction is helping…[/quote]I don’t need to put anybody on ignore. I don’t even need an apology. I would just appreciate not being repeatedly and incessantly lied about. I have never EVER said volumes of tripe Pat has attributed to me by name over actually the last year. You’re a decent man Sloth I know you see this. Even Chris sees it though his misplaced loyalty to the “holy see” has him silent despite the fact that I’ve defended him and will do it again. I have also never EVER intentionally misrepresented ANYONE here. Not you, not him, not Chris, not Elder Forlife or Bodyguard or capped or Mike or Ephrem or anybody else no matter who they are or what vituperation they come with.
This man has resisted my calm (usually) sincere efforts at elucidation of my beliefs over and over and over and over again. I have called him friend and expressed a genuine hope that we would some day meet in person. He has and is lying. There is no longer any other possible conclusion except illiteracy and or demonic influence to account for his attributing thought to me the diametric opposite of which is literally 2 INCHES ABOVE HIS ACCUSATIONS ON THE SAME PAGE… ADDRESSED TO HIM. I can demonstrate in totally comprehensive and irrefutable fashion exactly what I’m talkin about. I have had it with being misrepresented and lied about because it distorts and perverts what I believe about the God I know and love.
And ya know what? You’re wrong if you think anger is the primary explanation for my attitude. I am hurt and that because contrary to the stone hearted “tough guys” around here who don’t care what anybody thinks, I do care. I wouldn’t do that to him and you wouldn’t do it to me. We got into it pretty good a while back and not once did either of us lie about the other or call each other names. Pat is a characterless religious heathen who has been on a protracted attack campaign against ME PERSONALLY for a long time. I’m calling him out. Show us or admit you’ve been lying about me because I guarantee you if you don’t I WILL expose your lies.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This ^ is in fact the straw man (geez I get tired of that stupid term along with “ad hominem”, both are overused online).
It’s not what I was talking about but you did nicely twist things around. Good job.[/quote]
You accused me of accommodating pagans. I never said we accommodated anyone and asked for you to point it out.