Elton John says "Jesus was a gay man"

[Majar]

Elton John: ‘I think Jesus was a ... gay man’
By Courtney Hazlett / msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35466984/ns/entertainment-gossip/)


Elton John’s annual Oscar viewing party to benefit the Elton John AIDS Foundation is a little more than a week away, and his interview with Parade magazine is certain to help put a spotlight on the event. But it’s not talk of his charitable work that will grab the attention, but his claim that Jesus was gay.

"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems,” he told Parade. “On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East — you're as good as dead." That quote appears only in the online version of the interview (http://www.parade.com/celebrity/celebrity-parade/2010/elton-john-web-exclusive.html).

[Guapo]

Don't know about that but he did have two daddies.

[Majar]

Just because he wasn't married and hung out with a bunch of guys doesn't mean he was gay. :rolleyes:

[Murphy]

A mockery of Christ and His Sacrifice. Elton John is nothing but a faggot, who I will not be surprised to find out, years from now, dies from AIDS.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Puddle of Mudd]

http://loljesus.com/wp-content/uploads/gay.JPG

[Murphy]

... You're a sick little cunt hen, do you know that?

Regards,
The Papist.

[Puddle of Mudd]

... You're a sick little cunt hen, do you know that?

Regards,
The Papist.

I'm sick because I mock a religion which has a history stained in blood? Logic does not compute.

[Murphy]

I'm sick because I mock a religion which has a history stained in blood? Logic does not compute.

Fuck off, ye know yer talking right out of yer arse now to cover up the simple fact that yer a twisted and perverted little whore who gets kicks out of winding up Christians and mocking God.

Dirty scum.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Fuck off, ye know yer talking right out of yer arse now to cover up the simple fact that yer a twisted and perverted little whore who gets kicks out of winding up Christians and mocking God.

Dirty scum.

Regards,
The Papist.

^ Christian tolerance in action.

[Murphy]

^ Christian tolerance in action.

I wont tolerate the likes of you hen, so no need to go there. If all yer going to do is sit and mock Christianity, then you deserve fuck all. You don't even try to debate Christianity on any serious terms, it's always fucking insults from your kind. I'm fucking sick of it now. So ye can take yer head and shove it up yer hole ye fucking cow.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Puddle of Mudd]

I wont tolerate the likes of you hen, so no need to go there. If all yer going to do is sit and mock Christianity, then you deserve fuck all. You don't even try to debate Christianity on any serious terms, it's always fucking insults from your kind. I'm fucking sick of it now. So ye can take yer head and shove it up yer hole ye fucking cow.

Regards,
The Papist.


To the contrary my illiterate friend, I've debated with christians on their religion plenty of times, in real life and on the internet. So you = talking out of your ass at this point.

[Murphy]

To the contrary my illiterate friend, I've debated with christians on their religion plenty of times, in real life and on the internet. So you = talking out of your ass at this point.

For a start I am hardly illiterate, my use of 'yer' may not be the most proper of English words I apologise for that, but you have managed to get me a little peeved off at this point.

Now, as for you debating Christianity.. LOL (I am allowed to use 'lol', yes?). Then how about you actually do so at the forum for once, instead of posting trollish (not proper English, but surely you'll let me off with it yes?) rubbish as on the previous page.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Puddle of Mudd]

For a start I am hardly illiterate, my use of 'yer' may not be the most proper of English words I apologise for that, but you have managed to get me a little peeved off at this point.

Now, as for you debating Christianity.. LOL (I am allowed to use 'lol', yes?). Then how about you actually do so at the forum for once, instead of posting trollish (not proper English, but surely you'll let me off with it yes?) rubbish as on the previous page.

Regards,
The Papist.

I haven't checked recently, but I believe my earlier post history reflects my debates on topics including atheism, Christianity and religion altogether. I've had debates with many a Christian over my time, so I'm not sure how having it on this forum would be much different.

The 'rubbish' on the other page was just a light-hearted picture to go with the topic, nothing to be taken as 'serious', your knee-jerk reaction isn't particularly helping representation of your religion.

[Murphy]

I haven't checked recently, but I believe my earlier post history reflects my debates on topics including atheism, Christianity and religion altogether. I've had debates with many a Christian over my time, so I'm not sure how having it on this forum would be much different.

I believe earlier in your presence here at Apricity you claimed that Catholic social teaching is spreading AIDS in Africa, I demonstrated this to be false and you seemed to have clamped up on the spot.

If you want to debate Christianity, then do not run away with your tail between your legs when you are proven false :).


The 'rubbish' on the other page was just a light-hearted picture to go with the topic, nothing to be taken as 'serious'

There are Christians on this forum you know. When you post shit like that, we tend to be offended. It was posted with the intent to offend Christians not as some "light-hearted joke". I reacted appropriately. You're a bitch so I will treat you like a bitch until you start showing Christianity respect. In fact, until you start showing [i]any[i] respect.


your knee-jerk reaction isn't particularly helping representation of your religion.

Christianity is perfect, Christians are not.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Praamžius]

Jesus was real party animal and sadomasochist and probably gay

[Murphy]

Jesus was real party animal and sadomasochist and probably gay

Yea and fuck you to mate.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Praamžius]

Yea and fuck you to mate.

Regards,
The Papist.

Why so serious ? :icon12:

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh175/marcymichelle1991/joker.jpg

[Puddle of Mudd]

I believe earlier in your presence here at Apricity you claimed that Catholic social teaching is spreading AIDS in Africa, I demonstrated this to be false and you seemed to have clamped up on the spot.


I don't recall this, make sure you've got the right guy before displaying your idiocy.



If you want to debate Christianity, then do not run away with your tail between your legs when you are proven false :).


Must be a shame that you can't have me burned me for being a 'heretic', just like in the good ol' days of christianity, huh? :thumb001:




There are Christians on this forum you know. When you post shit like that, we tend to be offended. It was posted with the intent to offend Christians not as some "light-hearted joke". I reacted appropriately. You're a bitch so I will treat you like a bitch until you start showing Christianity respect. In fact, until you start showing [i]any[i] respect.


Christianity doesn't deserve respect.



Christianity is perfect, Christians are not.


Only in your warped mind.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Why so serious ? :icon12:

I think one calls it 'being butt-hurt'.

[Peachy Carnahan]

The facts.

Jesus wore sandals.
Was a teacher.
Wore a technicolour dreamcoat.
Had a beard.
Dissapeared up the mountain with peter luke and mark.
Spent a lot of time in Egypt.
Loved his fellow man.......etc etc


I think Elton may have a point.

[Murphy]

I don't recall this, make sure you've got the right guy before displaying your idiocy.


Yeah, and these are the type of people who are against birth control for Africans, with millions being born only to die a horrible, painful and lingering death (reaching adulthood if they are lucky).

Idiotic Catholics and their warped views are not fit for society/reality.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107420&postcount=58


Oh, God you are so ignorant it's not even funny.

The Church is right and unassailable facts are there prove it, no matter what lies her enemies repeat: where abstinence and fidelity are the norm, HIV-AIDS declines, where Catholics are the majority and the Church has earned respect of people, even in the worst social and economic situations, HIV-AIDS declines. Look at the statistics.

If the hypothesis that Catholic doctrine spreads HIV and AIDS, we would expect to see increased infection rates in countries that contain more Catholics. Instead, we find decreased HIV rates in Catholic-dominated countries (although the trend is not statistically significant). The idea that Catholic teaching encourages the spread of HIV is not confirmed by the demographics.

[Continued...]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107703&postcount=60


Must be a shame that you can't have me burned me for being a 'heretic', just like in the good ol' days of christianity, huh? :thumb001:

How many witches did the Catholic Church burn in the good ol' days? Not even a quarter as much as Protestant heretical congregations. But even then, you're not a baptised and confirmed Catholic are you? You cannot be a heretic then.


Christianity doesn't deserve respect.

You're an idiot honestly. Christianity is the very core of European society. It is the heart and soul of Europe. That alone should have the respect of someone whom I assume claims to be a European preservationist.


Only in your warped mind.

That's rich coming from someone like you. You don't even believe in the spiritual, something that has been present in the human consciousness since the dawn of time. Yet you have the cheek to say I have a warped mind?

Regards,
The Papist.

[Puddle of Mudd]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107703&postcount=60



There is no debate. You lunatics are against the use of condoms in aids ridden Africa -all creditability goes out the window.



How many witches did the Catholic Church burn in the good ol' days? Not even a quarter as much as Protestant heretical congregations. But even then, you're not a baptised and confirmed Catholic are you? You cannot be a heretic then.


Plenty of non-catholics were butchered, whether or not you apply the label of 'heretic' on them doesn't disqualify the fact that they were murdered by proponents of the church.






You're an idiot honestly. Christianity is the very core of European society. It is the heart and soul of Europe. That alone should have the respect of someone whom I assume claims to be a European preservationist.


Are you serious? Europe was thriving before christianity got its claws into it, ever heard of that period called the Dark Ages?




That's rich coming from someone like you. You don't even believe in the spiritual, something that has been present in the human consciousness since the dawn of time. Yet you have the cheek to say I have a warped mind?


Because anything 'spiritual' is bullshit, that's why.

[Murphy]

There is no debate. You lunatics are against the use of condoms in aids ridden Africa -all creditability goes out the window.

I see you didn't read my response. I am beginning to doubt your tales of great epic debates with Christians, when you seem to have a habit of ignoring facts.

We are against using condoms in AIDS ridden Africa yes. Now look at the facts I posted in response to your laughable triad. Then tell me that Catholic teaching is lunacy.


Plenty of non-catholics were butchered, whether or not you apply the label of 'heretic' on them doesn't disqualify the fact that they were murdered by proponents of the church.

How many innocent people have been murdered by proponents of atheism? A lot more than those innocents who have died at the hands of Christians claiming to be representatives of Christ.


Are you serious? Europe was thriving before christianity got its claws into it

The pagan world was in a period of stagnation when Christianity came, and when it finally collapsed, it was not the fault of Christianity.


ever heard of that period called the Dark Ages?

For a start, it is hardly appropriate to label this period of time as the "Dark Ages". It was Christianity that kept Europe whole at this point, and laid the groundwork for the European places of education during this time. It was also in Christian learning centres that great rediscoveries were made and new discovered to go along with it.


Because anything 'spiritual' is bullshit, that's why.

Uh huh..

Regards,
The Papist.

[The Ripper]

Let's not forget, atheistic regimes have been the most blood thirsty in history. ;)

Not to mention that present-day atheists and secular humanists are some of the biggest promoters of European cultural and ethnic disintegration.

[Baron Samedi]

How about we just stop talking about this and start talking about the real issue at hand?

Which would be that Elton John's music has ALWAYS blown (lol) since day one!

Now THAT is a scary proposition!

[The Ripper]

Elton John used the typical trick of the PC.

When not demonizing 'regressive' elements, they project their own perverted values onto them. First they will say "Christianity is evil", "Jesus was a fraud", "The Finnish ethnicity is a social construct and does not exist in material terms" and the next moment they're all like "God is black", "Jesus was gay or at least bi" and "Even Somalis are Finnish!".

[Wulfhere]

Certain passages that very strongly hint that Jesus fucked men were excised from the Bible.

And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

[Murphy]

Certain passages that very strongly hint that Jesus fucked men were excised from the Bible.

And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

You're a fucking sick old man in his 40s who gets off watching underaged girls do squats! What the fuck are you doing commenting on any ones fucking sexuality?

You also know fuck all about Tolkien and you insult his legacy every time you post because you link him with your perverted debauchery.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Matritensis]

ever heard of that period called the Dark Ages?

They aren't called the Dark ages for nothing...

[Matritensis]

I'd like to hear Elton John saying that Mohammed was gay too.I suspect it won't happen.

[Anthropos]

Certain passages that very strongly hint that Jesus fucked men were excised from the Bible.

And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

Love had nothing to do with sex to the ancients. The same fallacy is involved in allegations to the effect that Plato was a proponent of homosexuality. You have unknowingly succumbed to the so-called arguments of the bizarrest fringe of the gay lobby.

[The Ripper]

You have unknowingly succumbed to the so-called arguments of the bizarrest fringe of the gay lobby.

Who is surprised? :D

[Wulfhere]

Love had nothing to do with sex to the ancients. The same fallacy is involved in allegations to the effect that Plato was a proponent of homosexuality. You have unknowingly succumbed to the so-called arguments of the bizarrest fringe of the gay lobby.

On the contrary, not only is the meaning pretty plain from the context, that's the very reason it was removed from the bible, as admitted by Clement of Alexandria. The Carpocratians, for example, were a sect that practiced sodomy in emulation of what they presumed were Jesus's own actions.

[Wulfhere]

I'd like to hear Elton John saying that Mohammed was gay too.I suspect it won't happen.

I don't know if Muhammad was a sodomite, but he was certainly a paedophile - he married Aisha when she was 6 (and fucked her when she was 9).

[Beorn]

I wouldn't for one second believe Jesus was a homosexual. It seems the homosexuals of today like to claim anyone who wasn't married as a sign of being homosexual. It is a disgusting ploy by the left. It is a disgusting ploy by yet another disgusting individual. Go away Elton John.

It doesn't take much intelligence to consider the silence of the Bible on such questions of whether Jesus was married is in part due to the early church wishing to suppress the importance of women amongst the founding religion, and again, within the church hierachy.

Yet if we read the gospel of Philip amongst others, we see a story appearing which didn't get suppressed.

"There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion"

(It should be noted that the Greek word for 'companion' is 'koinonos' which means 'partner'.)

"And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?' The Savior answered and said to them, 'Why do I not love you like her?' When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. Then the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness" (sections 63-63).

I have also found it very beautiful that (regardless of whether Jesus' death and resurrection was a allegory of spiritual achievement) Jesus upon his ressurection appeared to Mary Magdelene first (although that is only in John, the others all say the first were women, but Mary was still involved).

I think that any doting husband would first seek out his wife, or 'partner' first, would he not? :)

[Wulfhere]

I wouldn't for one second believe Jesus was a homosexual. It seems the homosexuals of today like to claim anyone who wasn't married as a sign of being homosexual. It is a disgusting ploy by the left. It is a disgusting ploy by yet another disgusting individual. Go away Elton John.

It doesn't take much intelligence to consider the silence of the Bible on such questions of whether Jesus was married is in part due to the early church wishing to suppress the importance of women amongst the founding religion, and again, within the church hierachy.

Yet if we read the gospel of Philip amongst others, we see a story appearing which didn't get suppressed.

"There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion"

(It should be noted that the Greek word for 'companion' is 'koinonos' which means 'partner'.)

"And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?' The Savior answered and said to them, 'Why do I not love you like her?' When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. Then the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness" (sections 63-63).

I have also found it very beautiful that (regardless of whether Jesus' death and resurrection was a allegory of spiritual achievement) Jesus upon his ressurection appeared to Mary Magdelene first (although that is only in John, the others all say the first were women, but Mary was still involved).

I think that any doting husband would first seek out his wife, or 'partner' first, would he not? :)

The evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene is pretty compelling, if circumstantial. But this does not preclude him taking part in homosexual rites, as described in the Secret Gospel of Mark.

[The Lawspeaker]

"Jesus was gay" .. I am not a Christian but Elton's assumption is cracking me up. Elton John isn't even a real Christian but a queer. So this is just pc-nonsense and I don't think that many people will buy it.

There were some legends about Christ being married to Maria Magdalene. A fairytale of Christ not being married would make him stand out in that period. All men were all married- all had children.

[Anthropos]

On the contrary, not only is the meaning pretty plain from the context, that's the very reason it was removed from the bible, as admitted by Clement of Alexandria. The Carpocratians, for example, were a sect that practiced sodomy in emulation of what they presumed were Jesus's own actions.

You are mixing up two different debates. I don't know if this is intentional on your part or if you are not thinking properly. On the one hand there is the question of what 'love' entails, and that was obviously what I was commenting on, so you saying 'on the contrary' here while not even answering to what I said is a big miss.

On the other hand there is the question of the so-called 'secret gospel of Mark'. It is the right and even the calling of any tradition properly so called to keep its doctrine pure and true, and no whining about 'exclusion', 'oppression' or whatever will change that. Furthermore, you said it yourself: Quasi-spiritual sodomites and other anti-Christians have indeed tried to create their own body of scripture, but all that needs to be said against that is that they obviously had no good reasons to do so and that they were blinded by their urges to the point of confusing it with things that have nothing to do with those urges. All what I just said in this paragraph is so obvious that I hardly thought that it would require a comment from me.

The more important point was already made in my previous post. It could also be formulated as a statement about an error of a much more general nature, and that is the tendency of a majority of our contemporaries to project their own mentality onto the past.

[Wulfhere]

You are mixing up two different debates. I don't know if this is intentional on your part or if you are not thinking properly. On the one hand there is the question of what 'love' entails, and that was obviously what I was commenting on, so you saying 'on the contrary' here while not even answering to what I said is a big miss.

On the other hand there is the question of the so-called 'secret gospel of Mark'. It is the right and even the calling of any tradition properly so called to keep its doctrine pure and true, and no whining about 'exclusion', 'oppression' or whatever will change that. Furthermore, you said it yourself: Quasi-spiritual sodomites and other anti-Christians have indeed tried to create their own body of Scripture, but all that needs to be said against that is that they obviously had no good reasons to do so and were blinded by their urges to the point of confusing it with things that have nothing to do with those urges. All what I just said in this paragraph is so obvious that I hardly thought that it would require a comment from me.

The more important point was already made in my previous post. It could also be formulated as a statement about an error of a much more general nature, and that is the tendency of a majority of our contemporaries to project their own mentality onto the past.

The Secret Gospel of Mark was part of Mark's gospel originally, and later removed.

As for love and sex, they were not as divorced from each other in the ancient world as you seem to imagine. Read Seutonius, for example, and his descrptions of the antics of the early Roman emperors. Humans haven't changed that much in 2000 years, and love and sex had the same complex relationship to each other as they do now.

[Anthropos]

The Secret Gospel of Mark was part of Mark's gospel originally, and later removed.

Be that as it may, before that there was oral tradition, and whether someone put shit on print first or not is no matter. And needless to say you were only musing in the first place; you proved nothing.

[Wulfhere]

Be that as it may, before that there was oral tradition, and whether someone put shit on print first or not is no matter. And needless to say you were only musing in the first place; you proved nothing.

If you dispute the authority of the written accounts then you have literally nothing at all to base anything on. The fact is that the Church that developed distorted Jesus's original teachings beyond recognition.

[Anthropos]

If you dispute the authority of the written accounts then you have literally nothing at all to base anything on. The fact is that the Church that developed distorted Jesus's original teachings beyond recognition.

That seems like an argument to people who are permeated by the Protestant spirit, but it is not important at all for reasons that you don't even suspect. It is simply an impossibility that sodomy should be some kind of a sacrament or mystery. Hence you have insurmountable obstacles to overcome if ever you try to make it add up with the rest of the Gospel.

[Bari]

I have wondered why some gays seem to so strongly want to make Christianity appear more approving of homosexuality. I mean, why want to participate in a religion that strongly condems their activities(Gods own words appeareantly too). So why they want to marry in a Christian church or any other Abrahamic Godhouse i cannot understand. By all means, they can live their lifes and all that, but if i was in their position i would much rather look for a religion more approving of homosexuality than one comdemning it as a sin leading to hell. If someone really is believing in God, how can they think they can change what he said in the Bible? Humans in a nutshell. If God is real why would some creatures(humans) he made be in any authority to edit his laws into their own liking?

Would God make his only son on earth gay at the same time he declares it immoral?

[Poltergeist]

Elton John: ‘I think Jesus was a ... gay man’

It is not uncommon for degenerates of various sorts to wish to ascribe their own degeneracy to others, for the sake of not feeling alone in their own state. Some go as far as to impute their own shortcoming or whatever to everyone else ("deep down in themselves everybody is...[insert]...though some people keep up the hypocritical pretence that they are not that way"), others are contented merely with picking few famous personalities.

[Anthropos]

I have wondered why some gays seem to so strongly want to make Christianity appear more approving of homosexuality. I mean, why want to participate in a religion that strongly condems their activities(Gods own words appeareantly too). So why they want to marry in a Christian church or any other Abrahamic Godhouse i cannot understand. By all means, they can live their lifes and all that, but if i was in their position i would much rather look for a religion more approving of homosexuality than one comdemning it as a sin leading to hell. If someone really is believing in God, how can they think they can change what he said in the Bible? Humans in a nutshell. If God is real why would some creatures(humans) he made be in any authority to edit his laws into their own liking?

Would God make his only son on earth gay at the same time he declares it immoral?

I have just one correction to make, and that is that while sodomy is a sin according the Apostle (Paul, more specifically) it is a sin among other sins, and it is not said that those who committed it will automatically go to hell. Attempts at 'sodomising' the Scripture are vain, that's clear, but that does not mean that a sinner should turn away from Christianity. (According to the same Scripture the remedy is to be found in the Church.)

[Bridie]

It is not uncommon for degenerates of various sorts to wish to ascribe their own degeneracy to others, for the sake of not feeling alone in their own state. Some go as far as to impute their own shortcoming or whatever to everyone else ("deep down in themselves everybody is...[insert]...though some people keep up the hypocritical pretence that they are not that way"), others are contented merely with picking few famous personalities.You hit the nail on the head there, Hermeticist. :thumbs up

I've observed this trend often in life... people ascribing their own degeneracies to others and/or actively encouraging others to take part in their degenerate behaviours, either for the sake of avoiding feelings of social isolation, or for the sake of attempting to elevate the status of their sorry state to one of righteousness and possibly even superiority. I suppose what they really seek, at the end of the day, is to be at peace with themselves, albeit in a very selfish, destructive and warped fashion.

Well, you know, people often find it too great a task to confront or change their internal environment and so seek what they believe to be the easier option.... to confront or change their external environment to suit themselves. A fruitless exercise in the end.

[Tony]

I have just one correction to make, and that is that while sodomy is a sin according the Apostle (Paul, more specifically) it is a sin among other sins, and it is not said that those who committed it will automatically go to hell. Attempts at 'sodomising' the Scripture are vain, that's clear, but that does not mean that a sinner should turn away from Christianity. (According to the same Scripture the remedy is to be found in the Church.)
Yes, the Church doesn't condemn the gays but only who are involved in practical acts of sodomy , considered as disorderly behaviours.
Here below is depicted a meeting of Cardinal of Genoa Bagnasco and 3 trannies who aked him to to be re-accepted in the Church.

http://ilsecoloxix.ilsole24ore.com/r/IlSecoloXIXWEB/genova/foto_trattate/2010/02/10/4B706845_000641_9B92C862_Foto_mail_PICTURE--499x285.jpg

http://ilsecoloxix.ilsole24ore.com/r/IlSecoloXIXWEB/genova/foto_trattate/2010/02/10/4B706954_000642_10DD1A6D_Foto_mail_PICTURE--499x285.jpg

[Monolith]

There are Christians on this forum you know. When you post shit like that, we tend to be offended.
I sincerely hope no Christians here are offended by such sub-human provocations.

[Murphy]

I sincerely hope no Christians here are offended by such sub-human provocations.

When you have it coming at you all the time, it does though.

I apologise fir my behaviour earlier, it was out of line. But my point still stands, I am fed up with it all.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Monolith]

When you have it coming at you all the time, it does though.

Considering the level of stupidity one can find on the Internet, you would do well to mock such idiocies in the same way as they were supposed to mock your beliefs, or at least to ignore them. ;)

[Treffie]

Since when has anyone listened to what Elton John has to say about anything? I've always viewed him as somewhat unhinged.

[antonio]

Elton John deserves some respect as a musician (there's too many around we cannot say the same) And what he said about Christo must be taken considering the point of view of a declared gay. Of course I have a very different opinion, cause I take into account the cultural context of 2000 years ago which was very different that the one in Western Europe nowadays, far less "humanized" (both for the good as for the bad), even I am very prothotypical man of this days, I would want to be more warmth and "human" but unfortunatelly my mind is not conditioned that way.

[Wulfhere]

That seems like an argument to people who are permeated by the Protestant spirit, but it is not important at all for reasons that you don't even suspect. It is simply an impossibility that sodomy should be some kind of a sacrament or mystery. Hence you have insurmountable obstacles to overcome if ever you try to make it add up with the rest of the Gospel.

I have no Christian spirit whatsoever, Protestant or otherwise. The Christian Church is built on a pack of lies from beginning to end, and I don't give a shit what it calls "sacraments". What I do nknow is that there were sects in the early Church whose beliefs differed drastically from what eventually became official orthodoxy. One of these practiced sodomy. Others did all sorts of things.

[Wulfhere]

I have wondered why some gays seem to so strongly want to make Christianity appear more approving of homosexuality. I mean, why want to participate in a religion that strongly condems their activities(Gods own words appeareantly too). So why they want to marry in a Christian church or any other Abrahamic Godhouse i cannot understand. By all means, they can live their lifes and all that, but if i was in their position i would much rather look for a religion more approving of homosexuality than one comdemning it as a sin leading to hell. If someone really is believing in God, how can they think they can change what he said in the Bible? Humans in a nutshell. If God is real why would some creatures(humans) he made be in any authority to edit his laws into their own liking?

Would God make his only son on earth gay at the same time he declares it immoral?

People have always changed the Bible to suit their own beliefs. The Church is the biggest culprit of all.

[Anthropos]

I have no Christian spirit whatsoever, Protestant or otherwise. The Christian Church is built on a pack of lies from beginning to end, and I don't give a shit what it calls "sacraments". What I do nknow is that there were sects in the early Church whose beliefs differed drastically from what eventually became official orthodoxy. One of these practiced sodomy. Others did all sorts of things.

^'Built on a pack of lies' made sense yeah, but why did you bring the Church into any of what you said? :confused:

[Wulfhere]

^'Built on a pack of lies' made sense yeah, but why did you bring the Church into any of what you said? :confused:

The Church is built on a pack of lies.

[The Lawspeaker]

Wulfhere. I have to agree with you here but that "pack of lies" still created European society as it exists today. My main problem with the Church is that "pack of lies" but I feel that destroying the Church would create a moral vacuum compared to which todays is a picnic in the park.

I think however that the Church (and Christianity as a whole) should try to purify itself and return to it's proper essence. I think that what Europe needs is moral balance and a new mysticism as well as the preservation of what it means to be European. And Christianity should not be it's sole guardian.. perhaps a stronger, growing paganism should also serve as Europe's moral guardian.

[Wulfhere]

Wulfhere. I have to agree with you here but that "pack of lies" still created European society as it exists today. My main problem with the Church is that "pack of lies" but I feel that destroying the Church would create a moral vacuum compared to which todays is a picnic in the park.

I think however that the Church (and Christianity as a whole) should try to purify itself and return to it's proper essence.

To a large extent I agree. Our policy is to retain the structure of the Church, but to replace its corrupt hierarchy with a new one consisting of priestesses, and to reform its rituals and liturgy to remove the monotheistic elements.

[The Lawspeaker]

To a large extent I agree. Our policy is to retain the structure of the Church, but to replace its corrupt hierarchy with a new one consisting of priestesses, and to reform its rituals and liturgy to remove the monotheistic elements.
Well.. I disagree here because the existence of "priestesses" never fitted in a Christian context. The corrupt hierarchy should be merely replaced with a new, religiously sound (but with an open mind) generation. I think that one thing Christianity (at least the Catholic branch) should definitely get rid of is forced celibacy.

Christianity should become a loose federation of different religious schools (this would include the Protestant Churches) within a wider Christian context under the leadership of an elected Pope and Synod and look away from it's Jewish roots and focus on more European ideas.

[Anthropos]

The Church is built on a pack of lies.

No, I think you are built on the pack of lies... I mean, basically you have the same constitution as all other human beings (see Genesis 2:7 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' Also Genesis 1:27 'God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him'.); but your posts are built on a pack of lies. You are human, good at the core but a little bit deceived, especially in this stage of your development.

[Wulfhere]

No, I think you are built on the pack of lies... I mean, basically you have the same constitution as all other human beings (see Genesis 2:7 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' Also Genesis 1:27 'God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him'.); but your posts are built on a pack of lies. You are human, good at the core but a little bit deceived, especially in this stage of your development.

Like all Christians you think you know better, but it's you who have been deceived, I'm afraid.

[Anthropos]

Like all Christians you think you know better, but it's you who have been deceived, I'm afraid.

What a tragedy! :D

[Wulfhere]

Well.. I disagree here because the existence of "priestesses" never fitted in a Christian context. The corrupt hierarchy should be merely replaced with a new, religiously sound (but with an open mind) generation. I think that one thing Christianity (at least the Catholic branch) should definitely get rid of is forced celibacy.

Christianity should become a loose federation of different religious schools (this would include the Protestant Churches) within a wider Christian context under the leadership of an elected Pope and Synod and look away from it's Jewish roots and focus on more European ideas.

It's the Christian element we intend to get rid of, so appealing to any Christian authority will make no difference to what we'll do. Many of those ancient Churches were built on the site of Pagan temples, and we will simply be reclaiming them.

[The Lawspeaker]

And in that way you will create a moral vacuum which will pave the way for Islam...

[Wulfhere]

What a tragedy! :D

No, you are entirely welcome to your beliefs, no matter how absurd. Just don't try and impose them on others.

[Wulfhere]

And in that way you will create a moral vacuum which will pave the way for Islam...

I really don't think so - Christianity is dying, what Europe needs is a resurgance of Paganism.

[Anthropos]

No, you are entirely welcome to your beliefs, no matter how absurd. Just don't try and impose them on others.

*mirror*

[The Lawspeaker]

I really don't think so - Christianity is dying, what Europe needs is a resurgance of Paganism.
You're dreaming, Wulfhere. Modern Christianity is essentially a symbiosis of ancient Paganism and early Christianity. You kill one- you kill both.

[Wulfhere]

You're dreaming, Wulfhere. Modern Christianity is essentially a symbiosis of ancient Paganism and early Christianity. You kill one- you kill both.

The Pagan elements will be retained. Christianity is not only dying on its feet, but the vestigial fragment that remains is one of the biggest appeasers of Islam around. It should be swept away by a genuine resurgance in European spirituality, and I feel that this is already happening.

[Anthropos]

The Pagan elements will be retained. Christianity is not only dying on its feet, but the vestigial fragment that remains is one of the biggest appeasers of Islam around. It should be swept away by a genuine resurgance in European spirituality, and I feel that this is already happening.

dLlO1RR1VI4

:D

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by The Papist
When you have it coming at you all the time, it does though.

Understandable, but unless you wish to engage in pretty pointless arguments on a regular basis, consider the following.

Who is Elton John to you? Why do you care what this man has to say? Does this man have a point worth considering? If not, he isn’t worth the time to listen to. Can Elton John stop you believing as you wish and practising your religion? If not his opinions and lifestyle are irrelevant.

Ninety nine percent of arguments really aren’t worth the effort one puts in them.

As for me Elton John is a silly man making a silly comment.

[Murphy]

Understandable, but unless you wish to engage in pretty pointless arguments on a regular basis, consider the following.

Who is Elton John to you? Why do you care what this man has to say? Does this man have a point worth considering? If not, he isn’t worth the time to listen to. Can Elton John stop you believing as you wish and practising your religion? If not his opinions and lifestyle are irrelevant.

Ninety nine percent of arguments really aren’t worth the effort one puts in them.

As for me Elton John is a silly man making a silly comment.

I wasn't talking about Elton John. I was talking about the members of this forum.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Murphy]

I think that one thing Christianity (at least the Catholic branch) should definitely get rid of is forced celibacy.

It is not forced, it is a choice. One chooses to become a priest or not and in the Latin-Rite, a core part of the priesthood is celibacy.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wulfhere
Christianity is dying, what Europe needs is a resurgance of Paganism.

I strongly suspect neither will come to pass.

Organised religion seems to be on the decline, at least in the UK I have no data for elsewhere, but I would suspect if pushed most Britons would nominally claim to believe in the Biblical God, if they consider the question at all, last census some 70% of Britons claimed to be Christian but less than 4% attend any CofE service, presumably one can be a Christian and not necessarily go to Church.

I don’t expect Christianity to disappear from the European psyche. As Asega has pointed out Christianity, particularly in northern Europe, is more a syncretic tradition than pure Judaeo-Christianity, one could use the term Folk Christianity to explain many of the traditions in northern Europe. “Pure” Pagan beliefs may continue to grow but I don’t expect them to become mainstream practices.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by The Papist
I wasn't talking about Elton John. I was talking about the members of this forum.

Same thing applies; replace Elton John with required name.

What’s the saying arguing on the internet is a bit like the Special Olympics? That’s really quite a cruel saying when you think about it, but the general idea is there…..

[The Lawspeaker]

It is not forced, it is a choice. One chooses to become a priest or not and in the Latin-Rite, a core part of the priesthood is celibacy.

Regards,
The Papist.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the Catholic Church, at least here in Northern Europe, is suffering from a lack of new priests...:)
The very idea of celibacy is against human nature.

[Allenson]

One a core part of the priesthood is celibacy.

Ooops.

[Murphy]

Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the Catholic Church, at least here in Northern Europe, is suffering from a lack of new priests...:)

Really? A lack of priests actually only began to set in after the Vatican II Council and even today recruitment of young men for the priesthood, especially in traditionalist orders, groups and secular seminaries is going up.


The very idea of celibacy is against human nature.

Ah but Asega, do you not see how wrong you are? How can celibacy be against our human nature when it serves to highlight the fundamental thing that makes us human in the first place? We, as humans, have a choice. We can choose not to follow our basic animalistic instincts.

If we could not, we would not be human. So I say celibacy is a perfectly human thing.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Murphy]

Same thing applies; replace Elton John with required name.

What’s the saying arguing on the internet is a bit like the Special Olympics? That’s really quite a cruel saying when you think about it, but the general idea is there…..

I understand where you are coming from. But it doesn't change the fact hat you can still be offended by what you see on the internet.

Regards,
The Papist.

[antonio]

I think you both are right. Even it takes a lot of faith to believe that logical no-sense.

[The Khagan]

This thread is filled with copious amounts of bullshit. Ad hominens and logical fallacies galore.

[The Lawspeaker]

Really? A lack of priests actually only began to set in after the Vatican II Council and even today recruitment of young men for the priesthood, especially in traditionalist orders, groups and secular seminaries is going up.
Not here in this country (or in Belgium for that matter). The lack of priests and actually growing every year. It's a real problem.




Ah but Asega, do you not see how wrong you are? How can celibacy be against our human nature when it serves to highlight the fundamental thing that makes us human in the first place? We, as humans, have a choice. We can choose not to follow our basic animalistic instincts.

If we could not, we would not be human. So I say celibacy is a perfectly human thing.

Regards,
The Papist.
Falling in love and not a choice. It's purely natural. I actually think that the Church uses celibacy as a kind of tool. If one forces people to abstain from sex it will create psychological issues which will find a way out in "religious" fervor. In the book 1984 the same thing was used to whip people in a frenzy.

I think that a large percentage of child abuse and homosexuality within the Church can be attributed to the lack of normal sexual relationships.

[Wulfhere]

I strongly suspect neither will come to pass.

Organised religion seems to be on the decline, at least in the UK I have no data for elsewhere, but I would suspect if pushed most Britons would nominally claim to believe in the Biblical God, if they consider the question at all, last census some 70% of Britons claimed to be Christian but less than 4% attend any CofE service, presumably one can be a Christian and not necessarily go to Church.

I don’t expect Christianity to disappear from the European psyche. As Asega has pointed out Christianity, particularly in northern Europe, is more a syncretic tradition than pure Judaeo-Christianity, one could use the term Folk Christianity to explain many of the traditions in northern Europe. “Pure” Pagan beliefs may continue to grow but I don’t expect them to become mainstream practices.

People will put more or less anything on censuses.

Of those 4% who still attend Church services, the vast majority are very old.

I have no problem with what you call "Folk Christianity", and would happily retain the folk elements. And its also the case that the modern Pagan movement has been influenced by Christianity. This is all well and good. I also suspect that small sects of Christianity will indeed survive. But overall, I see a Pagan resurgance - multi-faceted and in many aspects of life - but unmistakable. This is a promising sign for the future.

[Cail]

Abrahamic religions (all of them) are among the most disgusting, degenerate and sad things that ever happened to Mankind.

[Wulfhere]

Abrahamic religions (all of them) are among the most disgusting, degenerate and sad things that ever happened to Mankind.

I pretty much agree.

[Murphy]

Not here in this country (or in Belgium for that matter). The lack of priests and actually growing every year. It's a real problem.

That is sad to hear :(.


Falling in love and not a choice. It's purely natural.

Of course it is not a choice, but love is not animalistic in nature. Love is a purely human emotion and even then, has nothing to do with sex. Love is much more deeper than that.


I actually think that the Church uses celibacy as a kind of tool.

Of course celibacy is a tool. A tool for man to grow spiritually and to grow closer to God :).


If one forces people to abstain from sex it will create psychological issues which will find a way out in "religious" fervor. In the book 1984 the same thing was used to whip people in a frenzy.

There is no evidence of that. Abstaining from sex does not cause psychological issues. The vast majority of priests tend to be much more well rounded people than the sex-crazed idiots running around society today.


I think that a large percentage of child abuse and homosexuality within the Church can be attributed to the lack of normal sexual relationships.

No one knows what makes one homosexual and what makes one a paedophile. I think homosexuality can be explained by Original Sin, and the conflict between man's body and man's soul, which did not exist prior to the fall of man.

As for what creates a paedophile. I don't think it is abstaining from sex that makes on a paedophile Asega, and I don't think you do either.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Murphy]

People will put more or less anything on censuses.

Of those 4% who still attend Church services, the vast majority are very old.

I have no problem with what you call "Folk Christianity", and would happily retain the folk elements. And its also the case that the modern Pagan movement has been influenced by Christianity. This is all well and good. I also suspect that small sects of Christianity will indeed survive. But overall, I see a Pagan resurgance - multi-faceted and in many aspects of life - but unmistakable. This is a promising sign for the future.

First, I will preface this by saying that Christianity cannot die out, because Christ promised that God would abide with His Church forever..

However in the case that Christianity is driven underground, it is not going to be replaced by paganism, nor Islam as the scaremongers would tell you.

It is going to be replaced by McDonalds, Starbucks, GAP etc. A materialist mass-consumerist culture of drones that does whatever Big Brother tells it to.

Regards,
The Papist.

[The Lawspeaker]

It is going to be replaced by McDonalds, Starbucks, GAP etc. A materialist mass-consumerist culture of drones that does whatever Big Brother tells it to.
Which is just as catastrophic as Islam. It will be the end of Europe.. or of the civilized world for that matter.

[Anthropos]

Abrahamic religions (all of them) are among the most disgusting, degenerate and sad things that ever happened to Mankind.


I pretty much agree.

Oooo that's so um... I'm sorry for you guys... It must be painful, especially when your background is considered. :D If only you had been born and bred somewhere out of reach of Abraham all those bad feelings could have been avoided, and the whole problem wouldn't have existed.

[Cato]

LMAO@ this thread.

[Wulfhere]

Which is just as catastrophic as Islam. It will be the end of Europe.. or of the civilized world for that matter.

Don't worry - Pagans have a very healthy lack of respect for such institutions as McDonald's and consumer capitalism (unlike Christians).

[Wulfhere]

Oooo that's so um... I'm sorry for you guys... It must be painful, especially when your background is considered. :D If only you had been born and bred somewhere out of reach of Abraham all those bad feelings could have been avoided, and the whole problem wouldn't have existed.

My background is Anglo-Saxon. I want nothing to do with any alien Abrahamic religion.

[Murphy]

Don't worry - Pagans have a very healthy lack of respect for such institutions as McDonald's and consumer capitalism (unlike Christians).

Stop talking about pagans as if they actually matter in the world. Who are you all? You are all nothing, you are all insignificant little ants in the world. Seriously mate, stop deluding yourself.

You really think your pathetic little group is going to become the established religion of "sovereign Mercia"? LOL.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Murphy]

My background is Anglo-Saxon. I want nothing to do with any alien Abrahamic religion.

Your fellow Anglo-Saxons already do have something to do with it :thumb001:!

Regards,
The Papist.

[Anthropos]

My background is Anglo-Saxon. I want nothing to do with any alien Abrahamic religion.

Okay, then get the hell outta there, fast!

[Cail]

Oooo that's so um... I'm sorry for you guys... It must be painful, especially when your background is considered. :D If only you had been born and bred somewhere out of reach of Abraham all those bad feelings could have been avoided, and the whole problem wouldn't have existed.

Nope, it would anyway. Abrahamic religions are a plague, they've led to innumerable setbacks for Mankind, not to mention suffering, direct or indirect, of countless millions particular men. The sooner it dies out, the better (let's hope it doesn't lead to humanity's demise before).

[Wulfhere]

Okay, then get the hell outta there, fast!

Get the hell out of where? You mean my country? I'd rather remove the Abrahamic religions, if it's all the same to you (though I wouldn't deny religious freedom to fellow countrymen - it would be by persuasion).

[Monolith]

This thread has become surprisingly amusing. :D

[Anthropos]

Nope, it would anyway. Abrahamic religions are a plague, they've led to innumerable setbacks for Mankind, not to mention suffering, direct or indirect, of countless millions particular men. The sooner it dies out, the better (let's hope it doesn't lead to humanity's demise before).Oh, I pity you, that's so cute. :)


Get the hell out of where? You mean my country? I'd rather remove the Abrahamic religions, if it's all the same to you (though I wouldn't deny religious freedom to fellow countrymen - it would be by persuasion).

Okay... I think this should be quoted here:


No, you are entirely welcome to your beliefs, no matter how absurd. Just don't try and impose them on others.

Yeah, get the hell out of the whole interest sphere of Abraham. If he's been so bad to you for so long and you didn't get rid of him yet, then I suppose all you can do is to flee.

[Cato]

Abrahamic religion is a catchall term. How many streams have fed the pond that is modern-day Christianity, for example? It was Greco-Romanized. It was Germanized. It has its roots in ancient Egypt, Greece, Israel, Rome and Persia. It has its roots in contemporary 20th and 21st century thought. It has its roots in the deism of the Age of Enlightenment and the writings of men like Tindal and Paine. It has Gnostic and Hermetic trappings. It retains elements of Mithraism and the holy family of ancient Egypt. The most common term for the Abrahamic deity, God, is an Anglo-Saxon word. In one of the northern dialects, I can't recall which one, there is Godin, or Wotan, Wodin, Woden, Odin- the All-Father. When Christianity was brought over to England, many of Woden's titles were given to the Christian deity, just as many of the titles of Zeus/Jupiter were given this same deity in the Mediterranean area.

[Wulfhere]

Abrahamic religion is a catchall term. How many streams have fed the pond that is modern-day Christianity, for example? It was Greco-Romanized. It was Germanized. It has its roots in ancient Egypt, Greece, Israel, Rome and Persia. It has its roots in contemporary 20th and 21st century thought. It has its roots in the deism of the Age of Enlightenment and the writings of men like Tindal and Paine. It has Gnostic and Hermetic trappings. It retains elements of Mithraism and the holy family of ancient Egypt. The most common term for the Abrahamic deity, God, is an Anglo-Saxon word. In one of the northern dialects, I can't recall which one, there is Godin, or Wotan, Wodin, Woden, Odin- the All-Father. When Christianity was brought over to England, many of Woden's titles were given to the Christian deity, just as many of the titles of Zeus/Jupiter were given this same deity in the Mediterranean area.

You are right, of course - Christianity has been far for syncretic than, say, Islam, or even Judaism (though the latter has indeed been syncretic). I would happily retain all those Pagan elements of Christianity and remove its Abrahamic core.

[Cato]

The trouble is, what is the core? Judaism is hardly a unique belief system unto itself- the further back you go, the more you can see how the ancient Hebrews simply possessed a variation on common cosmological and religious beliefs. Yahweh's names, for example, shows up in the so-called Ugaritic Tablets- as a brother of Baal and son of El, the Canaanite supreme deity. Far from being the "unique" God, Yahweh simply absorbed the portfolio of his father, El, much as Zeus absorbed the portfolio of his own father, Kronos.

All of the hullabaloo about Christianity being an impure religion on the grounds of its supposedly alien doctrines is, to me, bollocks. People have borrowed religious ideas since time immemorial, and Jesus is basically just another name for the ancient, variously-named solar/zodiacal savior deity: Horus, Mithras, etc. The Christians err in insisiting that their fables are true whilst the fables of Horus, Mithras, etc. are false. Iconography has been kept, for example; one just needs to look at Jesus' halo and Horus' sun disk, or the mitre of the Pope and the hedjet crown of Egypt- demonstrations of ancient symbols and trappings that the Roman church burgled from the pagans that they put the boots to.

I find Christianity to be unsavory because of its emphasis on distinctly self-defeating qualities (such as man is a born sinner).

[The Khagan]

Nope, it would anyway. Abrahamic religions are a plague, they've led to innumerable setbacks for Mankind, not to mention suffering, direct or indirect, of countless millions particular men. The sooner it dies out, the better (let's hope it doesn't lead to humanity's demise before).

While I agree with the sentiment, I'd still have to say that it's entirely nonobjective. Some would argue that Christianity was a binding force that helped create the European cultural area and fostered a medium of exchange between contrasting populations. While I don't buy into pan-Europeanism, I'd say that Christianity did a lot for Europe.

Hell, protestantism was the foundation for capitalism and free market economics.

[antonio]

This thread is filled with copious amounts of bullshit. Ad hominens and logical fallacies galore.

It's impossible, at least, at one of my (more or less discutible) comments. Anycase, do you want to know an objective undeniable truth (at least for everybody having some idea of music) about this thread? That Elton John is a great pop musician, even his style it's not exactly of my taste, so, for me, he got all my respects.

[Sally]

The facts.

Wore a technicolour dreamcoat.

I think Elton may have a point.

Jesus didn't have a technicolour dreamcoat...that was Joseph. Or Donny Osmond... :rolleyes:

[Wulfhere]

The trouble is, what is the core? Judaism is hardly a unique belief system unto itself- the further back you go, the more you can see how the ancient Hebrews simply possessed a variation on common cosmological and religious beliefs. Yahweh's names, for example, shows up in the so-called Ugaritic Tablets- as a brother of Baal and son of El, the Canaanite supreme deity. Far from being the "unique" God, Yahweh simply absorbed the portfolio of his father, El, much as Zeus absorbed the portfolio of his own father, Kronos.

All of the hullabaloo about Christianity being an impure religion on the grounds of its supposedly alien doctrines is, to me, bollocks. People have borrowed religious ideas since time immemorial, and Jesus is basically just another name for the ancient, variously-named solar/zodiacal savior deity: Horus, Mithras, etc. The Christians err in insisiting that their fables are true whilst the fables of Horus, Mithras, etc. are false. Iconography has been kept, for example; one just needs to look at Jesus' halo and Horus' sun disk, or the mitre of the Pope and the hedjet crown of Egypt- demonstrations of ancient symbols and trappings that the Roman church burgled from the pagans that they put the boots to.

I find Christianity to be unsavory because of its emphasis on distinctly self-defeating qualities (such as man is a born sinner).

Yes - humans as sinners, Christ as one and only redeemer, uncompromising monotheism - these and similar traits need to be expunged.

[Anthropos]

Judaism is hardly a unique belief system [...].

First of all we weren't debating Judaism until you said 'Judaism' there, and Judaism as it is known today was largely formed after Christianity had been fixed as a strict traditional, religious form. But I'll assume that you meant the tradition of the Jews as they are to be found in the Old Testament then, I guess.

As a response to your argument there, the thing is that from the viewpoint of truth - and from the viewpoint of metaphysical truth especially - things look a little different. Originality (or unicity in the sense that you used the word), is not a mark of truth. In other words, and assessed in a more positive manner, what you called the 'synchretistic' nature of Christianity was and is not a problem for as long as Christianity remains true in all respects (and for as long, of course, as Christianity is God's Church). For that reason, assimilating various influences in the Church under Christ was no problem, quite simply and straightforwardly. Once you look at it from the point of view of truth, it matters little wherefrom it came, because truth is truth regardless.

[Loddfafner]

Why is the latest ploy for attention by some garish celebrity even worth posting about? Why enable such a world-class attention whore?

I'll refrain from commenting on the substance of his speculation except to mention that there was a theme in Medieval art to portray displays of affection between Jesus and St. John, but I am sure they were intended as chaste given that the main examples of this artwork are from the decorations of cathedrals.


Love had nothing to do with sex to the ancients. The same fallacy is involved in allegations to the effect that Plato was a proponent of homosexuality.

Uh... have you read the Symposium? It is as direct a discussion of the concept of sexual orientation as you will find before the nineteenth century. Anyone looking for a serious, though disputed, analysis, see the work of John Boswell, especially his Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

[Cato]

Yes - humans as sinners, Christ as one and only redeemer, uncompromising monotheism - these and similar traits need to be expunged.

Whatever floats your boat. I'm not into self-flagellation and God to me isn't the kind of fellow who plays favorites or needs you to believe in his "only begotten" son. How do I know this? I've opened my eyes a bit to the pre-Christian conceptions of what the son of God and the Logos truly are. The Christians tacked on useless detritus by trying to stuff a mythical, teaching narration into a historical timeframe. If it suits them, and they want to grovel before God and beg for his forgiveness (not knowing that forgiveness is self-created and not predicated upon God; an act of man's own will, as it were), fine by me. This is loathsome to me, as alien to my existence as the submission that the Muslims always blather on about. Sinner, slave, whatever.

God made us to be free, and there's a freedom in the ancient narrations that you can't even find in the Bible. The monotheists parade about with books, books filled with horrors like genocides and natural calamities (acts and events supposedly supported or authored by God), books culled from the so-called pagan lore, books passed off as religious instruction. The pagan lore, by and large, is passed off as deviltry- even if it does something like what portions of the Hermetica do: teach of man's relationship to the Logos and the Logos' relationship to the ineffable God (the ineffable God made the Logos who made the human race, and the human race's nearest conception of the divine is the Logos, which it puts into anthropomorphic terms).

[Anthropos]

Uh... have you read the Symposium? It is as direct a discussion of the concept of sexual orientation as you will find before the nineteenth century. Anyone looking for a serious, though disputed, analysis, see the work of John Boswell, especially his Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

I wouldn't have said what I said if I wasn't sure what I was talking about. I have read Plato and I have read texts where he explicitly touches on the 'love' that is in question here. I have also had this discussion with what are some prominent scholars in my country, so I am well aware of what some people base their assumptions on when they say that Plato was a proponent of homosexuality, and how they confuse 'love' with sex and so on. If you want to see for yourself, then read Plato and not Boswell (that's a safe tip). Try to keep an open mind, and you will find that many of the opinions of modern rationalistic philosophers on Plato's writings are unsubstantiated and far-fetched to say the least. They commit the error, as I said, of attributing their own mindframe to Plato. That's also what makes them interpret Plato's 'reason' in a silly way: they treat it as if he was speaking about the reason-of-the-enlightenment, and some of them go as far as to call him a prophet in that regard, but all of that is very foolish in my opinion.

[Poltergeist]

Like all Christians you think you know better, but it's you who have been deceived, I'm afraid.

So, whoever doesn't agree with your unhistorical, primitive-minded and ignorant view of what Christianity is, has been deceived?

LOL What a load of bull-shite!

You just don't like people who dare think with their own head.

[Óttar]

Just because he wasn't married and hung out with a bunch of guys doesn't mean he was gay. :rolleyes:
Exactly. Then again, Jesus can be whatever you want him to be.

Black
http://www.lillyofthevalleyva.com/BlackJesusMontage(c)BarzoniARTCOM10055775.jpg

http://hesedweemet.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/290px-negrojesus.jpg :D

Hindu
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/religion-philosophy/20894-christ-yogi-christianity_jesus_meditating_golden_light.gif

Japanese
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2362107619_482e0d4731.jpg

Female ;)

http://adland.tv/n1rv4n4g8/2008/mayjpgs/Female_Jesus_screen.jpg



(Irrelevant, but couldn't resist. :D)
http://www.thearchetypalconnection.com/images/MErnstTheBlessedVirginChastisesthe%20infantJesus1L ow.JPG

Queer? Why not?

[Cato]

First of all we weren't debating Judaism until you said 'Judaism' there, and Judaism as it is known today was largely formed after Christianity had been fixed as a strict traditional, religious form. But I'll assume that you meant the tradition of the Jews as they are to be found in the Old Testament then, I guess.

As a response to your argument there, the thing is that from the viewpoint of truth - and from the viewpoint of metaphysical truth especially - things look a little different. Originality (or unicity in the sense that you used the word), is not a mark of truth. In other words, and assessed in a more positive manner, what you called the 'synchretistic' nature of Christianity was and is not a problem for as long as Christianity remains true in all respects (and for as long, of course, as Christianity is God's Church). For that reason, assimilating various influences in the Church under Christ was no problem, quite simply and straightforwardly. Once you look at it from the point of view of truth, it matters little wherefrom it came, because truth is truth regardless.

Assimilate the various pagan beliefs because you have nothing original, call them "Christian" whilst obliterating the pagans and persecuting them as the followers of demons and devils.

Judaism, then and now = unoriginal.
Christianity, then and now = unoriginal.

How can one not talk about Christianity without also talking about Judaism, unless the former materialized out of thin air and has nothing to do with the latter? Jesus was, at one point, a good little Jewish boy wasn't he? If Christianity materialized out of thin air then it stands to reason that its claims to sole and universal truth are pretty much hogwash- and if Judaism can be proven to be a religion that borrowed from other belief systems, this case of hogwash is also true.

The entire story of monotheism is syncretism writ large.

Tally ho!

[Wulfhere]

Whatever floats your boat. I'm not into self-flagellation and God to me isn't the kind of fellow who plays favorites or needs you to believe in his "only begotten" son. How do I know this? I've opened my eyes a bit to the pre-Christian conceptions of what the son of God and the Logos truly are. The Christians tacked on useless detritus by trying to stuff a mythical, teaching narration into a historical timeframe. If it suits them, and they want to grovel before God and beg for his forgiveness (not knowing that forgiveness is self-created and not predicated upon God; an act of man's own will, as it were), fine by me. This is loathsome to me, as alien to my existence as the submission that the Muslims always blather on about. Sinner, slave, whatever.

God made us to be free, and there's a freedom in the ancient narrations that you can't even find in the Bible. The monotheists parade about with books, books filled with horrors like genocides and natural calamities (acts and events supposedly supported or authored by God), books culled from the so-called pagan lore, books passed off as religious instruction. The pagan lore, by and large, is passed off as deviltry- even if it does something like what portions of the Hermetica do: teach of man's relationship to the Logos and the Logos' relationship to the ineffable God (the ineffable God made the Logos who made the human race, and the human race's nearest conception of the divine is the Logos, which it puts into anthropomorphic terms).

There's no such thing as a "logos" or an "ineffable god". There are gods and goddesses - lots of them - but they didn't create the universe or anything like that.

[Wulfhere]

So, whoever doesn't agree with your unhistorical, primitive-minded and ignorant view of what Christianity is, has been deceived?

LOL What a load of bull-shite!

You just don't like people who dare think with their own head.

You must be joking. It's the Christians who have been brainwashed to believe the lies of the Church.

[Cail]

http://www.videoweed.com/file/4b11725576d45

[Cato]

There's no such thing as a "logos" or an "ineffable god". There are gods and goddesses - lots of them - but they didn't create the universe or anything like that.

What a strange retort.

You admit to the existence of deities yet deny that they are creatives forces-more or less very similar to the position that Epicurus took: Gods and Goddesses exist, but they don't do anything and don't demand anything from humankind.

Why bother to acknowledge such do-nothing creatures? Why hold them up to any sort of standard of worship?

The Logos exists, the sublime Creator exists. Mankind is an emanation of the the Logos, which is an emanation of God, who is the creator who creates himself. Mankind's salvation is about finding knowledge of the creator, not by accepting a dead man's death or submitting.

[Wulfhere]

What a strange retort.

You admit to the existence of deities yet deny that they are creatives forces-more or less very similar to the position that Epicurus took: Gods and Goddesses exist, but they don't do anything and don't demand anything from humankind.

Why bother to acknowledge such do-nothing creatures? Why hold them up to any sort of standard of worship?

The Logos exists, the sublime Creator exists. Mankind is an emanation of the the Logos, which is an emanation of God, who is the creator who creates himself. Mankind's salvation is about finding knowledge of the creator, not by accepting a dead man's death or submitting.

I said no such thing. Gods and goddesses do indeed have power, we can interact with them and they may use their powers for our benefit. They did not, however, create the universe, but evolved along with it.

As for this "logos" or whatever, it's all just intellectual masturbation of the most pointless kind.

[Cato]

I said no such thing. Gods and goddesses do indeed have power, we can interact with them and they may use their powers for our benefit. They did not, however, create the universe, but evolved along with it.

As for this "logos" or whatever, it's all just intellectual masturbation of the most pointless kind.

The Logos that you casually dismiss as "intellectual masturbation" has far more solidity than these silly divinities that you say, while being Gods and Goddesses, have no permancy or power. Change, evolution- deities do not change or evolve, this implies imperfection and deities aren't imperfect. Deities can only partake of that which is all-perfect: the first cause. Any lesser deities are merely emanations of the greatest of all Gods- yet mankind is greater than them all and has kinship with the creator.

Believe it or not, deny it, say I'm silly. I don't care; I'm not here on the forum to win converts.

[Wulfhere]

The Logos that you casually dismiss as "intellectual masturbation" has far more solidity than these silly divinities that you say, while being Gods and Goddesses, have no permancy or power. Change, evolution- deities do not change or evolve, this implies imperfection and deities aren't imperfect. Deities can only partake of that which is all-perfect: the first cause. Any lesser deities are merely emanations of the greatest of all Gods- yet mankind is greater than them all.

Please feel free to continue to believe such unmitigated tripe if you wish :)

[Cato]

Please feel free to continue to believe such unmitigated tripe if you wish :)

Ahh, well I haven't seen you offer a very coherent explanation of things divine except to lightly slam what I've posted as tripe, pointless and intellectual masturbation. Vague statements of evolving Gods, slams on topics, ideas and concepts that you've got no real desire to talk about except in the above fashion (slams), etc.

And your own evidence amounts to..? What's called unverified personal gnosis? Feel-good feelings that God is what I want him to be?

:confused:

[Wulfhere]

Ahh, well I haven't seen you offer a very coherent explanation of things divine except to lightly slam what I've posted as tripe, pointless and intellectual masturbation. Vague statements of evolving Gods, slams on topics, ideas and concepts that you've got no real desire to talk about except in the above fashion (slams), etc.

And your own evidence amounts to..? What's called unverified personal gnosis? Feel-good feelings that God is what I want him to be?

:confused:

Seems to me that you're the one with "feel-good" feelings about "God".

Arguing with Christians is like wrestling with jellyfish. I have no proof to offer you that you would accept. All I know, I know from experience, rather than letting others doing my thinking for me.

[Baron Samedi]

I'm just wondering where Elton John gets off saying something like this?

Sources? Or is he just blowing something out of his ass (lol) for no reason just for sensationalist value?

Just another pop-music industry loon.....

[Cato]

Seems to me that you're the one with "feel-good" feelings about "God".

Arguing with Christians is like wrestling with jellyfish. I have no proof to offer you that you would accept. All I know, I know from experience, rather than letting others doing my thinking for me.

My beliefs are firmly rooted in western esotericism, hardly in any school of self-serving thought. Nothing that I believe in and personally hold to be true is my own, or less Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Plotinus, Trismegistus, Spinoza, Sir Thomas More, Tom Paine, Trajano Boccalini and generations of other thinkers, satirists, philosophers and critics are all wrong- which I highly doubt. Uhoh, using the appeal to authority fallacy. ;) But absurd logic, rather than ethics and piety, form the scope of modern philosophy, so I don't mind being fallacious.

I believe that the unbound God is the common father of all, which has little to do with Christianity and more to do with, say, Stoicism and the idea of the cosmopolis- that all men, while of different nationalities, have the same essential divine origin, an origin that most are ignobly ignorant of.

You seem to believe in deities that are mere caricatures of natural powers, waxing and waning with the unfolding of the universe. As I've said, such deities are no more deserving of respect than, say, a tick or a toad. Why say that you believe in Gods at all then if they are so unworthy of worship?

[Wulfhere]

My beliefs are firmly rooted in western esotericism, hardly in any school of self-serving thought. Nothing that I believe in and personally hold to be true is my own, or less Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Plotinus, Trismegistus, Spinoza, Sir Thomas More, Tom Paine, Trajano Boccalini and generations of other thinkers, satirists, philosophers and critics are all wrong- which I highly doubt. Uhoh, using the appeal to authority fallacy. ;) But absurd logic, rather than ethics and piety, form the scope of modern philosophy, so I don't mind being fallacious.

I believe that the unbound God is the common father of all, which has little to do with Christianity and more to do with, say, Stoicism and the idea of the cosmopolis- that all men, while of different nationalities, have the same essential divineorigin, an origin that most are ignobly ignorant of.

You seem to believe in deities that are mere caricatures of natural powers, waxing and waning with the unfolding of the universe. As I've said, such deities are no more deserving of respect than, say, a tick or a toad.

A tick or a toad do deserve respect, in their own terms. As would a tiger, or a hurricane. You have inadvertently revealed another repellant aspect of your philosophy - its contempt for nature.

[Cato]

A tick or a toad do deserve respect, in their own terms. As would a tiger, or a hurricane. You have inadvertently revealed another repellant aspect of your philosophy - its contempt for nature.

This is worth a hearty HAR-HAR-HAR-HAR. Why is that, because I don't identify Gods with uncaring natural forces? Because I believe that nature is not man's master? Because I view God as a father? Because I believe that man is the living image of God and, thereby, think that man is greater than all of the ticks and toads, combined, in the world? Are your own beliefs so human-hating that you'd raise nature to a level above the mere mortal?

Mortal man has body, mind and soul, a united creature who is, so far as we know, the only creature of its kind in the entire universe.

[Wulfhere]

This is worth a hearty HAR-HAR-HAR-HAR. Why is that, because I don't identify Gods with uncaring natural forces? Because I believe that nature is not man's master? Because I view God as a father? Because I believe that man is the living image of God and, thereby, think that man is greater than all of the ticks and toads, combined, in the world? Are your own beliefs so human-hating that you'd raise nature to a level above the mere mortal?

Mortal man has body, mind and soul, a united creature who is, so far as we know, the only creature of its kind in the entire universe.

Gods and goddesses are not uncaring natural forces - I never said such a thing. I also never said that nature should be raised above man. Is this the level of your argument? Claim I said things that I didn't, then demolish them.

For the record: gods and goddesses are genuine entities with personalities that can control natural forces. Man is not superior to nature because he is a part of nature, but since we're human ourselves there's nothing wrong or unnatural in favouring man over other things, should conflict arise.

[Cato]

Gods and goddesses are not uncaring natural forces - I never said such a thing. I also never said that nature should be raised above man. Is this the level of your argument? Claim I said things that I didn't, then demolish them.

For the record: gods and goddesses are genuine entities with personalities that can control natural forces. Man is not superior to nature because he is a part of nature, but since we're human ourselves there's nothing wrong or unnatural in favouring man over other things, should conflict arise.

Ironic. Did you not say this of me?

"You have inadvertently revealed another repellant aspect of your philosophy -its contempt for nature."

This in response to my comment about ticks and toads and man being worthier a being than anything else in the universe. I never once suggested that I hold nature in contempt, only that mankind is superior to nature and natural laws by virtue of his kinship with the divine. The human body exists within nature and is subject to its laws, as are all things, but the human soul is what sets him apart, it comes from God, is God, and will return to God when the physical body expires- or do you not believe in the soul?

Nature has no controlling Gods other than the first cause, which created natural laws whereby which the world operate- or, for example, are there Gods that control the four fundamental forces of physics (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak atomic force)? Mankind creates his own Gods other than the first cause, calling them by this name and that name. The Bible calls this idolatry, but it's really man calling forth what is pre-existent within himself and giving it name and meaning. In the old Egyptian religion, Ra quotes in the story of Isis and Ra, where she learns his secret name:

I have multitude of names, and multitude of forms.

Ra is also called The one who creates [or comes forth from] himself.

Ra was the solar deity, which the ancients identified with the Logos, the active creative principle at work in the world. This is the savior of mankind the ancient spoke of, not Jesus and it has nothing to do with the Biblical deity as far as I know.

[Wulfhere]

Ironic. Did you not say this of me?

"You have inadvertently revealed another repellant aspect of your philosophy -its contempt for nature."

This in response to my comment about ticks and toads and man being worthier a being than anything else in the universe. I never once suggested that I hold nature in contempt, only that mankind is superior to nature and natural laws by virtue of his kinship with the divine. The human body exists within nature and is subject to its laws, as are all things, but the human soul is what sets him apart, it comes from God, is God, and will return to God when the physical body expires- or do you not believe in the soul?

Nature has no controlling Gods other than the first cause, which created natural laws whereby which the world operate- or, for example, are there Gods that control the four fundamental forces of physics (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak atomic force)? Mankind creates his own Gods other than the first cause, calling them by this name and that name. The Bible calls this idolatry, but it's really man calling forth what is pre-existent within himself and giving it name and meaning. In the old Egyptian religion, Ra quotes in the story of Isis and Ra, where she learns his secret name:

I have multitude of names, and multitude of forms.

Ra is also called The one who creates [or comes forth from] himself.

Ra was the solar deity, which the ancients identified with the Logos, the active creative principle at work in the world. This is the savior of mankind the ancient spoke of, not Jesus and it has nothing to do with the Biblical deity as far as I know.

Sorry, but you're talking wank again. I only believe in what I can experience, and this includes the gods and goddesses you're so casually dismissive of. It's when people cut themselves off from experience and try and explore nature with their intellect alone that they come up with the sort of arid, meaningless bollocks you've been spouting. Ironically, of course, science is the very antithesis of this philosophical approach, basing its knowledge on practical experimentation.

[Cato]

Sorry, but you're talking wank again. I only believe in what I can experience, and this includes the gods and goddesses you're so casually dismissive of. It's when people cut themselves off from experience and try and explore nature with their intellect alone that they come up with the sort of arid, meaningless bollocks you've been spouting. Ironically, of course, science is the very antithesis of this philosophical approach, basing its knowledge on practical experimentation.

And how do you know that I don't base my beliefs on personal experience and self-contemplation as much as on book learning and intellectual stimulation? I don't follow every mental, experiential impression for many of these impressions are utterly incorrect.

As to "talking wank" you've never even once replied to any of my points or comments except in a bit of a smary, even smug, fashion, which sort of suggests to me that you've got no clue at all as to what I'm trying to get across to you.

[Wulfhere]

And how do you know that I don't base my beliefs on personal experience and self-contemplation as much as on book learning and intellectual stimulation? I don't follow every mental, experiential impression for many of these impressions are utterly incorrect.

As to "talking wank" you've never even once replied to any of my points or comments except in a bit of a smary, even smug, fashion, which sort of suggests to me that you've got no clue at all as to what I'm trying to get across to you.

And the fact that you think "self-contemplation" is equivalent to experience indicates that you haven't understood anything I've said, either.

I'm fully familiar with the position you're expousing - it's hardly new or original, after all. It's a typical philosophical view of the world, based almost entirely on intellectual speculation, built upon earlier layers of speculation going back centuries. It's the sort of thing that's hardly even worth arguing with, because it will accept no arguments that are not couched in its own terms, which means buying into the whole thing to start with.

And yes, senses do sometimes deceive, which is why its always better to examine something in as many ways as you can. Even this, flawed though it might be, will give a damn sight more accurate picture of the universe than sheer guesswork, which is what your philosophy amounts to.

[Cato]

And the fact that you think "self-contemplation" is equivalent to experience indicates that you haven't understood anything I've said, either.

I'm fully familiar with the position you're expousing - it's hardly new or original, after all. It's a typical philosophical view of the world, based almost entirely on intellectual speculation, built upon earlier layers of speculation going back centuries. It's the sort of thing that's hardly even worth arguing with, because it will accept no arguments that are not couched in its own terms, which means buying into the whole thing to start with.

And yes, senses do sometimes deceive, which is why its always better to examine something in as many ways as you can. Even this, flawed though it might be, will give a damn sight more accurate picture of the universe than sheer guesswork, which is what your philosophy amounts to.

You focus on one term: self-contemplation.
You ignore the others that I used: personal experience, book-learning, intellectual stimulation.

1 of 4.

So far, all you've done is reply in generalities, dodging straightforward questions like "Do you not believe in the soul?" as good as any Christian apologist dodges issues like "Why does Jesus have so much in common with God X?"

My method differs little from that of question and answer. And, so far, you've done nothing to answer any questions except with quibbles on how I seem to follow a pre-defined intellectual pattern that brooks no alternatives. Set in stone as it were.

Your explanation of what you believe a God is is equally vague, except to say, "[G]ods and goddesses are genuine entities with personalities that can control natural forces." To which I bring up the four fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, etc.), asking if there are Gods that control these too (as compared to, say, thunder Gods, sun Gods, moon Gods)?

I've explained, in the best terms that I can, what I believe God is, and for this you say it's "talking wank." As if you've done much talking on the subject of Gods except in the above manner. If it's true that the world is full of Gods, as Thales says, then it shouldn't be hard to discuss them using a simple process of inquiry- then you have a better idea, do Gods exist within nature, outside of nature, etc. Or, if there is only one God with multiple manifestations, this should also be easy to discuss within the same parameters. But, if you think it's all bollocks to discuss with others, as I believe you did suggest, why bother to say you believe in God at all?

[Wulfhere]

You focus on one term: self-contemplation.
You ignore the others that I used: personal experience, book-learning, intellectual stimulation.

1 of 4.

So far, all you've done is reply in generalities, dodging straightforward questions like "Do you not believe in the soul?" as good as any Christian apologist dodges issues like "Why does Jesus have so much in common with God X?"

My method differs little from that of question and answer. And, so far, you've done nothing to answer any questions except with quibbles on how I seem to follow a pre-defined intellectual pattern that brooks no alternatives. Set in stone as it were.

Your explanation of what you believe a God is is equally vague, except to say, "[G]ods and goddesses are genuine entities with personalities that can control natural forces." To which I bring up the four fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, etc.), asking if there are Gods that control these too (as compared to, say, thunder Gods, sun Gods, moon Gods)?

I've explained, in the best terms that I can, what I believe God is, and for this you say it's "talking wank." As if you've done much talking on the subject of Gods except in the above manner. If it's true that the world is full of Gods, as Thales says, then it shouldn't be hard to discuss them using a simple process of inquiry- then you have a better idea, do Gods exist within nature, outside of nature, etc. Or, if there is only one God with multiple manifestations, this should also be easy to discuss within the same parameters. But, if you think it's all bollocks to discuss with others, as I believe you did suggest, why bother to say you believe in God at all?

I didn't say such a thing, and I don't believe in the "God" you believe in. Gods and goddesses exist, but they have nothing to do with your philosophical abstractions.

Do I believe in a soul? What do you mean? Do I believe that there is an afterlife? I don't know, but there's good evidence from spirit mediums and - separately - stories of ghosts, to give pause for thought. Is that a soul? I have no fucking idea mate because I don't accept your terminology.

[Cato]

I didn't say such a thing, and I don't believe in the "God" you believe in. Gods and goddesses exist, but they have nothing to do with your philosophical abstractions.

Do I believe in a soul? What do you mean? Do I believe that there is an afterlife? I don't know, but there's good evidence from spirit mediums and - separately - stories of ghosts, to give pause for thought. Is that a soul? I have no fucking idea mate because I don't accept your terminology.

The God that I believe in is the God of all, you're simply ignorant of that fact. Oh abstract philosophical dogma! Your acceptance of "my" terminology is not much of a concern, for "my" terminology rightly belongs to men wiser and more august and divine than myself.

So, you've got no conception of the soul? So, you're therefore soulless? If you don't know what the soul is, after all that I've posted so far, I'm not going to tell you what it is- it should be as apparent as the light of the sun. You believe more strongly in ghosts, goblins, mediums and spooks but not the God of all things? Again I ask, why not simply clarify what God is to you? All you've done is say that you don't accept this and that of what I say (i.e. betray an ignorance of metaphysics), say that I talk wank (i.e. the good ol' ad hominem), say that what I post is bollocks, and generally indicate that you're not very familiar with long-established esoteric doctrines that should, by now, be common knowledge amongst the so-called critics of religion.

[Wulfhere]

The God that I believe in is the God of all, you're simply ignorant of that fact. Oh abstract philosophical dogma! Your acceptance of "my" terminology is not much of a concern, for "my" terminology rightly belongs to men wiser and more august and divine than myself.

So, you've got no conception of the soul? So, you're therefore soulless? If you don't know what the soul is, after all that I've posted so far, I'm not going to tell you what it is- it should be as apparent as the light of the sun. You believe more strongly in ghosts, goblins, mediums and spooks but not the God of all things? Again I ask, why not simply clarify what God is to you? All you've done is say that you don't accept this and that of what I say (i.e. betray an ignorance of metaphysics), say that I talk wank (i.e. the good ol' ad hominem), say that what I post is bollocks, and generally indicate that you're not very familiar with long-established esoteric doctrines that should, by now, be common knowledge amongst the so-called critics of religion.

"The God that I believe in is the God of all, you're simply ignorant of that fact." There really isn't much point continuing to debate with mindless dogma of this sort.

[Maleficarum]

Getting back to the subject, Elton John's just another ringpiece who thinks his opinion matters because he's a 'star'. He falls in the same category as Bono and Bob Geldof, as for Jesus being a pillow biter, who fucking cares?

[Cato]

"The God that I believe in is the God of all, you're simply ignorant of that fact."There really isn't much point continuing to debate with mindless dogma of this sort.

Back to posting anti-Christian vitriol for you then!

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/26442/original/PWNED_.JPG?1258136028

[Anthropos]

I just have to comment on the 'debate' of the last few pages of this thread:

It's curious to see how two Neospirituals who differ only slightly in outlook can be so engaged in dispute; the one accusing the other for lack of knowledge in the philosophy that he compiled individually for himself, the other fighting the abstractions of that philosophy while defending the bizarre 'Daughters of Frya' cult that he founded......... only for the firstmentioned one to top his accusations against the other saying that he's posting 'anti-Christian vitriol'! :wtf Some kind of hypocrisy is definitely involved there, considering that not long ago we read this:


Assimilate the various pagan beliefs because you have nothing original, call them "Christian" whilst obliterating the pagans and persecuting them as the followers of demons and devils.

Judaism, then and now = unoriginal.
Christianity, then and now = unoriginal.

How can one not talk about Christianity without also talking about Judaism, unless the former materialized out of thin air and has nothing to do with the latter? Jesus was, at one point, a good little Jewish boy wasn't he? If Christianity materialized out of thin air then it stands to reason that its claims to sole and universal truth are pretty much hogwash- and if Judaism can be proven to be a religion that borrowed from other belief systems, this case of hogwash is also true.

The entire story of monotheism is syncretism writ large.

Tally ho!

Is it really worth the trouble to sort out the minor disagreements of these two debaters??

[Cato]

I was curious as to what the fellow thought a God is, other than some abstract, Darwinian caricature of nature.

He replied, Gods and goddesses exist, but they have nothing to do with your philosophical abstractions. But, he never explain what such beings are except, for example, There are gods and goddesses - lots of them - but they didn't create the universe or anything like that. This sounds more than a bit like the notions of an Epicurean to me; deities exists but are blisfully inactive in that they neither create nor oversee the universe that is supposed to honor them as Gods.

He accused me of being abstract, yet abstractly explains his own conceptions of the divine.

God begot the Logos (cosmic mind, divine creativity, etc.)
Through the Logos, God begot man.

As to anti-Christian vitriol, I did read the earlier portions of the thread and the guy had some gems to say:

"Certain passages that very strongly hint that Jesus fucked men were excised from the Bible..."

"I have no Christian spirit whatsoever, Protestant or otherwise. The Christian Church is built on a pack of lies from beginning to end, and I don't give a shit what it calls "sacraments". What I do nknow is that there were sects in the early Church whose beliefs differed drastically from what eventually became official orthodoxy. One of these practiced sodomy. Others did all sorts of things."

"Like all Christians you think you know better, but it's you who have been deceived, I'm afraid."

"The Church is built on a pack of lies."

Etc.

If that's not a bit of vitriol, then what is it?

Hypocrisy of what sort? I asked some questions and would've liked some actual answers other than being told I'm an arid talker of wank who wallows in abstract philosophizing. Even after I gave suggestions as to some of the metaphysical areas that I draw from, by name, I was never once asked to elaborate further- and my small attempts to show a consistency of certain doctrines from Point A (ancient belief systems, such as Hermeticism) to Point B (modern esotericism, such as espoused by Spinoza) were ignored.

In what way is this potentially hypocritical?

"Assimilate the various pagan beliefs because you have nothing original, call them "Christian" whilst obliterating the pagans and persecuting them as the followers of demons and devils.

Judaism, then and now = unoriginal.
Christianity, then and now = unoriginal.

How can one not talk about Christianity without also talking about Judaism, unless the former materialized out of thin air and has nothing to do with the latter? Jesus was, at one point, a good little Jewish boy wasn't he? If Christianity materialized out of thin air then it stands to reason that its claims to sole and universal truth are pretty much hogwash- and if Judaism can be proven to be a religion that borrowed from other belief systems, this case of hogwash is also true.

The entire story of monotheism is syncretism writ large.

Tally ho!"

I neither defend nor attack Christianity, except to criticize its claim to sole truth and that its emphasis on sin and suffering are unsavory to my sense of self-worth. Yes, its doctrines are unoriginal, being variations on a theme, but that's not really the thing that bothers me about it.

[Anthropos]

Hypocrisy of what sort? I asked some questions and would've liked some actual answers other than being told I'm an arid talker of wank who wallows in abstract philosophizing. Even after I gave suggestions as to some of the metaphysical areas that I draw from, by name, I was never once asked to elaborate further- and my small attempts to show a consistency of certain doctrines from Point A (ancient belief systems, such as Hermeticism) to Point B (modern esotericism, such as espoused by Spinoza) were ignored.So Spinoza was an esoteric??


In what way is this potentially hypocritical?For the record, the hypocrisy consists in the fact that you are yourself propagating anti-Christian views. It matters little whether it is what you call 'vitriol' or not, but I guess that to you it makes all the difference.


"Assimilate the various pagan beliefs because you have nothing original, call them "Christian" whilst obliterating the pagans and persecuting them as the followers of demons and devils.

Judaism, then and now = unoriginal.
Christianity, then and now = unoriginal.

How can one not talk about Christianity without also talking about Judaism, unless the former materialized out of thin air and has nothing to do with the latter? Jesus was, at one point, a good little Jewish boy wasn't he? If Christianity materialized out of thin air then it stands to reason that its claims to sole and universal truth are pretty much hogwash- and if Judaism can be proven to be a religion that borrowed from other belief systems, this case of hogwash is also true.

The entire story of monotheism is syncretism writ large.

Tally ho!"

I neither defend nor attack Christianity, except to criticize its claim to sole truth and that its emphasis on sin and suffering are unsavory to my sense of self-worth. Yes, its doctrines are unoriginal, being variations on a theme, but that's not really the thing that bothers me about it.

It may seem to you that you 'neither defend nor attack Christianity' but that can only be so if you are completely ignorant about Christianity, and that seems to be what you are, even if you are so eager to share your spurious insights.

First of all, as I already hinted, Judaism as it is known today did not exist when Jesus first preached the Gospel. The Jews or the Hebrews existed and they had a tradition, a temple, clergy, they made sacrifices and so on, but Judaism in the form that Jews practice it today did not exist. The temple does not exist any longer, the sacrifices have been layed aside, and many other things related to the temple have also vanished. To simplify the matter we can say this about the Jew: The Jew either accepted or rejected Christ. But as far as Christianity is concerned that is only half the story, because many of the early Christians were non-Jews! As far as the tradition of the Jews or the Hebrews is concerned we can say, although this is a bit simplified perhaps, that it was split in two as a result of Jesus entering the stage: One interpretation and its followers became what was later to be known as Judaism, the other interpretation and its followers became what is known as Christendom. All the same, we should also bear in mind that there were proselytes in the old covenant (and that the Jewish tradition was not the racially founded thing that doubtless some people at the Apricity would like to picture for themselves; whether that was how you pictured it or not is no matter, however).

The point is that your understanding of Christianity as something that sprung out of Judaism is already false and anti-Christian. To mention one more thing, there were Israelites who awaited Jesus and who followed him as soon as they saw him. Christianity is not a revision of Judaism, but a true tradition in its own right and separate from Judaism. This is so also from the standpoint of any unbiased exegetic point of view, so that in saying what I have just said I have not been propagating a specifically Christian point of view.

And of course, I could have made it more easy for myself, because you actually said that Christianty's 'claims to [...] universal truth are pretty much hogwash'. That alone proves it: You are nothing but a hypocrite in accusing someone else of anti-Christian ideas since your own ideas are anti-Christian. And since the conceptions that you hold dear are not uncommon, it served a purpose (and a preservationist one at that) to show how false and anti-Christian are those, through and through.

[Grey]

the other fighting the abstractions of that philosophy while defending the bizarre 'Daughters of Frya' cult that he founded.........

I'd never paid attention to the links before.

I had a great laugh at opening the Tolkien link and seeing this:

http://www.angelfire.com/rings/three/index_files/image001.jpg

I'm sure that's exactly what the devout Catholic author envisioned when he wrote the books :D

[Osweo]

I'd never paid attention to the links before.

I had a great laugh at opening the Tolkien link and seeing this:

http://www.angelfire.com/rings/three/index_files/image001.jpg

I'm sure that's exactly what the devout Catholic author envisioned when he wrote the books :D
Did you mean this?:
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/9891/89109982.jpg

Honestly, am I the only person to ever use the 'Preview Post' feature?!? :p

[Grey]

Did you mean this?:
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/9891/89109982.jpg

Honestly, am I the only person to ever use the 'Preview Post' feature?!? :p

It shows up for me in my post. Eh, I might've just done something weird :crazy:

:p

[Wulfhere]

Yes. Now please explain what's wrong with it.

[Óttar]

Proof that St. Jerome at least, was a fag:

"For I who fancied it too bold a wish to be allowed by an exchange of letters to counterfeit to myself your presence in the flesh... Oh, if only the Lord Jesus Christ would suddenly transport me to you... with what a close embrace would I clasp your neck, how fondly would I press kisses upon that mouth which has so often joined with me of old in error or in wisdom. But as I am unworthy (not that you should so come to me but) that I should so come to you, and because my poor body, weak even when well, has been shattered by frequent illnesses; I send this letter to meet you instead of coming myself, in the hope that it may bring you hither to me caught in the meshes of love's net." [St Jerome: "letter to Rufinus the monk"]

[Dead Eye]

Groups of minorities always say such ridiculous things such as this to try and fit in where they know they are not wanted,or needed.