Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

[ding]

Illiterate Language Lords



This thread's title is not what oxymoron means. Quit giving credibility to any of these lazy scribbling prostitutes and narrow-minded broadcasters, whether you agree with their opinions or not. These frauds read a word that they think will make them sound educated, but then don't bother to find out its exact meaning or usage. What the thread is referring to is a claim that something is a "contradiction in terms." An oxymoron has the opposite meaning.

You have waited 16 pages to correct my title?

I made that title on purpose, because people would understand the meaning.

16 pages of people understood what I meant, without the need to ridicule me based on the title. Trust me, nobody here gives a shit about the way the word "oxymoron" was used pertaining to "religion and ethics". They understand what was meant.

What drew you here? You come here, 16 pages later and try to fucking educate me?!? What are you a fucking Catholic School English teacher?!?

Shut the fuck up!

You're a fucking dick, looking to get it wet in the wrong place. Go back to your dinghole.

Maybe he just read it. I gave you a pass because I knew you are uneducated and were trying your best to look intelligent.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Simple logic is an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms. Somebody on another forum used the term simple logic to prove his point.

Americans Are Lazy Mind-Slaves of the Functionally Illiterate Media

An oxymoron is a clever statement that only seems like a contradiction, but isn't in the particular way the words are being used. For example, "boneless ribs; plastic glasses; paid volunteers; firewater; Kansas City, Missouri; sounds of silence; less is more." Some phrasemaker in the future could call irradiated soil "clean dirt."

A "contradiction in terms" is just the opposite. It is the claim that something that is perfectly logical isn't really so. For example, someone who thought that firemen were lazy could say, "'Firefighter' is a contradiction in terms."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Illiterate Language Lords



This thread's title is not what oxymoron means. Quit giving credibility to any of these lazy scribbling prostitutes and narrow-minded broadcasters, whether you agree with their opinions or not. These frauds read a word that they think will make them sound educated, but then don't bother to find out its exact meaning or usage. What the thread is referring to is a claim that something is a "contradiction in terms." An oxymoron has the opposite meaning.

You have waited 16 pages to correct my title?



16 pages of people understood what I meant, without the need to ridicule me based on the title. Trust me, nobody here gives a shit about the way the word "oxymoron" was used pertaining to "religion and ethics". They understand what was meant.

What drew you here? You come here, 16 pages later and try to fucking educate me?!?

Shut the fuck up!

.

You Ain't Hardly Got Nothing to Say Noways. I'm Sure You Understand What I Mean, Too.

Why would I read even one post in a discussion started by an illiterate? I guess if I cared about what you think, I would have written, "I'm not reading any of this preschool bickering and here's why..." Parroting ignorant language is an automatic disqualifier for me. For example, Dr. Laura once said, "That is between you and he to decide." From then on, I realized that her education was defective and began to see through her other phoniness; she's just a broadcasting bully and appeals to masochists only.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, I didn't mean to ignore you on my last post, but only had limited time. But to address Buddhism, I do not include that in my observations, I think that is "good" as far as I have been able to tell. I meant the trinity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the evils they represent. Buddhism is something worth actually following, though there's still no need to put a label on it. Should just be obvious faith, the label just makes it a target for future entrepreneurs. But given that, this thread is about to devolve quickly, as followers of a not-so-nice person have been told to join in. And I'm gonna have some fun with them...

I don't want you in the middle of the poop going forward. So please understand.

Okay RWS fair enough
So can we discuss what allows Buddhism to reconcile with practical ethics, while the "trinity" of Judaism Christianity and Islam opens the door for evil abuses?

This is a good question.

Is it that Buddhism and Bahai both teach Independent Investigation, and not to believe things by coercion or indoctrination but accept things by free will?

BTW Islam also teaches "there is no compulsion in religion" and even in Constitutionalism there is supposed to be respect for individual religious freedom and not discrimination by creed or depriving people by punishment without due process. Even in Liberalism there is belief in inclusion of diversity, freedom of choice from religious indoctrination of others, and separation of church and state.

So RWS is the problem that religious freedom isn't taught consistently as a value, as the Buddhists and Bahai teach tolerance and nonviolence in social relations.

Or is it that people dont follow their own teachings and are hypocrites?

Is it both? Where is the problem coming from that distinguishes the nonviolent peace and justice types who are ethical not hypocrites, from the others who abuse their political party or their religion or corporate influence to commit collecting wrongs as a cult?

Do we Blame the lack of Constitutional ethics for not teaching and establishing common respect for due process, inclusion of diverse views and beliefs including political conflicts, as part of religious freedom.

Where do the trinity religions go wrong where Buddhism doesn't have this same collective oppression or abuse?

Very good question ! Thanks RWS

 

[emilynghiem]

Illiterate Language Lords



This thread's title is not what oxymoron means. Quit giving credibility to any of these lazy scribbling prostitutes and narrow-minded broadcasters, whether you agree with their opinions or not. These frauds read a word that they think will make them sound educated, but then don't bother to find out its exact meaning or usage. What the thread is referring to is a claim that something is a "contradiction in terms." An oxymoron has the opposite meaning.

You have waited 16 pages to correct my title?

I made that title on purpose, because people would understand the meaning.

16 pages of people understood what I meant, without the need to ridicule me based on the title. Trust me, nobody here gives a shit about the way the word "oxymoron" was used pertaining to "religion and ethics". They understand what was meant.

What drew you here? You come here, 16 pages later and try to fucking educate me?!? What are you a fucking Catholic School English teacher?!?

Shut the fuck up!

You're a fucking dick, looking to get it wet in the wrong place. Go back to your dinghole.

Dear RWS and The Sage of Main Street
I. I would say you are both right
A. Oxymoron does NOT
1. mean either " two terms that can't be used in the same context "
2. or mean "a contradiction in terms"
3. but means a term such as "civil war" or "domestic violence" that APPEARS to contradict itself.
B. RWS is also right that
1. It is common understanding for people to ABUSE the term loosely such as calling "student athletes" or "honest politicians" an "oxymoron" to mean you can't have both things at the same time
(But I would have put "oxymoron" in quotes to show this is used LOOSELY NOT LITERALLY)
2. There is no need to hang poster over this abuse of terms, much less derail a thread that is trying to address a serious issue of what makes major religions abusive. Enough people understood and replied anyway to make this thread work.

RWS and The Sage of Main Street
II. Since you are both right can we agree
A. This does NOT make Sage a dick or an asshole for pointing out abuse of terms which is a valid point worth correcting
B. This abuse of terms does not warrant tossing an entire thread when the meaning was understood despite this annoying misuse of the term that should equally be corrected, especially if the point is to hang religions over ethics and demand PERFECT consistency

So to bring and apply this back to the OP
III. Does this show us where religions go wrong
A. If people CANNOT forgive flaws ABUSES conflicts or inconsistencies and either REJECT and DIVIDE which causes people to compete to clobber each other over "who is right and who is wrong" as both of you demonstrated
B. Or the others on here like me who CAN forgive abuses and conflicts or Differences in how we communicate using terms that not everyone agrees to ( such as God Jesus religion etc) and STILL CHOOSE to communicate anyway What We MEAN despite disagreement over terms and beliefs .

One way Restores and Preserves relations despite flaws conflicts abuses etc.

One way cuts off relations and leads to bullying and power struggles to control the relationship, force one way or the other in competition by coercion or by exclusion instead of INCLUSION.

RWS have you answered your own question yet, as to what causes the abuse of power you denounce in major religions that isn't collectively imposed in Buddhism butbis equally seen in political parties and religions you didn't include in the three.

Is the factor that causes abuse:
FEAR
unforgiveness
Ill will and rejection
Judgment punishment and retaliation

What is the difference in how you and Sage saw each other versus other people willing to work with either or both of you without judging calling names or rejecting and derailing?

Can you pinpoint the difference between retributive justice and restorative justice that makes the difference in healing and correcting relationships instead of competing to destroy each other??? Thanks RWS
Answer your own question and you can follow the path of Buddha and Jesus , who both struggled as all humans have. You might lead us all to the next Nobel Prize if you can answer this question you brought up even if you didn't pose it perfectly . it's the same issue that has always plagued humanity.

So what is the cause of evil
* selfish ego
* fear separating them vs us
*unforgiveness and retribution judgment or punishment

And what are the solutions to these problems that aren't being taught right in religions that cause the abuses and imbalances of power to continue in a vicious cycle instead of Listening to reason and accepting correction.

If you won't accept correction from Sage, how could this be changed?
If correction and REASON can be respected and included , how can the same be introduced into religions that otherwise reject change and correction?

 

[emilynghiem]

I mean, think about it...

Some Popes have recently apologized for the evils Christianity committed in order to gain power, and it took well over 1000 years for them to even admit those evils.

But they didn't change the religion and forbid these things in the future. They just said they were past transgressions and should be forgiven. The religion itself remains the same.

So if the religion says to do it again... then there is nothing to stop followers from doing it again...

You mean like we forbid murder and murder still happens? Do you even have a brain?

Good point ding
And yes RWS does have a very strong brain and mind that is questioning the lack of ethics in religion.

That's why we're having this discussion . inquiring minds want to know and RWS is demanding answers that even secular NONTHEISTS can understand without the religious rigamorole masking them with conditions and judgmemt. Perhaps RWS has to make the same mistakes from the secular side to understand the real divide and why it doesn't get resolved this way by blaming back and forth - the secular blaming the problem on religion while the faith based groups blame those outside their faith.

Thanks to you and Votto for telling it to RWS straight.

Perhaps with your unapologetic delivery, versus more diplomatic ways of offering solutions and corrections, RWS may see the difference, and choose the more constructive criticisms if those prove more effective. And understand what is causing abuses to go on instead of resolving them.


Thanks also to The Sage of Main Street . the right approach would include respect and reconcile all these points being made regardless how flawed the presentation or delivery.

So unless you have the perfect answer for satisfying everyone's standards and ethics on how to express truth, we are all less than perfect and arent universal in expressing the truth to all other people with an equal say. Thus we are left with a kitchen full of pots and kettles calling each other black.

RWS do you get the point.
Can you see what is happening here with some people willing to communicate and stick to points and principles we know we agree on despite conflicts in how we present them. And others playing the game of LABELing which people or groups are at fault, where this derails and diverts from addressing what is causing the flaws and whether those can be remedied.

If you play the game of fault finding one group more than another, doesn't it continue the distraction of defending or projecting blame back and forth and not ever getting to the root problem causing the real issues to begin with. Do you see what happens on a Local Level with individuals , multiplied by whole groups organizations parties or nations makes this impossible to resolve.

Isn't the solution to work backwards, untangle these knots and conflicts on a Local scale with just individuals butting heads. And then as teams agreeing to overcome and work past our conflicts, maybe we can better address collective groups that are butting heads and bullying each other instead of addressing common conflicts using reason and ethics.

Can you see what is happening here, what causes problems to go in circles. And what change of attitude might open doors to lead a way out in a constructive direction instead of blaming and name calling back and forth.

If you can see the change you can be that change .

If you can feel the pain you can heal the pain.

If you give up, find a different way.
After all the options are exhausted that don't lead us anywhere, well end up where Buddha and Jesus did after they gave up trying to change anything ourselves . the answers will come. Keep asking keep receiving.

Knock and the door shall be opened unto you . thanks RWS listen to your critics as much as your supporters. There is truth to be gleaned from everything said here so take it all in and the right solutions will encompass everything shared here.

Yours truly, Emily

 

[Boss]

Nazi's got their followers to believe in their cause by stating there were supernatural beings living under the earth, waiting for the Germans to cleanse the world. It was the following of that religion that caused people to kill and die for it.

Actually, the vast majority of Germans who supported Nazism had NO idea of what sort of madness was going on until after the fact. They were not aware that Hitler was exterminating Jews. It was NOT a "religious" movement, it was nationalism. Now you may want to dishonestly distort nationalism into a religion but we can do that with ANY ideology if we want to be intellectually dishonest. It can apply to liberal progressivism or Atheism! But the fact that you want to call something a "religion" that isn't really a religion is NOT making your point, it's being intellectually dishonest.

Regarding my quote that you quoted verbatim, that is exactly what a religion is... You seem to miss the point.

No, I think I get the point and I just disagree with it. You're trying to turn the religion into the perversion of the religion some people adopt. That does not define the religion itself. It's like arguing the Miss America swimsuit competition is pornographic on the basis that SOME people sit at home and masturbate while watching it. That doesn't make it porn! Sorry!

I did not mention a belief, I mentioned a religion that exploits those beliefs for the benefit of the ruler. THAT is a religion. Anything else is personal faith.

*sigh* ....ALL Religion is dependent upon personal faith. There is NO exception! You did NOT mention a religion that exploits the beliefs for the benefit of a ruler... you mentioned the OPPOSITE... a ruler who exploits the religion for his own benefit. Again, if someone whacks off to Miss America in a swimsuit, it doesn't make Miss America a porn star. In a nutshell, that is the argument you're trying to make and you are failing miserably.

Once it becomes institutionalized, your beliefs and faiths are now used to create money and power for the people that rule. And you end up doing things that you shouldn't, based on how they manipulate you and your offspring. It becomes a machine to suck the current followers dry and create more for "future sucking". It loses all connection to the original ideas and morals and ethics that the original faith implied.

You're actually now making MY point! It was NOT the original intent or meaning of the religion itself... the RELIGION is not the problem, it is the EXPLOITATION of the religion. I agree, institutionalized religion is a problem, that's why America was created with religious freedom.

That has been my point, and you still argue that Crusaders killed/raped/tortured innocent people because they liked it. When in fact they were following orders from what they believed was "God" and doing what they believed was virtuous and moral. But obviously, a "god" worth worshiping wouldn't ask them to do that. So they were following the corrupt rulers of their religion. They were no longer following their faith and morals that Jesus Christ taught. They were following their religion, and doing what they were told to do, thinking it was their way to salvation. And nothing has changed since then, so when they are called upon to do it again, they will.

The Crusades were a response to radical Islamic fanaticism which swept across Europe and threatened to destroy it. It was an exploitation of the religion, NOT the religion itself.

That is the evil that religion presents. People will do things outside of their morals and ethics, if they are convinced that their "god" is telling them to do it, based on what their ruler tells them. I mean, it's pretty frikkin simple to understand that concept.

So if you want to continue to argue that point for the sake of argument, which is what you said you have been doing, then I have to question why.

You're not going to prove yourself better than anybody, by maintaining an argument you don't believe.

Religion doesn't represent evil. MEN practice evil! Sometimes, they exploit religious philosophy to do so. That doesn't make the religion evil! That STILL makes MAN evil! No religion I am aware of (and you've presented NO example) has ever been established for the express purpose of perpetrating evil, or by any ruler for the purpose of power and wealth. YES... sometimes religions have been EXPLOITED! That's the fault of MAN not Religion!

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Good AND bad things are done in the name of Religion. You can cite examples all day long of bad things Religion has been used for but there are just as many good things Religion has been used for. In fact, there are probably far more GOOD things than bad throughout human history.

Dude you have said yourself you don't believe in a religion, you just want to argue. Yet you argue that religion is a "thing" given by God. And that men do the evil things. You are totally ass-backwards!

Faith is something that "god" gives a person. "God" does not tell that person to kill others. Jesus never created a religion... A human ruler creates a Religion to create power and wealth, and make people want to die and kill on his behalf. Followers of that religion have been duped into following the human, and forget the morals. A Christian today does not follow "God" as originally intended. He/she follows what the human ruler told him/her to follow by writing and rewriting the Bible as necessary. And that's why they committed the crimes they did, and will happily do again once called upon.

I disagree with you and you've not made a case for your biased opinion. You continue to proclaim things you cannot support. You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers... much less for the purposes you've claimed. What you amount to is a blowhard.

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith. I'm not a Christian but I'm also not an arrogant blowhard.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[BreezeWood]

Nazi's got their followers to believe in their cause by stating there were supernatural beings living under the earth, waiting for the Germans to cleanse the world. It was the following of that religion that caused people to kill and die for it.

Actually, the vast majority of Germans who supported Nazism had NO idea of what sort of madness was going on until after the fact. They were not aware that Hitler was exterminating Jews. It was NOT a "religious" movement, it was nationalism. Now you may want to dishonestly distort nationalism into a religion but we can do that with ANY ideology if we want to be intellectually dishonest. It can apply to liberal progressivism or Atheism! But the fact that you want to call something a "religion" that isn't really a religion is NOT making your point, it's being intellectually dishonest.

Regarding my quote that you quoted verbatim, that is exactly what a religion is... You seem to miss the point.

No, I think I get the point and I just disagree with it. You're trying to turn the religion into the perversion of the religion some people adopt. That does not define the religion itself. It's like arguing the Miss America swimsuit competition is pornographic on the basis that SOME people sit at home and masturbate while watching it. That doesn't make it porn! Sorry!

I did not mention a belief, I mentioned a religion that exploits those beliefs for the benefit of the ruler. THAT is a religion. Anything else is personal faith.

*sigh* ....ALL Religion is dependent upon personal faith. There is NO exception! You did NOT mention a religion that exploits the beliefs for the benefit of a ruler... you mentioned the OPPOSITE... a ruler who exploits the religion for his own benefit. Again, if someone whacks off to Miss America in a swimsuit, it doesn't make Miss America a porn star. In a nutshell, that is the argument you're trying to make and you are failing miserably.

Once it becomes institutionalized, your beliefs and faiths are now used to create money and power for the people that rule. And you end up doing things that you shouldn't, based on how they manipulate you and your offspring. It becomes a machine to suck the current followers dry and create more for "future sucking". It loses all connection to the original ideas and morals and ethics that the original faith implied.

You're actually now making MY point! It was NOT the original intent or meaning of the religion itself... the RELIGION is not the problem, it is the EXPLOITATION of the religion. I agree, institutionalized religion is a problem, that's why America was created with religious freedom.

That has been my point, and you still argue that Crusaders killed/raped/tortured innocent people because they liked it. When in fact they were following orders from what they believed was "God" and doing what they believed was virtuous and moral. But obviously, a "god" worth worshiping wouldn't ask them to do that. So they were following the corrupt rulers of their religion. They were no longer following their faith and morals that Jesus Christ taught. They were following their religion, and doing what they were told to do, thinking it was their way to salvation. And nothing has changed since then, so when they are called upon to do it again, they will.

The Crusades were a response to radical Islamic fanaticism which swept across Europe and threatened to destroy it. It was an exploitation of the religion, NOT the religion itself.

That is the evil that religion presents. People will do things outside of their morals and ethics, if they are convinced that their "god" is telling them to do it, based on what their ruler tells them. I mean, it's pretty frikkin simple to understand that concept.

So if you want to continue to argue that point for the sake of argument, which is what you said you have been doing, then I have to question why.

You're not going to prove yourself better than anybody, by maintaining an argument you don't believe.

Religion doesn't represent evil. MEN practice evil! Sometimes, they exploit religious philosophy to do so. That doesn't make the religion evil! That STILL makes MAN evil! No religion I am aware of (and you've presented NO example) has ever been established for the express purpose of perpetrating evil, or by any ruler for the purpose of power and wealth. YES... sometimes religions have been EXPLOITED! That's the fault of MAN not Religion!

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Good AND bad things are done in the name of Religion. You can cite examples all day long of bad things Religion has been used for but there are just as many good things Religion has been used for. In fact, there are probably far more GOOD things than bad throughout human history.

Dude you have said yourself you don't believe in a religion, you just want to argue. Yet you argue that religion is a "thing" given by God. And that men do the evil things. You are totally ass-backwards!

Faith is something that "god" gives a person. "God" does not tell that person to kill others. Jesus never created a religion... A human ruler creates a Religion to create power and wealth, and make people want to die and kill on his behalf. Followers of that religion have been duped into following the human, and forget the morals. A Christian today does not follow "God" as originally intended. He/she follows what the human ruler told him/her to follow by writing and rewriting the Bible as necessary. And that's why they committed the crimes they did, and will happily do again once called upon.

I disagree with you and you've not made a case for your biased opinion. You continue to proclaim things you cannot support. You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers... much less for the purposes you've claimed. What you amount to is a blowhard.

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith. I'm not a Christian but I'm also not an arrogant blowhard.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

.

You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers...

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith.

christian faith is the product of governance, a book by rulers and not a religion.

it has been pointed out to you organized religions were created or established by the rulers at the time the religions were formally accepted - christianity was created in the late 4th century by the concoction of their 4th century bible - the 1st century events of that book is not a formal religion, the non existence, formality is the product of the rulers that intervened that eventually produced (said) christianity. the subject of this thread.

the religion(s) not produced by the presiding rulers are ones that the rulers attempt to discredit and prevent from being established - branches of Marxism.

what fairyland do you reside in ...

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear BreezeWood Boss RWS
If you are going by BW timeline of only counting Christianity based on 4th Century, then we need to agree on a definition of what is true Christianity/Christian faith that effectively brings healing redemption and all the salvation of grace and heaven as symbolized in the Bible VERSUS politicized Christian (and Islam) used to conquer people and land for expanding domains for control of material power and wealth.

BW at least throws out a timeline.

May I also offer the timeline given in the Book "Saving Paradise" where the early Christian cultures were about sharing in brotherhood with peace on earth and paradise as in the innocent Garden of Eden but with including Christ as teaching to love and forgive one another as God lives us, through Christ. And then later starting around 999 that's when the image of the cross and using sacrifice to justify bloodshed for crusades changed the use of Christianity to political conquering .


This second wave -- that can be aligned more with ANTICHRIST than with true Christlike love of neighbor in heavenly peace and kingdom of God -- is what BreezeWood and RWS seem to object to in rejecting Christianity.

So to distinguish the loving message of Christianity as CHARITY and grace to all humanity as Children of the one God
FROM
The politicized religion for selfish material gain and greed for control

What do you suggest we call these two things?

If we keep using the same term Christianity to mean both the good and the bad, we argue in circles over the terms.

BreezeWood RWS Boss Can I appeal to you to put your powerful brains together and Pinpoint what term best Distinguishes these two takes on Christianity which are as opposite as night and day. So we AGREE which era or which application we are talking about?

I have suggested:
* Retributive Justice
* Restorative Justice
As explaining the difference in spirit between Antichrist and Christ.

What do you suggest so we don't split hairs over terms using the same words to mean the negative interpretations and abusive oppressive religions as opposed to the positive meanings that bring healing restoration and peace.

 

[emilynghiem]

Illiterate Language Lords



This thread's title is not what oxymoron means. Quit giving credibility to any of these lazy scribbling prostitutes and narrow-minded broadcasters, whether you agree with their opinions or not. These frauds read a word that they think will make them sound educated, but then don't bother to find out its exact meaning or usage. What the thread is referring to is a claim that something is a "contradiction in terms." An oxymoron has the opposite meaning.

You have waited 16 pages to correct my title?



16 pages of people understood what I meant, without the need to ridicule me based on the title. Trust me, nobody here gives a shit about the way the word "oxymoron" was used pertaining to "religion and ethics". They understand what was meant.

What drew you here? You come here, 16 pages later and try to fucking educate me?!?

Shut the fuck up!

.

You Ain't Hardly Got Nothing to Say Noways. I'm Sure You Understand What I Mean, Too.

Why would I read even one post in a discussion started by an illiterate? I guess if I cared about what you think, I would have written, "I'm not reading any of this preschool bickering and here's why..." Parroting ignorant language is an automatic disqualifier for me. For example, Dr. Laura once said, "That is between you and he to decide." From then on, I realized that her education was defective and began to see through her other phoniness; she's just a broadcasting bully and appeals to masochists only.

Dear The Sage of Main Street
In Jesus day, so many were illiterate Jesus used parables of farming and fishing to teach the difference between attachment to material life and laws vs. Living by spiritual laws of love and truth.

Today we learn and teach by example, using everyday experiences to show the difference between haggling over the letter of the law, which even the pharisees and sagisees would do and get nowhere, and really reaching agreement and restoring relations with neighbors in the spirit of truth justice and peace.

So unfortunately that means running into ignorance and illiterate situations where people don't share the same knowledge experience or background. We use our daily experiences, relations and perceptions to learn and grow in understanding; everyone is different, so we are all going to be ignorant of each other's history and how we say things using our own terms.

At least the process is mutual , Sage, you have as much to gain as to give in terms of exchanges here with RWS with Boss and others, who may be lacking in some areas but rich in others.

I hope you will stick around and keep contributing the knowledge you have which adds to that wealth we share as a group. And in exchange you will get as much as you give, if not more, as more ppl decide to contribute and share in the process. It's whatever we make of it. So if we want everyone to be enlightened and knowledgeable, it makes more sense to share. Rather than give up and keep the status quo.

 

[BreezeWood]

Dear BreezeWood Boss RWS
If you are going by BW timeline of only counting Christianity based on 4th Century, then we need to agree on a definition of what is true Christianity/Christian faith that effectively brings healing redemption and all the salvation of grace and heaven as symbolized in the Bible VERSUS politicized Christian (and Islam) used to conquer people and land for expanding domains for control of material power and wealth.

BW at least throws out a timeline.

May I also offer the timeline given in the Book "Saving Paradise" where the early Christian cultures were about sharing in brotherhood with peace on earth and paradise as in the innocent Garden of Eden but with including Christ as teaching to love and forgive one another as God lives us, through Christ. And then later starting around 999 that's when the image of the cross and using sacrifice to justify bloodshed for crusades changed the use of Christianity to political conquering .


This second wave -- that can be aligned more with ANTICHRIST than with true Christlike love of neighbor in heavenly peace and kingdom of God -- is what BreezeWood and RWS seem to object to in rejecting Christianity.

So to distinguish the loving message of Christianity as CHARITY and grace to all humanity as Children of the one God
FROM
The politicized religion for selfish material gain and greed for control

What do you suggest we call these two things?

If we keep using the same term Christianity to mean both the good and the bad, we argue in circles over the terms.

BreezeWood RWS Boss Can I appeal to you to put your powerful brains together and Pinpoint what term best Distinguishes these two takes on Christianity which are as opposite as night and day. So we AGREE which era or which application we are talking about?

I have suggested:
* Retributive Justice
* Restorative Justice
As explaining the difference in spirit between Antichrist and Christ.

What do you suggest so we don't split hairs over terms using the same words to mean the negative interpretations and abusive oppressive religions as opposed to the positive meanings that bring healing restoration and peace.

.

So to distinguish ...

sorry em, the above was all I could salvage from your post -

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.

to much to include in one post, a reflection of 4th century christianity and its historical impact since that time to the present day and its misrepresentation of the 1st century. the above is only one example of the mischaracterization of the 1st century events and religion the 4th century christian bible uses to disguise their political agenda while portraying themselves as a religion.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

but with including Christ as teaching to love and forgive one another as God lives us, through Christ.

be you a 4th century christian and stop referring to the Jesus of the 1st century as a christ.


“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani”


the above reflects the final stage and act of the 1st century events and religion, there is no more.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear BreezeWood
Despite what you cite about the Bible,
the same Bible is used to teach the inclusive message of Restorative Justice for all humanity as one family under God
As it has been abused to justify crusades and carnage glorifying Armageddon and Antichrist takes on law, Gods will and the end times.

So you can't just say its the Bible, or the fault of Christianity. That's not enough to "distinguish" why some ppl are getting one message while others follow something else in the opposite spirit! Both citing the SAME Bible!

It's got to be something within the people causing the difference in beliefs about what Christianity MEANS, about what the Bible MEANS, and what Gods will IS, that is justified in both cases by citing the SAME BIBLE.

What do you say that factor is?

 

[Boss]

Nazi's got their followers to believe in their cause by stating there were supernatural beings living under the earth, waiting for the Germans to cleanse the world. It was the following of that religion that caused people to kill and die for it.

Actually, the vast majority of Germans who supported Nazism had NO idea of what sort of madness was going on until after the fact. They were not aware that Hitler was exterminating Jews. It was NOT a "religious" movement, it was nationalism. Now you may want to dishonestly distort nationalism into a religion but we can do that with ANY ideology if we want to be intellectually dishonest. It can apply to liberal progressivism or Atheism! But the fact that you want to call something a "religion" that isn't really a religion is NOT making your point, it's being intellectually dishonest.

Regarding my quote that you quoted verbatim, that is exactly what a religion is... You seem to miss the point.

No, I think I get the point and I just disagree with it. You're trying to turn the religion into the perversion of the religion some people adopt. That does not define the religion itself. It's like arguing the Miss America swimsuit competition is pornographic on the basis that SOME people sit at home and masturbate while watching it. That doesn't make it porn! Sorry!

I did not mention a belief, I mentioned a religion that exploits those beliefs for the benefit of the ruler. THAT is a religion. Anything else is personal faith.

*sigh* ....ALL Religion is dependent upon personal faith. There is NO exception! You did NOT mention a religion that exploits the beliefs for the benefit of a ruler... you mentioned the OPPOSITE... a ruler who exploits the religion for his own benefit. Again, if someone whacks off to Miss America in a swimsuit, it doesn't make Miss America a porn star. In a nutshell, that is the argument you're trying to make and you are failing miserably.

Once it becomes institutionalized, your beliefs and faiths are now used to create money and power for the people that rule. And you end up doing things that you shouldn't, based on how they manipulate you and your offspring. It becomes a machine to suck the current followers dry and create more for "future sucking". It loses all connection to the original ideas and morals and ethics that the original faith implied.

You're actually now making MY point! It was NOT the original intent or meaning of the religion itself... the RELIGION is not the problem, it is the EXPLOITATION of the religion. I agree, institutionalized religion is a problem, that's why America was created with religious freedom.

That has been my point, and you still argue that Crusaders killed/raped/tortured innocent people because they liked it. When in fact they were following orders from what they believed was "God" and doing what they believed was virtuous and moral. But obviously, a "god" worth worshiping wouldn't ask them to do that. So they were following the corrupt rulers of their religion. They were no longer following their faith and morals that Jesus Christ taught. They were following their religion, and doing what they were told to do, thinking it was their way to salvation. And nothing has changed since then, so when they are called upon to do it again, they will.

The Crusades were a response to radical Islamic fanaticism which swept across Europe and threatened to destroy it. It was an exploitation of the religion, NOT the religion itself.

That is the evil that religion presents. People will do things outside of their morals and ethics, if they are convinced that their "god" is telling them to do it, based on what their ruler tells them. I mean, it's pretty frikkin simple to understand that concept.

So if you want to continue to argue that point for the sake of argument, which is what you said you have been doing, then I have to question why.

You're not going to prove yourself better than anybody, by maintaining an argument you don't believe.

Religion doesn't represent evil. MEN practice evil! Sometimes, they exploit religious philosophy to do so. That doesn't make the religion evil! That STILL makes MAN evil! No religion I am aware of (and you've presented NO example) has ever been established for the express purpose of perpetrating evil, or by any ruler for the purpose of power and wealth. YES... sometimes religions have been EXPLOITED! That's the fault of MAN not Religion!

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Good AND bad things are done in the name of Religion. You can cite examples all day long of bad things Religion has been used for but there are just as many good things Religion has been used for. In fact, there are probably far more GOOD things than bad throughout human history.

Dude you have said yourself you don't believe in a religion, you just want to argue. Yet you argue that religion is a "thing" given by God. And that men do the evil things. You are totally ass-backwards!

Faith is something that "god" gives a person. "God" does not tell that person to kill others. Jesus never created a religion... A human ruler creates a Religion to create power and wealth, and make people want to die and kill on his behalf. Followers of that religion have been duped into following the human, and forget the morals. A Christian today does not follow "God" as originally intended. He/she follows what the human ruler told him/her to follow by writing and rewriting the Bible as necessary. And that's why they committed the crimes they did, and will happily do again once called upon.

I disagree with you and you've not made a case for your biased opinion. You continue to proclaim things you cannot support. You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers... much less for the purposes you've claimed. What you amount to is a blowhard.

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith. I'm not a Christian but I'm also not an arrogant blowhard.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

.

You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers...

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith.

christian faith is the product of governance, a book by rulers and not a religion.

it has been pointed out to you organized religions were created or established by the rulers at the time the religions were formally accepted - christianity was created in the late 4th century by the concoction of their 4th century bible - the 1st century events of that book is not a formal religion, the non existence, formality is the product of the rulers that intervened that eventually produced (said) christianity. the subject of this thread.

the religion(s) not produced by the presiding rulers are ones that the rulers attempt to discredit and prevent from being established - branches of Marxism.

what fairyland do you reside in ...

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

 

[Boss]

Dear BreezeWood Boss RWS
If you are going by BW timeline of only counting Christianity based on 4th Century, then we need to agree on a definition of what is true Christianity/Christian faith that effectively brings healing redemption and all the salvation of grace and heaven as symbolized in the Bible VERSUS politicized Christian (and Islam) used to conquer people and land for expanding domains for control of material power and wealth.

BW at least throws out a timeline.

May I also offer the timeline given in the Book "Saving Paradise" where the early Christian cultures were about sharing in brotherhood with peace on earth and paradise as in the innocent Garden of Eden but with including Christ as teaching to love and forgive one another as God lives us, through Christ. And then later starting around 999 that's when the image of the cross and using sacrifice to justify bloodshed for crusades changed the use of Christianity to political conquering .


This second wave -- that can be aligned more with ANTICHRIST than with true Christlike love of neighbor in heavenly peace and kingdom of God -- is what BreezeWood and RWS seem to object to in rejecting Christianity.

So to distinguish the loving message of Christianity as CHARITY and grace to all humanity as Children of the one God
FROM
The politicized religion for selfish material gain and greed for control

What do you suggest we call these two things?

If we keep using the same term Christianity to mean both the good and the bad, we argue in circles over the terms.

BreezeWood RWS Boss Can I appeal to you to put your powerful brains together and Pinpoint what term best Distinguishes these two takes on Christianity which are as opposite as night and day. So we AGREE which era or which application we are talking about?

I have suggested:
* Retributive Justice
* Restorative Justice
As explaining the difference in spirit between Antichrist and Christ.

What do you suggest so we don't split hairs over terms using the same words to mean the negative interpretations and abusive oppressive religions as opposed to the positive meanings that bring healing restoration and peace.

All due respect, don't appeal for me to put my brain with these two. Not interested.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nazi's got their followers to believe in their cause by stating there were supernatural beings living under the earth, waiting for the Germans to cleanse the world. It was the following of that religion that caused people to kill and die for it.

Actually, the vast majority of Germans who supported Nazism had NO idea of what sort of madness was going on until after the fact. They were not aware that Hitler was exterminating Jews. It was NOT a "religious" movement, it was nationalism. Now you may want to dishonestly distort nationalism into a religion but we can do that with ANY ideology if we want to be intellectually dishonest. It can apply to liberal progressivism or Atheism! But the fact that you want to call something a "religion" that isn't really a religion is NOT making your point, it's being intellectually dishonest.

Regarding my quote that you quoted verbatim, that is exactly what a religion is... You seem to miss the point.

No, I think I get the point and I just disagree with it. You're trying to turn the religion into the perversion of the religion some people adopt. That does not define the religion itself. It's like arguing the Miss America swimsuit competition is pornographic on the basis that SOME people sit at home and masturbate while watching it. That doesn't make it porn! Sorry!

I did not mention a belief, I mentioned a religion that exploits those beliefs for the benefit of the ruler. THAT is a religion. Anything else is personal faith.

*sigh* ....ALL Religion is dependent upon personal faith. There is NO exception! You did NOT mention a religion that exploits the beliefs for the benefit of a ruler... you mentioned the OPPOSITE... a ruler who exploits the religion for his own benefit. Again, if someone whacks off to Miss America in a swimsuit, it doesn't make Miss America a porn star. In a nutshell, that is the argument you're trying to make and you are failing miserably.

Once it becomes institutionalized, your beliefs and faiths are now used to create money and power for the people that rule. And you end up doing things that you shouldn't, based on how they manipulate you and your offspring. It becomes a machine to suck the current followers dry and create more for "future sucking". It loses all connection to the original ideas and morals and ethics that the original faith implied.

You're actually now making MY point! It was NOT the original intent or meaning of the religion itself... the RELIGION is not the problem, it is the EXPLOITATION of the religion. I agree, institutionalized religion is a problem, that's why America was created with religious freedom.

That has been my point, and you still argue that Crusaders killed/raped/tortured innocent people because they liked it. When in fact they were following orders from what they believed was "God" and doing what they believed was virtuous and moral. But obviously, a "god" worth worshiping wouldn't ask them to do that. So they were following the corrupt rulers of their religion. They were no longer following their faith and morals that Jesus Christ taught. They were following their religion, and doing what they were told to do, thinking it was their way to salvation. And nothing has changed since then, so when they are called upon to do it again, they will.

The Crusades were a response to radical Islamic fanaticism which swept across Europe and threatened to destroy it. It was an exploitation of the religion, NOT the religion itself.

That is the evil that religion presents. People will do things outside of their morals and ethics, if they are convinced that their "god" is telling them to do it, based on what their ruler tells them. I mean, it's pretty frikkin simple to understand that concept.

So if you want to continue to argue that point for the sake of argument, which is what you said you have been doing, then I have to question why.

You're not going to prove yourself better than anybody, by maintaining an argument you don't believe.

Religion doesn't represent evil. MEN practice evil! Sometimes, they exploit religious philosophy to do so. That doesn't make the religion evil! That STILL makes MAN evil! No religion I am aware of (and you've presented NO example) has ever been established for the express purpose of perpetrating evil, or by any ruler for the purpose of power and wealth. YES... sometimes religions have been EXPLOITED! That's the fault of MAN not Religion!

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Good AND bad things are done in the name of Religion. You can cite examples all day long of bad things Religion has been used for but there are just as many good things Religion has been used for. In fact, there are probably far more GOOD things than bad throughout human history.

Dude you have said yourself you don't believe in a religion, you just want to argue. Yet you argue that religion is a "thing" given by God. And that men do the evil things. You are totally ass-backwards!

Faith is something that "god" gives a person. "God" does not tell that person to kill others. Jesus never created a religion... A human ruler creates a Religion to create power and wealth, and make people want to die and kill on his behalf. Followers of that religion have been duped into following the human, and forget the morals. A Christian today does not follow "God" as originally intended. He/she follows what the human ruler told him/her to follow by writing and rewriting the Bible as necessary. And that's why they committed the crimes they did, and will happily do again once called upon.

I disagree with you and you've not made a case for your biased opinion. You continue to proclaim things you cannot support. You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers... much less for the purposes you've claimed. What you amount to is a blowhard.

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith. I'm not a Christian but I'm also not an arrogant blowhard.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

.

You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers...

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith.

christian faith is the product of governance, a book by rulers and not a religion.

it has been pointed out to you organized religions were created or established by the rulers at the time the religions were formally accepted - christianity was created in the late 4th century by the concoction of their 4th century bible - the 1st century events of that book is not a formal religion, the non existence, formality is the product of the rulers that intervened that eventually produced (said) christianity. the subject of this thread.

the religion(s) not produced by the presiding rulers are ones that the rulers attempt to discredit and prevent from being established - branches of Marxism.

what fairyland do you reside in ...

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

 

[Boss]

Actually, the vast majority of Germans who supported Nazism had NO idea of what sort of madness was going on until after the fact. They were not aware that Hitler was exterminating Jews. It was NOT a "religious" movement, it was nationalism. Now you may want to dishonestly distort nationalism into a religion but we can do that with ANY ideology if we want to be intellectually dishonest. It can apply to liberal progressivism or Atheism! But the fact that you want to call something a "religion" that isn't really a religion is NOT making your point, it's being intellectually dishonest.

No, I think I get the point and I just disagree with it. You're trying to turn the religion into the perversion of the religion some people adopt. That does not define the religion itself. It's like arguing the Miss America swimsuit competition is pornographic on the basis that SOME people sit at home and masturbate while watching it. That doesn't make it porn! Sorry!

*sigh* ....ALL Religion is dependent upon personal faith. There is NO exception! You did NOT mention a religion that exploits the beliefs for the benefit of a ruler... you mentioned the OPPOSITE... a ruler who exploits the religion for his own benefit. Again, if someone whacks off to Miss America in a swimsuit, it doesn't make Miss America a porn star. In a nutshell, that is the argument you're trying to make and you are failing miserably.

You're actually now making MY point! It was NOT the original intent or meaning of the religion itself... the RELIGION is not the problem, it is the EXPLOITATION of the religion. I agree, institutionalized religion is a problem, that's why America was created with religious freedom.

The Crusades were a response to radical Islamic fanaticism which swept across Europe and threatened to destroy it. It was an exploitation of the religion, NOT the religion itself.

Religion doesn't represent evil. MEN practice evil! Sometimes, they exploit religious philosophy to do so. That doesn't make the religion evil! That STILL makes MAN evil! No religion I am aware of (and you've presented NO example) has ever been established for the express purpose of perpetrating evil, or by any ruler for the purpose of power and wealth. YES... sometimes religions have been EXPLOITED! That's the fault of MAN not Religion!

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Good AND bad things are done in the name of Religion. You can cite examples all day long of bad things Religion has been used for but there are just as many good things Religion has been used for. In fact, there are probably far more GOOD things than bad throughout human history.

Dude you have said yourself you don't believe in a religion, you just want to argue. Yet you argue that religion is a "thing" given by God. And that men do the evil things. You are totally ass-backwards!

Faith is something that "god" gives a person. "God" does not tell that person to kill others. Jesus never created a religion... A human ruler creates a Religion to create power and wealth, and make people want to die and kill on his behalf. Followers of that religion have been duped into following the human, and forget the morals. A Christian today does not follow "God" as originally intended. He/she follows what the human ruler told him/her to follow by writing and rewriting the Bible as necessary. And that's why they committed the crimes they did, and will happily do again once called upon.

I disagree with you and you've not made a case for your biased opinion. You continue to proclaim things you cannot support. You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers... much less for the purposes you've claimed. What you amount to is a blowhard.

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith. I'm not a Christian but I'm also not an arrogant blowhard.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

.

You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers...

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith.

christian faith is the product of governance, a book by rulers and not a religion.

it has been pointed out to you organized religions were created or established by the rulers at the time the religions were formally accepted - christianity was created in the late 4th century by the concoction of their 4th century bible - the 1st century events of that book is not a formal religion, the non existence, formality is the product of the rulers that intervened that eventually produced (said) christianity. the subject of this thread.

the religion(s) not produced by the presiding rulers are ones that the rulers attempt to discredit and prevent from being established - branches of Marxism.

what fairyland do you reside in ...

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

Let me help you understand this, Emily... You are mistakenly thinking this is a rational debate. It's not. These people are Christian haters. They don't care about rational debate. The entire purpose is to denigrate Christians and Christianity. They believe, in some small way, this sort of thing helps diminish the object of their hate.

Trying to reason with people like this is futile. It's a total waste of time because they're not going to be reasonable. The only thing they want to hear is mutual contempt for Christianity.

 

[BreezeWood]

Actually, the vast majority of Germans who supported Nazism had NO idea of what sort of madness was going on until after the fact. They were not aware that Hitler was exterminating Jews. It was NOT a "religious" movement, it was nationalism. Now you may want to dishonestly distort nationalism into a religion but we can do that with ANY ideology if we want to be intellectually dishonest. It can apply to liberal progressivism or Atheism! But the fact that you want to call something a "religion" that isn't really a religion is NOT making your point, it's being intellectually dishonest.

No, I think I get the point and I just disagree with it. You're trying to turn the religion into the perversion of the religion some people adopt. That does not define the religion itself. It's like arguing the Miss America swimsuit competition is pornographic on the basis that SOME people sit at home and masturbate while watching it. That doesn't make it porn! Sorry!

*sigh* ....ALL Religion is dependent upon personal faith. There is NO exception! You did NOT mention a religion that exploits the beliefs for the benefit of a ruler... you mentioned the OPPOSITE... a ruler who exploits the religion for his own benefit. Again, if someone whacks off to Miss America in a swimsuit, it doesn't make Miss America a porn star. In a nutshell, that is the argument you're trying to make and you are failing miserably.

You're actually now making MY point! It was NOT the original intent or meaning of the religion itself... the RELIGION is not the problem, it is the EXPLOITATION of the religion. I agree, institutionalized religion is a problem, that's why America was created with religious freedom.

The Crusades were a response to radical Islamic fanaticism which swept across Europe and threatened to destroy it. It was an exploitation of the religion, NOT the religion itself.

Religion doesn't represent evil. MEN practice evil! Sometimes, they exploit religious philosophy to do so. That doesn't make the religion evil! That STILL makes MAN evil! No religion I am aware of (and you've presented NO example) has ever been established for the express purpose of perpetrating evil, or by any ruler for the purpose of power and wealth. YES... sometimes religions have been EXPLOITED! That's the fault of MAN not Religion!

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Good AND bad things are done in the name of Religion. You can cite examples all day long of bad things Religion has been used for but there are just as many good things Religion has been used for. In fact, there are probably far more GOOD things than bad throughout human history.

Dude you have said yourself you don't believe in a religion, you just want to argue. Yet you argue that religion is a "thing" given by God. And that men do the evil things. You are totally ass-backwards!

Faith is something that "god" gives a person. "God" does not tell that person to kill others. Jesus never created a religion... A human ruler creates a Religion to create power and wealth, and make people want to die and kill on his behalf. Followers of that religion have been duped into following the human, and forget the morals. A Christian today does not follow "God" as originally intended. He/she follows what the human ruler told him/her to follow by writing and rewriting the Bible as necessary. And that's why they committed the crimes they did, and will happily do again once called upon.

I disagree with you and you've not made a case for your biased opinion. You continue to proclaim things you cannot support. You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers... much less for the purposes you've claimed. What you amount to is a blowhard.

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith. I'm not a Christian but I'm also not an arrogant blowhard.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

.

You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers...

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith.

christian faith is the product of governance, a book by rulers and not a religion.

it has been pointed out to you organized religions were created or established by the rulers at the time the religions were formally accepted - christianity was created in the late 4th century by the concoction of their 4th century bible - the 1st century events of that book is not a formal religion, the non existence, formality is the product of the rulers that intervened that eventually produced (said) christianity. the subject of this thread.

the religion(s) not produced by the presiding rulers are ones that the rulers attempt to discredit and prevent from being established - branches of Marxism.

what fairyland do you reside in ...

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

.

Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

that is when your "official" christianity began - and is not the religion of the 1st century.

OT - NT are written religions - the 1st century is verbal to this day, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” .to bad the very words of Jesus could not be forgotten by some though "interpret" them as you may.

you are disingenuous by your league with boss as I have no association with them you could hardly have not understood.

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline ...

antichrist began in the late 4th century within the christian bible, the history from "that" time to the present bears the outcome from the false (religions) political agendas beginning.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I answered your post and as before in the past in response to you, you refuse to engage the answer I have given you - I will again refer to you as disingenuous.


you could be helpful emily - I would like to give a name to the original 1st century religion referring to those events with the final act being Jesus's untimely death - the verbal religion is simply the Religion of God. something that would distinguish it from christianity.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dude you have said yourself you don't believe in a religion, you just want to argue. Yet you argue that religion is a "thing" given by God. And that men do the evil things. You are totally ass-backwards!

Faith is something that "god" gives a person. "God" does not tell that person to kill others. Jesus never created a religion... A human ruler creates a Religion to create power and wealth, and make people want to die and kill on his behalf. Followers of that religion have been duped into following the human, and forget the morals. A Christian today does not follow "God" as originally intended. He/she follows what the human ruler told him/her to follow by writing and rewriting the Bible as necessary. And that's why they committed the crimes they did, and will happily do again once called upon.

I disagree with you and you've not made a case for your biased opinion. You continue to proclaim things you cannot support. You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers... much less for the purposes you've claimed. What you amount to is a blowhard.

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith. I'm not a Christian but I'm also not an arrogant blowhard.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

.

You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers...

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith.

christian faith is the product of governance, a book by rulers and not a religion.

it has been pointed out to you organized religions were created or established by the rulers at the time the religions were formally accepted - christianity was created in the late 4th century by the concoction of their 4th century bible - the 1st century events of that book is not a formal religion, the non existence, formality is the product of the rulers that intervened that eventually produced (said) christianity. the subject of this thread.

the religion(s) not produced by the presiding rulers are ones that the rulers attempt to discredit and prevent from being established - branches of Marxism.

what fairyland do you reside in ...

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

.

Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

that is when your "official" christianity began - and is not the religion of the 1st century.

OT - NT are written religions - the 1st century is verbal to this day, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” to bad the very words of Jesus could not be forgotten though "interpret" them as you may.

you are disingenuous by your league with boss as I have no association with them you could hardly have not understood.

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline ...

antichrist began in the late 4th century within the christian bible, the history from "that" time to the present bears the outcome from the false (religions) political agendas beginning.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I answered your post and as before in the past in response to you, you refuse to engage the answer I have given you - I will again refer to you as disingenuous.


you could be helpful emily - I would like to give a name to the original 1st century religion referring to those events with the final act being Jesus's untimely death - the verbal religion is simply the Religion of God. something that would distinguish it from christianity.

OK BreezeWood so you are calling the
1st century as the "Religion of God" maybe we can call it the Original laws of God
and the 4th century (I thought it was marked at early as 999) as the
"Antichrist" false Christianity that is politicized crusades for conquest.

For the historical date of 999 given as the first record of a CROSS
used to symbolize CRUSADES for sacrifice,
would you say that is part of the 4th century Antichrist,
such as the prehistory, the same trend but BEFORE the
written history in the Bible?

I got this date from the book "Saving Paradise"
that uses that as the shift from the
Peaceful brotherhood age (what you are calling the Original
RELIGION or laws of God) to the conquest/crusades for political motives.

Sorry I come across as disingenuous to you.

as long as we come up with a common timeline
I don't think it matters so much what Boss or you or I think of each other.

What matters is that we agree on a common truth so we can
discuss these things clearly regardless what flaws or motives any of us may or may not have.

Can you add in a description of where the crusades fit in
that date back to 999 as approximately when the first CROSS appeared?

Thanks BreezeWood perhaps it's because other people
have questioned your motives that you question mine.
But I'm not to be defined by other people and neither are you.
You are defined or defiled by the words that come from your own mouth.
So if you falsely accuse me, that's on you not on me.
I am sincere, and it's not my problem if your bad experience with other people
makes you suspect otherwise. That's your experience with them, and is not what I'm about.
Sorry if that affects us, and I hope it will not interfere in the future. All can be forgiven and corrected,
and that's what I'm about.

 

[BreezeWood]

I disagree with you and you've not made a case for your biased opinion. You continue to proclaim things you cannot support. You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers... much less for the purposes you've claimed. What you amount to is a blowhard.

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith. I'm not a Christian but I'm also not an arrogant blowhard.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

.

You haven't given any examples of religions created by rulers...

Did you watch the video I posted? It demonstrates the power of Christian faith.

christian faith is the product of governance, a book by rulers and not a religion.

it has been pointed out to you organized religions were created or established by the rulers at the time the religions were formally accepted - christianity was created in the late 4th century by the concoction of their 4th century bible - the 1st century events of that book is not a formal religion, the non existence, formality is the product of the rulers that intervened that eventually produced (said) christianity. the subject of this thread.

the religion(s) not produced by the presiding rulers are ones that the rulers attempt to discredit and prevent from being established - branches of Marxism.

what fairyland do you reside in ...

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

.

Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

that is when your "official" christianity began - and is not the religion of the 1st century.

OT - NT are written religions - the 1st century is verbal to this day, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” to bad the very words of Jesus could not be forgotten though "interpret" them as you may.

you are disingenuous by your league with boss as I have no association with them you could hardly have not understood.

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline ...

antichrist began in the late 4th century within the christian bible, the history from "that" time to the present bears the outcome from the false (religions) political agendas beginning.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I answered your post and as before in the past in response to you, you refuse to engage the answer I have given you - I will again refer to you as disingenuous.


you could be helpful emily - I would like to give a name to the original 1st century religion referring to those events with the final act being Jesus's untimely death - the verbal religion is simply the Religion of God. something that would distinguish it from christianity.

OK BreezeWood so you are calling the
1st century as the "Religion of God" maybe we can call it the Original laws of God
and the 4th century (I thought it was marked at early as 999) as the
"Antichrist" false Christianity that is politicized crusades for conquest.

For the historical date of 999 given as the first record of a CROSS
used to symbolize CRUSADES for sacrifice,
would you say that is part of the 4th century Antichrist,
such as the prehistory, the same trend but BEFORE the
written history in the Bible?

I got this date from the book "Saving Paradise"
that uses that as the shift from the
Peaceful brotherhood age (what you are calling the Original
RELIGION or laws of God) to the conquest/crusades for political motives.

Sorry I come across as disingenuous to you.

as long as we come up with a common timeline
I don't think it matters so much what Boss or you or I think of each other.

What matters is that we agree on a common truth so we can
discuss these things clearly regardless what flaws or motives any of us may or may not have.

Can you add in a description of where the crusades fit in
that date back to 999 as approximately when the first CROSS appeared?

Thanks BreezeWood perhaps it's because other people
have questioned your motives that you question mine.
But I'm not to be defined by other people and neither are you.
You are defined or defiled by the words that come from your own mouth.
So if you falsely accuse me, that's on you not on me.
I am sincere, and it's not my problem if your bad experience with other people
makes you suspect otherwise. That's your experience with them, and is not what I'm about.
Sorry if that affects us, and I hope it will not interfere in the future. All can be forgiven and corrected,
and that's what I'm about.

.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I've yet to read a response from you to an answer given in response to one of your many inquiries ... in short the christian bible is the problem, everything else will be solved.


christianity as a "religion" is only as substantive as the last 4th century christian bible left to be read. it's political agenda is the true fabric of humanities repressiveness that is the books greatest and least desirable appeal to the original religion it was meant to depict. -

there I gave you reason again to not answer the original answer ... .

 

[emilynghiem]

.
christian faith is the product of governance, a book by rulers and not a religion.

it has been pointed out to you organized religions were created or established by the rulers at the time the religions were formally accepted - christianity was created in the late 4th century by the concoction of their 4th century bible - the 1st century events of that book is not a formal religion, the non existence, formality is the product of the rulers that intervened that eventually produced (said) christianity. the subject of this thread.

the religion(s) not produced by the presiding rulers are ones that the rulers attempt to discredit and prevent from being established - branches of Marxism.

what fairyland do you reside in ...

Sorry, that's not where Christianity began. So, you keep telling me nonsense. If the religion began four centuries after Jesus, it might be different.

Okay BreezeWood
Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

Can we work out what to call the different eras or periods?

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline,
but shows in INCIDENTS such as Hitler, the Crusades,
and now with Jihadist terrorism. These are MANIFESTATIONS
of the Antichrist that is and has always been in the world.

Jesus as divine Justice has always been with God in heaven,
but has stages of Manifestation.

Do you want to name the stages?
OT is when the laws were given by the letter through Moses but not the spirit
because Jesus wasn't made manifest until the NT.

NT is when Jesus is made manifest the first time
and currently we are going through the process of full integrated REALIZATION
of this spirit of Peace and Justice/Justice with Mercy/Restorative Justice
INTO the world and embodying this spirit in our RELATIONS our Institutions and society as a whole.

We are in that process now.

So what do you want to call these stages?

What do you call the stage at the beginning when the laws or Word
of God was with God in heaven and Adam and Eve obeyed God by natural innocence.

What do you call the stage of falling out, where the OT is filled with
the tragic tormented history of humanity unable to live by the laws as set out
because we don't have a sense of universal justice but are living by material greed for selfish control and power.

What do you call the stage of first introducing the spirit of
Justice that is going to reconcile man and God.

And what do you call the final stages of fulfilling that process
which we are facing now.

.

Neither Boss nor I agree with saying "official" Christianity began with 4th century European history.

that is when your "official" christianity began - and is not the religion of the 1st century.

OT - NT are written religions - the 1st century is verbal to this day, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” to bad the very words of Jesus could not be forgotten though "interpret" them as you may.

you are disingenuous by your league with boss as I have no association with them you could hardly have not understood.

I don't think the "Antichrist" spirit has any specific timeline ...

antichrist began in the late 4th century within the christian bible, the history from "that" time to the present bears the outcome from the false (religions) political agendas beginning.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I answered your post and as before in the past in response to you, you refuse to engage the answer I have given you - I will again refer to you as disingenuous.


you could be helpful emily - I would like to give a name to the original 1st century religion referring to those events with the final act being Jesus's untimely death - the verbal religion is simply the Religion of God. something that would distinguish it from christianity.

OK BreezeWood so you are calling the
1st century as the "Religion of God" maybe we can call it the Original laws of God
and the 4th century (I thought it was marked at early as 999) as the
"Antichrist" false Christianity that is politicized crusades for conquest.

For the historical date of 999 given as the first record of a CROSS
used to symbolize CRUSADES for sacrifice,
would you say that is part of the 4th century Antichrist,
such as the prehistory, the same trend but BEFORE the
written history in the Bible?

I got this date from the book "Saving Paradise"
that uses that as the shift from the
Peaceful brotherhood age (what you are calling the Original
RELIGION or laws of God) to the conquest/crusades for political motives.

Sorry I come across as disingenuous to you.

as long as we come up with a common timeline
I don't think it matters so much what Boss or you or I think of each other.

What matters is that we agree on a common truth so we can
discuss these things clearly regardless what flaws or motives any of us may or may not have.

Can you add in a description of where the crusades fit in
that date back to 999 as approximately when the first CROSS appeared?

Thanks BreezeWood perhaps it's because other people
have questioned your motives that you question mine.
But I'm not to be defined by other people and neither are you.
You are defined or defiled by the words that come from your own mouth.
So if you falsely accuse me, that's on you not on me.
I am sincere, and it's not my problem if your bad experience with other people
makes you suspect otherwise. That's your experience with them, and is not what I'm about.
Sorry if that affects us, and I hope it will not interfere in the future. All can be forgiven and corrected,
and that's what I'm about.

.

the christian bible is a compilation of writings put together and completed in the late 4th century - the only remedy is to either verify through evidence its many objectionable passages or appropriately to rewrite its passages to properly portray the religion of the 1st century and dismiss the works of the late 4th century as a fraudulent document.

I've yet to read a response from you to an answer given in response to one of your many inquiries ... in short the christian bible is the problem, everything else will be solved.


christianity as a "religion" is only as substantive as the last 4th century christian bible left to be read. it's political agenda is the true fabric of humanities repressiveness that is the books greatest and least desirable appeal to the original religion it was meant to depict. -

there I gave you reason again to not answer the original answer ... .

1. What problem does the Christian Bible pose that it doesn't ALSO SOLVE, BreezeWood

2. yes we already established that you are saying 4th century Christianity is the corrupt political religion

And you said to call the stage BEFORE that the true ORIGINAL Religion of God.

What else are you disagreeing with?

Are you saying there is no interpretation of the Bible that reconciles with the true/original "Religion of God"

is that where we disagree?

I can see both the corrupt/political side of Christian history, but also see where the Bible DOES teach the true "religion of God"

Why can you only see one side and not the other in the Bible. What is wrong with it that you would fix?

Thanks BW!