False ‘Message Bible’ Creator Changes Mind on Homosexuality, Says He Would Officiate

[Stuu]

Think about what you said, then what i said, it might come to you.

I have, and it hasn't.

Stuart

 

[Nihilo]

I think I've got the meaning of platitude more right this time than I usually do.

platitude platɪtjuːd/ noun a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful.

You're too bookish. This is one of those words, like many others, where its dictionary or lexical definition could really use multiple examples to assist in fully comprehending the word. Defining platitude ostensively would be better for you than this dictionary definition. Try Wikipedia e.g.; there are some examples in there.

Your use of 'He is risen' was repeated; you seem to think it has moral content

:idunno: I'm sure there's "moral content" somewhere in the Good News, but . . . frankly, who cares? He is risen; the RESURRECTION is either fiction or nonfiction; and if the RESURRECTION is nonfiction, then, yes, of course, there's a lot of your-word content, in there. All sorts of content, to be sure . . . . But that's not . . . the point; the point is He is risen, the RESURRECTION is its own point. It's the Gospel. You call it a meme---I think I call it the Cure; not a disease.

; but you had used it so often that it had ceased to be thoughtful or interesting.

It's impossible for the Gospel that He is risen, to cease to be thoughtful, interesting, and a wide variety of other very wonderful things.

For us who believe the Gospel.

You could have been more interested if it wasn't just a bald assertion, and you could have been more thoughtful by explaining how it applied to the topic at hand.

Oh. Well I said my piece on that. Don't listen to Protestant teachers, in matters of faith and morals.

Coming back from the dead is not that interesting

Right away, disagreed.

if you look at the whole of the Judeo-christian scriptures. It is commonplace. Saul of Tarsus claimed in Acts 26:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:20 that Jesus was the first to be resurrected but a witch raised Samuel from the dead in 1 Samuel 28:11, 14; Elijah raised a boy from the dead in 1 Kings 17:21-22; Elisha brough a dead boy to life in 2 Kings 4:32-35; and repeated the feat with a man's body in 2 Kings 13:21; Moses and Elijah had a conversation with Jesus after being raised from the dead on different occasions in Luke 9:30; then Jesus had a go in Matthew 9:23-25, Luke 7:12-15, and with Lazarus in John 11:43. To cap off all that, many bodies of the saints arose when Jesus died, as alleged in Matthew 9:50-53. So what is particularly special about Jesus's resurrection?

General resurrection; we'll all rise, and we don't get our old bodies we get new bodies, and the Lord Jesus has already risen as the First to rise in the general resurrection, which happens at the future and unknown expiration date for the old earth and old heaven. But His RESURRECTION has already begun the general resurrection, that is why He is Firstborn from the dead, and the older Brother of us all, even those who lived and died before He was born to the Virgin. He was the First to participate in the, for the rest of us, future, general resurrection of the dead.

If you don't care about whether any of it is true, which has to be the first question, then all there is left I suppose is the bigotry, hatred, attempts to gain influence over the private affairs of non-christians, claims by churches for tax exemptions to finance their special club activities, attempts at lying to children about natural history and cosmology... see many other examples in my other many posts on the topic. Christianity has been one of the biggest cons in all human history.

The Church is also the main reason that we now know how important it is to civilly recognize and protect our individual right to religious liberty, and to keep distinct our civil power from religion.

You've fallen for the Protestant or otherwise non-Catholic lie, that non-Catholics who teach in matters of faith and morals, teach things just as validly and legitimately the Church's One true Christian faith, as do Catholic churchmen who teach those doctrines that agree with all other Catholic bishops who are in communion with the successor of St. Peter, and as do all the popes. It's just not true. The Catholic Church's lineage plainly leads back to the actual Jesus Christ, and no other ecclesial community or non-Catholic Christian tradition traces back to Him. Nothing from the Reformation does, and neither do the Orthodox churches (there's only one Church!). So you are making a giant straw man fallacy in conflating what Protestants say with what the Christian Church actually does say in matters of faith and morals, which is only validly and legitimately taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Because it is important to me what can reasonably be said to be true. It is not reasonable to claim that people walk again after they are dead.

What does that even mean? "It is not reasonable?" Don't you just mean, "I don't believe it happened?" Don't act like you're above all this Stuart. Nobody is above this.

Is that important to you, or do you not mind that the meme might be lying to you as part of its own Darwinian survival and reproduction strategy? There are several parasites that influence the working of the host's brain to the parasite's advantage, and memes are ideas that do pretty much the same thing.

Stuart

And soon you'll come out of the closet as someone who is against religious liberty, am I correct? Because that's where this idea of yours leads. And we already know what happens to the Church when she is persecuted by meme-like ideas like yours here, where a meme infects people and gets them to attack the Gospel and those of us who believe it, the one Christian Church. Martyrdoms. So it seems that if you're right, and the Gospel that He is risen, is a meme, that it's got you stalemated, if not outright bested. The harder you fight it, the stronger it becomes.

 

[Stuu]

You're too bookish. This is one of those words, like many others, where its dictionary or lexical definition could really use multiple examples to assist in fully comprehending the word. Defining platitude ostensively would be better for you than this dictionary definition.

And yet when it comes to all those words that have particular christian club significance in your scriptures, you are a stickler for correct definitions then, aren't you.

Try Wikipedia e.g.; there are some examples in there.

Yep, that sounds like it applies equally well to 'He is risen'.

He is risen; the RESURRECTION is either fiction or nonfiction; and if the RESURRECTION is nonfiction, then, yes, of course, there's a lot of your-word content, in there. All sorts of content, to be sure . . . . But that's not . . . the point; the point is He is risen, the RESURRECTION is its own point. It's the Gospel. You call it a meme---I think I call it the Cure; not a disease.

It's fiction. Half the christian people you talk to think it's fiction but they believe in the belief of it, because they think that is good, somehow. Not sure if they are likely to tell you that straight to your face, because they fear what would happen if they didn't pretend.

It's impossible for the Gospel that He is risen, to cease to be thoughtful, interesting, and a wide variety of other very wonderful things.

And very nasty things. But dull nasty things, like totalitarianism, including compulsory love on pain of burning in sulfur.

General resurrection; we'll all rise, and we don't get our old bodies we get new bodies, and the Lord Jesus has already risen as the First to rise in the general resurrection, which happens at the future and unknown expiration date for the old earth and old heaven. But His RESURRECTION has already begun the general resurrection, that is why He is Firstborn from the dead, and the older Brother of us all, even those who lived and died before He was born to the Virgin. He was the First to participate in the, for the rest of us, future, general resurrection of the dead.

I see, so it's science fiction that includes a kind of time travel. That's quite calvanist of you.

The Church is also the main reason that we now know how important it is to civilly recognize and protect our individual right to religious liberty, and to keep distinct our civil power from religion. You've fallen for the Protestant or otherwise non-Catholic lie, that non-Catholics who teach in matters of faith and morals, teach things just as validly and legitimately the Church's One true Christian faith, as do Catholic churchmen who teach those doctrines that agree with all other Catholic bishops who are in communion with the successor of St. Peter, and as do all the popes. It's just not true. The Catholic Church's lineage plainly leads back to the actual Jesus Christ, and no other ecclesial community or non-Catholic Christian tradition traces back to Him. Nothing from the Reformation does, and neither do the Orthodox churches (there's only one Church!). So you are making a giant straw man fallacy in conflating what Protestants say with what the Christian Church actually does say in matters of faith and morals, which is only validly and legitimately taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It sounds like you have fallen for a few Catholic lies there. When the pope signs concordats with proper democratic countries (the so-called Holy See isn't a country, it's a political and criminal bolt-hole) in Europe, often at the quietly stated threat of excommunication for a Catholic leader, the financial advantage to the RCC isn't a great example of trying to 'keep distinct our civil power from religion'. Rather the reverse. When Franciscan monks were converting people to Catholicism at gunpoint under the wartime fascist dictatorship of Ante Pavelić in Croatia, it wasn't a great protection of others' 'individual right to religious liberty', was it. Your church has a monstrous history of wreaking abuse on humanity across the globe, so forgive me for being less than impressed by your hypocrisy.

What does that even mean? "It is not reasonable?" Don't you just mean, "I don't believe it happened?"

No, I mean it is unreasonable. It would be perverse to claim it true.

And soon you'll come out of the closet as someone who is against religious liberty, am I correct?

I am opposed to Catholic pharmacists telling vulnerable people that they are unwilling to provide the morning after pill, or contraception, or even supply the location of a pharmacy that will do its job properly, if that is what you mean. Those people should never have made it through professional training.

On the other hand, I believe in a secular society where anyone has freedom to believe what they like. I don't think that gives anyone the right to pull out their faith card and try to assert that it is the command of their invisible sky friend that a particular law is enacted. The common secular ground should be full of evidence-based arguments, for that is all we have in common across the population.

And we already know what happens to the Church when she is persecuted by meme-like ideas like yours here, where a meme infects people and gets them to attack the Gospel and those of us who believe it, the one Christian Church. Martyrdoms.

You can't wait for the next time a Catholic dies in the name of your faith, can you.

So it seems that if you're right, and the Gospel that He is risen, is a meme, that it's got you stalemated, if not outright bested. The harder you fight it, the stronger it becomes.

In my country, christianity is dying. The one sect that is still just maintaining its numbers is Catholicism, partly because we have relatively higher levels of immigration from less well-off countries where standards of education are lower and poverty is higher, and that is where Catholics tend to live more and more these days. The better-educated, richer countries tend to have people who see straight through the lies.

Stuart

 

[Nihilo]

And yet when it comes to all those words that have particular christian club significance in your scriptures, you are a stickler for correct definitions then, aren't you.


Yep, that sounds like it applies equally well to 'He is risen'.


It's fiction. Half the christian people you talk to think it's fiction but they believe in the belief of it, because they think that is good, somehow. Not sure if they are likely to tell you that straight to your face, because they fear what would happen if they didn't pretend.


And very nasty things. But dull nasty things, like totalitarianism, including compulsory love on pain of burning in sulfur.


I see, so it's science fiction that includes a kind of time travel. That's quite calvanist of you.



It sounds like you have fallen for a few Catholic lies there. When the pope signs concordats with proper democratic countries (the so-called Holy See isn't a country, it's a political and criminal bolt-hole) in Europe, often at the quietly stated threat of excommunication for a Catholic leader, the financial advantage to the RCC isn't a great example of trying to 'keep distinct our civil power from religion'. Rather the reverse. When Franciscan monks were converting people to Catholicism at gunpoint under the wartime fascist dictatorship of Ante Pavelić in Croatia, it wasn't a great protection of others' 'individual right to religious liberty', was it. Your church has a monstrous history of wreaking abuse on humanity across the globe, so forgive me for being less than impressed by your hypocrisy.


No, I mean it is unreasonable. It would be perverse to claim it true.


I am opposed to Catholic pharmacists telling vulnerable people that they are unwilling to provide the morning after pill, or contraception, or even supply the location of a pharmacy that will do its job properly, if that is what you mean. Those people should never have made it through professional training.

On the other hand, I believe in a secular society where anyone has freedom to believe what they like. I don't think that gives anyone the right to pull out their faith card and try to assert that it is the command of their invisible sky friend that a particular law is enacted. The common secular ground should be full of evidence-based arguments, for that is all we have in common across the population.


You can't wait for the next time a Catholic dies in the name of your faith, can you.


In my country, christianity is dying. The one sect that is still just maintaining its numbers is Catholicism, partly because we have relatively higher levels of immigration from less well-off countries where standards of education are lower and poverty is higher, and that is where Catholics tend to live more and more these days. The better-educated, richer countries tend to have people who see straight through the lies.

Stuart

:e4e: We may have lost focus for a long, long time Stuart, but we can come back. The focus is the Gospel, and everything is connected to it, especially for us who believe that He is risen, but even for those who don't, because the Catholic Church and the Christian Church are just yawning and stretching ourselves after a long, long slumber. We've been playing Beta for long enough, can you feel that change in the wind? When the real Alpha starts to stir? The Church conquered everything for 1,000 years. Now, you've acknowledged that our numbers are probably around one billion, because you believe that half of us don't believe in the RESURRECTION. Could be, who knows? A billion people is however a decent sized force, and when we become refocused, there will be nothing left once we're done.

I reiterate: The RESURRECTION is its own point. Everything you mentioned in this response has been running down rabbit trails. The only valid conclusions you can reach once believing the Gospel are Catholic conclusions. It doesn't necessarily coincide with being Catholic. I'm not Catholic, for instance.

 

[Stuu]

:e4e: We may have lost focus for a long, long time Stuart, but we can come back. The focus is the Gospel, and everything is connected to it, especially for us who believe that He is risen, but even for those who don't, because the Catholic Church and the Christian Church are just yawning and stretching ourselves after a long, long slumber. We've been playing Beta for long enough, can you feel that change in the wind? When the real Alpha starts to stir? The Church conquered everything for 1,000 years. Now, you've acknowledged that our numbers are probably around one billion,

Er, when did I do that?

because you believe that half of us don't believe in the RESURRECTION. Could be, who knows? A billion people is however a decent sized force, and when we become refocused, there will be nothing left once we're done.

What was that about believing in religious liberty? Sounds like you believe in your own religious liberty.

I reiterate

I know. Now you have made 'resurrection' into a platitude, alongside 'He is risen'.

Everything you mentioned in this response has been running down rabbit trails.

So we are only going to take seriously what you have to say.

The only valid conclusions you can reach once believing the Gospel are Catholic conclusions. It doesn't necessarily coincide with being Catholic. I'm not Catholic, for instance.

Well the Catholic church claims you as a Catholic, whether you like it or not. And the gospels are wrong about humans walking again after dying, all the different times it is recorded as happening.

Stuart

 

[Nihilo]

Er, when did I do that?

When you said that half of Christians don't believe that He is risen.

What was that about believing in religious liberty? Sounds like you believe in your own religious liberty.

Religious liberty paves our way.

I know. Now you have made 'resurrection' into a platitude, alongside 'He is risen'.

Calling things "platitude" is a platitude.

So we are only going to take seriously what you have to say.

I'm taking you seriously; I'm saying you're veering regularly off topic is all.

Well the Catholic church claims you as a Catholic, whether you like it or not.

I know.

I like it.

And the gospels are wrong about humans walking again after dying, all the different times it is recorded as happening.

Stuart

:idunno: What were you saying about "bald assertions," earlier?

 

[Stuu]

When you said that half of Christians don't believe that He is risen.

That's not what I wrote. But never mind. There is a decent percentage of christians who don't literally believe that any ancient Jewish preacher was executed by the Romans then walked around afterwards. I know some personally. But nevertheless they don't shy away from the label 'christian'. I guess that is their problem, not mine. My point was mainly that a certain percentage of christians really believe the nonsense proposition, and a further decent percentage believe in the belief itself, but don't do the actual believing themselves. A further section will say it doesn't matter whether people believe it or not. Then there are all the atheist priests and ministers who have come to realise that none of it is true but are stuck in a dead-end career and sometimes need help to escape. 13% of vicars in England are atheists, according to a survey within the past few years. But that's another discussion.

Religious liberty paves our way.

...to fascism.

What were you saying about "bald assertions," earlier?

Bald assertion is all christianity has. There is no good reason to believe any of it is true, and many good reasons to believe it is all made up.

Stuart

 

[Nihilo]

That's not what I wrote. But never mind. There is a decent percentage of christians who don't literally believe that any ancient Jewish preacher was executed by the Romans then walked around afterwards. I know some personally. But nevertheless they don't shy away from the label 'christian'. I guess that is their problem, not mine. My point was mainly that a certain percentage of christians really believe the nonsense proposition, and a further decent percentage believe in the belief itself, but don't do the actual believing themselves. A further section will say it doesn't matter whether people believe it or not. Then there are all the atheist priests and ministers who have come to realise that none of it is true but are stuck in a dead-end career and sometimes need help to escape. 13% of vicars in England are atheists, according to a survey within the past few years. But that's another discussion.

Which of these sections most resemble the Apostles and the first generation of Church bishops, in your opinion? Or is there another section perhaps? Maybe an extinct section of the faith? Maybe one that's coming back?

...to fascism.

LOL. Yes, Stuart, the freedom of religion leads to fascism. :chuckle:

Bald assertion is all christianity has. There is no good reason to believe any of it is true, and many good reasons to believe it is all made up.

Stuart

Among those many good reasons, are that 14 men in the first century went willingly to their torture and death, rather than simply say that the RESURRECTION "is all made up." Right? Or is that not one of the many good reasons?

 

[Interplanner]

Stuu,
we're off the topic of the OP here, but I will take a moment to show you a basic problem with the denials of Jesus, way before the Resurrection.

In one of his first significant healing miracles he makes a challenge on either 'side' of reality--the two sides being this world or Nature and the other or God's actions. He says 'So that you may see that (I) the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins' (he turned to the paralytic), 'I tell you get up and walk.'
And he did.

You may doubt the action here, doubt that that actually took place. However, please notice something else between the lines from this point on: if this had not taken place, there is no story. That's right. The whole thing disappears into nonsense and irrationality. There is no conflict that captures us and must be resolved.

Here is how: the claim that he was the Messianic figure (Daniel's Son of Man) has just collapsed. If that collapses, there is no build up of opposition, because there is nothing to oppose.

In other words, the best proof possible that this healing took place is the counter-actions by the leaders of Judaism: this person had to be stopped by any means possible.

The New Testament is this way every which way you look. The person who preached and spread it the most was in the best place to deny the resurrection--temple police. He (Paul) had every Judaistic reason to stop the thing, but he checked out the account that Christ appeared to about 500 at one time, and there was nothing for it. Not to mention all the 'lesser' appearances, I Cor 15. This is not a person with no dog in the fight saying he heard casually these accounts; this is a person given temple authority documentation to imprison anyone who believed the account and Gospel, and finding there is no stopping the evidence.

If you write a script, you have to have a 'conflict.' That is what interests people, that is what makes it sell, that is what drives it on as a compelling story once you have laid the book down. The drive of the Gospels is that the healings and predictions and resurrection did take place AND HAVE A CREDIBLE ANTAGONIST(s) who had every resource possible to shut it down and could not. Because there is no stopping evidence.

 

[Stuu]

Which of these sections most resemble the Apostles and the first generation of Church bishops, in your opinion? Or is there another section perhaps? Maybe an extinct section of the faith? Maybe one that's coming back?

Are you aware of the historical criticisms of the RCC's position on the glorious lineage from Simon Peter? I recommend learning the opposition's points.

LOL. Yes, Stuart, the freedom of religion leads to fascism.

You really need to read the Wikipedia article on the Vatican II declaration on religious freedom before you mock too much. What it calls for is the freedom for Catholics to practice according to doctrine, ideally under a Catholic theocracy.

Then read for yourself about the history of the Vatican's involvement with politics in the "Catholic countries" of Europe, and especially the way they colluded with the Fascist dictators Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, the Ustasa regime of Pavelic in Croatia, Mussolini in Italy (for a time), and the Rexist movement in Belgium.

Catholic theocracy is Fascism. They are essentially the same thing.

Among those many good reasons, are that 14 men in the first century went willingly to their torture and death, rather than simply say that the RESURRECTION "is all made up." Right? Or is that not one of the many good reasons?

Once again, I recommend you read the scholars (the ones who know more than you or I about history) on the historicity of the gospel stories. There seems to be agreement to some extent that Jesus was baptised, and later executed by the Romans. So they do on the whole go with the notion that Jesus was a real human. But that's about it. The other 13 are of dubious reliability. So, to answer your point, if we are talking about the fable of the gospels concerning those events, then sure, your story has martyrs. Of course it would. If we are talking about what actually happened regarding the life of Jesus in ancient Palestine, then I don't know what happened and actually on the evidence we have, no one is justified in claiming to know.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuu,
we're off the topic of the OP here

Yes, I accept the criticism myself, but in my own defence I have posted relevant stuff in the thread too!

but I will take a moment to show you a basic problem with the denials of Jesus, way before the Resurrection.

In one of his first significant healing miracles he makes a challenge on either 'side' of reality--the two sides being this world or Nature and the other or God's actions. He says 'So that you may see that (I) the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins' (he turned to the paralytic), 'I tell you get up and walk.'
And he did.

You may doubt the action here, doubt that that actually took place. However, please notice something else between the lines from this point on: if this had not taken place, there is no story. That's right. The whole thing disappears into nonsense and irrationality. There is no conflict that captures us and must be resolved.

Here is how: the claim that he was the Messianic figure (Daniel's Son of Man) has just collapsed. If that collapses, there is no build up of opposition, because there is nothing to oppose.

In other words, the best proof possible that this healing took place is the counter-actions by the leaders of Judaism: this person had to be stopped by any means possible.

The New Testament is this way every which way you look. The person who preached and spread it the most was in the best place to deny the resurrection--temple police. He (Paul) had every Judaistic reason to stop the thing, but he checked out the account that Christ appeared to about 500 at one time, and there was nothing for it. Not to mention all the 'lesser' appearances, I Cor 15. This is not a person with no dog in the fight saying he heard casually these accounts; this is a person given temple authority documentation to imprison anyone who believed the account and Gospel, and finding there is no stopping the evidence.

If you write a script, you have to have a 'conflict.' That is what interests people, that is what makes it sell, that is what drives it on as a compelling story once you have laid the book down. The drive of the Gospels is that the healings and predictions and resurrection did take place AND HAVE A CREDIBLE ANTAGONIST(s) who had every resource possible to shut it down and could not. Because there is no stopping evidence.

I'm afraid I don't accept that you can know any of the dialogue involving any of the gospel characters. You may as well, in principle at least, be discussing the Harry Potter stories: your description of story logic applies equally well, I think.

However there is a kind of similar logic to yours that runs in favour of an historical Jesus (as I have mentioned already) that, precisely because the gospel writers rewrote the history of the time of Jesus to make him fit ancient Jewish prophecy, they must have had a real person in mind. Otherwise they could have just written an entirely fictional character and there would have been no need to adjust anything.

The other obvious problem is that your account requires an acceptance of what I would call magic. I think if you wish to make a case to people who think skeptically you might have to stick to events that are reasonably believable. Don't forget that ancient Jewish writing was highly allegorical and not necessarily meant to be taken as an historical account. There are many in the world who call themselves christians that take this view.

Stuart

 

[Nihilo]

Are you aware of the historical criticisms of the RCC's position on the glorious lineage from Simon Peter? I recommend learning the opposition's points.

At the barest of minimums, there were five men who voluntarily went to their unjust executions, rather than "confess " that the RESURRECTIONwas made up. Why would they do such a thing? Some of them had families; why would they penalize their families over a falsehood? This has nothing to do with the papacy, excepting that St. Peter was the first pope.

You really need to read the Wikipedia article on the Vatican II declaration on religious freedom before you mock too much. What it calls for is the freedom for Catholics to practice according to doctrine, ideally under a Catholic theocracy.

Best be sticking to the Catechism of the Catholic Church then, in which the Second Vatican council is integrated together with the entirety of the official expression of the Catholic faith, rather than trying to glean what the council meant all by your lonesome in a New Zealandic vacuum.

Then read for yourself about the history of the Vatican's involvement with politics in the "Catholic countries" of Europe, and especially the way they colluded with the Fascist dictators Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, the Ustasa regime of Pavelic in Croatia, Mussolini in Italy (for a time), and the Rexist movement in Belgium.

Catholic theocracy is Fascism. They are essentially the same thing.

Religious liberty is the precise opposite of theocracy, but nice try.

Once again, I recommend you read the scholars (the ones who know more than you or I about history) on the historicity of the gospel stories. There seems to be agreement to some extent that Jesus was baptised, and later executed by the Romans. So they do on the whole go with the notion that Jesus was a real human. But that's about it. The other 13 are of dubious reliability. So, to answer your point, if we are talking about the fable of the gospels concerning those events, then sure, your story has martyrs. Of course it would. If we are talking about what actually happened regarding the life of Jesus in ancient Palestine, then I don't know what happened and actually on the evidence we have, no one is justified in claiming to know.

Stuart

The executions of Stephen, James son of Zebedee brother of John, James the Just, and the Apostles Peter and Paul, are not recorded in the Gospel accounts. (Though Peter's is alluded to in John.)

 

[Angel4Truth]

No, because in my country it is illegal to make a death threat, and I think it is the same where you are.


So which of the several 'deaths' in christianity are we talking about now? The one that happens to us all, or some other fantasy death that is all about a vengeful god and your fear of it?

Stuart

Asking again, where doser threatened you with death by citing scripture that says you are ALREADY dead. Thanks. (i cited the scripture for you that says it also, that you are dead in sin and trespasses)

 

[Stuu]

Asking again, where doser threatened you with death by citing scripture that says you are ALREADY dead. Thanks. (i cited the scripture for you that says it also, that you are dead in sin and trespasses)

Right, so it's the fantasy death threat that is irrelevant to non-fictional humans, not an actual threat of death.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

At the barest of minimums, there were five men who voluntarily went to their unjust executions, rather than "confess " that the RESURRECTIONwas made up. Why would they do such a thing?

Some of them had families; why would they penalize their families over a falsehood?

This has been called the Argumentum ad martyrdom, the logically false claim that because someone died for a cause, the cause must be true.

Why do some muslims strap explosives to themselves and blow up other muslims? Crazy ideas promote crazy behaviour.

This has nothing to do with the papacy, excepting that St. Peter was the first pope.

I'm sure you're not a fan of Mark 9:35. Still, there was Jerome who pronounced this supposed Simon Peter 'bishop', three hundred years later. Hardly evidence to built an international power-grab on.

Best be sticking to the Catechism of the Catholic Church then, in which the Second Vatican council is integrated together with the entirety of the official expression of the Catholic faith, rather than trying to glean what the council meant all by your lonesome in a New Zealandic vacuum.

Aren't you special then.

Religious liberty is the precise opposite of theocracy, but nice try.

Well all I was doing was quoting the official line to you. Religious liberty means Catholic theocracy as an ideal according to that declaration. You must have read that, right?

The executions of Stephen, James son of Zebedee brother of John, James the Just, and the Apostles Peter and Paul, are not recorded in the Gospel accounts. (Though Peter's is alluded to in John.)

How did Judas Iscariot die?

Stuart

 

[Nihilo]

This has been called the Argumentum ad martyrdom, the logically false claim that because someone died for a cause, the cause must be true.

No, I asked you a question.

Why do some muslims strap explosives to themselves and blow up other muslims? Crazy ideas promote crazy behaviour.

There you go again equating Kamikazes with innocent victims of murder. Moron.

I'm sure you're not a fan of Mark 9:35. Still, there was Jerome who pronounced this supposed Simon Peter 'bishop', three hundred years later. Hardly evidence to built an international power-grab on.

Uh-huh. So that the papacy existed within the first century means nothing to you. Linus, Cletus, Clement; who cares, right? Because Jerome. lain:

Aren't you special then.


Well all I was doing was quoting the official line to you. Religious liberty means Catholic theocracy as an ideal according to that declaration. You must have read that, right?

Show me in the Catechism where such a thing is said and I'll believe you.

How did Judas Iscariot die?

Stuart

Not witnessing to the RESURRECTION.

 

[Stuu]

No, I asked you a question.

And I answered it: " Crazy ideas promote crazy behaviour." And I gave you an example of that. And your response was to call me a moron, which I appreciate because it shows you don't have a good argument.

There you go again equating Kamikazes with innocent victims of murder.

No, I gave you an example of how people die because of crazy ideas. And I don't think there are many Japanese muslim suicide bombers. The Japanese are, sensibly, mostly atheists.

But here are the crazy ideas:
Crazy idea 1. Jesus is special because he came back to life after he was killed.
Crazy idea 2. Claim that Jesus is 'king'.
Crazy idea 3. If we, the Jewish leaders, execute these 'christians' that will show them.

No. 1 lines you up for isolation. No.2 lines you up for execution on charges of treason, or sedition etc. No.3 manufactures martyrs that set a precedent, or a further example, for more of these 'christians' to lie down on the metaphorical railway tracks. They put themselves in the path of the angry mob intentionally to get martyred, in a similar fashion to the glorious martyrdom of the islamist bomber.

Uh-huh. So that the papacy existed within the first century means nothing to you.

Correct.

Linus, Cletus, Clement; who cares, right?

I agree.


Stuu: Well all I was doing was quoting the official line to you. Religious liberty means Catholic theocracy as an ideal according to that declaration. You must have read that, right?

Show me in the Catechism where such a thing is said and I'll believe you.

What, show you in the Catechism where it says that a declaration was issued by the vatican that expresses the ambition of Catholic theocracy as a form of 'religious freedom'? Why would you put that in the Catechism??


How did Judas Iscariot die?

Stuart

 

[Nihilo]

And I answered it: " Crazy ideas promote crazy behaviour." And I gave you an example of that. And your response was to call me a moron, which I appreciate because it shows you don't have a good argument.

Whatever you have to tell yourself Stuart.

No, I gave you an example of how people die because of crazy ideas. And I don't think there are many Japanese muslim suicide bombers. The Japanese are, sensibly, mostly atheists.

Nice dodge, and I mean that sincerely. You sound like you answered my objection, when you didn't touch that Kamikazes are murderers, and Christian martyrs are victims of murderers. Apples and oranges, unless of course you'll confess right now that you do not believe in any objectively morality whatsoever, not even for example raping and murdering babies. It's the only way you can justifiably imply that suicide-bombing murderers are the same as the Church's martyrs who accept their own murder for the sake of the Gospel.

But here are the crazy ideas:
Crazy idea 1. Jesus is special because he came back to life after he was killed.
Crazy idea 2. Claim that Jesus is 'king'.
Crazy idea 3. If we, the Jewish leaders, execute these 'christians' that will show them.

Your first item is not written correctly because you've conflated "He is special" with "HE IS RISEN." The former is certainly true, but it rests upon the ground of HE IS RISEN.

Clearly, killing Christians will not hamper the spread of the Church, but instead usually promotes her growth.

No. 1 lines you up for isolation.

That's manifestly false.

No.2 lines you up for execution on charges of treason, or sedition etc.

Back in the first century, and not today.

No.3 manufactures martyrs that set a precedent, or a further example, for more of these 'christians' to lie down on the metaphorical railway tracks. They put themselves in the path of the angry mob intentionally to get martyred, in a similar fashion to the glorious martyrdom of the islamist bomber.

I again reiterate my rejection of equating Kamikazes with Christian martyrs.

But when a Christian receives torture and the death penalty for nothing more than preaching HE IS RISEN, those who knew the Christian, and know them to be good, decent, and loving, yes, it makes sense that it would tend to suggest the more careful examination of the Good News that HE IS RISEN. Perhaps there's something in it? It's reasonable, and it's also probably a reason why killing Christians has the opposite of its intended effect in at least some cases.

Correct.


I agree.


Stuu: Well all I was doing was quoting the official line to you. Religious liberty means Catholic theocracy as an ideal according to that declaration. You must have read that, right?

The official line is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Show me where it appears in the Catechism, and we'll talk. Until then, you're avoiding the point.

What, show you in the Catechism where it says that a declaration was issued by the vatican that expresses the ambition of Catholic theocracy as a form of 'religious freedom'?

Whatever point you're trying to make, yes, show me from the Catechism.

Why would you put that in the Catechism??

It is in the Catechism, if it's the official, authorized teaching of the Church, and if it's not in the Catechism, then it's not. It's simple Stuart, don't play dumb. All the Church councils are integrated together in the Catechism, and it's beyond your ken to discern what any particular council really meant, the least reason of which is that you're not a Catholic bishop. (Even the bishops must kowtow to the Catechism, since it is explicitly primarily addressed to them, from Pope Saint John Paul.)

How did Judas Iscariot die?

Not preaching the Gospel, and the Good News, that HE IS RISEN.

Stuart

I'm going to indulge you on a point you suggested previously, see how much you agree with here:

If HE IS RISEN is an infectious thing, then a fervent Christian is suffering from a flareup. We are infected, but it’s the flareup that causes the meme to spread. And the genius of the meme is that it grows when it’s attacked. When it’s attacked, it flares up in people, and it spreads, the flareup spreads, it’s called recently a revival, or an awakening. It’s a mass flareup of the meme, affecting many people all connected together. Flareups are contagious, not just the meme. The meme lies dormant, and it can flare up.

The meme has its own external organization. The meme is very particular about morals. It comes with its own hierarchical structure. It has identified its own authoritative, authorized public relations department or firm. It works to infect every person, both formally and informally, the latter particularly so during revivals and enlightenments and awakenings, and particularly since the Reformation, when it hemorrhaged many infected victims from its external organizational structure. These rogue victims and meme sufferers have been out doing the meme’s work under the cover of Protestantism, which the meme permitted to occur as a long-term investment in its own success.

Now, today, much of the world has struck down all significant laws identifying the verbal spreading of knowledge of the meme, advertising and selling it (for free) to anybody who will listen, as a capital offense, and so people are not executed for its proselytization anymore, as were many of its first victims, and especially the first Twelve, who were all killed for trying to spread the meme.

The meme has arranged to avoid paying any taxes to civil authorities from whatever income its authorized organization, and its many unauthorized organizations, derive from the meme’s activities, in many nations today.

Addressing humanity’s need for moral objectivity, at least with regard to capital crimes, the meme is its own ground for its own very particular moral code for people. In that, there is no need for a grounding of the meme’s morals in anything outside of itself. It is certainly a very clever arrangement, and is but a single way in which this meme has manifested its inherent brilliance. However this meme came to be, it is the strongest enemy that anybody could ever imagine.

And right now, perhaps most frightening of all, because this meme’s proselytization is no longer considered any kind of crime at all anymore, let alone a capital crime, virtually the whole earth is left defenseless against it. All it will need is another mass flare up, which will be, for anybody watching these things, the first mass flare up in the internet/social media age. It will be the first flareup with the power of global internet connectivity to power it. IOW, when this next flareup occurs, it will probably take over the whole earth.

 

[Stuu]

Whatever you have to tell yourself Stuart.

What would your response be then, if someone resorts to name-calling instead of presenting proper arguments? It's an admission that you have no comeback.

Nice dodge, and I mean that sincerely. You sound like you answered my objection, when you didn't touch that Kamikazes are murderers, and Christian martyrs are victims of murderers. Apples and oranges, unless of course you'll confess right now that you do not believe in any objectively morality whatsoever, not even for example raping and murdering babies. It's the only way you can justifiably imply that suicide-bombing murderers are the same as the Church's martyrs who accept their own murder for the sake of the Gospel.

I explained the comparison carefully.

Your first item is not written correctly because you've conflated "He is special" with "HE IS RISEN." The former is certainly true, but it rests upon the ground of HE IS RISEN.

That crazy idea rests on a platitude, at least the way you use it. That's according to the definitions of the word as we discussed. And all it means is you think someone was special, but by repeating it the person looks a bit less special on each iteration.

Stuu: No. 1 lines you up for isolation.

That's manifestly false.

See your next statement for details.

Stuu: No.2 lines you up for execution on charges of treason, or sedition etc.

Back in the first century, and not today.

Isn't that what we are talking about, ancient martyrdom??

Stuu: No.3 manufactures martyrs that set a precedent, or a further example, for more of these 'christians' to lie down on the metaphorical railway tracks. They put themselves in the path of the angry mob intentionally to get martyred, in a similar fashion to the glorious martyrdom of the islamist bomber.

I again reiterate my rejection of equating Kamikazes with Christian martyrs.

Once again, I explained the comparison earlier.

But when a Christian receives torture and the death penalty for nothing more than preaching HE IS RISEN, those who knew the Christian, and know them to be good, decent, and loving, yes, it makes sense that it would tend to suggest the more careful examination of the Good News that HE IS RISEN. Perhaps there's something in it? It's reasonable, and it's also probably a reason why killing Christians has the opposite of its intended effect in at least

And when someone tells you that the whole proposition of christianity is morally repugnant, might you in turn consider whether there is something in that?

Stuu: Why would you put [the vatican specifying Catholic theocracy as the ideal context for religious freedom] in the Catechism??

It is in the Catechism, if it's the official, authorized teaching of the Church, and if it's not in the Catechism, then it's not. It's simple Stuart, don't play dumb. All the Church councils are integrated together in the Catechism, and it's beyond your ken to discern what any particular council really meant, the least reason of which is that you're not a Catholic bishop. (Even the bishops must kowtow to the Catechism, since it is explicitly primarily addressed to them, from Pope Saint John Paul.)

How is the 'teaching' relevant to the question of the RCC's political ambitions? The latter is the means by which they wish to impose the former. Are you seriously that naive?

I'm going to indulge you on a point you suggested previously, see how much you agree with here:

I think you know full well that I have raised the question of the death of Judas as a good example of how the gospel accounts are manufactured, and you are avoiding it. But it's not that important to me because there are many more examples, all of which you will no doubt dodge for your own convenience.

If HE IS RISEN is an infectious thing, then a fervent Christian is suffering from a flareup. We are infected, but it’s the flareup that causes the meme to spread. And the genius of the meme is that it grows when it’s attacked. When it’s attacked, it flares up in people, and it spreads, the flareup spreads, it’s called recently a revival, or an awakening. It’s a mass flareup of the meme, affecting many people all connected together. Flareups are contagious, not just the meme. The meme lies dormant, and it can flare up.

The meme has its own external organization. The meme is very particular about morals. It comes with its own hierarchical structure. It has identified its own authoritative, authorized public relations department or firm. It works to infect every person, both formally and informally, the latter particularly so during revivals and enlightenments and awakenings, and particularly since the Reformation, when it hemorrhaged many infected victims from its external organizational structure. These rogue victims and meme sufferers have been out doing the meme’s work under the cover of Protestantism, which the meme permitted to occur as a long-term investment in its own success.

And the meme is a parasite that exploits the weaknesses of the human brain to believe absurdities, in order to survive and reproduce.

<Snipped the rest of the meme's sermon>

Stuart

 

[Nihilo]

[MENTION=9611]Stuu[/MENTION] thanks for showing me anyway, that you are remarkably more dishonest than you present yourself on this discussion board.