Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
gone

deleted

deleted
Jim

You do have evidence to back your assertion that Mary was pregnant by Joseph before they married, don't you, floo?
Shaker

I think that the Christian history of its opinions on womanhood is best not only overlooked but violently and aggressively rejected as the foul, toxic, ignorant, irrational, superstitious trash it is which has caused untold, incalculable, unimaginable suffering, misery, pain and harm in the world.

Since you're asking.
Jim

Still not seeing the evidence - from floo - to back her assertions, though.

And, please, Shaker, don't lump all Christians in one pot!
I'm the first to criticise the Cofs archaic practice and procedure, but there is absolutely no difference in the role of men or women in the kirk - or outside it, for that matter.
gone

Jim wrote:
You do have evidence to back your assertion that Mary was pregnant by Joseph before they married, don't you, floo?


I said she was pregnant by Joseph or another guy before she tied the knot. The idea that any deity inseminated her is highly unlikely.
Shaker

Quote:
And, please, Shaker, don't lump all Christians in one pot!


The only one pot that all "Christians" piss in is very visibly marked "Jesus."

Call it "Jesus" and and you can justify, rationalise, excuse and explain away absolutely anything and everything that you feel like believing and/or doing.

By all means tell me that I am practically and historically wrong.
Jim

Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
You do have evidence to back your assertion that Mary was pregnant by Joseph before they married, don't you, floo?


I said she was pregnant by Joseph or another guy before she tied the knot. The idea that any deity inseminated her is highly unlikely.


Ah....so you have no evidence to back up your assertion.
Thanks for the clarification.
Shaker

Floo wrote:
I said she was pregnant by Joseph or another guy before she tied the knot. The idea that any deity inseminated her is highly unlikely.


Pardon me for being crude. I have a literalist mindset that I just can't get over, under, around, past or through. I'm a facts and details man. Can't help it. It's the way I am.

Insemination, as far as I understand the process, involves the meeting of a single spermatozooan and an ovum and the piercing of the latter by the genetic material of the former, generally (though in recent years not necessarily, given IVF and what-have-you) by the deposition of semen in the vaginal tract of a female through penetrative heterosexual sexual intercourse.

I think I have a fairly good grasp of the process by which creatures are made anew.

This being so how did a non-physical, non-material, non-material entity manage this (usually rather pleasant) process, please?
Jim

[quote="Shaker:124666"]
Quote:
And, please, Shaker, don't lump all Christians in one pot!


The only one pot that all "Christians" piss in is very visibly marked "Jesus."

Call it "Jesus" and and you can justify, rationalise, excuse and explain away absolutely anything and everything that you feel like believing and/or doing.

By all means tell me that I am practically and historically wrong.


Historically?
Yes.
Much of church history is pppered with misogynism - where men stuck THEIR ideas onto church doctrine, without actually bothering to look at what Christ said - and did.
For His time, his attitudes toward women were radical and scandalous!
Shaker

Jim wrote:
For His time, his attitudes toward women were radical and scandalous!

Really?

Such as?
gone

Jim wrote:
Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
You do have evidence to back your assertion that Mary was pregnant by Joseph before they married, don't you, floo?


I said she was pregnant by Joseph or another guy before she tied the knot. The idea that any deity inseminated her is highly unlikely.


Ah....so you have no evidence to back up your assertion.
Thanks for the clarification.


You have no evidence the deity got her in the family way. I was just saying that the most likely scenario was that Joseph or another man got her pregnant, which is not unreasonable to suggest.
Jim

I'm not the one making the assertion, floo - you are....without a shred of evidence to back it up.
gone

Jim wrote:
I'm not the one making the assertion, floo - you are....without a shred of evidence to back it up.


It is more believable than thinking a deity wot dun it!
Jim

......which might be opinion - but not evidence.
Shaker

Jim wrote:
I'm not the one making the assertion, floo - you are....without a shred of evidence to back it up.


Really?

I thought Christianity was the one making the assertions, such as, for example (depending upon denomination, i.e. different madey-uppy ideas about the entirely unprovable) Mary was born by "immaculate conception" (i.e. without "sin") and that she was a virgin (i.e. had never had sexual intercourse, i.e. in defiance of all human knowledge) who gave birth (without sexual intercourse, i.e. the deposition of semen in the vaginal tract of a fertile female and the fertilisation of an ovum by a spermatozooan within the same) to the son of a god who was also that same god at the very same time (i.e. a supposed supernatural entity without definition).

These strike me as assertions, claims about statements of alleged and putative statements of supposed facts about human beings supposedly alive at some point in the world.

Unless I don't know what the word assertion means. But I think I do. I've seen too many examples to think otherwise.

It's a long-winded way of putting things but I find that it's best to be clear in these matters.
Ketty

Being as we're talking Creator God here - the one who created the Heavens and the Earth and everything within and without, I guess it was easy peasy lemon squeezy for Him to create the life in Mary's womb - the one that was God incarnate; Mary's first-born, Christ Jesus.  It's all a mystery.
gone

Ketty wrote:
Being as we're talking Creator God here - the one who created the Heavens and the Earth and everything within and without, I guess it was easy peasy lemon squeezy for Him to create the life in Mary's womb - the one that was God incarnate; Mary's first-born, Christ Jesus.  It's all a mystery.


Yeh right, none of it is credible, and more than likely didn't happen!
Jim

Oh, 'eck, floo, you're at it again.
You have evidence that it didn't happen, don't you?
I mean, you wouldn't give an opinion withoutt any evidence to back it up, would you?
Shaker

Jim wrote:
Oh, 'eck, floo, you're at it again.
You have evidence that it didn't happen, don't you?
I mean, you wouldn't give an opinion withoutt any evidence to back it up, would you?


She didn't however say that it didn't happen. She said:

Floo wrote:
Yeh right, none of it is credible, and more than likely didn't happen!


which is perfectly correct. Given what we know about human reproduction, Floo expressed a perfectly sound, entirely reasonable opinion. It isn't even slightly credible and there's not a scrap of evidence that any such thing happened.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Being as we're talking Creator God here - the one who created the Heavens and the Earth and everything within and without, I guess it was easy peasy lemon squeezy for Him to create the life in Mary's womb - the one that was God incarnate; Mary's first-born, Christ Jesus.  It's all a mystery.


This is saying no more than If there was a magic man, magic man could do magic.

Which isn't really earth-shaking, is it? Are people expected to base entire worldviews and belief systems on this? Really?

Mystery? It's a miracle; but I mean that in the same sense that David Hume regarded theism as a miracle; the miracle being that anybody believes it or takes it seriously.
Jim

The problem is that this can't be proved, disproved or demonstrated by science.
It's one of those times when the God who is both outside time and involved in His Creation intervened for His purposes.
Yes, it's a matter of faith - I know this - but equally an event which it is impossible to either prove or disprove, and, since it will not occur again, impervious to statistics as well.
Shaker

Jim wrote:
The problem is that this can't be proved, disproved or demonstrated by science.

Yes, it's a matter of faith - I know this - but equally an event which it is impossible to either prove or disprove, and, since it will not occur again, impervious to statistics as well.


If we're going to invoke science then by that gold standard nothing at all can be proven in the definitive sense - that's the job of mathematics and formal logic which proves things because of its own self-created rules.

Scientifically there's only something which is supported by (greater or lesser amounts of) evidence, or not.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
Jim wrote:
I'm not the one making the assertion, floo - you are....without a shred of evidence to back it up.


Really?

I thought Christianity was the one making the assertions


Then you made a mistake. Read the thread again.
Floo made an assertion.
cyberman

Re: Mary

Floo wrote:
I don't know why the Catholic Church makes such a song and dance about the woman, who was pregnant by Joseph, or another guy, before she married!  


What I find more disturbing is floo's insinuation that if someone is an unmarried mother then she is not worthy of respect. You sound like some nasty little Tory, floo.
Shaker

Re: Mary

cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
I don't know why the Catholic Church makes such a song and dance about the woman, who was pregnant by Joseph, or another guy, before she married!  


What I find more disturbing is floo's insinuation that if someone is an unmarried mother then she is not worthy of respect. You sound like some nasty little Tory, floo.


Where she insinuate this?
cyberman

Re: Mary

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
I don't know why the Catholic Church makes such a song and dance about the woman, who was pregnant by Joseph, or another guy, before she married!  


What I find more disturbing is floo's insinuation that if someone is an unmarried mother then she is not worthy of respect. You sound like some nasty little Tory, floo.


Where she insinuate this?


In the bit I quoted. What, otherwise, is the relevance of the reference to what she believes Mary's sexual conduct to have been, and the excalamation mark she appends to it?

If I said "I can't see why the Queen is giving to OBE to a man who is known to be gay" you would assume, I think, that I was saying that being gay makes the man less worthy to receive such an honour.

When floo says "I can't see why the church honour a woman who was pregnant before she was married" she is obviously making such an insinuation.
Shaker

Re: Mary

cyberman wrote:
In the bit I quoted.

Erm ... no.

Quote:
What, otherwise, is the relevance of the reference to what she believes Mary's sexual conduct to have been, and the excalamation mark she appends to it?


Since you haven't even scrupled to quote her words correctly/accurately but have paraphrased them according to what you think she meant rather than what she actually wrote, I don't think you're in any position to mount the tall equine.  

Quote:
If I said "I can't see why the Queen is giving to OBE to a man who is known to be gay" you would assume, I think, that I was saying that being gay makes the man less worthy to receive such an honour.


Not inherently. That would depend on the context of the award and for what it was being given.

Quote:
When floo says "I can't see why the church honour a woman who was pregnant before she was married" she is obviously making such an insinuation.


Floo didn't say that. You did. Floo actually wrote:

Floo wrote:
I don't know why the Catholic Church makes such a song and dance about the woman, who was pregnant by Joseph, or another guy, before she married!


And the Catholic Church does indeed make a song and dance about Mary.

I take this to mean that she is saying she doesn't understand the Catholic obsession with Mariolatry when compared to the Christian in general and Catholic in particular record of the view and treatment of women down the centuries. Floo didn't say, but many have said and quite rightly, that in the Christian mind historically, women have either been sin-infected whores or glowingly pure Madonnas. Or at the very least inferior, second-class. "Wives, submit to your husbands"? "Weaker vessel"? Ring a bell?
Derek

Shaker wrote:
I think that the Christian history of its opinions on womanhood is best not only overlooked but violently and aggressively rejected as the foul, toxic, ignorant, irrational, superstitious trash it is which has caused untold, incalculable, unimaginable suffering, misery, pain and harm in the world.

Since you're asking.


i am not sure if you are being genuinely ignorant to the ethos of Christianity, or, if you are just being provocatively belligerent to Christians in general. either way, your summation is quintessentially without substance or factual veracity. None of these assertions can be related to Christianity, as a belief. All of your eloquent discriptives relate to the actions of mankind, who claim to act in the name of Deity. None of them have that authority. They are the deleterious ramification of the unsanctioned Nicene Creed of 325, not to be mistaken with the factual words of God.

As for Mary being with child from Joseph, as the OP suggests. That would mean that Joseph was the Father of Jesus. We all know that is not true. Jesus is the only begotten son of God who caused Mary to be with child. you may think that is impossible, however, condider hermaphroditism in humans.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
i am not sure if you are being genuinely ignorant to the ethos of Christianity, or, if you are just being provocatively belligerent to Christians in general. either way, your summation is quintessentially without substance or factual veracity. None of these assertions can be related to Christianity, as a belief.

Explain why not if you dare.
Quote:
All of your eloquent discriptives relate to the actions of mankind, who claim to act in the name of Deity. None of them have that authority. They are the deleterious ramification of the unsanctioned Nicene Creed of 325, not to be mistaken with the factual words of God.

There are no factual words of any "god."

Quote:
As for Mary being with child from Joseph, as the OP suggests. That would mean that Joseph was the Father of Jesus. We all know that is not true.

No we don't.

Some people believe that that is not true. Belief and knowledge are not synonymous, as you should have learnt by now but clearly have not. Some people may well believe that the case is not true. A belief is all that it is, nothing more.

Quote:
Jesus is the only begotten son of God who caused Mary to be with child. you may think that is impossible, however, condider hermaphroditism in humans.

What does hermaphroditism have to do with the daft fish stories about Jesus?
Derek

Jim wrote:
The problem is that this can't be proved, disproved or demonstrated by science.
It's one of those times when the God who is both outside time and involved in His Creation intervened for His purposes.
Yes, it's a matter of faith - I know this - but equally an event which it is impossible to either prove or disprove, and, since it will not occur again, impervious to statistics as well.


It is written in the Bible. The Bible is the literal word of God, therefore, proof is not a requisite for Christians. Atheist do not believe in God, or the Scriptures, so no proof is sufficient enough to appease them. Any attempt to bring them to the truth is futile. They must first won't to know the truth and then seek after it. To those who seek for proof God has said "it is a wicked and adulterous nation that seekeeth after a sign"
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
It is written in the Bible. The Bible is the literal word of God, therefore, proof is not a requisite for Christians.

That is a belief held by some Christians but not all Christians.

Quote:
Atheist do not believe in God

Well spotted Sherlock.  

Quote:
or the Scriptures, so no proof is sufficient enough to appease them. Any attempt to bring them to the truth is futile. They must first won't to know the truth and then seek after it.

And in English?
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
i am not sure if you are being genuinely ignorant to the ethos of Christianity, or, if you are just being provocatively belligerent to Christians in general. either way, your summation is quintessentially without substance or factual veracity. None of these assertions can be related to Christianity, as a belief.

Explain why not if you dare.


If I dare??

Christianity is a set of rigid moralistic beliefs and values,, none of which relate to the words you have used. Christians are those who strive to adhere to those teachings and beliefs. Denominations are a set of some 4300 institutions who all hold a smidgen of the truth but have misinterpreted it to allow man to justifiably kill, injure and harm each other. Their edifices are the footstool of Satan, who revels in their atrociries.

Quote:
Quote:
All of your eloquent discriptives relate to the actions of mankind, who claim to act in the name of Deity. None of them have that authority. They are the deleterious ramification of the unsanctioned Nicene Creed of 325, not to be mistaken with the factual words of God.

There are no factual words of any "god."


Not to an atheist, that is true

Quote:
Quote:
As for Mary being with child from Joseph, as the OP suggests. That would mean that Joseph was the Father of Jesus. We all know that is not true.

No we don't.


I refer to my fellow Christians when using the word "we"

Quote:
Some people believe that that is not true. Belief and knowledge are not synonymous, as you should have learnt by now but clearly have not. Some people may well believe that the case is not true. A belief is all that it is, nothing more.


Faith is not dissimilar to the use of the word "theories" in science. They reach a point where they are considered to be factual. Those Christians, who have been converted by the influence and testimony of the Holy Ghost, no longer require evidence for the existence of Divinity. As with evolution, it is just considered to be true to those who believe in it. After all, belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Quote:
Quote:
Jesus is the only begotten son of God who caused Mary to be with child. you may think that is impossible, however, condider hermaphroditism in humans.

What does hermaphroditism have to do with the daft fish stories about Jesus?


You need to know what a hermaphrodite is in order to make the connection.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
If I dare??

Yes. If you dare.
Quote:
Not to an atheist, that is true

Excellent.
Quote:
I refer to my fellow Christians when using the word "we"

In other words it's just a belief; something that some people for their own reasons believe. It's not that I didn't know this already; I'm rarely prepared to hear people state it as openly and explicitly.

Quote:
Faith is not dissimilar to the use of the word "theories" in science.


Yes it is. It's entirely dissimilar. The only reason why you would think they were not dissimilar is if you don't know what the word theory means in a scientific context, which is tremendously common amongst religious types.

Quote:
As with evolution, it is just considered to be true to those who believe in it.

Evolution is backed up with empirical evidence. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of it.
Quote:
After all, belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Yes, quite.
Quote:
You need to know what a hermaphrodite is in order to make the connection.

I already known what a hermaphodite is. You appear not to.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
It is written in the Bible. The Bible is the literal word of God, therefore, proof is not a requisite for Christians.

That is a belief held by some Christians but not all Christians.

Quote:
Atheist do not believe in God

Well spotted Sherlock.  

Quote:
or the Scriptures, so no proof is sufficient enough to appease them. Any attempt to bring them to the truth is futile. They must first won't to know the truth and then seek after it.

And in English?


No, that is a belief held by some denominations, Christianity is a set of moralistic beliefs, a lifestyle. It is not a denomination. It is what denominations are based on. God has told us, in those scriptures , that by the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things. I believe Him.

I apologize for it if your grasp of the English language is limited. I will try and simplify it in future. I just could not find a simpler way of writing something, that you obviously must have comprehended, as you have made a response to it just prior. Maybe you were stumped with any kind of response?
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Shaker:124721"]
Ralph2 wrote:
If I dare??

Yes. If you dare.


Why do you think I would need to "dare"
Quote:
Quote:
Not to an atheist, that is true

Excellent.


Thank you

Quote:
Quote:
I refer to my fellow Christians when using the word "we"

In other words it's just a belief; something that some people for their own reasons believe. It's not that I didn't know this already; I'm rarely prepared to hear people state it as openly and explicitly.


Thank you. It is an irrelevance to the Plan of Salvation. Nonsensical

Quote:
Quote:
Faith is not dissimilar to the use of the word "theories" in science.


Yes it is. It's entirely dissimilar. The only reason why you would think they were not dissimilar is if you don't know what the word theory means in a scientific context, which is tremendously common amongst religious types.


I will try and simplify it for you. It is called the Theory of Evolution because it cannot be tested using the scientific method, due to time restraints. Because there is lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of evidence that support it we take it as read, that it is true. Because I have lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of evidence testifying to me, personally, that God exists I, personally, take it as read, that it is true. The two are not dissimilar. To me the connection is distinctive and clear. You may well be having trouble with the level of English I am using here. I cannot really simplify it any further.

Quote:
Quote:
As with evolution, it is just considered to be true to those who believe in it.

Evolution is backed up with empirical evidence. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of it.


Yes, I know

Quote:
Quote:
After all, belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Yes, quite.


Thank you

Quote:
Quote:
You need to know what a hermaphrodite is in order to make the connection.

I already known what a hermaphodite is. You appear not to.


so, what is an hermaphrodite?
Jim

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
The problem is that this can't be proved, disproved or demonstrated by science.
It's one of those times when the God who is both outside time and involved in His Creation intervened for His purposes.
Yes, it's a matter of faith - I know this - but equally an event which it is impossible to either prove or disprove, and, since it will not occur again, impervious to statistics as well.
 


-
While I'm willing to accept the Bible (That's only the Old and New TGestaments and possibly deuterocanonicals without any modern additions) as the sole Scripture for Christians, and, as the inordinately verbose 'formula' of the Church of Scotland puts it
"The Supreme rule for faith and life";
And while I can see science and Scripture in parallel,
I'm willing to accept that those with no faith cannot.
That's why I made the point about science to Shaker.

-

It is written in the Bible. The Bible is the literal word of God,

-
Agreed. But I believe - Shaker doesn't...to him the Bible is as relevent as the Beano (no disrespect meant, Shaker.)
-
therefore, proof is not a requisite for Christians. Atheist do not believe in God, or the Scriptures, so no proof is sufficient enough to appease them. Any attempt to bring them to the truth is futile. They must first won't to know the truth and then seek after it. To those who seek for proof God has said "it is a wicked and adulterous nation that seekeeth after a sign"


-
Again, to a non theist, that's simply theological guff.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I apologize for it if your grasp of the English language is limited.

No need to apologise as it isn't.
Quote:
I will try and simplify it in future.

One can only hope that you'd try and write in ordinary comprehensible English in future. On past showing it's not looking good.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I will try and simplify it for you. It is called the Theory of Evolution because it cannot be tested using the scientific method, due to time restraints.

Balls, bullshit and poppycock. You are evidently as ignorant of the meaning of the word theory in its proper scientific context - its a scientific word after all, which has unfortunately escaped its home turf to trespass upon common speech with the emphasis very much upon common - as you are about everything else.

Quote:
Because I have lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of evidence testifying to me, personally, that God exists I, personally, take it as read, that it is true.

So provide it.

Quote:
so, what is an hermaphrodite?

An organism which displays primary and secondary sexual characteristics normally associated with both genders usually in reference to sexually dimorphic organisms.
Derek

[quote="Jim:124725"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
The problem is that this can't be proved, disproved or demonstrated by science.
It's one of those times when the God who is both outside time and involved in His Creation intervened for His purposes.
Yes, it's a matter of faith - I know this - but equally an event which it is impossible to either prove or disprove, and, since it will not occur again, impervious to statistics as well.
 
Quote:
While I'm willing to accept the Bible (That's only the Old and New TGestaments and possibly deuterocanonicals without any modern additions) as the sole Scripture for Christians, and, as the inordinately verbose 'formula' of the Church of Scotland puts it
"The Supreme rule for faith and life";
And while I can see science and Scripture in parallel,
I'm willing to accept that those with no faith cannot.
That's why I made the point about science to Shaker.


Yes, as an individualist, I can make the same affirmation, however, my post was directed at you, as a self proclaimed Christian. I do not expect any atheist to accept that the Bible is in fact the word of God, let alone that a God exists. There are many Christians that do not see the Bible as the word of God as well. I speck for myself when I claim that God exists. I cannot speak for anybody else.
-

Quote:
It is written in the Bible. The Bible is the literal word of God,

-
Agreed. But I believe - Shaker doesn't...to him the Bible is as relevent as the Beano (no disrespect meant, Shaker.)


Again, I agree, however, I was not directing my post at Shaker, I was directing it at you. I do not expect him to believe in the Bible, however, I do expect you to. I am a Christian and feel that I no longer won't to look for evidence. I assume, that as a Christian, you to must feel quite certain that God lives. For you there should be no need for evidence to prove the immaculate conception. Do you doubt that it took place?
-
Quote:
therefore, proof is not a requisite for Christians. Atheist do not believe in God, or the Scriptures, so no proof is sufficient enough to appease them. Any attempt to bring them to the truth is futile. They must first won't to know the truth and then seek after it. To those who seek for proof God has said "it is a wicked and adulterous nation that seekeeth after a sign"


-
Again, to a non theist, that's simply theological guff.


Again, I agree, however, my remark was directed at you and not Shaker.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I apologize for it if your grasp of the English language is limited.

No need to apologise as it isn't.
Quote:
I will try and simplify it in future.

One can only hope that you'd try and write in ordinary comprehensible English in future. On past showing it's not looking good.


My English, in my opinion, is more then sufficient for general comprehension, as is my standard of social behaviour. I get no complaints elsewhere, however, if you find that much difficulty in deciphering and interpreting my words then simply do not respond to them, and I will put it down to a lack in your ability in decrypting my, otherwise comprehensible, English. Otherwise, it will inhibit the flow of cordial debate causing unnecessary, and unrelated, diversions giving opportunities to defer a response as a result of the ignorance of the perpetrator. It is what they call a derailment technique often used by WUMs, not that you are one.

One automatically believes that if one has exceptional command of the English language than to decipher my meager contribution would, in fact, be child's play for you. It just shows how much we all have yet to learn.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:124727"]
Ralph2 wrote:
I will try and simplify it for you. It is called the Theory of Evolution because it cannot be tested using the scientific method, due to time restraints.


Quote:
Quote:
Because I have lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of evidence testifying to me, personally, that God exists I, personally, take it as read, that it is true.

So provide it.


You maybe a little confused here as a direct result of my extremely poor English, however, let me try and clarify it for you. I actually said "evidence testifying to me, personally, that God exists I, personally, take it as read" I am emphasizing the word personal here to show the reader that it is inclusive to me, therefore, I am not able to fulfill your request, and never will be able to, however, I am not expecting you, or anybody, to believe me either.

I was merely browsing the forum when I came across your unprovoked onslaught on Christianity, and felt somewhat compelled to help you by showing you the error in which you were falsely indicting Christianity with. I was just highlighting your confusion between religious denominations and the concept of Christianity, which is an ethos based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices.You attributed some fairly unnecessary and objectionable rhetoric to Christianity there, and I am a christian, I am proud to say. My writing style, my use of the word Hermaphrodite, my comparison between faith and evolution, your innuendos and sarcasm, all seem like tactics to distract from the topic, presumably because you are either not akin to actually debating, or, your knowledge on the subject matter is ìnsufficent for you to debate, or, of course, you have a smoldering hatred for Christianity and those who enjoy the lifestyle of a christian, so find it rewarding to discredit them and their beliefs. In any event, it is not conducive to constructive debate and, for the sake of the debate, you should cease it. So, let's just debate without all the rest of the rubbish,  or not, whatever you choose.

Quote:
Quote:
so, what is an hermaphrodite?

An organism which displays primary and secondary sexual characteristics normally associated with both genders usually in reference to sexually dimorphic organisms.


Quote:
Simultaneous Hermaphrodites

Earthworms are simultaneous hermaphrodites, having both male and female reproductive organs. A simultaneous (or synchronous) hermaphrodite (or homogamous) is an adult organism that has both male and female sexual organs at the same time. Self-fertilization often occurs.


I believe this comes from the same source as yours, but you seem to have omitted it.

The point being made was not that Mary was a hermaphrodite, but that they actually exist in the natural world and that they have the ability to self fertilize. If it is possible in the natural world then why not in the metaphysical world, allowing God to cause Mary to self fertilise. Deductive reasoning.
Paul

Whoopee! Floo and Shaker think it's all bollocks. Now there's a surprise!

Theotokos, ever-virgin, pray for us.
Jim

I woouldn't say Mary is 'bollocks'
Just a woman, like any other, chosen and thus blessed by God to be the vessel of Incarnation.
She was a sinner like everyone else.
She died like everyone else.
If she accepted Christ as her Lord, she will be there in eternity with the rest of us.
That's it, really.
The rest is tradition, not Scripture.
cyberman

I notice that floo hasn't come back to address her sexist, misogynistic assumption that if Mary Magdalene was one of Jesus' close followers it can only have been because she was shagging him. I really don't think we should let such insidious prejudice go unchallenged - she is the kind of person who daily makes like harder for women with her mediaeval attitudes.
Ketty

Jim wrote:
I woouldn't say Mary is 'bollocks'
Just a woman, like any other, chosen and thus blessed by God to be the vessel of Incarnation.
She was a sinner like everyone else.
She died like everyone else.
If she accepted Christ as her Lord, she will be there in eternity with the rest of us.
That's it, really.
The rest is tradition, not Scripture.




Mary: ordinarily human but a God-fearing woman, truly blessed by God to be the vessel of Incarnation.  What a privilege!

Ralph2 wrote:
... I am a christian, I am proud to say....


Proverbs 16:18

I am a little teapot short and stout.  I am a Black African male born of pure Black African parents.  I am not proud of either statement.  I am happy to confess none of the statements are true.  You can believe it, or not.  
gone

cyberman wrote:
I notice that floo hasn't come back to address her sexist, misogynistic assumption that if Mary Magdalene was one of Jesus' close followers it can only have been because she was shagging him. I really don't think we should let such insidious prejudice go unchallenged - she is the kind of person who daily makes like harder for women with her mediaeval attitudes.


I said it was a possibility she could have been in a relationship with the guy! Just as it is possible Jesus was gay, totally bonkers etc, etc! But as he is a long rotted corpse, we will never know for sure.
Derek

Paul wrote:
Whoopee! Floo and Shaker think it's all bollocks. Now there's a surprise!

Theotokos, ever-virgin, pray for us.


Jim

There's no evidence that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, apart from tradition, which has no place in Scripture.
Quite the contrary, since Scripture states that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Now, unless Joseph was having a moonlight fling behind Mary's back, then she was mother to several children by him - which is only natural in a 1st century Jewish family.
Derek

Jim wrote:
There's no evidence that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, apart from tradition, which has no place in Scripture.
Quite the contrary, since Scripture states that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Now, unless Joseph was having a moonlight fling behind Mary's back, then she was mother to several children by him - which is only natural in a 1st century Jewish family.


Paul

Jim wrote:
There's no evidence that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, apart from tradition, which has no place in Scripture.


Tradition is not something separate from scripture. Tradition is merely the scripture properly understood. It is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Without the either, the scriptures are out of context and cannot be properly understood.


Jim wrote:
Quite the contrary, since Scripture states that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Now, unless Joseph was having a moonlight fling behind Mary's back, then she was mother to several children by him - which is only natural in a 1st century Jewish family.


Now you know it's not quite a simple as that. You know the counter arguments or you're just pretending to be ignorant. The holy family were no ordinary "1st century Jewish family", that is if you believe Christ is our Lord and God.
Paul

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
There's no evidence that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, apart from tradition, which has no place in Scripture.
Quite the contrary, since Scripture states that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Now, unless Joseph was having a moonlight fling behind Mary's back, then she was mother to several children by him - which is only natural in a 1st century Jewish family.



No, crap post.
Jim

Ido indeed accept Christ as God Incarnate.
Why does that preclude Him from being part of an ordinary, , presumably artisan class, Jewish family?
Scripture clearly states that He had brothers and sisters...and even
Koine experts will confirm that that is, indeed, the correct interpretation.


http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html
genghiscant

Did god father himself?
Paul

Jim wrote:
Ido indeed accept Christ as God Incarnate.
Why does that preclude Him from being part of an ordinary, , presumably artisan class, Jewish family?
Scripture clearly states that He had brothers and sisters...and even
Koine experts will confirm that that is, indeed, the correct interpretation.


http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html


They were children from a previous marriage of Joseph. Joseph was considerably older than Mary, which is why he is not around by the time of Jesus' ministry. Mary was little more than a teenager at the time of the Annunciation.

That Christ is God, that he dwelt in the Blessed Virgin's womb, changes everything. I've used the sacred vessel analogy before. Once it is consecrated to such use it is unfitting for it to used in an ordinary manner.
Jim

That's speculation for which there is not a shred of evidence in Scripture, Paul. Whatever later scholars dreamed up to explain their theories has no basis in Scripture.
gone

Paul wrote:
Jim wrote:
Ido indeed accept Christ as God Incarnate.
Why does that preclude Him from being part of an ordinary, , presumably artisan class, Jewish family?
Scripture clearly states that He had brothers and sisters...and even
Koine experts will confirm that that is, indeed, the correct interpretation.


http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html


They were children from a previous marriage of Joseph. Joseph was considerably older than Mary, which is why he is not around by the time of Jesus' ministry. Mary was little more than a teenager at the time of the Annunciation.

That Christ is God, that he dwelt in the Blessed Virgin's womb, changes everything. I've used the sacred vessel analogy before. Once it is consecrated to such use it is unfitting for it to used in an ordinary manner.


I don't know where you got them from? It is quite possible though that Joseph was dead by the time Jesus starting strutting his stuff.

Mary was probably barely a teenager when she had intercourse with Joseph or another very human male, possibly rape was involved! No doubt the daft story of the annunciation was put about to cover up the unfortunate conception of Jesus!
Paul

Jim wrote:
That's speculation for which there is not a shred of evidence in Scripture, Paul. Whatever later scholars dreamed up to explain their theories has no basis in Scripture.


No. It is what we have received from the Apostles, which is why it was accepted by the whole Church. Now you can bring up Tertullian, but he was a schismatic, or Helvidius, but he was a heretic, both refuted by Blessed Jerome. Essentially, the innovation that is the denial of Mary's perpetual virginity is the result of a deficiency in understanding the Incarnation.
gone

Paul wrote:
Jim wrote:
That's speculation for which there is not a shred of evidence in Scripture, Paul. Whatever later scholars dreamed up to explain their theories has no basis in Scripture.


No. It is what we have received from the Apostles, which is why it was accepted by the whole Church. Now you can bring up Tertullian, but he was a schismatic, or Helvidius, but he was a heretic, both refuted by Blessed Jerome. Essentially, the innovation that is the denial of Mary's perpetual virginity is the result of a deficiency in understanding the Incarnation.


Chapter and verse?
Jim

[quote="Paul:124933"]
Jim wrote:
That's speculation for which there is not a shred of evidence in Scripture, Paul. Whatever later scholars dreamed up to explain their theories has no basis in Scripture.


No. It is what we have received from the Apostles, which is why it was accepted by the whole Church. Now you can bring up Tertullian, but he was a schismatic, or Helvidius, but he was a heretic, both refuted by Blessed Jerome. Essentially, the innovation that is the denial of Mary's perpetual virginity is the result of a deficiency in understanding the Incarnation.

-
Bring up Tertullion?
who mentioned Tertulion?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are good enough for me.
What the Church accepts as 'tradition' amounts to diddly squat in the face of the Gospel evidence!
Paul

As I said earlier, the scriptures cannot be properly understood apart from the context of the Church, that is in it's liturgies, holy councils and fathers and the lives of the saints. This is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and that is the only context which the scriptures can be properly understood. Scripture alone means diddly squat. Are you embarrased by the Incarnation?
Jim

And as I've stated, numerous times, the church, in all to many of her branches, has been guilty of veniality, cotruption, political infighting, bad scholarship, duplicity and the rest.
Give me Scripture any time.
The Holy Spirit will help us with the interpretation.
Tradition's OK, but it's about as relevent as the Easter bunny (which itself is a corruption of Celtic mythology.)
gone

The Easter Bunny has more credence than the HS, at least it brings nice choccie Easter Eggs!
Paul

Jim wrote:
And as I've stated, numerous times, the church, in all to many of her branches, has been guilty of veniality, corruption, political infighting, bad scholarship, duplicity and the rest.


There are no "branches". There is only one visible Church. Branch theory is incoherent nonsense.


Quote:
Give me Scripture any time.


Tradition is not something separate from scripture. It is the scriptures properly understood.


Quote:
The Holy Spirit will help us with the interpretation.
Tradition's OK, but it's about as relevant as the Easter bunny (which itself is a corruption of Celtic mythology.)


And that is where you fall.
gone

It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
Paul

Eh? Have you finally gone completely batty?
Shaker

Paul wrote:
Eh? Have you finally gone completely batty?

Instead of the immediate ad hominem why don't you ask if what she says is true?
Paul

It has no relevance whatsoever. It's called a red herring. Firstly it completely misunderstands "tradition" (tradition in a Christian context is not merely custom) and secondly I am not a Roman Catholic.
Derek

Paul wrote:
It has no relevance whatsoever. It's called a red herring. Firstly it completely misunderstands "tradition" (tradition in a Christian context is not merely custom) and secondly I am not a Roman Catholic.


It is unusual that I find myself agreeing with both you and Jim yet you disagree with each other. I to believe that the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, can, and will, teach us, and testify to us, all that we need to know, in righteousness, however, I am an individualist so I agree that there are no branches of the church, just the church of Christ, who said, wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there shall I be also.

But traditionalism is surely what results from scripture, it does not, cannot, create scripture, imo. Through the writings of the Holy Bible we can come to a superficial understanding of traditionalism but not visa versa because it is the bible that initially provides the information. After all, the bible, again IMO, is a book of commandments, which is intended to bring the reader unto Christ. It is not intended to be a history book. Of traditions.

I do not think we are on differing tracks, I think that I might not fully comprehend your definition of traditionalism. Perhaps you could expand for the sake of the discussion.

Many people misunderstand the difference between Christianity and man made churches and denominations, either intentionally, with malice, or, in their ignorance of the mission of God. They blame God for the actions of carnal men, who misinterpret scripture and perpetuate their errors by their influence over their congregations. They seem to suggest that if, for example, the catholic priest act badly, then that is God's fault, instead of it being blatantly obvious that it is the result of man's choices and actions, not God's. They are ignorant to what Christianity stands for so try and discredit it by dissing God, instead of those who have misunderstood. It is, of course, Satan leading mankind away from righteousness.

We are individually accountable to God, we are not accountable by congregations, who blindly follow the teachings of men. You will not be able to excuse you actions on the grounds that the church you belonged to told you to do it. You make your own choices and you stand responsible for the consequences. Christianity is all about the individuals choices and actions. If someone has covered up paedophilia in the Catholic Church then that individual will be held responsible for what he has done, not his congregation or denomination. Would you hold all nurses accountable for every mistake that the individual nurse has made. Christianity is the same. I sin, therefore I am responsible to recognise the sin, repent of it, make restitution for it and then forsake it.
Shaker

Paul wrote:
It has no relevance whatsoever. It's called a red herring. Firstly it completely misunderstands "tradition" (tradition in a Christian context is not merely custom) and secondly I am not a Roman Catholic.

Not this year, no.

But Mother Church was the final and ultimate repository of all truth at one time, as I recall ...
Paul

Ralph2 wrote:
Paul wrote:
It has no relevance whatsoever. It's called a red herring. Firstly it completely misunderstands "tradition" (tradition in a Christian context is not merely custom) and secondly I am not a Roman Catholic.


It is unusual that I find myself agreeing with both you and Jim yet you disagree with each other. I to believe that the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, can, and will, teach us, and testify to us, all that we need to know, in righteousness, however, I am an individualist so I agree that there are no branches of the church, just the church of Christ, who said, wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there shall I be also.

But traditionalism is surely what results from scripture, it does not, cannot, create scripture, imo. Through the writings of the Holy Bible we can come to a superficial understanding of traditionalism but not visa versa because it is the bible that initially provides the information. After all, the bible, again IMO, is a book of commandments, which is intended to bring the reader unto Christ. It is not intended to be a history book. Of traditions.

I do not think we are on differing tracks, I think that I might not fully comprehend your definition of traditionalism. Perhaps you could expand for the sake of the discussion.

Many people misunderstand the difference between Christianity and man made churches and denominations, either intentionally, with malice, or, in their ignorance of the mission of God. They blame God for the actions of carnal men, who misinterpret scripture and perpetuate their errors by their influence over their congregations. They seem to suggest that if, for example, the catholic priest act badly, then that is God's fault, instead of it being blatantly obvious that it is the result of man's choices and actions, not God's. They are ignorant to what Christianity stands for so try and discredit it by dissing God, instead of those who have misunderstood. It is, of course, Satan leading mankind away from righteousness.


I do believe that there is only one visible Church, the Church our Lord founded (which for me is the Orthodox Church). I reject any sort of branch theory as being incoherent, contradictory nonsense. The scriptures are a product of the Church. The Church is not a product of the scriptures. Therefore it is only within the context of the Church that the scriptures can be properly understood.
gone

Paul wrote:
Eh? Have you finally gone completely batty?


The flipping Catholic Church is known to have protected these scum of society by moving them from parish to parish, where they abused other children. Then of course there is the evil of those Magdalene laundries  where unmarried mothers were abused in the most disgusting fashion. The Catholic Church has absolutely NOTHING about which to be proud, imo!
Ketty

Paul wrote:


There are no "branches". There is only one visible Church. Branch theory is incoherent nonsense.


Christ Jesus spoke of branches, so I think it unwise to say it is a) a theory and b) incoherent nonsense.


Quote:
Quote:
Give me Scripture any time.


Tradition is not something separate from scripture. It is the scriptures properly understood.


On this Jim is correct.  Clearly, and demonstrably, it is not Scripture 'properly understood'.  In fact, the traditions of many branches of Church act as a barrier to allowing people to come to Christ as little children; the traditions of some branches are against and / or add-ons to Scripture says, when Scripture is properly understood.  


Quote:
The Holy Spirit will help us with the interpretation.


Exactly!  The third person of the Holy Trinity that is the Holy Spirit, (not some ghostly thing.)  It is only through Him that our hearts and minds can fully understand Scripture, otherwise it's merely 'book learnin' ' and / or following human ways.
Jim

"I do believe that there is only one visible Church, the Church our Lord founded (which for me is the Orthodox Church). I reject any sort of branch theory as being incoherent, contradictory  nonsense.
-
Then you reject what Christ said and what Paul wrote.
Even in Gethsemene, Jesus was concerned at division...
"I pray for My people, that they may be one".
And Paul wrotrof one Body with many parts.
Strange that the lecturer who helped tme through Koine Greek, later Orthodox Abp of Great Britain and Thyatira, was perfectly content with many branches of the One church.
-

The Scriptures are emphatically NOT a product of the church.
They were written before a central church authority existed (thankfully), and inspired - literally, God-breathed.
Thank God the church - which is, after all, only human - didn't get a chance to change a word!
Paul

False dichotomy. I wouldn't divide the Holy Spirit and the Church as you do. The scriptures were written within the context of the Church and it's faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, the same as the ancient liturgies of the Church etc. No, our Lord did not say that his Church would be of many branches, each confessing a different faith, contradicting each other. Instead he gave the Church the Holy Spirit who would teach them all truth. So yes, your modern idea of the Church is nonsense, contradictory and makes a mockery of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Derek

Paul wrote:
False dichotomy. I wouldn't divide the Holy Spirit and the Church as you do. The scriptures were written within the context of the Church and it's faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, the same as the ancient liturgies of the Church etc. No, our Lord did not say that his Church would be of many branches, each confessing a different faith, contradicting each other. Instead he gave the Church the Holy Spirit who would teach them all truth. So yes, your modern idea of the Church is nonsense, contradictory and makes a mockery of Christ and the Holy Spirit.


Very refreshing   ''   Spoken in plain and simple word, echoing the whole truth. Well done.   ''   keep them coming. Christianity needs real christians, like you, who understand and comprehend his sacred words, to wear the full armour of God. Not those who change with the times and fads, For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
cymrudynnion

Floo wrote:
It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
The majority of persons being accused of being paedophiles have long since died and therefore unable to defend themselves. The latest is a former Speaker of The House, George Thomas. Now George was a homosexual but certainly not a paedo. Unfortunately not around to defend himself.
Jim

Paul wrote:
False dichotomy. I wouldn't divide the Holy Spirit and the Church as you do. The scriptures were written within the context of the Church and it's faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, the same as the ancient liturgies of the Church etc. No, our Lord did not say that his Church would be of many branches, each confessing a different faith, contradicting each other. Instead he gave the Church the Holy Spirit who would teach them all truth. So yes, your modern idea of the Church is nonsense, contradictory and makes a mockery of Christ and the Holy Spirit.



-

That would be the 'modern idea of the church' endorsed by the former Abp of Great Britain and Thyatira, then?
The 'modern idea of the church' where certain branches are growing, both in this country and throughout the world, as people come to relationship with Christ?
So the Holy Spirit isn't working there, then?
He doesn't want people to accept the Lordship of Christ, rather than that of the Church, in their lives?
Paul

Jim wrote:
Paul wrote:
False dichotomy. I wouldn't divide the Holy Spirit and the Church as you do. The scriptures were written within the context of the Church and it's faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, the same as the ancient liturgies of the Church etc. No, our Lord did not say that his Church would be of many branches, each confessing a different faith, contradicting each other. Instead he gave the Church the Holy Spirit who would teach them all truth. So yes, your modern idea of the Church is nonsense, contradictory and makes a mockery of Christ and the Holy Spirit.



-

That would be the 'modern idea of the church' endorsed by the former Abp of Great Britain and Thyatira, then?
The 'modern idea of the church' where certain branches are growing, both in this country and throughout the world, as people come to relationship with Christ?
So the Holy Spirit isn't working there, then?
He doesn't want people to accept the Lordship of Christ, rather than that of the Church, in their lives?


I can't speak for the said Archbishop, however, the Orthodox Church teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Christ. That is also what I believe. I wouldn't deny that the Holy Spirit can and does work outside of the Church, but what he does not do is lead people into error. The Church is the only place where the fullness of the faith can be found and it is the only place we know for sure that a person can be saved. How can the Holy Spirit be responsible for tens of thousands of Churches each professing a different faith? The West messed it up!

Anyway, we have gone off the subject. With regards to Mary's perpetual virginity, it is not enough to just look at the scriptures. One must also look how the Church has always understood the scriptures. One does that by looking to the life of the Church, that is, its liturgies, councils, saints etc.
gone

cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
The majority of persons being accused of being paedophiles have long since died and therefore unable to defend themselves. The latest is a former Speaker of The House, George Thomas. Now George was a homosexual but certainly not a paedo. Unfortunately not around to defend himself.


And you know he wasn't a pervert because???????????????????
gone

Paul wrote:
Jim wrote:
Paul wrote:
False dichotomy. I wouldn't divide the Holy Spirit and the Church as you do. The scriptures were written within the context of the Church and it's faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, the same as the ancient liturgies of the Church etc. No, our Lord did not say that his Church would be of many branches, each confessing a different faith, contradicting each other. Instead he gave the Church the Holy Spirit who would teach them all truth. So yes, your modern idea of the Church is nonsense, contradictory and makes a mockery of Christ and the Holy Spirit.



-

That would be the 'modern idea of the church' endorsed by the former Abp of Great Britain and Thyatira, then?
The 'modern idea of the church' where certain branches are growing, both in this country and throughout the world, as people come to relationship with Christ?
So the Holy Spirit isn't working there, then?
He doesn't want people to accept the Lordship of Christ, rather than that of the Church, in their lives?


I can't speak for the said Archbishop, however, the Orthodox Church teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Christ. That is also what I believe. I wouldn't deny that the Holy Spirit can and does work outside of the Church, but what he does not do is lead people into error. The Church is the only place where the fullness of the faith can be found and it is the only place we know for sure that a person can be saved. How can the Holy Spirit be responsible for tens of thousands of Churches each professing a different faith? The West messed it up!

Anyway, we have gone off the subject. With regards to Mary's perpetual virginity, it is not enough to just look at the scriptures. One must also look how the Church has always understood the scriptures. One does that by looking to the life of the Church, that is, its liturgies, councils, saints etc.


And if you believe that you believe anything!
Derek

Paul wrote:
Jim wrote:
Paul wrote:
False dichotomy. I wouldn't divide the Holy Spirit and the Church as you do. The scriptures were written within the context of the Church and it's faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, the same as the ancient liturgies of the Church etc. No, our Lord did not say that his Church would be of many branches, each confessing a different faith, contradicting each other. Instead he gave the Church the Holy Spirit who would teach them all truth. So yes, your modern idea of the Church is nonsense, contradictory and makes a mockery of Christ and the Holy Spirit.



-

That would be the 'modern idea of the church' endorsed by the former Abp of Great Britain and Thyatira, then?
The 'modern idea of the church' where certain branches are growing, both in this country and throughout the world, as people come to relationship with Christ?
So the Holy Spirit isn't working there, then?
He doesn't want people to accept the Lordship of Christ, rather than that of the Church, in their lives?


I can't speak for the said Archbishop, however, the Orthodox Church teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Christ. That is also what I believe. I wouldn't deny that the Holy Spirit can and does work outside of the Church, but what he does not do is lead people into error. The Church is the only place where the fullness of the faith can be found and it is the only place we know for sure that a person can be saved. How can the Holy Spirit be responsible for tens of thousands of Churches each professing a different faith? The West messed it up!

Anyway, we have gone off the subject. With regards to Mary's perpetual virginity, it is not enough to just look at the scriptures. One must also look how the Church has always understood the scriptures. One does that by looking to the life of the Church, that is, its liturgies, councils, saints etc.


Oh dear dear me. It is like looking at the beauty of an "Eton Mess" but realising that it has been sprinkled with copious amounts of salts when you bite into it.
Jim

Why should we look at how the Church has always understood the Scriptures re: Mary?
Given the inherent corruption of men, often - even especially - in the Church, with their lust for power and control, I'd suggest that confining our thougghts to what someone in a surplus or a dog collar opined is a gross sin against what the Holy Spirit teaches us....and you know what Scripture says about that!
Paul

Jim wrote:
Why should we look at how the Church has always understood the Scriptures re: Mary?
Given the inherent corruption of men, often - even especially - in the Church, with their lust for power and control, I'd suggest that confining our thoughts to what someone in a surplus or a dog collar opined is a gross sin against what the Holy Spirit teaches us....and you know what Scripture says about that!


Your post merely serves to show how little you understand the whole concept, Jim. We look to the Church (and I nor anyone else defines the Church as being merely bishops and priests, but all its members, however you wish to define the Church, whether that be Orthodox, or Roman, or Protestant or if you wish to lump them all together) throughout time from the Apostles to this day. No innovations but continuity. We think with the mind of the Church throughout all ages because the Church's faith is guided by the Holy Spirit. It's a guarantee against arbitrariness and conformism.
cymrudynnion

Floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
The majority of persons being accused of being paedophiles have long since died and therefore unable to defend themselves. The latest is a former Speaker of The House, George Thomas. Now George was a homosexual but certainly not a paedo. Unfortunately not around to defend himself.


And you know he wasn't a pervert because???????????????????
I was related to him
trentvoyager

You were related to a homosexual

Did you not want to use the rusty garden shears?
gone

cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
The majority of persons being accused of being paedophiles have long since died and therefore unable to defend themselves. The latest is a former Speaker of The House, George Thomas. Now George was a homosexual but certainly not a paedo. Unfortunately not around to defend himself.


And you know he wasn't a pervert because???????????????????
I was related to him


Good grief it is a wonder the guy wasn't castrated by you.

I sincerely hope George Thomas wasn't a paedophile, which of course has absolutely NOTHING to do with a person's sexuality. When our youngest daughter was about three she loved listening to him saying 'Order, Order', in his lovely Welsh accent, on the radio. She wrote to him and had a pleasant handwritten letter back.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
The majority of persons being accused of being paedophiles have long since died and therefore unable to defend themselves. The latest is a former Speaker of The House, George Thomas. Now George was a homosexual but certainly not a paedo. Unfortunately not around to defend himself.


And you know he wasn't a pervert because???????????????????
I was related to him


Wait a second...

I am related to many people whose inner thoughts and outer practices I know nothing at all about.
gone

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
The majority of persons being accused of being paedophiles have long since died and therefore unable to defend themselves. The latest is a former Speaker of The House, George Thomas. Now George was a homosexual but certainly not a paedo. Unfortunately not around to defend himself.


And you know he wasn't a pervert because???????????????????
I was related to him


Wait a second...

I am related to many people whose inner thoughts and outer practices I know nothing at all about.


Same here. Most of my many cousins I haven't seen since I was a child, and could tell you very little about them!
Derek

Floo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
The majority of persons being accused of being paedophiles have long since died and therefore unable to defend themselves. The latest is a former Speaker of The House, George Thomas. Now George was a homosexual but certainly not a paedo. Unfortunately not around to defend himself.


And you know he wasn't a pervert because???????????????????
I was related to him


Wait a second...

I am related to many people whose inner thoughts and outer practices I know nothing at all about.


Same here. Most of my many cousins I haven't seen since I was a child, and could tell you very little about them!



Hmm, shall I, shall i, oh, I want to,  Nah, I am a christian so I would have to repent
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
The majority of persons being accused of being paedophiles have long since died and therefore unable to defend themselves. The latest is a former Speaker of The House, George Thomas. Now George was a homosexual but certainly not a paedo. Unfortunately not around to defend himself.


And you know he wasn't a pervert because???????????????????
I was related to him


Wait a second...

I am related to many people whose inner thoughts and outer practices I know nothing at all about.


Same here. Most of my many cousins I haven't seen since I was a child, and could tell you very little about them!



Hmm, shall I, shall i, oh, I want to,  Nah, I am a christian so I would have to repent


Oh shut up, you dick
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
It seems to be 'tradition' in the Catholic Church to protect paedophile priests instead of outing them to the police!
The majority of persons being accused of being paedophiles have long since died and therefore unable to defend themselves. The latest is a former Speaker of The House, George Thomas. Now George was a homosexual but certainly not a paedo. Unfortunately not around to defend himself.


And you know he wasn't a pervert because???????????????????
I was related to him


Wait a second...

I am related to many people whose inner thoughts and outer practices I know nothing at all about.


Same here. Most of my many cousins I haven't seen since I was a child, and could tell you very little about them!



Hmm, shall I, shall i, oh, I want to,  Nah, I am a christian so I would have to repent


Oh shut up, you dick


Are you talking to your own penis, or are you just having a bitch fit.
trentvoyager

It is enlightening to see what clean minds and mouths some of our Christian posters have  
Ketty

trentvoyager wrote:
You were related to a homosexual

Did you not want to use the rusty garden shears?


I'm sure we could find much to analyse from that revelation of Cymru's.
cymrudynnion

trentvoyager wrote:
You were related to a homosexual

Did you not want to use the rusty garden shears?
I've never wanted to use rusty garden shears on anyone
Derek

cymrudynnion wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
You were related to a homosexual

Did you not want to use the rusty garden shears?
I've never wanted to use rusty garden shears on anyone


There is nothing worse then trying to use rusty shears on your hedge. They become stiff and make clipping hard to achieve. My advice is not only to keep them greased up but to also keep them sharp. You never know when you might need them.
trentvoyager

cymrudynnion wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
You were related to a homosexual

Did you not want to use the rusty garden shears?
I've never wanted to use rusty garden shears on anyone


Liar, Liar.

You were just joshing with us previously then?
trentvoyager

If you are going to lie don't leave the evidence of your falsehoods behind:

http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=103499#103499
gone

Blimey Cymru must have a short memory! Or it could be after being in denial about being gay, he has finally decided to come out!
Jim

Paul wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why should we look at how the Church has always understood the Scriptures re: Mary?
Given the inherent corruption of men, often - even especially - in the Church, with their lust for power and control, I'd suggest that confining our thoughts to what someone in a surplus or a dog collar opined is a gross sin against what the Holy Spirit teaches us....and you know what Scripture says about that!


-

So are you saying that branches of the Church have never altered their teaching to suit the prevailing mood of controlling Emperors/popes/patriarchs/bishops/ministers?
Because I can give you umpteen instances of such alterations, alterations not based on Scripture, but on theopolitical whim which later became 'tradition'.
Too often the Church has been manipulated by men for their own reasons - usually power - hence the many Byzantine scandals in court and clergy which the Church did nothing to stop...and the consequent collapse of the Church in the East, resulting in fragmentation - or the obscenity of the Crusades and corruption in the Papal court in the West resulting in the Reformation, etc.
When we deviate from Scripture into 'tradition', we abandon the Spirit and reject His teaching....
Or when we abandon the core creed - Apostles or Nicene - we end up with pseudochristian culta such as WTBTS, Moonies or Mormons.
These creeds were anchored,not in the shifting sands of man made tradition, but on Scripture alone.
And that's a lesson for the Church today.


Your post merely serves to show how little you understand the whole concept, Jim. We look to the Church (and I nor anyone else defines the Church as being merely bishops and priests, but all its members, however you wish to define the Church, whether that be Orthodox, or Roman, or Protestant or if you wish to lump them all together) throughout time from the Apostles to this day. No innovations but continuity. We think with the mind of the Church throughout all ages because the Church's faith is guided by the Holy Spirit. It's a guarantee against arbitrariness and conformism.
Paul

The Creed (there is only one creed) was "anchored on scripture alone"? Now I know you're really talking rubbish and/or you've never actually read the relevant councils. You also fail to grasp the whole concept. Yes, what blessing the Reformation was...not. At least Rome, despite its many errors, was still redeemable before the Reformation but unfortunately the Reformation dragged Rome down with it, compelling her to write its errors down in stone. Now Rome can't go back, unless it admits that the "Petrine ministry" is a great lie. As for Protestantism, it always was unredeemable. The only way back is for the Holy Spirit to move both to repent completely of their errors. And by-the-way, what "collapse of the Church in the East"? I'm not aware any such thing happenned. It was the West that ballsed it up.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum