Dream
Well-Known Member
I read your post, Lunamoth.Lunamoth said:
Christianity Outside the Box
- Thread starter earl
- Start date
N
Nick_A
Guest
Is it possible that the life force that creates conception and blends with human form in the womb can be a direct descent from above only possible when the woman is that pure. Why include Joseph's lineage unless it indicates a connection to sources of esoteric knowledge.
Is it really that far fetched for Mary being of a certain "quality" within which this conception became possible. Jesus being the product of this quality of conception then would also be capable of re-birth back to his origin.
What makes these ideas so difficult is that they begin by appreciating the fallen human condition. As we are such things are impossible. But there really is no reason from the point of view of human potential why such an inpregnation should be impossible nor the potential for re-birth.
As the salmon swim up a river to reach the boundless ocean.
earlTao, it seems you are not fond of either Muslims or Catholics. earl
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Wash all you like Thomas.... no amount of washing will get the Catholic Church clean.
tao
Namaste Thomas,
Surely you don't think discussions with atheists inside the box would differ.
Couldn't the same be said for the lack of love often found in our camp especially with each other?
Leaving aside the errors regarding the origin of the Holy Trinity, where do you come off with this ignorant Western arrogance of ascribing all of Christian history to Romanism?
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
The Catholic Church has about as much credibility to claim "humaneness" as the Nazi's, (with whom Pope Pius XI was an enthusiastic collaborator). From its beginnings to this day it has caused far far far more harm, suffering and despair than any good it has done. Thomas may go about it in a cloak of 'moderation' but he is not here to do anything but promote a Catholic agenda as far as I can see. He, as is the Catholic Policy, refuses to even acknowledge my several efforts to address Catholic Crimes Against Humanity. He has saught and attained a position where he can sit in regulated discussion as lord and master and stifle any critique. Very Catholic.
tao
Namaste Tao,
I don't think Earl is a designated representative for the Catholic Church. And as I described I don't believe we Christians always walk the walk.
We also know your views quite well regarding religions in general.
What was the intent of this reply, to foment interfaith discussion?
To increase amicable relationships between those of faith and those that don't?
Or simply to see how many complaints and infractions one could receive in a day?
Is it not possible for us all to make a conscious decision to not post until we can do so amicably?
I don't think Earl is a designated representative for the Catholic Church. And as I described I don't believe we Christians always walk the walk.
We also know your views quite well regarding religions in general.
What was the intent of this reply, to foment interfaith discussion?
To increase amicable relationships between those of faith and those that don't?
Or simply to see how many complaints and infractions one could receive in a day?
Is it not possible for us all to make a conscious decision to not post until we can do so amicably?
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
I do want to post amicably and believe it not I endeavour to do so! That said I was very evidently not born to join the diplomatic corps. I have increasingly over the course of the past few months been subject to a barrage of personalised statements, I raise no objection to them and see them part of honest dialogue. You can argue which came first...chicken or egg but regardless there is a more open, and I'd argue more healthy tone around here now.
Thomas has left himself open to what I say about him and the Catholic Church by a combination of ignoring real questions whilst covertly seeking an exclusion zone for honest objection and dialogue. That everybody seems to be ready to oblige him is fine by me. However I have made the point because I feel that it is a point that had to be made.
I never considered Earl a spokesperson for the Papacy.
tao
Namaste Tao,
Good points, I think we should all address personal attacks as they occur.
Wayne Dyer says when you squeeze an orange you get orange juice. So if we allow this to build up...folks sometimes get sprayed undeservedly.
I know I am guilty often as well. For the betterment of the boards we need to temper ourselves.
Hi Dogbrain —
Most here discern no difference between the Early Church, the Orthodox Patriarchates and Roman Catholicism, we take the blame for everything — anything wrong in Christianity ... it's all our fault.
(I do tend to cover for my Orthodox brothers and sisters ... it's the least I can do, in the light of our mutual history of offences against the other, in working towards a rapprochement, and a healing of wounds)
In Christ,
Thomas
Oh, so true ... but I'd do yourself a favour and keep your head down!
Most here discern no difference between the Early Church, the Orthodox Patriarchates and Roman Catholicism, we take the blame for everything — anything wrong in Christianity ... it's all our fault.
(I do tend to cover for my Orthodox brothers and sisters ... it's the least I can do, in the light of our mutual history of offences against the other, in working towards a rapprochement, and a healing of wounds)
In Christ,
Thomas
For a murderous and corrupt "institution", I find it ironic that the Catholic church so vehemently abhores abortion, the death penalty, genocide, and gives more for charity than all other Christian churches combined.
I also think that was a knee jerk response, meant to hurt someone who is at the very least, your equal in intelligence and reflection Tao. And I don't know why an intelect such as yours would do such a thing.
I am surprised, and disappointed.
Q
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Gee, and I thought my point was that the (period from) Christian history that matters most, or at least remains more greatly veiled than any other period (if largely because so intentionally obscured and carefully re-drawn for us) ... consists of the earliest centuries!
I myself was raised Lutheran. I like to think there was another version of Christian history after the organization of the church in Rome than we have been raised to believe (again, true Christianity survived, though driven underground -- the resistors being burned at the stake, tortured, and persecuted through today, into ... how distant a future?). There was also a history that parallels the times of Luther and Calvin, and it was surely influenced by, while also influencing these bold spirits - the REFORMERS ... but the Age of Darkness is still upon us -- and will be until we have collectively drawn back (a bit further) the veil.
I was just watching a wonderful show today that addresses the subject of the Ebionites, while also exploring the teachings of 2nd Century Marcion of Sinope. In part, I would agree with Marcion, if not also supporting quite all of his conclusions. Or perhaps, as is so often the case, it is a question of angle, or nuance. The pieces may not always fit, but I do like to see if they make more sense from a different perspective (background, context, etc.) ...
The Ebionites, on the other hand, just plain tried to tell lit like it is. Well, I suppose Marcion may have attempted the same. But if the latter was simply misunderstood, the Ebionites stand so well for what has happened to the Chistianity of Christ. The best efforts to simply focus on what really matters were too much for small-minded men. We are thus left with four `gospels' out of dozens -- 20 having been excised in persecution of Marcion's ideas alone!
Try finding out more about what these wise Innocents sought to share with us. Want to point me to some original texts bequeathed to us from the Ebionites? If they exist, I'd like to know more ...
Peace,
~andrew
Putting aside the atheist and the agnostic views for a moment, please expound upon the errors regarding the origin of the Holy Trinity. And please show where there is ignorant western arrogance of ascribing all of Christian history to Romanism...indeed Orthodox Christianity was called by name (the second Roman Christianity). Even the Coptics were ascribed to the western influence.
Let's take this one point at a time, as I am really interested in debating the merits of your statement.
v/r
Q