Greatest Sect of Christianity

[Newgod]

i think the real bible got lost somewhere in time and in its place a manipulated version came around which was written by a evil man so bible justifies so much evil

[Elok]

FYI, NG, I don't think anybody here is going to respond to anything you say in this thread from this point out. Especially if, as I suspect, you just posted more porn. I don't know, thanks to the good ol' ignore list.

[Newgod]

FYI, NG, I don't think anybody here is going to respond to anything you say in this thread from this point out. Especially if, as I suspect, you just posted more porn. I don't know, thanks to the good ol' ignore list.

oh yeah i get it i am on your ignore list and yet you can see my post very interesting because if a person is in your ignore list then that persons post are not visible to you so you are lying about having me in your ignore list as you are still to this point seeing my posts and repling to them as well

[Lorizael]

To be honest I haven't a clue about a good deal of the Bible.

And yet you worship it as a deity.

[Newgod]

And yet you worship it as a deity.

i dont worship bible i am not christan

[Elok]

Also, you can stop PMing me. I just deleted three without reading them.

[giblets]

the christans burnt females accusing them as witchs in the name of god if someone think that was for good or god then that person is horribly wrong,

Witches suck. Burn the ****ers.

[Kidlicious]

I don't get why Soren Kierkegaard is more relevant here than, say, St. John Climacus, or St. Maximus the Confessor, but I suppose I can see what you're getting at. Of course, he seems to be reinterpreting Christianity through the lens of existentialist philosophy, at least in that quote.



Which specific parts of scripture gave you that impression? When I read it, I see nothing but admonishments about bad doctrine, or inadequate doctrine, or sometimes just St. Paul (I'm on Hebrews now, haven't gotten to the other writers' letters yet) scolding them to "avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, and arguments over the law, which do not profit a man." Something like that, I'm paraphrasing from memory since it's been a long day and I'm feeling lazy. If anything, they were more obsessed with doctrine. But the overall impression I get is that the early church was not all that different from the church of today; it was made of good but entirely fallible people.



If by this you mean, "obey God and become the true person He made you to be," we do not disagree on this point. Albeit the idea of Christianity is to deny oneself, and take up the cross. It's one of several examples in Christianity of giving up a thing only to receive it back transfigured and glorified--another being the Eucharist.

Well Kierkegaard originated the lens of existential philosophy. So he was rejecting the popular way to interpret the Bible, and in my opinion getting back to the way God intended it to be interpreted. But the prophets and apostles were existentialists. I mean there's a lot of talk about not following false doctrine, but that's existentialist. Did you ever notice how much the Bible talks about not conforming to the ways of the world? Sure with our modern perspective and the way we're taught we read the Bible as a rule book, showing us how to conform. But I believe the meaning is much deeper. Think about what it means to not be proud or jealous. Proud and jealous people are conformers because they are uncomfortable with who they are. That doesn't sound right at first maybe but give it a thought.

So anyway Paul talks a lot about living in the Spirit and what that means. James has incredibly deep existential meaning if you really meditate on it. It goes without saying to read the Gospels. And the prophets were all existentialists before it ever had a name for it.

[loinburger]

Also, you can stop PMing me. I just deleted three without reading them.

Watch out, he's gay for you

[Kidlicious]

I don't get why Soren Kierkegaard is more relevant here than, say, St. John Climacus, or St. Maximus the Confessor, but I suppose I can see what you're getting at. Of course, he seems to be reinterpreting Christianity through the lens of existentialist philosophy, at least in that quote.



Which specific parts of scripture gave you that impression? When I read it, I see nothing but admonishments about bad doctrine, or inadequate doctrine, or sometimes just St. Paul (I'm on Hebrews now, haven't gotten to the other writers' letters yet) scolding them to "avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, and arguments over the law, which do not profit a man." Something like that, I'm paraphrasing from memory since it's been a long day and I'm feeling lazy. If anything, they were more obsessed with doctrine. But the overall impression I get is that the early church was not all that different from the church of today; it was made of good but entirely fallible people.



If by this you mean, "obey God and become the true person He made you to be," we do not disagree on this point. Albeit the idea of Christianity is to deny oneself, and take up the cross. It's one of several examples in Christianity of giving up a thing only to receive it back transfigured and glorified--another being the Eucharist.

Well Kierkegaard originated the lens of existential philosophy. So he was rejecting the popular way to interpret the Bible, and in my opinion getting back to the way God intended it to be interpreted. But the prophets and apostles were existentialists. I mean there's a lot of talk about not following false doctrine, but that's existentialist. Did you ever notice how much the Bible talks about not conforming to the ways of the world? Sure with our modern perspective and the way we're taught we read the Bible as a rule book, showing us how to conform. But I believe the meaning is much deeper. Think about what it means to not be proud or jealous. Proud and jealous people are conformers because they are uncomfortable with who they are. That doesn't sound right at first maybe but give it a thought.

So anyway Paul talks a lot about living in the Spirit and what that means. James has incredibly deep existential meaning if you really meditate on it. It goes without saying to read the Gospels. And the prophets were all existentialists before it ever had a name for it.

[Elok]

Witches suck. Burn the ****ers.

Are you opposed to all witches, or just doughy middle-aged Wiccans who still dance naked 'round the ol' bonfire?

[Newgod]

Are you opposed to all witches, or just doughy middle-aged Wiccans who still dance naked 'round the ol' bonfire?

i think he hates witches because his mother and sister are witches

[Elok]

Well Kierkegaard originated the lens of existential philosophy. So he was rejecting the popular way to interpret the Bible, and in my opinion getting back to the way God intended it to be interpreted. But the prophets and apostles were existentialists. I mean there's a lot of talk about not following false doctrine, but that's existentialist. Did you ever notice how much the Bible talks about not conforming to the ways of the world? Sure with our modern perspective and the way we're taught we read the Bible as a rule book, showing us how to conform. But I believe the meaning is much deeper. Think about what it means to not be proud or jealous. Proud and jealous people are conformers because they are uncomfortable with who they are. That doesn't sound right at first maybe but give it a thought.

So anyway Paul talks a lot about living in the Spirit and what that means. James has incredibly deep existential meaning if you really meditate on it. It goes without saying to read the Gospels. And the prophets were all existentialists before it ever had a name for it.

I honestly think you've just taken what you've read in the Bible and reshaped it to fit your preconceived ideas about the world. It says not to be conformed to The World, but The World and The Church are two different things in Christian thought. The Apostles were trying to set up a body of believers with a single, unified creed; that is to say, they demanded a certain level of conformity.

Also, the truly proud are rarely conformists. The vain, generally so, but if you want to see real pride, look at Hitler, or Stalin, or Genghis Khan. They were fiercely independent and unique individuals who made others conform to them. And I should note that vanity is generally considered far less dangerous than true pride by the Fathers, for precisely the reason that it is "conformist"; a vain man at least cares about others to the extent that he molds himself to their expectations. Kind of like the bit in Tolkien where Sauron is less evil than Morgoth only in that, for a time, he served someone other than himself.

[giblets]

i think he hates witches because his mother and sister are witches

Yes, that must be it. I am jealous of their magical abilities. It's like that book where an orphan goes to a special school.

[giblets]

sernw aefabe dsenfsaeufaeg dsjnaejgwse sdngaebnwbgjsd gasngeugaejg bae sgasegnsdmfaesgnianegawdfgfdgd to you too