The Vatican Encyclopedia

[jackofhearts]

Originally Posted by A.M Nafusi

@JOH
Nope! Am a realist too. I know some things can be effected and some can not.It does not mean am unaware of where the truth lies, a truth that can be relative to the opponent.
What was rabid about the post? But what positives? Is society rid of covetting or are our jails free of murderers? Are we not looking out for rapists and paedophiles in the church? (And I support catholics against greedy people out to fleece them with frivolous law suits)

Here is something I found funny about a certain lawsuit in NJ. A teacher shows elementary kids a documentary on America's past. It is violent. A kid on arriving home asks his parents why his ancestors were so bad? The parents are not amused and a law suit is born. Such material has been deemed unfit in that school district and excluded out of the syllabi; does that mean the material is wrong or inappropriate? If the later answer is affirmed, then innapropriate to whom? I will extrapolate this line of reasoning on 'why racism will not end' thread.

Maybe xtianity did play a role in civilization (what civilization? probably modernization should be the right word) but it's time is up as science continues to show it's inconsistencies.

It's odd that you can simultaneously argue that you are a "realist" for taking advantage of the Catholics fine institutions of learning while claiming no good has been produced by Christian belief. It seems to me a contradictory viewpoint.

Concerning covetousness and other vices, it's kinda lame to imply that because vice still exists that philosophies condemning it are failures. Why point out vices at all if they are static and unchangeable? Or if they are changeable, to greater and lesser degrees, why not speak of those philosophies that you believe encourages such change? I concede that if your standard for determining a "positive contribution" of Christianity is producing a society free of vice, then that standard has not been met, nor will ever be met by any philosophy. As for "rabid" it concerned my mention of the term "paganism" and your kneejerk assumption that I was promoting some Euro-centric view by mere mention of the term. Paganism has existed on every populated continent and is merely a convenient catch all term to describe myriads of regionalized religions. It's a neutral term.

What inconsistencies has science shown? I'm guessing you mean to a narrow, literalist interpretation of some passages. If you're trying to argue that science can displace metaphysics, I'm thinking you're not understanding the limitations of either science or metaphysics.

And I'm still interested in your take on what philosophical views led to the end of the slave trade.

[Atabong]

Originally Posted by ndigila2

since this thread has been thoroughly derailed, i might as well dive in. In another thread, i asked you which version of original sin you reject because there's very many different understandings. Perhaps you could enlighten me on which one you reject.

you see ndigila2, this is why we will for ever disagree –your dogmatism and orthodoxy.

I asked you your position on original sin and you ask me ‘which version i reject?’ this seems to suggest that you are incapable of a personal position apart from that ordained by greeks and romans.

I did not mention original sin by accident but by intent because as you said, a doctor must look to establishing the cause of all the observable symptoms of a disease. And I’m starting this diagnosis at the roots.

original sin is understood as a state of imperfection inherited by all mankind from adam and eve due to their disobedience to god in the garden of eden. Please tell us who is this god and where is the garden of eden, if it is just a philosophical thought let us know.

Paul, augustine and the orthodox guys all have this in mind as a reference for further speculation and this is the heart of christian theology. Take this away and you have nothing but bare bones.

When we follow the genealogy and timeline given by christian literature (canonical, apocrypha and non canonical) we see that it runs back to about 6000yrs old (i.e. Given that adam and eve were the first two male and female created by the hebrew god) and presupposes that all of mankind originated from that stock.

We are also told that the cursed descendants of ham turned black and migrated to where we call africa today. Migrated from where to africa?

keep that in mind, i find this so ridiculous because all the archeological and historical evidence point to the fact that mankind(civilization) originated from africa, yet we have this book telling us in very subtle ways the reverse.

The kmetian pharos are portrayed in the bible as nothing more than wicked magicians and chief demons. As I have mentioned before, before Paul (officially known as saul of tarsus) there is no such thing as christianity as we know it today.

Paul was a well read man who knew the hebrew law and prophesies to the letter, he was also a Roman citizen who had access to all the Greek and neo-platonic literature and philosophy. He was also a prolific writer who preferred to write about a supposed jesus as a purely metaphysical and 5th dimensional personality. He does not write about jesus as a person who walked the surface of this earth, even the death of jesus which paul mentions is placed purely on a metaphysical dimension.

But we had worshipers of serapis chrestus a god made in honor of ptolemy I soter (367-283bce), a European invader of egypt who took upon himself the title of pharo and asked the egyptian priests to ordain him as a god. , his name soter also means ‘savior’, and this is where the term soteriology comes from: meaning the study of the doctrine of salvation. (note the time when soter is supposed to have lived and the time of a supposed Jesus of 0 A.D)

Many christians are also being misled to think that Christ is the second name of Jesus, but we all know that this is entirely false; it’s nothing more than word play. Christ (meaning ‘the anointed one’) was simply the name/title given to serapis, thus serapis christus.No historian of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century (i.e. Before the council of nicaea of 325a.d) wrote anything about a so called Jesus Christ of nazareth.

Many theologians and bible scholars are of the opinion that christians are been misled to think that these gospels were written by the direct disciples of jesus whereas in fact they were not.

The other time you alluded to ‘absence of evidence not evidence of absence argument’ but even you would agree that these ‘canonical’ gospels were not written until fifty to eighty years after the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived. Who wrote these gospels? is this information still considered classified? What about the other gospels that were rejected, what were they saying? These are legitimate questions any serous Christian must confront, not just believe and have faith.

Besides, shouldn’t it surprise any one that a man who defied gravity and walked on water, fed thousands with five loaves of bread and two fish, turned water to wine (as also portrayed by hollywood) has little or nothing written/statures about him over 300 years after his death? also note that A.D above stands for ano domini, a latin expression meaning ‘in the year of our lord’, not after the death of christ… as christians have been made to think.

In fact what we know for sure is that jesus christ of nazareth (the savior) is a god created by law of emperor of rome constantine as an ecumenical (universal) ecclesiastical hybrid god that was to be accepted by every one in the Roman empire. This god evolved to give us what we see vividly captured by leonardo da vinci. Needless to overemphasize the obvious similarities between jesus christ and the kmetian god osiris.

The nicene creed alone, an outcome of over two months of deliberation by 318 roman catholic bishops still recited today by all catholics around the world should tell us all we need to know about this wonderful creation .It goes thus:

we believe in one god the father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one lord jesus christ, the son of god, the only begotten begotten from the father, that is from the substance of the father, that is god from god, light from light, true god from true god, begotten not made, consubstantial with the father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in erath, for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the death, and in the holy spirit.

If jesus christ was for real, I don’t think these guys would have had to go through all the trouble of insisting that it is the son and not the sun that was true. When you see a picture of jesus you also see the SUN radiating from around his head, ever wondered why? is it some double standard?

To address the common belief of the time, i.e. Arius' positions this is what the emperor constantine and pope sylvester had to say.

And those who say ‘there once was when he was not’ and ‘before he was begotten he was not’ and that he came to be from things that were not or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the sun of god is subject to change or alteration, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

You hear that???

Also, these anomalies you have failed to address

• worship of the monstrance('flesh' of jesus implanted within the symbol of the sun)

• the picture of jesus drawn with the SUN behind his head.

• the fact that the biblical jesus disappeared at 12 only to resurface at 30.

• ancient kmetian obelisks in Rome as we now speak.

let’s deal with all this before we come to virgin mary, mother of jesus.

[Ndigila2]

Wow, so much for 'one at a time.'

Originally Posted by Atabong

you see ndigila2, this is why we will for ever disagree –your dogmatism and orthodoxy.

I asked you your position on original sin and you ask me ‘which version i reject?’ this seems to suggest that you are incapable of a personal position apart from that ordained by greeks and romans.

Atabong, in my original post, I asked you to present the problems you have against Christianity. You then responded by asking me my understanding of original sin. You know accuse me of being incapable of holding a personal position, when all I was doing was returning to the original intent of this thread. Stay focused my friend.

Originally Posted by Atabong

original sin is understood as a state of imperfection inherited by all mankind from adam and eve due to their disobedience to god in the garden of eden. Please tell us who is this god and where is the garden of eden, if it is just a philosophical thought let us know.

Hard to give a brief definition: God is a personal being who is the creator and sustainer of all existence. The garden of eden is the description of the temple courts of the Babylonian King. However, it's reference in Genesis is a symbolic one. Adam and Eve were in a state communion with God and this condition was equated to paradise. It's an existential state, not a geographical location.

Originally Posted by Atabong

When we follow the genealogy and timeline given by christian literature (canonical, apocrypha and non canonical) we see that it runs back to about 6000yrs old (i.e. Given that adam and eve were the first two male and female created by the hebrew god) and presupposes that all of mankind originated from that stock.

The OT and NT were written from around 2000 BC, to 90AD. Natural science didn't take a significant root till around 1600 AD. To take a literalist interpretation of these texts, is to thoroughly miss the mark, they were written to point to a transcendent reality.

Originally Posted by Atabong

We are also told that the cursed descendants of ham turned black and migrated to where we call africa today. Migrated from where to africa?

The curse wasn't on Ham, it was on his son Canaan. The connection with this curse and the justification of slavery is a modern European interpretation.

Originally Posted by Atabong

keep that in mind, i find this so ridiculous because all the archeological and historical evidence point to the fact that mankind(civilization) originated from africa, yet we have this book telling us in very subtle ways the reverse.

Or, you're reading too much into the subtlety.

Originally Posted by Atabong

As I have mentioned before, before Paul (officially known as saul of tarsus) there is no such thing as christianity as we know it today.

Paul was a well read man who knew the hebrew law and prophesies to the letter, he was also a Roman citizen who had access to all the Greek and neo-platonic literature and philosophy. He was also a prolific writer who preferred to write about a supposed jesus as a purely metaphysical and 5th dimensional personality. He does not write about jesus as a person who walked the surface of this earth, even the death of jesus which paul mentions is placed purely on a metaphysical dimension.

I have addressed this (twice!). Well, here it is again in case you've forgotten.

Originally Posted by Atabong

But we had worshipers of serapis chrestus a god made in honor of ptolemy I soter (367-283bce), a European invader of egypt who took upon himself the title of pharo and asked the egyptian priests to ordain him as a god. , his name soter also means ‘savior’, and this is where the term soteriology comes from: meaning the study of the doctrine of salvation. (note the time when soter is supposed to have lived and the time of a supposed Jesus of 0 A.D)

Many christians are also being misled to think that Christ is the second name of Jesus, but we all know that this is entirely false; it’s nothing more than word play. Christ (meaning ‘the anointed one’) was simply the name/title given to serapis, thus serapis christus.No historian of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century (i.e. Before the council of nicaea of 325a.d) wrote anything about a so called Jesus Christ of nazareth.

Wow! So one is left to wonder why St Mark, the author of the Gospel, was dragged in the streets to his death, by a mob of the worshippers of... wait for it...Serapis.

And why in the world would a middle eastern man be named according to a much later european naming system (first name, second name)?

[Ndigila2]

Part 2...

Originally Posted by Atabong

No historian of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century (i.e. Before the council of nicaea of 325a.d) wrote anything about a so called Jesus Christ of nazareth.

Well let's see:
1st century: Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Mathetes
2nd century: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, with an honorary mention of a very prominent opponent of Christianity: Celsus (unless of course, he was wasting his precious time writing a long polemic against followers of a non-existent person.)
3rd century: Origen, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius


Perhaps, you can show me how the following people above (and many more) were invented at the council of Nicaea, which would mean that this council took very very many years (way after Constantine died).

Originally Posted by Atabong

Many theologians and bible scholars are of the opinion that christians are been misled to think that these gospels were written by the direct disciples of jesus whereas in fact they were not.

The other time you alluded to ‘absence of evidence not evidence of absence argument’ but even you would agree that these ‘canonical’ gospels were not written until fifty to eighty years after the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived. Who wrote these gospels? is this information still considered classified?

You have to be more specific than 'many scholars and theologians.' And I'd mentioned this before, when it comes to history, the earliest references are always considered the most reliable, why should I believe you and not someone like, say Papias, who testified to his death of the authenticity of the Gospel of Mark, or say, Justin Martyr, who wrote that they were reading the Memoirs of the Apostles?

Originally Posted by Atabong

What about the other gospels that were rejected, what were they saying? These are legitimate questions any serous Christian must confront, not just believe and have faith.

Atabong, before the 1800s when all these other Gospels were discovered, the only reason why people knew that these sects was because they were mentioned in the writings of the Church Fathers. The church didn't hide them, they wrote about them and exposed them. And in fact, Irenaeus presented them with the challenge of tracing out their historical link back to the apostles.

Originally Posted by Atabong

Besides, shouldn’t it surprise any one that a man who defied gravity and walked on water, fed thousands with five loaves of bread and two fish, turned water to wine (as also portrayed by hollywood) has little or nothing written/statures about him over 300 years after his death?

The statement in red's been proven false.

Originally Posted by Atabong

also note that A.D above stands for ano domini, a latin expression meaning ‘in the year of our lord’,

tell me something I didn't know.

Originally Posted by Atabong

In fact what we know for sure is that jesus christ of nazareth (the savior) is a god created by law of emperor of rome constantine as an ecumenical (universal) ecclesiastical hybrid god that was to be accepted by every one in the Roman empire.

Wow, but a few paragraphs ago, you stated that Paul is the inventor, now Constantine is taking credit? How's this possible? Besides, if this was true, his hybrid god would have perished with him because his successor rejected the council of Nicaea.

Originally Posted by Atabong

Needless to overemphasize the obvious similarities between jesus christ and the kmetian god osiris.

Of course, I was trying to avoid a back-and-forth exchange of external links but you leave me with no choice.

Originally Posted by Atabong

The nicene creed alone, an outcome of over two months of deliberation by 318 roman catholic bishops still recited today by all catholics around the world should tell us all we need to know about this wonderful creation

They weren't roman catholic, a designation which didn't exist until 700 years later.

[Ndigila2]

Part 3... (wow at this rate I'll be banned for writing too much )

Originally Posted by Atabong

If jesus christ was for real, I don’t think these guys would have had to go through all the trouble of insisting that it is the son and not the sun that was true.

It's very ironical that you tell us to stop thinking in English, while this argument that you've presented only makes sense in English. Atabong, Sun and Son are homophones only in the English language, the Romans didn't use English, they used Greek, in which the words aren't homophones.

Originally Posted by Atabong

When you see a picture of jesus you also see the SUN radiating from around his head, ever wondered why? is it some double standard?

Double standard, nope. It's theology in art.

Originally Posted by Atabong

And those who say ‘there once was when he was not’ and ‘before he was begotten he was not’ and that he came to be from things that were not or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the sun of god is subject to change or alteration, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

You hear that???

Yup, I hear that. But you forgot to mention that Arius and his contemporary were unable to prove that their position was what has always been believed, as compared to the other 316 who had abundance of support from the forefathers (examples of those I mentioned in my previous post.)

Originally Posted by Atabong

worship of the monstrance('flesh' of jesus implanted within the symbol of the sun)[/list][list]
the picture of jesus drawn with the SUN behind his head

I dealt with these in my exposition of the evolution of Christian spirituality.

Originally Posted by Atabong

the fact that the biblical jesus disappeared at 12 only to resurface at 30.

Only a problem if you treat the Gospel as histo-biographical accounts, which is losing sight of their real intention

Originally Posted by Atabong

ancient kmetian obelisks in Rome as we now speak.

Relevance?

Originally Posted by Atabong

let’s deal with all this before we come to virgin mary, mother of jesus.

Fine, the key word is before.

[Atabong]

Originally Posted by ndigila2

mine too, except for the perfect part. If a child was born perfect, there'd be no room for improvement. I'd say a child is born with the potential to be perfect. And while we're on this topic, let me ask you, by what standard do you determine what perfect is?

ndigila2, be reminded that I am not an atheist or theist in the religious definition of the word. I do believe every child is born innocent, good, pure and perfect.What we become in life(saints and terrorists alike) is an imposition by our environments and society. You can read the biographies of those saints and church fathers you traditionally quote beginning from Saul of Tarsus, to saint Augustine etc

If you have a problem with this statement then I think you ought to revise your notion about god, you ought to revise your notion about spirituality… about Christianity.

You are the one preaching the ‘transcendentalist christianity’, yet in the same breath you state that a child is born imperfect? funny indeed, because even jesus the christ says ‘the kingdom of heaven belongs to these kids…, if you wish to enter the kingdom of heaven, you must enter as a child… and lots more etc’ which is perfectly in line with the genesis statement of ‘man created in the image and likeness of god’

So when you make statements like ‘kids are imperfect and need improvement’, it just begs the question: why would the kingdom of heaven belong to these imperfect beings, or by whose measuring rod do we improve???, even michael jackson said in one of his interviews that he’d rather remain a kid because he felt adults have spoiled the world!

This advocacy position you are holding is the cause of cultural imperialism, where white people take upon themselves an idea of cultural superiority and the burden of civilizing the world.

I have no problem with the spiritual dimension of the teachings of ‘Jesus the christ’, what I have a problem with is the ‘religiosity’ of it, the adoration, original sin, and orthodoxy, saved and damn, cursed and blessed part used as a tool for European cultural imperialism. anthropomorphize God as a blue eyed, blond hair white man on a Kmetian cross; as a giant bearded old white man sitting in the sky. This in itself is not a problem; the issue is using military, socio-political and econmic means to push this down people’s throats.

Please understand that religiosity (respecting rules and laws, putting on a long face, hanging palm leaves on your door post during lent, holy water, hanging crosses on the neck, burning incents, making a show of prayers and all that) is not the same as spirituality.

Remember also that 'man' does not mean man/woman but ‘man’ – a hypothetical man or human being. So except you wish to discredit a bible statement and state that god’s creation is imperfect and needs improvement by you or any one else then, I’ll like to caution that your idea that man is born imperfect is perverted, doctrinal, religious, entirely false and outdated.

Well I understand you are simply obsessed with and trying to guard your pauline, augustinian ‘original sin’ position. Very understandable indeed

Please read freedom not license by A.S Neill (online and free of charge) you may land on something new.

I encourage every one reading this post to read this book.

Ask for another reference if this one is not credible and I’ll humbly provide.

Originally Posted by ndigila2

And while we're on this topic, let me ask you, by what standard do you determine what perfect is?

By the standard of the unity of all things both seen and unseen.

[Ndigila2]

Since you only responded to 3 sentences I wrote, and completely ignored the other 3 posts, I'll take it that you've retracted your arguments.

Originally Posted by Atabong

ndigila2, be reminded that I am not an atheist or theist in the religious definition of the word.

What's this got to do with anything? In any case, even if you refuse to identify yourself in any group, you'll still end up forming a unique position, which will be one in a variety of competing positions.

Originally Posted by Atabong

What we become in life(saints and terrorists alike) is an imposition by our environments and society. You can read the biographies of those saints and church fathers you traditionally quote beginning from Saul of Tarsus, to saint Augustine etc

What's very ironic is that some of the biographies of the saints actually disagree with what you've written here. Check out the Life of St Moses the Ethiopian.

Originally Posted by Atabong

You are the one preaching the ‘transcendentalist christianity’, yet in the same breath you state that a child is born imperfect?

There's a difference here. You're viewing perfect and imperfect as polar opposites. In our understanding, there's different levels or states of existence, with the highest state (the state of the Uncreated) being called perfect, and with the state of creation being called imperfect, not because of purposeful shortcomings in their nature, but because, relative to the uncreated (perfect) state, they fall short.

Originally Posted by Atabong

funny indeed, because even jesus the christ says ‘the kingdom of heaven belongs to these kids…, if you wish to enter the kingdom of heaven, you must enter as a child… and lots more etc’ which is perfectly in line with the genesis statement of ‘man created in the image and likeness of god’

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Atabong

So when you make statements like ‘kids are imperfect and need improvement’, it just begs the question: why would the kingdom of heaven belong to these imperfect beings, or by whose measuring rod do we improve???, even michael jackson said in one of his interviews that he’d rather remain a kid because he felt adults have spoiled the world!

This argument is based on your misunderstanding of the Christian's perspective of perfect and imperfect, which I've explained above.

Originally Posted by Atabong

This advocacy position you are holding is the cause of cultural imperialism, where white people take upon themselves an idea of cultural superiority and the burden of civilizing the world.

The conclusion you've made here is as a result of misunderstanding of my position.

Originally Posted by Atabong

I have no problem with the spiritual dimension of the teachings of ‘Jesus the christ’, what I have a problem with is the ‘religiosity’ of it, the adoration, original sin, and orthodoxy, saved and damn, cursed and blessed part used as a tool for European cultural imperialism.

Okay...

Originally Posted by Atabong

Please understand that religiosity (respecting rules and laws, putting on a long face, hanging palm leaves on your door post during lent, holy water, hanging crosses on the neck, burning incents, making a show of prayers and all that) is not the same as spirituality.

What you're calling religiosity is the tangible aspect of spirituality. Spirituality without a tangible, practical impact on a human's life is pretty much pointless speculation. This separation of spirituality, and so-called 'religiosity' was started by the Catholics and ultimately severed by the Reformers, which probably contributed to this Imperialism that you're thoroughly against.

Another case of 'misdiagnosis.' (Now I understand why you flipped out when I attacked the Gnostics)

Originally Posted by Atabong

Remember also that 'man' does not mean man/woman but ‘man’ – a hypothetical man or human being. So except you wish to discredit a bible statement and state that god’s creation is imperfect and needs improvement by you or any one else then, I’ll like to caution that your idea that man is born imperfect is perverted, doctrinal, religious, entirely false and outdated.

As I said before, this is based on your misunderstanding of the words 'perfect' and 'imperfect' from the Christian point of view. Remember, words are merely pointers to realities.

Originally Posted by Atabong

Well I understand you are simply obsessed with and trying to guard your pauline, augustinian ‘original sin’ position. Very understandable indeed

I also reject the augustinian position on original sin, which fyi, is different from Paul's.

Originally Posted by Atabong

Please read freedom not license by A.S Neill (online and free of charge) you may land on something new.

I'll have a look at it sometime.

Originally Posted by Atabong

By the standard of the unity of all things both seen and unseen.

Please expound on this.

[Atabong]

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

Since you only responded to 3 sentences I wrote, and completely ignored the other 3 posts, I'll take it that you've retracted your arguments.

Ndigila2, I’m not here to ‘win points’, I go chronologically and state my positions and perspectives on the issue.I was responding to the part I left out in my first response.

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

What's this got to do with anything? In any case, even if you refuse to identify yourself in any group, you'll still end up forming a unique position, which will be one in a variety of competing positions.

I do not form a unique position about other people’s religious/philosophical concepts; I simply see and state the facts the way they are.

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

What's very ironic is that some of the biographies of the saints actually disagree with what you've written here. Check out the Life of St Moses the Ethiopian.

You mean saint Moses the Black was never influenced by monks?
Ndigila2, saints and terrorist alike are the product of human society, don't deny this very obvious fact. I hope you don’t wish to include him among your list of HISTORIANS.

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

There's a difference here. You're viewing perfect and imperfect as polar opposites. In our understanding, there's different levels or states of existence, with the highest state (the state of the Uncreated) being called perfect, and with the state of creation being called imperfect, not because of purposeful shortcomings in their nature, but because, relative to the uncreated (perfect) state, they fall short.

Do you realize that even the word imperfect itself is a PERFECT word? Perfection is subjective and no body should claim authority over that. Dog flesh may be a perfect delicacy for some who would throw up if they were told they’ve been served beef. It’s all about how differently we’ve been conditioned/ programed by our environments, that’s it. Maybe you should expound on this your so called ‘state of uncreated’

If some one takes pride in the fact that s/he is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or what ever, s/he is simply jiving her/himself for these are nothing but labels and formulations/conventions imposed by our societies.

There is no such thing as HIGHEST STATE sir, every state is simply another state and the reverse of its counterpart, Dualism!!, good and bad, right and left, rich and poor, hot and cold, night and day, positive and negative in between which are myriads of varieties. A wo/man considered a business magnate in Kisumu may find her/himself completely dwarfed in Jborg or Silicon Valley.

Also, you failed to tell us: By whose standards should we improve children, these your imperfect and defective beings? By Whose standard should we improve mankind? You see what I call cultural IMPERIALISM??Who gave you the job to improve other people? I think it is better to take the log out of your own eye first so you can see that your brother has nothing but a splinter in his!

Things and ideas either exist or they don’t. And all that exist is interconnected and exists in a state of dualism. Even the WORD ‘exist’ itself is quite ambiguous and subjective.

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

This argument is based on your misunderstanding of the Christian's perspective of perfect and imperfect, which I've explained above.

It is you who claims knowledge of God and wouldn’t even reach a basic definition.

God to me is an English word spelt with a G, an O and a D whatever the creators of this word meant is entirely up to them. I do not go living in other people’s worlds or being pushed around by other people’s WORDS. Most people seem to FEED on words!

‘Created’ and ‘uncreated’ is your borrowed perspective; most people don't don't seem to easily buy these other people's thoughts(have faith and just believe) like you do.

You are advocating a position that can only be achieved by cultural imperialism, by claiming that one man’s perspective of a common subject is better that another. What makes you and the rest of your European/Arab kindred think you know God(the unknowable?) better than the African? Give me one reason why a Christian will go to heaven and a Hindu or a worshiper of Ngai Ngai to hell.Apart from scripture thumbing how do you Ndigila2 defend these heaven and hell philosophies?

These are other people’s ideas which most people take and swallow whole and then introject them as though these ideas were theirs. Worse, some are even ready to die for, something that was never theirs to begin with!

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

What you're calling religiosity is the tangible aspect of spirituality. Spirituality without a tangible, practical impact on a human's life is pretty much pointless speculation. This separation of spirituality, and so-called 'religiosity' was started by the Catholics and ultimately severed by the Reformers, which probably contributed to this Imperialism that you're thoroughly against.

Another case of 'misdiagnosis.' (Now I understand why you flipped out when I attacked the Gnostics)

People can ware their culture around like they wish; the issue here is Europeans using economic and sociopolitical manipulations to push their culture down other people’s throats, CULTURAL IMPERIALISM! E.g., Easter celebration, Blue eyed Blond hair white Jesus, giant bearded old white man sitting in the clouds is nothing but European cultural heritage celebration. Europeans and Arabs should leave African alone, because they don’t know any better!!

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

I also reject the augustinian position on original sin, which fyi, is different from Paul's.

Any one who thinks as an othordox, or Augustinian, or Pauline is simply thinking AS...And once you think AS..., you ought to know you have been brainwashed.
You are encouraged to think for yourself.

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

Please expound on this.

The standard of the unity of all things both seen and unseen is the same standard that supports, sustains and respect the differences and interconnectedness common brotherhood of all mankind. The oneness of the known, the unknown and the unknowable.

Most things (Reality esp) can only be described within the narrow limits of our pesrsonal relaities thus, never fully described, so labeling is frequently very misleading. Most people tend to be emotionally attached to WORDS e.g. the English Word spelt G. O. D.

The reason people feel a 'sense of hurt' when my probing attack this concept/word G. O. D is because they have become so emotionally attached to the WORD.In other words, they have been completely brainwashed to think that THE WORD IS THE THING!

When the wise man points to the moon, all that the idiot sees is the finger! Remember?

Please read freedom not license by A.S Neill

[Ndigila2]

Originally Posted by Atabong

I do not form a unique position about other people’s religious/philosophical concepts; I simply see and state the facts the way they are.

Perfection is subjective and no body should claim authority over that. Dog flesh may be a perfect delicacy for some who would throw up if they were told they’ve been served beef. It’s all about how differently we’ve been conditioned/ programed by our environments, that’s it.

Consider the statements above that you've made. You claim that you see and state the facts the way that they are, and also claim that it's all about how differently we've been programmed by our environments. Which means that the position that you hold (the gnostic duality) has been programmed into your brain by your environment. Which means that you're no different from the other 'brainwashed' people who's positions you're attacking. (In any case we've had this line of discussion before, I'm not going to delve into it again.)

Originally Posted by Atabong

If some one takes pride in the fact that s/he is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or what ever, s/he is simply jiving her/himself for these are nothing but labels and formulations/conventions imposed by our societies.

I'll reword this sentence above with some minor edits that are marked in red.

If some one takes pride in the fact that s/he is neither a Christian, nor Muslim, nor Hindu, nor Buddhist nor what ever, s/he is simply jiving her/himself for this is nothing but a position formed solely on the basis of a rejection of labels and formulations/conventions imposed by our societies.

Same script, different cast.

Originally Posted by Atabong

There is no such thing as HIGHEST STATE sir, every state is simply another state and the reverse of its counterpart, Dualism!!, good and bad, right and left, rich and poor, hot and cold, night and day, positive and negative in between which are myriads of varieties. A wo/man considered a business magnate in Kisumu may find her/himself completely dwarfed in Jborg or Silicon Valley.

One wonders why you can't see that this Dualism, is a competing philosophy among others. You're thoroughly ramming it into me that my position is wrong and yours is right, because yours is based on how you see the facts, and then at the same time claim that how someone sees the facts is influenced by their environment. It seems as if the only way we could come into agreement, is if I come into your environment and be influenced by it. (Can someone say, Cultural Imperialism?)

Originally Posted by Atabong

Also, you failed to tell us: By whose standards should we improve children, these your imperfect and defective beings?

of course, your sarcasm in this question implies that the use of the word imperfect here implies the dualistic understanding instead of the relativistic understanding.

Originally Posted by Atabong

God to me is an English word spelt with a G, an O and a D whatever the creators of this word meant is entirely up to them. I do not go living in other people’s worlds or being pushed around by other people’s WORDS. Most people seem to FEED on words!

But of course you want other people to feed on your rejection of this Word.

Originally Posted by Atabong

‘Created’ and ‘uncreated’ is your borrowed perspective; most people don't don't seem to easily buy these other people's thoughts(have faith and just believe) like you do.

Dualism is your perspective, which you formed by stating the facts as you see them, your perception being influenced by your environment and surroundings. (Not my words, yours)

Originally Posted by Atabong

You are advocating a position that can only be achieved by cultural imperialism, by claiming that one man’s perspective of a common subject is better that another.

Excuse me, so are you. If someone chooses to remain where they are and not subscribe to some sort of dualism, they are brainwashed. And I love the way you've masked this with words like, "If people simply thought for themselves, they'd come to the same conclusion as me.."

Originally Posted by Atabong

What makes you and the rest of your European/Arab kindred think you know God(the unknowable?) better than the African?

Ad hominem

Originally Posted by Atabong

Give me one reason why a Christian will go to heaven and a Hindu or a worshiper of Ngai Ngai to hell.

You see, the problem is, you haven't even attempted to understand my position on heaven and hell, yet you've automatically assumed that it's the juridical understanding. Here's why our discussions will never be fruitful.

Originally Posted by Atabong

Any one who thinks as an othordox, or Augustinian, or Pauline is simply thinking AS...And once you think AS..., you ought to know you have been brainwashed.

Well, according to you, anyone who thinks, his thought is being influenced by his environment, so even he attempts to form an independent position, he's still been programmed.

Anyway, at this point this discussion is going to go round in circles, and since we've had this discussion before, there's no need to go down that path again. In any case, I asked in this thread that you present your historical problems with Christianity, which you've only addressed in one response, and when a rebuttal was posted, you shifted the discussion to something else, that in itself says alot.

This is my last response.

Take care.

(I haven't forgotten about your book suggestion. I'll get to it when I have the time.)

[Atabong]

Originally Posted by ndigila2

consider the statements above that you've made. You claim that you see and state the facts the way that they are, and also claim that it's all about how differently we've been programmed by our environments. Which means that the position that you hold (the gnostic duality) has been programmed into your brain by your environment. which means that you're no different from the other 'brainwashed' people who's positions you're attacking. (in any case we've had this line of discussion before, i'm not going to delve into it again.)

well, Yes I think it’s more important to know that I have been brainwashed. It’s more important to doubt than to adore. ‘deadening complacency’ is the consequence of adoration and believing and having faith, not the outcome of doubt.
Ndigila2 don’t act as if you are trying to catch me, I’m not a gnostic, I’m not a dualism believer because I said there are myriads of other legitimate options between infinities, in fact I have said before, that I prefer to see me (not I) as a tramp standing at the roadside and pointing to the evening sunset. It may wind up being a sunrise, but if s/he just but took the courage and look, s/he’ll see the darkening skies.

Originally Posted by ndigila2

I'll reword this sentence above with some minor edits that are marked in red. If some one takes pride in the fact that s/he is neither a christian, nor muslim, nor hindu, nor buddhist nor what ever, s/he is simply jiving her/himself for this is nothing but a position formed solely on the basis of a rejection of labels and formulations/conventions imposed by our societies. Same script, different cast.

I do not convince any one to become a follower, I simply wish that s/he may take courage to knock the door or look up to the darkening skies. If you round this off as pride, so be it. I act with humility and mutual respect and never try to civilize or enculturate people or turn them to orthodox christians so they can go to heaven after they die here on earth! same script same cast.

Originally Posted by ndigila2

one wonders why you can't see that this dualism, is a competing philosophy among others. You're thoroughly ramming it into me that my position is wrong and yours is right, because yours is based on how you see the facts, and then at the same time claim that how someone sees the facts is influenced by their environment. It seems as if the only way we could come into agreement, is if i come into your environment and be influenced by it. (can someone say, cultural imperialism?)

For some one who has grown in the spirit of achieving goals and competing and going to heaven after death, dualism is a competing philosophy; whereas, for many it is simply another opinion. Mutual respect; I invited you to create a vatican encyclopedia thread so you could seize the opportunity to spread the word but you called my out to a debate.

Originally Posted by ndigila2

of course, your sarcasm in this question implies that the use of the word imperfect here implies the dualistic understanding instead of the relativistic understanding.

Why are you escaping a very simple and straight forward question? you said children are imperfect and need improvement, and I asked by whose standard should we improve??

Originally Posted by ndigila2

dualism is your perspective, which you formed by stating the facts as you see them, your perception being influenced by your environment and surroundings. (not my words, yours)

absolutely. I may have provided you with a label/pointer, gnaw on it as you wish!

Originally Posted by ndigila2

excuse me, so are you. If someone chooses to remain where they are and not subscribe to some sort of dualism, they are brainwashed. And i love the way you've masked this with words like, "if people simply thought for themselves, they'd come to the same conclusion as me.."

mutual respect is the key. Not using economic and socio-political manipulations to effect cultural imperialism in the name of ‘spreading the word the word of the lord to the four corners of the earth’.

Originally Posted by ndigila2

ad hominem

you're ‘in love’ with ad hominem, aren’t you? I ask you to provide your readers with a reason why you think you know the word God better than others, as simple as that.

Originally Posted by ndigila2

you see, the problem is, you haven't even attempted to understand my position on heaven and hell, yet you've automatically assumed that it's the juridical understanding. Here's why our discussions will never be fruitful.

when I asked you of your position on original sin, you did not give me any. I was just worried I’d be accused of derailing the thread or shifting GOAL posts. So what is your position on heaven and hell? a discussion can only be fruitful is the debaters employ logic and common sense.Besides, the position of an orthodox Christian on heaven and hell is no secret; well, except you are nominal only(and I'd be astonished)

Originally Posted by ndigila2

well, according to you, anyone who thinks, his thought is being influenced by his environment, so even he attempts to form an independent position, he's still been programmed.

Questioning and unlearning is the thing. ‘just believe and having faith' is as good as a robot.

Originally Posted by ndigila2

anyway, at this point this discussion is going to go round in circles, and since we've had this discussion before, there's no need to go down that path again. In any case, I asked in this thread that you present your historical problems with christianity, which you've only addressed in one response, and when a rebuttal was posted, you shifted the discussion to something else, that in itself says alot.

I presented my views and you provided a long list of archaic theologians and called them historians;

You did not account for the life of Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30 dismissing it as nothing but an irrelevant histo-biographical account;

you avoided telling us that the worship of the monstrance, a simbol of the SUN with the ‘flesh’ of Jesus in it is an infusion of serapis christus, (a god made in honor of Ptolemy I soter(305BCE-282BCE) of Egypt whose worshipers were called christians) and hellenistic thought into ancient kmetian SUN GOD WORSHIP as a means to appease the ecumenical church; you brushed aside the fact that the stolen ancient kmetian obelisks planted in Rome even as we speak are an acknowledgement of a stolen legacy;

your preaching on ‘evolution of christianity only further strengthens what you have been trying to refuse ‘cultural imperialism’; the 42 maatian laws written in stone do not need to undergo an 'evolution' because no one is using it as a tool to conquer and subjugate;

and your description of the SUN we see behind the head of a so called Jesus of nazareth as theology in art tells it all, it provides the icing!

Take care and best wishes