Chili

But nothing has changed and there is no king in this world that can stop metamorphosis in human beings. Salvation is native to humans and if anything oppressive empires increase the frequency and extent of such events if only because they act as unfair indulgences that help us deal with the surrender of our kingship. So now you also know what indulgences are for.

Further, if my posts are confusing you are welcome to ignore them and that is exactly I do with most theology treads.

Chili

Oh and cweb, did you know that to this very day there are people looking in England for the Cathedral that dean Jocelin built this tower on? just as there are people who are looking for pieces of the ark on Mount Ararat, and just a there are people looking for evidence for the captivity of the children of Isreal in the (Sanai ?) desert? . . . so that they might believe?

Chili

And one more for good measure.

Jesus was also that Babylonian (King of the Jews) yet he himself was without sin or Peter could not have rightfully denied him three times.

From my post on "In a court of law?"

So does this mean that the Christians we know are actually satan worshippers? If nothing else, Rev.13:11-17 and Rev.14:6-12 would have it so.

The point here is not so much that we have the name wrong (because we all mean well) as the reason why we have the name wrong . . . and therefore have no choice but be the very Lucifer that hinders our own journey into the promised land.

Evoken

I call them archons..or the "treasures of the desert"..an obstacle in the path to our crucifiction.

Chris Weimer

Chili, you're doing it again. Your first two posts didn't make any sense and all three were non sequitur. How are people looking for the ark related to my post? And you're post with my quote, what the heck? Please explain...

Chili

You were upset that I used the passage as a metaphor so gave you more to cool down a little. It is difficult for me to explain anything about the real king of Babylon because I don't know anything about him or the time Isaiah was writing in relation to this king. None of that matters because the passage has nothing to do with history (there is no history in the bible (?) but the metaphor was just attached to the caricature of that king.

This same is true with the ark, which is a beautiful metaphor . . . but don't go looking for a piece of the ark to justify your faith. In Catholicism the flood is our Advent period with the New Land found at New Year and occupied after Epiphany.

I go The Spire, or Zamjatin's WE (his "Intergral" was the tower of Babel), or various other manuscripts to see the same thing and they often include the most intricate details for us to recognize. They are beautiful pieces and just as inspired as the bible ever was.

Now here I add how Jesus was the king of Babylon and his own enemy till the very bitter end . . . when it was finished in John . . . and we still insist that Jesus "the king" was God? Note that on the crucifix Jesus is called "King of the Jews." We have paintings wherein Mary's angel Michael defeates the serpent and we have paintings where Mary stands proudly beneath the cross (Masaccio). Putting these together it is easy to conclude that Mary, the ex Morning star was set free to 'go for blood,' etc. but his gets far too complicated for this post.

Yes salvation is native to humans but in complex societies the method must violate all human rights because we must be stripped of our humanity and that was the purpose of indulgences that led to the heyday of Catholicism (which ended abrubtly with the Reformation). Same is true in Russia with their reformation and we can now conclude that writers such as Solzhenitsyn should be greatful that he was send to Siberia. Just my opinion, of course, and I am not suggesting that the past should return.

I am not sure if I answered your question but I'll leave it at this for now.

Ted Hoffman

I can help Chilli here. If anyone is 'confused' about what Chas written, please feel free to ask me.

And spin, have you ever 'met' someone in this board by the name Amos?

Chili

Hi Ted, I am glad that you recognize me.

Ted Hoffman

Uh, actually, I don't. I just wanted to tell spin that Amos posts are like yours. I did not mean to imply you are the same person. Hadnt even imagined it.

But are you Amos?

Chili

Yes I am.