Ganymede

What with the yelling?

Actually in one form or another I have. I just never put it all together into a single document, or chose to make it public. Is there some problem with that?

G

Albert Cipriani

Yeah, it's been almost 40 years. The Second Vatican Council ended circa 1964.

You're right, Amos, that the Church wanted to spice things up for a creature they called "modern man." As if to say that man wasn't modern in the Middle Ages or even in the Stone Age!

Point is, at any point along our linear timeline, man IS MODERN. And therefore, it was gargantuan arrogance of the churchmen in 1964 to think of themselves as being somehow more modern than all the modern men that preceded themselves, so modern that they required an ecumenical council to explain themselves to the "modern" world. Such pomposity sickens me to the morrow of my bones. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

Amos

Well put Albert but maybe it is more like ignorance because the article even stated that the H. Spirit is really moving amongst our "non Catholic brethren" (or something like that).

They, the churchmen, were looking across the fence and listened to some laymen inside the church that had been worshipping across the fence. And don't forget, their argument is persausive because they "speak like a dragon" like the second beast of Rev. 14:12-13 makes clear "it used the authority of the first beast to promote its interest by making the world and all its inhabitants worship the first beast, who's mortal wounds had been healed. It performed great progedies; it could even make fire come down from heaven to earth as men looked on."(Rev.14:12-13).

They were much more modern then because they were wise!!!

Fiach

Didn't Jesus at the Last Supper say in Aramaic, to the effect, "Eat Me"? Now did he really mean for us to eat him like the Catholics believe. Or was he just pissed off about betrayal, and directing the remark at Judas.

Fiach

Fiach

Of course. However, Jesus didn't write those. They are his alleged words/sayings that someone else wrote down. There is a definite difference between first person and third person point of view. It is therefore inaccurate to refer to "writings of Jesus Christ." One should more appropriately use "words of Jesus Christ", or simply "New Testament" if one also wants to include the document as a whole

Jesus is not known to have written anything at all which is one more piece of circumstantial evidence that he may not have existed. Someone else did write them down many years after the supposed death of Jesus. I agree, it is inaccuract to refer to the highligted (usually in red) of Jesus' words in the KJV, as "the writings of Jesus Christ." However, I think it is still inaccurate to refer to them as the "words of Jesus Christ." They should be called the "alleged words of Jesus Christ," or "the words of Jesus Christ as claimed by the gospel writer, Matthew."

The New Testament is the story of a character called Jesus Christ. That is fair enough, don't you think?

Fiach

Albert Cipriani

Amos:
Sorry, Amos, but none of the verses of Revelations are clear, let alone do they make anything clear. That book of the Bible is the closest the Word of God gets to hallucinations. I leave it to COAS, reading it in-between his melting walls, to interpret.

It’s a further pomposity for the Church to claim to know the movements of the Holy Spirit. She still brags about the Holy Spirit guiding the Second Vatican Council and all the dastardly deeds done in its name till this very day. Despite the devastated vineyard, the Holy Spirit, not a demonic whirlwind, is given credit for this unparalleled disaster. It’s a kind of blasphemy. – Albert the Traditional Catholic 2/3/03

Amos

Ohh? It's my favorite book! What's a COAS and how do you hallucinate?

Albert Cipriani

Sorry Amos,
Please forgive me for being cryptic in place of being guilty of blasphemy.

You see, "COAS" is the acronym for the handle of a poster I locked horns with in the "Evidence from Creation" thread here. I refuse to demean Jesus Christ's passion by referring to that poster via his un-acronymized handle. Thank you for your understanding. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jobar

Amos, Albert is referring to christ-on-a-stick. And I don't understand how it could possibly be blasphemy to Albert; I can see you might find it in bad taste, but since it is not your own words or your own screen name, it can't be your blasphemy. Aren't all things pure to the pure?

Since we are on a largely atheist board here, I have no doubt you will find plenty of screen names which will offend you. Some are *meant* to offend you. A bit of advice (from a Southern Baptist preacher, as it happens)- "to keep people from getting your goat, don't let them know where your goat is."

I am interested, and more than slightly amused, that the two of you seem at odds over theology- because it seems to me that you are far more alike than you are different. One of the things I have found in my time on II is that atheists co-operate in debate far better than theists do. I have come to the conclusion that no two theists believe in exactly the same God- even twin brothers who attend the same church, if asked the proper questions, will disagree over some aspects of what God is, and means. I find this to be a powerful argument for the non-existence of gods, because if there were one god who wanted human beings to know him, it seems that at a minimum he would reveal himself in the same way to the multitude.

Amos

Thanks Jobar, I had that figured out. I actually like that name as it reminds me of the great amount of courage that is shown by our modern day heroes (the reality here is that they are just another Saul on their road to Damascus except that they won't have their shit together when they get knocked of their high horse and they will probably land in it face first, in other words, their boat won't float).

Lucky for me that my goat is not up for grabs and so be assured that I am untouchable.

It is easy to be at odds with me because I am not a theologian but more of a philosopher who sometimes argues from the other side of that which theologians are trying to study.

I can see why atheist are united because they really don't have anything to say and so without a platform how can they be divided? Much the same goes for protestant theology and it is not until we get to the God of Catholicism that things get more complicated. The nice thing about this is that we can learn something new every day to keep life interesting. Right, as an ex-Baptist minister you should know about the boring old merry-go-round you were in.