99Percent

luvluv: I identify as extraneous anything which can be jettisoned without seriously affecting the core beliefs.

You mean pure faith, of course.

I propose that the core beliefs are the existence of God,

Undoubtfullly still pure faith. (or presuppositionalism for the intellectually inclined)

the existence of Christ (either as Messiah or God),

derived from the first undoubtful pure faith above.

he belief in the beatitudes,

more derivations from this faith...

the belief in the doctrine of free redemption and remission of sins,

yet even more derivation of this faith...

the belief in heaven and hell.

Now, this is really really stretching faith.

We can further sketch these out by negotiation.

What? No longer true, you have stretch your sketch too far.

I'm not attempting to determine the outline of the argument.

Pure and incoherent bullshit, you have crossed the line and lost everything even remotely resembling coherence, and that was just a response but to a fragment of your whole nonsensical post.

Get a grip on reality, luvluv.

Proxima Centauri

____________________________________________
Please try and avoid using metaphores which can easily be misunderstood.





[Edited to shorten string of ______s which was stretching the browser window - Pantera]

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Un hunh. I've noted your proclivity to simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your interpretation of where "core" christian beliefs come from.

How so? As I've argued before, such "core beliefs" (which are little more than rehashed platitudes from earlier cults--Judaism figuring prominently and the Essene cult lurking in the precurser) are used as little more than bait to get you to think you're receiving "great truths" while you are being conditioned.

You'll have to justify this claim further before I accept it.

Consider 20,000 sects who are believers can't do this very thing, how do you propose we do it?

Ok...Let's see how far we get...

I thought you didn't believe in a 6,000 year creation, or in the concept of Original Sin? What part, then, are you selctively deciding is to be accepted as true here?

That's a mighty big net, but I'll bite; though "core beliefs" is still largely irrelevant to how a cult manipulates and controls you, as the examples I keep giving and you keep ignoring show.

It's not necessarily "what" you believe, it's "how" you believe it and how you can be motivated to act (or not act) on that belief that constitutes the control and manipulation aspects to cult conditioning.

Beg pardon? Jettison Original Sin and you have no Jesus, since the only reason Jesus came was to save us all from Adam's Original Sin. Jettison the creation myth and you have no God, no Old Testament and no New Testament, since every single one of the characters written about did believe in the creation myth (including Jesus).

Pull one string...

Established in the creation myth of Genesis 1, so that has to stay.

Established when Eve told Adam to eat the apple and he, inexplicably and for no reason whatsoever, does, thereby invoking God's unjust punishment that Jesus came to satisfy, so that stays.

Well, there's the "core" of your control mechanisms right there!

No problem, but you're going to, obviously, get a hell of a lot more detailed and supportive than this.

Considering that's precisely what preachers and apologists do and where the vast majority of the manipulation comes into play, you'll have to do better than this to dismiss it.

The fact, for example, that Paul told his followers, in essence, to hate all Jews and that God's wrath is upon them because they murdered Christ is a significant point of manipulation, don't you think? Particularly when a preacher or apologist tries to obfuscate such blatant, overt hate mongering by trying to convince his followers that Paul never said anything of the kind and what he meant was...

The very thing you are attempting to obfuscate is one of the biggest problems with the cult; the apologist spin control, but we'll see where you take it.

Invalid. Paul has tacit authority and is considered to be a founding father of the cult and is a perfect example of how cult "core beliefs" are used to manipulate and control; that by hooking innocent people with dimestore platitudes every fifth grader knows and simply attributing them to Jesus as if he either existed or came up with such profound wisdom as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," when such a philosophy was around in one form or another since cave paintings and is as obvious as the nose on your face, is precisely the problem we're discussing when we talk about cult mentality and how it is put into practice.

You "buy" Jesus largely because of what he says, but also because of how the cult "spins" what he says, so that you are thinking first and foremost that he is God; therefore anything he says is retroactively good by definition.

Thus, as I mentioned several times before, you can read "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" and think "I come to bring peace, not a sword."

Or the stuff about hating your brothers and father and mother, etc..

And what you're trying to do right here is say, "Throw all of that away because the core beliefs tell us that none of that is true and that Jesus was nothing but Love."

You'll have to do better than that, sir, but I will give you the benefit of a doubt and hope that you do in your next post.

That's not the point and you know it. The question is, Can you be a Christian in light of Thessolonians, since it is part of the cannon and if so, why?

Again, nice try, but that won't wash either.

Again, luvluv, I'm going to have to reject this as you just trying to sidestep the issue and declare that Jesus is nothing but love because that's what the "core" belief is, so every icky thing ever written about him is just wrong, take my word for it.

That's hardly either an argument or counter-argument to all of the highly detailed and devasting arguments I posted and you keep trying to avoid.

Un hunh. And would you care to tell me what that "core belief" is made up of? The words, perhaps, like with Paul or Jesus saying you have to hate your whole family and your own life also to be his disciple? Or is it the preconditional acceptance that no matter what is said or how it is said, Jesus is pure and goodness and not controlling in any way?

What exactly would you like me to do that I haven't already done at least three times over and you've never addressed, accept through invalid, dismissive attempts at redirection?

How generous. I'll start with the Sermon on the Mount, considering it teaches as its "core belief" that the meek shall inherit the Earth, right?

I'll re-read it and post my deconstruction of it in full in due time and work permitting. Unfortunately, I actually have to work this week, but I may be able to slip some in.

Yes, well, I would have hoped you would have addressed my arguments as well, so I guess Hope springs eternal.

It's Crosby who died young...

What a shock, but let's see how you break it down so I know what I'm in for.

The meek shall inhereit the Earth ringing any bells? Or all of that stuff about authority here on Earth? No?

I see, so, yet again, you will be interpreting what the words actually mean instead of what they so clearly state, is that the thrust here?

That's not what the bible says, so from where are you getting this?

Am I allowed to just make things up too, or would that be an example of exegesis?

And you know this how? Don't quote the Bible, of course; since I can't, neither can you.

And the key aspect that you are not grasping is that the passage I quoted specifically deals not with God, but with Authority figures on Earth who are described as God's own private Idaho and you are to submit to them the way you submit to God.

I see nothing but a deconstruction of your apologetics is in our future, which means nothing more than, "It's this way because I say it's this way."

The very same accusation you falsely accused me off, by the way.

How ironic.

And what effect does this conditioning have on your overall psyche? On your subconscious? Or don't you care about that since that's not covered in the "core beliefs?"

Ah ah ah! If I can't selectively quote then you can't; not until you directly deal with what I posted.

Right, and since "He" doesn't actually exist and you've simply be told all of this nonsense by your cult, you end up doing exactly what I said before; you serve your cult.

See if you can just grant for the sake of argument that Jesus isn't God and such a creature is nothing more than a fiction created by certain cult leaders intent on either destroying Judaism or subverting it. Just grant it for one second. Don't worry, he won't throw you into hell as far as you could possibly ever know.

Now do you see what I'm talking about? If there is no God to submit to, then whom are you submitting to, if not your preacher/priest/minister and the overall insitution who taught you all of these things to begin with?

You mean like all of those Shaolin monks you were lauding before?

The point is, of course, in how you reach out to your fellow man, but that's a bigger topic better suited to Chapter 10: Expanding the Cult.

Submission is a conditioning ploy to get you to stop thinking of yourself and start thinking of the cult before you ever do anything or think anything or eat anything or love anyone or vote for anything or buy anything drive your goddamned car.

Your turn.

Oh no, of ocurse not, because nowhere in the "core beliefs" is there any concept of you being inherently sinful and "worthless."

At least, not in the core beliefs you have just decided are "core."

Nor should you, because humility is nothing more than a means for the elite to keep stomping your own individuality down; it is, quite literally, the "core" control mechanism of slave mentality, so I'm glad you've already raised it and tried to so unsuccesfully to glorify it.

Destroying self-interest only serves a ruling elite, but then, that doesn't concern you, right, since you'll be "rewarded" for your humility once you're dead, right?

Airnt! Nice try again, but we're discussing the institution as a whole not necessarily a "certain belief system." Once again and for auld lang syne, what you are taught is not necessarily the detrimental aspect to cult control, though there certainly is enough there to demonstrate; it is largely how you are taught it and how that serves to affect your daily life.

As we can see so far in your case, both directly apply.

No, we must not do anything of the kind. Did you read Orwell's 1984 by any chance? Any comment regarding the phrase, "Work shall set you free" posted by the Nazi's above Auschwitz?

Again, wrong. The central ideal is largely irrelevant and serves primarily (note the bolded qualifiers) as the carrot on the stick to lure you into the cult.

Also incorrect. We should, indeed, eliminate virtually every human institution for precisely the reasons you try to dismiss, but that's a topic for a political forum.

So, to quickly recap, you're trying to stop me from using the Bible to prove my case (even though I already have) and limiting me to "core beliefs" that aren't clearly defined in the hopes you can just force me into accepting the preconditions of "Jesus is love no matter what."

Further, you aren't even aware of the irony in your own definitions and think that humility and submission, for example, will result in you being free.

Does that about sum it up, because absent any counter-arguments to my previous ones (which means, by the way, they all still stand and remain unaddressed) that's all I can see here?

Obviously I don't grant any of your conditions since they do not apply, but I will attempt to deconstruct the Sermon on the Mount to explain to you how the language and platitudes serve cult mentality.

Then we can jump right to Hell; figuratively from my perspective and, no doubt, literally from yours.

Koyaanisqatsi

Please seek to do your own homework, rather than requesting others do it for you.

Pseudonymph

Well...once and for all, dear friend koy, you have reinforced my opinion that you not only feed off of controversy and pissing people off, you actually enjoy it.

You know, for being someone who claims that everyone you debate dodges issues and avoids the subject, why is it, that the best excuse your limited scope of "intelligence" can come up with, for an inexscuasable, racist, and counter-productive insult, is essentially, that you "didn't mean it that way; stop taking it out of context"?

I've been following the exchanges between the two of you and while I don't agree with much of what luvluv says, I respect her for actually being able to interact with you, even at this basic, impersonal level.

You dedicate so much time into refuting arguments, and the way you do that is by taking them out of context...on your profile it says your hobby is "debunking cults(like christianity)" for christs sake...is that REALLY your hobby? It wouldnt surprise me, seeing as how you seem to able to spend so much time on these drawn out and rediculously banal posts.

Sorry to butt in..wait actually I'm not. I feel I have been following this post and the other that started this one closely enough to have a pretty good feel for your "ideas", (not to imply that they're new or original though...sorry)

Odemus

No kidding.Oh please Koy, master of all that is truth, help me break away from the chains of my superstition, free me from the bondage of Christianity so that I too might hold contempt for everyone who disagrees with me, so that I might make it plain just how miserable I am by challening those who treat me respectfully with a non stop barrage of insults.Yes! Your philosophy is obviously the road to self actualization!

David Gould

When I first came here about a year ago I thought what Koy did was wrong. He was (imo) rude and arrogant and condescending and so forth.

I know think that I was completely wrong about him.

He is considerate enough to read and respond to every point raised in a debate, taking far more time and care than I ever do.

The fact that he does this along with his tone demonstrates that he is passionate in his feelings towards Christianity and all other similar religions. So?

The fact that he is not necessarily 'polite' in his deconstructions is meaningless. He lets people know he is frustrated, tells them why he is frustrated in a concrete, debatable (by this I mean he has presented premises and arguments based on them which can be attacked if you have counters to them) form and then awaits responses on his points.

I would encourage everyone to respond to his frustration by letting him know how you feel about it if that makes you feel any better BUT (and this is the important bit) please respond to his concrete, debatable things as well.

I am an unashamed Koy fan. I enjoy his style, I applaud the points he raises (points I have rarely seen addressed, hence the italics above) and I think that he is does a great job.

While I am one who debates differently than he does (I do my best not to let my frustration show through, a best that is not necessarily much good mind you) responses to his style are significant in that they clearly demonstrates that many apologists prefer to debate style over substance.

If you want to debate style, I encourage you to do so. But please address the substance.

Denshuu

He's rude and impolite?
I'll admit that I only recently started posting here a few days ago, but I've been lurking for quite some time. Koy doesn't seem at all impolite to me, and he's one of the strongest debaters I've ever seen at a forum... but why is it that he's slapped with so many negative labels? I've seen a witty comment from him in response to an unfavorable quote from an opponent, but where is the need to insult him for it? It seems as though the only reason why people tie onto others and call him inconsiderate or criticize his "attitude" is because they're incapable of refuting the points he brings up and are so irritated with themselves for not being able to resort to anything stronger than mild insults and needless sarcasm.

See? Just like that, with no reason whatsoever as to how his reasoning is in any way flawed, simply bringing the fact that Christianity, denotatively, is a cult, and even pointing out and deconstructing its control mechanisms in utter detail in what I can only assume to have taken a hell of a lot more time than the one-paragraph pseudoflames that come up after each post aimed at him.

Yet, he's the one who's rude.
I don't know. Maybe I haven't been here long enough.

Odemus

Addressed to me without any provocation whatsoever:


The above even caught the attention of an administrator:

The bottom line is when you feel the need to belittle and attack others to get your 'point' across, you're only doing a disservice to yourself.This attitude displays more about Koy's insecurity in his ability to effectively communicate his point than anything he might be trying to say.

If your goal is to 'deprogram' me you better be able to show that the way you live provides you with a greater sense of happiness and well being.When you come at me with that kind of hostility it's time to cross you off the list, because you don't have anything close to what I've got.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Odemus ]</p>

britinusa

Well said, David Gould and Denshuu. I am also a big fan of Koy. No wonder he gets frustrated. He writes long, detailed arguments, point by point rebuttals, and for what? How does our typical xian tackle this formidable debater? Whining like a bunch of pansies when he gets a little rough with them, evasion tactics, semantic games, sidetracking (like Luvluv's KKK bullshit).
But who do you think you're kidding? Who do you think you're impressing? We can all see what's going on. I sometimes wonder why you people bother coming to this website.
If you don't like Koy, if you think he's too rude, the best way to get even with him is by demolishing his arguments.
That'll be the day! You won't even address them, most of the time.
In short: stop whining, start debating.