The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: The Outsider

Re: The Outsider
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Friday, July 11 2008, 20:03:33 (CEST)
from *** - *** Non-Profit Organizations - Linux - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

arrow wrote:
>...very civilized of you. I mean to agree to disagree without getting out the long knives.
>
>* I wasn’t trying to show how civilized I am. I understood that you’re not interested to carry on the discussion further, at least not with me.

...well then let's say you can't help yourself from behaving in a civilized manner. No need to apologise..
>
>
>There are many practices and beliefs that are an extension (not sure if it’s the right word) of the scriptures. There is the practice of praying while contemplating on an icon (I don’t remember the theological Jargon for it), there is the rosary…etc but those are not directly derived from the scriptures. Transubstantiation is a just a theory that attempts to explain what happens to the bread and wine, which may or may not be true, however the Eucharist is not a practical application of the scripture, i.e Christ did not mean that in order to have “eternal life” we must partake in the church's Holy Communion.
>
>...'those are your words, not those of the Catholic Church
>
>* No, the church’s.

...I'll say it again; ask your priest. I don't know in what ways your Catholic faith differs from Rome. But the original subject was never about getting into arguments over which of you got it right or wrong. The point was that there are billions of Christians who have for at least 1,500 years taught their billions of children that the flesh and blood are REAL and not symbollic. That's the entire reason it's called the MIRACLE of the Eucharist...if your priests feel differently about it, fine. But that wasn't the point...it wasn't a question of "who got it right or wrong"? But rather that it can't be healthy for billions of children to be taught that it is REAL. If you can show us that billions of children raised as Roman Catholics have NOT been taught this, then we have a discussion. If all you want to do is is contribute to the endless disagreements between Christian faiths, then there's nothing to talk about...at least not on the point under discussion.
>
>
> with its billions of followers over 1500 years. Like I said, there is no need or desire to get into your Christian faith, what which of you believes...who said what to whom and whether or not the pope has the authority etc. All that matters is that the pope believes he does and so do the billions who listen to him. I don't care if they're right or wrong...I don't care if they're a little right, or very wrong. That, again, is discussing YOUR religion with you, and no one wants to do that. It isn't MY religion.
>
>* I am not tying to engage you in a debate about my religion, what the bible really meant, or whether the church is right or wrong. I am trying to correct your claims about what the church really teaches, regardless whether they are right or not. And I said: despite the fact the church may believe in transubstantiation, still however the church does not believe that the bread and wine offered at the church, whether transubstantiated or not, is that same flesh and blood Jesus referred to.

..that's where you're definitely worng and I appreciate your clarifying what it was you were trying to say. A while back Assyrian Muslim posted a letter from a Cardinal to his flock stating that there seems to be confusion on this point and he wished to make it clear that it is most definitely real flesh and blood...and I'm sure there are plenty more. If you can produce something official, from either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox church to show us that those churches say it is NOT real flesh and blood...then do it.

..I posted the standard dictionary definition of transubstantiation...and it's clear that it means REAL flesh and blood.

...why don't you post something official that backs your opinion?

One need not step inside a church ever, or partake in a holy communion because that material bread and wine (or transubstantiated flesh and blood) isn’t the one that will give us “eternal life”. No, these aren’t my words. It’s what the Catholic and Orthodox churches believe.

....wrong again. A Christian may imitate Christ exactly...but if he refuses the Eucharist he will NOT enter Heaven. Look it up.
>
>
>all I'm concerned with is: do ANY of the teachings of this religion(and please remember I don;t care which of you has the right view of it)possibly lend themselves to a the kind of moral rot, I would call it, that allows a significant number, a few billion, of its folowers to get it "wrong" (if that's your claim, though I said I don't care if they're wrong or right)...and possibly lead them as adults to incite and/or participate in further murders from which they also derive benefits, such as eternal life and oil too.
>
>* Christianity doesn’t incite anyone to murder or steal. Check the Ten Commandments for a start.

..the ten commandments aren't Christian or Hebrew...they're older than that. The commandments are broken regularly. I'm interested in what people actually do, not what they say they SHOULD do.

Murder, theft, hatred…etc are all explicitly condemned in the bible. There is no dispute about that. At the contrary, the bible preaches love (particularly enemies), forgiveness, charity…etc.

...since you say "bible" I assume you mean both testaments. The old one definitely preaches murder and mayhem, incest, infanticide, human sacrifice etc. The new testament isn't much better but tells the story, up close and personal, of just ONE of the many innocent victims of this god's "love"...whereas we never got to know the innocent victims of your god in the old testament, the new ones allows us a closer look at only one of them...who happnes to be his son, no less. The bible is, from beginning to end, a story of the murder of the Innocents...with "embellishments" here and there. The New Testament is the story of the hounding to death of a god's son. I know, I know; there is "more" to it. Of course there is...but murder is at it's core.

The war on Iraq, and exploitation of its resources is certainly not justifiable by any religion’s standard, so is any other war.

...these are YOUR words....you are not the one starting these wars...other Christians are. And please, don't let's stsrat with who is a real Christian and who is not. That's YOUR problem...the rest of us see onoy the Christians who show up to kill us. If a Police Academy turns out killer-cops....then killer-scops is all the rest of us know of the graduates of that police academy.


Perhaps you are suggesting that the churches’ teachings and rituals has side effects that act on the unconscious, leading adults to think and behave in ways that contradict bible’s morals.

...more than that. The example made of Jesus means that each Christian has to in effect become an accessory to murder...
>
>The discussion was NOT a dig at your faith...so there's no need for you to explain it better, or apologize for it or excuse it...take that up with your church, not me. All I'm saying is that crimes are being taught to children in the guise, or under the heading, of religion and, worse, a religion of "love"..and I say, again, that the confounding or marriage or combination of love with murder...can have tragic consequences for a society.
>
>* Christ sacrificed himself, and self sacrifice is an extreme act of love.

...dying for something is the easy way out...living for it is much harder. Plenty of people before Jesus made the supreme scarifice...Socrates for example and millions more...and their's was a REAL sacrifice because they had no promise of bouncing back up after death to live an eternity ion bliss or whatever.

...whatever Jesus suffered was mild in comparsion to what billions of people have enfured. For one thing his ministry was a paltry three years. before that he lived and worked, had friends and supported himself. besides which he knew all along that his final suffering would last a mere three days! Compare that with the number of people who've suffered since birth only to die miserable with no belief in or promise of eternity.

...Donald Trump may step outside his Towers to panhandle briely...to see how the other half lives or whatever...but he knows allalong that a private elevator is waiting to whick him directly to the penthousew suite in Manhattan. I wouldn't say Trump was "suffering"...I'd say he was slumming. Jesus knew the whole thing was a farce...a show meant to wow the ignorant. he knew he was the son of God...and as such never really could die anyway..he knew his skin would heal, all scars disappear and all blood be restored to him. That isn't exactly much of a "sacririce"...is it?

...the criminals who were executed on that cross the day before Jesus and all the days after Jesus,. not to mention all the Chridtians killed by the Romans when THEY became Chritian, hhad no such consolation.

....in reality and as a god, Jesus didn't suffer at all. The whole thing was a carnival-stunt.

No one extols crucifixion or imply that it was a good thing. The focus is on the sacrifice, not the crucifixion.

...you forget that he has to be crucified first...before anything else can flow. I say it again; without the murder of Jesus there can be no "resurrection"...and no heaven. Murder comes first.
>
>
>...maybe...but we're speaking English here and when the bible was translated into English there was nothing in it to suggest anyone back then thought of it as being round...
>
>* The church knew that the bible was not written in English.
>
>
>...The Church killed you for believing that the sun was at the center of our solar system...I serioudly doubt they got that one wrong but somehow figured out the world was a globe.
>
>* You could agree that the earth and the sun are round but still disagree which revolves around which.

...the church killed you for believing the earth was round...and for beliving that it revolved around the sun...this is so well documented that I can't see why we're even discussing it. The Church also killed you if you said it was NOT real flesh and blood.
>
>
>“...as a general rule we expect people who have something to say to post it here thesmselves and not send us elsewhere. If there is something you feel is important to the point you're trying to make...take the trouble to post it here yourself”
>
>* What you claimed about the messiah’s mission is not biblically factual and the link contains the proof.

..Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Christianity appears 70 years after his murder. In order to be a Christian at all you had to first be a Jew. paul changed all that and nearly got killed for it when he said circumcsion was not required and gentiles could sign up. Jesus was thought of, be his fellow Hebrews, as the HEBREW Messiah...not a Christian one. As such he came to fulfill HEBREW expecttations, not Christian ones...since there were no Christians then. Your Church has merely modified what the Hebrews said the Messiah would be. In religion there is no "proof". All your doctrines are based on faith. A person may get a doctorate in Voodoo and wribooks and produce links to the "truth" of Voodoo...but it's all nonsense just thhe same.


But that’s not the topic you are interested to discuss in detail. When I post a link, I don’t propose that you read the entire page. A quick look is sufficient to give you, or other readers, a general overview of my take on the subject.
>
>
>...the only person we make any allowances for is MiniMe, otherwise known as "arrow".
>
>* I’m not MiniMe
>
>
>We need at least one good clown
>
>* Thank you for the complement.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9