[split] Hello everyone

[dyresand]

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest from @OP

No, his posts just give the impression of honest thickness.

Or stubbornness to not wipe the bullshit out of his eyes. I see yes he is a Catholic he is clearly a theist but denies that he is. So what denomination is this guy after all....

[Mystical]

Who cares what demonitation he is? Why is it okay to give a new member the third degree about their creed? Most Christians associate themselves with their own beliefs.
If they're a poe, so what. I'd much rather not scare off a new member..

[Cyberman]

Well, he's been here a week now and been exposed to some pretty varied responses from equally varied and no less pretty individuals. I think we'll need to up our game to scare him off anytime soon. I agree with you that his denomination isn't really relevant is this discussion; it's enough to identify his basic position re: a/theism for now.

[IATIA]

I'm telling you he's a Poe

Or a troll or a Poe troll?

He obviously knows little to nothing of catholicism.

---

I think ours was called the Holy Catholic Church.

They are all called "the Holy Catholic Church".

[fr0d0]

He doesn't tick our preconceived boxes, and he doesn't seem to have had exposure to our common experiences either. It's like visiting a town without chain stores. Refreshing in that way.

Catholicism does work like this in my understanding. You're not required to believe to be part of the club. It makes a nonsense of the claim that so many billion Catholics make up a percentage of the world Christians. Theirs is an all inclusive club built more on tradition than belief. We've grown complacent here in our master race view of the world conforming to our narrow conception of it. We need to widen our views to better reflect reality.

[abaris]

He doesn't tick our preconceived boxes, and he doesn't seem to have had exposure to our common experiences either. It's like visiting a town without chain stores. Refreshing in that way.

If you find making up bullshit on the fly refreshing, so be it.

[Chili]

Not at all. Jesus was the spokesperson in the Gospels and that is all he was. I then added that the Gospels show us how transformation is done, or at least how it is supposed to be done because they make known the difference between what we call heaven and hell here on earth with Matthew and Mark being just opposite to Luke and John to make this difference known to us.

So important now is doing it right and therefore it is never a good idea to read the gospels with curious eyes because that can send the believer hell in a hurry, I suppose. This would be why Catholics just left Jesus hanging there as part of the act but not to say that he died for us then.

Mary is not part of the Trinity but comes to the fore after the collapse of the trinity itself. This would be when the father and son become one and the spirit is obviously redundant fromq then on.

So Jesus is/ was not God. So you are non trinitarian. Interesting.

As a Protestant, I believe that heaven and hell are right here, right now here on earth too. This is common to my denomination and many others too.

But what is the transformation and how does it happen? Are you talking about the Pentecost?

So Jesus combines with the father and possibly the spirit and the Trinity ends. You know I'd hate not to have direct access to the source and only have a third party feeding me this information. Does anyone besides the protest have direct access to God? Yours seems a detached belief like Judaism and Islam. Only a select few get to tell you what the main man wants. In Pentecostalism we're all saints.

Interesting to read that you believe in heaven being a state of mind, i.e. the mind of Christ here now on earth. This would mean that there never was a historical Christ that cannot be duplicated in us, and therefore we a can do greater things as Jesus promised we would. While this may be true, it can also be said that history was made when the story was first told in this way. So far so good and I agree with you here.

If nothing else, this would mean that the infancy of the Gospels is real but the baby is not, and so Christmas is not a birthday party but a celebration of the state of mind in which only the Christ-child can be born. This would be when morning did not come to show that all illusion is gone, including the light of common day and therefore the star of Bethlehem is real in the mind of believer that set the Magi on their way inside the believer himself.

Wile I am not a Trinitarian ™, I understand the Trinity to be the function of our mind as presented in Gen. 3:15, where there is enmity between our left and our right, with a relationship between these two hemispheres that makes room for the HS as a function in this.

From here we can follow the Gospels and conclude that Jesus was charged with the removal of the entire sin nature of Joseph that was built on the bank slate that they called TOK (tree of knowledge) there. Opposite this was the TOL where woman presides and she was 'taken from man' only to say that she is the 'banker' in this that we would call RNA to span long term where then it is said that the Thousand Year Reign already is in our midst.

From here you can conclude that eternal life is known in our right where the upper room would be at, with the great divide in between and not just a veil to be rent. It therefore is that the Jesus of Matthew and Mark goes back to Galilee again because knowledge is water to walk on as set aside already in Gen.1, and was set aside to give us dry land to walk on and gather more of the same, so it fits and can be tied down there as Plato would say.

We would call this the Celestial sea that therefore is as deep as wide waters are wide and is from where our Atlantis will be built and that does not need religion at all.

As for Jesus being God? Not in and by himself, but can be as the man in us as created to be, once he uploads the 12 shepherds including their riches that Plato called telic visions to be converted into eidetic images before they will be visible to him. For Plato the hindrance was teleologic vision that converted seekers to Sophists who were deprived in the privation they saw.

So now a change of vision is required for the seer too see himself see and for this the divine marriage is needed and that is where Mary is the virgin betrothed to man, himself as the naked animal here and that does not allow Joseph to be a dreamer because reason is the fornication in this. I.e. the house must be empty or many more demons will return.

In Catholicism all are sinners and not even so called charismatics are welcome in the church Militant. I suppose they are tolerated at best but not welcome for sure.

---

Sorry I have never watched a Star War show and do not know who Darth Vader is or what he represents.

Right, so instead of even attempting to grasp my point (fnarr fnarr) you handwaved it away. Classy.

Ok, swap out Star Wars for some other work of fiction of which you're aware, and Darth Vader for any character from it you wish. Are you still saying that this character and the fictional Universe in which it resides must exist a priori in order to have an opinion on it?

OK, but if you watch Star Wars you will soon see the role play of Darth Vader in this because it is iconic in us.

And yes the same is true with all art since the art of art works needs to connect with what is prior by nature in us before it's beauty can be seen by us, as mere humans and outsider to this.

So it is also not true that I do not like Star Wars, but that was just not possible for me to see any of it. I love all forms of art and actually am a slave to beauty myself and can soon see it all over, just like you would, no doubt.

To help you here, I just Googled the word theism and I do not agree with this this idea of Theism

It's not me that needs help with definitions of basic words, thank you. You say you don't agree with it but you don't say why. Since one is not a mindreader, could you expand on this please?

Ok, very brief, the author depicts God as a real entity with a being and a mind of his own and that cannot be true or there would be no room for me to be. He simply denies evolution while my God is the leading edge of evolution where intelligence is at work inside the species as seen and perceived from the outside by the being itself. So am talking about the body being the embodiment of the Being inside as the essence of the Being itself.

On top of it all the writer does not even know what eternity is. But there is a lot more wrong about it because Christianity is also taking the word Christian one -ity to far. Christianity does not exist with no being to be or I AM would be not be the end in which God and Lord God are one and the same.

He further is all warped about this "perfect conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things." None of that of that is correct and clearly is not part of anything that I hold to be true.

I know a lot of theists who would be prepared to argue with you on thiese points, but as far as I'm concerned from an atheist's perspective, none of you have ever demonstrated any truth value of them.

[/quote]

Sorry, I am not here to convince you of anything and I already am not a theist as that would be worse then a Christian even. I get along very well with Christians but never talk religion with them.

Notice here that I send the Jesus of Matthew and Mark to hell and that is precisely where the Great Commission is ordered and so now you know that that is all about.

Then also know that in Luke you can preach but not until you can bare the stigmata yourself and then you no longer will.

---

No, his posts just give the impression of honest thickness.

Or stubbornness to not wipe the bullshit out of his eyes. I see yes he is a Catholic he is clearly a theist but denies that he is. So what denomination is this guy after all....

So are theists supposed to believe in a sky daddy according to you?

---

No, his posts just give the impression of honest thickness.

Or stubbornness to not wipe the bullshit out of his eyes. I see yes he is a Catholic he is clearly a theist but denies that he is. So what denomination is this guy after all....

So what is wrong with being a Catholic and let the British keep their own clumsy dictionary definition on this.

So what the hell does "from eternity" mean if eternity is presence made known to be the continuity of infinity in life as it is?
In case you wonder:

The temporal has a beginning and has an end
the eternal has a beginning but has no end
infinity has no beginning and has no end.

Therefore, the eternal needs the temporal to make infinity known an therefore 'from eternity' is totally wrong.

---

Who cares what demonitation he is? Why is it okay to give a new member the third degree about their creed? Most Christians associate themselves with their own beliefs.
If they're a poe, so what. I'd much rather not scare off a new member..

And I am not a Christian by your definition.

[Chili]

He doesn't tick our preconceived boxes, and he doesn't seem to have had exposure to our common experiences either. It's like visiting a town without chain stores. Refreshing in that way.

Catholicism does work like this in my understanding. You're not required to believe to be part of the club. It makes a nonsense of the claim that so many billion Catholics make up a percentage of the world Christians. Theirs is an all inclusive club built more on tradition than belief. We've grown complacent here in our master race view of the world conforming to our narrow conception of it. We need to widen our views to better reflect reality.

Correct and let me add that Catholicism is not a club, or at least is not meant to be a club. It is a tradition and that is all it is.

To be a Christian is to be counted among the righteous while Catholics have the confessionals to prove that they are not.

[Cyberman]

I'd like to ask a general favour of everyone present:

Can you tell me, please, if anything I write here contains information beyond what is in the actual words? Because this is like the third time now that Lambert has read more in my words than what I thought I'd written. For instance, I don't recall ever saying that he dismissed my Star Wars analogy because he doesn't like the films. Does anyone else get that from what I said? This might be a serious problem that I need to rectify. I might order a pizza one day and receive a kick up the arse instead.

[Chili]

I'd like to ask a general favour of everyone present:

Can you tell me, please, if anything I write here contains information beyond what is in the actual words? Because this is like the third time now that Lambert has read more in my words than what I thought I'd written. For instance, I don't recall ever saying that he dismissed my Star Wars analogy because he doesn't like the films. Does anyone else get that from what I said? This might be a serious problem that I need to rectify. I might order a pizza one day and receive a kick up the arse instead.

Sorry, my line "it is also not true that I do not like Star Wars" makes no reference to you but as my third reason that the image presented in Star Wars would be prior by nature in us. So not first and not second but third and therefore also. In fact: "All teaching and all learning arise out of what makes sense already."

Anyway, if I am not back good luck to you all.