"We are a Catholic country"

philologos

King Felix: Look up for what I said about Zeitgeist's use of Mithra.

I.E - That Mithra was actually claimed to be born as a fully grown man from a rock, rather than of a virgin. That's a pretty big mistake no?

King Felix

Jakkass wrote: »

King Felix: Look up for what I said about Zeitgeist's use of Mithra.

I.E - That Mithra was actually claimed to be born as a fully grown man from a rock, rather than of a virgin. That's a pretty big mistake no?

The maker of that video doesn't deny he was 'born from a rock'.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra_3.htm

'Mithra's birth' is headed about 2/3rds of the way down.

davrho

charlemont wrote: »

i personally think people should be protesting outside churches on a sunday

What is stopping you?

charlemont

davrho wrote: »

What is stopping you?

i routinely holler abuse at people entering or leaving my local church, a flock of sheep, their shepard is a pervy creep..

by the way, do fianna fail, their sex crime partners, still do collections outside ?

deman

sasser wrote: »

Are we a Republic or not? Do you know what that means? Why should I leave, I am a citizen of this Republic. I didn't say someone texting into a radio show was interfering with your life if you read back over my posts. I mean the control and input the RC church has on everyday like in Ireland.
We are making baby steps, finally got divorce in, now civil partnership, all steps towards an actual Republic. "Republic of Ireland", the clue is in the name

What does being a republic have to do with it? Are you saying that religion or religious organisations cannot influence a country's policies if it is a republic?

Absolute nonsense!

sonicthebadger*

This post got lost in the mists and no one responded to it. Assuming it's not rhetorical...

georgieporgy wrote: »

Do catholics pay taxes? And is it ok if the state spends some of that money for the benefit of said catholics?

Is it ok for catholics to vote? And can they vote for a candidate of their choice?

Do catholics have brains?

Yes. No, tax monies cannot be ringfenced in that way.

Yes. Yes.

The evidence suggests they do, yes.

sensibleken

Misanthrope wrote: »

You put Zeitgeist on auto-debunk I see.It's hardly the only source of this info.

Do you think the Zeitgeist producers would bother their ass even making it if all they had was bogus info pulled out of their hole?That's David Icke country, a place nobody in their right mind wants to go(get eaten by illuminati lizards from planet Zoltar..... very dangerous)

Do you think that's what they wanted?Global ridicule?I don't think so which is why I will quote zeitgeist as a source.I am no Egyptologist and I doubt you are.Debunk it for me.I'm open to correction.

It's slightly digressive of me to have introduced the comparison.But you'll need more than a golden dildo to debunk Zeitgeist.

Do you think the zeigeist producers are part of a conspiracy to sully the name of Jesus?

your arguemnet is based on the idea that people would not make something if it was easily refutable so it is therefore true. this confirms creationism for gods sake!

if you want me to debunk it first of all you must realise that like proving the existance of god the burden of proof is on you to show that it is true.

there is no evidence from original sources of

a: isis being a virgin

b: seb being a foster parent of horus when geb was osiris' father

c: horus being crucified

d: being vistied by 3 kings, nor is there any evidence of 3 kings in the christian myths, it is merely infered that they were three because there is mention of 3 gifts

e: that documentary claims that because horus is a 'sun' god and jesus a 'son' of god makes them related because the english words sound similar. english being neither egyptian or aramaic.

d: it claims that the celtic cross, the earliest example being 5th century ireland, is somehow related to horus.

e: horus was born on the 25th december. he was not and neither was jesus. it is common knowledge that december 25th was chosen to coincide with the pagan festival of saturnalia.

i could go on.

really, there are many ways to refute christianity. you dont have to make things up to do it.

yes i have actually studied egyptian mythology quite a lot in my younger years, i could refernce very long books but you may want to start with horus' wikipedia page.

its not a good idea to base this on material that has not only been thoroughly debunked but also claims the world is being run by an international conspiracy of jewish bankers! and 9/11 was organised by bush and covered up by the cia when bush cant co ordinate swallowing a pretzle and the cia cant cover up a blow job

King Felix

sensibleken wrote: »

your arguemnet is based on the idea that people would not make something if it was easily refutable so it is therefore true. this confirms creationism for gods sake!

if you want me to debunk it first of all you must realise that like proving the existance of god the burden of proof is on you to show that it is true.

there is no evidence from original sources of

a: isis being a virgin

b: seb being a foster parent of horus when geb was osiris' father

c: horus being crucified

d: being vistied by 3 kings, nor is there any evidence of 3 kings in the christian myths, it is merely infered that they were three because there is mention of 3 gifts

e: that documentary claims that because horus is a 'sun' god and jesus a 'son' of god makes them related because the english words sound similar. english being neither egyptian or aramaic.

d: it claims that the celtic cross, the earliest example being 5th century ireland, is somehow related to horus.

e: horus was born on the 25th december. he was not and neither was jesus. it is common knowledge that december 25th was chosen to coincide with the pagan festival of saturnalia.

i could go on.

really, there are many ways to refute christianity. you dont have to make things up to do it.

yes i have actually studied egyptian mythology quite a lot in my younger years, i could refernce very long books but you may want to start with horus' wikipedia page.

its not a good idea to base this on material that has not only been thoroughly debunked but also claims the world is being run by an international conspiracy of jewish bankers! and 9/11 was organised by bush and covered up by the cia when bush cant co ordinate swallowing a pretzle and the cia cant cover up a blow job

Zeitgeist has most certainly not been debunked. The debate goes on.
Debunking the debunkers is one Acharya S. (D.M. Murdock) in many of her books.

To pick one of your points 'Was Horus crucified?' here's an article of hers...
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/washoruscrucified.html

If you google her you'll find well researched debunkings of de bunkum on all the above points.

Nor do I see how point e. supports the notion that the Christian presentation of Christ is the true one and doesn't stem from pagan beliefs.

I suppose, as in all these matters, people will arrange that data which accords with their belief system (BS) and filter out the information which contradicts it.

The Christians have their BS, the atheists theirs, Acharya S. hers, I suppose. Best to study all the data and keep an open mind, I reckon.

A healthy dose of agnosticism keeps out all the BS, I reckon.

philologos

King Felix - Zeitgeist is blatently false on Mithraism, and others have shown it to be . That said skepticism should also be raised when most sources in a "documentary" come from one author.

Here are more inaccuracies that are contained within Zeitgeist part 1.

By the by, Acharya S is one of the main sources cited in the documentary. As such it isn't an independent defence of the claims made in the film. Much of the citation also seems to be very circular:

The main source for these claims tend to be Gerald Massey or Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S), who in turn relies on Massey's claims as her evidence. Unfortunately, Massey never provided actual textual or literal citations for independent verifications of his claims, and searching through the texts he claims to have been working from (the Ani Papyrus and several tomb writings, for example) turn up no evidence to back up his interpretations.

mardybumbum

I would classify myself as a skeptic and even I find it hard to believe Zeitgeist.

Having said that, it's more believable than the utter shite spouted in the "holy" books.

philologos

mardybumbum wrote: »

I would classify myself as a skeptic and even I find it hard to believe Zeitgeist.

It seems that a lot of people who claim to be skeptics, actually are only skeptics when it comes to Judeo-Christianity rather than pseudo-documentaries such as Zeitgeist: The Movie. It's rather telling really!

King Felix

Jakkass wrote: »

King Felix - Zeitgeist is blatently false on Mithraism, and others have shown it to be . That said skepticism should also be raised when most sources in a "documentary" come from one author.

Here are more inaccuracies that are contained within Zeitgeist part 1.

By the by, Acharya S is one of the main sources cited in the documentary. As such it isn't an independent defence of the claims made in the film. Much of the citation also seems to be very circular:

In the video I posted earlier, she outlines her exact role in the making of the film, which, she says, was minimal.

And regarding sources, as the film is to broad to address in general terms; to use specific examples, 'Mithra's birth' and the 'crucifixion of Horus' she clearly cites her sources in the articles which I posted above, as she claims to do for all the points she's making.

philologos

OK, if Acharya S' role is minimal. We still need to assess Peter Joseph's role in the film which seems to dishonestly use and twist sources for the purposes of the film. Either way, the sources seem to be dishonestly used, and either way the "documentary" contains false information.

Misanthrope

sensibleken wrote: »

your arguemnet is based on the idea that people would not make something if it was easily refutable so it is therefore true. this confirms creationism for gods sake!

if you want me to debunk it first of all you must realise that like proving the existance of god the burden of proof is on you to show that it is true.

there is no evidence from original sources of

a: isis being a virgin

b: seb being a foster parent of horus when geb was osiris' father

c: horus being crucified

d: being vistied by 3 kings, nor is there any evidence of 3 kings in the christian myths, it is merely infered that they were three because there is mention of 3 gifts

e: that documentary claims that because horus is a 'sun' god and jesus a 'son' of god makes them related because the english words sound similar. english being neither egyptian or aramaic.

d: it claims that the celtic cross, the earliest example being 5th century ireland, is somehow related to horus.

e: horus was born on the 25th december. he was not and neither was jesus. it is common knowledge that december 25th was chosen to coincide with the pagan festival of saturnalia.

i could go on.

really, there are many ways to refute christianity. you dont have to make things up to do it.

yes i have actually studied egyptian mythology quite a lot in my younger years, i could refernce very long books but you may want to start with horus' wikipedia page.

its not a good idea to base this on material that has not only been thoroughly debunked but also claims the world is being run by an international conspiracy of jewish bankers! and 9/11 was organised by bush and covered up by the cia when bush cant co ordinate swallowing a pretzle and the cia cant cover up a blow job

Your argument against my digressive cut n paste holds no more weight than the cut n paste itself.

So,I apologise for even bringing it up as it seems to be truly derailing the thread a which wasn't my intention.Arguing the existence of god is one thing but this is now turning into a comparison of fables.

Dissociating the christ story from any other god-tales does nothing to prove it's validity

Catholics believe in god.They make the claim.The burden of proof is theirs and they have nothing.

Calling Ireland a catholic country is an insult in the context it was meant which was an authoritative one.What is really inferred is 'Catholics Rule Ireland so feck off anyone else.

Something that cannot be proved is a crazy foundation for any form of governance.It relies on extremely deluded people to function at all.

The line should read...."Ireland is country whose majority are deluded and firmly believe in a form of ultimate authority that has never been demonstrated ever.

Given the lack of supportive,and mountain of contradictory evidence,the argument that there is a god is probably the weakest argument ever put forward about anything.

Also, I wasn't the one who brought up Zeitgeist though I have seen a 10 min youtube clip of it.Such claims existed long long before Zeitgeist.I quoted a Zeitgeist as a source later on out of laziness more than anything.I probably shouldn't have.

What if I said I have faith in Zeitgeist.I've read and seen lots of things and know in my heart that it's 100% true.In fact I believe the documentary Zeitgeist(of which I have watched a fraction) is actually the creator of the universe and everything in it.Prove me wrong.

King Felix

Jakkass wrote: »

OK, if Acharya S' role is minimal. We still need to assess Peter Joseph's role in the film which seems to dishonestly use and twist sources for the purposes of the film. Either way, the sources seem to be dishonestly used, and either way the "documentary" contains false information.

Then, Zeitgeist aside, may I suggest you investigate her work in isolation, in order to get to a proximation of the truth of Christ.

I've noticed from your previous sigs you like to read a lot and it's only fair to yourself to examine both sides of the argument.

Besides her books, she has plenty of vids and articles online.

philologos

Misanthrope wrote: »

Dissociating the christ story from any other god-tales does nothing to prove it's validity

Agreed! Why the heck did you bring it up then?

Misanthrope wrote: »

Calling Ireland a catholic country is an insult in the context it was meant which was an authoritative one.What is really inferred is 'Catholics Rule Ireland so feck off anyone else.

Agreed. Ireland isn't a Roman Catholic country in the sense of a theocracy any more than it is an Islamic state under Sharia. Ireland is a country in which a lot of people still believe in Roman Catholicism, even if one argues that they are a minority. In the sense of religious association, Irish people are largely Roman Catholic in this respect. There are of course also unbelievers, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and so on.

Misanthrope wrote: »

The line should read...."Ireland is country whose majority are deluded and firmly believe in a form of ultimate authority that has never been demonstrated ever.

Calling people "deluded" or "illogical" is really just a form of childish name calling. What we need to have an argument on, is why you think the way you do and why theists think the way they do without the use of pejoritatives. Broadly in the framework that I described earlier in the thread.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Given the lack of supportive,and mountain of contradictory evidence,the argument that there is a god is probably the weakest argument ever put forward about anything.

Yet, a pseudo-documentary with limited sources which have by and large been discredited is an excellent and noteworthy argument?

Indeed, tarring centuries old incidents of violence to current adherents is also an excellent argument?

We had a perfectly good discussion about the nature of Catholicism in the State, and church - state relations before we started banging on with why everyone who believes in God is deluded. Do we want to go back to that or is it too late?

King Felix wrote: »

Then may I suggest you investigate her work in isolation in order to get to a proximation of the truth of Christ.

I've noticed from your previous sigs you like to read a lot and it's only fair to yourself to examine both sides of the argument.

Besides her books, she has plenty of vids and articles online.

We are discussing how the claims used in Zeitgeist are bunk. Detracting attention to Acharya S moves the discussion from why Zeitgeist is intellectually dishonest with the actual facts concerning Mithra, Horus, Krishna, and Osiris, to Acharya S.

The point is, that a lot of the claims that are contained in Zeitgeist, have been clearly falsified. Many people have gone right through every claim in Zeitgeist: The Movie (part 1) and have explained exactly why it is incorrect.

King Felix

Jakkass wrote: »

We are discussing how the claims used in Zeitgeist are bunk. Detracting attention to Acharya S moves the discussion from why Zeitgeist is intellectually dishonest with the actual facts concerning Mithra, Horus, Krishna, and Osiris, to Acharya S.

The point is, that a lot of the claims that are contained in Zeitgeist, have been clearly falsified. Many people have gone right through every claim in Zeitgeist: The Movie (part 1) and have explained exactly why it is incorrect.

Which is why I started by saying, 'Zeitgeist aside'.

The temerity of someone going off topic in an AH religious thread, huh?

You're starting to repeat your claims about Horus, Osiris and now Acharya like a mantra, even though I've pointed out several times about Acharya's sources and how she cites them.

As a seeker after the truth, you'll understand the importance off examining as much data as possible, well researched data in her case, not just that which accords with your belief system.

philologos

King Felix wrote: »

You're starting to repeat your claims about Horus, Osiris and now Acharya like a mantra, even though I've pointed out several times about Acharya's sources and how she cites them.

I'm basing my criticism on Zeitgeist: The Movie (part 1), and how it is royally misleading and inaccurate. I haven't "repeated" claims, I and others on this thread have shown you that the evidence points to Zeitgeist being falsified.

Even if the evidence did point towards similarity. One then has to look to the dating of the sources. If you can find sources from Mithraism, Osiris worship, Horus worship, that pre-date Christianity, and that show clear similarities between it and Christianity. That is the point where it becomes a serious contender. Otherwise as I see it it has to be back to the drawing board. If Acharya S has done that, with primary source citation, I'd be impressed.

On the vast majority of threads about Catholicism, Christianity, God or anything else, people pluck this out, and if the film tells falsehoods people need to be told that it does. I'm basing my views on the evidence if one actually looks up on any of the topics dealt with in that film.

King Felix wrote: »

As a seeker after the truth, you'll understand the importance off examining as much data as possible, well researched data in her case, not just that which accords with your belief system.

My belief system stands above the criticism in this case.

Edit: Also, one also has to consider the historical case that already exists for Jesus of Nazareth. If this historical case from non-Christian sources didn't exist, that's when we need to start talking about Jesus as fiction, or as a contrived entity. Otherwise, the historical case stands, and needs to be discredited before we even move into a Zeitgeist style argument.

King Felix

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm basing my criticism on Zeitgeist: The Movie (part 1), and how it is royally misleading and inaccurate. I haven't "repeated" claims, I and others on this thread have shown you that the evidence points to Zeitgeist being falsified.

Even if the evidence did point towards similarity. One then has to look to the dating of the sources. If you can find sources from Mithraism, Osiris worship, Horus worship, that pre-date Christianity, and that show clear similarities between it and Christianity. That is the point where it becomes a serious contender. Otherwise as I see it it has to be back to the drawing board.

On the vast majority of threads about Catholicism, Christianity, God or anything else, people pluck this out, and if the film tells falsehoods people need to be told that it does. I'm basing my views on the evidence if one actually looks up on any of the topics dealt with in that film.

And this is now going in circles.

My belief system stands above the criticism in this case.

Of course.

Good luck.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

You guys DO realise that you CAN believe in God and yet NOT be a catholic...?

Nodin

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You guys DO realise that you CAN believe in God and yet NOT be a catholic...?

That'd be the wrong god though....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Nodin wrote: »

That'd be the wrong god though....

There is only one God. Says so in the Bible. Somwehere.

Misanthrope

Jakkass wrote: »

Agreed! Why the heck did you bring it up then?

Because association with the other god-stories would further undermine the christ story

Calling people "deluded" or "illogical" is really just a form of childish name calling. What we need to have an argument on, is why you think the way you do and why theists think the way they do without the use of pejoritatives. Broadly in the framework that I described earlier in the thread.

"Deluded" is not a pejorative.

Nor is "illogical".

de·lude (d-ld)tr.v. de·lud·ed, de·lud·ing, de·ludes 1. To deceive the mind or judgment of: fraudulent ads that delude consumers into sending in money. See Synonyms at deceive.
2. Obsolete To elude or evade.
3. Obsolete To frustrate the hopes or plans of.

[Middle English deluden, from Latin dldere : d-, de- + ldere, to play; see leid- in Indo-European roots.]

[/QUOTE]

Yet, a pseudo-documentary with limited sources which have by and large been discredited is an excellent and noteworthy argument?

I've not seen but a few minutes of it.I will watch it all.I came across one called Zeitgeist Addendum.I'm going to watch both and expect to find that even if flawed, the arguments they make will be a lot more scientific than anything any religion has to offer

Indeed, tarring centuries old incidents of violence to current adherents is also an excellent argument?

Have adherents,or their organisations, subsequent to said incidents made reparations for their misdeeds.They don't even like making a verbal apology.

We had a perfectly good discussion about the nature of Catholicism in the State, and church - state relations before we started banging on with why everyone who believes in God is deluded. Do we want to go back to that or is it too late?They didn't apologise to Galileo until 1992 and didn't apologise for the Spanish Inquisition until c2000.

The thing is, apologies to dead people aren't apologies.A verbal apology has a lot more weight 500 years later than it would at the time of the crime,where it you be meaningless.

Have you or any before you ever attempted to ,as directly as possible, amend the crimes the organisation is responsible for?

Nodin

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

There is only one God. Says so in the Bible. Somwehere.

To quote one of Americas greater contemporary theologians "The Bible says a lot things".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Nodin wrote: »

To quote one of Americas greater contemporary theologians "The Bible says a lot things".

So do messers Jakkass and Misnthrope.

Misanthrope

I'm not messing!!!;)

philologos

Misanthrope wrote: »

Because association with the other god-stories would further undermine the christ story

None of the references did, especially if the textual evidence disagrees with them.

Misanthrope wrote: »

"Deluded" is not a pejorative.

Nor is "illogical".

If there is no means of verifying whether or not they are true, they are a pejoritative in any argument.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Have adherents,or their organisations, subsequent to said incidents made reparations for their misdeeds.They don't even like making a verbal apology.

Er? - Personally since I and other posters weren't actually involved in such misdeeds I really don't have to apologise for anything. I will apologise for what I have done.

Misdeeds have nothing to do with whether or not people believe in Christianity or not, especially if one separates the works of man, from faith in God.

Misanthrope wrote: »

We had a perfectly good discussion about the nature of Catholicism in the State, and church - state relations before we started banging on with why everyone who believes in God is deluded. Do we want to go back to that or is it too late?They didn't apologise to Galileo until 1992 and didn't apologise for the Spanish Inquisition until c2000.

I'm not even defending the RCC on this thread, if you look back and read from the start of the thread.

Misanthrope wrote: »

The thing is, apologies to dead people aren't apologies.A verbal apology has a lot more weight 500 years later than it would at the time of the crime,where it you be meaningless.

Agreed, apologies can't be apologies

Misanthrope wrote: »

Have you or any before you ever attempted to ,as directly as possible, amend the crimes the organisation is responsible for?

Er? - Personally since I and other posters weren't actually involved in such misdeeds I really don't have to apologise for anything. I will apologise for what I have done.

What I will do is say what I think was entirely wrong and condemn it clearly as being in opposition to the Gospel. For example the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials et al. I'm happy to do that because it is the right thing for any Christian to do.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You guys DO realise that you CAN believe in God and yet NOT be a catholic...?

I'd like to hope so, because the past few years would be a waste otherwise! :pac:

mardybumbum

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems that a lot of people who claim to be skeptics, actually are only skeptics when it comes to Judeo-Christianity rather than pseudo-documentaries such as Zeitgeist: The Movie. It's rather telling really!

Is it indeed?

Im skeptical of poor movies. Do you understand now?

Possibly not.

Misanthrope

Jakkass wrote: »

None of the references did, especially if the textual evidence disagrees with them.

I'm more than willing to let you win on this one as it is hardly a major part of my argument.

If there is no means of verifying whether or not they are true, they are a pejoritative in any argument.

This is the classic christian response.

I can use this stance to base a claim that Ming the Merciless created Jesus by taking some cosmic dust and blowing on it.What do you think about that?Am I delusional?Is that logical?

Do you understand the meaning of logic?That's a rhetorical question which I'll answer for you.No you don't.

If you think you do then go to James Randi,prove gods exixtence using logic and win the prize and donate it to the Anglican church as they will need to rapidly expand their operations after you are successful.

Er? - Personally since I and other posters weren't actually involved in such misdeeds I really don't have to apologise for anything. I will apologise for what I have done.

Neo-Nazis weren't actually involved in WW2 or any Nazi atrocities leading into it.I take it then, that it would ,by your reckoning,be wrong to associate them with Nazi barbarity.

Misdeeds have nothing to do with whether or not people believe in Christianity or not, especially if one separates the works of man, from faith in God

Ahh, if you separate them.How exactly do you separate the work of a man with faith in god from that actual faith?

Is it a case of putting your faith into suspended animation while you join an army ,and go to war and slaughter life for economic gain?And after the war you become a good christian again?

Was it you who pointed out in a post,that most of the European soldiers in the WWs were christians?

Am I expected to ignore the crimes they committed against their faith or somehow separate them from their faith based claims?

Any christian who takes part in the violence of war is a hypocrite.

I'm not even defending the RCC on this thread, if you look back and read from the start of the thread.

You're not defending them .........and you're not accusing them, or are you?

If you are not accusing them you are passively defending them,knowing as you do, some of what they are guilty of.
Your church shares most of the same scripture and tenets,and is to closely related to ba able to sit on the fence in mute indifference.

Agreed, apologies can't be apologies

If I shoot you in the leg and then say sorry.Can you be sure I really am.

Suppose you accept my apology.Then I shoot your other leg, again apologising afterwards.

How many bullets would it take to convince you that what I was saying was not an apology?

What I will do is say what I think was entirely wrong and condemn it clearly as being in opposition to the Gospel. For example the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials et al. I'm happy to do that because it is the right thing for any Christian to do.

Much the same as a Neo Nazi tut tutting on the Holocaust.He's still a Nazi though.
Condemnation and endorsement are conflicting actions.If there are shades of grey here for you, then we can put some grey between the black and white of the 10 commandments.

philologos

Misanthrope wrote: »

Do you understand the meaning of logic?That's a rhetorical question which I'll answer for you.No you don't.

Yes I do

Misanthrope wrote: »

If you think you do then go to James Randi,prove gods exixtence using logic and win the prize and donate it to the Anglican church as they will need to rapidly expand their operations after you are successful.

Oh dear. You've not been reading my posts.

I'm happy to do this, but in order to do this, we must have a dialogue where we both explain our positions. Rather than a case of me explaining my beliefs and you shouting "Prove it! Prove it!". Such childishness should be beyond anyone.

By the by, I'm not quite sure if I would donate the money to the Anglican church, I've said quite clearly in other posts that I emphasise Christianity above denomination. The reason why I do this is quite simple, God is beyond denomination. That said, I do have a reformed view of Christianity, with some evangelical influences.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Neo-Nazis weren't actually involved in WW2 or any Nazi atrocities leading into it.I take it then, that it would ,by your reckoning,be wrong to associate them with Nazi barbarity.

I believe in Jesus. This doesn't necessarily mean that any institution adequately represents what is revealed to us in Scripture. I'm an honest enough individual to say that my church has flaws, and that I in my Christian walk am not perfect.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Ahh, if you separate them.How exactly do you separate the work of a man with faith in god from that actual faith?

I believe in God. I don't believe in men, or their works. I don't believe that men are infallible. I believe that God is infallible however.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Is it a case of putting your faith into suspended animation while you join an army ,and go to war and slaughter life for economic gain?And after the war you become a good christian again?

No. It's that I never took part in any "war". I aim to live as Jesus did, and understand the Scriptures, and apply them to my life. It's really that simple.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Was it you who pointed out in a post,that most of the European soldiers in the WWs were christians?

No, I didn't. Personally whether or not they did has very little impact on my faith. What does have an impact on my faith is what Jesus Christ did for the world 2,000 years ago.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Am I expected to ignore the crimes they committed against their faith or somehow separate them from their faith based claims?

You're missing the point. I don't believe in men, I believe in God. Therefore these men needn't represent me.

Misanthrope wrote: »

You're not defending them .........and you're not accusing them, or are you?

You're hopping a bit deep here. I was never asked to accuse or defend on this thread. Personally, I accept that there are going to be wars and rumours of wars before Jesus will return.

Misanthrope wrote: »

If you are not accusing them you are passively defending them,knowing as you do, some of what they are guilty of.
Your church shares most of the same scripture and tenets,and is to closely related to ba able to sit on the fence in mute indifference.

Again, at my most broad. I'm a Christian. I share a lot of commonalities with other Christians outside my church as well as those inside. Indeed, on a regular basis I meet with Christians whom are mostly outside of my denomination and of course who are good friends of mine.

That said, I also have good friends who are non-Christians.

The church of Christ, are any followers of His. This is my church.

Misanthrope wrote: »

If I shoot you in the leg and then say sorry.Can you be sure I really am.

I haven't shot anyone in any leg :pac:

Misanthrope wrote: »

Much the same as a Neo Nazi tut tutting on the Holocaust.He's still a Nazi though.
Condemnation and endorsement are conflicting actions.If there are shades of grey here for you, then we can put some grey between the black and white of the 10 commandments.

LOL this is ridiculous :pac:. You claim that I am responsible for the Crusades by claiming that I believe in Christianity. Then I outright condemn the Crusades. Then you claim that I am still responsible for them. Absolutely absurd!

What part of I wasn't born during the Crusades don't you understand. I believe in Jesus, not Pope Urban II (who led the First Crusade).