Topic: Anti-christians

Perhaps we weren't made to rule the world; the bible never said we were. To put that load on the shoulders of Christianity would be to put words in the mouth of Jesus.

Well, the bible can't be taken literally. Everything that isn't in quotes is commentary by the writer of the gospel. And you can bet that it isn't all true.

Show me the portion that says that, and I can perhaps help you understand what context it was written in.

Christianity is a faith, a faith in patriarchy.

Set roles, reasons why those roles are set. Realizing the duality of nature, above and below, right and wrong, good and evil.

Christianity also in it's creation myth tells people where we came from. By giving us the "first family" we could know that that was how the patriarchy was to be kept properly intact.

The family, as it evolves, becomes more and more reclusive, until the individuals in the family have completely isolated themselves from each other by the means of televisions in each bedroom, a loving gesture, secretly hating each other, or perhaps a family secret that keeps all things mum...

in the tribe, no one man could have power. In a family, each man was the head of the household. So moving from tribes to families is a power grab.

The family even in it's infancy, was what daddy says, goes. Daddy is God inthis arrangement, the above, so by making an above, the below must follow.

Of course, inhuman history, no two humans always agreed. If in an early patriachy a woman didn't agree with the male, many things cold happen to her. The bible make this point, if anyother point greater I doubt it, most explict, that men should beat wives into submission. I think a great deal of the parables have to do with kings so that the new inflated male ego could "identify" with the sotries within their own little kingdom at home, after all a man's house is his castle, isn't it?

The things done in the name and identity of Christianity. You can have you're own views, but the point of christianity is stil submission to God, be a sheep, don't reach, don't look up, work hard...

Christianity was the gateway and breeding ground for captialism.

The original pyramid scheme, the holy trinity, can now be played out in phallic, pyramid-shaped buldings called churches, later cathedrals even more phallic and made entire out of steel and glass, will be called skyscrapers. The same people and the same principles build them. Now and again fations will trade erratic emasculations. Some of these emasculations will cause great anger, and lead to death and destruction to a lot of unlucky people, who, if you accept John 3:16, I am the way the truth and the light, you know are going straight to hell. And they only prayed the right words inthe right language.

Sadly for america the dilligence of a people who honstly believe working hard in this world will get you rewards inthe afterlife are losing faith, and the world is going down the drain as people start to realize that their tiny image of God barely pixilates in the greater scheme of everything. What happens every second to every square inch of this universe needs more than a god who needs to take a break every six days.

I strongly believe that we need to choose something to have faith in. Pick someone eternal, pick some one prescient. PIckanything or nothing. Seek teachers, share your knowledge. Practice disregarding your duality thinking and the concepts it traps you in.

Going Beyond Christianity is as essential as going Beyond Civilization.

The symbolism is consistent throughout every major religion, and so it is not something unique to Christianity, just as being human isn't unique to our taker culture. Being on a mountaintop was where the ancient stele showing Hammurabi recieving the law was depicted. Moses did as well. Is that just a simple coincidence?

And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

You asked me to clarify my words, and I did. I did not tell you what to believe. I have not "preached" at all here.

Perhaps its offensive that I believe in something different than you.

I came here to find out why it is your so opposed to Christianity, and instead I am the one being questioned.

I have learned some, but the conversation was turned by you into a series of attacks on myself and my veracity.

Perhaps that might have been part of why my responses seem defensive.

I don't know if anyone can take that not to be offensive.

What should I do? Say that I don't believe in it anymore because you're unwilling to discuss with me?

I came here to understand you and people like you here because I believe your notions of Christianity are a big stumbling block.

I didn't intend to come here to explain why it is I thought that they were a big stumbling block, but you forced me into it. Intentions are rarely realized, and if I offended you, I'm sorry. But I only responded to your questions.

And that's why Christianity seemed to spread as a belief system. It made sense.

Ah, that. Well, in the Story of B, Quinn eloquently lies the entire burden of saving the world on the Anti-Christ. He lays his entire theory on the fact that Christianity is an intentional effort to misguide humanity away from the truth.

He made Atterly into the Anti-Christ because he was trying to save the world. Well, Christianity's goal isn't to destroy it. So there really isn't much foundation for that sort of opposition.

Again, thank you Tony for the response I enjoyed the insights and not the attacks.

You know the passage, I don't have to tell you what it is.

LucidWanderer, one of the reasons some people dislike or "hate" Christians and Christianity is because of the kind of disingenuous, evasive, and even dishonest responses they get from Christians such as yourself. Here I've asked you to explain what you mean by your statement "Perhaps we weren't made to rule the world; the bible never said we were." Then, as far as I can tell, you explain this statement by saying "The bible doesn't say anything." If that is what you believe, that the Bible doesn't say anything, then we really have nothing to discuss. Your understanding of the Bible, and Christianity, is so different from what most people, even most Christians, understand, as to make meaningless the words "the Bible" and "Christianity." Because those words mean whatever you, LucidWanderer, seem to want them to mean. If you can say something as blatantly false as "Perhaps we weren't made to rule the world; the bible never said we were" then it should be no surprise to you that people are unfriendly toward your attempt to discuss the subjects of Christianity and the Bible.

'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"

I don't want to be seen as a cop out, so Ludi here is my response to that quote:

I thought it was because we were able to do something, that we felt like we were suppose to do it? The advent of Totalitarian Agriculture seems to be the impetus for that quote, and not the religion. But your right, I could be taking a completely haywire intepretation of it. But it seems to make sense. Is it possible to separate a specific belief from a religion? I don't know. I hope so,

I find myself self-contradicting all the time :-) I suppose I'm just used to it. Makes it really hard sometimes communicating. Ever read that poem I posted? The nature of life seems to me so paradoxical sometimes.

I suppose the thing I've been trying to figure out is the spiritual part which is what a religion tends to be about, not consist of.

To me, Christianity seems to be an attempt by humans to recover the things they lost with the great forgetting.Its one that is not as mired in taker mentality as one would think.

Christianity, in its manifestation in many cases, though of course not most or even all, is a method for people to attain a level of spirituality on their life. Is it the only one? No. Does it encourage the taker meme? Perhaps.

I thought it was because we were able to do something, that we felt like we were suppose to do it? The advent of Totalitarian Agriculture seems to be the impetus for that quote, and not the religion. But your right, I could be taking a completely haywire intepretation of it. But it seems to make sense.

The bible contradicts itself too much to be used as a foundation for our discussion. Thats one of the reasons why I was hoping to create discussion about what Christianity is, and not what the Bible is.

The would've done it no matter whether they were Christians or not.

Jesus seemed to be trying to get the practitioners of Judaism to get back to the roots, as Tony says, get back to God.

Karl, the Laurentians don't exist. I've done several google searches, and not a single one found a Laurentian sect. Opus Dei, Franciscans, Dominicans all exist, but Laurentians were nowhere to be found. I even tried sects that had been excommunicated, and they were not to be found.

Keep in mind also, the Laurentians are a ficitional device.

VampireIQ wrote:



Ludi wrote:

not to mention a more poignant dichotomy between the two opposing sides.

When you have to tear others down, a sect that is so fundamental that it is nonexitant, to make a point, is that point all that well made?

How can anyone be of a different culture than when they exist, if they don't know of their own culture?

I'd like to see him write a story about a liberal Catholic and how he integrates the ideas of Taker/Leaver into his faith, and thus we can make progress and not simply declare war on a world religion.

To me, getting back to God is Walking Away. It was Judaism, civilization, that got them away from God, do you agree?

In our culture, the word "God" has specific connotations, as it does in Judaism and Christianity. It's referring to a specific god, Yahweh, not just any god or god-concept, or generic god-thingy. Although in some ways I agree with your premise, because I can recognise that you're using the word "God" to mean something different from its use in Judaism and Christianity, I disagree with your premise about Jesus and what he was trying to do. He was quite obviously referring to a specific God, Yahweh. We know this from his repeated reference to the Law and the Commandments and the Prophets. I'd like to think of Jesus as a sort of generic wiseman speaking to all peoples, but the written evidence points to the contrary, that he was a Jewish teacher/prophet specifically speaking to the Jews in the region around Jerusalem, and that many of his comments are about the specific religio-political situation in that area at the time, and not about all time nor about all people. It was Paul who invented Christianity. Jesus of course was not Christian, he was Jewish. :)

Why the hate? It actually fulfills many needs for people who desire stability, community, safety and continuity, spirituality and tradition. ...

I think there is common ground among us. Even if our worldviews and beliefs are not congruent, we can still connect on the basis of shared values.
In a country where 3/4 of people identify as christians, not only is 'hating' an uphill battle, but think about the leverage that could be gained by identifying the common ground and learning how to effectively plug-in to 3/4 people!

They see some letter of Paul which states that we shouldn't get married or divorced, and take that one quote to be what the bible says on the subject. The idea is to realize Pail thought towards the beginning of his letters that the world would end very soon. It was simply a theology that changed as his life went on, and it shows.

As for the Vatican II teachings, I would have to do a little research, but I have it on fairly authoritative grounds.