"God", "Our Lady" and the War in the Middle-East
jafri...@hotmail.com
Quote:
Subject: Message of Our Lady concerning the war in Lebanon/Message de
Maman Marie au sujet de la guerre au Liban
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 07:23:23 -0400
PLEASE FORWARD THIS URGENT MESSAGE TO ALL.
IVAN IS ONE OF THE 4 PEOPLE IN MEDUGORJE TO WHOM THE VIRGIN MARY
APPEARS TO.
Message from the Virgin Mary in Medugorje to Ivan:
" The war in the middle east will get worse and reach the rest of the
world. To stop it, people should pray every minute and fast.
Priests should open the doors of their churches and invite people to
pray
the rosary and intense prayers.
Pray pray pray
God bless u.
What does "our" lady have to say about the Genocide in the Congo where
over 4 million people have been killed or wars in Sudan, Columbia
etc....?
Does "our" lady intervene only when "God's chosen people" are
concerned? Don't tell me "our" lady is, like Kanye West said about
George Bush, a very selective lady..., she "doesn't care about Black
people"?
Seriously, brothers and sisters, the ongoing slaughter happening in
Lebanon already has too much to do with religion. What needs to happen
now, is for human beings who truly understand that LIFE is sacred no
matter the concentration of melanin under one's skin, no matter if
one's ancestors were named Mohammed, Moses, Asantewa, or Montesuma to
get busy ACTING (not praying) FOR PEACE.
We urgently need to STOP BUSH, OLMERT, HEZZBOLLAH, BLAIR, the
CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, MUSLIM FANATICS, WAR FANATICS of all stripes and
persuations from escalating the conflict and destroying OUR WORLD -
under whatever pretext !
There are religious zealots who propose that large parts of this planet
is their sole inheritance given by a racist god who apparently created
everyone but still has his own "preferred people" who are justified to
rape, kill and enslave their fellow human beings at will. In the old
days, thus spoke the blood thirsty "god": 1 Samuel 15: 3 "Now go,
attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to
them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and
infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015%20;&version=31;
(Please read the whole thing from beginning to end!)
In 2006, zealots tell us it is all written in advance, Armageddon need
to come to past or the so-called virgin who gave birth (what an
oxymoron!) has predicted it will get worse...as if we are all a bunch
of zombies operating under remote control held by a mad deity.
NO, SUPERSTITION AIN'T THE WAY. IT IS TIME TO HEED BOB MARLEY'S CALL:
GET UP STAND UP, SPEAK UP FOR PEACE !
Jafrikayiti
Jules
<jafri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>A few minutes ago, I received this incredible message in my e-mail box:
>
> Quote:
> Subject: Message of Our Lady concerning the war in Lebanon/Message de
> Maman Marie au sujet de la guerre au Liban
> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 07:23:23 -0400
>
> PLEASE FORWARD THIS URGENT MESSAGE TO ALL.
>
attach any sense of urgency to something so absurd, coming from someone who
is obviously so mentally impaired?
Jules.
jafri...@hotmail.com
Jules wrote:
> Jaf! have you lost your mind? Why in the world would you give importance, or
> attach any sense of urgency to something so absurd, coming from someone who
> is obviously so mentally impaired?
>
> Jules.
No, I have not lost my mind. You'd be surprised how many around the
world believe in these dangerous and debilitating superstitions -
especially within our evanjelizazonbified population that has been
taught some peoples are blessed while others (including their own) are
cursed by a white god. That somewhere called heaven - which is "up
there", there is a set of saints (all of them portrayed to be "white"
just like the Leonardo da Vinci-look alike god) make routine
revelations and predictions about world affairs.
So, we mere mortals need to do nothing more than - get on our knees an
pray and buy the Vatican-made candles.
annick
qui ont proliféré en trop grand nombre sur la planète.Les plus
grands prédateurs :les humains.Une anomalie.
Jules ha escrito:
annick
annick ha escrito:
annick
HAUSSE À LA BOURSE....
annick ha escrito:
annick
très enrhumé ,il sort ses jokers:
parmi ses préférés on trouve:
-les nationalismes exacerbés
-la guerre entre les voisins
-la guerre entre les dieux.
Quand il a le CANCER,il sort la BOMBE ATOMIQUE.
Est-il à ce point malade? Un diagnostic est à faire d'urgence.
L'urgence est là en effet.
annick ha escrito:
Jules
>
> No, I have not lost my mind. You'd be surprised how many around the
> world believe in these dangerous and debilitating superstitions -
> especially within our evanjelizazonbified population that has been
> taught some peoples are blessed while others (including their own) are
> cursed by a white god. That somewhere called heaven - which is "up
> there", there is a set of saints (all of them portrayed to be "white"
> just like the Leonardo da Vinci-look alike god) make routine
> revelations and predictions about world affairs.
>
learned and educated people, much more so than you and I, including all past
and present presidents of the United States, who actually believe in what
you call religious superstition about heaven and hell.
As for the white god you talk about, you are as clueless as those who
believe in the existence of one.
>
> So, we mere mortals need to do nothing more than - get on our knees an
> pray and buy the Vatican-made candles.
>
For sure, you do need to get on your knees and pray. But as for the candles
and the Vatican, that is optional.
Jules
kafou...@yahoo.com
wrote:
><jafri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, I have not lost my mind. You'd be surprised how many around the
>> world believe in these dangerous and debilitating superstitions -
>> especially within our evanjelizazonbified population that has been
>> taught some peoples are blessed while others (including their own) are
>> cursed by a white god. That somewhere called heaven - which is "up
>> there", there is a set of saints (all of them portrayed to be "white"
>> just like the Leonardo da Vinci-look alike god) make routine
>> revelations and predictions about world affairs.
>>
>You're even crazier than I thought. You'd be surprised of how many very
>learned and educated people, much more so than you and I, including all past
>and present presidents of the United States, who actually believe in what
>you call religious superstition about heaven and hell.
>
One might argue that heaven and hell are merely christian concepts.
>As for the white god you talk about, you are as clueless as those who
>believe in the existence of one.
>>
>> So, we mere mortals need to do nothing more than - get on our knees an
>> pray and buy the Vatican-made candles.
>>
>For sure, you do need to get on your knees and pray. But as for the candles
>and the Vatican, that is optional.
>
One might also argue that the world's problems are purely spiritual.
K.
Jules
concepts. It is a monotheistic certainty, espoused by jews, moslems,
and of course christians.
>
>One might also argue that the world's problems are purely spiritual.
You can't have it both ways.
K.
kafou...@yahoo.com
>
>kafou...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>One might argue that heaven and hell are merely christian concepts.
>>
>Everything is arguable, furthermore heaven and hell are not christian
>concepts. It is a monotheistic certainty, espoused by jews, moslems,
>and of course christians.
I am not sure about Moslems, but Jews ONLY believe in THIS life.
>>
>>One might also argue that the world's problems are purely spiritual.
>.
>You can't have it both ways.
You don't think our problem is purely spiritual?
K.
Jules
kafou...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>Jules:
> >Everything is arguable, furthermore heaven and hell are not christian
> >concepts. It is a monotheistic certainty, espoused by jews, moslems,
> >and of course christians.
>
> I am not sure about Moslems, but Jews ONLY believe in THIS life.
>
> >>
> >>One might also argue that the world's problems are purely spiritual.
> >.
> >You can't have it both ways.
>
> You don't think our problem is purely spiritual?
>
disobeyed god, with it came all the problems of man and the world in
which we live. The question is: are we on the same page?
Jules.
>
> K.
kafou...@yahoo.com
>The question is: are we on the same page?
>
Of course NOT.
K.
Jules
announce the good news of his birth, and the place in which it would
happen.
Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we
have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the
star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and
stood over where the young child was.
Jesus calls us "lights of the world". Matthew 5:14 Ye are the light of
the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Jules.
kafou...@yahoo.com
>
>kafou...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>Jules:
>> >Everything is arguable, furthermore heaven and hell are not christian
>> >concepts. It is a monotheistic certainty, espoused by jews, moslems,
>> >and of course christians.
>>
>> I am not sure about Moslems, but Jews ONLY believe in THIS life.
>>
> http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_afterlife.htm
It was an interesting read. It is however written by ONE Rabbi. Why do
you expect the Jews to have a monolithic opinion on this matter?
K.
kafou...@yahoo.com
I was raised Catholic, hence Christian. I am just NOT arrogant enough
to believe that ONLY Christians will be saved. See my point?
K.
Jules
Jules:
>>Jesus Christ is the light of the world. A star out of heaven came to
>>announce the good news of his birth, and the place in which it would
>>happen.
>>
>> Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we
>>have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
>>Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the
>>star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and
>>stood over where the young child was.
>>
>>Jesus calls us "lights of the world". Matthew 5:14 Ye are the light of
>>the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
>
> I was raised Catholic, hence Christian. I am just NOT arrogant enough
> to believe that ONLY Christians will be saved. See my point?
>
liar. 3) He is right, and Christians are the light the world.
Which one is the basis of your unbelief?
Jules.
Jules
>
>> http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_afterlife.htm
>
> It was an interesting read. It is however written by ONE Rabbi. Why do
> you expect the Jews to have a monolithic opinion on this matter?
>
justify them.
Jules.
annick
peine parce que j'ai beaucoup d'estime pour toi...
Jules ha escrito:
annick
...à part tes prières...(que j'adore...ça me fait un bien fou...mais
juste à moi ...à personne d'autre...)
Jules ha escrito:
kafou...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Actually, most Jews I know are atheist. But, I will look for a
religious viewpoint. Stay tuned.
K.
kafou...@yahoo.com
> Jules ...ton Dieu particulier t'empêche de penser...cela me fait de
>peine parce que j'ai beaucoup d'estime pour toi...
Si Jules etait Musulman, il serait surement un de ces mecs qui se font
sauter au nom de Mohamet.
K.
Jules
>
> Actually, most Jews I know are atheist. But, I will look for a
> religious viewpoint. Stay tuned.
>
Jew. Judaism is a religion. A jew is short for one out of the tribe of
Judah, one of the twelve tribes of Israel. There cannot be an atheist jew,
no more than there can be an atheist moslem. You can have an atheist
Israeli, but you cannot have an atheist Jew.
Jules.
annick
nous aider présentement...trop pessimiste ce saint..trop peu
pragmatiste!
Jules ha escrito:
annick
peur...que le réarmement moral sous d'autres horizons...est-ce qu'on a
tort d'avoir moins peur?ou bien est-ce la même chose dont il s'agit?
kafou...@yahoo.com ha escrito:
annick
kafou...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I guess you have never met any Jews from the former Soviet Union....
that is odd, I thought you lived in New-York. Have you ever been to
Brookline, Massachusetts?
Kafou "Think, before you think." Lobo
kafou...@yahoo.com
> Brrrr! mes os commencent à avoir froid....
>> Non... justement...Le réarmement moral américain fait moins
>> peur...que le réarmement moral sous d'autres horizons...est-ce qu'on a
>> tort d'avoir moins peur?ou bien est-ce la même chose dont il s'agit?
Le probleme est le Fondamentalisme qui nous affecte tous.
Et pourtant les trois grandes Religions (Chritianisme, Judaisme et
Islam) ont toujours eu une sorte de "uneasy peace" entre elles.
Nous voici tout a` coup en face d'une impossible coexistence...
bizarre tout de meme.
K.
Jules
>
> Si Jules etait Musulman, il serait surement un de ces mecs qui se font
> sauter au nom de Mohamet.
>
Christ....???
Jules.
jafri...@hotmail.com
Technically speaking Jules is right. An atheist Israeli makes more
sense than an atheist Jew or an atheist Christian. However, this is if
you take Judaism and Christianity as mere "religion" but not in the
larger role of "cultural identities".
Obviously as a people who have been colonized and brainwashed by
Christian foreign armies (the three Ms working in tandem Missionaries,
Military and Merchants), we all ended up with a "christian culture"
whether we actually believe or not in the set of superstitions that the
christia colonizers used to established their "superiority". In fact,
although as grown men and women with functionning brains we know, the
Leonardo da vincilook alike "god" who supposedly reveals his "word" in
the bible, is a complete frabrication, we find it hard to reject....500
years of mental conditionning doesn't go away like so.
Therefore a perfectly intelligent lawyer, doctor, engineerin will
pretend to believe that a guy named Moses cut the red sea in half and
all the little stories told in the Bible. Including a very racist and
outrageous one about "BON"Dieu having accepted to make the sun "stop"
in its track (which does not make any scientifc sense whatsoever - but
it gets funnier) in order for his "favorite people" led by a sadistic
zenglendo named Josuah to have enough day light time to MASSACRE
another people (we must assume they are the offspring of Satan?). Yet,
this same bible filled with incoherent horror stories of all sorts is a
guiding light for millions of people who will murder in its name.
So, I ask Kafou why does he call himself a christian. Is it by culture
or by faith ? Or simply because he never even thought about it that
seriously.
You see, I was born in a so-called Christian family. My father was an
Anglican Priest. So was his father before him. I used to also call
myself a christian ad served as an altar boy for many years and was
very sincere in my beliefs off all the stories in the Bible, even the
most outrageous and ethnocentric ones. Both then I began to wonder why
are all these folks in the Bible from a culture different than my own -
yet it is supposed the be the revealed word of the "God" who created
"me" in his image? The more I dug, the more I realize the beauty of
human history and thae capacity human beings have to create fantasies
and make beliefs. But the more I learn the more I realize how very
dangerous the belief in these stories can become for humanity.
Jules is a very sincere an passionate man. He is probably a member of
the sector of christianity called "protestatism" . I also grew up in
that environment. I can only hope that the trend we are starting to
observe within some of Haiti's protestant churches takes over the
conservatives....so that Haitian protestant children can learn how to
dance - using their hips as the naturally gifted Africans that they
are. I hope more of them will learn to appretiate compact music,
playing the drum, learning about their culture, including the belief
system invented by their own African ancestors, Vodou, without fear and
paranoia. I wish that Haitians of all beliefs will be able to teach and
learn ro and from each other in spite of the lasting damages of
colonization.
In conclusion, let our true identity and brotherhood take over that
which has been imposed by the violence of imperialism.
Ayibobo!
kafou...@yahoo.com
wrote:
><kafou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I didn't say you were a threat, I merely implied that you are a
dogmatic and a fundamentalist who leaves very little room for
debates. Besides, suicide bombers also have the same conviction
with respect to Mohamet.
K.
kafou...@yahoo.com
>
>Technically speaking Jules is right. An atheist Israeli makes more
>sense than an atheist Jew or an atheist Christian.
I have lotsa friends from the former Soviet Union, and they have no
clue about any Deity. They however always say, "I am Jewish".
>However, this is if
>you take Judaism and Christianity as mere "religion" but not in the
>larger role of "cultural identities".
>
Bingo!
>So, I ask Kafou why does he call himself a christian. Is it by culture
>or by faith ?
That is a very good question. I guess I am culturally a Christian, but
I try to keep my Faith in check.
>Or simply because he never even thought about it that
>seriously.
I am not sure I have ever thought about it seriously in these terms.
>
>You see, I was born in a so-called Christian family. My father was an
>Anglican Priest. So was his father before him. I used to also call
>myself a christian ad served as an altar boy for many years and was
>very sincere in my beliefs off all the stories in the Bible, even the
>most outrageous and ethnocentric ones.
I suppose you are no longer a Christian, what then are you?
If you have kids, surely you inculcate in them the notions of
right and wrong..... do unto others and all that.
>Both then I began to wonder why
>are all these folks in the Bible from a culture different than my own -
>yet it is supposed the be the revealed word of the "God" who created
>"me" in his image? The more I dug, the more I realize the beauty of
>human history and thae capacity human beings have to create fantasies
>and make beliefs. But the more I learn the more I realize how very
>dangerous the belief in these stories can become for humanity.
>
One might argue that you see everything in black and white, and
therefore miss all the other shades in the rainbow.
>Jules is a very sincere an passionate man.
I agree, and he scares me at times.
>He is probably a member of
>the sector of christianity called "protestatism" . I also grew up in
>that environment. I can only hope that the trend we are starting to
>observe within some of Haiti's protestant churches takes over the
>conservatives....so that Haitian protestant children can learn how to
>dance - using their hips as the naturally gifted Africans that they
>are.
I dunno.... why is that so important? Maybe a church ceremony
oughta be solemn.
>I hope more of them will learn to appretiate compact music,
>playing the drum, learning about their culture, including the belief
>system invented by their own African ancestors, Vodou, without fear and
>paranoia.
Jules?. Are you listening?
>I wish that Haitians of all beliefs will be able to teach and
>learn ro and from each other in spite of the lasting damages of
>colonization.
>
Tell that to Jules.
>In conclusion, let our true identity and brotherhood take over that
>which has been imposed by the violence of imperialism.
I will drink to that.
K.
jafri...@hotmail.com
kafou...@yahoo.com wrote about Jules:
> I merely implied that you are a
> dogmatic and a fundamentalist who leaves very little room for
> debates. Besides, suicide bombers also have the same conviction
> with respect to Mohamet.
cultural intolerance and chauvinism is integral to the 3 monotheistic
religions created by those who identify with the lineage of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob (Judaism, christianity and Islam).
Now, we could ask Jules how he manages to make sense of the stories
like this one:
Joshua 10:11-13 (King James Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JOSHUA%2010:11-13;&version=9
11And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in
the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from
heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died
with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the
sword.
12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up
the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of
Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the
valley of Ajalon.
13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book
of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted
not to go down about a whole day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, imagine being the Amorites and facing set of people who consider
themselves so blessed that "god" himself will commit the most
outrageous crime to help them steal other people's property, murder,
rape and pillage with them...
How often do modern-day christians, jews and muslims stop to think
about the real historical roots of their belief system?
jafri...@hotmail.com
No, I no longer define myself as a Christian. I am a human being.
> If you have kids, surely you inculcate in them the notions of
> right and wrong..... do unto others and all that.
Those principles existed way before Christianity, way before Judaism
and its 10 (thou shall not) commandements and even before the 30
positive principles of Maat (KMT - Ancient Egypt) from which they were
inspired. I try to teach my kids about as much of the human experience
as I can. The Christian experience is only one very small part of that,
especially the eurocentric ghettho in which it has been kept over the
past few centuries.
> One might argue that you see everything in black and white, and
> therefore miss all the other shades in the rainbow.
You get this impression because you don't understand my goal and
methodology. In fact, I try to be part of the movement helping the
shades of our world become more visible. In opposition to the
eurocentric ghettho, there is not an afrocentric ghetthp but an
eccletic world inhabited by 6 billion souls....from China to Peru to
Ethiopia to Greece etc...
I wrote about my hope that one day "Haitian protestant children can
learn how to
dance - using their hips as the naturally gifted Africans that they
are", and you replied.
> I dunno.... why is that so important? Maybe a church ceremony
> oughta be solemn.
My point exactly ! Solemn does not have to be Mozart and the harp.
Solemn can be the "Yanvalou" I witnessed two beautiful young Haitians
execute as they entered their wedding party on Saturday. Solemn can be
the prayer my wife and I shared during our official wedding ceremony as
the beautiful music of Jean-Claude Martineau and Ti-Corn (Deklarasyon)
played. Solemn can be Chinese music, African boubou, Italian opera, a
Xhosa song etc...
If I consider it a tragedy that young Haitian protestants fail to learn
how to exercise their hips - like the ancestors did - it's because of
the loss in beauty suffered by the nation as a whole but also because
these hips exercises which are still taught in traditional African
families to youngsters from the very early age paly an important role
in helping them live satisfying sexual lives. Unfortunately, in the
colonizers' mind sex, a beauty created by the inventive genius(es?) who
designed the human body, is itself treated as a very dirty thing.
Humanity would gain so much if the experiences gained from all the
cultures of the world could be shared without prejudice and a desire to
dominate the "other".
Jaf
Jules
>
> I have lotsa friends from the former Soviet Union, and they have no
> clue about any Deity. They however always say, "I am Jewish".
>
>
>>However, this is if you take Judaism and Christianity as mere "religion"
>>but not in the larger role of "cultural identities".
>>
> Bingo!
and convert to judaism, but no one who swears to be and atheist can do so.
Jules.
Jules
I don't. I am but dust of the earth, and God is God. You feel that God can
commit murder, I on the other hand know that God who is the giver of ALL
life is free to take life away from anyone, anyhow, any time he wishes, and
there is nothing that anyone can do about it. God is above sin. Sin is
defined as disobedience against God. God cannot sin against himself, he is
God. God cannot do anything wrong because he is God, and is above judgment.
When you feel this way, it becomes easy to see the light, the repentance is
not too far away.
Jules.
jafri...@hotmail.com
Jules wrote:
> The difference between you and I, is that you dare question God's judgment,
No Jules, I question man's judgement. A group of men who claim to speak
the "word" of God, only through their culture and experience. Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Yeshuah are the ancestors/heroes of a small group
of the human family.
> I don't. I am but dust of the earth, and God is God. You feel that God can (cannot)
> commit murder, I on the other hand know that God who is the giver of ALL
> life is free to take life away from anyone, anyhow, any time he wishes, and
> there is nothing that anyone can do about it. God is above sin. Sin is
> defined as disobedience against God. God cannot sin against himself, he is
> God. God cannot do anything wrong because he is God, and is above judgment.
Again, you miss an important point. This particular "image of god" to
which you and I have been exposed is the creation of a group of human
beings. And it is no wonder that this "god" is presented with very
human characteristics: jealous, unfair, inconsistent, and vengeful like
the worst among us, he would order the sun to stand still, if need be,
so a group of men can slaughter the babies in the womb of another
nation? What kind of Bon-Dieu is that? The kind invented in the wicked
imagination of deranged men.
In the Christian version of the the judeo-christian story "god" is said
to have impregnated a virgin to give birth to himself (the son). Then,
to appease himself (the father), he gets crucified on a cross....while
dying there, he cries out to himself "Father, father why have you
forsaken me?". Now, if you do not know the history of how many times a
set of european men sat down and voted on the subject in order to
arrive at this text you call the "word of God", obviously you have to
declare that the whole thing is mysterious because God is beyond our
human comprehension and somehow, with faith, we must assume it does
make sense. But, the historical record does exist. We not only know
when, where and how these very sinful men met and VOTED Jesus 100% God,
then 100% men and then 100% both (its all new math). And so, I
concluded in my book "Viv Bondye ! Aba relijyon!" that all these
fingerprints that we do see in the bible are indeed those of men.
Check out the council of Nicea & the Aryan controversy in connection to
the transformation of a poor Palestinian son of carpenter Joseph into a
"god, son of god but god himself" who is said to havecreated a
religion, he himself never even knew while alive. Check out the
Council of Trent for the transformation of the letters of Paul - a
Roman informant who infiltrated the jewish sect and then claim to be
its suddenly transformed leader - into "word of god". Sort of like
Toto Constant writing the Gospels of Lavalas. Sorry, i couldn't resist
the comparison :o)
See also the works of Constantin, another weird story of persecutor
turned chamion of the sect.
Then, it becomes clear why the god of the bible is so weird and
inconsistent. Why his so-called "word" could be used to justify the
worst crimes ever, including racial slavery.
Indeed Jules, it makes no sense that the Creator made men, then men
made religion and for religion now to have the ambition of introducing
men to his maker.
I will continue to say Praise the Creator ! Down with Religion !
http://forum.uhhp.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=religion&main=1719&type=thread
www.jafrikayiti.com/AtiksouViv.htm
Jules
men wrote the Bible, I believe that it is one hundred percent God inspired.
You believe that it is the work of men, I believe the work of God. You
believe that it is fallible, I believe that it is infallible.
>
> A group of men who claim to speak
> the "word" of God, only through their culture and experience. Abraham,
> Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Yeshuah are the ancestors/heroes of a small group
> of the human family.
>
being to ever walk this earth. God has chosen to painstakingly detail the
life of at least one of his sons, and of every one of his descendents,
encompassing at least 11,000 years of human history, going all the way to
the birth of Jesus Christ, whom you call by his Hebrew name Yeshuah.
>
Of this:
>> I don't. I am but dust of the earth, and God is God. You feel that God
>> anyhow, any time he wishes, and
>> there is nothing that anyone can do about it. God is above sin. Sin is
>> defined as disobedience against God. God cannot sin against himself, he
>> is
>> God. God cannot do anything wrong because he is God, and is above
>> judgment.
>
> Again, you miss an important point. This particular "image of god" to
> which you and I have been exposed is the creation of a group of human
> beings.
>
of men, I feel that it is the work of God
>
> And it is no wonder that this "god" is presented with very
> human characteristics:
>
God is not created in the image of man, man is the one who is created in the
image of God. It is therefore consistent that men exhibit godly
characteristics.
>
> jealous, unfair, inconsistent, and vengeful like
> the worst among us, he would order the sun to stand still, if need be,
> so a group of men can slaughter the babies in the womb of another
> nation? What kind of Bon-Dieu is that? The kind invented in the wicked
> imagination of deranged men.
>
simply because he was born with a certain curiosity to discover and to know
all things, including the things (and there was only one: the fruit from the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil). From God's stand point, it was by
design, because we know that God had chosen to save men from their sins,
long before he was ever created.
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were
made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Here we see that the Lord Jesus Christ created the world in which he chose
to come as an infant to save mankind from sin, and separation from God.
>
> In the Christian version of the the judeo-christian story "god" is said
> to have impregnated a virgin to give birth to himself (the son).
>
Where does it say that? I'd like you to show it to me.
>
>Then, to appease himself (the father), he gets crucified on a
>cross....while
> dying there, he cries out to himself "Father, father why have you
> forsaken me?".
>
The story of his life was foretold by the prophet Isaiah long before the
birth of our Lord. God wrote exactly what was to happen to his son, and how
he would pay for our sins.
Isaiah 53:1-12 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the
LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a
root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall
see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and
rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as
it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem
him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our
peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep
have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and
as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was
taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?
for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of
my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with
the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any
deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him
to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see
his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall
prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be
satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he
shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the
great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured
out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he
bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
>
>Now, if you do not know the history of how many times a
> set of european men sat down and voted on the subject in order to
> arrive at this text you call the "word of God".
>
Would your objections have been more subdue if those men were Africans?
>
> Obviously you have to declare that the whole thing is mysterious because
> God is >beyond our human comprehension and somehow, with faith, we must
> assume it does
> make sense.
>
Before it makes sense to you there are some pre-requisites:
Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good
understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth
for ever.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God.
To understand this you have to start backward.
1) Fear of the Lord. It comes simply from looking at this infinitely
complex, yet orderly physical world in which we live, and realize how
infinitely insignificant the wisest ones compares, when confronted with the
building blocks of nature. It tells us that God exists.
Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth
his handywork.
2) The word of God (the Bible) is a must, and God has given it freely.
3) The word of God, when accepted verbatim, produces faith.
4) When we accept Jesus Christ by faith, we are saved, and begin our eternal
walk with God on this earth and on to eternity.
> But, the historical record does exist. We not only know
> when, where and how these very sinful men met and VOTED Jesus 100% God,
> then 100% men and then 100% both (its all new math). And so, I
> concluded in my book "Viv Bondye ! Aba relijyon!" that all these
> fingerprints that we do see in the bible are indeed those of men.
>
You, like many others before you will see the error of your ways. Hopefully
for you it will happen before you breathe your last breath. But if it
happens after physical death you're doomed.
>
> Check out the council of Nicea & the Aryan controversy in connection to
> the transformation of a poor Palestinian son of carpenter Joseph into a
> "god, son of god but god himself" who is said to havecreated a
> religion, he himself never even knew while alive.
>
You're free to think, and to teach that Jesus Christ was a mere man. You are
deceiving many who believe in the things you say or write. By doing so you
are doing the work of the devil, and you will meet him someday, and you will
suffer with him.
>
> Check out the Council of Trent for the transformation of the letters of
> Paul
>
I don't need to, I have the holy spirit of God living within me to teach me
his word, and all that I need to know to be of service to those who like me
were lost, hungry, and thirsty for truth, and life.
>
> The apostle Paul was a Roman informant who infiltrated the jewish sect
> and
>then claim to be its suddenly transformed leader - into "word of god".
>
You're free to believe in fables, and tales, and all sorts of conspiracy
theories that are floating around. I'm sure they satisfy your predisposed
curiosity, but I have no interest in that kind of garbage.
>
>Sort of like Toto Constant writing the Gospels of Lavalas. Sorry, i
>couldn't resist
> the comparison :o)
>
Who needs Toto Constant, when we have Aristide :-) ???
>
> See also the works of Constantin, another weird story of persecutor
> turned chamion of the sect.
>
The story of the conversion of Constantin, and of everyone else who claims
to be a Christian is only God's business.
John 10:14-16 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of
mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my
life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one
fold, and one shepherd.
>
> Then, it becomes clear why the god of the bible is so weird and
> inconsistent. Why his so-called "word" could be used to justify the
> worst crimes ever, including racial slavery.
>
I'm surprised that you did not accuse God of creating slavery. Don't think
for one minute that you would NOT do any of those things if you were in
those men's shoes.
>
> Indeed Jules, it makes no sense that the Creator made men, then men
> made religion and for religion now to have the ambition of introducing
> men to his maker.
>
God did not create religion. He puts man on this earth, he wrote his word
describing the history of the world from day one, then he sent his son to
die for those who believe in him. The end of the story.
>
> I will continue to say Praise the Creator ! Down with Religion !
>
Acts 4:10-12 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel,
that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God
raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become
the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there
is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Without Jesus you got nothing.
Jules
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> Check out the council of Nicea & the Aryan controversy in connection to
> the transformation of a poor Palestinian son of carpenter Joseph into a
> "god, son of god but god himself" who is said to havecreated a
> religion, he himself never even knew while alive.
Please explain. I have read every ancient source that mentions the
First Council of Nicaea, and I don't see this in it.
I fear that you are merely repeating vague but convenient hearsay -- if
so, please don't.
> Check out the Council of Trent for the transformation of the letters of
> Paul - a Roman informant who infiltrated the jewish sect and then claim to be
> its suddenly transformed leader - into "word of god".
I'm afraid your source for this is laughing at you. The Council of
Trent could never have done such a thing, and we have vast quantities
of copies before that date.
> See also the works of Constantin, another weird story of persecutor
> turned chamion of the sect.
Which works do you mean? Constantine was always a champion of the
Christians.
> Then, it becomes clear why the god of the bible is so weird and
> inconsistent. Why his so-called "word" could be used to justify the
> worst crimes ever, including racial slavery.
Not half so inconsistent as basing one's life on conforming to some
subset of societal values and ideas set in one small period of history,
which we just happen to live in, surely?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
jafri...@hotmail.com
I wrote:
> > In the Christian version of the the judeo-christian story "god" is said
> > to have impregnated a virgin to give birth to himself (the son).
> Where does it say that? I'd like you to show it to me.
Basing their beliefs on texts like Matthew 1:18, most Christians accept
both the "virgin" status of Mary and the "godly" origin of Jesus. "This
is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was
pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was
found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=1&verse=18&version=31&context=verse
and other texts like Isaiah 53:1-12 which you quoted are used to claim
that Jesus was at once, son of god and "god" himself....Of course, not
everyone agreed with these interpretations...so the Nicene creed came
into play to force everyone into compliance as we will see below...
I wrote:
> >Now, if you do not know the history of how many times a
> > set of european men sat down and voted on the subject in order to
> > arrive at this text you call the "word of God".
Jules asks:
> Would your objections have been more subdue if those men were Africans?
In fact some of the early fathers of christianity were black Africans
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/rome3.html
I specified "european men" to illustrate the fact that two dominant
features of christianity are eurocentrism and sexism, due to the
historical path taken once Paul took over the jewish sect to which the
followers of Jesus belonged and began transforming it.
Jules wrote:
> You, like many others before you will see the error of your ways. Hopefully
> for you it will happen before you breathe your last breath. But if it
> happens after physical death you're doomed.
Jules, honestly, no human beings knows what happens after death. No
more than the catterpillar know in advance that it is destined to
become a butterfly some day. No more than the dog knows it will
transform into a cow.
> You're free to think, and to teach that Jesus Christ was a mere man. You are
> deceiving many who believe in the things you say or write. By doing so you
> are doing the work of the devil, and you will meet him someday, and you will
> suffer with him.
Who told you there was a "devil"? What does it look like? Is he more
dangerous than those human beings dropping bombs on little babies all
over the globe? Who created this "devil"...Is it like Osama Bin Laden,
the work of a "goog guy" that ran wild...?
> The story of the conversion of Constantin, and of everyone else who claims
> to be a Christian is only God's business.
Wrong Jules! The story of Constantine IS the story of how christianity
became a religion that outgrew its jewish sect status. It should be the
business of Christians to know their history in order not to fall into
blind and dangerous fanatism when they encounter their fellow human
beings on the planet who happen to have invented other beliefs and
religions whose history differs from their own.
> God did not create religion. He puts man on this earth, he wrote his word
> describing the history of the world from day one, then he sent his son to
> die for those who believe in him. The end of the story.
Of course not. Why would a "good" god create something so divisive and
limiting as religion. Some men created religion because they refuse to
admit not to know certain things like how we came to be and what our
ultimate fate is here or elsewhere. A creator god would have no such
hangups.
> Without Jesus you got nothing.
Jules, "having Jesus" is nothing but an expression. People living on
planet earth in 2006 "have Jesus" inasmuch as they can "have
Dessalines", "Have Eistein", "have Martin Luther King", even "Have
Bush" ....it's all about trying to take strength from the cummulative
history. Yeshuah was in all likelihood a great inspirational speaker, a
man of conviction and a wise teacher. Many of the words and actions
ascribed to him in the bible are amazing and valuable. But, there is no
need to try to intimidate people into adopting a dead palestinian hero
for their personal "god", in order to escape an imagined hell or to go
to a so-called heaven once imagined by folks who thought the earth was
flat and covered by a huge blue cover.
This universe which I believe was created (that's the most logical
option as far as I can imagine so far), is filled with beautifuol
mysteries....we do not need to mystify that which is now known.
For instance, that story about adam and eve is ridiculous. There is
positive proof that human beings have been on this planet for millions
of years - not the 10 thousand or so years since the so-called creation
of Adam. And what is this about eve being created from Adam's rib? How
sexist can one get. Why not the most likely situation where the first
human would be the one that is actually able to give birth (i.e. the
female?).
I am not claiming to know which one came first - the man or the woman -
but it seems to me the Adam's rib thing is weak.
Okay ! got to go brother. Talk to you soon. I am glad we can speak of
something other than Chimè and GNB. May the Creator continue to bless
you !
Jaf
jafri...@hotmail.com
Fear not! Instead, read on....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_original_Nicene_Creed_of_325
See also Biblical Canon and the Council of Trent
Jules
>
I asked:
> Where does it say that? I'd like you to show it to me.
>
>Basing their beliefs on texts like Matthew 1:18, most Christians accept
>both the "virgin" status of Mary and the "godly" origin of Jesus. "This
>is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was
>pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was
>found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
>
virgin. It simply said that she was found to be with child. Do you
understand that God through his omniscience wills the future and the present
into, and out of existence? Do you understand that God said "Let There Be
Light" and there was light? Do you think that God had to have had sex with
Mary in order for her to become pregnant? You seem to have a problem with
the word omniscience, or you simply feel that he could not be. If that is
the case say it! but don't put words into the Bible.
>
>and other texts like Isaiah 53:1-12 which you quoted are used to claim
>that Jesus was at once, son of god and "god" himself....Of course, not
>everyone agreed with these interpretations...so the Nicene creed came
>into play to force everyone into compliance as we will see below...
>
the interpretations of his writings.
>
I wrote:
> >Now, if you do not know the history of how many times a
> > arrive at this text you call the "word of God".
I wrote:
> Would your objections have been more subdue if those men were Africans?
>
You answered:
In fact some of the early fathers of Christianity were black Africans.
>
What difference does it make? God sees the color of the soul, not the color
of the skin.
>
>I specified "European men" to illustrate the fact that two dominant
>features of Christianity are eurocentrism and sexism, due to the
>historical path taken once Paul took over the Jewish sect to which the
>followers of Jesus belonged and began transforming it.
>
So if he went to Africa instead of Rome, it would then make better sense to
you. I'm not even going to address the sexism stuff.
>
I wrote:
> You, like many others before you will see the error of your ways.
> Hopefully
> for you it will happen before you breathe your last breath. But if it
> happens after physical death you're doomed.
>
You answered:
>Jules, honestly, no human beings knows what happens after death. No
>more than the catterpillar know in advance that it is destined to
>become a butterfly some day. No more than the dog knows it will
>transform into a cow.
>
No faithless human being knows what happens after death. All you have to do
is visit two terminally ill persons waiting to expire, one who is a
Christian, one who is not. Then tell me which one is at peace, which one is
tormented.
>
I wrote:
> You're free to think, and to teach that Jesus Christ was a mere man. You
> are
> deceiving many who believe in the things you say or write. By doing so you
> are doing the work of the devil, and you will meet him someday, and you
> will
> suffer with him.
>
You answered:
>Who told you there was a "devil"? What does it look like? Is he more
>dangerous than those human beings dropping bombs on little babies all
>over the globe? Who created this "devil"...Is it like Osama Bin Laden,
>the work of a "goog guy" that ran wild...?
>
It is written in the infallible word of God, and I believe it in its
entirety.
>
> The story of the conversion of Constantine, and of everyone else who
> claims
> to be a Christian is only God's business.
>
>Wrong Jules! The story of Constantine IS the story of how Christianity
>became a religion that outgrew its jewish sect status. It should be the
>business of Christians to know their history in order not to fall into
>blind and dangerous fanatism when they encounter their fellow human
>beings on the planet who happen to have invented other beliefs and
>religions whose history differs from their own.
>
Jesus Christ builds his church, not Constantine.
Matthew 16:15-19 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon
Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And
Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
He also foretold that the story of his birth, life, death and resurrection
will be preached in all the world before the end comes.
Matthew 24:11-14 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive
many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this
gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto
all nations; and then shall the end come.
>
I wrote:
> God did not create religion. He puts man on this earth, he wrote his word
> describing the history of the world from day one, then he sent his son to
> die for those who believe in him. The end of the story.
>
You wrote:
>Of course not. Why would a "good" god create something so divisive and
>limiting as religion. Some men created religion because they refuse to
>admit not to know certain things like how we came to be and what our
>ultimate fate is here or elsewhere. A creator god would have no such
>hangups.
>
You obviously did not understand my statement.
>
I wrote:
> Without Jesus you got nothing.
>
>Jules, "having Jesus" is nothing but an expression.
To you that's all it will ever be.
>
> People living on
>planet earth in 2006 "have Jesus" inasmuch as they can "have
>Dessalines", "Have Eistein", "have Martin Luther King", even "Have
>Bush" ....it's all about trying to take strength from the cummulative
>history. Yeshuah was in all likelihood a great inspirational speaker, a
>man of conviction and a wise teacher. Many of the words and actions
>ascribed to him in the bible are amazing and valuable. But, there is no
>need to try to intimidate people into adopting a dead palestinian hero
>for their personal "god", in order to escape an imagined hell or to go
>to a so-called heaven once imagined by folks who thought the earth was
>flat and covered by a huge blue cover.
>
Your opinion, you're free to continue to believe in it. You're also free to
continue to preach it, and by doing so you are fulfilling the word of God by
leading into captivity those who do not believe, and you will be cast in
outer darkness with them.
>
>This universe which I believe was created (that's the most logical
>option as far as I can imagine so far), is filled with beautifuol
>mysteries....we do not need to mystify that which is now known.
>
You mean that it was "self created". When was the last time you saw anything
that created itself?
>
>For instance, that story about adam and eve is ridiculous. There is
>positive proof that human beings have been on this planet for millions
>of years - not the 10 thousand or so years since the so-called creation
>of Adam. And what is this about eve being created from Adam's rib? How
>sexist can one get. Why not the most likely situation where the first
>human would be the one that is actually able to give birth (i.e. the
>female?).
>
Sounds like you have nothing but questions, and no answers. Why don't you
create some logical answers, since you refute God's version of his creation?
>
>I am not claiming to know which one came first - the man or the woman -
>but it seems to me the Adam's rib thing is weak.
>
Everything is weak if you don't believe.
>
>Okay ! got to go brother. Talk to you soon. I am glad we can speak of
>something other than Chimè and GNB. May the Creator continue to bless
>you !
Anytime.
Jules
>
I asked:
> Where does it say that? I'd like you to show it to me.
>
>Basing their beliefs on texts like Matthew 1:18, most Christians accept
>both the "virgin" status of Mary and the "godly" origin of Jesus. "This
>is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was
>pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was
>found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
>
virgin. It simply said that she was found to be with child. Do you
Light" and there was light? Do you think that God had to have had sex with
Mary in order for her to become pregnant? You seem to have a problem with
the word omniscience, or you simply feel that he could not be. If that is
the case say it! but don't put words into the Bible.
>
>that Jesus was at once, son of god and "god" himself....Of course, not
>everyone agreed with these interpretations...so the Nicene creed came
>into play to force everyone into compliance as we will see below...
>
the interpretations of his writings.
>
> >Now, if you do not know the history of how many times a
> > set of european men sat down and voted on the subject in order to
> > arrive at this text you call the "word of God".
I wrote:
> Would your objections have been more subdue if those men were Africans?
>
You answered:
In fact some of the early fathers of christianity were black Africans.
>
What difference does it make? God sees the color of the soul, not the color
of the skin.
>
>I specified "european men" to illustrate the fact that two dominant
>features of christianity are eurocentrism and sexism, due to the
>historical path taken once Paul took over the jewish sect to which the
>followers of Jesus belonged and began transforming it.
>
So if he went to Africa instead of Rome, it would then make better sense to
you. I'm not even going to address the sexism stuff.
>
I wrote wrote:
> You, like many others before you will see the error of your ways.
> Hopefully
> for you it will happen before you breathe your last breath. But if it
> happens after physical death you're doomed.
>
You answered:
>Jules, honestly, no human beings knows what happens after death. No
>more than the catterpillar know in advance that it is destined to
>become a butterfly some day. No more than the dog knows it will
>transform into a cow.
>
No faithless human being knows what happens after death. All you have to do
is visit two terminally ill persons waiting to expire, one who is a
christian, one who is not. Then tell me which one is at peace, which one is
tormented.
>
I wrote:
> You're free to think, and to teach that Jesus Christ was a mere man. You
> are
> deceiving many who believe in the things you say or write. By doing so you
> are doing the work of the devil, and you will meet him someday, and you
> will
> suffer with him.
>
You answered:
>Who told you there was a "devil"? What does it look like? Is he more
>dangerous than those human beings dropping bombs on little babies all
>over the globe? Who created this "devil"...Is it like Osama Bin Laden,
>the work of a "goog guy" that ran wild...?
>
It is written in the infallible word of God, and I believe it in its
entirety.
>
> The story of the conversion of Constantin, and of everyone else who claims
> to be a Christian is only God's business.
>
>Wrong Jules! The story of Constantine IS the story of how christianity
>became a religion that outgrew its jewish sect status. It should be the
>business of Christians to know their history in order not to fall into
>blind and dangerous fanatism when they encounter their fellow human
>beings on the planet who happen to have invented other beliefs and
>religions whose history differs from their own.
>
Jesus Christ builds his church, not Constantin.
Matthew 16:15-19 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon
Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And
Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
He also foretold that the story of his birth, life, death and resurrection
will be preached in all the world before the end comes.
Matthew 24:11-14 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive
many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this
gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto
all nations; and then shall the end come.
>
I wrote:
> God did not create religion. He puts man on this earth, he wrote his word
> describing the history of the world from day one, then he sent his son to
> die for those who believe in him. The end of the story.
>
You wrote:
>Of course not. Why would a "good" god create something so divisive and
>limiting as religion. Some men created religion because they refuse to
>admit not to know certain things like how we came to be and what our
>ultimate fate is here or elsewhere. A creator god would have no such
>hangups.
>
You obviously did not understand my statement.
>
I wrote:
> Without Jesus you got nothing.
>
>Jules, "having Jesus" is nothing but an expression.
To you thatt's all it will ever be.
>
> People living on
>planet earth in 2006 "have Jesus" inasmuch as they can "have
>Dessalines", "Have Eistein", "have Martin Luther King", even "Have
>Bush" ....it's all about trying to take strength from the cummulative
>history. Yeshuah was in all likelihood a great inspirational speaker, a
>man of conviction and a wise teacher. Many of the words and actions
>ascribed to him in the bible are amazing and valuable. But, there is no
>need to try to intimidate people into adopting a dead palestinian hero
>for their personal "god", in order to escape an imagined hell or to go
>to a so-called heaven once imagined by folks who thought the earth was
>flat and covered by a huge blue cover.
>
Your opinion, you're free to continue to believe in it. You're also free to
continue to preach it, and by doing so you are fufilling the word of God by
leading into captivity those who do not believe, and you will be cast in
outer darkness with them.
>
>This universe which I believe was created (that's the most logical
>option as far as I can imagine so far), is filled with beautifuol
>mysteries....we do not need to mystify that which is now known.
>
You mean that it was "self created". When was the last time you saw anything
that created itself?
>
>For instance, that story about adam and eve is ridiculous. There is
>positive proof that human beings have been on this planet for millions
>of years - not the 10 thousand or so years since the so-called creation
>of Adam. And what is this about eve being created from Adam's rib? How
>sexist can one get. Why not the most likely situation where the first
>human would be the one that is actually able to give birth (i.e. the
>female?).
>
Sounds like you have nothing but questions, and no answers. Why don't you
create some logical answers, since you refute God's version of his creation?
>
>I am not claiming to know which one came first - the man or the woman -
>but it seems to me the Adam's rib thing is weak.
>
Everything is weak if you don't believe.
>
>Okay ! got to go brother. Talk to you soon. I am glad we can speak of
>something other than Chimè and GNB. May the Creator continue to bless
>you !
Anytime.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > I fear that you are merely repeating vague but convenient hearsay --
>
> Fear not! Instead, read on....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_original_Nicene_Creed_of_325
Evidently you did not read this, for it does not support your
assertions. And only a fool treats Wikipedia as anything but hearsay.
> See also Biblical Canon and the Council of Trent
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
And nor does this, and is likewise hearsay.
Please explain why you offer these as evidence?
Jules
>
>Please explain. I have read every ancient source that mentions the
>First Council of Nicaea, and I don't see this in it.
>
>I fear that you are merely repeating vague but convenient hearsay -- if
>so, please don't.
>
>
> assertions. And only a fool treats Wikipedia as anything but hearsay.
>
how just about anyone can contribute to its content, will not consider it as
anything but hearsay.
I too have in the last few days been reading about the early church
documents. If anything they have reinforced my belief that God's hand was
right in the middle of it all, and that he would not allow any bogus
doctrine by Arius, or anyone else to corrupt the purity of the Gospel. I'm
even more intrigued by the way Arius found his death, which shows that not
even Constantin himself could be snared into allowing false doctrine to be
inserted into the Gospel. Indeed, when our Lord said that the gates of hell
shall not prevail against the building of his church, he really meant it.
The Council of Nicea
When Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius in 323 AD he ended the
persecutions against the Christian church. Shortly afterwards Christians
faced a trouble from within: the Arian controversy began and threatened to
divide the church. The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate
between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius.
Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a
beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was
from nothing like the rest of creation. The Council of Nicea, a gathering
similar to the one described in Acts 15:4-22, condemned the beliefs of Arius
and wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son
was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius."
How Controversial was the Arian Controversy?
There were some three hundred bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea from
all around the world. Eusebius lists many of them and their country of
origin in his writings. It should be remembered that many of those present
had, because of the recent persecutions, suffered and had faced threat of
death for their faith. These were not wishy-washy men. It might also be
remarked, that they were extremely sensitive to details of doctrine. As
evidence of this, the second major concern of the Council of Nicea was to
address the hotly debated question of what the proper day was to celebrate
the resurrection.
The bishops of the Council stopped their ears on hearing the words of Arius
and immediately rejected his teaching as distant and alien from the belief
of the Church. They tore to pieces a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia
containing Arius' teaching, as well as an Arian confession of faith (see the
appendix on the Council of Nicea in Baker Book House's, "Eusebius'
Ecclesiastical History").
Originally seventeen of those bishops gathered at the council were unwilling
to sign the Creed penned by the Council, and all but three of these were
convinced to sign by the end. It is thus apparent that the Arians were a
distinct minority among the bishops. Initially there was some resistance to
the Nicene Creed, not because of what it said but because of how it said it.
Many objected to the use of the word "homoousias" in an official document
because it was not used in Scripture, despite their agreement with the
meaning it conveyed.
The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a
new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they
used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new.
Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops
assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the
Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This
they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was
in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338).
In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers
[in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your
phrases?" (Ibid, p325)
It must be concluded, then, that the controversy was between a great
majority who held the belief that the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed
was ancient and Apostolic, and a minority who believed that Arius' new
interpretation of the faith was correct .
The Word Homoousious
The Nicene Creed introduced the word "homoousious" or "consubstantial"
meaning "of one substance." This word was not invented at the Council.
Eusebius writes that some of the "most learned and distinguished of the
ancient bishops had made use of consubstantial in treating of the divinity
of the Father and the Son" (See document E in the Appendix, Baker). We do
not have the sources that Eusebius must have had regarding the use of this
word. Today, the only source is Origen who used the word in what seems the
orthodox way (Johannes Quastren, "Patrology," Volume 2, p78). However, this
phrase of Eusebius stands as a witness to the existence of wider use.
The bishops assembled at Nicea were careful to explain how they used the
word, and what it meant. This is because it had been misused by Paul of
Samosta. Regarding this unorthodox usage, St. Hilary and St. Basil say that
it was said to be "unfit to describe the relation between the Father and the
Son" at a council that met in Antioch (Ibid, p14). Apparently Paul of
Samosta applied the word in a manner that implied division of nature, as
several coins are from the same metal (Baker, p21).
The Role of Constantine
The controversy greatly agitated Emperor Constantine, and he sent a letter
to Arius and Alexander in an attempt to persuade them to lay aside their
differences. He wrote, "This contention has not arisen respecting any
important command of the law, nor has any new opinion been introduced with
regard to the worship of God; but you both entertain the same sentiments, so
that you may join in one communion. It is thought to be not only indecorous,
but altogether unlawful, that so numerous a people of God should be governed
and directed at your pleasure, while you are thus emulously contending with
each other, and quarrelling about small and very trifling matters."
It has been suggested that because Constantine referred to the issue as
"trifling" that he did not really understand it. Strangely, it is recorded
in a letter by Eusebius of Caesarea that the Emperor suggested the key word
"homoousious" that appears in the Nicene Creed. He says the Emperor
explained the term as well, showing its difference from the heretical usage
by Paul of Samosta. It has been speculated that the Emperor made his
suggestion at the prompting of Hosius of Cordova, the Emperor's advisor and
a man who was persecuted under Maximian.
Constantine did play an important role at the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea
reports that he played an key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all
to agreement on contested points. The account of Eusebius fairly glows in
regard to the Emperor, and he is portrayed as a key figure. It is nowhere
suggested, however, that he was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that
he used any form of force to obtain an outcome.
It may be that the eloquence and glory of the Emperor had sway with some,
however it should be remembered that he did eventually (years after the
Council) support the Arian party. A few years after the Council of Nicea,
Arius discovered a new way to interpret the word "homoousius" that agreed
with his doctrines. He then asked to be readmitted to communion, but the
Church refused. Arius then appealed to the Emperor. Emperor Constantine's
favorite sister, Constantia, on her deathbed, implored Constantine to
support Arius and he did so. A date was set for the forcing of the Church to
readmit Arius, but while he was waiting for Constantine to arrive Arius
stopped to relive himself and his bowels burst and he died. (See Arians of
the 4th Century, Chapter III, Section II by John Henry Newman)
It is hard to imagine how a man who had supposedly argued with eloquence for
the Nicene Creed and who supposedly formulated the key phrase and explained
it would simply abandon it for a mere submission to the words and not the
meaning of the Creed. It is also hard to imagine how the account of Eusebius
can be reconciled to the Emperor's apparent failure to grasp the issue
apparent in his letter. It is also hard to imagine how a man who had been
such a humble servant of the Church at Nicea would attempt to force the
Church to accept his decisions at this later date. It seems reasonable on
these grounds to suppose that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a less than
accurate account designed to give credit and flattery to the emperor.
Nor was Constantine the last emperor to side with the Arians. Athanasius
writes concerning this in "The Monks' History of Arian Impiety' (AD 358)
saying, "When did a decision of the Church receive its authority from the
emperor?" and "never did the fathers seek the consent of the emperor for
them [councilar decrees of the Church], nor did the emperor busy himself in
the Church." He goes on to say that the heretics banded with the emperor.
(See Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, by William Jurgens).
The Church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what
he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith.
However one describes the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, it
must be remembered that the Creed of Nicea expressed what the great majority
of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of
the Christian faith, a faith in which they believed so firmly that they were
willing to die for it.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
Jules.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Please explain. I have read every ancient source that mentions the
> >First Council of Nicaea, and I don't see this in it.
> >
> >I fear that you are merely repeating vague but convenient hearsay -- if
> >so, please don't.
> >
> > assertions. And only a fool treats Wikipedia as anything but hearsay.
> >
> Indeed, anyone who knows anything about the compilation of Wikipedia, and
> how just about anyone can contribute to its content, will not consider it as
> anything but hearsay.
It's fine where the article isn't a matter of religion or politics --
although it's still purely whatever someone happens to know or
remember. But anything vaguely controversial is simply a war-zone, and
the expert finds himself edited out by the weenie bigot who knows
nothing but is determined to have the article express his opinion.
(That is personal experience, by the way).
> I too have in the last few days been reading about the early church
> documents. If anything they have reinforced my belief that God's hand was
> right in the middle of it all, and that he would not allow any bogus
> doctrine by Arius, or anyone else to corrupt the purity of the Gospel. I'm
> even more intrigued by the way Arius found his death, which shows that not
> even Constantin himself could be snared into allowing false doctrine to be
> inserted into the Gospel. Indeed, when our Lord said that the gates of hell
> shall not prevail against the building of his church, he really meant it.
>
> The Council of Nicea
> When Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius in 323 AD he ended the
> persecutions against the Christian church. Shortly afterwards Christians
> faced a trouble from within: the Arian controversy began and threatened to
> divide the church...
All sound enough.
jafri...@hotmail.com
> You still have not shown me where it is said that Got has impregnated a
> virgin. It simply said that she was found to be with child. Do you
> understand that God through his omniscience wills the future and the present
> into, and out of existence? Do you understand that God said "Let There Be
> Light" and there was light? Do you think that God had to have had sex with
> Mary in order for her to become pregnant?
Jules, le us read the text again Matthew 1:18
"This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was
pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together....
(does this not mean, before she had sex with Joseph?), she was found to
be with child through the Holy Spirit". (does this not mean that she
was made pregnant by or through the Holy Spirit? Isn't the Holy Spirit
one of the 3 manifestations of the christian god, precisely as defined
in the Nicene creed?).
see: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055702 (I hope you have less
problems with Britannica than with wickipedia)
> No faithless human being knows what happens after death. All you have to do
> is visit two terminally ill persons waiting to expire, one who is a
> Christian, one who is not. Then tell me which one is at peace, which one is
> tormented.
This does not prove anything Jules. Have you ever heard of placebo
effect. Obviously faith does help people in the daily lives. Whether
it is the Ancient Egyptians preparing their afterlife with elaborate
ceremonies and monuments or 21st century christians receiving the last
confession from a Catholic priest, or a protestant "making peace with
god and receivin Jesus" before the last breath, it's all about
psychology. Afterall, we still understand only partially how our body
(particularly our mind) works.
> You answered:
> >Who told you there was a "devil"? What does it look like? Is he more
> >dangerous than those human beings dropping bombs on little babies all
> >over the globe? Who created this "devil"...Is it like Osama Bin Laden,
> >the work of a "goog guy" that ran wild...?
Very authoritatively, Jules wrote:
> Jesus Christ builds his church, not Constantine.
Jules, isn't true that Jesus was born, raised and actually died
practicing JUDAISM in the temples he found his ancestors going to
worship? Doesn't the bible actually mention that he was crucified and
mocked as "king of the jews"? When did Jesus build this non-jewish
"church" we read about in Matthew 16?
Hopefully, you will agree with me that the existence of the text you
quoted below...
> Matthew 16:15-19 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon
> Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And
> Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh
> and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
> And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
> build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I
> will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou
> shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
> loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
...is somthing whose historical tracks can and have been determined.
i.e. Matthew 16:15-19 did not just land in a book that came down
miraculously from heaven with the title "Bible - word of God" written
all over it. The history of how these texts came into being is for the
most part known to historians - although there are some areas of
uncertainty and debate.
So, is it not reasonable to ask some questions about how the men
(because it was men) who wrote, assembled, and attributed these text to
god went about achieving this feat?
Yes, it was a process that span over many years but the date April 8,
1546 (Council of Trent) was pivotal in my opinion. That is when with an
iron hand a set of politicians dictated what can and cannot be
considered "word of God".
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9381118
"8 avril 1546, towo legliz yo vote (24 anfavè, 15 kont, 16
abstansyon) yon dekrè (De Canonicis Scripturis) ki tabli aklè zafè
kesyone sa ki ekri nan "Bib" ofisyèl legliz la pa gen sa pyès -
se yon kesyon lafwa! Kidonk, moun ki pèmèt yo kesyone kontni liv
ofisyèl legliz la, yo konsidere yo kòm "Anatèm" (nou konnen kisa
ki rive moun legliz konsidere madichonnen (Anatèm) - sa ki mouri
zafèrayo!). Sou menm ekzanp legliz Wòm nan, plizyè legliz swadizan
pwotestan tabli "pwofesyon lafwa" pou fidèl yo aksepte "Bib"
yo adopte a kòm pawòl Bondye, laverite levanjil. Nan pwofesyon Lafwa
sa yo, souvan pwotestan yo nonmen aklè 27 liv ki dwe fè pati vèsyon
"ofisyèl" Nouvo Kontra a (Alewè Konfesyon Lafwa Franse yo 1559;
Konfesyon Labèljik 1561; Konfesyon Lafwa Westminster 1647)" in Viv
Bondye ! Aba Relijyon
Indeed, not only did these men vote to decide what text are fit to be
"word of god", they used their political and militarypower to ensure
all dissenters are silenced.
"If, however, anyone does not receive these books in their entirety,
with all their parts (cum omnibus suis partibus), as they are
accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the
ancient Latin Vulgate edition as sacred and canonical, and knowingly
and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be
Anathema".
http://www.ntcanon.org/closing-west.shtml
In an earlier message you seem to praise the works of these councils
which established the bible compilation, you should also realise that
upon reading the actual texts of resolutions reached at these councils,
the men in robes have also made some resolutions that would make all
hair rise over your protestant head. For instance, at Trent, this early
version of the "Conseil des sages" declared:
"Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has,
following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers,
taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council
that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided
by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable
sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they
strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory,
transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and
maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and
preached."
and, obviously knowing that somebody is bound to call their bluff, they
also declared at Trent:
"If anyone says that the bishops who are chosen by the authority of
the Roman pontiff are not true and legitimate bishops, but merely human
deception, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"
Now, obviously, being declared anathema by these folks was no joke.
Some got tortured and dumped in jail, like our friend Galileo who kept
insisting that the sun does not move around the earth but it's the
opposite, regardless of the fact that Josuah is said to have gotten god
to "stop the sun in its track". Eventually Galileo, like the protestant
leaders who did not want to die made "confessions" pretending to accept
they were wrong. Others like Savonarole got killed. Meanwhile, the sun
is where it has always been and the earth keeps turning and turning.
So, its up to you Jules, if you want to beleive these crazy dictators
were 1) always under god's inspiration or 2) sometimes under god's
inspiration (like when they decided which books to include and which to
exclude from the bible), sometimes under Satan's inspiration (like when
they decided on the existence of the purgatory, the holiness of Mary or
to execute Savonarole because he has been deemed to be anathema.).
To me the choice is simple. Men who refuse to admit their limitations
and to rely on the collective accummulation of knowledge by the human
species to understand what was once mysterious will continue to make up
amazing stories and use violence to force relunctant others into
compliance. When necessary they use bombs, inquisition style executions
or, when nice like you they use psychological threats....as in "you
will burn in hell because you don't believe in the same set of theories
that I have adopted".
Yes, I have more questions than answers and I don't apologize for it. I
admire men like Einstein who lived by the african proverb "mwen konnen
m pa konnen" (I know that I do not know). So, if you ask me about the
number of stars that exist in the universe, i will answer I do not
know. If you ask me how did men and all that exist come to be, my only
honest answer is I do not know. If you ask me what i think the best
theories are about the presence of men on earth, I will seek the best
info archeology has to offer to date and will share it based on the
evidence but I will not tell you, according to a book compiled in the
4th century that a guy named Adam has his rib taken out so that a woman
could be created....Collective human knowledge has gone beyond these
tales of another era. I mean, how many dinosaurs were in Noah's boat?
How close were the men of Babel from reaching "heaven" when god
panicked and caused their language to become confused.....all these are
tales of another era. Man trying to make sense of what is mysterious to
him.
I met the Yara Yara of Australia and they have their own creation story
how snakes made the rivers etc.... are these stories inferior to the
Adam and Eve story, just because these oral traditions were not written
down and forced upon colonized peoples?
Finally let me offer a final quote from my book:
"Menm jan nou pa ka atann nou pou yon foumi ki nan kwen chanm nou an
eksplike yon lòt foumi plan lavil Pòtoprens, se konsa tou nou pa ka
atann nou pou okenn moun rive eksplike detay sou istorik linivè.
Senpman, nou kwè, obsèvasyon linivè, grandè li, bèlte li, lòd ki
ladan li, tousa se siy ki ka konvenk anpil moun sou ekzistans epi
pouvwa Bondye kreyatè a."
respè konpatriyòt!
Jaf