Which of all churches on earth is the only true church?

[AmbiguousGuy]

Here's your original quote:

I told you that I had edited that message to address your question. And you acknowledged that I had done so. And now you post the original, unedited quote to prove something? What's up? Why not relax and let's discuss truth and stuff.

You then claimed to have used the whole "priestly robes" thing as a metaphor. When you used that term, (which is faux-poetic) you were being derogatory toward Jesus and toward Christian authority.

Please don't try to tell me my intent. Frankly, I think that anyone who would take my statement as derogatory must have a pretty big chip on his shoulder.

You hold Jesus accountable for some sort of abuse of power,

No. That's your chip speaking.

but then claim that you don't think Jesus ever existed. It ****** me off because it's dishonest and a holier-than-thou position. it's obvious that you think religious authorities are full of crap - especially with your use of the derogatory, faux-poetic reference.

I think you're going to be ******* off no matter what I say. Just my opinion. I wish it weren't so. I'd like to have a discussion with you.

We'd all rather that you simply be honest.

Ugly stuff, sojourner. If your God search leads you to such behavior, I think maybe you might take a deep breath and reconsider some of the paths you've taken.

I don't like your tone and I don't care for your debating style. It's underhanded and dishonest. Just be honest: You don't think Jesus existed. You think that the religious authorities are full of crap. We can deal with that.

I think that the moderators should pull your posts. Not that they bother me. I'm used to it. But I think it pollutes the tone of this place.

 

[sojourner]

If you stub your toe on a rock, the rock was the cause of your pain.

And yet the rock was not culpable... yes?

No, my klutzyness was the cause of my pain.

Why not think about the human who is sending you those words... his actual meaning.

If you want that to happen, you have to say what you really mean. Be honest. Say "Our misguided ideas about Jesus are the cause." to do it otherwise is to lay false blame.

Frankly, I think that anyone who would take my statement as derogatory must have a pretty big chip on his shoulder.

You're doing it again -- using my alleged unbalance as a smokescreen. Your statement was taken as derogatory because it was a derogatory statement, made in a derogatory fashion. if you didn't mean it that way, why did you say it that way? Be honest.

No. That's your chip speaking.

No, that's what you said. Once again (same song, third verse) if you don't mean it, don't say it -- be honest.

I think you're going to be ******* off no matter what I say.

Long as you refuse to be honest, I'll probably continue to be disgusted with your posts.

Ugly stuff, sojourner. If your God search leads you to such behavior, I think maybe you might take a deep breath and reconsider some of the paths you've taken.

Insisting upon honesty in debate is "ugly stuff???" If my spiritual search leads me to identify hyperbole when I see it, so much the better.

I think that the moderators should pull your posts. Not that they bother me. I'm used to it. But I think it pollutes the tone of this place.

Oh, yes. I'm the nasty one, and you're above all that sort of thing.
Underhandedness does not become one of your intelligence.
your attempt at manipulation will not work.

while I agree that those who think they have "the truth" can be dangerous, I don't agree with your implication that the plriesthood as an institution -- or Jesus -- are to blame for that condition. You're scapegoating religion here, and that's neither fair or honest.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, my klutzyness was the cause of my pain.

Yes. Just as it's the priesthood's fault, rather than Jesus' fault, for embracing certainty about His Truth.

If you want that to happen, you have to say what you really mean. Be honest.

Since we're being direct with each other now, I'll say that I don't think you'd recognize honesty if it bit you on the butt. You seem entirely unfamiliar with the concept. Sorry... that's my honest opinion.

So when you advise me to be honest, it's as if I'm listening to a child admonish me to try and be mature.

Your statement was taken as derogatory because it was a derogatory statement, made in a derogatory fashion.

Yes, sure. And it's not my opinion that your baby is ugly. It's that your baby is ugly.

Try to understand that words don't mean things, sojourner. Only people can mean things. I think that may make it easier for you to communicate with me and with everyone else in your life.

A statement can't be derogatory all by itself, no more than a word can be bigoted.

Is the word '******' bigoted? Of course not. It depends on the meaning which the speaker puts into the word. I hear black people calling each other '******' all the time. And they're the best of friends.

I suppose if you were there when they did that, you would insist that the speaker is being bigoted... since the word '******' is bigoted?

That would be an unthoughtful concept of language and human behavior, I think.

if you didn't mean it that way, why did you say it that way? Be honest.

You know nothing of how language works, but you insist that I say things as you want them said. Goodness.

No, that's what you said. Once again (same song, third verse) if you don't mean it, don't say it -- be honest. Long as you refuse to be honest, I'll probably continue to be disgusted with your posts.

I'm going to leave it here unless you continue in your ugly aggression.

Sometimes it's better to break things off.

 

[Shermana]

If that is so, then was the gentiles that were brought into Christianity in the begging Torah Observant Jews? I dont think so since there are verses from the Apostles that talked about if the Gentiles that they brought into the religion would observe the Torah or not, and the answer was no.

And it is still like that today. When Jews convert to Catholicism, they to sometimes keep some of the practices and traditions, but us that are not from a Jewish background or raising, have no need to imitate. Its not our culture.

So according to you, the converts didn't have to worry about the laws like not marrying their sister? Why were they forbidden from eating blood at least? Did gentiles not have to worry about the Law not to defraud? Were Gentiles allowed to strike their parents? If not Why not and what was the penalty for smacking dad?

The main issue was about Circumcision which is not even part of the Law itself, only for one's child to undergo the procedure. A convert is to make the decision on his own, Abraham waited til he was 90.

There is speculation that the Council of Jerusalem and Acts 15 were inventions of the anti-Judaizers, such as in the Dutch Radical critic school.

Regardless, why even have a prohibition to not eat blood? And where does it say they weren't allowed to steal?

 

[Storm]

MOD POST

Thread closed for staff review.
​