"christian scammers/scandals abound"

[kuzadd]

Why is it with any topic on religion -- people pit Islam against Chritianity.

This thread is about people who take other people's money (money meant to go to god -- he does NEED it afterall ) and use it to buy luxury items for themselves.

.

It's about scammers and scandals.

not limited to just taking money, thought that is quite a part of it.

Scandals are another part.

Like Ms Coulter

Like Pat Robertson spouting off to the flock

Like the use of the ultra violent video game Halo III, to get kids to go to church.

Here about that one?

Outrageous!

I was reading up on that one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07hal...ref=todayspaper

Thou Shalt Not Kill, Except in a Popular Video Game at Church

Ken Kenerly, 43, is a pastor who recently started a church in Atlanta and previously started the Family Church in Albuquerque, N.M., where quarterly Halo nights were such a big social event that he had to rent additional big-screen TVs.

David Drexler, youth director at the 200-member nondenominational Country Bible Church in Ashby, Minn., said using Halo to recruit was “the most effective thing we’ve done.â€

In one letter to parents, Mr. Barbour wrote that God calls ministers to be “fishers of men.â€

“Teens are our ‘fish,†he wrote. “So we’ve become creative in baiting our hooks.â€

hey why not liquor'em up!

This is absolutely ridiculous, and this is the new 'tool' to get kids in?????

Interestingly you have to be 17 yrs old to even buy it, but that hasn't stopped these christian churches from using them to lure kids in, ooops I mean "bait" them.

Those buying it must be 17 years old, given it is rated M for mature audiences. But that has not prevented leaders at churches and youth centers across Protestant denominations, including evangelical churches that have cautioned against violent entertainment, from holding heavily attended Halo nights and stocking their centers with multiple game consoles so dozens of teenagers can flock around big-screen televisions and shoot it out.

Allejuiah!

Though I too, wonder why everything has to wonder off, to Islam, when this is about CHRISTIAN scammers and scandals. There are just so many scams and scandals to choose from, heck , just about everyday!

Edited October 16, 2007 by kuzadd

[DogOnPorch]

Ever see that thing in Garden Grove? I walked by it a few times and I was indeed greatly impressed by the sheer opulence of the whole she-bang.

Click here for the opulence I'm talkin' about...

But none-the-less...no suicide bombers.

I don't believe in 'God' btw....but I know bucks when I see 'em.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Always look at what you have left. Never look at what you have lost.

---Rev. Robert H. Schuller

Edited October 16, 2007 by DogOnPorch

[margrace]

Ever see that thing in Garden Grove? I walked by it a few times and I was indeed greatly impressed by the sheer opulence of the whole she-bang.

Click here for the opulence I'm talkin' about...

But none-the-less...no suicide bombers.

I don't believe in 'God' btw....but I know bucks when I see 'em.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Always look at what you have left. Never look at what you have lost.

---Rev. Robert H. Schuller

I wonder what Jesus would think of that? Oh well he is mostly just a figment ot their imagination.

[jefferiah]

I find that a little hard to believe.

I mean that you can accept it.

(that people can espouse the superiority of their faith and you can accept that)

Of course I can. You show me one place where I am quoted saying Islam ought to be banned. This is just common sense Kuzadd, that an Islamic website would teach that Islam is the true faith, while a Christian one would say Christianity is the truth, and likewise for Judaism.

Tolerance and condoning are two different things.

[jefferiah]

THis man, among others, was using ancient texts found in this century as his basis for the fact of how Christianity was developed. Most of what we are taught today came out of texts written hundreds of years after these texts.

Mainly what was being shown on this program was how Christianity and the Deification of Jesus was set up to give the church leaders control of the common man.

You are no doubt referring to the apocryphal gospels. It is common knowledge that the Bible had to be copied and recopied in order to survive. At a certain point when they were deciding on the appropriate books to include in the canon certain ones did not make it. If you read them in comparison with the gospels and such, it is easy to see why.

The Gospel of Thomas for instance is clearly a gnostic book. Gnostism existed before Christianity and when word of Jesus began to spread in Egypt and such areas they simply turned him into a gnostic Jesus. The style of writing in these texts is perhaps more comparable to a Buddhist sutra, than a Gospel. Or perhaps more comparable to Neitszche's style of writing in Thus Spake Zarathustra. In this book Neitzsche uses a characted named Zarathustra (another name for Zoroaster, which was actually the name of the Prophet who founded Zoroastrianism). Neitszche of course knows nothing about what the actual Zoroaster said but makes a collection of sayings, using free poetic license, and writing in a very poetic style. The gospel of Thomas is similar to this. It does not have the ring of an actual written eyewitness account of something, but of a poem.

[jazzer]

At a certain point when they were deciding on the appropriate books to include in the canon certain ones did not make it. If you read them in comparison with the gospels and such, it is easy to see why.

Yeah, like sticking Revelation at the end of the Bible. That's real consistency.

[margrace]

You are no doubt referring to the apocryphal gospels. It is common knowledge that the Bible had to be copied and recopied in order to survive. At a certain point when they were deciding on the appropriate books to include in the canon certain ones did not make it. If you read them in comparison with the gospels and such, it is easy to see why.

The Gospel of Thomas for instance is clearly a gnostic book. Gnostism existed before Christianity and when word of Jesus began to spread in Egypt and such areas they simply turned him into a gnostic Jesus. The style of writing in these texts is perhaps more comparable to a Buddhist sutra, than a Gospel. Or perhaps more comparable to Neitszche's style of writing in Thus Spake Zarathustra. In this book Neitzsche uses a characted named Zarathustra (another name for Zoroaster, which was actually the name of the Prophet who founded Zoroastrianism). Neitszche of course knows nothing about what the actual Zoroaster said but makes a collection of sayings, using free poetic license, and writing in a very poetic style. The gospel of Thomas is similar to this. It does not have the ring of an actual written eyewitness account of something, but of a poem.

No you are completely wrong, this is what the controllers would have you believe. You need to read more of this. Try The Pagan Christ by Tom Harper for instance. The story of Gnosticsm was trully followed until they leaders of the day found out it was harder to control people who followed the Gnostice teaching. Jesus probably was a gnostic and Thomas's gospels were written well before Apocryphal gospels. Even they do not back up each other.

[ScottSA]

No you are completely wrong, this is what the controllers would have you believe.

[M.Dancer]

The Gnostics were on the periphery....their gospels written long after the canon. They are interesting but they are not christianity.

[Argus]

They have harsh rules and are we to judge their moral code?

Yes, you're damned right we are to judge their moral code. What kind of a person would look upon barbarism with such equanimity, and then go on to suggest all cultures are equal?

[M.Dancer]

No you are completely wrong, this is what the controllers would have you believe. You need to read more of this. Try The Pagan Christ by Tom Harper for instance. The story of Gnosticsm was trully followed until they leaders of the day found out it was harder to control people who followed the Gnostice teaching. Jesus probably was a gnostic and Thomas's gospels were written well before Apocryphal gospels. Even they do not back up each other.

Gnostism is foreign to the jews. Jesus may have been many things, a Pharisee an Essene or even a sect that has disappeared, but we can be sure he wasn't a gnostic.

[jefferiah]

No you are completely wrong, this is what the controllers would have you believe. You need to read more of this.

I have read many of the Nag Hammadi texts myself. They were discovered in 1945, I believe. Many of them are published online and you can read them for free. "The controllers" never told me what to think about them when I read them. I read them myself. I have no doubt in my mind that the Gospels are the original accounts. What may be the case is that these texts they found are older than any known copy of the accepted New Testament texts. The oldest copy of the Illiad dates about 500 years after the original. That does not mean a literary work whose original predates the Illiad copy was actually written before the Illiad. The Nag Hammadi texts are dated to about the 4th century, if I am not mistaken. There is an existing fragment of the gospel of John dated circa 125 AD. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains alot of the New Testament and is dated to about 250 AD.

This is not some new idea, Margrace. Every decade or so there is some resurgence in the popularity of these ideas. Same with the ideas put forth in the Da Vinci code. These have been around for ages, but when they are reported on the news they always make it sound as if it were something new. And the sound arguments which refute these ideas have been around just as long.

Another thing, Margrace, is that the main points of the religion which could have been said to have given the Catholics control over the people, are ones which I would say are not even to be found in the Bible, but in extra theological documents. Infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, etc. Now since these were the most important points of power over the people (if you wish) it would stand to reason that they would have altered the Bible to contain them. They did not have to. The average man could not read the scriptures until the Gutenberg press. It was reserved for religious scholars. Which begs another question?

Why on Earth would the "Controllers" of let's say 500 AD bother to fabricate a book in order to control the people, which the people themselves could not even read? That would be pretty useless. Unless of course one Controller said to his mates, "Well, you know fellows, centuries from now there may be a machine which is able to copy texts faster than any scribe and society at large may consume literature faster than they have in any other period of history. So hows about we alter the books before that happens, just in case one of us Controllers is still living 1000 years from now."

They didn't have to tweak books that people could not read, Margrace. If at all there are controllers they would keep them for themselves. Remember Brave New World. Mustapha Mond, is referred to by your own word. "Controller". And he is the only one with a copy of Othello.

Edited October 17, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

I find all the religions have mainly the same views.

Religion is also a personal BELIEF, that means, "keep it to yourself"

There is no such rule.

People are allowed to promote their own beliefs, religious or secular.

You spend a great deal more time creating threads to point the finger at Christianity than any Christian on here does making threads trying to convert anyone.

Edited October 17, 2007 by jefferiah

[jazzer]

There is no such rule.

People are allowed to promote their own beliefs, religious or secular.

So the promotion of "kill the infidels" is okay with you?

Edited October 17, 2007 by jazzer

[margrace]

Another thing, Margrace, is that the main points of the religion which could have been said to have given the Catholics control over the people, are ones which I would say are not even to be found in the Bible, but in extra theological documents. Infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, etc. Now since these were the most important points of power over the people (if you wish) it would stand to reason that they would have altered the Bible to contain them. They did not have to. The average man could not read the scriptures until the Gutenberg press. It was reserved for religious scholars. Which begs another question?

Why on Earth would the "Controllers" of let's say 500 AD bother to fabricate a book in order to control the people, which the people themselves could not even read? That would be pretty useless. Unless of course one Controller said to his mates, "Well, you know fellows, centuries from now there may be a machine which is able to copy texts faster than any scribe and society at large may consume literature faster than they have in any other period of history. So hows about we alter the books before that happens, just in case one of us Controllers is still living 1000 years from now."

They didn't have to tweak books that people could not read, Margrace. If at all there are controllers they would keep them for themselves. Remember Brave New World. Mustapha Mond, is referred to by your own word. "Controller". And he is the only one with a copy of Othello.

This is How they worked the control.

The whole aim of these third- and fourth- centurey Machiavelliam machinations was to obsure and conceal all traces of the deep connection between the "new light" of Chrisian revelation and its Pagan past. "And when Eusebius recored his memorable boast the he had virtually made 'all square' for the Christians, it was an ominous annoucement of what he had done to keep out of sight the mythical and mystical rootage of historical Christianity," This was written by Gerald Massey. "The Gnositics had been muzzled and their extand evidance as far as possible masked. He and his co-conspirators (Eusebius) had done their worst in destroying documents and effacing the telltale records of the past, to prevent the future from leaning what the bygone ages could have said directly for themselves" They made mute all the Pagan voices that would have "cried alout their testimony" against the umparalled imposture when being shaped and perfected in Rome. They in fact succeeded in reducing the first four centuries to total silence on all matters of the most vital importance for any proper understanding of the Christian religion. Massey's last sentience in this passage, however, is the most significant of all. He writes, " The mythos having been at last published as human history, everything else was suppressed to support the fraud."

[jazzer]

The Nag Hammadi texts are dated to about the 4th century, if I am not mistaken. There is an existing fragment of the gospel of John dated circa 125 AD. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains alot of the New Testament and is dated to about 250 AD.

Actually snippets of some of the books/scrolls date back to around 200 A.D. and older in the Greek language.

"... Mohammed Ali Samman admitted that some pages had been lost, burnt or thrown away. Even so, he had laid his hands on a fabulous treasure with its Coptic translations, dating back to the 2nd century AC, of religious and philosophical texts that were even older, initially written in Greek and a few fragments of which had been unearthed by archaeologists some 50 years earlier!..."

link

Edited October 17, 2007 by jazzer

[ScottSA]

So the promotion of "kill the infidels" is okay with you?

Sure, in killtheinfidelland. Not here.

[jefferiah]

So the promotion of "kill the infidels" is okay with you?

Excellent point. Thanks for making it for me. Kuzadd picked Islam out of a batch of non-Christian religions on which to focus when she said, in effect "If someone were to say the Islamic religion is superior there would be an outrage." This was not true. And the interesting thing is that she picked Islam. Because what she is aware of, is that out of all these antithetical religions which are fully allowed to promote themselves, Islam is the one that atrracts great attention.

My reply said in effect that, the promotion of religion, in and of itself, is not what causes the outrage. You are beginning to touch upon the sort of thing that does. I think, it is quite possible to call yourself a Muslim without promoting jihad. I think alot do. The reality is though an astounding number do not. This is what causes the concern.

Edited October 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

This is How they worked the control.

The whole aim of these third- and fourth- centurey Machiavelliam machinations was to obsure and conceal all traces of the deep connection between the "new light" of Chrisian revelation and its Pagan past......... This was written by Gerald Massey.

This is all a very elaborate story concocted 1000 years later of something which could have happened. I can do the same thing.

Gerald Massey would qualify as a new ager today, and alot of their writings, like the Theosophists before them, could easily be given the same charge he gives the Bible. They manipulated facts and history left and right to make everything kosher with their own views. More than making the charge that the Bible was edited in a certain way, they go beyond that and try to tell you what it really said----2000 years ago----based on nothing but their own preconceived notions of what it should have said.

Gerald Massey and the Theosophists would be better candidates to accuse of the daydreams of controlling, me thinks.

Remember Margrace, that no one could even read the Bible until the press. And when that happened the people should have been even more submissive being exposed to the words which you say were concocted to keep them sheepish. But the response to being able to view scripture for the first time was not one of sheepish submissiveness, but rather a theological revolt.

Aside from the fact that the New Testament says that people should respect authority (which seems to me to be quite reasonable, within reason), there is absolutely nothing in the NT that would enable greater control. The Roman Church at the time had things, but they were not things which were found in the Bible, but things they added and wrote in other seperate documents. There was nothing about the RC "indulgences" in the Bible. Nor about the power of the priest to perform "transubstantiation" which they said was necessary to salvation. Various writings of the Roman Church helped to solidify their own political power, but all of these writing are not to be found in the Bible. This is why when the press was invented and the Bible distributed that people began to have this theological revolt. Because they were able to read the Bible themselves, which in no way bound them to some religious organiztion dominated by the laws of men, but rather freed them from it.

[jefferiah]

Yeah, like sticking Revelation at the end of the Bible. That's real consistency.

Revelation is at the end, I would assume because it does not fit with the others in the New Testament which is grouped into Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, then the Epistles, and then finally Revelation. I don't suppose it would have fit in the other groups. Many of the epistles would have been written before some of the gospels in all likelihood as well. Tradition has it that John wrote his Gospel in old age, and that he lived past the age of 100, outliving the others. So that would mean the epistles were all written before his Gospel.

The Gospels deal with the life of Jesus.

The acts of the apostles with their adventures.

The epistles a collection of letters to different churches.

Then Revelation, as a prophetic book, about what is to come....is quite suitable as the final book.

[margrace]

This is all a very elaborate story concocted 1000 years later of something which could have happened. I can do the same thing.

Gerald Massey would qualify as a new ager today, and alot of their writings, like the Theosophists before them, could easily be given the same charge he gives the Bible. They manipulated facts and history left and right to make everything kosher with their own views. More than making the charge that the Bible was edited in a certain way, they go beyond that and try to tell you what it really said----2000 years ago----based on nothing but their own preconceived notions of what it should have said.

Gerald Massey and the Theosophists would be better candidates to accuse of the daydreams of controlling, me thinks.

Remember Margrace, that no one could even read the Bible until the press. And when that happened the people should have been even more submissive being exposed to the words which you say were concocted to keep them sheepish. But the response to being able to view scripture for the first time was not one of sheepish submissiveness, but rather a theological revolt.

Aside from the fact that the New Testament says that people should respect authority (which seems to me to be quite reasonable, within reason), there is absolutely nothing in the NT that would enable greater control. The Roman Church at the time had things, but they were not things which were found in the Bible, but things they added and wrote in other seperate documents. There was nothing about the RC "indulgences" in the Bible. Nor about the power of the priest to perform "transubstantiation" which they said was necessary to salvation. Various writings of the Roman Church helped to solidify their own political power, but all of these writing are not to be found in the Bible. This is why when the press was invented and the Bible distributed that people began to have this theological revolt. Because they were able to read the Bible themselves, which in no way bound them to some religious organiztion dominated by the laws of men, but rather freed them from it.

It always amuses me how hardline controllers fall back on the cliche that "they are new age'. Being in Palliative Care we have some special programs of rememberance of the people who have died, patients, friends and relations. When we had a candle lighting ceremony in these memories we were accused of using "new age" Ideas.

In his famous book Ecclasiastical History, Euebius, the bishop of Caesarea and one of the major shapers of the emerging Chiristian orthodoxy he championed, says that the Gospels of the New Testament were really the old dramatic books of the Essenes, from pre-Christian days. St. Augustine also held the same beliefs. So do you believe as Ian Paisley in Ireland preaches that all Roman Catholics are of the Devil and therefor are evil. He certainly precipitated a blood bath.

[jazzer]

Then Revelation, as a prophetic book, about what is to come....is quite suitable as the final book.

Seems to me that some of the gnostic works could easily fit into the theme of the Christian bible. They are closer to reality and the actual times than Revelation, which has yet to be totally understood. It may be considered prophetic, but it sure doesn't match what came before it IMO. In fact, I think the Gospel of Thomas and the book of Mormon are by far more appropriate to be considered relevant than Revelation.

Edited October 18, 2007 by jazzer

[jefferiah]

It always amuses me how hardline controllers fall back on the cliche that "they are new age'. Being in Palliative Care we have some special programs of rememberance of the people who have died, patients, friends and relations. When we had a candle lighting ceremony in these memories we were accused of using "new age" Ideas.

Granted, but your lighting candles would not elicit such a response from me. Massey most definitely would. Just because one can make the accusation flippantly, in this case I think I am quite justified.

In his famous book Ecclasiastical History, Euebius, the bishop of Caesarea and one of the major shapers of the emerging Chiristian orthodoxy he championed, says that the Gospels of the New Testament were really the old dramatic books of the Essenes, from pre-Christian days. St. Augustine also held the same beliefs. So do you believe as Ian Paisley in Ireland preaches that all Roman Catholics are of the Devil and therefor are evil. He certainly precipitated a blood bath.

I am not aware of the passage by Eusebius. But it still does not sway me. He was a church father perhaps, but not the only one. You will have to provide me with a citation for this, and also Augustine.

Now this last part of your claim is the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. I was pointing out that if there were any Christian laws which in those days could have been employed to keep people under control, they were not found in the Bible, but in Catholic doctrine. Whether or not that was their intention, I will not say. But I do disagree with a great deal of the extra-theology. So do you think my theological dissent from Catholicism is the same as saying Catholics are of the Devil?

The funny part is that when I refer to new age, you accuse me a jumping to a conclusion to make an accusation against someone, and then you return with this, Margrace.

Edited October 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[margrace]

Granted, but your lighting candles would not elicit such a response from me. Massey most definitely would. Just because one can make the accusation flippantly, in this case I think I am quite justified.

I am not aware of the passage by Eusebius. But it still does not sway me. He was a church father perhaps, but not the only one. You will have to provide me with a citation for this, and also Augustine.

Now this last part of your claim is the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. I was pointing out that if there were any Christian laws which in those days could have been employed to keep people under control, they were not found in the Bible, but in Catholic doctrine. Whether or not that was their intention, I will not say. But I do disagree with a great deal of the extra-theology. So do you think my theological dissent from Catholicism is the same as saying Catholics are of the Devil?

Oh Oh you don't read too well, In the first sentence in my paragraph I told you where my Eurebius quote came from, do you want it again, In his famous book "Ecclasicasticall History" Go back and read please. St. Augustines's comes from His Retractiones.

Edited October 18, 2007 by margrace

[jefferiah]

Oh Oh you don't read too well, In the first sentence in my paragraph I told you where my Eurebius quote came from, do you want it again, In his famous book "Ecclasicasticall History" Go back and read please. St. Augustines's comes from His Retractiones.

I read just fine, Margrace. The problem is I do not have time tonight to read all of Ecclesiastical History. Can you please tell me the chapter? Usually when people ask for a citation they don't get told to read an entire volume.

Edited October 18, 2007 by jefferiah