Ah well!

I can only conclude one thing for sure. Something got lost in your 'translation' of my post!!!

How can
'... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience,
and what some radicals would impose as
'... WHAT IS TRUE FOR ME, IS THE TRUTH FOR ALL...', which is a slip into delusion,
be associated to the 'BELIEVE IN THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN DOGMA, OR DIE!' of the moral correctors of the 'christian inquisition'?

I guess translation is a matter of perception, ... and 'one's perception is what 'one' holds as true.

I welcome the controversial 'label' funches,
... as long as we mean an 'inquisitive' attitude: preferring questions to answers.
Or even from history, where the inquisitor were in charge of 'eliminating' heresy.
Just as long as you don't associate me with the dogma of those christian inquisitors, for I wish no harm to the fundamentalists. I simply want to remind them over and over again, that there is a cure for heresy and delusion!!!

Sincere wishes for a powerfully 'onthological' new year to you 'funches', 'guardian of the sanity', ... and most effective cure against delusion!!!

Two interesting points here:

FIRST,
you have two people 'acting' like fundamental christians, where 'one' feel the condescending need to correct the 'other'.

I don't judge either Eljay nor Cowboy, but the string of posts and comments from the two posters leaves a taste of radicalism.
Of course there are all sorts of radicalisms, but the religious fundamentalist kind is particularly explosive. It is the definitive kind. The radicalism from which all others are subjected:
'... BECAUSE 'god' wrote so, or because 'god' inspired man so, or because 'god' told me so...!' depending on the personal the believer lends to the words.

While Eljay positions himself here as the patriarch of the 'let me tell you which is the 'truth of truths' here!!! ... Which one of them is 'IT' ??? ... Which human version, interpretation, elevation of the mind to a particular belief of 'one', is definitive??? We are still left with an overwhelming mass of contradicting interpretations, and soooo far from even a hint of 'definitive'!!!

The only (definitive) truth about it all, is NONE!!! Of course, none of the above is the 'definitive truth'!!! Might be what occurs to be true for 'one', but not THE truth. Not ever!!!

So the problem with this 'family' of radical posters is precisely the fact that what is true for them, gets confused and collapses with the false concept of THE truth.

The absolute truth, 'god's' truth!!! ... each 'one' of those radical posters, insists on 'selling' you on the lie that 'HIS', is the 'definitive truth'. Not surprisingly, the 'truths' are always different depending on which false prophet, paper pope, or 'through the spirit' walking radical you're reading.
In the end, we are left with the impossible task of sorting out the contradicting and moralizing 'definitive truth' boxing matches this family of radicals lends itself to, in this obsessive reflex they have of naming themselves 'carrier' of the 'the WORD', and definitive truth!!!

... and we're right back to the collapse of faith and fact!!!
Our christian radical posters' comments are the direct product of the 'god/TRUTH' DELUSION!!!


As for the SECOND point,
We have our correcting poster suggesting that 'funches' is a 'literalist'?!?!?! And that with such 'literalist', one has to say what one means, and mean what one says, implying that otherwise, with any other type of 'adversary', you can let lose with the party line's usual shitbul!!!

Of course, 'funches' is anything but a 'literalist' (condemned to first degree, 'word-for-word' intrerpretation). While it is not my place to define 'what' or 'who' 'funches' is, the thought of 'literalist' would never come to mind when it comes to 'funches'.
IMHO, he occurs to me as an onthologist, the complete contrary of the 'literalist'.
Ironically, the 'literalists' are the christian radicals, enslaved to their individual interpretation, or their particular version of either 'inspired, spoken, or written 'word-for-word' perceived definitive truth of their individual 'god' !!! ... completely cut-off from reality; from what is so.



Acknowledging this collapse of fact and faith, we could only reconcile what Eljay proposes above, with reality, by establishing ontologically that in Eljay's personal view of things, his belief, distinct from reality, is that he brings his mind to imagine 'as real' the words written in the 'bible' as all inspired by 'his god', and subsequently, as infallible (for him). So far so good.

To elevate one's mind to imagine something distinct or different from what is; from current reality, is perfectly healthy and normal as long as you keep referring it to the context of reality in which we all swim. Call it the creative process. Call an imaginative mind. Nothing delusional so far about that process.

It is rather when one takes one's product of imagination, and dissociates it from reality; from what is so, that we enter the domain of DELUSION!!!

That is the line religious and christian radicals, fundamentalists, bible 'literalists', etc., keep transgressing, keep ignoring.
That transgression, more than any other, gives the false impression that the radical christian is being persecuted, and that is religious beliefs are being attacked!!!

IT IS THE LACK OF INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY, AND THUS INTEGRITY PERIOD, THAT IS BEING RAISED AS A 'GOING NOWHERE' TRANSGRESSION!!!
If anything is attacked (and I don't believe 'attack' is accurate), it would be the absence of intellectual integrity, not christians, and much less their personal privilege of 'belief'.

In the end, without the essence of integrity: coming from a perspective of 'whole', vs coming from a perspective of 'broken', 'sinning', 'partial', 'divided', 'separate',
... nothing, far less salvation, for what it is worth, or an intelligent exchange, as is being attempted in these forums, IS POSSIBLE!!!

Well msharmony,

There is no relation between the bio crossing of siblings, moral crossing of cheating on someone else's mate, and bio crossing in the case of same gender sex.

First of all, same gender sex doesn't cross any line whatsoever!!! Much less does it cross the bio one!

NO transgression of biology: that is just some fast talk prestidigitation from the 'OUT OF INTEGRITY' FANATICAL FUNDIES pushing their dark age dogma, regardless of the intellectual incongruity!!!

NO transgression of any moral lines: it is those whom persecute their fellow human beings based on natural differences, who transgretransgress morality.

Second, if you wish to adhere to a personal belief, in accordance to a particular religious dogma, that is your personal choice, and it applies to your 'private' life.

Once you step into the public domain, you cannot impose your religious dogma onto anyone else.
You must strictly KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!!!
Anything else is manipulative and corrupt. Wouldn't stand the most BASIC INTEGRITY test.

The only thing being crossed here, in the comment that I read above, is an INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY BOUNDARY!!!

msharmony, you should know better than to mix all those distinct categories together!
The motive for such crime against integrity, is plain and simple CONVENIENCE!
The Heterogeneous categories appear to conveniently serve your belief system. And that is fine,
... as long as you keep it personal and private.

... but when you don't, and the boundary is crossed, the discourse no longer holds intellectual integrity

The moment these beliefs cross into the public domain, as would be the case for all militant and fanatically religious positions carried by fundamentals, and confuse faith and facts, all you have left is delusion and heresy.

Might not ever be able to eradicate our societies of obsessive compulsive 'fundies', ... but the sane religious people must see the urgent importance of denouncing the divisive, exclusionary, and judgemental delusions of the fundies!!! At least render their 'radicalism' inoffensive.

Jeeezzzz Arcamedees!!! Why did you have to spoil this!!!

The Kool-Aid was just starting to produce a buzzzzzzz!

Typos, mistranslations, opportunistic misinterpretations, contradictions miraculously erased by the HS!!!

Powerful anesthesia.

Thank you Eljay. My christmas with 2 'brand new' little beings of grandchildren was most enjoyable!!! And I'm glad to hear you also had an enjoyable christmas.

My comment about a 'hard christmas' was responding to your '... bring it down a notch', and 'blood pressure up' comments, which certainly didn't match my reality.

Now, there's a point where the 'getting closer' to an understanding, MUST LAND a constructive and common understanding!!!

This post raises the counter productive (for non-christians) and anti-christian (for christains) words and actions of christian fundamentalists (the only fundamentalists that are the responsibility of North American societies), and suggests that we all have a responsibility to denounce it, and support those whom are honest enough to move away from it.

So beyond 'getting closer' to an understanding Eljay, can we say that we both agree to DENOUCE, AND/OR SHOW DISSENT towards the doctrines and dogmas of a highly vocal group of christian radicals whom give christianity, and western civilization as a whole a bad name.

I genuinely think that whether from a political, social, or religious standpoint, christian fundamentalists have over extended and abused the privileges freedoms granted by the very society that has granted them those privileges and freedoms.

I wouldn't of telling even the christian fundamentalists what they should think or believe. But where the abuse is committed is where they (small minority) come an impose their 'view of the world' and beliefs, as you have often said, on the rest of society as a whole, with total disregard for well established societal principles, laws, and in the end the very constitution.

Let's keep those radical members of our North American family in line Eljay.

Eljay,

Down a notch??? Blood pressure up??? You must have had a hard christmas. There isn't a hint of stressful intent in any of my comments as you seem to imply.

And, you missed the answer and point I was making in my previous post.

Far from stressful, I thought the post was clear in establishing that the question you keep asking, is a trick question.

All christians get their definition of what it is to be a christian from the bible.

A trick question I say, because you imply that it might come from somewhere else, which is a false and misleading premise. All the different definitions of 'christian' come from the bible. They may not agree with your interpretation of the radical and 'littearist' 'words-for-word' interpretation of the book, and thus the definition YOU derive from it, but the definitions of 'christian' all come from the bible.

You will argue that yours is the purest, the most 'true to the word', and that anything else is a perversion. '... they added stuff!!!' or they don't interpret this part or that part as it should be (like YOU DO!...) you will claim, '...forfeit christians all of them!!!...'

You need to regroup, and ask yourself where you're going with this 'divisive' and 'self-righteous' mentality.

Claiming that all catholics are forfeit christians, whatever your reasons for such claim, robs you of all credibility, and puts your reasoning in the camp of the warring and divisive fundamentalists.

If you are not a fundamentalist as you claim, and I trust you when you say that, you must revisit the divisive, self-righteous and moralizing language which contaminates with fundie dogma, your otherwise well-intended comments.

And since you and I agree on the essence (radical extreme and fundamentalist christians are a perversion of all that is christian), then you and I can join forces Eljay, you as a devout and bible sourced christian, and I as a 'cultural' christian, in lovingly and compassionately denounce the destructive and hate-filled words and actions of fundamentalist christians.

You will certainly agree that the various forms of fundamentalisms around the globe cannot be fought by our brand of christian fundamentalism!?!?!?

That's the '... an eye for an eye...' of the old testament!!! Certainly not Jesus's wisdom!

What is the sourced of the various definitions of christian ??? ALL BIBLE SOURCED!!!

Now let's denounce christian fundamentalism, as Jesus denounced the Pharisee's, and move on.

It isn't. But the point here is not who is interpreting it - but where they're getting their interpretation from. Is this not the central issue to this discussion? Where else can one get an accurate definition of what a Christian is but from scripture? Any other source of a definition is relying on an opinion of what someone thinks the bible says.



You assume quite a bit here neither claimed - or evidenced. For one, I've never offered a definition of Christianity - just the means of locating an accurate one. And it doesn't matter what one believes or adhere's to. I'm not an Atheist (though I've experienced being one in the past), but I'd hardly seek my definition of one amoungst the Amish. I'm sure if you ask any Atheist where the better place to find a definition of Christianity is - the bible or the dictionary, they'd come up with the right answer on that one, so I have no idea what this "fundamentalist gibberish" is all about in terms of locating a definition of who and what a Christian is.

And as to who and what I was "taught" about what I believe... No one "taught" me about what I believe, other than to demonstrate to me what is wrong about what they believe. I've spent enough time around Cults - both Christian and non, to know how to discern when someone has a grasp o the truth or not.



You're babbling here Voile. All I asked is where you're getting your definition of what a Christian is if it's not from the bible itself. What's this nonsense about judging?




Eljay,

Let's get real for a moment here. So YOU read the bible!!!

At last count 1,4 billion catholic christians read the bible, nearly 450,000 more Greek Orthodox christians read the bible, and so on.

YOU are but ONE of nearly 2 billion people whom have read, or keep reading the bible.

YOUR definition of ANYTHING you claim to be YOUR DEFINITION is straight out of the personal interpretation YOU make of whatever it is YOU read (includes the bible), and whatever it is YOU seek to define personally.

Without YOUR personal interpretation, the bible is but an undistinguished piece of matter!

You have a personal interpretation of whatever it is you experience (includes your reading of the bible), and so does everyone else.

Catholic christians read and interpret the bible just like YOU. Their interpretation may differ from YOURS, but they read the bible just like you do. You suggest they're not christians unless they arrive at the same interpretation of the bible as you have.

WHO ARE YOU TO MAKE SUCH A PREPOSTEROUS CLAIM!!!
Why should YOUR simple and personal interpretation of a book be 'THE DEFINITIVE INTERPRETATION OVER ALL'!!!

This is what is being discussed here Eljay!!! Fanaticism! Fundamentalism! Extremism! ... the mascarading of a supreme righteous individual interpretaion of one over all others!!!

Pick a number Eljay. We are all 'supreme', or none of us are!!!

Your definition of christian coming from the bible means absolutely nothing. YOUR personal interpretation holds all of YOUR meaning. That's it Eljay. You are confusing YOUR interpretation with the 'ultimate interpretation'. YOURS, is just one of an overwhelming possibilities of just as legitimate interpretations as your own.

And that is what we, all of us, need to start reconciling and dealing with. This is what this post is about: the simplistic delusion of all fundemantalisms, and christian fundamentalists in particular for us North Americans, is a virus from which we all need to heal our North American and Western World community.

Humility, perhaps, would be the virtue to reclaim at the heart of our new journey.
Questioning our own fanatical dogmas of old, ending the circular monologues which deepen the divisions, and reconnecting with the essence of the simple and straight forward message that Jesus left us with, FREE OF ANY FORM OF RELIGIOSITY, christian fundamentalism or otherwise.

And how may I ask Eljay, that your 'individual and most personal' belief and interpretation of the bible should be any more true, or better, or definitive than the BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION of let's say catholics, Greek Orthodox, Anglicans, English reformists, Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, Calvinism or Zwinglism, etc. ???

If I may be so bold, and since you are not answering the question you are asking others, I will suggest that you my friend are of the christian fundamentalist branch, whom have the least credibility in calling themselves of 'Christ'. Now that wouldn't be you personally, for I believe you could be saved, but it would certainly apply to the words and dogma you have been taught and have adhered to.

Just take account for a brief moment of the content of this single post you are offering us here. I am clear it is not YOU writing these words Eljay. I am clear it is but an automated piece of dogmatic fundamentalist gibberish being written through you.

If I'm wrong, then I would suggest you and your community of fundamentalists need to regroup, for your message here is nothing other than a metaphorical declaration of war on all of humanity, laced with a clear and profound attitude of divisiveness where YOU alone have the truth and everyone without exception is either a form of 'counterfeit christian' (one whom doesn't meet YOUR STANDARDS!!!), member of the wrong religion, an evil-radical atheist, and to make absolutely sure you don't forget anyone in your invalidating genocide, you have invented subcategories inside the christian community such as 'the hypocrites, the 'Luke Warms' and the 'Cultish Legalists'.

No mention of the evangelical-apologetic-fundamentalists?!?!? The only group left out of your genocidal blacklist?!?!?!

This is a pure age old juvenile 'divide and conquer' megalomaniac recipe. NOTHING CHRISTIAN OR CHRIST LIKE ABOUT THE WORDS OF YOUR POST ELJAY.

Moralizing, judging others without just cause, a barbaric mentality of divisiveness will only taking us back to the barbaric dark ages Eljay. Surely you of all people can appreciate this simple evidence ?!?!?!

And remember Eljay, in physics as in life itself, '... exertion of a particular concentration of energy (force) will automatically cause its correlate counter force!!! If you believe in god, well then, that's how god created the playground in which you and I play.

msharmony,

If I didn't know better I would accuse you prestidigitation!!!

A form of willful deceit, a cousin of 'illusionism', used in magic tricks, fast talking, or simple everyday stubborn attitude.

Of course I wouldn't dare suggest that you would willfully take part in any of that yourself.

But when you refuse to acknowledge the concept 'taking responsibility' and yet come back with 'self-accountability', I get flashes of fast talking, avoidance, and deceit.

One's faith or religion does not offer a license to avoid certain facts and reinvent them to suit our convenient dogmas!!!

Self-Accountability is 'ONE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY'!!!

The concept of 'self accountability' doesn't exist without being accountable to others. You are accountable to self only to the extent that you must be accountable to others, and we ought to all be accountable to each other. Anything else is back to barbaric rule of each man/woman for him/herself.

msharmony,

I suggest you confuse responsibility with guilt.

We must take responsibility for that which we claim to be a participant.

We can't be for peace, and condone the actions (through the 'not me' syndrome) of those around us, family, country, churches, religious groups, communities, whom engage in violence.

Taking responsibility is a precondition to integrity, whether spiritual, religious, social, political, or PERSONAL!!!

In our case, it is taking responsibility for our own brand of religious fundamentalism and extremism, and that is the 'christian' brand.

I am a 'CULTURAL' christian, not the believing in the dogma kind. I was born in the judeo-christian culture, and have inherited its mentality, way of thinking, and 'general' view or perspective on life.
I take responsibility for 'our' north american brand of christian fundamentalism/extremism 'virus'. I do so by acknowledging that we are not any 'cleaner', or better than any other groups around the globe, in spite of our delusional claims of superiority.

That is what 'taking responsibility' involves. Very distinct from guilt. Not making the distinction, makes one part of the problem rather than striving for a solution!

Eljay,

You obsessively insist with this 'trick' question of yours.

It becomes clear with this insistence of yours, that you insinuate that there is a definitive 'RIGHT CHRISTIAN' !!! Characterized by (surprise of all surprises) YOUR OPINION, BELIEF, DOGMA, DEFINITION!!! Of course you're going to tell us that it isn't yours, but rather that of a number of other 'personal' individuals whom over the history of christianity have given their particular PERSONAL opinion, belief, dogma of what they consider to be 'the ultimate definition' of chrisitianity, or what it is to be the 'RIGHT KIND OF CHRISTIAN'.

So here is a half answer/question to you Eljay:

OF THE VAST NUMBER OF DEFINITIONS OUT THERE, WHOSE PERSONAL OPINION, BELIEF, DOGMA, INTERPRETATION, AND DEFINITION
OF CHRISTIANITY HAVE YOU ADOPTED AS YOUR OWN, AND WHICH YOU INSINUATE IS 'SUPERIOR' TO ALL OTHERS???

Catholicism
Western Schism
East-West Schism
Protestant Reformation
Theology of Martin Luther
Theology of Ulrich Zwingli
Theology of John Calvin
English Reformation (under HenryVIII, what emerged was a state church that considered itself both "Reformed" and "Catholic" but not "Roman" (and stayed away from the title "Protestant")

Counter-Reformation
The Council of Trent
Revivalism
Restorationism
Modern Eastern Orthodoxy
Liberal Christianity
Christian Fundamentalism
Ecumenism (Catholic or Protestant???)

This represents just a short list of all the different 'individual' currents of ideology and dogma of the same christian family.

To exclude catholics as christian, or catholicism from christianity, is a gross sign of denial, hypocracy or ignorance. It is more often than not the school of thought of christian fundamentalists.

Lastly, you raise in your previous post, the point about addressing 'chrisitian fundamentalism/extrmism', as though we shouldn't, or as though it were unfair?!?!?

Well Eljay, it has to do with owning up!!! Being responsible!!! Very distinct from being guilty, as some might think, being responsible of our 'own' thought/word/action paradigms is an essential part of 'INTEGRITY'.

As long as we are dealing with this 'FUNAMENTALIST/EXTREMISM issue from our own North American, USA, mostly CULTURALLY christian mentality, 'CHRISTIAN fundamentalism/extremism' is the only religious fundamentalism which concerns us. It is (our) North American extremism, which most directly and organically correlates with other fundamentalist/extremisms around the globe.

To keep denying that essential fact is to participate actively in the perpetuation of divisive, violent, and extreme hating of others, our so-called neighbors, whom Jesus only asked to '... love thy neighbor as you would yourself...'

So which 'individual' definition of christian do you subscribe to Eljay???

Well I'm glad to hear that christians can finally drop the old testament!!! Too many of them seemed to use it when it was convenient, and drop it when it became embarassing!!!

This settles this exchange then, and I suggest you move on to tell your christian friends, whom spread intolerance and hatred towards ALL GAYS AND ALL MUSLIMS on these forums, TO STICK TO THE NEW TESTAMENT AND BURN THE OLD ONE!!!

I'm glad we're making progress here msharmony!

Hello Artgurl!

Mixed feelings: very happy to read your soft, caring and thoughtful words, and sad to hear about your mother.

I am not versed in bible stuff, but since you appear to ask for christian related words, I thought some of these might fit the bill.

Love to you and your Mom. Given who you are, your mom can sure leave in peace, knowing that she contributed more than her fare share to humanity.


Here are the words:

I am standing on the seashore. A ship spreads her white sails to the morning breeze & starts for the ocean. I stand watching her until she fades on the horizon, & someone at my side says, "She is gone." Gone where? The loss of sight is in me, not in her. Just at the moment when someone says, "She is gone," there are others who are watching her coming. Other voices take up the glad shout, "Here she comes," & that is dying.--Henry Scott Holland.

Realizing that he would soon be gone from this world one day, Moody said to a friend, "Someday you will read in the papers that D.L. Moody of Northfield is dead. Don't you believe a word of it.

"At that moment I shall be more alive than I am now. I shall have gone higher, that is all--out of this old clay tenement into a house that is immortal, a body that sin cannot touch, that sin cannot taint, a body fashioned like His glorious body. I was born in the flesh in 1837; I was born of the Spirit in 1856. That which is born of the flesh may die; that which is born of the Spirit will live forever."

Dr. Werner von Braun, well-known for his part in the U.S. space program, says he has "essentially scientific" reasons for believing in life after death. He explained: "Science has found that nothing can disappear without a trace. Nature does not know extinction. All it knows is transformation. If God applies the fundamental principle to the most minute and insignificant parts of the universe, doesn't it make sense to assume that He applies it to the masterpiece of His creation--the human soul? I think it does." So live that when the preacher has ended his remarks over your grave, those present will not think they have attended the wrong funeral.

When we die we leave behind us all that we have & take with us all that we are. So live that when death comes, the mourners will outnumber the cheering section.

He whose head is in Heaven need not fear to put his feet into the grave.

When Benjamin Franklin was about to die, he asked that a picture of Christ on the Cross should be so placed in his bedroom that he could look, as he said, "upon the form of the Silent Sufferer."
He wrote in advance the epitaph to be on his gravestone: "The body of Benjamin Franklin, Printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and gilding, lies here...Yet the Work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beautiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author."

An elderly Christian was in much distress as he lay dying. "Oh, Pastor," he said, "for years I have relied upon the promises of God, but now in the hour of death I can't remember a single one to comfort me." Knowing that Satan was disturbing him, the preacher said, "My brother, do you think that GOD will forget any of His promises?" A smile came over the face of the dying believer as he exclaimed joyfully, "No, no! He won't! Praise the Lord, now I can fall asleep in Jesus and trust Him to remember them all and bring me safely to Heaven." Peace flooded his soul, and a short time later he was ushered by the angels into the light of God's eternal day.
For those who have to repeat the dying words of a noted infidel: "I'm taking a leap in the dark."

Now for the contrast. A lad lay dying. Said his mother tenderly: "Is Jesus with you in the dark valley?"
"Dark valley!" he whispered, "it's not dark, it's getting brighter and brighter, Mother. Oh," he murmured, "it's so bright now, that I have to shut my eyes!"
And so he passed away to be with Jesus, who said, "He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."

msharmony,

Can you give one dating book title that promotes violence and rape as a dating tactic???

On the other hand, when you say your big book only promotes 'guidelines of how to live', like some dating book might promote 'guidelines of how to date', you are being opportunistically selective by forgetting most of the 'old testament', which preaches and incites outright divisiveness, intolerance, and hatred.

Again, what authoritative dating book or books have your read, which would advocate extreme tactics such as the old testament, in the dating world?!?!?

msharmony,

I think you should drop the 'dating' analogy.

Last time I looked, I haven't found any hint of a dating 'preaching' group, elevating its 'devoted' daters to to stop at nothing to 'spread' the 'dating dogma'. There are no dating organisms, or 'big book' which suggest to kill, or to 'hate', or whatever it is you find in th e bif book.

Responsibility clearly lies with the initiator, the 'arouser'.
No authority of dating promotes rape?!?!? But many fundamentalist religious authorities promote intollerance, hatred and outright violence. Christian Fundamentalists are clearly a direct product of the christina family as whole.

Take responsibility!

There is no possible dialogue the moment one insinuates, suggests, question or claims outright that Catholics are not christians.

Delusion and deceit is not exclusively the tar of protestant fundamentalists, but all fundamentalists are possessed by that disease.

Fundamentalists don't seem to realize one bit that at the end of the day, their diseased dogma only has room for one christian standing!

The ONE with the 'RIGHT TRUTH', this personal and individual interpretation of the definitive version of EVERYTHING!!!

Eljay, you obviously are not bigotted, shallow and manipulative, but your question: 'what is ons's definition of a true christian?' is bigotted, shallow, and leads to a losing battle, especially when you claim that the largest body of christians, CATHOLICS, in your personal and individual opinion, are not christian unless they meet YOUR PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL FUNDAMENTALIST SOURCED INTERPRETATION of what is a christian!!!

I do not defend catholics or other religious denomination, but the christian house is burning, and the pyromaniacs are christians themselves, lighting up other christian dwellings!!!


Sort that one out first and then get to this 'general religious debate'.

It would be tremendously inappropriate for non-christians to get involved in this millennia old christian battle for primitive and barbaric 'word of god' control.

The way I read it, and with your permission 'yellowrose', I would take to mean a 'denounce' the statement.

I thank you for your straight answer 'yellow'.

OK! So attitude it is.

It is your privilege.

But you can't say I didn't try!

Maybe next time then?!?!?

What's with the attitude 'peter'?

This is a fairly simple and straight forward point being debated here.

Are we as families, groups in society in general, political parties, religious communities, or our nation as a whole, promoting or denouncing hateful words and acts of discrimination against each other?

'none of the above', is seriously ineffective debating form IMO.

Why should you and I be of different camps on this simple question?