Once again Vicky...missing the point...and not answering the questions...

I said that BSM said you were wrong based of HIS understanding of Christ's teachings.....

and I never said the bible is the word of Christ....but there are teachings from Christ...and about Christ in it.....

and if the bible is pagan....how can you follow the teachings of Christ from a pagan book? Oh yeah that's right....you didn't answer my question of whether or not you read CHrist's teachings from the bible... I was asking what you were saying as i did not understand the question. Yes I read the Bible to see Christs teachings. Yes I have read some one the Gnostic gospels. .you have your own collection of CHrist's teachings....and don't use the teachings in the bible at all right? :shhh: :)

(I only know a bit about the Gnostic Gospels and that it gears toward a more spiritual enlightenment of people(writers) regarding the times of Jesus, and how they believed they had a more spiritual understanding of Jesus and his divinity....but I do know that some of the gnostic writers beleived that there wasn't only one creator....and that Jesus wasn't the only son of God....That is why I call God the Creator. and yes we are all children of the Creator. I'll try to get my hands on some of the literature... http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html seeing that there are so many gnostic writings....but I'm sure you will agree that some of the gnostic fundamentals found their way into the bible.....but still whether you choose to believe the gnostic bibles or not...it was still written by people ...and those writings would have been translated over and over again...just as the bible was )...anyways...I'll wait for your response...and try to respond to as much as you can

Ok...pretty good flow here....now my point in asking you about whether you read the bible...(which you answered yes to), was because you refered to it as a pagan book....

now i won't ask you anything about that response....but I will say that it would not be acceptable to most bible supporters....that someone who doesn't support the bible , and to them is a pagan book.....reads it to see Christ's teachings. You should not call it pagan, and then read it to learn Christ's teachings.......it's a paradox...that's like saying..."hmm lemme read this old pagan book to see how Christ says I should live...." ....see what I mean.....

Anyway...thanks for the link...I'll check it out.....

Cool?.............Cool...... :cool:

Ok...pretty good flow here....now my point in asking you about whether you read the bible...(which you answered yes to), was because you refered to it as a pagan book....

now i won't ask you anything about that response....but I will say that it would not be acceptable to most bible supporters....that someone who doesn't support the bible , and to them is a pagan book.....reads it to see Christ's teachings. You should not call it pagan, and then read it to learn Christ's teachings.......it's a paradox...that's like saying..."hmm lemme read this old pagan book to see how Christ says I should live...." ....see what I mean.....

Anyway...thanks for the link...I'll check it out.....

Cool?.............Cool...... :cool:

It is not a paradox to me. You see paganism as something evil. I do not it is just another religion.
Emperor Constantine had the Bible assembled the Bible as we know to day. He paid for (I think 50 copies) for his new organized Christian religion. The same Christianity that we are speaking about even now. He chose the day of Christ birth to be Dec 25 a pagan High Holiday and Christ’s death Easter a pagan high holiday. He paid the members of the Nicene council that he picked to canonize the Bible that we read today. Emperor Constantine was practicing pagan all this time and did not get baptized till very near death. Thus pagan based the Bible is whether you like it or not.

Read the link below.


http://www.reformation.org/meet_the_first_pope.html

animals will never learn to speak AND understand. evolution is a great big hoax.
Depends on what you mean by "evolution." And I'm willing to bet you money they can "speak and understand." The sad thing is, alot of people who call themselves 'Christian' are what I like to call "trendsheep."
"Speak AND understand" albeit the main form of human communication is NOT the be-all and end-all of communication.
http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_class/44_guides/guide_903/4493_idx.html
"Evolution" does NOT necessarily have to be defined by Charles Darwin. There are variants to the concept evolution,- "learning" is a form of evolution. Instead of going by the defined concepts of others, come up with your own conceptual definition and you'll find that there is more to this world than we touch with our TVs.

But I will say that it would not be acceptable to most bible supporters....that someone who doesn't support the bible , and to them is a pagan book.....reads it to see Christ's teachings. You should not call it pagan, and then read it to learn Christ's teachings.......it's a paradox...that's like saying..."hmm lemme read this old pagan book to see how Christ says I should live...."
But it is acceptable to bible-supporters to glean the teachings of YAHWEH's ONLY begotten son amidst the songs of KNOWN occultists (Solomon), their 5lut daddies (David), spineless/**ssy-whipped husbands ("Adam" and Ahab), muscle-bound-devil-may-care-hedonists (Samson), whores (Esther), women with whoredom as their religion (Ruth-the Moabite who happened to be an ancestor of Yeshua Bar Yoseph), murderers (Samuel, Abram/Abraham, Moses, Saul/Paul) and a motley crew of foul mouthed fishermen, a coward doctor and tax collector?? And then turn right around and proclaim any other book whether it be Buddhist, Hindu or Islam is "not the word of God." Paradox indeed.
And that could be the VERY problem. Instead of embracing righteousness wherever it comes, whenever it comes - too many of these trendsheep are too used to seeing righteousness in the filthy rag form of David, Solomon and the like. This be why when Yeshua rose from the dead and appeared to some of His disciples, they didn't even recognize Him. They knew too much David, Moses, and Abraham. All they knew was good and righteousness mixed with evil and they never learned how to discern, what to keep and what to throw away betwixt the two.

Each of all those people I named EVOLVED. They changed, either in life or in death, some got better and some got worse. It's up to you to be sober and vigilant about what you read. It is not right the way people read this book and cast judgement on others when they are just as bad (if not worse because they can't see themselves objectively!)
Buddha gave up his riches to find the truth. To me, that is a righteous act. The same way Yeshua asked the rich young ruler to commit a righteous act 'sell everything he had etc'.
Granted I may not believe EVERYTHING Buddha did was righteous, granted I may not have the inclination to do EVERYTHING Buddha did - I do believe THAT to be a righteous act and respect it as such. If...IF at the very least I can discern betwixt the three, I know that I have a choice between them. If you cannot discern, you have no choice but to repeat the past.

First off parietal....you didn't make much of a comment towards me, but I will respond anyway....
Most of the people you mentioned from the bible "EVOLVED" as you would say...from their murderous ways...and their promiscuous lives and followed God....still....they were all human...like you and me...who sometimes will make mistakes.....but that does not mean that they cannot say something or do something that is righteous/good. (eg. Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with an intern...but does this change the fact that he was a good leader? No it doesn't...he may have done wrong but the point is...he changed from the way he was...to someone better...) Now I don't support the terrible actions that they may have done, but I do respect the wise, spiritual lessons they helped to teach. Whether we learned from their mistakes or their good deeds....we learned.

And I personally don't judge other religions like I've said already...so you won't hear me calling other religious documents false or whatever else you say people say about them. So it is wrong for someone to do that, just as it is wrong for someone to say the bible is pagan...because that word would imply that a person has no religion,or a heathen, which I think is wrong...cuz then Vicky would have been saying that she reads the book of heathens as well. Which is what I was trying to relay to Vicky in my previous posts.

This is why I said that I wouldn't respond cuz there really wasn't much to say about your response to my post, but I had to let you know of your misconceptions about me...and what I posted. I have stopped being so defensive in my posts because I noticed that a lot of people do that in here...and that creates alot of tension, and starts alot of name-calling...hmmm.... :board2: ...anyway.....see ya....


Cool?.....cool..... :cool:

Depends on what you mean by "evolution." And I'm willing to bet you money they can "speak and understand." The sad thing is, alot of people who call themselves 'Christian' are what I like to call "trendsheep."
"Speak AND understand" albeit the main form of human communication is NOT the be-all and end-all of communication.
http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_class/44_guides/guide_903/4493_idx.html
"Evolution" does NOT necessarily have to be defined by Charles Darwin. There are variants to the concept evolution,- "learning" is a form of evolution. Instead of going by the defined concepts of others, come up with your own conceptual definition and you'll find that there is more to this world than we touch with our TVs.


But it is acceptable to bible-supporters to glean the teachings of YAHWEH's ONLY begotten son amidst the songs of KNOWN occultists (Solomon), their 5lut daddies (David), spineless/**ssy-whipped husbands ("Adam" and Ahab), muscle-bound-devil-may-care-hedonists (Samson), whores (Esther), women with whoredom as their religion (Ruth-the Moabite who happened to be an ancestor of Yeshua Bar Yoseph), murderers (Samuel, Abram/Abraham, Moses, Saul/Paul) and a motley crew of foul mouthed fishermen, a coward doctor and tax collector?? And then turn right around and proclaim any other book whether it be Buddhist, Hindu or Islam is "not the word of God." Paradox indeed.
And that could be the VERY problem. Instead of embracing righteousness wherever it comes, whenever it comes - too many of these trendsheep are too used to seeing righteousness in the filthy rag form of David, Solomon and the like. This be why when Yeshua rose from the dead and appeared to some of His disciples, they didn't even recognize Him. They knew too much David, Moses, and Abraham. All they knew was good and righteousness mixed with evil and they never learned how to discern, what to keep and what to throw away betwixt the two.

Each of all those people I named EVOLVED. They changed, either in life or in death, some got better and some got worse. It's up to you to be sober and vigilant about what you read. It is not right the way people read this book and cast judgement on others when they are just as bad (if not worse because they can't see themselves objectively!) Christ said this to but in different words. Judge not etc. Spec in thin eye etc. he with out sin etc.
Buddha gave up his riches to find the truth. To me, that is a righteous act. The same way Yeshua asked the rich young ruler to commit a righteous act 'sell everything he had etc'.
Granted I may not believe EVERYTHING Buddha did was righteous, granted I may not have the inclination to do EVERYTHING Buddha did - I do believe THAT to be a righteous act and respect it as such. If...IF at the very least I can discern betwixt the three, I know that I have a choice between them. If you cannot discern, you have no choice but to repeat the past.


Parietal_03 you might be 1 of the 3 as well.

First off parietal....you didn't make much of a comment towards me, but I will respond anyway....
Most of the people you mentioned from the bible "EVOLVED" as you would say...from their murderous ways...and their promiscuous lives and followed God....still....they were all human...like you and me...who sometimes will make mistakes.....but that does not mean that they cannot say something or do something that is righteous/good. (eg. Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with an intern...but does this change the fact that he was a good leader? No it doesn't...he may have done wrong but the point is...he changed from the way he was...to someone better...) Now I don't support the terrible actions that they may have done, but I do respect the wise, spiritual lessons they helped to teach. Whether we learned from their mistakes or their good deeds....we learned.

And I personally don't judge other religions like I've said already...so you won't hear me calling other religious documents false or whatever else you say people say about them. So it is wrong for someone to do that, just as it is wrong for someone to say the bible is pagan...because that word would imply that a person has no religion,or a heathen, which I think is wrong...cuz then Vicky would have been saying that she reads the book of heathens as well. Which is what I was trying to relay to Vicky in my previous posts.
May be you don't know what Paganism is. Paganism is a religion that was around long before Christianity and is still here to this day. It has nothing to do with heathens as you imply. Misinterpretation, I am glad there were no bon firers I would have been cooked.
You fear what you don’t understand. I suggest you check out the following links.

http://www.greenbelt.com/news/ic9901.htm read how Pagan is Christmas.
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/ click on the photo above Athens 570 BC

http://www.paganfed.demon.co.uk/
http://www.witchvox.com/
http://www.paganpride.org/

This is why I said that I wouldn't respond cuz there really wasn't much to say about your response to my post, but I had to let you know of your misconceptions about me...and what I posted. I have stopped being so defensive in my posts because I noticed that a lot of people do that in here...and that creates alot of tension, and starts alot of name-calling...hmmm.... :board2: ...anyway.....see ya....


Cool?.....cool..... :cool:

Depends on what you mean by "evolution." And I'm willing to bet you money they can "speak and understand." The sad thing is, alot of people who call themselves 'Christian' are what I like to call "trendsheep."
"Speak AND understand" albeit the main form of human communication is NOT the be-all and end-all of communication.
http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_class/44_guides/guide_903/4493_idx.html
"Evolution" does NOT necessarily have to be defined by Charles Darwin. There are variants to the concept evolution,- "learning" is a form of evolution. Instead of going by the defined concepts of others, come up with your own conceptual definition and you'll find that there is more to this world than we touch with our TVs.

Quoting Vicky ...

It should be about what works for the people involved. (please note I said people not animals as preachers use to create fear. When an animal is able to understand and speak its mind then maybe yes inter species unions)


Vicky was talking about animals being able to understand and speak. She says when that happens then animal marriage/unions should be permited because the animal would understand what is going on, and thus be able to consent to a marriage/union.

I don't know what evolution you speak of, but Darwin's theory says that all living things basically evolved from lower life forms into everything we see today including humans, however it has been scientifically proven that living things produce 'after their kind' like God said in the beginning.

Further evolution is based on mutations giving rise to more complex beings. All scientific evidence has proven that mutations almost always result in loss of genetic information or have no effect at all. Based on animals producing after their own kind, and mutations causing a loss of information, not gain - animals as we know them will continue to produce after their kind and will not evolve into something new - so they won't learn to speak and thereby be able to consent to being married in the future.

---

But it is acceptable to bible-supporters to glean the teachings of YAHWEH's ONLY begotten son amidst the songs of KNOWN occultists (Solomon), their 5lut daddies (David), spineless/**ssy-whipped husbands ("Adam" and Ahab), muscle-bound-devil-may-care-hedonists (Samson), whores (Esther), women with whoredom as their religion (Ruth-the Moabite who happened to be an ancestor of Yeshua Bar Yoseph), murderers (Samuel, Abram/Abraham, Moses, Saul/Paul) and a motley crew of foul mouthed fishermen, a coward doctor and tax collector?? And then turn right around and proclaim any other book whether it be Buddhist, Hindu or Islam is "not the word of God." Paradox indeed.

And that could be the VERY problem. Instead of embracing righteousness wherever it comes, whenever it comes - too many of these trendsheep are too used to seeing righteousness in the filthy rag form of David, Solomon and the like. This be why when Yeshua rose from the dead and appeared to some of His disciples, they didn't even recognize Him. They knew too much David, Moses, and Abraham. All they knew was good and righteousness mixed with evil and they never learned how to discern, what to keep and what to throw away betwixt the two.

Each of all those people I named EVOLVED. They changed, either in life or in death, some got better and some got worse. It's up to you to be sober and vigilant about what you read. It is not right the way people read this book and cast judgement on others when they are just as bad (if not worse because they can't see themselves objectively!)

you are obviously talking about a diffent kind of evolve than the theory of evolution which I was referring to.

Buddha gave up his riches to find the truth. To me, that is a righteous act. The same way Yeshua asked the rich young ruler to commit a righteous act 'sell everything he had etc'.

*giving up one's riches is not a righteous act. Notice Jesus told the rich man to follow him in addition to giving up his riches. Buddism does not follow Jesus, maybe some of the teachings can be reconciled - but buddism is much different from christianity. Further the beleif of reincarnation directly opposes Jesus' teachings.

Granted I may not believe EVERYTHING Buddha did was righteous, granted I may not have the inclination to do EVERYTHING Buddha did - I do believe THAT to be a righteous act and respect it as such.

*maybe considered as a righteous act, but salvation comes by faith not works. Faith can be shown by works, but all of Buddha's works are not inline with Jesus' teachings.

If...IF at the very least I can discern betwixt the three, I know that I have a choice between them. If you cannot discern, you have no choice but to repeat the past.

*you are free to choose between the 3, but it seems like you have already chosen one of the three.

.

May be you don't know what Paganism is. Paganism is a religion that was around long before Christianity and is still here to this day. It has nothing to do with heathens as you imply. Misinterpretation, I am glad there were no bon firers I would have been cooked.
You fear what you don’t understand. I suggest you check out the following links.

http://www.greenbelt.com/news/ic9901.htm read how Pagan is Christmas.
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/ click on the photo above Athens 570 BC

http://www.paganfed.demon.co.uk/
http://www.witchvox.com/
http://www.paganpride.org/


look up the definition of pagan Vicky,.......better yet i'll post it here for you

pa·gan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.

adj.
Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
Professing no religion; heathen.
Neo-Pagan.

pagan

\Pa"gan\, a. [L. paganus of or pertaining to the country, pagan. See Pagan, n.] Of or pertaining to pagans; relating to the worship or the worshipers of false gods; heathen; idolatrous, as, pagan tribes or superstitions.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

pagan

adj : not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam [syn: heathen, heathenish, ethnic]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

enough definitions for you?......now this is the basis for my response...pagan is not a religion as such but barely a system of beliefs....a pagan is someone who has no religion... And those links blatantly display their belief in many gods and not one God... as you and I believe Vicky....

Cool?....cool.... :dancer2:

Maybe Vicky does not know what paganism is either.

I found this great definition of a pagan. "A person who does not acknowledge your God."

look up the definition of pagan Vicky,.......better yet i'll post it here for you

pa·gan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.

adj.
Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
Professing no religion; heathen.
Neo-Pagan.

pagan

\Pa"gan\, a. [L. paganus of or pertaining to the country, pagan. See Pagan, n.] Of or pertaining to pagans; relating to the worship or the worshipers of false gods; heathen; idolatrous, as, pagan tribes or superstitions.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

pagan

adj : not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam [syn: heathen, heathenish, ethnic]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

enough definitions for you?......now this is the basis for my response...pagan is not a religion as such but barely a system of beliefs....a pagan is someone who has no religion... And those links blatantly display their belief in many gods and not one God... as you and I believe Vicky....

Cool?....cool.... :dancer2:


Those are your views as a non Pagan. Here is a Pagan view.
Definition of a Pagan:

A follower of a polytheistic or pantheistic nature-worshipping religion.

Definition of Paganism:

A polytheistic or pantheistic nature-worshipping religion.

Maybe Vicky does not know what paganism is either.

I know what it is and I know what Wiccan is. Just becaues they don't belive in your religion and in your god (and some do) does not make it any less a religion of the Creator.

How many of you say mother natuere???

I found this great definition of a pagan. "A person who does not acknowledge your God."


May I ask where you found this definition CG?