Pagan Origins of the Christian Faith (Phil. Daily Inquirer)

[The_Child]

---

sarcastic....
gi-atay na lng kulang.. lolz kaau..




ambot nimo parts.. naglibog ko nimo.. bale2x man imong stand oist..

first, ingon ka overrated si Martin Luther, karon, ingon ka na gi-recognize na siya sa Church..
the fact na gisagulan nimo ug subjective description, murag ikaw ra nilabag sa imong "rules" of history..

wa jud ko nag-overrate ni luther or unsa pa diha.. ako ra gi-state unsa iyang nabuhat in history.. kay natumong man jud na naa xa sa anang panahon ug lugar.. kanang uban diha na imong gimention, pa-itoy2x pa man japon na sila sa Church..

parehas ra na ni Copernicus ug Kepler gud.. pa-itoy2x ra to sila.. pero si Galileo ra jud ang pinaka-isug nilang tanan.. maski naniguwang na.. pero maski-unsa-on ka isug, kung tiuyan na gani ug death threats.. aww.. mabayot lng gihapon.. kay di lalim na sunogon ka oi.. bitaw, peace to all these dead men in the past..

there are two ways to reform an organization.. when a new ruler ascends the old one and implements a new system, but he still has to deal with the cohorts of the old system..
the other is when someone from the outside is stubborn enough to go against it, thereby effecting an act so impressive and dramatic (its all in the appearances you know) that will usher in a new wave of change in the culture within and without.

martin luther stands on the latter...

hehe. ok ra na bai. ayaw ka libog gud basaha lang ug klaro.

wala man nagbale2x akong stand. mao gali mo ingon ko nga basaha klaro akong post, (no offense intended sensitive bya kaayo mo kung sultian ana, )

1.) akong point is, Luther is overrated.
2.) Luther is not solely responsible for the reformation. he was merely standing over the shoulder of giants, that is, the reformation was a product of the renaissance as a whole - its zeitgeist. ( i would elaborate on this further pero thats that for now)
3.) although overrated cya, he is still important. He was an important catalyst.
4.) my stand as luther being overrated and yet still important, is a subjective point of view. why? one could not pass any objective interpretation on historical events such as the reformation.
5.) when i say that the church recognize Luther, i meant that she knows there was a luther and that he was important to the divide of the church to other small sects.


so ngano nag bale2x man? "pa-itoy2x sa simbahan" pwede ka mohatag ug proof to that?


wala man sad ko nagingon nga imong gi overrate si Luther.
(why would i use your opinion in the first place to serve as my standard in judging a historical event?... exactly! there is no answer to that question.)

[The_Child]

sarcastic....
gi-atay na lng kulang.. lolz kaau..

"VULGARITY IS THE CRUTCH OF THE INARTICULATE"

cheers!

[regnauld]

Truth is a tricky thing, you think in an age where phd's are cheap, anybody could just "know" what truth is?

we catholics, in matter of God-talk rely on the magisterium, as our guide, other sources of truth? perhaps. but then again, are we that keen to know that those other sources are really pointing to the truth or are we just excited with the fact that because its "forbidden" hidden" "controversial" "unconventional" then it must necessarily contain truth? the latter is plain child's play. duwa-duwa ra sa mga walay unod ang paghunahuna.

Why did you say duwa duwa ra sa mga walay unod ang panghunahuna? What is your basis for this?

[regnauld]

many sources of text acknowledge the existence of these people in their time. and also, they wrote their own books, that's why these men are acknowledged to have existed..

You know bro mao ni ako g mean na sayop, u know like JESUS kini cla mga thingkers before doesnt have there works written, and if naa dili pud cla nag buhat or nag write, CUS the bible itself is a collection of books it is the library of the CHRIST HISTORICAL existense. CUS if you can see like plato and the others mau nalang if nay two or three of there existing writings that have survive and most of them is not written by themselves but by there proponents and followers and believers.

I dont really mind if you believe in JESUS my friend cus its your friend total wala man sad na mugus si JESUS that you should believe in him, how ever if you choose to, then i can say thats a good choice.

The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the texts and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

Take, for example, Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg]. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes to no surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).

The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, people had to take it as "truth." St. Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith." [Romer] The early Church burned many heretics, along with their sacred texts. If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.

In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgement; Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]

With such intransigence from the Church and the admitting to lying for its cause, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's intolerant and biased position, as reliable evidence?


Personally, I felt I was decieved by the Roman Church and I could aslo sympathize with others especially those people who were condemned and brutally killed unmercifully and ruthlessly by the Roman church.

[bluedes]

"VULGARITY IS THE CRUTCH OF THE INARTICULATE"

cheers!

sarcastic na pud.. haaahaay.. imo na lng na The_Child.. mao man na imong favorite gud..
ang ako lng, u must probably get some sort of adrenaline rush as you tend to use sarcasm often.. pero mao lage, gi-atay na lay kulang japon..

2.) Luther is not solely responsible for the reformation. he was merely standing over the shoulder of giants, that is, the reformation was a product of the renaissance as a whole - its zeitgeist. ( i would elaborate on this further pero thats that for now)
3.) although overrated cya, he is still important. He was an important catalyst.
4.) my stand as luther being overrated and yet still important, is a subjective point of view. why? one could not pass any objective interpretation on historical events such as the reformation.
5.) when i say that the church recognize Luther, i meant that she knows there was a luther and that he was important to the divide of the church to other small sects.

first, ingon ka na-overrated, unya karon imo ra pud diay gi-acknowledge.. murag circus act na na imong mga comments dah..

pero did the Church really recognize Martin Luther? gi-un-excommunicate unta siya.. but the protestants also had some very grave offenses against the catholics, so i doubt he will be un-excommunicated any time soon..

[The_Child]

Why did you say duwa duwa ra sa mga walay unod ang panghunahuna? What is your basis for this?

we have this tendency to get attracted with things that are forbidden, that are exciting, that are unconventional, yes?

granting we are attracted with things that have these quality, does it necessarily contain Truth?
so we ask:

First, what is Truth?
Second, how do you know its true?

for example, "knowledge" that is taken from hmmm, esoteric meanderings, how do we know they are True? Can we verify it? or do we just take it because its exciting to venture out to things that is not worth being considered by conventional research?

why is it duwa duwa? because it cant be substantiated, anything goes, as long as you stick to the rules of the game. its all a play.

[The_Child]

sarcastic na pud.. haaahaay.. imo na lng na The_Child.. mao man na imong favorite gud..
ang ako lng, u must probably get some sort of adrenaline rush as you tend to use sarcasm often.. pero mao lage, gi-atay na lay kulang japon..



first, ingon ka na-overrated, unya karon imo ra pud diay gi-acknowledge.. murag circus act na na imong mga comments dah..

pero did the Church really recognize Martin Luther? gi-un-excommunicate unta siya.. but the protestants also had some very grave offenses against the catholics, so i doubt he will be un-excommunicated any time soon..

i didnt notice i was being sarcastic on that remark on vulgarity because wasnt sarcastic, it was intended to be direct to the point, that vulgarity IS the crutch of the inarticulate.

hehehe, sir, luther is overrated but it does not mean he is unimportant. being overrated does not contradict importance. so mao guro naglibog ka ani, the terms are not opposing each other.

what do you mean by recognize lage?

[regnauld]

we have this tendency to get attracted with things that are forbidden, that are exciting, that are unconventional, yes?

granting we are attracted with things that have these quality, does it necessarily contain Truth?
so we ask:

First, what is Truth?
Second, how do you know its true?

for example, "knowledge" that is taken from hmmm, esoteric meanderings, how do we know they are True? Can we verify it? or do we just take it because its exciting to venture out to things that is not worth being considered by conventional research?

why is it duwa duwa? because it cant be substantiated, anything goes, as long as you stick to the rules of the game. its all a play.

I have to ask follow up questions here:

1. Why are these things forbidden by the church in the first place?

2. Who proclaims the TRUTH, the Roman Church? How about other religions? Are we not capable of deciphering the TRUTH?

3. So, what is TRUTH? Well, this has been our mission and purpose ever since TO SEEK THE TRUTH and TRUTH is both Objective and Subjective. There is no Absolute TRUTH except GOD. What is Truth for you sir?

4. Esoteric Meanderings? What do you mean by meandering? Are you aware that all religions have Esoteric and Exoteric teachings?

5. Are you saying that the Roman Church is also duwa duwa because you cannot substantiate it with facts especially the Catmatic I mean the Dogmatic teachings of the church? Well, the Roman Church is childish too as what Pope Leo X said, "Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it." and he said, "It has served us well, this myth of Christ."

[The_Child]

i never said the church forbid it, i never mention that. you assume and with that assumption your entire question in the reply are wrong questions addressed to my previous post.

addendum:

you assume alot. you say you seek truth, but you assume there is truth. you seek truth but you assume that truth is either objective or subjective. no?

[regnauld]

i never said the church forbid it, i never mention that. you assume and with that assumption your entire question in the reply are wrong questions addressed to my previous post.

Wrong qeuestions?

So, what should be the right questions sir? Tell me.