TIME to get RID OF RELIGION

[Immanuel Can]

There are so many different forms of 'Christianity' these days, some not in what I consider churches, more like auditoriums - my ex attended one of those wack-job forms of "Christianity".

How do you judge which forms are "wack-job," as you call it,

When it's a pastor (ROT_SAP) and not a priest and he's up the front of the auditorium asking people to come down to receive some power thang from him - while he's on some weird power-trip and all these daft sheep go along with it and step up to him as he does some mubo-jumbo on their foreheads with his hand pushed against their heads and they fall backwards, caught by some other muppet in on the scene. (all accompanied to piano music)

Sounds like you've got something very specific in mind...Charismatics, it sounds like...

and which are real? Genuine question: I'm curious what standard you would employ.

Thus, clearly Catholicism as an important form of the Christian religion according to GOD\Christ

I'm sorry...I seem to be missing the relevance of the answer to the question. Perhaps I should reword: I'm wondering how you would certify to yourself, or prove to yourself, that a particular form of alleged Christianity was genuine.

[attofishpi]

and which are real? Genuine question: I'm curious what standard you would employ.

Thus, clearly Catholicism as an important form of the Christian religion according to GOD\Christ

I'm sorry...I seem to be missing the relevance of the answer to the question. Perhaps I should reword: I'm wondering how you would certify to yourself, or prove to yourself, that a particular form of alleged Christianity was genuine.

Since I know GOD personally, daily interactions & Christ recently has spoken to me via the aether:- thus, since GOD had me born into a Roman Catholic upbringing, as I said, clearly that form of Christianity (proven to myself) is genuine (Catholicism).

I'm wondering how you would certify to yourself, or prove to yourself, that a particular form of alleged Christianity was genuine.

-- --

Same quest_ion - directed at you my man..I know you have many many reservations about Catholicism.

So what batshit crazy wack-job form of Christianity are you subscribed to? ..and Y

[Age]

There are so many different forms of 'Christianity' these days, some not in what I consider churches, more like auditoriums - my ex attended one of those wack-job forms of "Christianity".

How do you judge which forms are "wack-job," as you call it,

When it's a pastor (ROT_SAP) and not a priest and he's up the front of the auditorium asking people to come down to receive some power thang from him - while he's on some weird power-trip and all these daft sheep go along with it and step up to him as he does some mubo-jumbo on their foreheads with his hand pushed against their heads and they fall backwards, caught by some other muppet in on the scene. (all accompanied to piano music)
This same pastor that went to my girlfriends house, when she was at work - going through her personal stuff and then when she gets home her entire vinyl record collection is deemed 'satanic'!! Wot a moron, rot sap indeed.

and which are real? Genuine question: I'm curious what standard you would employ.

Well, IC I was born into an R.C. schooling system courtesy of GOD implanting my soul into my parent's upbringing. (Dad being the boss & catholic)

Really enjoyed what I was taught re Christ in my primary school. Only attended church pretty much when I was going through the con_firm_at_ion stage. Of course, not with my father. I can't say I ever saw him attend a church. No, I used to have to walk to Church every Sunday for a little while around the age of 7 with our Irish next door neighbour, a lovely woman. I chose Peter for my confirmation name.

Obviously it is very easy and simple to tell that if this used to have to walk to mosque every Friday, for a little while around the age of seven, then this one would now be praising about "Islam" and how great its own version of "Islam" is.

And, the funniest part of all of this is that 'this one' and others here, still, can NOT YET fathom and SEE this.

This one is like just about EVERY adult that lived in those days when this was being written, in that they would ALL BELIEVE that their own version of whatever 'religion' that they would FOLLOW and PREACH on about was the best and the only true one to FOLLOW and ABIDE by.

This one starts a thread and calls it, 'TIME to get RID OF RELIGION', but then goes straight towards PREACHING its OWN version of A RELIGION.

It really was like they REALLY WERE ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY BLIND.

Thus, clearly Catholicism as an important form of the Christian religion according to GOD\Christ - since they had me run the gauntlet many times, the tests where I pushed the buttons I was warned not to press...came out of the tests with great knowledge about GOD and what it is capable of, heaven, hell etc..

So, you might have seen me mention it before, my soul was inserted pretty much in the vagina of England!! Southampton - born between the TEST & the ITCHEN which feed the SOL'ENTry point (just above the Isle of Wight - the white blob at the middle bottom part of the coast)



..the Life of Brian - insertion point! ..explained in an abstract way of a poem..

ANCASTA

This star it shines upon
where it glistens still
where it feeds the soul a quest
to fulfil.
Enter the Test where the sol ent'ers
little child to question Wight.
Itchen to know this little mind
dispensed upon the earth rather blind.
Running through the chaos of time
knocked down and placed well out of line.
From here the child sees much more than they
and reluctant to return to their ridiculous fray.
So here it remains
here to stay
Why?
Why?
Y?
Well, let's take a punt
Cos it's shallow here
And the hEart of us
cares not.

DEAE ANCASTAE GEMINVS MANI VSLM

[Age]

Thus, clearly Catholicism as an important form of the Christian religion according to GOD\Christ

I'm sorry...I seem to be missing the relevance of the answer to the question. Perhaps I should reword: I'm wondering how you would certify to yourself, or prove to yourself, that a particular form of alleged Christianity was genuine.

Since I know GOD personally,

LOL
LOL
LOL

It was only a few weeks ago that you were INSISTING that God was 'an artificial intelligence' created from something else. Also, "immanuel can" ALSO BELIEVES and INSISTS that it knows God, personally. "immanuel can", however, BELIEVES that God is just a male that created absolutely EVERY thing, (except its own self of course).

So, out of you two who BOTH CLAIM to know God, personally, which one is Right, and which one is NOT?

Would ANY one be WRONG if they were to assume that BOTH of you BELIEVE that you are RIGHT?

daily interactions & Christ recently has spoken to me via the aether:- thus, since GOD had me born into a Roman Catholic upbringing, as I said, clearly that form of Christianity (proven to myself) is genuine (Catholicism).

This REALLY WAS HOW DELUSIONAL some human beings ACTUALLY WERE, back when this was being written.

I'm wondering how you would certify to yourself, or prove to yourself, that a particular form of alleged Christianity was genuine.

-- --

Same quest_ion - directed at you my man..I know you have many many reservations about Catholicism.

So what batshit crazy wack-job form of Christianity are you subscribed to? ..and Y

[Belinda]

Instead of "form of Christianity" better to say sect of Christianity.

There is actually a core of Christianity which pervades all the sects at all times. That core is the iconic Jesus as Christ; an icon that moves from mind to mind, from Attofishpi to Immanuel Can to Belinda . We each of us look at this iconic figure and try to see the good, truth ,and beauty there, each of us in our own peculiar way.
The iconic Jesus has moved from century to century sometimes despite formal religion as Attofishpi attests.

PS, Attofishpi, there is nobody who is not "wack shit crazy". You claim that IT rescued you from wack shit crazy. IC claims that the Bible saves us. I like to put reason as the best compass and map. And so forth for everyone. We are all sinners----- or as Fish puts it "wack shit crazy"

[Immanuel Can]

...as I said, clearly that form of Christianity (proven to myself) is genuine (Catholicism).

Okay, you're a Catholic. Got it. And for you, Catholicism = Christianity.

But you mock the central Catholic ceremony, the Mass, and you mock its doctrine of transubstantiation, -- and if I can say this factually and without intending any insult, just as a matter of definition, would this not make you, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, a heretic and a blasphemer? Their theology says you would be, since nothing is more sacred, to their thinking, than the Mass.

I'm just asking from a Catholic perspective, not my own. As I say, I don't believe in transubstantiation, and Mass is a Catholic thing. I'm trying to figure out what sort of Catholicism you are advocating as genuine, given your manifest contempt for the central Catholic "sacrament."

I'm wondering how you would certify to yourself, or prove to yourself, that a particular form of alleged Christianity was genuine.

-- --

Same quest_ion - directed at you my man..

And I can answer it. But I don't yet have an answer to my own question to you, so I'll answer afterward, if I may.

I know you have many many reservations about Catholicism.

I do. And I'm not shy about that, though I would absolutely respect the basic human right people have to believe what they decide to believe, and live and die accordingly. Still, if I didn't have serious reservations, then I would obviously choose to be a Catholic myself, wouldn't I? So I think that deduction's pretty obvious.

But I still would like that answer, if you have one...how do you satisfy yourself that the form of what you call Christianity is genuine? After all, there are outright cults that have misappropriated that name, from time to time, are there not? Would we not both recognize that fact? Therefore, you and I need some means to evaluate the justification of anybody's claim to represent "Christianity," do we not?

So how do you suggest that should be done?

[Immanuel Can]

There is actually a core of Christianity which pervades all the sects at all times. That core is the iconic Jesus as Christ; an icon that moves from mind to mind, from Attofishpi to Immanuel Can to Belinda . We each of us look at this iconic figure and try to see the good, truth ,and beauty there, each of us in our own peculiar way.

Actually, B., there's no Christian that would agree with that.

What you're describing is only a form of Relativism. And for Relativists, its human beings and their imaginations that are regarded as "sacred," and the "icon" you mention varies in as many ways as the human imagination. In other words, they treat Jesus Christ as if He had no identity of His own, nothing that people could be obligated to recognize and accept, or to honour. They turn the sacred Name into an amorphous blob that merely means "whatever I wish to imagine." They don't respect the real, historical Christ, or regard Him as having any idenity of His own to which they are obligated to bow.

Can that be "Christian"? Not by any form of Christianity that has any historical or theological plausibility. Maybe in the spoiled, solipsistic, Western mind of today, such a view may have some play. But nobody who has any actual commitment to the historical Jesus Christ, from whatever group or denomination, is going to agree with that. And it's certainly contrary to what the Bible says.

[attofishpi]

PS, Attofishpi, there is nobody who is not "wack shit crazy". You claim that IT rescued you from wack shit crazy. IC claims that the Bible saves us. I like to put reason as the best compass and map. And so forth for everyone. We are all sinners----- or as Fish puts it "wack shit crazy"

We're all sinners? Bullshit..

Where did I claim that IT rescued me from anything..particularly: 'wack shit crazy'?

PS. I called what I witnessed of my ex's 'sect' as wack-job form of Christianity..(the alternate words I used is bat-shit not wack-shit!)

[attofishpi]

...as I said, clearly that form of Christianity (proven to myself) is genuine (Catholicism).

Okay, you're a Catholic. Got it. And for you, Catholicism = Christianity.

No, you don't seem to 'get' anything I am talking about. I am not stating Catholicism = Christianity and I am not certain I still consider myself Catholic.

You need to real eyes I don't care about Christianity..I only care about myself, that I am Christian, that is to say, men can make up any form of Church that they think renders a representation of Christ and his teachings, and I care for none of it. I will refuse to join their club, their team for certainly (and not the only reason) I will find fault(s) in their creation, their form.

But you mock the central Catholic ceremony, the Mass, and you mock its doctrine of transubstantiation, -- and if I can say this factually and without intending any insult, just as a matter of definition, would this not make you, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, a heretic and a blasphemer? Their theology says you would be, since nothing is more sacred, to their thinking, than the Mass.

I don't care, they & GOD can kiss my arse.

I'm just asking from a Catholic perspective, not my own. As I say, I don't believe in transubstantiation, and Mass is a Catholic thing. I'm trying to figure out what sort of Catholicism you are advocating as genuine, given your manifest contempt for the central Catholic "sacrament."

I've already told you why clearly to me GOD has little issue re Catholicism as a genuine representation of this term "Christianity" - since it had me born into it, and now I KNOW GOD. Why would GOD have had me raised through that system to eventually KNOW it personally, if it (Catholicism) wasn't respected by GOD as being a genuine form of Christianity?

-- --

Same quest_ion - directed at you my man..

And I can answer it. But I don't yet have an answer to my own question to you, so I'll answer afterward, if I may.

I know you have many many reservations about Catholicism.

I do. And I'm not shy about that, though I would absolutely respect the basic human right people have to believe what they decide to believe, and live and die accordingly. Still, if I didn't have serious reservations, then I would obviously choose to be a Catholic myself, wouldn't I? So I think that deduction's pretty obvious.

But I still would like that answer, if you have one...how do you satisfy yourself that the form of what you call Christianity is genuine?

How many times do you want me to reword my answer? Look it's above and now it's in red..

After all, there are outright cults that have misappropriated that name, from time to time, are there not? Would we not both recognize that fact? Therefore, you and I need some means to evaluate the justification of anybody's claim to represent "Christianity," do we not?

So how do you suggest that should be done?

I suggest do as I do and shove EVERY form of man-made Christianity up the next sheep's arse. I have little interest in what man has formed: "Christianity" to be.

[Immanuel Can]

I only care about myself, that I am Christian, that is to say, men can make up any form of Church that they think renders a representation of Christ and his teachings, and I care for none of it.

Nobody's making you, so far as I can see.

I guess that's all I need to know. Thanks.

[Age]

Instead of "form of Christianity" better to say sect of Christianity.

There is actually a core of Christianity which pervades all the sects at all times. That core is the iconic Jesus as Christ; an icon that moves from mind to mind, from Attofishpi to Immanuel Can to Belinda . We each of us look at this iconic figure and try to see the good, truth ,and beauty there, each of us in our own peculiar way.

Well one would HOPE that ALL, here, ALREADY KNEW that the very 'core' of "christianity" is "jesus CHRIST", itself.

By the way, there are NO minds, plural.

The iconic Jesus has moved from century to century sometimes despite formal religion as Attofishpi attests.

And, this is more or less the BASIC IDEA and what WAS and IS MEANT, about "jesus" coming back to life, and, still, being alive, here, 'with us'.

When you human beings also RECOGNIZE, SEE, and UNDERSTAND 'the second coming of "christ", then ALL of this begins to make far MORE SENSE.

PS, Attofishpi, there is nobody who is not "wack shit crazy". You claim that IT rescued you from wack shit crazy. IC claims that the Bible saves us. I like to put reason as the best compass and map. And so forth for everyone. We are all sinners----- or as Fish puts it "wack shit crazy"

But 'sinning' is NOT about being so-called 'bat shit crazy'. Sinning was just a natural part of the evolution process that you human beings, in the days when this was being written, HAD TO go through.

[Age]

...as I said, clearly that form of Christianity (proven to myself) is genuine (Catholicism).

Okay, you're a Catholic. Got it. And for you, Catholicism = Christianity.

But you mock the central Catholic ceremony, the Mass, and you mock its doctrine of transubstantiation, -- and if I can say this factually and without intending any insult, just as a matter of definition, would this not make you, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, a heretic and a blasphemer? Their theology says you would be, since nothing is more sacred, to their thinking, than the Mass.

What is DELUSION thinking, like the above, gets 'mocked', by those who have NOT YET GAINED the UNDERSTANDING of WHY ALL of you adult human beings DO ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS things, back in the days when this is being written.

I'm just asking from a Catholic perspective, not my own. As I say, I don't believe in transubstantiation, and Mass is a Catholic thing. I'm trying to figure out what sort of Catholicism you are advocating as genuine, given your manifest contempt for the central Catholic "sacrament."

-- --

Same quest_ion - directed at you my man..

And I can answer it. But I don't yet have an answer to my own question to you, so I'll answer afterward, if I may.

I know you have many many reservations about Catholicism.

I do. And I'm not shy about that, though I would absolutely respect the basic human right people have to believe what they decide to believe, and live and die accordingly.

LOL This is NOT a 'human right' AT ALL. This is just ANOTHER BELIEF that people like 'you' have been TRICKED and FOOLED INTO BELIEVING is true.

you human beings have ABSOLUTELY NO 'rights' AT ALL in regards to BELIEVE what you DECIDE to BELIEVE, which leads to the ABUSE of absolutely ANY thing.

WHEN you get that MOST DISTORTED BELIEF OUT OF 'your system', then 'we' can START TO MOVE ALONG, here.

But BELIEVING that you have 'a right' to DECIDE what to BELIEVE is just HOW EASILY and SIMPLY you human beings can be, and DO GET, DECEIVED.

Still, if I didn't have serious reservations, then I would obviously choose to be a Catholic myself, wouldn't I? So I think that deduction's pretty obvious.

But I still would like that answer, if you have one...how do you satisfy yourself that the form of what you call Christianity is genuine? After all, there are outright cults that have misappropriated that name, from time to time, are there not? Would we not both recognize that fact? Therefore, you and I need some means to evaluate the justification of anybody's claim to represent "Christianity," do we not?

So how do you suggest that should be done?

[Age]

There is actually a core of Christianity which pervades all the sects at all times. That core is the iconic Jesus as Christ; an icon that moves from mind to mind, from Attofishpi to Immanuel Can to Belinda . We each of us look at this iconic figure and try to see the good, truth ,and beauty there, each of us in our own peculiar way.

Actually, B., there's no Christian that would agree with that.

people like this one could NOT come across here any MORE CLOSED.

What you're describing is only a form of Relativism. And for Relativists, its human beings and their imaginations that are regarded as "sacred," and the "icon" you mention varies in as many ways as the human imagination. In other words, they treat Jesus Christ as if He had no identity of His own, nothing that people could be obligated to recognize and accept, or to honour. They turn the sacred Name into an amorphous blob that merely means "whatever I wish to imagine."

LOL BUT this one BELIEVES that it KNOWS what the ACTUAL and ONLY TRUTH IS, here.

They don't respect the real, historical Christ, or regard Him as having any idenity of His own to which they are obligated to bow.

LOL I KNEW that this one BELIEVED that it KNEW what the ONE and ONLY REAL TRUTH IS, here.

Can that be "Christian"? Not by any form of Christianity that has any historical or theological plausibility. Maybe in the spoiled, solipsistic, Western mind of today, such a view may have some play. But nobody who has any actual commitment to the historical Jesus Christ, from whatever group or denomination, is going to agree with that. And it's certainly contrary to what the Bible says.

This one appears to have COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN that the laughingly called 'historical' "jesus christ" is, STILL, ALIVE, and HERE, with 'us', TODAY.

It is like this one does NOT KNOW an ABSOLUTE ACTUAL thing about "jesus christ", itself. Well this is not that hard to understand considering the Fact that this one BELIEVES, absolutely, that God, Itself, is a 'male', which created absolutely EVERY thing.

OBVIOUSLY this one REALLY does NOT KNOW much AT ALL, here.

[Age]

...as I said, clearly that form of Christianity (proven to myself) is genuine (Catholicism).

Okay, you're a Catholic. Got it. And for you, Catholicism = Christianity.

No, you don't seem to 'get' anything I am talking about. I am not stating Catholicism = Christianity and I am not certain I still consider myself Catholic.

You need to real eyes I don't care about Christianity..I only care about myself, that I am Christian,

you need to real eyes that you NEED to, literally, spell out, in words, how you define the "christian" BEFORE you can be taken serious the CLAIM that 'I am christian'.

When will you START to real eyes things, here?

that is to say, men can make up any form of Church that they think renders a representation of Christ and his teachings, and I care for none of it. I will refuse to join their club, their team for certainly (and not the only reason) I will find fault(s) in their creation, their form.

BUT, this one WILL make up its OWN personal form of 'church', which it thinks renders a representation of "jesus christ", and of its teachings.

And, no matter how 'bat shit crazy' it really is.

But you mock the central Catholic ceremony, the Mass, and you mock its doctrine of transubstantiation, -- and if I can say this factually and without intending any insult, just as a matter of definition, would this not make you, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, a heretic and a blasphemer? Their theology says you would be, since nothing is more sacred, to their thinking, than the Mass.

I don't care, they & GOD can kiss my arse.

LOL This one says and claims this but is also ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of God and what God CAN DO.

I'm just asking from a Catholic perspective, not my own. As I say, I don't believe in transubstantiation, and Mass is a Catholic thing. I'm trying to figure out what sort of Catholicism you are advocating as genuine, given your manifest contempt for the central Catholic "sacrament."

I've already told you why clearly to me GOD has little issue re Catholicism as a genuine representation of this term "Christianity" - since it had me born into it, and now I KNOW GOD.

LOL ANOTHER one who CLAIMS to KNOW God. So, is God a male gendered creature or being, which created EVERY creature and being, like God is to "immanuel can"? Or, is THE God, which you BOTH CLAIM TO KNOW, DIFFERENT?

Why would GOD have had me raised through that system to eventually KNOW it personally, if it (Catholicism) wasn't respected by GOD as being a genuine form of Christianity?

But you are ONLY, delusional, IMAGINING this to be true. And, OBVIOUSLY, what you just IMAGINE is true is NOT necessarily True AT ALL.

Same quest_ion - directed at you my man..

And I can answer it. But I don't yet have an answer to my own question to you, so I'll answer afterward, if I may.

I know you have many many reservations about Catholicism.

I do. And I'm not shy about that, though I would absolutely respect the basic human right people have to believe what they decide to believe, and live and die accordingly. Still, if I didn't have serious reservations, then I would obviously choose to be a Catholic myself, wouldn't I? So I think that deduction's pretty obvious.

But I still would like that answer, if you have one...how do you satisfy yourself that the form of what you call Christianity is genuine?

How many times do you want me to reword my answer? Look it's above and now it's in red..

So, your DELUSIONAL IMAGININGS are 'your answer', here.

After all, there are outright cults that have misappropriated that name, from time to time, are there not? Would we not both recognize that fact? Therefore, you and I need some means to evaluate the justification of anybody's claim to represent "Christianity," do we not?

So how do you suggest that should be done?

I suggest do as I do and shove EVERY form of man-made Christianity up the next sheep's arse. I have little interest in what man has formed: "Christianity" to be.

LOL YET this male gendered creature known here as "attofishpi" created and formed its OWN form of, literally, 'man-made' up "Christianity" AS WELL.

[Belinda]

There is actually a core of Christianity which pervades all the sects at all times. That core is the iconic Jesus as Christ; an icon that moves from mind to mind, from Attofishpi to Immanuel Can to Belinda . We each of us look at this iconic figure and try to see the good, truth ,and beauty there, each of us in our own peculiar way.

Actually, B., there's no Christian that would agree with that.

What you're describing is only a form of Relativism. And for Relativists, its human beings and their imaginations that are regarded as "sacred," and the "icon" you mention varies in as many ways as the human imagination. In other words, they treat Jesus Christ as if He had no identity of His own, nothing that people could be obligated to recognize and accept, or to honour. They turn the sacred Name into an amorphous blob that merely means "whatever I wish to imagine." They don't respect the real, historical Christ, or regard Him as having any idenity of His own to which they are obligated to bow.

Can that be "Christian"? Not by any form of Christianity that has any historical or theological plausibility. Maybe in the spoiled, solipsistic, Western mind of today, such a view may have some play. But nobody who has any actual commitment to the historical Jesus Christ, from whatever group or denomination, is going to agree with that. And it's certainly contrary to what the Bible says.

IC wrote:

and the "icon" you mention varies in as many ways as the human imagination. In other words, they treat Jesus Christ as if He had no identity of His own,

Immanuel, you don't understand what an icon is. An icon is its own identity . Jesus is a man for all seasons and times. And I was first taught this by a very senior Methodist who said "It's a moving icon". I am sorry you don't understand what an icon is.

Maybe if you imagine the contents of the Arc of the Covenant as a mobile icon you could get the idea.