Originally posted by FMFAnd what in the world does this have to do with my question about whether you are Muslim or not?
Huh? Only a page ago you said: [b]"Oh, come now. I wasn't born yesterday, and neither were you. Your forum combat techniques here are well-known. Obviously, being 'gracious' isn't one of them. But at least I don't expect that from you."[/b]
YOU are conflating the two, not me.
Originally posted by SuzianneYou said, even if I answer your question it "may or may not be the truth". It seemed a peculiar thing to blurt out. Were you angry?
You are going over it again (that is what 'rehash' means), not me, adding your inference that I don't believe you. This is your 'petty little blow', not mine.
Originally posted by FMFANYthing said "may or may not be the truth", especially anything said by you, to land your "petty little blow", without reference to any actual truth. Were you angry?
You said, even if I answer your question it "may or may not be the truth". It seemed a peculiar thing to blurt out. Were you angry?
No, you know what? Never mind. I'm not getting bogged down into this incessant arguing you amuse yourself with. Enjoy playing with yourself.
Originally posted by SuzianneOut of the blue, after me being here and posting for a decade, you suddenly suggested I might lie about whether or not I was a Muslim. And you think it's me who is playing games ...with myself? 😕
ANYthing said "may or may not be the truth", especially anything said by you, to land your "petty little blow", without reference to any actual truth. Were you angry?
No, you know what? Never mind. I'm not getting bogged down into this incessant arguing you amuse yourself with. Enjoy playing with yourself.
Originally posted by SuzianneNot true. It is absolutely well understood and articulated by those that propose this doctrine - several here on the SF.
"OSAS" is a name ...........used by those who wish to bash Christianity. By those who don't understand Christianity as well as they think they do.
I was in a Lutheran service not so long ago when the Pastor preached on all kinds of evil and then the consequences of sin being hell . He ended by saying, and I quote: " But those of us who are saved and baptised, we have nothing to fear!"
In other words, as long as you have been baptised or christened as a baby, you can live your life any way you want to!
Please note - I do not want to engage in any new debate on OSAS, I just include them in my psuedo-Christianity definition. I merely here dispute your statement that the concept can be misrepresented or misunderstood. It is actually pretty basic and simple to understand.
Originally posted by CalJustI fully agree that Christianity has changed over the centuries, but I am less inclined to agree that that warrants the name 'pseudo'. In fact one could easily play the same game and claim that the early church itself had already changed Christianity. It is notable that you get your doctrine from a selection of teachings that were selected long after Jesus. I believe some of the earliest writings in the New Testament were by Paul, and he himself was very much an offshoot and in conflict with the original version.
1. Much of what passes for Christianity today would have totally shocked the early church, not to mention the disciples of Jesus, hence pseudo.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo disagreements there. The word "pseudo" was one I used on impuls, as so often happens when one posts here. I readily withdraw it if it bothers you, and replace it with the words "... the KIND OF christianity" or the" BRAND of christianity" ... or whatever is descriptive of the idea that I tried to convey which is, as you agree, that Christianity has evolved almost unrecognizably over the years.
I fully agree that Christianity has changed over the centuries, but I am less inclined to agree that that warrants the name 'pseudo'. In fact one could easily play the same game and claim that the early church itself had already changed Christianity. It is notable that you get your doctrine from a selection of teachings that were selected long after Jesus ...[text shortened]... ere by Paul, and he himself was very much an offshoot and in conflict with the original version.
I will go so far as to say that it is reasonable to conclude that neither Jesus nor Paul wanted to start a new religion, but to reform Judaism from within.
Originally posted by CalJustHe became increasingly unpopular due to his somewhat extremist views and eventually decided to leave stating that he had realised that his attempts to preach were not being successful and he was gaining no converts - or something along those lines.
Btw, as I've been away a while : whatever happened to RJH? I see his last post was on 3 Feb.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadInteresting! Some of us told him that over the years; indeed, somebody suggested that he was actually an atheist incognito, trying to discredit Christianity!
He became increasingly unpopular due to his somewhat extremist views and eventually decided to leave stating that he had realised that his attempts to preach were not being successful and he was gaining no converts - or something along those lines.
Oh well, at least he added some colour to some debates, even if it was flaming red. One thing is for sure, though - he held tenaciously to his absurd and divisive views. Rabid bull terrier on steroids.
May he RIP, although somehow I doubt it ...
I think this promising discussion on the Ego has somehow petered out, so unless somebody cares to revive it, and maybe sum up and state if we have reached any conclusions (how about it, BDP?) I will also bid y'all farewell.