Omnipotence of God

[Hazard]

Hi Theo, Well you truly are a clever little dicky! Like to stick the knife in when you can don't you? A book worm and a false accuser at that! Lol. Are you serious? Were not all able to bury ourselves in books mate. Read Hislop? I'm a coal miner mate, not a collage professor!

"Are you sure you haven't read Hislop? As in, NEVER EVER?

I really don't think so. 'Cause from the looks of it, you plagiarized portions his work"

.

And I really dont care what you think either!

Do you see my name after any of the things quoted here, taken from what I had posted? I thought I mentioned where the statements are to be found when I had the info?

Paganism began with Nimrod and it continues down through the ages untill this day in the majority of the churches of the world. The city Babylon was built by Nimrod, the mighty hunter (Gen. 10:8-10). <- Bible.

This cult was characterized by the word "Mystery" because of its mysteries. Beside confessing to the priests at admission to this cult, one was compelled to drink of "mysterious beverages," which says Salvert (Des Sciences Occultes, Page 259). <- Book.

The ostensible objects of worship were the Supreme Father, the Incarnate Female or Queen of Heaven, and her Son. The last two were only objects of worship, as the Supreme Father was said not to interfere with mortal affaires (Nimrod 111, Page 239). <-Book.

In the "mysteries," which she had the chief part in forming, she was worshiped as Rhea (Chronicon Paschal, Volume 1, Page 65), <- Book.

She raised Babylon, where she reigned to eminence among the nations as the great seat idolatry and consecrated prostetution (Hesiod, Theogonia, Volume 36, Page 435). <- Book.

The apocalyptic emblem of the harlot with cup in hand was one of idolatry derived from ancient Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece, for thus the Greek Venus was originally represented (Herodotus, Historia, Book 1, cap. 199, Page 92). <- Book.

Where did these nations get this common worship if not from Babylon before the dispersion by God in the days of Nimrod (Gen. 11). <- Bible.

Regarding this section you seem to be so excited about, "Ironicilly the Roman Church has taken this as her emblem. In 1825 a medal was struck bearing the image of Pope Leo X11 on one side and on the other side Rome symbolized by a woman with a cross in her left hand and a cup in her right hand and a legend around her "Sedet Super Universum"; that is, "The whole world is her seat." <- Cannot remember where I read this, probably found it on the net somewhere when looking up catholic stuff? If Hislop wrote this, so what. I HAVE NEVER READ HIS BOOK! and dont want to. I think probably found this where I found all the other bits and pieces. Here a little there a little over time.

Like I have always said, a degree does not a Bible expert make? Neither does being an expert in paganism a Bible expert make. You can believe of me what you like. Blokes like you are a dime a dozen, lots of book sense but no real life sense. Don't go round accusing people without foundation, its not nice mate.

[Hazard]

For the record, I have theo on ignore, so I am blissfully unaware of whatever he's ranting about.

But Meta, pretty much everybody's "facts of history" are wrong at some point-- including yours. What always amuses me is how willing people are to swallow any claim for authenticity about every book except the Bible. They believe pagan sources before God, and adopt elite, practically Gnostic attitudes about their special insider knowledge, dismissing the ignorant masses and denying they could possibly understand the "higher" things.

Sounds familiar... let's see...

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

1 Tim. 6
These are the things you are to teach and insist on. 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind,... 20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith.

I commend Haz for having "read zip about the tradition of Christian myticism or mystical experince itself." It is worthless crap from the deluded. And why do the self-proclaimed "spiritual" think there is no spirituality outside of their own narrow definition? Why should pagan sources define spirituality instead of God? Do you see any hint of your brand of spirituality in the Bible?

Look at King David, the Psalm writer, the "man after God's own heart". He went on and on about... THE LAWS OF GOD. According to you, he must have been unspiritual.

I realize I'm speaking Klingon or something, but try listening instead to an expert in eastern orthodoxy who was so-named by the orthodox: http://mp3.sharpens.org/20070813ISI.mp3. It's from a live radio broadcast so you'll have to skip a few commercials, but check it out, and especially listen to the very end for his conclusions.

Thats a good idea, Theo on ignore! He sure rev's himself up doesnt he? He's like a glass eye at a keyhole, you can see through it but it can see nothing. He should call himself Theocrat, or maybe Theodolite. Takes himself very seriously doesnt he.

[2thePoint]

Thats a good idea, Theo on ignore! He sure rev's himself up doesnt he? He's like a glass eye at a keyhole, you can see through it but it can see nothing. He should call himself Theocrat, or maybe Theodolite. Takes himself very seriously doesnt he.

I've met quite a lot of different people online, and been in many debates. I've come to the point where I just have to walk away from people after giving them a chance. The same arguments come up again and again, in a thousand message boards every day. And most of the conversations never come to any conclusion; they just go around and around, as more people join in and the whole things starts over again. It doesn't matter what the topic is.

But the common problem I see is that people can get very defensive when you challenge their presuppositions, especially when you present scripture, or demand scriptural support from them when they claim something is in the Bible. Christians, even the most gentle (they say), can quickly turn into spiritual cannibals when you don't play by their rules. They seem to enjoy devouring each other more than defending the faith. In fact, many no longer believe there is a faith to defend, only "experience". And yes, many have so much invested in various false teachings that they cannot tolerate any challenge, and become arrogant.

The most telling attribute of someone's claim to spirituality is how they treat people who disagree with them. I'm all in favor of a lively debate between people who respect each other, but not with mockers and cannibals. I have good friends who I totally disagree with on one issue or another, but we're friends because we have the same Spirit and agree on the same Savior. Anyone who believes Jesus when he says "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father except through me" is my spiritual sibling and one I will not count as my enemy, and if we can't get along on secondary matters, we have to part company in the name of peace. But anyone who denies this simple faith, who either adds to or subtracts from it, is not saved. Such people are in need of the simple gospel, but if they "turn and tear you to pieces", we are not obligated to stay and take the abuse.

Mysticism is very popular today, and is, I believe, the "glue" that will hold together all the world's religions in the coming Tribulation. The Dominionists are working hard to create a "kingdom on earth", but they are unwittingly building it for the false christ to come. Whatever the "strong delusion" will be, I'm sure mysticism is related to it. So I view this as a very serious issue, one that affects the gospel itself. As long as a person understands who Jesus is and what he did, accepts it as a fact, and puts personal trust in Him alone for salvation, everything else is secondary. But mysticism tends to lead people to believe there is more than one Way, another Truth, many paths to Life, and that is false religion. While some I've met who practice "contemplative prayer" claim it has not done any of that, I know of no one who didn't eventually go there. And I've read books by former mystics who warn of the great danger in even taking one step in the direction of mysticism.

I much prefer talking like this, than arguing with somebody over microscopic nuances of terminology.

[Metacrock]

Hi Theo, Well you truly are a clever little dicky! Like to stick the knife in when you can don't you? A book worm and a false accuser at that! Lol. Are you serious? Were not all able to bury ourselves in books mate. Read Hislop? I'm a coal miner mate, not a collage professor!

"Are you sure you haven't read Hislop? As in, NEVER EVER?

I really don't think so. 'Cause from the looks of it, you plagiarized portions his work"

.

And I really dont care what you think either!

Do you see my name after any of the things quoted here, taken from what I had posted? I thought I mentioned where the statements are to be found when I had the info?

Paganism began with Nimrod and it continues down through the ages untill this day in the majority of the churches of the world. The city Babylon was built by Nimrod, the mighty hunter (Gen. 10:8-10). <- Bible.

This cult was characterized by the word "Mystery" because of its mysteries. Beside confessing to the priests at admission to this cult, one was compelled to drink of "mysterious beverages," which says Salvert (Des Sciences Occultes, Page 259). <- Book.

The ostensible objects of worship were the Supreme Father, the Incarnate Female or Queen of Heaven, and her Son. The last two were only objects of worship, as the Supreme Father was said not to interfere with mortal affaires (Nimrod 111, Page 239). <-Book.

In the "mysteries," which she had the chief part in forming, she was worshiped as Rhea (Chronicon Paschal, Volume 1, Page 65), <- Book.

She raised Babylon, where she reigned to eminence among the nations as the great seat idolatry and consecrated prostetution (Hesiod, Theogonia, Volume 36, Page 435). <- Book.

The apocalyptic emblem of the harlot with cup in hand was one of idolatry derived from ancient Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece, for thus the Greek Venus was originally represented (Herodotus, Historia, Book 1, cap. 199, Page 92). <- Book.

Where did these nations get this common worship if not from Babylon before the dispersion by God in the days of Nimrod (Gen. 11). <- Bible.

Regarding this section you seem to be so excited about, "Ironicilly the Roman Church has taken this as her emblem. In 1825 a medal was struck bearing the image of Pope Leo X11 on one side and on the other side Rome symbolized by a woman with a cross in her left hand and a cup in her right hand and a legend around her "Sedet Super Universum"; that is, "The whole world is her seat." <- Cannot remember where I read this, probably found it on the net somewhere when looking up catholic stuff? If Hislop wrote this, so what. I HAVE NEVER READ HIS BOOK! and dont want to. I think probably found this where I found all the other bits and pieces. Here a little there a little over time.

Like I have always said, a degree does not a Bible expert make? Neither does being an expert in paganism a Bible expert make. You can believe of me what you like. Blokes like you are a dime a dozen, lots of book sense but no real life sense. Don't go round accusing people without foundation, its not nice mate.

Hazard old buddy I object to your berating people for their intellects. Obviously you and Theo have different ways of looking at things. You need to try and understand where he's coming from.

I am willing to believe that you did not set out to plagerize. let's chill

[Metacrock]

Thats a good idea, Theo on ignore! He sure rev's himself up doesnt he? He's like a glass eye at a keyhole, you can see through it but it can see nothing. He should call himself Theocrat, or maybe Theodolite. Takes himself very seriously doesnt he.

I've met quite a lot of different people online, and been in many debates. I've come to the point where I just have to walk away from people after giving them a chance. The same arguments come up again and again, in a thousand message boards every day. And most of the conversations never come to any conclusion; they just go around and around, as more people join in and the whole things starts over again. It doesn't matter what the topic is.

But the common problem I see is that people can get very defensive when you challenge their presuppositions, especially when you present scripture, or demand scriptural support from them when they claim something is in the Bible. Christians, even the most gentle (they say), can quickly turn into spiritual cannibals when you don't play by their rules. They seem to enjoy devouring each other more than defending the faith. In fact, many no longer believe there is a faith to defend, only "experience". And yes, many have so much invested in various false teachings that they cannot tolerate any challenge, and become arrogant.

The most telling attribute of someone's claim to spirituality is how they treat people who disagree with them. I'm all in favor of a lively debate between people who respect each other, but not with mockers and cannibals. I have good friends who I totally disagree with on one issue or another, but we're friends because we have the same Spirit and agree on the same Savior. Anyone who believes Jesus when he says "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father except through me" is my spiritual sibling and one I will not count as my enemy, and if we can't get along on secondary matters, we have to part company in the name of peace. But anyone who denies this simple faith, who either adds to or subtracts from it, is not saved. Such people are in need of the simple gospel, but if they "turn and tear you to pieces", we are not obligated to stay and take the abuse.

Mysticism is very popular today, and is, I believe, the "glue" that will hold together all the world's religions in the coming Tribulation. The Dominionists are working hard to create a "kingdom on earth", but they are unwittingly building it for the false christ to come. Whatever the "strong delusion" will be, I'm sure mysticism is related to it. So I view this as a very serious issue, one that affects the gospel itself. As long as a person understands who Jesus is and what he did, accepts it as a fact, and puts personal trust in Him alone for salvation, everything else is secondary. But mysticism tends to lead people to believe there is more than one Way, another Truth, many paths to Life, and that is false religion. While some I've met who practice "contemplative prayer" claim it has not done any of that, I know of no one who didn't eventually go there. And I've read books by former mystics who warn of the great danger in even taking one step in the direction of mysticism.

I much prefer talking like this, than arguing with somebody over microscopic nuances of terminology.

I appreciate that you are making an attempt to be understanding to people but you are not trying hard enough. your attitude is smug. I don't share your views on end times. I dont' take ever tying in the bible literally.

the Chrsitian mystical tradition has been around since the beginning of Christianity. it starts with the book of John and with Paul. It's found int he church fathers and all the way along. Just because you are unread in that area doesn't mean its' not of God. Its' not fundie that's true. you wont find many American preachers of the "good old days" talking about it. although some do. A.W. Tozar was as fundie and as protestant as they come and he was as mystical as they come.


you are indulging in fear. You are afraid of a type you don't understand and the closest thing you can compare it to is the antichirst and chick comics versin of liberal theology and so on. but that's just superficial.

[KR Wordgazer]

I'm not a fundamentalist, but I used to be-- and I disagree that Christian mysticism is not part of the fundamentalist tradition. The problem here is that the word "mysticism" has recently taken on connations of Eastern-style pantheism and meditation techniques. "Mysticism" as defined by the Online Dictionary, is "immediate consciousness of the transcendant or ultimate reality of God; the experience of such communion. . ." Almost any Christian who describes him/herself as "born again" will also place emphasis on personal experience of "the presence of God." Such experience is part of the second definition of "mysticism" in the same dictionary: "A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience." The Christian, Triune God is just such a "Reality." Not all "mysticism" is Eastern panthestic mysticism.

Evangelical Christian songs heard on the radio are full of "mysticism" by the above definition: "It's like the breath of Jesus, was right here in this room" or "let me be still and know that You're in this place, please let me stay and rest in Your holiness." I remember a very common chorus I have sung in several churches: "Surely the Presence of the Lord is in this place, I can feel His mighty power and His grace." All of these speak of the direct experience of God, which is "mysticism."

The problem is not with mysticism per se-- it's that mysticism has recently been re-defined to mean only "non-Christian Eastern mysticism." For this reason, the innocent and quite lovely practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church (as its members attempt to reach the same communion with the same God), are being misunderstood and villified. At the same time (I note with dismay from some of the links provided by Theognosis), Protestantism is being categorized by the EOC as something intellectual and emotional only, with no direct experience of the Transcendant Presence. This is no more the case than that the EOC has turned to non-personal pantheism.

In this post-Christian age, when secular humanism is attempting to de-mystify all experience of the Divine and recategorize it in terms of psychology, can we believers-- Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Restorationist, and Protestant alike--afford to snipe at one another out of fear and misunderstanding? Wouldn't it be better to not get hung up on words, but to truly listen to what each of the other branches of the faith offers?

True Christianity has always been about both the heart and the mind. All who have truly turned from their sins and are trusting the Resurrected Christ for their salvation are drinking of the same Spirit. We do ourselves no favors to forget it.

[KR Wordgazer]

Erg. I hope I didn't just sound completely condescending above-- not my intention at all. . . I just think this argument is largely based on misunderstandings. . .

[Hazard]

Metacrock wrote

"Hazard old buddy I object to your berating people for their intellects. Obviously you and Theo have different ways of looking at things. You need to try and understand where he's coming from.

I am willing to believe that you did not set out to plagerize. let's chill."

.

I'm chilled right out mate. I agree mate, totally. I felt that Theo, in the australian vinaicular, "was having a lend of me," (Lend of, to have a : to take advantage of somebody's gullibility, to have someone on! ("he's having a lend of you") Mate, I'm Grinning like a shot fox and she'll be right, it'll turn out okay.
I seriously dont read anything much except the Bible, and the others I mentioned earlier, can't lair it up now can I? sorry if that sounds simple but thats it. If I see something on the web that supports my thinking or understanding of a doctrin I download it and document it for future possible use. Sometimes I forget where I get stuff from. I'm not reading enough books to copy too much from anyone, seriously. And I'm not frightened to say where I get stuff from.

Sorry If I looked like I Spat the dummy! Lol. Theo, sorry mate! Your nothing like a Theodolite at all. Sometimes I come across like I'm not the full quid, pit props and specials, had the old head bumped a few times too many over the years.

Haz.

[Hazard]

Meta wrote stuff like this,

"I appreciate that you are making an attempt to be understanding to people but you are not trying hard enough. your attitude is smug. I don't share your views on end times. I dont' take ever tying in the bible literally.

the Chrsitian mystical tradition has been around since the beginning of Christianity. it starts with the book of John and with Paul. It's found int he church fathers and all the way along. Just because you are unread in that area doesn't mean its' not of God. Its' not fundie that's true. you wont find many American preachers of the "good old days" talking about it. although some do. A.W. Tozar was as fundie and as protestant as they come and he was as mystical as they come.


you are indulging in fear. You are afraid of a type you don't understand and the closest thing you can compare it to is the antichirst and chick comics versin of liberal theology and so on. but that's just superficial"

.

Meta, mate, my head is spinning, who the hell is A.W.Tozar and what has he to do with the omnipotence of God? I dont see where my mate 2the Point is scared or in fear of anything or indulging in fear?

I'm going fishing to-night, outside, hope the weather stays calm. The mullet are running and the great whites are about in numbers. Its all too good to miss.

Haz.

[Theognosis]

I felt that Theo, in the australian vinaicular, "was having a lend of me," (Lend of, to have a : to take advantage of somebody's gullibility, to have someone on! ("he's having a lend of you") Mate, I'm Grinning like a shot fox and she'll be right, it'll turn out okay.

I'm guilty as charged, and for that I apologize.

I seriously dont read anything much except the Bible, and the others I mentioned earlier, can't lair it up now can I? sorry if that sounds simple but thats it. If I see something on the web that supports my thinking or understanding of a doctrin I download it and document it for future possible use. Sometimes I forget where I get stuff from. I'm not reading enough books to copy too much from anyone, seriously. And I'm not frightened to say where I get stuff from.

Yes, I believe you, Haz. On my part, I like to dig deep into the sources of the things I read on the net. That's how I ended up reading Hislop a long time ago. Then I saw your post, and the rest is history.

Sorry If I looked like I Spat the dummy! Lol. Theo, sorry mate! Your nothing like a Theodolite at all. Sometimes I come across like I'm not the full quid, pit props and specials, had the old head bumped a few times too many over the years.

We're cool, man. The mudslinging was fun while it lasted. I bet you enjoyed it, too.