Arcadia Discussion Zone

What are you talking about? What evidence is there that Antoine Bigou & Berenger Sauniere were gay?

Typo, RCC

In your case I'd call it a 'thinko'. What you are David is the extreme end of the Maghead stupidity.Your profound lack of intelligence makes reasonable dialogue with you both impossible and utterly pointless. Like all similar idiots, continued mischaracterization is your only recourse.

Thanks dad, the rock is in the garden you which you came.
Using a full dictionary of utterly pointless words doesn't make you look too bright either
I find your use of the English language somewhat confusing. You use 50 words when 3 will suffice in an attemp to make yourself look more intelligent than you really are.
I suppose i could sum you up in one word really - dim.

Like I said, way, way out of your depth...I leave you and your maghead buddies to have at it

If someone is deliberately mischaracterizing the tenets of another sect or another religion, why wouldn't I speak up? It isn't necessary for one to be a believer in order to understand what they believe, do you not get that? And quit throwing social justice into the mix just to make yourself look like a champion of the oppressed when you sense you might be coming off looking like a complete asshole.



I beg to differ. I've never played that card unless the insults rise above the level of mere childishness, which happens rarely. I put up with a lot of silliness because I won't dignify such juvenility with a cogent reply. Only when it rises to the level of visciousness do I bare my teeth. So I'm telling you right now - back off.



I have no problem with you or anybody discussing homosexuality in the church or in other organizations. I have a big problem with the way you direct your insults to me personally. If you were simply engaging in sophomoric behavior I'd let it roll off my back, I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to lowbrow pleas for attention. You, however, are clearly hateful. One more time, pal - back off.

TCP

Well I suspect being out of my depth is slightly better than you being out of your mind dimus.

I'm not getting into the homosexual debate - i'll leave it at that but you have me wrong and my apologies if you feel that way.
Right Tim, in a previous thread you stated that you weren't entirely convinced that Jesus existed at all or something of that nature. Yet you clearly defend traditional Christian beliefs with astonishing conviction as if your life depended on it. I'm not just saying that, this is how you come across to me personally. For example, there are many ways in which you could interpret the various sayings and actions of both the Magdalene and Jesus throughout the scriptures especially in the Gnostic gospels. From a strictly neutral prospective such as my own I can see things which others on here have pointed out, as having substance and credibility where as you always defend the traditional meaning. The bible does not contain any key on how to read the bible or any indication of how it should be perceived.
Therefore my own natural conclusion to you defending those traditions is either you have been told how to perceive the bible by others or you have a vested interest in how you think it should be. You are sending out mixed messages Tim, you are claiming to look at this through a neutral set of goggles yet you always jump on the side of tradition. You spend hours finding traditional meanings for various scriptures but never seem to stop and think of your own interpretation, it's always someone else's.
Where is the rule of thumb on how the scriptures should be perceived Tim?
edit:
By the way, i've just gone back over my posts in this thread and i can't find anywhere where i've either insulted you or poked fun at you.

I have no idea what sort of "homosexual debate" you wish to avoid, but I'm not looking to engage in any either. Just cut out the personal stuff. And thank you for your apology.



Yes, precisely. And that's a position echoed by many on this forum, nobody can really claim to know exactly what parts of the Gospel narratives are true, if indeed any of it is true. The best anyone can base an opinion or an argument on is an informed assumption, i.e. making sense of the narrative. The Bible is literature. Some people hold that it contains profound truths, other say it is the "only" source of profound truths, and some just look at it as a narrative. I fall into the last category. I couldn't possibly prove that there is accuracy or historicity to the events as written in that narrative. However, the narrative itself - i.e. the corpus - does have a history that can be traced. Admittedly there are evidential gaps or differences of opinion as to how or when or why that history developed as it did, and there is nothing wrong with speculation unless and until someone claims to know the answer, to have the factual explanation at hand. And at that point those facts should be presented. If they aren't, or can't be, then that explanation has not transcended from speculation to fact. Still, you can read a book to see what it says. If someone says it really doesn't say that, or used to say something else, then it is not unreasonable to ask that person how they arrived at their conclusion. If it's speculation, OK. But when they say it's fact, that they have the proof but they won't reveal it to anyone, well - would you believe them?



Well, how I come across to you personally really doesn't have anything to do with me, now does it? You don't seem terribly interested when I try to explain what I really think.

I'm not defending "traditional Christian beliefs", if that were the case why would I hide those beliefs under a bushel? Every Bible-believing Christian I know would consider it anathema to deny the tenets of their faith, and none of those I know are shy about proclaiming it whether asked to or not.

There is a difference between the veracity of the narrative (meaning that one believes every element really happened exactly as written) and the accuracy of the narrative (meaning that one believes the narrative is an authentic account of the author's intention). I hold firm to the position that what is written, and what I can read for myself, is an accurate reflection of that author's intention, unless and until I am shown otherwise. Not that what they wrote IS necessarily true, but rather what they believed to be true and wished to convey. My mind is not closed to the idea that edits and redactions were made and that those redactions may have affected the original intent, but I'm not simply going to take someone's word for it. Academics and scholars make new discoveries all the time, and commonly held wisdom shifts in light of new information. I'm in favor of that, in fact it fascinates me because I find history to be interesting. But when pseudo-academics and pseudo-scholars attempt to reinterpret tangibles - things that do exist - and expect to be taken only at their word, I have a problem with that. Call me a cynic if you like, but I don't think I'm unreasonable.



Granted, but I take issue with it when people base interpretations on things that aren't there in the first place. We can argue to the nth degree over which English word is a better translation for a Greek word, but don't try to reinterpret the Greek word to fit your meaning of choice. Speculate away as to the underlying messages or hidden significance, but please, show your work. Explain how you arrived at your conclusion. Those who get all pissy when asked to do so are usually the ones with nothing to show, which then leads to questions of bias. It happens every day, in myriad subjects, all over the world. It is human nature to question, but it is also human nature to want qualified answers.



Common language is the key to understanding the Bible, we no longer live in a world where only the priesthood have access to the texts and the rest of us are expected to believe what we're told. I don't think you would disagree that what we can read by picking up a Bible and turning to a random page is representative of the traditional meaning in our common vernacular. Much of it is allegorical, or metaphorical, which certainly would involve one's own perception to understand. On the other hand, I'd venture to say most of what is in the Bible is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial, they only key being required being the ability to read and a broad vocabulary.



A vested interest? Such as? Did someone rat me out as the Prince-Bishop of Osnabrück again...?

What child raised to be a Christian isn't told how to perceive the Bible in their early years? If that's some sort of reason for suspicion, then cuff me and lead me away! What was taught to me as a child isn't the way I view Christianity today, far from it because now I'm viewing it from the outside as a critic, no longer as a participant. And by critic I don't mean opponent, just someone who finds all the baggage that goes with it irrelevant to my life and circumstance. I don't have scores to settle, I got over that spell years ago.



Would you consider anyone who always jumps on the opposite side of tradition to be neutral? Let me relieve you of another misconception - I am not neutral and my interpretations are always formed from what I can read with my own eyes and process with my own mind. That should counteract any suggestion of "mixed messages" in the future. If your mind is already made up to reject my own explanation of how I think, how I interpret, how I respond (which I suspect is the case) then any future "mixed messages" are your issue, not mine.



It's the brain, Dave - not the thumb.

TCP

Content removed

That's OK, I knew you weren't being sincere.

TCP

Sauniere had a child with Maria Tourdes in Girona. There is a mysterious collage in one of his notebooks

that contains a cupid, a winged baby. So S.P., are you Irish or a Viking?

Spart,
I read your Gnostic stuff. Fine. (And again, I'm not a 'Maghead'), but are you saying that you think that, given MM's exalted status in the pre-church set up (ie as a follower of Christ) as spoken of in those texts, women weren't then excluded from the formed (post Christ) Church? I'm not interested in what titles they gave her - I'm talking (and was talking before) about the role then of women within the Church.
Don't the Gnostic texts imply that 'she' was made 'man' (implying that being a 'man' was something other than a simple gender) and had been privy to teachings that the others had not? And isn't that what irked the male members of the team according to the writings? Didn't that then manifest itself in the formation and structure of the Church? IE MM was an active member of the group and a 'man'. That role was never promulgated within the Church.

Also, in your exchange with Dave you quoted the Nicene creed. Again fine, but didn't that only come into being in the 4th century simply to address the 'state' of Jesus simply because that isn't what everyone believed even then? The whole argument was around the substance of Jesus, with various factions fighting their corners - and each having substantially differing views. From Christ was human and assumed divinity, to being a sub creature of G_d, to being simply an inspired teacher to......
And as I tried to point out earlier here, what the Church states as a tenet is sometimes diametrically opposite to its actions, so even though the Nicene creed was formulated, did that mean that the other sects vanished? Did it mean that that was what was believed, or did it mean that creed had to be pushed as it was the one that was expedient? IE if I work for Carlsberg, I may say it's the best lager in the world. But do I (or even Carlsberg as a group entity), actually have to believe that to push the product?

I don't buy into the 'but Christianity is a super set of Judaism and Judaism was male dominated' argument either, as Christianity is blatantly NOT Judaism. It founded itself on the Judaic G_d, simply to have the last word in the 'my gods bigger than your god' argument. (And hence that is why the substance of Jesus was of such importance, as the 'Church' could never then admit that Jesus was ever anything less than a manifestation of the one G_d - of the same substance - or else, they ended up competing with other religions and their 'gods').

Sorry jlockest, I'm not trying to sound insulting, and i apologize if I do, but I find it difficult to process all your questions and projections (put it down to my lack of intellect). As I've said to you before, you're projecting your own concerns and thought processes onto my posts, and developing these into numerous questions, and pretty 'long' replies that I struggle to follow (as I said, you can put that down to my own short comings). Perhaps if you didn't feel the need to quantify your writings so much I might find them easier to follow (I understand that you quantify for accuracy, and that's laudable, but like I said, I simply can't follow what you're on about most of the time).

If you're interested in my thoughts on some issue or other, might I suggest you query me one issue at a time, and with the simplest question you can manage, and then we can develop whatever it is as we progress with further posts, both of us clear in our understanding of what's under discussion...

Spart,
OK. I'll try to keep it simpler:
1) I thought you were saying that the 'Church', using the textual evidence, held MM in high esteem. I was trying to say that that 'esteem' (as a title only) counted for nothing as they didn't then allow women to hold the same position as MM appeared to hold according to some of the texts. MM, even ignoring the first witness bit, appears to be of a privileged position (not a titular position, but a working position) in the pre-Church group according to the Gnostic text.
2) Dave had said about the Church attempting to hide the humanity of Jesus. I assumed then that you quoted the Nicene creed back at Dave to show that the Church saw Jesus as human, so they weren't trying to hide anything. BUT my limited understanding of the Council of Nicea I thought established Christ AS G_d. Of the same substance. (This whole area is totally confusing though, and I don't think the Church thought this through as if Christ was a purely human 'manifestation' of G_d, what does that make the 'miracles' - simple party tricks of a conjurer?).

I don't mean to project my ideas either - I'm just not that good at writing coherent English. No wonder I excel as a pamphlet writer for HMSO.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

Firstly, you're are not projecting your ideas, you're projecting your thought processes (your mental ramblings) which have a different focus than mine, so it is best to keep things as simply as possible, and develop any discussion in stages, so as to avoid confusion IMHO...

jlockest wrote:



The religious literature that the 'Church' uses, promotes and has promulgated for well over 1500 years, portrays the Magdalene as a loyal follower of Jesus (perhaps loyal even when many of the male followers have fled, although there might be a very simple reason for that), perhaps a financial supporter of Jesus, and as First Witness to the supposed event known as the Resurrection. As the Resurrection is the key moment in the Christian narrative, this clearly places the Magdalene in an extremely elevated role, as far as the Christian narrative is concerned. Because of this, the Magdalene is classified as an extremely important Catholic saint, who is sometimes referred to as Apostle to the Apostle (a or A!). All of this is factual.

jlockest wrote:



What position are you referring to?

jlockest wrote:



Why should the 'Church' care what is in the so-called Gnostic texts? They, generally speaking, rejected the validity of those texts!

jlockest wrote:



Rowett made this grossly inaccurate claim:



'RLC' is a typical Rowett 'thinko'. He is confused and actually means RCC. As I pointed out the Nicene Creed is the Christian statement of faith. It declares quite clearly that Jesus become fully human. If the 'Church' did not want Jesus appearing human, why does it state specifically that Jesus became fully human? When you say 'hide anything' you lose me?!

jlockest wrote:



The Council of Nicaea did almost unanimously decide that Jesus was God incarnate in human form, meaning He could suffer pain, and that He slept, ate, drank, and presumably crapped etc. I have no idea what you mean by party tricks etc. As God made manifest in human form I assume He could (if any of this is true) do anything and everything, if so inclined, considering that Christians believe God to be omnipotent! I fail to see how it is 'totally confusing'? I could certainly see why you might think it is all a load of complete shite, but what are you confused about?! (Remember, keep it simple if you can!)

This is typical you Sparty, Dave said it was a typo, he corrected it with an audit, and yet you claim it was because he was confused.

Wayward wrote:



How do I know whether jlockest has read Rowett's 'audit'? You and your buddy 'Dave' can get lost, Bill.

edited to add:

btw IMHO Rowett is indeed in a constant state of confusion, which is way he was calling the 'RCC' the 'RLC'! I've made it clear that I think he is way, way out of his depth on this forum, and as such his posts will eventually deteriorate into the mental implosion witnessed last night. I'm entitled to hold that opinion, am I not, and also express it as I see fit? I also think your continued support for 'Dave' is very poor judgement.