← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 8578 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2003-07-30
2003-07-30 01:42 | User Profile
Patriarch of Constantinople hates kerchiefs? What foolishness.
**Patriarch of Constantinople hates kerchiefs? What A Moron.
Newspaper and Periodical Articles: What Is Happening in the Church of America The Greek lobby and the rival groups A translation of the Greek article which appeared in the Athens newspaper VIMA, July 4, 1999 By P. Panagiotou and Maria Antoniadou.
The Ephraimites: Previously a monk of the Holy Mountain, Ephraim has gathered around him a group of faithful who literally drink "water in his name." When the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1997 visited Arizona in the United States, he experienced an unexpected surprise. The magnificent welcome offered by Hegumen Ephraim at his monastery apparently shocked, rather than pleased, the Patriarch because the hundreds of women who had gathered to welcome him wore kerchiefs on their heads in cosmopolitan America. Similar kerchiefs were worn by all the young girls who had finished grade school. For Patriarch Bartholomew, who fights against fundamentalism, the specter was unexpectedly displeasing.
[url=http://www.pokrov.org/controversial/ephraim.html]http://www.pokrov.org/controversial/ephraim.html[/url]
BIOGRAPHY OF BARTHOLOMEW [url=http://www.patriarchate.org/visit/html/biography.html]http://www.patriarchate.org/visit/html/biography.html[/url] **
So much for the Orhtodox Church.
2003-07-30 04:13 | User Profile
{gasp}!!! You mean GOD HATED THE BEATLES?!?!?!?
2003-07-30 16:02 | User Profile
wintermute,
Thanks for the Link, but I do not understand your post. The Patriarch of Constantinople is attacking 2000 years Christian heritage by attacking women's kerchiefs. Patriarch is not "following the rules." What the hell does he mean by "fundamentalism" anyway. Looks like cultural marxist trash to me. Sad to see it coming from the so-called "Orhtodox Church."
****Sacred Scripture presents several reasons for wearing the veil. St. Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthians (11:1-16) that women must cover their heads because it is a Sacred Tradition commanded by Our Lord Himself and entrusted to Paul: "The things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments" (1 Cor. 14:37). **
. . . It is an honor to wear the veil. But by publicly repudiating it, a woman dishonors her feminine dignity, her sign of female subjection, just as the military officer is dishonored when he is stripped of his decorations.
. . .
St. Paul says an unveiled woman is a dishonor: "But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces here head, for it is the same as if she were shaven." (1 Cor. 11:5)
. . .
In summary, the reasons St. Paul advises women to cover their heads in church are:
Our Lord commanded it;
it is a visible sign of an invisible order established by God;
The angels at Mass are offended if women don't use it;
it is a ceremonial vestment;
it is our heritage.
[url=http://www.ofmi-ofmi.org/ofmihome/cccix/cccart041/cccart041.htm]http://www.ofmi-ofmi.org/ofmihome/cccix/cc...1/cccart041.htm[/url]**
2003-07-30 16:12 | User Profile
"{gasp}!!! You mean GOD HATED THE BEATLES?!?!?!?"
.....I thought you had held disdain for "jews", (and communists)...
2003-07-30 16:43 | User Profile
It certainly is...
.....Martin Luther knew it; why is it you don't? It's further worth noting that a humanist such as yourself would run around proclaiming one's tenets of a faith you fail to understand; pay well? :)
2003-07-30 17:17 | User Profile
.....You and your "wannabe-jew" nonsense; you have no idea what you're speaking of... For the record, I was speaking of Luther's knowledge of the RCC, as opposed to the Babylonian trinity nonsense... Further, I believe on my worst day I could hold my own with you in History, and you're, quite obviously, completely at a loss with Scripture...
2003-07-30 17:48 | User Profile
"You imagine yourself as descended from the Jews of the Torah (aka OT). Of course, this is true only in your imagination. "Wannabe-Jew" is an excellent description of you."
.....Actually, you imagine the Old Testament to be descended from the antiChrist ââ¬Åjewsââ¬Â, simply because theyââ¬â¢ve told you that it had; if you wish to remain in profound error and look completely foolish to the learned, that is certainly your prerogative, and not the least bit of skin off of my nose... They use the term ââ¬ÅTorahââ¬Â in reference to their filthy talmud, as a means of disguising from the eyes of the Christian their works, while piously attaching themselves to our Scripture as a camoflage; most stupid people believe them, as do you...
.....You have even allowed yourself to be fooled into believing that ââ¬Åjewââ¬Â and ââ¬ÅIsraeliteââ¬Â are synonymous terms, which, nothing could be further from the truth, yet you hold fast to the ââ¬Åjewishââ¬Â lie to this effect, while denigrating The Book of your own heritage, (if, in fact you are caucasian; ever wonder where that term derives?), which you flush away, (along with your common sense, I suppose?)... Talk about doing the work of the ââ¬Åjewââ¬Â; I wonder if there is a reverse-rhinoplasty available to you yet...
"So both you & Luther hated the RCC? Big deal. The fact remains that by your ridiculous definition, Luther was not a Christian. He also believed in the "Babylonian nonsense" of the Trinity, after all."
.....At least he was in the process of learning better; you, on the other hand, seem hopelessly enslaved by the lies put forth by those you hold disdain for; pretty ââ¬Åbrilliantââ¬Â, there, big brain... Ever bother to check out your teachers?
.....Didnââ¬â¢t think so...
2003-07-30 19:01 | User Profile
Raina,
So both you & Luther hated the RCC? Big deal. [u]The fact remains that by your ridiculous definition, Luther was not a Christian.[/u] He also believed in the "Babylonian nonsense" of the Trinity, after all**. **
Martin Luther, esteemed as the father of Protestantism, did not believe in the trinity. You can read his sermon on the trinity here: [url=http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/mlsetrin.html]http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/mlsetrin.html[/url]
You falsely make it out to be an absolute belief for Christianity. But it isn't. So, yes, as Patrick has stated.... your history and understanding of Christianity is sorely lacking.
2003-07-30 20:20 | User Profile
**Me: "{gasp}!!! You mean GOD HATED THE BEATLES?!?!?!?"
Patrick: .....I thought you had held disdain for "jews", (and communists)... **
{double gasp} You mean the Beatles were jew communists?!?
no wonder god hated them....
2003-07-30 21:42 | User Profile
**If you actually read the sermon, you can see that he does believe in the Trinity doctrine (three persons in one God). He just doesn't like the term "trinity." **
I did read the sermon and I have no idea where you are getting that Luther saw three persons in one God. Your lack of comprehension skills is showing also.
2003-07-31 07:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sojourner@Jul 30 2003, 16:42 * *I did read the sermon and I have no idea where you are getting that Luther saw three persons in one God. **
:huh: Basic and essential, historic Christian orthodoxy.
2003-07-31 12:20 | User Profile
I believe itââ¬â¢s a case of semantics. Rainaââ¬â¢s exact words were ââ¬Åthree persons in one Godââ¬Å. In that sermon Luther goes to great lengths to make Jesus Christ and God as being the same and one. I donââ¬â¢t agree with him. but I donââ¬â¢t think you can stretch that to being your classic Babylonian definition of three ââ¬Åpersonsââ¬Â in one God. Of course, you are free to make it say whatever you want it to sayââ¬Â¦. :y
2003-07-31 22:03 | User Profile
*Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 31 2003, 14:59 * ** Spoken like a true 'spiritual Israelite'. **
If it walks and talks like a zhid... it's a human nationalist.
2003-07-31 22:06 | User Profile
.....I think Sojourner was merely observing a talmudic sentiment in action...
2003-07-31 22:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by Patrick@Jul 31 2003, 16:06 * .....I think Sojourner was merely observing a talmudic sentiment in action...*
You're correct Patrick but far be it from me to explain it to Raina or Wintermute... :rolleyes:
2003-07-31 22:52 | User Profile
I am aware of whom WM was talking about. I am just paying you a compliment.
2003-08-01 13:19 | User Profile
My gaw... er... my goodness, that's convoluted! Sounds like a couple of rabbi's disputing what the meaning of "is" is.... ;)
2003-08-01 14:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Raina@Aug 1 2003, 07:31 * ** > My gaw... er... my goodness, that's convoluted!ÃÂ Sounds like a couple of rabbi's disputing what the meaning of "is" is....*
The 'white' racists go on & on about how the 'left' (whatever the hell that is) is 'Jewish.' Yet their garbage is what's really Jewish... often taken straight from the Torah! **
I guarantee you none of these explanations are taken from the Jews Talmud. :rolleyes:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which [u]they that are unlearned and unstable[/u] wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2003-08-02 01:49 | User Profile
I haven't had any time to throw in more than the occasional (and yes, often cynical) comment when something just REALLY cries out for a response. I am considering whether or not it's worth answering your long and involved message about who is and isn't Christian and on what basis I should or shouldn't accept their own self-indentification AS Christian and on what basis I should or shouldn't accept YOUR indentification of them as Christian or not and so on. I'm considering whether or not to get into an argument about habiru and hebrews and jews and which of THEM is and isn't whatever they self-identify, and which of them YOU identify as what and so on...
What is so convoluted about it? Fill us in. ** How about this: > This does not refer to hair. This is talking about "veil", a spiritual veil as mentioned in other scriptures. Man and his wife are two, but the spiritual body of the man does not need covering. Reason being, man does not need protection from what Paul approaches later on, verse 10 to be exact. This chapter addresses end times and that the naughty fallen angels (satanââ¬â¢s good buddies) will be here on earth. The "veil" that separates them from Christians is Christ. This too, is another topic for another day as it is a rather deep subject!** You seem to be saying: It SAYS hair but it doesn't MEAN hair, it means veil but it doesn't SAY veil... Oh, and it doesn't mean it for MEN, just for women.... THAT'S convoluted!
I think it's apparent that you told a wittle phib when you said (paraphrase) that you wanted to know what true Christianity is, considering that you haven't responded to the offer (per another thread) so generously made to you. I doubt I EVER said I wanted to "know what true Christianity is" -- I AM interested in what makes people BELIEVE as they do, but that is in no way akin to "knowing what true Christianity is" and if you think I said that, then I must not have been clear enough in my writing for you to follow my questions. I AM interested in knowing why you (or Patrick or Okkie or anyone else) thinks that they "know what true Christianity is" and what is the basis for deciding who is in and who is 'out.'
And I don't tell "wittle phib"s (jeez, how old are you?). I ask pointed questions that seem to make you uncomfortable, and/or which you dismiss as "jewish questioning" (does that mean "any question for which I have no satisfactory answer?"). I notice you ignored my question about Orebim/Orabim.... don't you have an answer for that kind of question?
2003-08-02 22:24 | User Profile
IAH (above): I don't know of anything that I dismissed, certainly not intentionally. I've been answering questions left and right on this specific board of this forum. You'll have to remind me of your question about Orebim/Orabim, because I don't remember ever seeing it.
** IAH: In short answer (a novel could be written on this) to your question is that they donââ¬â¢t actually read and absorb Godââ¬â¢s Word.
Me: Hence the Baptists refusing drink vis a vis water into wine. Hence the Mormons first accepting then rejecting multiple marriages and the dispensation to allow blacks first into the church and then into their version of the priesthood. Hence the various old-timey sects that disallow women in pants. Hence the Catholics and hundreds of now-you-see-'em, now-you-don'ts! (meat on Fridays, a bunch of saints becoming non-saints, heliocentricity etc.) Which one is right? On what basis do they pick and choose what beliefs they will uphold and deny? On what basis are they right or wrong? And at the bottom of it is always that JEWISH text, the Bible!
(Where was the hand of god - in the WRITING of the various books (in either the bible or the apocrypha); in the "voting" to accept or not accept certain books into the "approved" Bible (Nicene Council, was it)? Which Bible is really "the inerrant word of god" -- the Catholic one? The King James? The weird "modern-language" versions coming out for piss-poor readers in America today? The older ones found in Nag Hammadi and near the Dead Sea? Was the hand of god with the translator who "translated" (added vowels to) the written Aramaic or Hebrew (oh, Hebrew, wouldn't that imply JEWISH also?!) "rbm" as "Orabim" -- that is "ravens"-- who fed (was it?) Elijah as he was wandering in the wilderness rather than "Orebim": the inhabitants of the town of Oreb right near the wilderness where he was wandering? See, these are quandries that I find interesting: how and why do people chose to believe what they do?) **
You objected thereafter to me calling the Bible a jewish text, but you did NOT address the conflicts I brought up ââ¬â some of what causes me to investigate on what basis one does or doesnââ¬â¢t choose to believe this or that part of the Bible; or one chooses this or that tidbit as part or not part of oneââ¬â¢s self-definition and oneââ¬â¢s definition of others as Christian (or not-Christian).