The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2016, 11:00 PM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 01:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  the prestigious Patriot University in Del Norte,

[Image: are-you-serious.gif]

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
29-06-2016, 11:18 PM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 11:00 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 01:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  the prestigious Patriot University in Del Norte,

[Image: are-you-serious.gif]
It does prove a point. He is definitely a troll and not worth wasting time on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
30-06-2016, 01:04 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 02:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 01:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't want to share information about the peer reviewed articles I wrote, while I working towards my doctorate at the prestigious Patriot University in Del Norte, That would involve disclosing my personal information, and with the rampant christian prosecution in my hometown, for safety reasons this wouldn't be prudent to the well being of my wife, or my young puppy whose only in the beginning stages of being potty trained.

"Patriot Bible University, formerly known as Patriot University, is an unaccredited Independent Baptist correspondence school.
located in Del Norte, Colorado which issues religious degrees only.
Weeping

Quote:Much of the criticism of Patriot is leveled at the controversial creationist evangelist Kent Hovind, who received M.A. and Ph.D. degrees at Patriot in 1989 and 1991, both in Christian Education.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 04:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't know what the hell they taught you in Babble School, but THIS is no "orthodox conservative" anything :

"So how do I know he was no Christian ?

Bonhoeffer, (in the same way some of the nuns of the LCWR talk about a "post-Christian era"), talked about "moving towards a completely religion-less time", (p.279). He was aware, in his thinking that if the "a priori" foundations of Christianity, were really not the "a priori", that they thought, then the lack invalidates the later forms.

Cute, but nonsense none the less. You seem to have read a few sentences of Bonhoeffer ignored his elaboration, and created an idea of Bonhoeffer that's a reflection of your own projections. But it does say something about Bonhoeffer's near universal appeal, that even atheists such as yourself want to adopt him, just as much as conservative evangelicals.

When Bonhoeffer spoke of a priori, it was in regards to the " "religious a priori" of mankind, not in regards to the foundations of Christianity, as you put it. He even goes further by suggesting religion being merely a garment of Christianity, and Christianity shed of this is what he refers to as “religionless Christianity, giving way to Christ being the Lord of the World, and not an object of religion.

Your reading of Bonhoeffer tends to avoid his criticism of Christianity of his time, in it’s escape to the peripherals, it’s absence of a religious response to the War, a reduction of God to Deus ex Machina.

A point he expands on numerous times in his letters, such as here: “And we cannot be honest unless we recognize that we have to live in the world etsi deus non daretur. And this is just what we do recognize - before God ! God himself compels us to recognize it. So our coming of age leads us to a true recognition of our situation before God. God would have us know that we must live as men who manage our lives without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15.34)The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God and with God we live without God. God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us. Matt. 8. 17  makes it quite clear that Christ helps us, not by virtue of his omnipotence, but by virtue of his weakness and suffering.

Here is the decisive  difference between Christianity and all religions. Man's religiosity makes him look in his distress to the power of God in the world : God is the deus ex machina. The Bible directs man to God's powerlessness and suffering; only the suffering God can help. To that extent we may say that the develop­ment towards the world's coming of age outlined above, which has  done away with a false conception  of God, opens up a way of seeing the God of the Bible, who wins power and space in the world by his weakness. This will probably be the starting-point for our 'secular interpretation.”

Quote:It is somewhat tragic he was actually never aware of current, (even at that time), Biblical Archaeology, as it supports his ideas,

I have no idea why you keep appealing to Biblical archaeology here, at no point was Bonhoeffer some sort of fundie evangelical, or a literalist. so I don’t see what you think currency Biblical Archaeology would have to offer him?

Quote:He talks about being influenced by, Karl Barth (1886-1968). Bonhoeffer readily acknowledged "the debt he owes to liberal theology.”

Yea, while at the same time being critical of liberal theology too, “the liberal reduction of dogmatics . . . to be merely a humanistic domestication of God himself.” He had no patience for that: “There is no theology here,…they become intoxicated with liberal and humanistic phrases, laugh at the fundamentalists, and yet basically are not even up to their level."

And here’s more from this supposed atheist of yours:

“The most experienced psychologist or observer of human nature knows infinitely less of the human heart than the simplest Christian who lives beneath the Cross of Jesus. The greatest psychological insight, ability, and experience cannot grasp this one thing: what sin is. Worldly wisdom knows what distress and weakness and failure are, but it does not know the godlessness of man. And so it also does not know that man is destroyed only by his sin and can be healed only by forgiveness. Only the Christian knows this. In the presence of a psychiatrist I can only be a sick man; in the presence of a Christian brother I can dare to be a sinner. The psychiatrist must first search my heart and yet he never plumbs its ultimate depth. The Christian brother knows when I come to him: here is a sinner like myself, a godless man who wants to confess and yearns for God’s forgiveness. The psychiatrist views me as if there were no God. The brother views me as I am before the judging and merciful God in the Cross of Jesus Christ.”

The ramblings of an atheist right?

Quote:I GUARANTEE no orthodox Baptist conservative pastor would repeat those words from the pulpit on any Sunday. If they did, they would get fired, AND YOU KNOW IT.

Yea, sure you probably won't hear that from some fundie evangelical, but you perception of the orthodox tradition, and theologians who fall under it, is skewed if you see this traditions as composed primarily of fundie evangelicals. Orthodox christianity encompasses catholicism, eastern orthodox tradition, as well as mainline protestantism, in which thinkers like Bonhoeffer are adored, and read frequently. And other than some rabid fundies, see Bonhoeffer as one of their own, and his views less problematic than you do.

But it says as a lot about what you classify as a christian and non-christian here, in that regard I'll take it as a compliment, that you put me in the same company as Bonhoeffer.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2016, 12:14 PM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 10:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Whatever it is, it is merely a focus point, something to which you can claim an allegiance to and feel part of a group with others who also pledge allegiance to that same symbol, it also allows you to know your enemy, which is those people that don't pledge allegiance to that symbol.

That's probably somewhat true, to speak of Christ as a sort of focus point for a believer. Representative of a particular way of life one might aspire to, and values and principles he holds as central, for those who might place considerable value on things they see Christ as representative of, like forgiveness, love, goodness, etc...

A focus point for someone like you, is perhaps labels, like "rationalism", "skeptic", "objective thinking", "science". Like a flag you pledge allegiance to, a language you incorporate and try and mimic into your daily life. You aspire to be an "objective self", the way perhaps a believers might aspire to be like Christ.

Where the believer's focus point, might be a person, for you it's an escapist idea, that dissolves you into this operative machine, you imagine as following strict rules and guidelines, absent of all the messiness of being human.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2016, 12:40 PM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 01:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't want to share information about the peer reviewed articles I wrote, while I working towards my doctorate at the prestigious Patriot University in Del Norte [...]

Patriot "university" is in fact what's known as a diploma mill; and as a so-called distance learning school, it has no campus, no classrooms, and no teaching staff. They provide what they describe as (meaningless) "curriculum-based learning" rather than "professor-based teaching."

The State of Colorado says Patriot's degrees or diplomas "have no state recognition" and it's not accredited by any agency recognized by the Department of Education. It also lacks sufficient academic standards to award any degrees.

Not surprisingly, this is the same diploma-mill that awarded the infamous "Doctor" Kent Hovind his "PhD" —and who was sentenced to ten years in federal prison in 2007 for failing to pay taxes and falsifying worker pay records.

If Tomasia is—apparently—proud to associate himself with a diploma-mill that produces white-collar criminals, then that's his choice. But it certainly puts a new slant on his lack of scriptural knowledge at any depth. The very fact that he's now using an appeal to authority by citing his purported "doctorate" is nothing more than a sad, last-ditch attempt at maintaining his doubtful intellectual status. Sad really.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
30-06-2016, 12:47 PM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(30-06-2016 12:40 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 01:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't want to share information about the peer reviewed articles I wrote, while I working towards my doctorate at the prestigious Patriot University in Del Norte [...]

The very fact that he's now using an appeal to authority by citing his purported "doctorate" is nothing more than a sad, last-ditch attempt at maintaining his doubtful intellectual status. Sad really.

(29-06-2016 01:48 PM)‘Tomasia’ pid=‘1022970 Wrote:...while I working towards my doctorate [...]

Do they teach English there? Consider

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
30-06-2016, 12:54 PM (This post was last modified: 30-06-2016 04:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(30-06-2016 12:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 04:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't know what the hell they taught you in Babble School, but THIS is no "orthodox conservative" anything :

"So how do I know he was no Christian ?

Bonhoeffer, (in the same way some of the nuns of the LCWR talk about a "post-Christian era"), talked about "moving towards a completely religion-less time", (p.279). He was aware, in his thinking that if the "a priori" foundations of Christianity, were really not the "a priori", that they thought, then the lack invalidates the later forms.

Cute, but nonsense none the less. You seem to have read a few sentences of Bonhoeffer ignored his elaboration, and created an idea of Bonhoeffer that's a reflection of your own projections. But it does say something about Bonhoeffer's near universal appeal, that even atheists such as yourself want to adopt him, just as much as conservative evangelicals.

When Bonhoeffer spoke of a priori, it was in regards to the " "religious a priori" of mankind, not in regards to the foundations of Christianity, as you put it. He even goes further by suggesting religion being merely a garment of Christianity, and Christianity shed of this is what he refers to as “religionless Christianity, giving way to Christ being the Lord of the World, and not an object of religion.

Your reading of Bonhoeffer tends to avoid his criticism of Christianity of his time, in it’s escape to the peripherals, it’s absence of a religious response to the War, a reduction of God to Deus ex Machina.

A point he expands on numerous times in his letters, such as here: “And we cannot be honest unless we recognize that we have to live in the world etsi deus non daretur. And this is just what we do recognize - before God ! God himself compels us to recognize it. So our coming of age leads us to a true recognition of our situation before God. God would have us know that we must live as men who manage our lives without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15.34)The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God and with God we live without God. God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us. Matt. 8. 17  makes it quite clear that Christ helps us, not by virtue of his omnipotence, but by virtue of his weakness and suffering.

Here is the decisive  difference between Christianity and all religions. Man's religiosity makes him look in his distress to the power of God in the world : God is the deus ex machina. The Bible directs man to God's powerlessness and suffering; only the suffering God can help. To that extent we may say that the develop­ment towards the world's coming of age outlined above, which has  done away with a false conception  of God, opens up a way of seeing the God of the Bible, who wins power and space in the world by his weakness. This will probably be the starting-point for our 'secular interpretation.”

Quote:It is somewhat tragic he was actually never aware of current, (even at that time), Biblical Archaeology, as it supports his ideas,

I have no idea why you keep appealing to Biblical archaeology here, at no point was Bonhoeffer some sort of fundie evangelical, or a literalist. so I don’t see what you think currency Biblical Archaeology would have to offer him?

Quote:He talks about being influenced by, Karl Barth (1886-1968). Bonhoeffer readily acknowledged "the debt he owes to liberal theology.”

Yea, while at the same time being critical of liberal theology too, “the liberal reduction of dogmatics . . . to be merely a humanistic domestication of God himself.” He had no patience for that: “There is no theology here,…they become intoxicated with liberal and humanistic phrases, laugh at the fundamentalists, and yet basically are not even up to their level."

And here’s more from this supposed atheist of yours:

“The most experienced psychologist or observer of human nature knows infinitely less of the human heart than the simplest Christian who lives beneath the Cross of Jesus. The greatest psychological insight, ability, and experience cannot grasp this one thing: what sin is. Worldly wisdom knows what distress and weakness and failure are, but it does not know the godlessness of man. And so it also does not know that man is destroyed only by his sin and can be healed only by forgiveness. Only the Christian knows this. In the presence of a psychiatrist I can only be a sick man; in the presence of a Christian brother I can dare to be a sinner. The psychiatrist must first search my heart and yet he never plumbs its ultimate depth. The Christian brother knows when I come to him: here is a sinner like myself, a godless man who wants to confess and yearns for God’s forgiveness. The psychiatrist views me as if there were no God. The brother views me as I am before the judging and merciful God in the Cross of Jesus Christ.”

The ramblings of an atheist right?

Quote:I GUARANTEE no orthodox Baptist conservative pastor would repeat those words from the pulpit on any Sunday. If they did, they would get fired, AND YOU KNOW IT.

Yea, sure you probably won't hear that from some fundie evangelical, but you perception of the orthodox tradition, and theologians who fall under it, is skewed if you see this traditions as composed primarily of fundie evangelicals. Orthodox christianity encompasses catholicism, eastern orthodox tradition, as well as mainline protestantism, in which thinkers like Bonhoeffer are adored, and read frequently. And other than some rabid fundies, see Bonhoeffer as one of their own, and his views less problematic than you do.

But it says as a lot about what you classify as a christian and non-christian here, in that regard I'll take it as a compliment, that you put me in the same company as Bonhoeffer.

Nope.
The idea that you and Bonhoeffer are in the same company is as laughable as your saying that idiot fake college is "prestigious". You FORGOT to reference your Bonhoeffer quotes. Yet you CLAIM to have an advanced degree. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I think not. No PhD would provide quotes and not reference them. It matters a LOT when he said what, especially since he LOST his faith. You don't seem to get that, and in fact are trying to hide that. You dishonest troll. You have no PhD. You can't even write a sentence ion correct English.

It makes not a whit of difference who holds him in esteem, (or not). It's basically ignorance. He said what he said in his last book. You cannot undo his words. Too bad if your hero had feet of clay. It's the same as Catholics and Mother Teresa. In her memoirs she said "That which I see in myself I dare not name" .... she is beloved and thought to be a "saint" ... but she too lost her faith and was an atheist. She said so.

I know more about religion that you do Tommy. I actually go to a REAL school.
I stand by what I said, NO pastor of ANY tradition, anywhere would repeat the things I listed from "Letters and Papers from Prison" from the pulpit, and remain in the employ of ANY church.

He said " "The god who is with us, is the god who forsakes us". (p. 360 ). "Etsi deus non daretur", (we must live as if god did not exist).
He said it was impossible to know any objective truth about Christ's real nature and said God was dead. Moreover, Bonhoeffer believed that the (new) "true" Christian was one who immersed his life in the secular world, becoming a secular "Christian". Rejecting the objective unalterable moral standards of the Bible, Bonhoeffer also proclaimed a "situational ethics", (which "raged" as the topic of the day back when, in the 50's-60's) - that right and wrong are determined solely by the "loving obligations of the moment", p. 9-12 and 378; (also Ethics, pp. 38, 186; and No Rusty Swords, pp. 44-45).

He said : "the concept of God as a "supreme Being, absolute in power and goodness," was a "spurious conception of transcendence," and that "God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, and science ... should be dropped, or as far as possible eliminated" ! He had no faith in the physical resurrection of Christ. He also believed that "Belief in the Resurrection is not the solution of the problem of death," and that such things as miracles and the asceBonhoeffer believed the "historicity" of the Resurrection was in "the realm of ambiguity," and that it was one of the "mythological" elements of Christianity that "must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith."

He said those things at the END of his life. You, Tommy Boy, can't make black into white with the wave of your magical Jebus wand.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-06-2016, 12:58 PM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 05:28 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Many people don't believe that jesus was Christ.
Therefore someone who is waiting for Christ to appear could be called a Christian.

The definition of Christian would change from those who strive to be like Christ, to that of someone waiting for Christ to appear.

In all reality Tomasia is just trying to stand out from the crowd.
"I'm not like them. Look at me. Pay me some attention. Listen to what I have to say."

It's just teenage mentality.

We once owned a T-Shirt store and one year one of the best sellers was one that said "Dear Jesus Save me from your followers."

I personally feel that the philosophy that is given as the teachings of Jesus are a good code to follow, but when one gets into the weird shit of drinking His blood and nibbling on God's body parts to be assured a place at his side for ever and fucking ever, it pulls away from what I can believe. I tried a New Age church for a while, and found it much more to my liking than run of the mill Christian churches, but then you get the third eye and auras and chakras and on and on. Those are the branches that swept me off that horse's back! As I mentioned in another thread the other day I walked thru hot coals without burning my feet, not to buy a ticket to heaven, but just to prove that if he and she could do it I could too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2016, 01:18 PM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(30-06-2016 12:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Where the believer's focus point, might be a person, for you it's an escapist idea, that dissolves you into this operative machine, you imagine as following strict rules and guidelines, absent of all the messiness of being human.
Your focus point isn't a person. You don't know any Jesus.
Your focus is a label "Jesus". There was never a Jesus, but perhaps a Yeshua. but even if he existed, you didn't know him either.

You guys have no idea what Yeshua was like, you have no idea of what his morals were. For example there are many Christians who are homophobic. Was Yeshua a homopohobe? Who knows? Perhaps he was gay, perhaps he swung both ways, perhaps he was a pedophile or perhaps he was born with a hideously mutated dick?

Noone knows because the mysth-stories don't talk about this character's sexual endeavours.

Don't the stories say that "Jesus" came to bring violence?
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"
Why do you Tomasia as a self professed christian tell me that you are about peace? If you want to be Christ-like perhaps you ought to bring war, drive families apart.

"For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-"

But of course, you are free to translate that to mean the complete opposite of what the words actually say.

It doesn't really matter. Jesus didn't actually speak these words. There was no Jesus, there was no-one writing down what Jesus or Yeshua said. No-one remembering for decades word for word what some street preacher was supposedly saying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: