My totally cool link archive thread

It is interesting that some people can't face criticism.

TF must be really thin skinned if they can't handle criticism, especially when much of it is based around erroneous practices based on teachings that most right minded people find obnoxious and totally depraved.

I can remember, I think it was the Letter "Crystal Pyramid2 that berg said that he meant exactly what he said. No mistake, none of us who where around in the 70's had any need to reitnterpret anything that berg stated.

Out of his own mouth he advocated Paedophilia, incest, lesbianism, the occult, and everything else that was condemend by the very book that Berg stated was the Word of God--The Bible.

I am reminded of the words of the Apostle Peter (2nd letter chapter 2) about people that would, in the name of freedom, lead people into being slaves of immorality.

Then there are the words atributed to Jesus Christ himslef who condemned the woman called Jezebel who was leading the christians into committing sexual immorality!

nevertheless 'cos Berg was supposedly in touch with God like no one else has ever been, he could simply override whatever instructions given in the Bible for whatever he felt like (and call it "Revelation").

And, of course, we lapped it all up, cos we wanted to be just like him!

Just call us "Berg's Clones"!

evanman wrote:

Out of his own mouth he advocated Paedophilia, incest, lesbianism, the occult, and everything else that was condemed by the very book that Berg stated was the Word of God--The Bible.

Two things: (1) I hope you are not placing "lesbianism" on the same level as "paedophilia"? I am sure you didn't mean it that way, but thought I'd make sure for our readers; and (2) Can you show me where in the Bible lesbianism was "condemned"? I don't recall the Bible ever even mentioning the practice. I could be wrong . . . but I am not a Christian, so I don't study the Bible.

Also, I don't buy the whole "Berg and his teachings were immoral". I don't believe in morality (at least not the kind described by religion) and my life is not governed by what is moral and what is not. I have other reasons for trying to be a "good" person, and it has nothing to do with morality.

So, I don't judge Berg by his values or morality. I simply condemn his illegal activities and encouraging his followers to do the same. When I write "illegal" I don't mean that every law in every country is a good law. I simply mean that as long as a law is a law in the particular country one is residing in, I believe it should be followed until the law is changed.

Jack wrote:

..or did you track your referrers like a good webmaster?

Damn, Jack. I was trying to see if "you wish" would know about that method.

evanman wrote:

he advocated Paedophilia, incest, lesbianism, the occult, and everything else that was condemend by the very book that Berg stated was the Word of God--The Bible.

What do you have against the lesbians? They only do it to get guys hot, you know (at least that's what I've learned from Playboy).

In all seriousness, there are a couple points I'd like to note... Firstly, the Bible does not speak against lesbianism, though it does order that male homosexuals be promptly executed. (I hope you're not advocating Biblical discrimination & repression.) For that matter, where does the Bible specifically condemn incest or pedophilia?

Secondly, while Berg did advocate female bisexuality (which is reasonably common with Family youth today, in part because more SGA females than males have chosen to remain in the cult), "lesbianism," as defined by The Family ("only desiring sex with other women"), is decried as a "perversion" and spiritual problem. (see Charter reference)

And I agree with Thorwald about so-called religious morality. Why would the belief that your values are divinely dictated be more motivating than the knowledge that your values (and laws) come from informed and educated conclusions? What is more likely to be exploitative and harmful: blind acceptance of a code of ethics supposedly dictated by an omnipotent being, or laws and values based in rational thought, education and debate?

My comment was not concerning lesbians.

This forum is not the place to enter into debates over theology and doctrine.

What is illegal or legal has no bearing on that which is perverse and wicked.

So , if a thing were legal that makes it ok?

I disagree.

I will be happy to discuss any matters concerning religion, politics, sport, whatever, you have by PM.

evanman wrote:

This forum is not the place to enter into debates over theology and doctrine.

As one of the moderators of this forum, I am certainly not aware of any policy against debating theology and/or doctrine (that is, our policy). In fact, I would encourage such debate.

evanman wrote:

What is illegal or legal has no bearing on that which is perverse and wicked.

Those terms, "perverse" and "wicked", are subjective terms and are religious in origin in my book.

evanman wrote:

So , if a thing were legal that makes it ok?

Certainly not. If you re-read my post you should understand that it is almost opposite of what I was trying to convey.

Either way, I have written my posts, and continue to, with a jolly attitude. Nothing was meant to be taken too seriously.

All the best mate!

Thank you for clarifying the forum's policy. I am always wary of entering into such debates because they have a tendency to be emotionally driven.

As for "wickedness" and "perversion" being "religious terms", it is surprising how much of the english language finds its terms contained in the Bible.

"Scapegoat", "Escape by the skin of one's teeth", "heavens", amongst others.

As for "Lesbianism" you need to read Paul's letter to the believers in Rome. At the beginning of this letter it speaks concerning the rejection of God. The rejection of God, argues the writer, leads to idolatry, and ultimately to illicit sexual practices. "Women forsaking that which is according to God's nature, in the same way men, also, began to desire other men sexually."

What the Bible deems as illicit sexual practices are listed under the heading of "Fornication". This includes practices such as Bestiality (possibly the worst), Orgies, Sodomy, Buggery, and that which is outside of marriage.

As i pointed out Berg claimed to be one who "followed Christ". It is clear that the Bible contradicted his lifestyle, and so, in order to justify it, he rejected biblical teaching for extra-biblical revelations. So that he could state that the Bible was the word of God back when it was written, but that now we have Berg's writings which "are the Word of God for today"!

Whether or not a person agrees, or disagrees with this is not the issue that I am attempting to get across, I am simply pointing out that if a person wants to claim to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles they have to upho;d that which the Bible teaches. If not, then don't claim to be a follower.

Berg taught that we lived the way that the early church lived---He was sorely mistaken!

Quote:

â€¦you need to read Paul's letter to the believers in Romeâ€¦

While reading anything from Paul, please remember that this was coming from a man who most probably had a major problem coming to terms with his own homosexuality and chose to combat his feelings of guilty by preaching homophobia and misogyny.

One of my fundamental beefs with Christianity and what I would consider a flaw in its very reasoning is its followerâ€™s terrible habit of referencing The Bible as evidence in a case or to back up their self-righteous and extremely prejudice opinions or theories.

For the love of common sense, donâ€™t use an out-dated and frequently mistranslated piece of literature to back up your arguments.

I cannot commit a crime against someone and justify it by anyoneâ€™s standards merely using quotations from a manuscript someone claims to have dug up thousands of years ago regardless of the significant effect said book has had on modern history. So I cannot accept a verse as valid weighing element in a debate.

It has been my experience that followers of Christianity and its sub-cults are unable to defend any points I have challenged in argument without referencing The Bible which is the sole basis of the debated beliefs. This in my opinion, renders their entire arguments worthless.

However, because my beliefs do not encourage bias and discrimination, I must try my utmost to avoid looking down on those who use the evidence of things non-existent to support up theirs. But, I must admit I find if hard to value the opinion of someone who cannot argue or fight for their convictions.

Let me see,

Quote:

For the love of common sense, donâ€™t use an out-dated and frequently mistranslated piece of literature to back up your arguments.

Outdated? "Frequently mistranslated"?

It is interesting that much of our "Modern thinking" is based on ancient beliefs and philosophies, some of which is older than some parts of the Bible itself.

"Frequently Mistranslated", mmm, this would indicate that you are a linguist, and that you could do a better job.

Perhaps you could translate this correctly?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/amanderla/greek.gif

Quote:

While reading anything from Paul, please remember that this was coming from a man who most probably had a major problem coming to terms with his own homosexuality and chose to combat his feelings of guilty by preaching homophobia and misogyny.

I seem to remember that David Berg used a similar argument to justify his teachings concerning "The Sexual Revolution".

Being, himself a Jew, a member of the sect of the P'rushim (Pharisees) Paul's teachings were solidly based in the Hebrew scriptures and the belief that these were divinely inspired. Homophobia is an accusation often levelled at people who reject homosexual practices. This itself is fast becoming a new form of bigotry, hatespeach. Perhaps those who promote Homophilia are themselves Heterophobic?

Quote:

cannot commit a crime against someone and justify it by anyoneâ€™s standards merely using quotations from a manuscript someone claims to have dug up thousands of years ago regardless of the significant effect said book has had on modern history. So I cannot accept a verse as valid weighing element in a debate.

It makes it virtually impossible for a person of "christian" convictions to present any argument that you can accept. This also for anyone who has any "religious" convictions of any type. As you restrict any form of discussion to your own narrow frame of reference.

Quote:

It is interesting that much of our "Modern thinking" is based on ancient beliefs and philosophies, some of which is older than some parts of the Bible itself.

True, and I don't blindly subscribe to any of those either.

Quote:

"Frequently Mistranslated", mmm, this would indicate that you are a linguist, and that you could do a better job.

I have no idea what in my above comment would indicate that I am a linguist or have in interest in translating anything, and no, due to my complete lack of interest resulting in a lack of education on the subject, I cannot translate that correctly.

Quote:

Homophobia is an accusation often levelled at people who reject homosexual practices. This itself is fast becoming a new form of bigotry, hatespeach. Perhaps those who promote Homophilia are themselves Heterophobic?

I agree that homophobia-phobics are in themselves a "new" form of bigotry as are some extremists in the feminist, racism and world peace movements. I don't hate homophobic people, I argue with them.

Quote:

It makes it virtually impossible for a person of "christian" convictions to present any argument that you can accept. This also for anyone who has any "religious" convictions of any type. As you restrict any form of discussion to your own narrow frame of reference.

So, you are suggesting that because I have requested to keep a single element of reference and evidence you are saying I have a narrow frame of reference?

If you're going to keep trying crap like this we're not really having a debate here.

I assumed that because you could affirm with such confidence that the Bible has been "Frequently mistranslated" you knew what you were talking about, I see now that you are speaking simply out of simple prejudice.

No point in continuing this conversation!

Quote:

I assumed that because you could affirm with such confidence that the Bible has been "Frequently mistranslated" you knew what you were talking about, I see now that you are speaking simply out of simple prejudice.

Is Google prejudice? Or is it the 20,000 some articles written by random individuals both supporters and non-supporters that get pulled up that are? If translation weren't a problem, why are there 35 different versions?

In many Bible discussions I've had with individuals who HAVE had great interest in the Bible and Christianity and thereby, studied the languages of the Bible in an effort to better translate it have brought to my attention mistranslations in the Bible. Allow me to give you some quick examples.

To make my point even stronger I will restrict my examples to Greek words used in letters from your big buddy Paul. Umm.. how about.. Ekklesia or ecclesias, episkopos, diakonos, or hupostasis. That's only to name a few off the top of my head.

On a final note, I find it very comical that you would imply that I am prejudice. I'm not the one who has a problem with lesbians. I concur, there is no point in continuing this conversation because you are an buffoon.

The tone by which you speak of "Christians" shows that you are prejudiced against them.

I am not sure what you are trying to point out with the list of Greek words.

There are hundreds of translations of the Bible, not just 35. As far as the English language versions go, it is necessary to update the translation every so often. I could not read the original text of the Authorised Version, the font used is very hard to decipher, and for most people the vocabulary is strange and uncomfortable.( All the "Thees, Thous, ouldsts and dests").

I don't mind being called a buffoon, in fact I shall take it as a compliment! So thanks.

Hi Mel

Mel wrote:

Edit (Moderator): This post has been moved to a restricted forum, in accordance with the author's wishes

They are still very easy to see/find. I wonder WHY?

Although they have been moved thay are still accessible and quite easy to view.

David wrote:

Although they have been moved thay are still accessible and quite easy to view.

Do you mind pointing out where these moved items can be found?

pm
Im trying to send you a pm but it doesn't seem to be working

I got it and have already responded.

Re: pm

David wrote:

Im trying to send you a pm but it doesn't seem to be working

After you brought similar errors to my attention earlier I discovered that if people don't have a valid email address in their profile but the option is enabled for them to be notified by email when new private messages arrive, they still receive the PM but the person trying to send it gets an error. We will eventually address this issue.

Re: blogs

David wrote:

Although they have been moved thay are still accessible and quite easy to view.

Not unless you have access to the restricted forum.

Could it be that you're viewing a cached copy of this page?

Care to be more specific?

From Hobbyns's site, about the xFamily forum and the no-longer-public list of blogs: Links to our faith (okay, so I'm seeing his response nearly 3 months after the fact).

xFamily

My totally cool link archive thread

Quick Links

My Account

able2know