Who is the moderator?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2004

Answers

I thought you where...or am I confused?elp is assistant Modorator. Emily and I are backups.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 17, 2004.

bump

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2004.

Do you have moderator access??

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2004.

I'm confused...

I was reading this awful thread

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CTWF

and saw that you 'came under fire' for using my jaded ruler.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2004.

Where was Elpidio in all that mess?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2004.

Faith, Zarove, and Rod were trying to clear some things, David. Some questoions dealt with plagiarism, saying something about the Catholic Church, and so on. Since I was in the blue about the whole situation... I allowed them to do so.

The good thing, it seems, they finally came to an understanding, David.

Don't forget that at one time you had said to them to stop whatever they had....

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.

Plagarism was never the issue. rod was causing trouble and anyone who reads the initial thread can see for themselves.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.

Here's the thread that started everything David:

false accusations

If you read it from the begining, it will be easy to see who was being *stomped* on--as I said when you returned.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.

Faith conceded to her errors by leaving the forum. Things quickly improved. She then returned under a different username. Most of the regular posters knew it was Faith returning. I asked if Thinktank was in actuallity Faith (I already knew she was, but I needed a public showing). Then, Faith makes the same attacks that caused all the discord , which made her leave in the first place. It's all there if we wish to dig it up again.

All Faith has to do is to apologize for her blanket statements about Catholics or prove her assertions with hard evidence. She has failed to provide neither.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.

You are the moderator, David. Why do you ask?

Here's a thought:

What if I were moderator? Or, what if I had the power to delete and ban?

It would be best for Faith to do her own deletions and retractions when error has been shown to her. She's not ever gonna do that, now is she?

In the meantime, we all have to put up with her style. For how long?

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.

rod,

If I were still moderating, it would be your posts that get deleted.

You are such an accuser and attacker on a personal level--and I told you that that is not allowed here. For some reason, you go undetered.

Here, you lie again and claim that I conceded to my error and then left.

You must realize that everything is still there to be read--hm?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.

Just a side note: I was never made a moderator at this forum, never given moderator access, and never wished to be. I have clarified this several times, but for some reason the confusion keeps coming up. No hard feelings, just an FYI.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 17, 2004.

I think it is about time we bury the hatchet.

I don't agree with the beliefs of most of those in this forum,yet, we learn to respect people for what they have to share as human beings.

The Catholic Church is not the woman of the Apocalypse.It is not Babylon.

There are teachings I don't approve of, dogmas I don't agree with,...a history of persecution against those whpo deviate,...yet....It is not yet Babylon the Great.

Faith was able to cite her sources. So I do believe this matter should be closed now.

Do you think so, David, faith, Rod, Gail,and Zarove?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.

If anyone has a gripe against the Catholic Church, it is me. There are many things that I do not conform to with the Church. That still does not give me the freedom to bring accusations against the Church without solid evidence. Elpidio, you know my situation with the Church.

Faith may disagree and reject the Church all she wants; she doesn't have the freedom to make accusations without hard evidence. We all pay for our sins eventually. I can bury the hatchet. Can Faith? No. She will continue to bring discord to all Catholics.

Elpidio, you know my nature in this forum, more so than anyone else. I have and will continue to bow down just to keep things calm. The back of the bus is ever so familiar.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.

That's true, faith.

Rod, even though tries hard to be a Catholic, his church won't take him as he stands right now.

So in essence, even though he has issues with his own Church, faith, it doesn't mean he doesn't agree with many statements of faith from his church. For that reason he will question your motives for saying something against the Catholic Church.

You and I have gone in long discussions about my beliefs and yours. I don't get upset because I already traveled a long narrow road for 21 years.

So don't take things personal with Rod , Gail,and Zarove.

After all, as Rod says, he is willing to bury the hatchet as all good Christians do, you must do too.

No one is here to get at you. You are always, as I have said before even in private e-mails to you, welcome to contribute. In my own personal opinion, we are all of Yahweh's children in Christ Jesus. He will judge us not just according to our belifs, but our own actions in life.

I don't think David wants to get involved in something he is already familiar with. He might be closer to your beliefs, just as Kevin and Luke are to mine, but we are all different thinkers here. So don't take things personally.

I have already told Rod the same in personal e-mails.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.

Hello everyone!!

I mean--huh??

This is a religion discussion board--remember?????????

I have every right to raise the issues about other religions that I find are not in harmony with God's Word. That is what this board is about.

I am not *attacking* anyone.

I am so tired of this rhetoric.

Raising points about false teachings and theology is what we are to do here. It is rod's job to support Catholicism with Scripture if he can--to show my points wrong. That is all.

There are plenty of people on this board who try to do that. But when it starts getting personal and I have to deal with personal attacks against me or one of my sources--instead of against my points raised-- something is wrong!

As I have said--I never attack anyone personally and the fact that rod or Ian take it persoanally is their problem.

Elpidio--this board is the *Ask Jesus* forum and it should be moderated by someone who believes in Jesus and His fully authoritive Word to us. This is not the Catholic 2 site--and I am sure David opened it because the Catholic site tried to *shut* him up. They cannot come here and demand that we be shut-up!!

For you to say to me to not take things personally is a laugh since I do get attacked on a personal level here. It's real nice that rod is willing to bury the hatchet, and it is a bit of a riot since he is the one swinging it all the time. Remember that I don't attack him personally. But it will be refreshing to see it for real., can rod do it? Can he deal with my posts in a non-personal manner and refrain from attacking me??? Time will tell.

Your posts insinuates that I do not behave in a Christian manner. That is false and you should be careful about mis-judging me. Just because I disagree with catholicism and am not afraid to point out why--does not make me un-Christian. In fact--Jesus calls us to do this.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

WHta abotuwhen you raise isuses that arent true, sch as the claim that Cahtolisim decended ofrm the Pagan Mother and child Cult baed aroudn semiarmis, and the cult spread to dome, and orme later emerged it with christainity? This has no basis in relaity, and yet when peoel poitn this out and give the real myths, you claim we attack the authors...

Or when you say we attack the authsd when we describe the mythology..................

The latter part is personal attakc...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.

It is a personal attack on everyone in this forum when false information is presented as fact, especially without the hard evidence to support that information. It is an insult to our intellect. Would a non-Catholic listen to propaganda and accept it at face value? I sure don't think so. Is this a forum for dumping lies and myths as evidence to destroy one's faith system? Let's ask Faith. Should we all stand on the sidewalk while an innocent pedestrian is about to get creamed by a passing truck?

The time comes when it isn't the false information that must be dealt with only. It eventually becomes the messenger who taints the waters of truth. At that time, it becomes a personal matter for all involved. But, we do have choices: fight back, stand still, walk away.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.

rod,

I see you have your own category now :)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004.

For the rest of you, I advise getting a punching bag or something.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004.

Zarove,

That's the point of this forum.

You say I raise issues that are not true--but that is your opinion.

I can raise whatever issue I want to raise., as long as I am not attacking anyone personally.

I will not shut-up about these things as I feel they are important. I feel that these false teachings in Catholicism are the reason why I never knew Jesus until I became born-again--outside of that church.

I am tired of being singled out because I am not agreeable to everyone here. But I will not compromise God's Word to appease anyone.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

Zarove, That's the point of this forum.

{nO, THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM FOR THEOLOGY, AND HTAT IS ITS POINT.}- Zarove

You say I raise issues that are not true--but that is your opinion.

{No its not. when you start claiming the roman State Religion worshipped a Mother Goddess that was renamed Mary when constanitne merged paganism with christinity, you arent treading on Opinion, but facts of hisotry, facts eaisly disconfirmed.

In short, your claims are easily reuted, and clealry false, and I don NEED opinion to show this, sicne any owrking link to any myhtolgy or hisotyr of anciet rme will prove me correct.}-Zarove

I can raise whatever issue I want to raise., as long as I am not attacking anyone personally.

{You attacked me personally three times now, the lat beign two seperae commens inone post about how illegeble my writing is. Thats attackign the auhtor and not the mesage, Faith.}-Zarove

I will not shut-up about these things as I feel they are important.

{Im askign you to consider looking up the Mythology and Hiasotyr independant of the soruces you use, and comparign them. or at elats addressign the disparagencies when others bign them up.

Lets start withthe lack of a Mother Goddess in roman religoion...}- Zarove

I feel that these false teachings in Catholicism are the reason why I never knew Jesus until I became born-again--outside of that church.

{Thats nice... now what does htis have t do with proving that the orman Sttae rleigion came from babylon nd Started with Semiarmis?}- Zarove

I am tired of being singled out because I am not agreeable to everyone here.

{You arne beign singled out, you brign this on yourself. you WONT defend your postion with credible soruces, ignore oposiiton base don facts, fail to address isuses raised agisnt your case, and make personal attakcs. Then feign victimhood.

Now, Gaith, please answer why I shoiudl beelive the HISTORICAL aspects of your argument of the origin Of Catholiism?}-Zarove

But I will not compromise God's Word to appease anyone.

{I only ask you not to compromise Hisotry and Myhtology for he sake of an Anti-Cahtolic argument. Clearlyt he Claism you mad are falsifiable if you do a simple web seach...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.

Zarove, That's the point of this forum. {nO, THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM FOR THEOLOGY, AND HTAT IS ITS POINT.}- Zarove

Exactly..., and

Clearly this typo problem you have, has nothing to do with dyslexia as you claim. You need to hit-off the capslock! And you need to check yourself from time to time and make the necessary corrections, if you want people to *want* to read your posts.

You say I raise issues that are not true--but that is your opinion.

{No its not. when you start claiming the roman State Religion worshipped a Mother Goddess that was renamed Mary when constanitne merged paganism with christinity, you arent treading on Opinion, but facts of hisotry, facts eaisly disconfirmed.

Really Zarove?

In short, your claims are easily reuted, and clealry false, and I don NEED opinion to show this, sicne any owrking link to any myhtolgy or hisotyr of anciet rme will prove me correct.}-Zarove

How can you prove that Babylonianism has not infiltrated the Christian church--when we can see the pagan practices within that religion? This ought to be good Zarove. Please show me how you think this paganism got into the church? Or show me from the Scriptures that God established it!

I can raise whatever issue I want to raise., as long as I am not attacking anyone personally.

{You attacked me personally three times now, the lat beign two seperae commens inone post about how illegeble my writing is. Thats attackign the auhtor and not the mesage, Faith.}-Zarove

This may be true today--and it is in response to your making an issue of my little error

I will not shut-up about these things as I feel they are important.

{Im askign you to consider looking up the Mythology and Hiasotyr independant of the soruces you use, and comparign them. or at elats addressign the disparagencies when others bign them up.

You assume too much in this remark. I have done my research and am satisfied that Babylonianism became a part of Christian worship during the reign of Constatine.

Lets start withthe lack of a Mother Goddess in roman religoion...}- Zarove

Let's start by getting a hold of the real point, Zarove!

I feel that these false teachings in Catholicism are the reason why I never knew Jesus until I became born-again--outside of that church.

{Thats nice... now what does htis have t do with proving that the orman Sttae rleigion came from babylon nd Started with Semiarmis?}- Zarove

It has everything to do with why I feel the need to point out that Catholicism is filled with false teachings that do not lead people to Christ!

I am tired of being singled out because I am not agreeable to everyone here.

{You arne beign singled out, you brign this on yourself. you WONT defend your postion with credible soruces, ignore oposiiton base don facts, fail to address isuses raised agisnt your case, and make personal attakcs. Then feign victimhood.

Well excuse me Zarove--but it is your opinion that my sources are not credible. But I disagree with you.

Now, Gaith, please answer why I shoiudl beelive the HISTORICAL aspects of your argument of the origin Of Catholiism?}-Zarove

Can you point to a better time when there was this merging of a pagan state with Christianity? And isn't it such a coincidence that this is where you will see all the pagan doctrines starting to flourish?

But I will not compromise God's Word to appease anyone.

{I only ask you not to compromise Hisotry and Myhtology for he sake of an Anti-Cahtolic argument. Clearlyt he Claism you mad are falsifiable if you do a simple web seach...}-Zarove

There you go again calling my resistence to this false theology as being anti-Catholic.

Am I an anti-Jehovah Witness too? Am I an anti-Calvinist too? Am I an anti-evolutionist too? Anti-Mormon?.., anti-Jew., anti-Eastern Orthodox? Anti-Lutheran?? Anti-Democrat??

Sheesh!!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

Zarove, That's the point of this forum. {nO, THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM FOR THEOLOGY, AND HTAT IS ITS POINT.}- Zarove Exactly..., and

Clearly this typo problem you have, has nothing to do with dyslexia as you claim.

Finny, since its obviously something. Most of my posts are the result of dyslexia. I also admit to an occasisonal Typographical error, hwoever, the bulk is obviously sevedre Dyslexia, and there is no reason to deny this base don personal vendetta.

You need to hit-off the capslock!

But not all the itme... most of my spell errors are letter rearrangmenets, and mishitting keys as I cant tell the symols on my keyboard apart half the time. Others are Typeo's which compund the matter, but are fewer than you let on.

Really why would I lie about Dyslexia?

And you need to check yourself from time to time and make the necessary corrections, if you want people to *want* to read your posts.

You are ht eonly en that challegnes the matter of my Dyslexia, soemthiugn that is evident to everyone else and that I woudl not make up, since the pposts are clealry not spelled correclty all the time. I cant go over them Faith, and using a machine to correct them takes an exhuberent amount of time since I cant tell when soemtign is or isnt spelled Right ot begin with...

You say I raise issues that are not true--but that is your opinion.

{No its not. when you start claiming the roman State Religion worshipped a Mother Goddess that was renamed Mary when constanitne merged paganism with christinity, you arent treading on Opinion, but facts of hisotry, facts eaisly disconfirmed.

Really Zarove?

Yes, Really Faith...

In short, your claims are easily reuted, and clealry false, and I don NEED opinion to show this, sicne any owrking link to any myhtolgy or hisotyr of anciet rme will prove me correct.}-Zarove

How can you prove that Babylonianism has not infiltrated the Christian church--

I disprved it already. The so-called Babylonian religion you claim infiltrated christendom at the itme of OCnstantine never existed and want practiced.Likewise, your whoel theory hinges on the fact that this Babylonain religion was the Sttae rleigion of Rome, which is obviously a false fact since there religion was radically different from the Babylonian religion.

Keep in Mind Faith, I am NOT interested in provong negatives, only your positive assertions that can be disconfirmed and are erroneous.

when we can see the pagan practices within that religion?

Such as? And can you prove conclusively that these Pagan Practices are Babyloinian in Origin without reliance on Anti-Catholic mateiral? Can you show me from, say, Berkely or Princeton University Hisotry texts the religion of Babylon presented on its own, so I can compare them to Catholiism?

Dont you get it Faith, the issue is not rather or not you agree with Cahtolisism and never ha been, its that your facts are wrogn concernign several pagan religions ( Of which many existed)and there supposed location and imeline.

Historical facts that can be confirmed if you go to any nonbiased website.

This ought to be good Zarove. Please show me how you think this paganism got into the church? Or show me from the Scriptures that God established it!

Firts off you have to prove you erven knwo hat these pagans where doing.

Again, Gaith, my main problem with you and your posts is the blatant Historical and mythical errors contained therein.

And again, your thery rtests on the Bbaylonian religion beign the state religion of rome, which I have asked you to show, and which you have faled to show.

Clealry you are ignorant of the Paganism that existed as he Sttae religion of Rome and its disparagy with babylonian faith and practices from 1000 or so years earlier.

The fact is this. Your claims of semiarmis are not cedible. Your claims that her cult of the Madonna and child spread pan-globally are not confirmed anywhere. Yoiur theory that the Sttae rleigion fo orme was repackaged Babylonianism is obviously not true, and if you read a Roman work, such as Ovid or the Aneid by virgil you woudl swuftly relaise this.

This is not about the spacific practices of Catholisim, its about the spacific falsity f tyur claims concernign hisotry and Mythology, which do nt corrolate with known facts.

I can raise whatever issue I want to raise., as long as I am not attacking anyone personally.

{You attacked me personally three times now, the lat beign two seperae commens inone post about how illegeble my writing is. Thats attackign the auhtor and not the mesage, Faith.}-Zarove

This may be true today--and it is in response to your making an issue of my little error

I mentioend your grammer once, and you harp on my spelleing thereafter several times. Not good with critisism, are you Faith. Always the need to lash out and defend yourself whn contradicted, and never any substance.

I will not shut-up about these things as I feel they are important.

{Im askign you to consider looking up the Mythology and Hiasotyr independant of the soruces you use, and comparign them. or at elats addressign the disparagencies when others bign them up.

You assume too much in this remark. I have done my research and am satisfied that Babylonianism became a part of Christian worship during the reign of Constatine.

I assume nothing. However, if you have researched and do know how the State rleigoon of Paan frome worked, you are a liar for sayign the state rleigion merged with christendom and renamed thee gddess Mary. I can say your a lair now becase you know that rome had no Mother Goddess to rename, and yet lie by saying they did.

either that, or else your soruces are faulty and you reuse o lsiten to reason.

I prefe to think the latter, but the chances that you will consider looking into investign in a Myhtology book and reading, actualy reading, about the myths and practices of the ancient Pagans, either babylonain or orman, and thre Histories, are small.

the facts remain, Faith. Semiarmis worship did not spread pan- Globally and was never the state religion of rme, and roman Sate Paganism is not identical to yor claims.

If you wan to prove otherwise, you need to demonstrate orm nnbiased soruces that this is indeed the case.

Lets start withthe lack of a Mother Goddess in roman religoion...}- Zarove

Let's start by getting a hold of the real point, Zarove!

Your point is that babylonain religoion was the stte religion of orme and infiltrated the ealry chruch at the time of Ocnstantine,and relies on this connection to be teneble for the mary worship element.

Lajcign this element of a Mother Goddess, your theory dies.

I feel that these false teachings in Catholicism are the reason why I never knew Jesus until I became born-again--outside of that church.

{Thats nice... now what does htis have t do with proving that the orman Sttae rleigion came from babylon nd Started with Semiarmis?}- Zarove

It has everything to do with why I feel the need to point out that Catholicism is filled with false teachings that do not lead people to Christ!

But by using lies to support this , you lead peope to sympathise with rome. You see, your claims ar not teneble. Yo claim that the babylonain religion spread to Rome, were the Goddess was later renamed Mary under Constantine. These facts are nto attested to in any known source, and hus render your entire argumes nothing but fiction.

I am tired of being singled out because I am not agreeable to everyone here.

{You arne beign singled out, you brign this on yourself. you WONT defend your postion with credible soruces, ignore oposiiton base don facts, fail to address isuses raised agisnt your case, and make personal attakcs. Then feign victimhood.

Well excuse me Zarove--but it is your opinion that my sources are not credible. But I disagree with you.

No, its not my opinion. Its a fact. Your sources, which owe there existance to hislop, and even refeenc ehim in toyr own post, are based on bad hisotry and Mythology and canot be supported.

Again, the babylonain rleigion was never spread to Rome and did not become the State Religionof Orme. Indeed, Babylon had alreayd been conquered long before the roman sttae Religion finalised.

rme never had a Mother Goddess to rename Mary.

Adonis was not Benus's Cild, but her lover, and a Mortal.

These arent Opinion, there fact, and any soruce that says otherwise is not credible.

Now, Gaith, please answer why I shoiudl beelive the HISTORICAL aspects of your argument of the origin Of Catholiism?}-Zarove

Can you point to a better time when there was this merging of a pagan state with Christianity?

for semone who keeps sayign I mis the poiunt, you seem completley incapable of addressign the issue that I actually broght up in yur post. Histrical innacuracy.

Aain, my only real issue with the posts n qiueatsion are the claism you made. Claism like the supposed Mother Goddess beecoming MAry, and rome using Babylonain religoon as there state Religion.

Historical Facts tat are nto attested to by Hisotry are fiction.

And isn't it such a coincidence that this is where you will see all the pagan doctrines starting to flourish?

Or is it? And interestignly, I didnt mention Doctorines at all, I mentioend the Paganism of rome, which is alein tot he presentations toy offer.

before chasing down another rabbid hole, why not try to actually address the historical elements of the Paganism of rome before trgn to link them to Catholisism, since that i whe my interest lay in this discussion.

show me the roman mother Goddess and sow me the Babylonain Connection by mean of a real hisotry site or book, and lets talk about that for a while, shall we?

But I will not compromise God's Word to appease anyone.

{I only ask you not to compromise Hisotry and Myhtology for he sake of an Anti-Cahtolic argument. Clearlyt he Claism you mad are falsifiable if you do a simple web seach...}-Zarove

There you go again calling my resistence to this false theology as being anti-Catholic.

You do realise the Term "Anti-Catholic" means resisting Catholisism, right?

Am I an anti-Jehovah Witness too? Am I an anti-Calvinist too? Am I an anti-evolutionist too? Anti-Mormon?.., anti-Jew., anti-Eastern Orthodox? Anti-Lutheran?? Anti-Democrat??

If you activley debaye them like this, yes. Just like I am Anti- Abotion and Anti-Meat eating...

Sheesh!!

Now that you have had a good screamign atantrum, can you please show me the historical facts I actulaly mentioend and lay off the Catholsiism which Im not even defending?

By the way it was Bold, not italics, you needed to off.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.

I have no problems reading Zarove's posts. The beauty of his posts are that they are honest. The beauty of the readers here is that they are willing to bend enough to understand Zarove's posts. It is, afterall, the Christian thing to do.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.

Faith, the fact that you didn't find Jesus in the Catholic Church means absolutely nothing. Many people grow up in ALL KINDS OF CHURCHES, even fundamentalist, autonomous, "Bible-believing" churches like your's and never find Christ until later in their lives.

The problem is your sources of information are noncredible, and therefore cannot be believed by anyone who uses logic with which to reason. There's an old saying, "consider the source," which bears much weight when producing any kind of evidence. If you were in a court of law and tried to produce the kinds of slander you resort to as "evidence," any trial attorney worth half a merit would eat-you-up- for-lunch!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 18, 2004.

And in the same way, Gail..

If the Scriptures were your measure of truth and authority, the Catholic religion would be judged guilty of false teaching and be thrown out of court. As far as I am concerned, your source is not credible--whatever that is., cause I know it isn't God's Word.

The Catholic religion is in no way what Jesus had in mind, when He established the church.

You can attack Hislop or Dave Hunt for pegging Catholicism as pagan all you want. Even without their work, all one has to do is look at the rituals and veneration of saints and relics.., and the pageantry and festivals to recognize the truth.

Do we see evidence of this type of practice in the Scripures with the early believers?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

Faith, wat Im askign you is to prove our spacific allogations, suhc as " The Mother Goddes of rome was renamed Mary". since rome had no Mother Goddess ow the dukes do toy expect to be taken seriosuly?

Or that the roman Religion csme form babylon...

Prving these has absolutely nohtign to do with Catholisism, and predate it, an thats wha I wanted yo to prodice evdence for...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.

I believe that in pagan Rome--the Mother/Child were known as Fortuna and Jupiter-puer, or Jupiter, the boy.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

Your sources are fiction panderings of vicious and unstable persons with not a hoot of evidence. Therein lies the problem. Why in the world would someone cleave to unsubstantiated, historically inacurrate ramblings such as these, unless they just simply wanted to.

Zarove keeps asking you for proof, I keep asking you for proof, everyone on the forum keeps asking you for proof, but you have NOTHING! In fact, the evidence is mounted against your claims.

Simple logic, Faith, if what you say is true, then why didn't Athanasius notice the Church was PAGAN? Why didn't Augustine notice the house was CORRUPT? Why are there no writings from peoples esteemed by even Protestants suggesting their ship had been hijacked by the pagan Goddess Mary? Were they blind? Were they stupid? Were they biblically illiterate? AU CONTRAIRE! And yet, just because so- and-so makes a charge some 2,000 years later, YOU BELIEVE IT!

Gail

P.S. BTW, it is my full contention and belief that the Bible you keep thumping points to ONE UNITED HOLY AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH! I don't have to twist it, I don't have to churn it, I don't have to throw out select passages because they don't fit my preconceived notions of what the church "ought-to-be-according-to-Gail."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 18, 2004.

History proves that Catholicism's adoration of images, dead saints and relics, its holy candles, holy water, etc., and all its vain ritual, are borrowed from heathen sources.

Papacy's excuse, as voiced by Cardinal Newman, is that although it is admitted that such things are "the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship," they were, however, "sanctified by adoption into the church." (Newman's Development, pp. 359,360)

But it is now clearly apparent that the Roman Church has not been justified in adopting heathen customs and practices. For this very reason, the Catholic Church is denominated "Babylon the Great"; the Babylon of old was full of these abominations, and therefore well typified the fallen church of the Gospel Age.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

Zarove--

It might surprise you to find out that not only has Babylon never really left us, but also that the Bible dedicates six entire chapters to it's final judgment and destruction in such specific detail as to tell us that this destruction is, at least in part, yet future.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

As already mentioned, we can see that the Babylonian Mother & Child worship spread throughout the world but under different names. When you thoroughly research this topic of ancient Babylon, you find many many stories & legends from other cultures where the stories are the same, right down to the detail, but the names vary.

For instance ...

CUSH Who was the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah ... is also known as; Bel "The Confounder", Belus, Chaos, Janus, Merodach, Mercury, Hermes..etc.

NIMROD is also known as; Ninus, Nin, Kronos or Saturn, etc. From Persian records we are expressly assured that it was Nimrod who was deified after his death by the name of Orion, and placed among the stars.

SEMIRAMIS was also known as; Rhea the "tower-bearing goddess" Ishtar, Arstarte, Ashtaroth, Venus, Isis, Isi, Cybel, Fortuna, Ceres the Great Mother, Irene the Goddess of Peace, Shing Moo, the Holy Mother etc.

TAMMUZ was also known as; Bacchus "The Lamented One". Osiris, Iswara, Deoius, Jupiter-puer or Jupiter the boy, the boy Plutus, Baal, This son who was worshipped was given the names of promised Messiah who was to come, as Christ in the Hebrew of the Old Testament was called Adonai the Lord...So Tammuz was also called Adon or Adonis. Under the name of Miithras he was worshipped as the Mediator.

Now, as if that is not confusing enough, how about this ... Any name attributed to Tammuz "the Son" you can also attribute to "Nimrod" and visa versa... because when Semiramis had her son Tammuz, she not only declared that he was virgin born, but she also declared that he was the reincarnation of Nimrod! Which is why when you research this topic in both Christian & Secular sources you will sometimes see Nimrod called the husband and sometimes the son of Semiramis.

Hislop writes:

"As Semiramis the wife was worshipped as Rhea, whose grand distinguishing character was that of the great goddess mother, the conjuncture of her with her husband, under the name of Ninus, or "the Son" was sufficient to originate the peculiar worship of the Mother and the Son so extensively diffused among the nations antiquity; and this no doubt, is the explanation of the fact which has so much puzzled the inquirers into ancient history, that Ninus is sometimes called the husband and sometimes called the son of Semiramis. This also accounts for the very same confusion of relationship between Isis and Osiris, the mother and child of the Egyptians for as Bunsen shows, Osiris was represented in Egypt as at once the son and husband of his mother and actually bore as one of his titles of dignity and honour, the name "Husband of the Mother"."

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

Faith, I cannot believe you had the audacity to do it again! You took your excerpt from Morton Edgar's Mythology and the Bible." which can be found here. http://www.agsconsulting.com/myth.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 18, 2004.

After this Gail:

Your sources are fiction panderings of vicious and unstable persons with not a hoot of evidence. Therein lies the problem. Why in the world would someone cleave to unsubstantiated, historically inacurrate ramblings such as these, unless they just simply wanted to.

I can't believe that you can't believe it.

I can't believe you have the audacity to expect me to offer you anything!

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

I don't expect you to offer me anything in the way of PROOF. I gave up on that a long time ago. I had thought though that maybe, perhaps, you had grown one molecule of integrity, but I see that even now, you still are taking the work of other', NOT CITING YOUR SOURCES, and applying your name! Are you so hard up for "esteem" that you're willing to steal the half-baked work of other anti- Catholic bigots like yourself? What? Can't you compose your own inventions? You just simply dig and dig until you find someone as pathetically hard up for garbage as you are, so you can regurgitate it under a new name -- YOUR'S! HOW PATHETIC!

Here is a link to Newman in toto, NOT just the 'word here' and 'word there' that your author quoted. READ IT! EVERY SINGLE decision the Church made in adopting its liturgy was to COMBAT paganism. http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 18, 2004.

No Gail..,I refuse to reveal my sources ever again.

The reason is that their work is dismissed and the discussion becomes about them--every time. You proved my point!

From now on--I will simply write--author-unknown--even though that doesn't seem to do the trick either.

I can understand why you don't like my sources. But they make far too much sense to ignore.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.

Faith, Jupiter the boy was never worhsipped as central tot he state rleigion of rome...His others name was cybell if memory serves...not fortuna...

Neither is there a connection tot he Indo-european Mythologies and there Babylonain cpnerparts form millinai past.

Nor was Nimrod Married to Semirarmis. ( They didnt even live inthe same centuries, Faith...)

Nor was she called RRhea at any time in babylonain Hisotry. Or ever.

Im not jjst denying, if you wantot prov eme worng, show me form a reputable website, not some anti-Cahtolci Gibberish designed only to show how Pagan the Cahtlci chruhc is. I sdon care about those sorces. I want MYTHOLOGY OR HISOTRY BOOKS.

Books that offer raw myth or raw hisotyr woht no acxes to grind.

Until then Im goiungt be an idipt and use sandard textbooks and the generlaly accepted myhtologies of these pople.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.

Sorry Zarove--but I trust a source that is capable of connecting the dots of history with biblical truth and revelation.

Secular sources cannot even begin to do this and this is why they get confused.

I stand by my sources.

If you don't like them--then what can I say?

Do you seriously believe that everything they say is wrong and you are right?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.

Sorry Zarove--but I trust a source that is capable of connecting the dots of history with biblical truth and revelation. -Faith

But there is no guarantee your source is being guided by the Holy Spirit, Faith.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 19, 2004.

There is no garantee that anyone is being guided by the Holy Spirit unless.,as Scripture reveals--you have received Christ by faith as your savior.

I can't really say for sure about anyone, though I can trust the Holy Spirit in me to guide me properly. I know when I read something whether it rings true with Scripture or not.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.

I was the one who first revealed your source as being Hislop. You denied it. You now continue to use Hislop as your source eventhough you have been told of his error. You now wish to continue to post without revealing your sources and prefer to "hide" them by posting "author unknown", which would be a lie. Now, how can you dare say that the Holy Spirit is in you when you are in the business of deceiving others? Everything needs to be placed on the table for everyone to see if you wish to be in the truth of things, Faith. Obviously, your style is to deceive others in order to win an argument. In this case, it is an argument in error on your part.

Just admit that you know nothing about the Catholic Church, then start listening to what these Catholic can teach you about their real experiences in Catholicism. In the meantime, your words about Catholicism are empty. Have a nice day.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.

Excuse me rod,

But the only reason you know Hislop is a source--is because my post says so!

If you were able to respond to the points, rather than the credibility of the author--then I would have no problem posting all my sources.

Just because you don't think my sources are credible, doesn't make it so. Why I find uncredible is the Catholic hierarchy, yet people post all sorts of proclamations made by them.

So lets just stay focused on the issues.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.

Faith says:

"No Gail..,I refuse to reveal my sources ever again."

Actually Faith, you would be practicing plaigerism if you did that. Plaigerism is a form of stealing, which I don't think any Christian can condone.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.

Faith, C hristain soruces as well as secular rfte our claims. worse still, if you read the myths of babylon and then those or Greeco- rome, you woidl swiflty realsie they arent at all similar, and neither relay had a Mother-and-Child cult.

Why i it that, outsde of ytor "godly' soruces, no hiustorical reference exists ti substantiate a religious moveents existance that not only thrived an spread globally, btu was the state rleiion of Orme? why do all roman Soruces paint a radiclay differen pictur?

If they where al boing down ot he queen of Heaven, a role later given Mary by the evil and corrupt Catholic Curch at the time of COnstantine, why don they thinkwnoughof her to mention her soemwhere?

yOU CANT GO TO A cATOLCI WEBSITE WTHOU mARY EIGN MENTIOEND, YET WITH OVER 100'000 MSS avaiable form antiquity develoeld form oagan rome, we have not a signle mention f this, why?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.

In support of Andy's comments above, here is an excerpt from an article entitled http://www.probe.org/docs/mystery.html

PAUL AND MYSTERY RELIGIONS by Don Closson

"A common criticism of Christianity found on college campuses today is that its core ideas or teachings were dependent upon Greek philosophy and religious ideas. It is not unusual for a student to hear from a professor that Christianity is nothing more than a strange combination of the Hebrew cult of Yahweh, notions adopted from the popular Greek mystery religions of the day, and a sprinkling of ideas from Greek philosophic thought. This criticism of traditional Christianity is not new. In fact, its heyday was in the late 1800s to the 1940s and coincides with what is now called the History of Religions movement. This group of theologians and historians accused Paul of adding Greek ideas to his Hebrew upbringing, and in the process, creating a new religion: one that neither Jesus nor His first disciples would recognize."

**********

Your frivolous allegations against the Church, Faith, ARE being used by atheists to destroy Christianity as mentioned by Andy above. I am surprised you haven't used the DiVinci Code yet!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2004.

No James,

I can simply write author unknown.

And half the time I'd be saying the truth since my folder is filled with things I have saved--minus the author info.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.

Faith says:

"No James, I can simply write author unknown."

That actually, would be dishonest and would be unfair to the author of the material you were using. Scripture is quite clear that we are to respect the property rights of others. Plagiarism is the theft of others work and a deliberate improper citation would be a lessor form of theft, it would still be theft. We need to practice holiness in all areas of our lives if we are to be effective witnesses to the Gospel, not just where it is convenient or easy.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.

Actually James,

Plagarism is when someone tries to pass-off someone elses work as their own--which means you would have to know who I am, I would have to be signing my real name to it--and it would have to be for the purpose of getting published and obtaining financial gain.

That is hardly what takes place here.

If you want me to put out the author's name so you can trash him and lie about his credibility--I am sorry, but I won't do it. I have the right to protect my sources.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.

You are not a reporter Faith. Reporters have the right to withhold information on their informants. You do not have the right to pawn off the work of others as your own, pseudonym, or not.

You continually trash our Church (and that's okay, right?) but we are not given the benefit of knowing where your trash comes from. I can always tell, though, when the trash is coming from someone else other than you!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2004.

Faith says:

"Plagarism is when someone tries to pass-off someone elses work as their own--which means you would have to know who I am, I would have to be signing my real name to it--and it would have to be for the purpose of getting published and obtaining financial gain."

To legally prosecute you for plagiarism I would have to know who you are. However, the use of other people's work without proper acknowledgement is plagiarism. As to your second point, you are absolutely 100% wrong. As you know, I am a college professor and if a student plagiarizes, even one sentence, I have right to flunk him or her for the course and can petition that the student be removed from the university. I am talking about a in class paper here, nothing to be published. Second, I have published articles where I have not been compensated. Just because I am not being paid, does not absolve me from the responsibility not to pass off other people's works as my own. I have seen a college president resign under pressure because of this issue. The plagiarism involved about a paragraph, and nobody asked whether he was compensated for the article.

As I said before,plagiarism is theft. Even a minor amount of theft is too much for a Christian.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.

Faith says:

"If you want me to put out the author's name so you can trash him and lie about his credibility--I am sorry, but I won't do it. I have the right to protect my sources. "

If you are so worried that our criticism will destroy the reputation of your sources, then perhaps you should reconsider your sources. In statistical research you are using what is known as convenience sampling. Your evidence comes from an source that conveniently supports your position, with no observations that refute or don't support your hypotheses.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.

If you want me to put out the author's name so you can trash him and lie about his credibility--I am sorry, but I won't do it. I have the right to protect my sources. - Faith

I think it's important to be open with our sources Faith. The credibility (or not) of the source gives credibility (or not) to our argument. Our sources should always be open to scrutiny.

I think everyone would agree that just writing someone off as anti- this or anti-that isn't enough to discredit a source.

But an amatuer archaeologist has less credibility than a published archaeologist with professional training, for example. Being open with our sources and opening them up to scrutiny is part of public debate and accepted scholarship.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 19, 2004.

And James, this woman expects us to believe that she is doing "the nobel thing" by "protecting her sources". I wonder how Morton would feel about that. Perhaps he should be made aware of the fact that there is a woman out here in cyberspace "protecting" him against vicious attacks by using his work with her pseudo-name. You know, he may want to at least thank her for her courage! LOL! LOL! Why, she's like a lion protecting her cubs after all.

OH PLEASE, FAITH, do you ever admit your errors!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2004.

Not if the real topic gets lost in the process and the topic becomes the author, rather than what we were trying to discuss.

It is a deliberate tactic and is designed to take the focus off the issues raised. This is usually the first response my sources get-- because they make great sense and no one is usually able to refute what they say. So instead--they attack the author. It's typical really and I see it at my other sites as well.

You are different Andy. If you wanted to discuss the credibility of an author--I would listen to you because you also address the issues with polite reason.

But people like rod or Gail do not deserve the right to trash my sources.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh, you are just tooooo much, Faith! You provide the fuel for these "diversions" over and over and over again. Then you start slinging back insults in order to quench the fire that YOU STARTED with your very poor choices.

Oh, Andy, will be so glad to hear that he has your approval, BUT unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before you completely alienate him as well. I mean, really, Faith, if you can get to Rod, you will get to anyone . . . eventually!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2004.

Not if the real topic gets lost in the process and the topic becomes the author, rather than what we were trying to discuss. It is a deliberate tactic and is designed to take the focus off the issues raised.

This is not tuth Faith. I pointed out the Mythologies and hwo they didnt corrospond. you ignroed me, and clamed I attacke donly auhtors.

I eman, fortuna was not Jupiters Mother, nor was "Jupiter, the boy" worshipoed in rome. ( Only Jupoter the grown adult god.) I likewise show how Mardok is not Mimrod and Semiarmis has no conencton to him. I hav stated that babylonain rleigion, a semetic religion form over 1000 year sbefore romes state rlgiion appeard, had no connection to Rome or its state rleigion.

you choose to disregard this and claim falsely that i ignroe the issues and attakc the authors.

I even posted queatsions, wich you ignroed.

Actlaly address the issues yorself, faith, and cease beign a hyupocriute here.

This is usually the first response my sources get-- because they make great sense and no one is usually able to refute what they say. So instead--they attack the author. It's typical really and I see it at my other sites as well.

You are different Andy. If you wanted to discuss the credibility of an author--I would listen to you because you also address the issues with polite reason.

But people like rod or Gail do not deserve the right to trash my sources.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.

Faith says:

"But people like rod or Gail do not deserve the right to trash my sources. "

Actually, I would argue that they do have the right to question your sources. There is no reason that they should accept what you say at face value, we need to think critically about everything and if there is a problem with one of your sources, that is worthy of debate.

You certainly wouldn't expect us to accept everything you present at face value, would you? In academia, the source of data is always something that can be questioned.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.

James, that has been my experience also. In fact, my college training has taught me to not trust any information that is not from *reliable* sources, or at least to question that information. Critical thinking regarding sources is the key issue here. That's what differentiates between some nobody spouting off random opinions that they made up, and a scholar who researches diligently, and finds proof using reliable sources.

Pointing out that someone fails to use reliable sources is not "bashing the author", but simply stating a fact of rules in scholarly work. An author is only to be respected in accord with the work that he or she puts into research, using reliable sources to make their claims. Now, I could probably prove anything I wanted by using some sources somewhere, but that doesn't mean it's true or that my sources are reliable.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 19, 2004.

Here again is the link from which Faith cut and pasted her excerpt if anyone is interested in reading the entire thing.

http://www.agsconsulting.com/menub7.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2004.

Gail,

Is this what Faith considers trashing her sources?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.

Emily says:

"Critical thinking regarding sources is the key issue here. That's what differentiates between some nobody spouting off random opinions that they made up, and a scholar who researches diligently, and finds proof using reliable sources."

Very well said Emily. I remember when I was doing freshman orientation in the fall, I took my kids to the library and the librarian googled: athletes steroids olympics

and one of the first articles was from someone arguing that athletes should take steroids!

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.

Oh, she's mad because I said this about her sources:

"Your sources are fictional panderings of vicious and unstable persons with not a hoot of evidence. Therein lies the problem. Why in the world would someone cleave to unsubstantiated, historically inacurrate ramblings such as these, unless they just simply wanted to."

That is what supposedly provoked her to later use the workings of that Morton fellow and then applied her "pseudo-nym," keeping Morton's name hidden from our sight! (She was protecting Morton from my vicious attacks)

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2004.