Selma, I knew some smart minds would respond to this thread. Thanks for
reading the posts on this 'hot' topic. I empathize with you for your "really
vile mood". You are forgiven. Saiba bhogos!
Did my writings on this topic touch a raw nerve? Do I detect a bit of 'gnostic
defense' in your post? Have I shattered your faith in Dan Brown and his
version of early Church history? Are you into the "Sacred Feminine" or some
similar movement?
Those who are / have been stoned and burnt for their belief in their Christian
faith in Orissa and for 400 years in Roman times, died willingly
and firmly believing that they have a "hot-line to the Divine" and that they
are children of God through Jesus. They could easily have been a wee bit like
you saying, "Why should I die? Just because some pretentious religious
men are shooting in the dark'?"
Perhaps these martyrs can be teaching you and me something.. Can we learn from
them? Can we admire them and use them as role models; instead of paying lip
service for their sacrifice for their / our faith?
Can we combine your histrionics with my limited knowledge of historicity?
Vodlem vutram for this supurlo Goenkar. Yet, you are really criticizing the
historicity of James Garlow and Perter Jones.
Your responses had no bearing on what they were trying to convey to you. Before
you respond, perhaps you should read their books. Yeah good-luck with that.:=))
Regards, GL
------------ Carvalho
Forgive me for being in a really vile mood this morning. .... The truth is,
Gilbert, that lady and everyone else who professes to have "knowledge" of
anything religious are all shooting in the dark. For the record, Gilbert's
knowledge about the historicity of Christianity is zero, zilch, zip. The most
pretentious thing religious men of all hues, colours, caste and creed, do is
pretend they have some hot-line to the Divine. From this position of assumed
knowledge, they then want to police and pile everyone else with moral
platitudes.
