Inner Space :  The Official forums
For discussions on all matters relating to personal development, religion, philosophy, psychology and so on. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Archietype wrote:
> Paul Mallon wrote:
> > In my experience those who would find cause and time to
> > criticise Christianity are people who nurture a great
> > ignorance of the religion while enthusiastically embracing
> > ill conceived factitious stories that basically go a long the
> > lines what all those religious people who have spent time
> > studying their religion in an informed manner are wrong and
> > this wild idea from this philosophical conjurer who is
> > probably got as many good intentions as a paedophile on heat.
> This has got to be be one of the most offensive posts I've
> seen in a long time.
Hi Bill,

Let me begin by offering my apologies for any offence I may inadvertently caused. I was in no way suggesting that people who are not practicing Christians are like paedophiles on heat. That was not my intention. My intention was to draw a derogative comparison with the writers of the anti-Christain propaganda who would have us believe variously that:

1. Christ did not live.
2. That Chrsit lived but salient books of the NT have been maliciously left out by the Pope and his descendants.
3. That Christ did live and fathered a brood of children with Mary...
4. Christ did not live and there there is no evidence of him having lived and that the Jesus story is based on pre-existing pagan traditions.

The negative analogy I created because I would question the motives of the writers (by that I mean published writers) of the anti-Christain propoganda. Further I was also suggesting taht people who do hold to such ideas harbour a grudge against the Christain faith or in some way have come to hate the Christain faith.

I would recognise that many people who would chose to discuss the ideas of the 'philosophical conjurers' are or have been brought up in the Christian faith and have now come to question it. Further, I was asking people on this those who would discuss the ideas of such writers to ask themselves how much they know of their own Christin traditions . I sometimes get the impression that their knowledge is based on the anti-christain texts and not on the teaching of the Bible or any Christian Church.

> Is it fair to suggest that anyone who is engaged in a
> spiritual journey of discovery, which includes questioning
> the authenticity of organized religious beliefs be branded
> ignorant or a paedophile in heat?

Just to restate you have misread and misinterpreted my post.

> Or is it fair to suggest that adherents of other religions
> who do not accept Jesus Christ as a historical figure or as
> their saviour also be branded ignorant or a paedophile in heat?

As above. I was specifically refering to the writers who spend time creating the anti-Christain propogsnda.

> A "paedophile in heat" is a VERY strong and INAPPROPRIATE
> term to use as far as intentions go, for a Zen Bhuddist,
> Taoist or a Hindu. Even a Bahai would be offended by such
> remarks.

Again I was not refering to people who practice other Faiths

> Under these circumstances, it seems to me that this thread
> should have been deleted when it started. It is an insult to
> every other religious belief system which, btw, represents
> 3/4 of the world's population.
> Bill

My post was deliberately provactive. But in know way should it have been read as an attack on any other religion.

Thanks for reading my post and taking the time to reply to it.


Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Lent: Ash Wednesday 383 Paul Mallon 25-Feb-04 19:57
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 131 Mark Staab 26-Feb-04 03:38
Mod Comment 144 ArmchairObserver 26-Feb-04 06:14
Re: Mod Comment 124 Mark Staab 26-Feb-04 06:49
Re: Mod Comment 131 ArmchairObserver 26-Feb-04 06:56
Thanks for that, too! n/t 186 Saorsa 26-Feb-04 08:14
Thanks for that, Stephanie. n/t 178 Saorsa 26-Feb-04 08:13
Christian fundamentalism? 149 Kees 26-Feb-04 08:45
LOL! Teasing, Kees? 161 Mark Staab 26-Feb-04 10:38
Dead serious Mark 129 Kees 26-Feb-04 11:16
Re: Dead serious Mark 116 Mark Staab 26-Feb-04 18:25
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 131 Paul Mallon 04-Mar-04 10:16
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 125 ArmchairObserver 26-Feb-04 06:54
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 124 Paul Mallon 04-Mar-04 10:41
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 140 ArmchairObserver 04-Mar-04 16:33
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 127 Paul Mallon 05-Mar-04 10:10
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 124 ArmchairObserver 05-Mar-04 17:13
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 226 Paul Mallon 05-Mar-04 18:18
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 147 Lee McGiffen 26-Feb-04 07:56
Mod remark 139 Kees 26-Feb-04 08:47
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 127 Shawnzi 26-Feb-04 17:12
Mod remark 133 Kees 26-Feb-04 17:15
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 141 Paul Mallon 04-Mar-04 10:46
Mod remark 131 ArmchairObserver 04-Mar-04 16:35
Re: Mod remark 132 Paul Mallon 05-Mar-04 10:16
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 138 Lee McGiffen 05-Mar-04 13:05
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 230 Nebankh 26-Feb-04 13:15
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 157 Paul Mallon 04-Mar-04 10:54
Memes, Creeds and Needs 150 Thirdwave 04-Mar-04 12:18
Re: Memes, Creeds and Needs 133 Paul Mallon 05-Mar-04 10:13
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 125 Paul Mallon 26-Feb-04 17:42
Re: Lent: Ash Wednesday 134 Ahatmose 04-Mar-04 21:21
Hey, moderator!!!!! 150 Archietype 05-Mar-04 06:08
Re: Hey, moderator!!!!! 132 ArmchairObserver 05-Mar-04 06:43
Re: Hey, moderator!!!!! 109 Paul Mallon 05-Mar-04 10:07
Re: Hey, moderator!!!!! 133 Ahatmose 05-Mar-04 13:14
Re: Hey, moderator!!!!! 177 Paul Mallon 05-Mar-04 14:25
Re: Hey, moderator!!!!! 110 Lee McGiffen 05-Mar-04 13:29
Historical fact: 130 Paul Mallon 05-Mar-04 13:56
Re: Historical fact: 128 Lee McGiffen 05-Mar-04 14:50
Re: Historical fact: 132 Paul Mallon 05-Mar-04 14:56
Re: Historical fact: 125 Lee McGiffen 05-Mar-04 15:09

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.