Trending Games | ArcheAge | Pirate101 | Wasteland 2 | MapleStory

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,860,202 Users Online:0
Games:742  Posts:6,245,803
Recent forum postsRSS
Active threads
Cloud view
List all forums
General Forums
Developers Corner General Discussion
Popular Game Forums
Click a status to find game forum
Game Forums
Click a letter to find game forum
A-C
2029 Online 2112: Revolution 2Moons 4Story 8BitMMO 9 Dragons A Mystical Land A Tale in the Desert III A3 ACE Online ARGO Online Aberoth Absolute Force Online Absolute Terror Achaea Adellion Aerrevan Aetolia, the Midnight Age Age of Armor Age of Conan Age of Empires Online Age of Mourning Age of Wulin Age of Wushu Aida Arenas Aika Aion Albion Online Alganon All Points Bulletin (APB) Allods Online Altis Gates Amazing World Anarchy Online Ancients of Fasaria Andromeda 5 Angels Online Angry Birds Epic Anime Trumps Anmynor Anno Online Applo Arcane Hearts Arcane Legends ArchLord ArcheAge Archeblade Archlord X Ascend: Hand of Kul Asda 2 Asda Story Ashen Empires Asheron's Call Asheron's Call 2 Astera Online Astonia III Astro Empires Astro Lords: Oort CLoud Asura Force Atlantica Online Atriarch Aura Kingdom Aurora Blade Auto Assault Avatar Star Battle Dawn Battle Dawn Galaxies Battle for Graxia Battle of 3 Kingdoms Battle of the Immortals Battlecruiser Online Battlestar Galactica Online Battlestar Reloaded Beyond Protocol Black Aftermath Black Desert Black Gold Black Prophecy Black Prophecy Tactics: Nexus Conflict Blacklight Retribution Blade & Soul Blade Hunter Blade Wars Blazing Throne Bless Blitz 1941 Blood and Jade Bloodlines Champions Boot Hill Heroes Borderlands 2 Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel Bound by Flame Bounty Bay Online Brain Storm Bravada Bravely Default Bravely Second Brawl Busters. Brick-Force Bright Shadow Bullet Run Business Tycoon Online CTRacer Cabal Online Caesary Call of Camelot Call of Gods Call of Thrones Camelot Unchained Canaan Online Cardmon Hero Cartoon Universe CasinoRPG Cast & Conquer Castle Empire Castlot Celtic Heroes Champions Online Champions of Regnum Chaos Online Child of Light Chrono Tales Citadel of Sorcery CitiesXL Citizen Zero City of Decay City of Heroes City of Steam City of Transformers City of Villains Civilization Online Clan Lord Clash of Clans Cloud Nine Club Penguin Colony of War Command & Conquer: Tiberium Alliances Company of Heroes Online Conquer Online Conquer Online 3 Continent of the Ninth (C9) Core Blaze Core Exiles Corum Online Craft of Gods Crimecraft Crimelife 2 Cronous Crota II Crusaders of Solaris Cultures Online Cyber Monster 2 Céiron Wars
D-F
D&D Online DC Universe DK Online DOTA DOTA 2 DUST 514 DV8: Exile Dalethaan Dance Groove Online Dark Age of Camelot Dark Ages Dark Legends Dark Orbit Dark Relic: Prelude Dark Solstice Dark and Light DarkEden Online DarkSpace Darkblood Online Darkest Dungeon Darkfall Darkfall: Unholy Wars Darkwind: War on Wheels Das Tal Dawn of Fantasy Dawntide DayZ Dead Earth Dead Frontier Dead Island Dead Island 2 Dead Island: Riptide Deco Online Deepworld Defiance Deicide Online Dekaron Demons at the Horizon Desert Operations Destiny Diablo 3 Diamonin Digimon Battle Dino Storm Disciple Divergence Divina Divine Souls Divinity: Original Sin Dofus Dominus Online Dragon Age: Inquisition Dragon Ball Online Dragon Born Online Dragon Crusade Dragon Empires Dragon Eternity Dragon Nest Dragon Oath Dragon Pals Dragon Raja Dragon's Call Dragon's Call II Dragon's Prophet DragonSky DragonSoul Dragona Dragonica Dragons and Titans Drakengard 3 Dream of Mirror Online Dreamland Online Dreamlords: The Reawakening Drift City Duels Dungeon Blitz Dungeon Fighter Online Dungeon Overlord Dungeon Party Dungeon Rampage Dungeon Runners Dungeon of the Endless Dynastica Dynasty Warriors Online Dynasty of the Magi EIN (Epicus Incognitus) EVE Online Earth Eternal Earth and Beyond Earthrise Eclipse War Ecol Tactics Online Eden Eternal Edge of Space Einherjar - The Viking's Blood Elder Scrolls Online Eldevin Elf Online Elite: Dangerous Embers of Caerus Emil Chronicle Online Empire Empire & State Empire Craft Empire Universe 3 EmpireQuest Empires of Galldon End of Nations Endless Ages Endless Blue Moon Online Endless Online Entropia Universe EpicDuel Erebus: Travia Reborn Eredan Eternal Blade Eternal Lands Eternal Saga Ether Fields Ether Saga Online Eudemons Online EuroGangster EverEmber Online EverQuest Next EverQuest Online Adventures Evernight Everquest Everquest II Evony Exarch Exorace F.E.A.R. Online Face of Mankind Fairyland Online Fall of Rome Fallen Earth Fallen Sword Fallout Online Family Guy Online Fantage Fantasy Earth Zero Fantasy Realm Online Fantasy Tales Online Fantasy Worlds: Rhynn Faunasphere Faxion Online Fearless Fantasy Ferentus Ferion Fiesta Online Final Fantasy Type-0 HD Final Fantasy XI Final Fantasy XIV Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn Firefall Fists of Fu Florensia Flyff Football Manager Live Football Superstars Force of Arms Forge Forsaken World Fortnite Fortuna Forum for Discussion of Everlight Freaky Creatures Free Realms Freesky Online Freeworld Fung Wan Online Furcadia Fury Fusion Fall
G-L
GalaXseeds Galactic Command Online Game of Thrones: Seven Kingdoms Gameglobe Gate To Heavens Gates of Andaron Gatheryn Gauntlet Gekkeiju Online Ghost Online Ghost Recon Online Gladiatus Glitch Global Agenda Global Soccer Gloria Victis Glory of Gods GoGoRacer Goal Line Blitz Gods and Heroes GodsWar Online Golemizer Golf Star GoonZu Online Graal Kingdoms Granado Espada Online Grand Chase Grand Fantasia Grepolis Grimlands Guild Wars Guild Wars 2 Guild Wars Factions Guild Wars Nightfall H1Z1 Habbo Hotel Hailan Rising HaloSphere2 Haven & Hearth Hawken Heart Forth Alicia Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Helbreath Hellgate Hellgate: London Hello Kitty Online Hero Online Hero Zero Hero's Journey Hero: 108 Online HeroSmash Heroes & Generals Heroes & Legends: Conquerors of Kolhar Heroes in the Sky Heroes of Bestia Heroes of Gaia Heroes of Might and Magic Online Heroes of Thessalonica Heroes of Three Kingdoms Heroes of the Storm Hex Holic Online Hostile Space Hunter Blade Huxley Icewind Dale: Enhanced Edition Illutia Illyriad Immortals USA Imperator Imperian Inferno Legend Infestation: Survivor Stories Infinite Crisis Infinity Infinity Iris Online Iron Grip: Marauders Irth Worlds Island Forge Islands of War Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted Jade Dynasty Jagged Alliance Online Juggernaut Jumpgate Jumpgate Evolution KAL Online Kakele Online Kaos War Karos Online Kartuga Kicks Online King of Kings 3 Kingdom Heroes Kingdom Under Fire II Kingdom of Drakkar Kingory Kings and Legends Kings of the Realm KingsRoad Kitsu Saga Kiwarriors Knight Age Knight Online Knights of Dream City Kothuria Kung Foo! Kunlun Online Kyn L.A.W. LEGO Universe La Tale Land of Chaos Online Landmark Lands of Hope: Phoenix Edition LastChaos League of Angels League of Legends - Clash of Fates Legend of Edda: Vengeance Legend of Golden Plume Legend of Katha Legend of Mir 2 Legend of Mir 3 Legendary Champions Lego Minifigures Online Lichdom: Battlemage Life is Feudal Light of Nova Lime Odyssey Line of Defense Lineage Lineage Eternal: Twilight Resistance Lineage II Linkrealms Loong Online Lord of the Rings Online Lords Online Lords of the Fallen Lost Saga Lucent Heart Lunia Lusternia: Age of Ascension Luvinia World
M-Q
MU Online Mabinogi Maestia: Rise of Keledus MagiKnights Magic Barrage Magic World Online Manga Fighter MapleStory Martial Heroes Marvel Heroes Marvel Super Hero Squad Online Marvel: Avengers Alliance MechWarrior Online Megaten Meridian 59 : Evolution Merlin MetalMercs Metaplace Metin 2 MicroVolts Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor Midkemia Online Might & Magic Heroes: Kingdoms MilMo Minecraft Mini Fighter Minions of Mirth Ministry of War Monato Esprit Monkey King Online Monkey Quest Monster & Me Monster Madness Online MonsterMMORPG Moonlight Online: Tales of Eternal Blood Moonrise Mordavia Mortal Online Mourning My Lands Myst Online: URU Live Myth Angels Online Myth War Myth War 2 Mytheon Mythic Saga Mythos N.E.O Online NIDA Online Nadirim Naviage: The Power of Capital Navy Field Need for Speed World Nemexia Neo's Land NeoSteam Neocron Nether Neverwinter Nexus: The Kingdom Of The Winds NinjaTrick NosTale Novus Aeterno Oberin Odin Quest Odyssey RPG Ogre Island Omerta 3 Online Boxing Manager Onverse Order & Chaos Online Order of Magic Original Blood Origins Return Origins of Malu Orion's Belt Otherland Forums OverSoul Overkings Oz Online Oz World Pandora Saga Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen Panzar Parabellum Parallel Kingdom Parfait Station Path of Exile Pathfinder Online Perfect World Perpetuum Online Persona V Phantasy Star Online 2 Phantasy Star Universe Phoenix Dynasty Online Phylon Pi Story Picaroon Pirate Galaxy Pirate Storm Pirate101 PirateKing Online Pirates of the Burning Sea Pirates of the Caribbean Online Pixie Hollow Planeshift Planet Arkadia Planet Calypso PlanetSide 2 Planetside Planets³ Playboy Manager Pocket Legends Pockie Ninja Pockie Pirates Pockie Saints PoxNora Prime World Prime: Battle for Dominus Priston Tale Priston Tale II Prius Online Project Blackout Project Powder Project Titan Forums Project Wiki Project Zomboid Puzzle Pirates Quest for Infamy Quickhit Football
R-S
R2 Online RAN Online RF Online ROSE Online Rage of 3 Kingdoms Ragnarok Online Ragnarok Online II RaiderZ Rakion Rappelz RappelzSEA Ravenmarch Realm Fighter Realm of the Mad God Realm of the Titans Realms Online Reclamation Red Stone Red War: Edem's Curse Regnum Online Remnant Knights Renaissance Repulse Requiem: Memento Mori Rift RiotZone Rise Rise of Dragonian Era Rise of Empire Rise of the Tycoon Risen 3: Titan Lords Rising of King Risk Your Life Rivality Rockfree Rohan: Blood Feud Role Play Worlds Roll n Rock Roma Victor Romadoria Rosh Online Roto X Rubies of Eventide Ruin Online Rumble Fighter Runes of Magic Runescape Rust Rusty Hearts Ryzom S4 League SAGA SD Gundam Capsule Fighter Online SMITE SUN Sacred 3 Sagramore Salem SaySayGirls Scarlet Blade Scions of Fate Seal Online: Evolution Second Chance Heroes Second Life Secret of the Solstice Seed Serenia Fantasy Seven Seas Saga Seven Souls Online Sevencore Shadow Realms Shadow of Legend Shadowbane Shadowrun Online Shaiya Shards Online Shattered Galaxy Sho Online Shot Online Shroud of the Avatar SideQuest Siege on Stars Sigonyth: Desert Eternity Silkroad Online Skyblade Skyforge SmashMuck Champions Smoo Online Soldier Front Soul Master Soul Order Online Soul of Guardian Space Heroes Universe Sparta: War of Empires Spellcasters Sphere Spiral Knights Spirit Tales Splash Fighters Squad Wars Star Citizen Star Sonata 2 Star Stable Star Supremacy Star Trek Online Star Trek: Infinite Space Star Wars Galaxies Star Wars: Clone Wars Adventures Star Wars: The Old Republic StarQuest Online Stargate Worlds Starlight Story Starpires State of Decay SteelWar Online Stone Age 2 Stormfall: Age of War Storybricks Stronghold Kingdoms Styx: Master of Shadows Sudden Attack Supremacy 1914 Supreme Destiny Sword Girls Sword of Destiny: Rise of Aions SwordX Swords of Heavens Swordsman
T-Z
TERA TS Online Tabula Rasa Tactica Online Tales Runner Tales of Fantasy Tales of Pirates Tales of Pirates II Tales of Solaris Talisman Online Tamer Saga Tank Ace Tantra Online Tatsumaki: Land at War Terra Militaris TerraWorld Online Thang Online The 4th Coming The Agency The Aurora World The Banner Saga The Black Watchmen The Chronicle The Chronicles of Spellborn The Crew The Division The Hammers End The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing 2 The Legend of Ares The Lost Titans The Matrix Online The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot The Missing Ink The Mummy Online The Myth of Soma The Pride of Taern The Realm Online The Repopulation The Secret World The Sims Online The Strategems The West The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Theralon There Therian Saga Thrones of Chaos Tibia Tibia Micro Edition Tiger Knight Titan Siege Titans of Time Toontown Online Top Speed Topia Online Torchlight Total Domination Transformers Universe Transistor Transverse Traveller AR Travia Online Travian Trials of Ascension Tribal Hero Tribal Wars Tribes Universe Trickster Online Trove Troy Online True Fantasy Live Online Turf Battles Twelve Sky Twelve Sky 2 Twilight War Tynon U.B. Funkeys UFO Online URDEAD Online Ultima Forever: Quest for the Avatar Ultima Online Ultima X: Odyssey Ultimate Naruto Ultimate Soccer Boss Uncharted Waters Online Undercover 2: Merc Wars Underlight Unification Wars Universe Online Utopia Valkyrie Sky Vampire Lord Online Vanguard: Saga of Heroes Vanquish Space Vector City Racers Vendetta Online Victory - Age of Racing Vindictus Virtonomics Vis Gladius Visions of Zosimos VoidExpanse Voyage Century Online W.E.L.L. Online WAR (Warhammer Online) WAR2 Glory WYD Global Wakfu War Thunder War of 2012 War of Angels War of Legends War of Mercenaries War of Thrones War of the Immortals WarFlow Waren Story Wargame1942 Warhammer 40,000: Eternal Crusade Warhammer 40K: Dark Millennium Online Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes Warkeepers Warrior Epic Wartune Wasteland 2 WebLords Wild West Online WildStar Wind of Luck WindSlayer 2 Wings of Destiny Wish Wizard101 Wizardry Online Wizards and Champions Wonder King Wonderland Online World Golf Tour World of Battles World of Darkness World of Heroes World of Kung Fu World of Pirates World of Speed World of Tanks World of Tanks Generals World of Warcraft World of Warplanes World of Warships World of the Living Dead WorldAlpha Wurm Online Xenoblade Chronicles: X Xenocell Xiah Xsyon Xulu YS Online Yitien ZU Online Zentia Zero Online Zero Online: The Andromeda Crisis Zodiac Online Zombies Ate My Pizza eRepublik

MMORPG.com Discussion Forums

All Posts by Nifa

All Posts by Nifa

17 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last
322 posts found
Originally posted by Sabiancym

The community.  It's not there.  I'm not talking about forums, guides, population, etc.  No I'm talking about people actually knowing each other in the game.

 

I miss having enemies.  Those guilds and people that you just hate and want to do everything possible to defeat them.  In swg, we loved nothing more than raiding another guild's city and clone camping them for a night.  It was a constant struggle between us and them.  There was meta-gaming, flame wars, propaganda, etc.  It was just plain fun.  It felt like a real enemy in the real world.

 

Games now you can't even talk to the other faction in game.  There are no player cities, there rarely is open world pvp, there is no sandbox.  It doesn't feel like a world.  It feels like a game, a souless game.

 

I realized this while playing wow today.  I was in a battleground and was killing people, but I felt no sense of accomplishment.  Nothing.  In SWG I could spend 20 minutes fighting one person who I'd had a bad relationship with for months and after I killed them  it felt like so much more of an accomplishment than if I had killed some no name from a different server who I'd never even talked to.

 

I really hope some big budget games go back to the virtual world idea.  Grinding gear and points is completely boring.  I want to make friends and enemies and have an actual impact on the world.

God, I haven't been able to PvP at all since SWG - I know exactly what you mean.  There's something about a rivalry so strong that you will literally chase someone all the way across a planet just to get a /deathblow.  In WoW, sure, there's one or two Alliance that annoy the hell out of me on occasion, but without being able to communicate with them or any number of things like we used to be able to do in SWG, it's just a flat, boring and meaningless experience.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf


“There is a common misconception that each encounter starts on a level playing field and that the balance of power is determined by skillful play,” Pruett said. “This is an unrealistic scenario as the majority of current generation MMOs are not skill-based"

 

That's the quote that sums up why I don't participate in MMO PvP anymore.

 

Unfortunatly all modern MMOs decide that skill should never ever matter in PvP (or even PvE) and instead it should be all about class/gear and that is it. That makes those games terrible for PvP, and it makes them highly boring for PvE. Unfortunatly for me, it is clear that millions of players love that type of MMO so that will be the norm until they tire of it.

SnarlingWolf hit the nail on the head for me.  MMOs are all about gear and how fast you can push whatever button these days.  There is no thought, strategy or skill required.  Hell, I can play most games while surfing the net on my other computer and watching a movie - I don't even actually have to pay attention to what's going on on my screen because I just count "x" number of seconds and hit the next thing in the rotation.  In case any devs might be paying attention...that is not fun (which is a big part of the reason why no game is currently getting my $15 per month and the only game I am currently playing is the one I hold a lifetime sub to and have for 3 years - one I don't and have never PvP'd in).

And for the guy who asked about non-PvPer's and sports: I was an athlete in high school and college.  Basketball, soccer (indoor and outdoor) and field hockey.  I watch soccer, ice hockey and rugby all the time and because I live in an area where football is a religion, will watch that on occasion as well and love me some Mariners and Diamondbacks baseball, so in my case, disliking PvP is completely unrelated to sports.  In fact, I used to PvP quite a lot.  But as a personal rule, I don't care to engage in the kind of conduct I see many people engaging in when they PvP: joking around and friendly smack talk is fine, racial slurs and personal attacks based on people's sexuality, their children, their spouses, and their medical conditions (and that was the nicest stuff I saw and heard!) really doesn't appeal to me at all.  In my experience (PvPing 40+ hours a week for over 2 years), some people can get far too carried away when they PvP and forget that they are playing a game.  For me, it's not PvP itself that makes me get frustrated and angry, but the appalling and sickening behavior that people tend to engage in just to collect a win.  Anything that makes me angry like that really isn't fun and relaxing, and it seems kind of silly to me to pay $15 a month just to get pissed off.

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by sif-lawd

You bring up quite a point Nifa, and that is a point that is of much contention to this very day. However it can be interpreted differently. Since Peter was previously named Simon Bar-Jonah, Jesus called him Peter for a reason, not just for his response, because if we look at the passage further, he is speaking directly to Peter and giving HIM the keys to the kingdom of heaven, he is giving Peter individually these things.

By speaking directly to Peter and saying "you are rock, and upon this rock I build my church" he is saying that the church is actually being built upon Peter. If he was building his church upon the truth that Jesus is the Christ, then he would have said that. He clearly says that Peter himself is the rock, and that upon Peter he will construct his church. Further, that he is giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven further shows how he is speaking directly to Peter and giving him this power.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has not changed since Jesus constructed it... it has however grown in accordance to the church founders and theologians that ascended to their positions as per the decisions of the successors to the Apostles upon whom Jesus founded his church. The successors to the apostles, and those whom they gave positions to therefore, are representatives of Jesus Christ... and them only.

However I agree with you that a large amount of Christians do act in the way that Anne Rice states... yet 95% is way too high a number.

So you are saying that the Church - the Bride of Christ itself - is founded not upon the knowledge and revelation of Jesus  Christ as Lord and Savior, but upon the person of the disciple Peter.  That is a perversion and twisting of that passage that defies logic - and one that rightfully would portray those of us who follow Christ as lunatic fools!  Being a man or woman of faith does not mean that we are to abandon the minds - and the use of logic and reason those minds grant us - that God has given us as members of the human race.

Further, I did not say that Christians (Gr. Kristianos, "little Christs") behave in the manner that Ms. Rice describes; I said that 95% of Churchianity behaves in precisely the manner that Ms. Rice describes.  Please do not twist the text of either the New Testament or my posts to suit what you think you believe they say.

The church is the body of Christ, not the "bride" (I assume that's what you meant?) Yes, I am saying that the church is founded upon the person and the disciple of Peter, and Jesus gave him (and therefore the other Apostles) "the keys to the kingdom of heaven," meaning that Jesus puts his trust into the ability of Peter and the church to interpret the message and teachings of Christ as they see it, which they have done and continue to do until the present day. This in no way defies logic and doesn't rightfully protray Christians as lunatic fools at all. 

Jesus establishes the church (his body) upon Peter (his mouth) and the Christian faithful attend that church, accept Jesus Christ into their lives, and follow the Church's interpretation of Christ's message, as he entrusted the church to do.

Since a person cannot follow Christ unless if they attend the church (his body) and allow him into their lives by means of baptism and understand his message as the apostolic successors and their subordinates interpret it (christ's voice) then a person who does not attend church cannot claim to be a  Christian at all, as they will fall pray to making false interpretations about the faith that do not represent the church's official position, and as well they have not accepted that Christ died for man's sins as they haven't been baptized.

You can pretend I am twisting the text of the New Testament and what "I believe you are saying" to fit my belief, though that doesn't make it so.

To believe thusly is to deny 2/3 of the New Testament...you know, the parts written by Paul (or Saul, if you prefer) of Tarsus.  As I recall, it was Paul - also an apostle - who could, by the definition you seem to espouse in your writings, also be considered a "mouthpiece" of Christ, who called Peter out quite publicly for hypocrisy.  Peter's  hypocrisy?  Separating himself from non-Jewish believers, deeming them "unclean" and, as such, unworthy, making the very teachings of Christ, the very things he himself (as well as the other remaining 'original apostles') was teaching and preaching, null and void by his actions - something Paul refused to do.

By what you would have us believe then, because the Church - the Bride, the Body (both words are equally acceptable and correct according to full text of the New Testament) - is supposedly built on the person of the man Simon Bar-Jonah, also known as Peter, rather than being built upon the revelation of the knowledge of the fact the Jesus is the Christ: the Son of the Living God, the Messiah, the Lord and Savior, then such hypocrisy is not only acceptable and permissible, but is the standard by which we who follow Christ are called to live our lives. (I highlighted and emphasized your beliefs for you, you're welcome.)

As a follower of Christ and not of Simon Peter, let me assure you that I find your assertion to be ridiculous to the point of absurdity - my salvation is founded upon the knowledge of, revelation of, and firm belief in Jesus as Savior and Redeemer and based upon a relationship with Christ born of that knowledge, revelation, and belief.  As a Christian, Simon Bar-Jonah (or, if you prefer, Simon Peter) is not now nor will he ever be, an object of worship for me.  For any who proclaim Christianity, such worship is, simply put, idolatry and heresy. 

Further, Christ does not call us to hypocrisy, nor does He ever condone it in the New Testament that I've read - and I've read it in several languages, including the Aramaic and the Greek.  In fact, the very man whom you (wrongly) worship, Simon Peter, was told specifically in a vision regarding his hypocrisy (prior to being called on the carpet for it by Paul several years later, so obviously, such hypocrisy was an ongiong problem with the man you worship...oddly, I think I see a pattern emerging here) to not call unclean that which God has made clean.

 

Culture, upbringing, indoctrination...many things make it difficult for men to open their minds.  I do not "interpret" anything.  And I am always happy to hear other points of view and consider them.  If they are rational, if they make sense to any reasonable being capable of applying logic, you may find that I am not difficult to persuade.  But you are asking me to set aside my reason, to cease the application of logic, and to accept the idea on blind faith (because you, a notoriously prideful and stubborn individual always convinced of your own superior intellect and correctness on every issue declare it to be true) that the Son of my God - a God who has said "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" - would build His entire Body of followers not upon the rock of the revelation of the truth of Who He is, but upon the shifting sands of an imperfect man who, like all of us imperfect men, was a known hypocrite who lacked the courage to stand by his friend and his Lord and Savior at the hour of His death, a man known to have a furious temper that would probably rival my own... Your assertion defies logic.  Further, it defies faith.

Your incorrect assumption is that I am saying that Christians worship Peter, while that is in no way true. Jesus Christ built his church with Peter as well as the other apostles as the foundation. He imparted upon the apostles his wisdom and lessons and has left it to them to interpret his message, which they have done. Neither Peter nor the Popes who succeeded him are infalliable, and neither are the other apostles. Why is it that Jesus built his church upon Peter and the apostles? Perhaps it is because he gave them wisdom and knowledge of him, and so they are the best candidates to carry on his legacy after his death which is what happened in reality. Jesus's actions in building his church upon Peter and the apostles was rational and understandable, and while they may be imperfect men just as we are, perhaps that is the point... it was left to the hands of imperfect man to make sense of everything Christ gave to us, and we strive to do that until this day.

As for your countless baseless and incorrect insults... I will simply ignore them.

There is nothing rational or understandable about what you have repeatedly professed to believe in my opinion.

Either Jesus Christ is the foundation of your faith, your Christianity, your "religion," your walk with God, or He is not.

You are either a Christian - a "little Christ," for that is what the word actually means, and a follower of Christ - or you are a follower of Peter, or of Paul, or of John, or of this one or of that one: which, as I recall quite clearly from my semester of New Testament Studies prior to my ordination (as well as from my countless readings of the text since), is exactly what the New Testament (in the writings of Paul) tells us we are not to do as Christians: one body, with one head - Christ, governed by one law - the law of love.  Love needs no interpretation, nor does it need anyone to "make sense" of it.  But if that is indeed your struggle, sir - to "make sense" of God and of love - then I wish you luck in it as you strive to do just that.  As for me, I'll not rely on what I perceive to be the nonsensical teachings of men to try and figure out if Jesus Christ or Simon Peter is the better model to follow in that regard, as I believe the answer to that question is a no-brainer.

Right, you follow Christ, as that is what Christians do. I don't know why you are making up this BS that Christians worship the apostles. Doesn't change that Jesus built his church on Peter and the apostles though. You don't seem to have the ability to view them as two different things: Jesus built his church upon Peter, and Christians follow Jesus and worship God in his church.

Christ is the head of the church in heaven, while Peter (and to a lesser extent the other apostles) are the heads of the church on Earth... or in other words, Christ is the head of the perfect, "invisible" church, while Peter is the head of the imperfect, "visible" church.

And that is the heart of the issue: there are not two churches.  There is one.  Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.

Christ alone is the head of the Church. To make Simon Peter the head of the Church is to take one sentence out of context and to deny the entire rest of the text of both the Old and New Testaments.  Incidentally, that very thing - taking things out of context - is pretty much why most of the world - rightfully - cannot stand many professed Christians.  If you're going to throw the text out, throw it all out.

As a side note, there is no perfect Church.  Only one man ever born was perfect, provided that the term here means without flaw.  That man was not Simon Peter.  There can be no perfect Church because that Church would consist of only one person.  But again, I am using logic and reason.

As a side note, and my final point (because I have better things to do than attempt to reason with the unreasonable), I'm not making anything up.  You yourself have said repeatedly in this very thread that the only true Church is the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church (and that all other sects of Christianity are heretics) because of the tradition that their leaders have succeeded via Simon Peter, who is traditionally considered the first Pope.  The Pope is often given a title of "Holy Father," is he not?  And do not "supplicants" fall to their knees before the man and kiss his signet ring?  That, good sir, is a hallmark of worship of a man.  Making a man a head of a church in the sense in which your posts seem to do so most certainly does come across as worship - so perhaps it is not my making things up, but your choice of words that is the problem here, n'est pas?

Let's look at that word choice since we're here, shall we?  For your statements regarding the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sects of Christianity to be true, since Simon Peter, by your assertion, was hand picked to be the one and only true and correct leader of the Body of Christ on earth by Jesus, then every single spiritual leader who followed would have to have been hand picked by the spiritual leader who came before him.  Peter would have to have hand picked his successor, Peter's chosen would have to have hand picked his successor, and so on.  As we know, this is most certainly not how the Pope is chosen, nor has it ever been.  During the 200 year Byzantine Era, the Papacy was a politically appointed office, not a spiritually-elected one, so your direct-line succession theory doesn't hold water.

 

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by sif-lawd

You bring up quite a point Nifa, and that is a point that is of much contention to this very day. However it can be interpreted differently. Since Peter was previously named Simon Bar-Jonah, Jesus called him Peter for a reason, not just for his response, because if we look at the passage further, he is speaking directly to Peter and giving HIM the keys to the kingdom of heaven, he is giving Peter individually these things.

By speaking directly to Peter and saying "you are rock, and upon this rock I build my church" he is saying that the church is actually being built upon Peter. If he was building his church upon the truth that Jesus is the Christ, then he would have said that. He clearly says that Peter himself is the rock, and that upon Peter he will construct his church. Further, that he is giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven further shows how he is speaking directly to Peter and giving him this power.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has not changed since Jesus constructed it... it has however grown in accordance to the church founders and theologians that ascended to their positions as per the decisions of the successors to the Apostles upon whom Jesus founded his church. The successors to the apostles, and those whom they gave positions to therefore, are representatives of Jesus Christ... and them only.

However I agree with you that a large amount of Christians do act in the way that Anne Rice states... yet 95% is way too high a number.

So you are saying that the Church - the Bride of Christ itself - is founded not upon the knowledge and revelation of Jesus  Christ as Lord and Savior, but upon the person of the disciple Peter.  That is a perversion and twisting of that passage that defies logic - and one that rightfully would portray those of us who follow Christ as lunatic fools!  Being a man or woman of faith does not mean that we are to abandon the minds - and the use of logic and reason those minds grant us - that God has given us as members of the human race.

Further, I did not say that Christians (Gr. Kristianos, "little Christs") behave in the manner that Ms. Rice describes; I said that 95% of Churchianity behaves in precisely the manner that Ms. Rice describes.  Please do not twist the text of either the New Testament or my posts to suit what you think you believe they say.

The church is the body of Christ, not the "bride" (I assume that's what you meant?) Yes, I am saying that the church is founded upon the person and the disciple of Peter, and Jesus gave him (and therefore the other Apostles) "the keys to the kingdom of heaven," meaning that Jesus puts his trust into the ability of Peter and the church to interpret the message and teachings of Christ as they see it, which they have done and continue to do until the present day. This in no way defies logic and doesn't rightfully protray Christians as lunatic fools at all. 

Jesus establishes the church (his body) upon Peter (his mouth) and the Christian faithful attend that church, accept Jesus Christ into their lives, and follow the Church's interpretation of Christ's message, as he entrusted the church to do.

Since a person cannot follow Christ unless if they attend the church (his body) and allow him into their lives by means of baptism and understand his message as the apostolic successors and their subordinates interpret it (christ's voice) then a person who does not attend church cannot claim to be a  Christian at all, as they will fall pray to making false interpretations about the faith that do not represent the church's official position, and as well they have not accepted that Christ died for man's sins as they haven't been baptized.

You can pretend I am twisting the text of the New Testament and what "I believe you are saying" to fit my belief, though that doesn't make it so.

To believe thusly is to deny 2/3 of the New Testament...you know, the parts written by Paul (or Saul, if you prefer) of Tarsus.  As I recall, it was Paul - also an apostle - who could, by the definition you seem to espouse in your writings, also be considered a "mouthpiece" of Christ, who called Peter out quite publicly for hypocrisy.  Peter's  hypocrisy?  Separating himself from non-Jewish believers, deeming them "unclean" and, as such, unworthy, making the very teachings of Christ, the very things he himself (as well as the other remaining 'original apostles') was teaching and preaching, null and void by his actions - something Paul refused to do.

By what you would have us believe then, because the Church - the Bride, the Body (both words are equally acceptable and correct according to full text of the New Testament) - is supposedly built on the person of the man Simon Bar-Jonah, also known as Peter, rather than being built upon the revelation of the knowledge of the fact the Jesus is the Christ: the Son of the Living God, the Messiah, the Lord and Savior, then such hypocrisy is not only acceptable and permissible, but is the standard by which we who follow Christ are called to live our lives. (I highlighted and emphasized your beliefs for you, you're welcome.)

As a follower of Christ and not of Simon Peter, let me assure you that I find your assertion to be ridiculous to the point of absurdity - my salvation is founded upon the knowledge of, revelation of, and firm belief in Jesus as Savior and Redeemer and based upon a relationship with Christ born of that knowledge, revelation, and belief.  As a Christian, Simon Bar-Jonah (or, if you prefer, Simon Peter) is not now nor will he ever be, an object of worship for me.  For any who proclaim Christianity, such worship is, simply put, idolatry and heresy. 

Further, Christ does not call us to hypocrisy, nor does He ever condone it in the New Testament that I've read - and I've read it in several languages, including the Aramaic and the Greek.  In fact, the very man whom you (wrongly) worship, Simon Peter, was told specifically in a vision regarding his hypocrisy (prior to being called on the carpet for it by Paul several years later, so obviously, such hypocrisy was an ongiong problem with the man you worship...oddly, I think I see a pattern emerging here) to not call unclean that which God has made clean.

 

Culture, upbringing, indoctrination...many things make it difficult for men to open their minds.  I do not "interpret" anything.  And I am always happy to hear other points of view and consider them.  If they are rational, if they make sense to any reasonable being capable of applying logic, you may find that I am not difficult to persuade.  But you are asking me to set aside my reason, to cease the application of logic, and to accept the idea on blind faith (because you, a notoriously prideful and stubborn individual always convinced of your own superior intellect and correctness on every issue declare it to be true) that the Son of my God - a God who has said "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" - would build His entire Body of followers not upon the rock of the revelation of the truth of Who He is, but upon the shifting sands of an imperfect man who, like all of us imperfect men, was a known hypocrite who lacked the courage to stand by his friend and his Lord and Savior at the hour of His death, a man known to have a furious temper that would probably rival my own... Your assertion defies logic.  Further, it defies faith.

Your incorrect assumption is that I am saying that Christians worship Peter, while that is in no way true. Jesus Christ built his church with Peter as well as the other apostles as the foundation. He imparted upon the apostles his wisdom and lessons and has left it to them to interpret his message, which they have done. Neither Peter nor the Popes who succeeded him are infalliable, and neither are the other apostles. Why is it that Jesus built his church upon Peter and the apostles? Perhaps it is because he gave them wisdom and knowledge of him, and so they are the best candidates to carry on his legacy after his death which is what happened in reality. Jesus's actions in building his church upon Peter and the apostles was rational and understandable, and while they may be imperfect men just as we are, perhaps that is the point... it was left to the hands of imperfect man to make sense of everything Christ gave to us, and we strive to do that until this day.

As for your countless baseless and incorrect insults... I will simply ignore them.

There is nothing rational or understandable about what you have repeatedly professed to believe in my opinion.

Either Jesus Christ is the foundation of your faith, your Christianity, your "religion," your walk with God, or He is not.

You are either a Christian - a "little Christ," for that is what the word actually means, and a follower of Christ - or you are a follower of Peter, or of Paul, or of John, or of this one or of that one: which, as I recall quite clearly from my semester of New Testament Studies prior to my ordination (as well as from my countless readings of the text since), is exactly what the New Testament (in the writings of Paul) tells us we are not to do as Christians: one body, with one head - Christ, governed by one law - the law of love.  Love needs no interpretation, nor does it need anyone to "make sense" of it.  But if that is indeed your struggle, sir - to "make sense" of God and of love - then I wish you luck in it as you strive to do just that.  As for me, I'll not rely on what I perceive to be the nonsensical teachings of men to try and figure out if Jesus Christ or Simon Peter is the better model to follow in that regard, as I believe the answer to that question is a no-brainer.

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by sif-lawd

You bring up quite a point Nifa, and that is a point that is of much contention to this very day. However it can be interpreted differently. Since Peter was previously named Simon Bar-Jonah, Jesus called him Peter for a reason, not just for his response, because if we look at the passage further, he is speaking directly to Peter and giving HIM the keys to the kingdom of heaven, he is giving Peter individually these things.

By speaking directly to Peter and saying "you are rock, and upon this rock I build my church" he is saying that the church is actually being built upon Peter. If he was building his church upon the truth that Jesus is the Christ, then he would have said that. He clearly says that Peter himself is the rock, and that upon Peter he will construct his church. Further, that he is giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven further shows how he is speaking directly to Peter and giving him this power.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has not changed since Jesus constructed it... it has however grown in accordance to the church founders and theologians that ascended to their positions as per the decisions of the successors to the Apostles upon whom Jesus founded his church. The successors to the apostles, and those whom they gave positions to therefore, are representatives of Jesus Christ... and them only.

However I agree with you that a large amount of Christians do act in the way that Anne Rice states... yet 95% is way too high a number.

So you are saying that the Church - the Bride of Christ itself - is founded not upon the knowledge and revelation of Jesus  Christ as Lord and Savior, but upon the person of the disciple Peter.  That is a perversion and twisting of that passage that defies logic - and one that rightfully would portray those of us who follow Christ as lunatic fools!  Being a man or woman of faith does not mean that we are to abandon the minds - and the use of logic and reason those minds grant us - that God has given us as members of the human race.

Further, I did not say that Christians (Gr. Kristianos, "little Christs") behave in the manner that Ms. Rice describes; I said that 95% of Churchianity behaves in precisely the manner that Ms. Rice describes.  Please do not twist the text of either the New Testament or my posts to suit what you think you believe they say.

The church is the body of Christ, not the "bride" (I assume that's what you meant?) Yes, I am saying that the church is founded upon the person and the disciple of Peter, and Jesus gave him (and therefore the other Apostles) "the keys to the kingdom of heaven," meaning that Jesus puts his trust into the ability of Peter and the church to interpret the message and teachings of Christ as they see it, which they have done and continue to do until the present day. This in no way defies logic and doesn't rightfully protray Christians as lunatic fools at all. 

Jesus establishes the church (his body) upon Peter (his mouth) and the Christian faithful attend that church, accept Jesus Christ into their lives, and follow the Church's interpretation of Christ's message, as he entrusted the church to do.

Since a person cannot follow Christ unless if they attend the church (his body) and allow him into their lives by means of baptism and understand his message as the apostolic successors and their subordinates interpret it (christ's voice) then a person who does not attend church cannot claim to be a  Christian at all, as they will fall pray to making false interpretations about the faith that do not represent the church's official position, and as well they have not accepted that Christ died for man's sins as they haven't been baptized.

You can pretend I am twisting the text of the New Testament and what "I believe you are saying" to fit my belief, though that doesn't make it so.

To believe thusly is to deny 2/3 of the New Testament...you know, the parts written by Paul (or Saul, if you prefer) of Tarsus.  As I recall, it was Paul - also an apostle - who could, by the definition you seem to espouse in your writings, also be considered a "mouthpiece" of Christ, who called Peter out quite publicly for hypocrisy.  Peter's  hypocrisy?  Separating himself from non-Jewish believers, deeming them "unclean" and, as such, unworthy, making the very teachings of Christ, the very things he himself (as well as the other remaining 'original apostles') was teaching and preaching, null and void by his actions - something Paul refused to do.

By what you would have us believe then, because the Church - the Bride, the Body (both words are equally acceptable and correct according to full text of the New Testament) - is supposedly built on the person of the man Simon Bar-Jonah, also known as Peter, rather than being built upon the revelation of the knowledge of the fact the Jesus is the Christ: the Son of the Living God, the Messiah, the Lord and Savior, then such hypocrisy is not only acceptable and permissible, but is the standard by which we who follow Christ are called to live our lives. (I highlighted and emphasized your beliefs for you, you're welcome.)

As a follower of Christ and not of Simon Peter, let me assure you that I find your assertion to be ridiculous to the point of absurdity - my salvation is founded upon the knowledge of, revelation of, and firm belief in Jesus as Savior and Redeemer and based upon a relationship with Christ born of that knowledge, revelation, and belief.  As a Christian, Simon Bar-Jonah (or, if you prefer, Simon Peter) is not now nor will he ever be, an object of worship for me.  For any who proclaim Christianity, such worship is, simply put, idolatry and heresy. 

Further, Christ does not call us to hypocrisy, nor does He ever condone it in the New Testament that I've read - and I've read it in several languages, including the Aramaic and the Greek.  In fact, the very man whom you (wrongly) worship, Simon Peter, was told specifically in a vision regarding his hypocrisy (prior to being called on the carpet for it by Paul several years later, so obviously, such hypocrisy was an ongiong problem with the man you worship...oddly, I think I see a pattern emerging here) to not call unclean that which God has made clean.

 

Culture, upbringing, indoctrination...many things make it difficult for men to open their minds.  I do not "interpret" anything.  And I am always happy to hear other points of view and consider them.  If they are rational, if they make sense to any reasonable being capable of applying logic, you may find that I am not difficult to persuade.  But you are asking me to set aside my reason, to cease the application of logic, and to accept the idea on blind faith (because you, a notoriously prideful and stubborn individual always convinced of your own superior intellect and correctness on every issue declare it to be true) that the Son of my God - a God who has said "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" - would build His entire Body of followers not upon the rock of the revelation of the truth of Who He is, but upon the shifting sands of an imperfect man who, like all of us imperfect men, was a known hypocrite who lacked the courage to stand by his friend and his Lord and Savior at the hour of His death, a man known to have a furious temper that would probably rival my own... Your assertion defies logic.  Further, it defies faith.

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Nifa
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by sif-lawd

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Jesus to Saint Peter.

Jesus Christ established his church revolving around the Apostle Saint Peter who was arguably the first Pope. All Popes trace a direct line of succession through him, as do all of the other Patriarches, meaning those in Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. Those Apostolic Sees as they came to be known are the direct successors of the Church that Jesus Christ himself established, and they stand to this day. Only the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church can trace a line of Apostolic Succession back to Saint Peter, and therefore only those churches can consider themselves to be the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Christian Church that Jesus Christ established.

You also ignore that fact that Jesus did die on the cross and rose again afterwards. You ignore that when he did rise again that he ascended to heaven and left the Earth. If you communicate with Jesus personally, I believe that you are schizophrenic and are hearing voices and we should view you as mentally unstable, as any of your actions that you claim to be happening because "Jesus told you to do them" would make you no different than a radical Islamist.

Your article even states that the visible church is important as well... and the visible church is the one that Jesus Christ "built upon Peter." The early Christian church, which lives on today in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, is the only one which has any validity as only it was established by Jesus Christ. All others are merely schismatical denominations that have broken away from the church Jesus established, and they should be viewed as potentially dangerous and able to do anything they wish as they are not embodying the virtues of christianity.

Putting the quoted passage back in context:

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

 

The context here is not that the Church will be built upon Peter, but upon the answer given by Peter, revealed to him by the Spirit of God - that answer being the truth or reality of the identity of Who Jesus is, "...the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Here Simon Bar-Jonah (Simon, the son of Jonah) is given the name Peter (Greek Petras, "rock") because of the truth he has revealed - it is upon that truth that the Church will be built: that Jesus is the Christ (Greek Kristos "Anointed One"), not upon Peter.

Against the knowledge of Christ as the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Savior, the gates of Hades shall not prevail...obviously the gates of Hades prevailed against Peter.  He was crucified - upside down (by his own request) - by the Roman Empire.

A little knowledge of ancient languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), history, culture, and a willingness to take every passage in its full context as well as a willingness to question the teachings of any and every "orthodox" church and test it against the text is never a bad thing.

 

Personally, I agree with Ms. Rice in substance if not in her choice of words.  I do not know the woman and so I cannot say for certain whether or not she has truly renounced her faith in Christ, but I certainly agree wholeheartedly with her assessment of 95+% of Churchianity.  The only time Jesus ever got pissed off and lost His temper was when He went to Temple, which was the church service of His time.  Today's Church is far more corrupt than what was described in that incident when He deliberately braided a whip and upended the money changers' tables.  I'm thinking He'd do far more than braid a whip if He walked into most churches - including the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches - and saw what's being done in His name.

You bring up quite a point Nifa, and that is a point that is of much contention to this very day. However it can be interpreted differently. Since Peter was previously named Simon Bar-Jonah, Jesus called him Peter for a reason, not just for his response, because if we look at the passage further, he is speaking directly to Peter and giving HIM the keys to the kingdom of heaven, he is giving Peter individually these things.

By speaking directly to Peter and saying "you are rock, and upon this rock I build my church" he is saying that the church is actually being built upon Peter. If he was building his church upon the truth that Jesus is the Christ, then he would have said that. He clearly says that Peter himself is the rock, and that upon Peter he will construct his church. Further, that he is giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven further shows how he is speaking directly to Peter and giving him this power.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has not changed since Jesus constructed it... it has however grown in accordance to the church founders and theologians that ascended to their positions as per the decisions of the successors to the Apostles upon whom Jesus founded his church. The successors to the apostles, and those whom they gave positions to therefore, are representatives of Jesus Christ... and them only.

However I agree with you that a large amount of Christians do act in the way that Anne Rice states... yet 95% is way too high a number.

So you are saying that the Church - the Bride of Christ itself - is founded not upon the knowledge and revelation of Jesus  Christ as Lord and Savior, but upon the person of the disciple Peter.  That is a perversion and twisting of that passage that defies logic - and one that rightfully would portray those of us who follow Christ as lunatic fools!  Being a man or woman of faith does not mean that we are to abandon the minds - and the use of logic and reason those minds grant us - that God has given us as members of the human race.

Further, I did not say that Christians (Gr. Kristianos, "little Christs") behave in the manner that Ms. Rice describes; I said that 95% of Churchianity behaves in precisely the manner that Ms. Rice describes.  Please do not twist the text of either the New Testament or my posts to suit what you think you believe they say.

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Originally posted by sif-lawd

Well, when you take this rather antiquated stance that every church except for Eastern Orthodox is wholly illegitimate, I can understand why you seem incapable of grasping my point.

 

Or any point. 

That's humerous. I understand though: if we do accept that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the right one, and given that the Eastern Orthodox are the most peaceful and least scandulous Christians who don't go out spreading violence, then it becomes difficult to bash Christianity. If we accept the Eastern Orthodox Church as Christianity in its true form, then we have to say that fundamentalist Christians, Puritans, and other crazies aren't representative of the faith at all, and that in fact Christianity is the peaceful religion it is supposed to be.

It's much easier to live in the fantasy of "no, Anne Rice is the only person in the world who is interpreting Jesus' message in the proper way, so any crazy actions or crazy things that she says are entirely representative of the Christian faith and this provides me with reason to view all religious people as backwards nutjobs who are no different than radical Islamists."

Your bigotry has lost its appeal to me.

 

IMO, your thought processes are like a delusion or  cult, that only you understand. 

They always start with a statement that you cannot back up, but that you defend as absolute truth. 

In this case the Eastern Othor Church is the right one. 

Everything afterward relies on that statement, but of course you just created that statement out of whole cloth, made up, and then decided in your head it was true. 

Everything afterward makes sense, to you, because it's based on a statement you made up. 

All your posts are the same. 

You make something up, have no proof or logical reasoning behind it, then make an argument based on your made up statement. 

If we accept that the Earth is flat (and we should because that's what I think)....

And then you go from there. 

But you never adequately explain why anyone should accept your made up statements. You give reasons that obviously make sense to you, but definitely not me. 

If we do accept the Ortho Church is the right one (because I think it is)....

then blah, blah, blah....

But there's no reason for anyone to accept the Orthodox Church as the right one, except that you like it. 

Who cares? That's only going to work for you, and will not make a reasonable or logical argument for anyone else. 

 

Nope. Your error was what you said at the start: you believe that making the claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the "right" one has no basis, even though I have defined multiple times in multiple threads why this is so. Again, you just choose not to believe it or to be interested in it. The rest of what you are saying has no relevence.

Why should we accept that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the right one? Becuase it is the direct descendent of the original church that Jesus Christ founded. It is the unchanging representation of early Christianity that has grown, not changed, since its inception... this is unlike the Roman Catholic church that, although it too is the original church that Jesus established, it has changed.

You just choose to ignore that reasoning and continue to pretend I am just making things up. Your argument stems from ignorance. "If I choose not to understand what you are saying or research this to determine whether or not it has the possibility to true, then what you are saying is just nonsense to me."

Go on pretending Ihmotepp...it doesn't change the fact that I am providing you with reasons to accept the Eastern Orthodox Church as the right one... you can also say that the Roman Catholic church is the right one, mind you.

You also failed in the other discussion to provide reasons for anyone to believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Since you are unable to comprehend reasons to believe in something when others show them to you, and since you are unable to provide reasons for others to believe in something you believe in like the flying spaghetti monster, I conclude that you are incapable of understanding why someone should believe in something.

 

I disagree with all the statements in green. 

I believe they are false. 

Alright good, make an argument. I argue that since Jesus instructed the Apostles to spread his message to the nations of the world and since they established the Apostolic Sees that became part of the Pentarchy of early Christianity, and since the early Christian church was one unified body that revolved around Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, that only the faith which includes those Apostolic Sees can consider itself to be Christianity in its true form.

In 1054, the Western half of the church that was centered around Rome and the Eastern half of the church that was centered around Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria split into two halves for various reasons, creating the religions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. These two halves together form Christianity, and those two Christian denominations are the only churches that can call themselves the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Christian church (which they do). Protestantism and those denominations are schismatical churches that split from the Roman Catholic church and they have no validity whatsoever... they do not even attempt to give themselves the four marks of the church.

Since the Eastern Orthodox religion values tradition and growth instead of change, it is the same as it was when it was founded, while the Roman Catholics do not value tradition and growth and their religion has changed... you can notice these differences largely because of the fact of Catholic corruption (ie the inquisitions and all of the various sex scandals). One religion changed, the other didn't... it's clear which philosophy produces the most pious individuals.

 

My argument is that Jesus did not die on the cross, but rose again, and speaks to the hearts of his followers even today. 

He doesn't communicate to me to follow an ancient Church that never truly followed his teachings, but a new Church that is divinely inspired by HIs Word. 

You're speaking of history. 

What does that have to do with  divine inspiration from the Lord, the one true God?

Nothing. 

The Church you speak of was not formed by Jesus, but AFTER he was crucified. They never got the teachings of Jesus right, and they have never been the true Church you should follow. 

I see nothing in the bible that says I should follow the Orthodox Church. 

It says I should follow the teachings of Jesus, and that makes me a member of His Church:

 

 

 

Question: In Matthew 18:17 Jesus uses the term “church.” Since the church was not started until after Jesus’ death and resurrection, what does the term refer to?

 

"The word “church” in the New Testament comes from the Greek word, ekklesia, which means “to call out.” The only two references in the Gospels are from Jesus. Besides the one you cited, the other one occurs in Matthew 16:18.

It’s true that the church did not officially start until the Day of Pentecost, but since the church is based on the person and work of Christ, it really began with Jesus. He is the one who is “calling out” people who will call upon Him for salvation. All who do so are automatically members of the body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12:13).

When it comes to the church, there is the church invisible, comprised by all those who have trusted Jesus as Savior and Lord. And there is the visible church, comprised of those who gather together. Not all members of the visible church belong to the body of Christ, and not all who belong to the body of Christ gather physically in a church.

The bottom line is the church belongs to Jesus Christ (He says so in Matthew 16:18), and if we belong to Jesus, we are part of that invisible church. Of course, the visible church is important as well, because that’s where we worship the Lord, participate in the Sacraments (baptism, communion, marriage), learn about God’s Word, and engage in the church’s mission to the world. It’s also where we exercise our spiritual gifts as given to each believer by the Holy Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12). "

http://christianity101online.com/blog/2007/09/21/what-did-jesus-mean-by-church/

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Jesus to Saint Peter.

Jesus Christ established his church revolving around the Apostle Saint Peter who was arguably the first Pope. All Popes trace a direct line of succession through him, as do all of the other Patriarches, meaning those in Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. Those Apostolic Sees as they came to be known are the direct successors of the Church that Jesus Christ himself established, and they stand to this day. Only the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church can trace a line of Apostolic Succession back to Saint Peter, and therefore only those churches can consider themselves to be the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Christian Church that Jesus Christ established.

You also ignore that fact that Jesus did die on the cross and rose again afterwards. You ignore that when he did rise again that he ascended to heaven and left the Earth. If you communicate with Jesus personally, I believe that you are schizophrenic and are hearing voices and we should view you as mentally unstable, as any of your actions that you claim to be happening because "Jesus told you to do them" would make you no different than a radical Islamist.

Your article even states that the visible church is important as well... and the visible church is the one that Jesus Christ "built upon Peter." The early Christian church, which lives on today in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, is the only one which has any validity as only it was established by Jesus Christ. All others are merely schismatical denominations that have broken away from the church Jesus established, and they should be viewed as potentially dangerous and able to do anything they wish as they are not embodying the virtues of christianity.

Putting the quoted passage back in context:

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

 

The context here is not that the Church will be built upon Peter, but upon the answer given by Peter, revealed to him by the Spirit of God - that answer being the truth or reality of the identity of Who Jesus is, "...the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Here Simon Bar-Jonah (Simon, the son of Jonah) is given the name Peter (Greek Petras, "rock") because of the truth he has revealed - it is upon that truth that the Church will be built: that Jesus is the Christ (Greek Kristos "Anointed One"), not upon Peter.

Against the knowledge of Christ as the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Savior, the gates of Hades shall not prevail...obviously the gates of Hades prevailed against Peter.  He was crucified - upside down (by his own request) - by the Roman Empire.

A little knowledge of ancient languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), history, culture, and a willingness to take every passage in its full context as well as a willingness to question the teachings of any and every "orthodox" church and test it against the text is never a bad thing.

 

Personally, I agree with Ms. Rice in substance if not in her choice of words.  I do not know the woman and so I cannot say for certain whether or not she has truly renounced her faith in Christ, but I certainly agree wholeheartedly with her assessment of 95+% of Churchianity.  The only time Jesus ever got pissed off and lost His temper was when He went to Temple, which was the church service of His time.  Today's Church is far more corrupt than what was described in that incident when He deliberately braided a whip and upended the money changers' tables.  I'm thinking He'd do far more than braid a whip if He walked into most churches - including the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches - and saw what's being done in His name.

Um...guys?

Why so much hate over DA:O?  BioWare is a solid RPG developer that does have an MMORPG in the works and that MMO's mechanics are largely based on several of the developer's single-player RPGs including both DA:O and Mass Effect.

Personally, I own DA:O and Mass Effect and play them both and am also an avid MMO gamer.  Is there not enough going on in other forums today that it's necessary to flame this article, or is everyone so upset over the attention StarCraft II (also a product developed and published by a company with their hat in the MMO market) that there's some need to senselessly tear people's heads off over...nothing?  If what you see offends you...don't look.

 

Definitely one of the best - and funniest - articles here in recent memory.  Now pardon me while I go clean the coffee off my monitor...

Thanks for the article.

 

Now for a moment of nerdrage...please learn to spell Mandalorian, Alderaan and Consular before writing any more about Star Wars.

 

But I do love your hardware reviews.

Originally posted by Terikan3


I've really never seen such pompous arrogance in a review before, and I'm quite sure all of it was unwarranted.  No one knows or cares who you are, you impress no one with your sophomoric music and audio terminology.    Have fun with your lambo earphones lawl.

 

Actually, yes, some of us do care, which, as hikariuk pointed out already, is why several of us have specifically asked  the author to do more reviews of this kind.

As a professional who has worked in the television industry, I know an awful lot about many things having to do with video quality.  Sound, however, is not my department and I don't know jack about it...so I'd rather seek a qualified opinion from someone who does rather than the guy making minimum wage at the electronics store.

@ the OP: Because of HIPPA regulations, it may be the clinic or doctor's policy to request spousal consent, but it is not legally required for you to obtain it in the United States.  While statutes in GA, NC, and VA require spousal consent in writing, HIPPA is Federal and supercedes those State regulations.  Should the doctor or clinic persist in attempting to require spousal consent, I recommend procuring the services of a good attorney - the ACLU will generally take on cases like this pro bono, and particularly, since this is a case dealing with men's reproductive rights, may be willing to take this case on should the doctor/clinic persist in violating Federal law.

 

 

As for the rest...this thread was never about abortion, politics, or religion, but I don't see how anyone can both oppose abortion and support the morning after pill, which sheds an already fertilized egg (which is, by definition, an abortion).  It is contradictory, and to quote Terry Goodkind, "A contradiction can not exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole.  ...In reality, contradictions cannot exist. To believe in them you must abandon the most important thing you possess: your rational mind. In such an exchange, you always lose."

I'm inclined to agree with Imhotepp in that multi-page long-winded debate between him and the philosopher for the same reason listed above regarding contradictions as well as the following reason: "The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason."

Our friendly neighborhood philosophy major missed the point of Imhotepp's arguments and of his philosophy courses: one starts not with a statement which they present as fact, but with a question or supposition and then goes forth to present their logic.  As our philosophizing friend posts his rants, they come across as irrational, illogical, meaningless gibberish - I understand the words, but they have no meaning.  Again, quoting Terry Goodkind, "Wishes and whims are not facts nor are they a means to discover them. Reason is our only way of grasping reality; it is our basic tool of survival. We are free...to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss that we refuse to see. In rejecting reason...one embraces death."

 

To the gentleman who has had to support his significant other through two abortions and had to deal with protestors, you and your significant other are amazingly strong people, and should you ever counter-protest, I'd join you in a heartbeat - I support a womans and a man's right to choose for themselves without being bullied or harassed all the way to the door.  In almost any other situation, that sort of bullying would be considered criminal, but in this case, it is not.  We live in a free country, folks...or do we?

 

 

edited because spelling and punctuation are good skills to have! :D

Jamie, today's column is just...odd.

I've had game avatars that were not as "white" as me and the only flak I took for it was from real life family members.  No one in game gave a royal rip one way or the other what my character's skin color was, they only cared if I could heal them, produce enough DPS to kill what needed killed, or tank well enough to hold agrro and keep the group alive.  My character's appearance meant little or nothing to anyone in the game.  But then, that was only my personal experience.  I'm sure others have had different experiences.

I have also, as a straight woman in real life, married characters in game who were the same sex as my character (SWG also allows this, or used to).  No one cared one way or the other about that, either except for the one or two players who happened to be gay in real life who thought it was cool that two people who were heterosexual in real life would be un-bigoted enough in the game setting to marry their same sex characters to one another.

But the reality is this: if I want to deal with politics, racism, bigotry and other idiocy in my gaming, that's my choice...not the developers'.  If I choose a game that allows me to make a character that is not a Caucasian and I make a character that looks black or Latino or Asian, that's my choice to do so and it's my choice to deal with any negativity that may bring.  If I choose to play a game that allows me to become involved in game with a member of the same sex, that is also my choice and it is my choice to deal with any negative reactions that choice may or may not bring.  But for a developer to decide to force that upon me is not acceptable to me as a gamer.  The fact is, Jamie, I don't want to log into my game of choice and have racism or bigotry crammed down my throat.  I don't want to log in and have to "take sides" on a political issue because that's how the quests are written.  I don't want to play a Jane McGonigal game in my leisure time - even though I greatly admire what she's doing - and I certainly don't want to pay to do so, because I'm paying for a service and that service is to entertain me...not to force me to take sides or to solve the world's problems in my free time.

What the tone of your column seems to be asking today, Jamie, is "why can't we all agree and get along and why can't we use video games to do that?"  The answer is that we don't all agree and we never will.  I can accept that there are people in this world that I will never agree with, and I can respect the fact that they have different opinions than I do and respect the fact that they have a right to their opinions just as I do.  What I cannot accept or respect is anyone trying to use a service I am paying for to attempt to proselytize me or anyone else, which is very much what it sounds like you would like video game developers and companies to do.


Originally posted by Nesrie

Originally posted by ericbelser

This is just a technical quibble with MMORPG.com, but is there specific reason that they cannot call a press release a press release? This isn't an interview by any stretch...so perhaps call it a Screen Shot Release...at best?

 This is just showing up in the news section for me. Is it labeled an interview somewhere or are you referring to something off-topic?

 

Interviews By Guest Writer on July 15, 2010

 

Would be what ericbelser is referring to, would be my guess...

Nice review.  I almost bought a pair of the Trittons and now I'm glad I didn't after reading this.

 

As a side note...any chance of getting more hardware reviews, Jon?

The OP should adjust the poll to add a RealID voting option...

Originally posted by parrotpholk

Wonder how many cancellations happened that caused this. Right decision though

No doubt it went into the hundreds of thousands.  But it was the right decision - let's see if they stick to it, though.

Well, let's see if Activision-Blizzard "listens" (since they say they are listening, but give no solid evidence of it) to the sound of my canceled account.  I was going to give them until the 27th when this is supposed to go live, but Activision-Blizzard's seeming sense of infallibility changed my mind and I went ahead and canceled today and let them know that RealID's not being optional is the reason why.

 

It would seem that Blizzard themselves may end up being the "WoW-killer" after all.

This is a dangerous situation.

I've no problem with accountability and encourage it.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the internet is not a "safe" place and Blizzard's security measures are lacking as it is.  I've seen more Blizzard accounts hacked in the year and a half that I've played World of Warcraft than I have seen accounts hacked in all other games combined since I started playing MMORPGs in 2003.  Since the battle.net merge in November, the situation has worsened, not improved, with the vast majority of account hackings that I have been personally made aware of happening in that 8 month period.  And now Activision-Blizzard wants me to believe that allowing Battle.net to display my real life information is a good thing when the battle.net system is so clearly full of security holes that it makes five pounds of sliced Swiss cheese seem solid?

Besides information security, this is an unstable individual's wet dream.  While Felicia Day's show The Guild pokes fun at online gaming stalkers with the character Zaboo, who is essentially harmless, many such stalkers are not.  The recent example of the man who tried to kill another CounterStrike player and, using nothing more than his in-game handle, found his real name, address, and other information, then showed up on his doorstep and tried to stab him to death should give everyone who plays any online game pause that Activision-Blizzard desires to take this step.  As a woman, I have been stalked and harassed inside games for no other reason than that I am female.  This move disturbs me on many levels.

Additionally, there are people who retain their privacy for valid personal safety reasons.  Abused/battered spouses and children with court documents who have escaped dangerous situations with their lives who may play MMOs really do not need their names splattered all over for the persons they have escaped to find and harm them.  While there may be some who might say those folks shouldn't play MMOs, to that argument, I would counter, why should they be denied the same rights, pleasures, and privileges as any other human being simply because they have escaped a dangerous situation that nearly cost them their lives?  If they have chosen to protect their online identity and their privacy voraciously, the company to whom they are paying a monthly fee for a service has no right to choose to make their identity public, thus endangering their lives and personal safety.

 

I hope that Blizzard reconsiders and/or that someone sues the crap out them the instant that someone gets hurt over this nonsense.

17 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last