The Iconclastic Christians were essentially the anti-corporate warriors of the Dark and M<iddle Ages so here is how they might be accused by the corporate elite of today...The following is entirely consistent with the the things they were accused of in the past related to how it might be expressed today.

Their first error is that they say the corporate legal fiction is of no effect and not the true state of free man but a harlot of malignants, slavers, criminals and immorality and that they alone obey the law.

1.  Their second error is that they say all vices, crimes and corruption are within the corporations and Governments and they alone live humanely and righteously

2.  They say scarcely anyone within the corporate world and Government is truthful, honorable or keeps the law and constitution.

3.  That they are the true victims of corporate and Government persecution, suffering persecution for their righteousness and honor.

4.  That they are your true civil body in exile under the corrpt and tyranical.

5.  That the Corporation is the Harlot and that they dispize their statutes because they are heavy, numerous and unjust

6.  That the CEO is the head of all errors and crime

7.  That the Politicians, the Bureaucracy and councils are hypocrites and liars.

8.  That the CEO's, globalists and their executive are Murderers on account of their wars

9.  That we are not to obey the CEO's and globalists but only our conscience

10.  That no one is greater than other in society - you are all brothers

11.  That no one ought to bow themselves before a CEO

12.  That moneys should not be mindlessly plowed into pokie machines on the false promise of magical riches and rewards

13.  That CEO's, Bureaucrats and Politicians ought to have no special privilage

14.  That the land and the people are not divided into parts.

15.  That it is a bad thing to found and fund new corporations

16.  They deny the legal personality of a Corporation or that it consists through a legal fiction or through the doctrine of transubtantiantion it magically becomes a person with the same rights and legal entitlements as a person

17.  That they dispize and care nothing for the privilages, profits and bonuses of CEO's or their legal immunities through "Limited Liability from prosecution and personal responsibility.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:



LOL


+++

Isaiah 1:16
Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17  Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19  If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
20  But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
21  How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
22  Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
23  Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.




Sounds like a description of us [the Western world], doesn't it ???

Corrupted.


Psalms 106:3
Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times.

Sappho wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:


But you just said they are not atheists. Can you clarify this please?

Quote:


But do you reject the possibility that God might exist?

I think this is the difficulty I have with the attempts to redefine atheism. The way I see it, you either accept the possibility that God might exist, in one form or another, in which case you are agnostic, or you reject the possibility, in which case you are atheist. But if you reject that possibility, then you believe that God does not exist. This attempt to redefine atheism appears to restrict it to the territory in between these two - hence effectively defining atheism out of existence.

Quote:


So when you define your position relative to what others believe, you think you are an atheist, but if you define your position based on what you believe, you are agnostic?

Quote:


I don't think anyone represents them. But he does exist.

Quote:


The boundaries seem pretty clear-cut to me.

Quote:


That's fine. There are obviously lots of different definitions getting around, hence the different religions and belief systems.

Quote:


Not really. Atheism rejects them all. A Christian is not an atheist because he rejects the Hindu Gods.

Grey:

Quote:


Dawkins attempts to disprove the 'God Hypothesis'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

Richard Dawkins begins The God Delusion by making it clear that the God he talks about is the Abrahamic concept of a personal god who is susceptible to worship. He considers the existence of such an entity to be a scientific question, because a universe with such a god would be significantly different from a universe without one, and he says that the difference would be empirically discernible. Therefore, Dawkins concludes, the same kind of reasoning can be applied to the God hypothesis as to any other scientific question.

Quote:


Grey, are you claiming to speak on behalf of Dawkins' supporters?

Quote:


You are missing the point Grey. This is about the definition of atheism, not about what is the 'correct' belief. Hence the question you cannot answer.

Grey wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:51pm:

[/quote]


If religio is what binds us together - and that's what it is - then opting in or out of a group we want to be bound to by custom, creed, ethos, ethics, outlook, sensibility etc is important.

We in the West DO have the option to opt in or out of all that binds us. The Muslims don't.

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:20pm:

"Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh how I wish he’d go away"

It may be said they are atheists (being permanently in the state of absence-of-belief-in-god), so long as you do not infer from that statement, that they are actively “believing-in the non-existence of god”. Which they are not.

Disbelief is not attributively the same as 'believing-in'.

Quote:


But they are. That was the whole point of the question.

If a person believes that God does not exist, are they an atheist?

Also, why do you put so many dashes between your words? Is that supposed to make it clearer?

Also, do you say that, or are you just acknowledging that others (eg muso and Sappho) may say it? Or were you merely giving permission to say it?

For someone who is concerned that others may 'misapprehend', you are remarkably averse to straight talking.

Grey do you think it is not possible for a person to believe that God does not exist?

I depends how you define Muslim. And gay of course. Not that it wouldn't be bombastic.