NationStates Jolt Archive

Then who do you consider to be that final authority over that? The United Nations? Do you acknowledge their superiority over what's right and wrong? Those filthy and greedy politicians are by no means better than our respectable church.
youre right. they by no means are better than your scumy opinion,doofus

And then there are those of us, who began with it ramrodded down our throats (I wouldn't really call it ramrodding, but I did have little choice of religion) and later realized, "Hey, the Church is fine and dandy." And are now happy catholics (which I am not capitalizing because I am technically a heretic and therefore not a Catholic, and besides, I prefer the label of 'open to all' over what Catholic tends to mean to most people, specifically the one who decided to use the term 'ramrodding') albeit, questioning certain dogmas in a more societal than religious light. (not just homosexuality, but mandatory celibacy as well, but we won't go into that right now)

Don't you agree that when we have given the right by God to live on his earth that we ought to live by his conditions? When you are an atheist, ask yourself the question who or what created the universe and you will admit that the human species have no right to intervere with the powers of God. Let us live a moral life, like it was intended to be.

Signed,

The Chancellor of State
-Lothario Conti de Segni
Wow you soundlike a communist propoganda tape. get a life. No really, GET A LIFE! We have a right to chose if we want to have an OPINION! (OHNO! THe people can think for themselves, besides , your god gave us free will)

To try and convince the UN, brother in faith Innocentius, strikes me as an uphill amd outnumbered battle. Secularism is too entrenched. Compromises, where morally tolerable, are whats more possible here. Like propositions securing a nation's right to ban or allow abortion on its own terms, which therefore do not trample the soverienty of any nation to ban or exercise abortion. It doesn't stop abortion, but it does at least leave you the ability for you to decide for yourself about abortion, instead of having someone universally legalize it and force it upon you. Do not bring terms as "God," "morals," or "absolutes" into your reasoning in the proposition; it infuriates liberals and scares the moderates. Never compromise your own faith, though, for the sake of another, and unashamedly defend it when attacked.
Peace be with you.
~Anithraldur

And then there are those of us, who began with it ramrodded down our throats (I wouldn't really call it ramrodding, but I did have little choice of religion) and later realized, "Hey, the Church is fine and dandy." And are now happy catholics (which I am not capitalizing because I am technically a heretic and therefore not a Catholic, and besides, I prefer the label of 'open to all' over what Catholic tends to mean to most people, specifically the one who decided to use the term 'ramrodding') albeit, questioning certain dogmas in a more societal than religious light. (not just homosexuality, but mandatory celibacy as well, but we won't go into that right now)
wow im sorry for being a little over the top, no sarcasm, really. My main intention was to point out choice, instead of coercioon. (yes, i love that word) I believe that everyone shopould have a choice, instead of a lack of it. when i first read innocentius, it came across as an attempt to force religion upon humanity. As for the defnition of catholicism, you are correct of one of itss definitions. It does mean open minded. And, i admmit that my opinion definitly was not. However in the context Inocentius was using it in, it meant the religion thereof, not of the thought of openmindedness.So he truly is being quite a bit over the top himself. Also, i am an atendee of a catholic school and know of its traditions, and have studied judaism also. I have a very precise understanding of both and i intend only to point out the hypocritisms(however its spelled) of inocetius. i understand that ramrodding may be considered a wrong way to say it, and also that there are several happy people of coerce religions(note i said that in my quote) however, i know several more depressed friends. (they were depresed before they met me) who belong to the coerce religions.
But hey, say what you want. I enjoy debating. It allows people to think on their own a little, along with being able to make a choice of their own.
(note, 1. my nation is low on civil rights, its a game, and 2. i say extreme things because its a game. But really, religion doesn't need to be in the un, especially mandatory. see why i say MANDATORY (NOT the kind where you have a choice) is bad. I know this is getting old, but worship whichever god you believe in. it des no harm to me. just please, don't make other people worship with you or make someone have you opinion[this is a debate, i dont support a resolution aof mandatory individual rights, it would force them])


SOrry for any offense, have fun, play the game, think what you want, enjoy yourself,please. Talk to ya l8r

To try and convince the UN, brother in faith Innocentius, strikes me as an uphill amd outnumbered battle. Secularism is too entrenched. Compromises, where morally tolerable, are whats more possible here. Like propositions securing a nation's right to ban or allow abortion on its own terms, which therefore do not trample the soverienty of any nation to ban or exercise abortion. It doesn't stop abortion, but it does at least leave you the ability for you to decide for yourself about abortion, instead of having someone universally legalize it and force it upon you. Do not bring terms as "God," "morals," or "absolutes" into your reasoning in the proposition; it infuriates liberals and scares the moderates. Never compromise your own faith, though, for the sake of another, and unashamedly defend it when attacked.
Peace be with you.
~Anithraldur

Wow thats a cool thought. it really is, however, i must say that your thought of moderates and liberals is somewhat rude. or maybe more incorrect. when you look at it everyone has a set of morals, and you seem to think that liberals and moderates are scum of the earth and want to kill us all. not really true. just a slightly different set of morals, all for the same reson. Most people want people to be happy. (im not bringing abortion into this, its a huge topic and i will debate it later) So please dont refer to other humans(sometimes who are christians like you) who just happen to be liberals or moderates as scum(i know you didnt call them that but read it in context)
Just wanna debate-Magdahns
But really- thats a really cool opinion it shows howw the world should be. Show youre opinion, and if people disagree, tell them why you think youre right and let them think what they think. I give you a thumbs up, even if you think liberals and moderates are scum.

I never said moderates and liberals are scum-they just get feisty when someone mentions "God" and "government" in the same breath.
~Anithraldur

Another Fox News watcher: Anyone who fears Liberals and thinks Moderates are scum 90% of time watches Fox News.

I wish Fox had a legal issue with lying, but they won a court case over lying. They can and will lie and its okay.

Anyhoo, So tell me since we are name calling and placing history: Magdhans
What do you know of Mormons aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Besides the false rumor of multi-marriage because only fundamentalist do that. Fundamentalist lost authority since they went against the church's council that forbids multi-marriage. Anyhoo... Anything about them too?

I should get back on topic:
Catholic church is only religion with Dogmas I think, is that true?
I may be wrong so its good to ask :lol:

Another Fox News watcher: Anyone who fears Liberals and thinks Moderates are scum 90% of time watches Fox News.

I wish Fox had a legal issue with lying, but they won a court case over lying. They can and will lie and its okay.

Anyhoo, So tell me since we are name calling and placing history: Magdhans
What do you know of Mormons aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Besides the false rumor of multi-marriage because only fundamentalist do that. Fundamentalist lost authority since they went against the church's council that forbids multi-marriage. Anyhoo... Anything about them too?

I should get back on topic:
Catholic church is only religion with Dogmas I think, is that true?
I may be wrong so its good to ask :lol:

I do not fear liberals and I do not think moderates are scum. I have friends in both camps. You, sir, are a flamebaiter. The rest of your post makes little sense. You are an altogether silly person. *laughs*
PEACE
~Anithraldur

I never said moderates and liberals are scum-they just get feisty when someone mentions "God" and "government" in the same breath.
~Anithraldur
LOL. Im sorry. I just detected a hint of dislike. You are right though.

Innocentius, you make me happy that I am no longer a practicing craplik.
As a matter of fact I'm atheist.

your senile old pope can die, we'd be happier that way.

I wish that craptholicism died and all the members turned Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist.

What a wonderful world that would be.

Proud to Be Atheist.

New UN resolution:

I. All religions are to be tolerated and all nations are to be secularized.

II. The Cathloic Priests are forced to convert to another faith.

III. All Catholic Churches are closed, stripped of valuables and burned or turned into a Hindu Temple. But first all statues of Mary must be given to Southern Baptists so they can be burned.

IV. The Holy See is to be disregarded and bombed, then turned into a big monument honoring victims of the Inqusition and Crusades.

V. All catholic baptisms are declared illegal.

VI The catholic church must provide Muslims, Jews, and Hindus with reparations for persecution and missionary efforts.

UPDATE:

Magdha is in the process of Fullfilling Reccomendations I-III and Recommendation V as well.

The cathedral of Ayodhya is beign turned into a temple to Kali and the Churches into gambling dens or euthanasia clinics

VII. St Peter's Basillica is to be made into a Mosque.

VIII. The current pope is to be tried for crimes against humanity.

I am a liberal and you are damn right I get a little feisty when god (not capitalized because there are many out there not just your christian one) and govt are in the same sentence. They are two completely unrelated things: government monitors and controls society as a whole, it keeps order in the country, religion monitors and controls YOUR OWN LIFE, no one elses, it keeps YOUR LIFE in order. The only time religion ever has any relationship with government is when people become ethnocentric and believe their own way of life is better than others and force onto society which should never be done. I am agnostic as of present because I don't know any absolute truths, I don't know what I believe. But I do know that I will fight anyone to the death if they take away my opportunity to someday find something that I can believe in. You have your faith let me find mine, because I can never accept yours no matter how hard you force it on me.

...
" I'd just like to say, I will always be spell bound by religions ability to bring people together ... "
...
( :lol: )
...
[ And the results are in, my straight face lasted 4.5 second ]

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

My dear brothers and sisters in the nations:

Good heavens! We go away for a well-earned retreat to Mount Athos and come back to find the "covenant" of Innocentius still alive? Unbelievable. We are relieved to find that Innocentius is indeed an anti-pope, and therefore is actually refuting the basis for any authority he might claim. We encourage him to submit in humility to the true authority of the Roman church, misguided though it may be.

My brother Komokom: excellent link to the Quote Garden.

My brother Myopia: the question of objective Truth is an interesting one, and is usually called the "abolition of man".

Scenario: a man steps in front of you in line for the subway after you've been waiting and gets the last space. You think, "Hey! that's not right! I was here first!"

You are appealing to a "general" sense of right and wrong, something that you know instinctively without necessarily being told. The idea that your effort (waiting) was dismissed by the other man seems somehow "wrong". We do not put trust in saying: "each society must make rules to govern itself fairly", because societies throughout history, while having a form of the "golden rule", inevitably fall into corruption.

A perfect example is Nazi Germany: here was a "civilized" society, full of laws and statutes, that was corrupted and degraded by the will of a group of hideously twisted individuals; if "every" society is equally valid, then we have no place in judging the Nazis. The truly civilized world, however, recognized the evil inherent in the Nazi system, and acted to stop it.

We instead appeal to something innate in our being, something that marks, in our minds and hearts, the difference between Right and Wrong, Good and Evil. Every recorded society in history, EVERY SINGLE ONE, has created basic rules by which civil life can be practiced; it is one of the great pillars of civilization to have a codified body of law. Usually, though not in every case, these supranational laws include what we as Christians call the "moral law" of the 10 Commandments (or at least the last 6, the ones concerning civil life). So it appears that mankind, in every place and in every time, appeals to a higher sense of what is right and wrong, because the moral law of which we speak is not necessarily convenient or in touch with our most primitive desire to succeed at the expense of those around us. We allow ourselves to be governed by these laws for the good of society as a whole; we are willing to divest ourselves of some small part of our own freedoms so that all our brothers and sisters may flourish as well.

That we are willing to do so is a mark of the objective moral law that is embedded in the hearts of mankind; most religions ascribe this objective law to the imprint of our Creator, the only One Who is truly outside human ideas of morality. God is, in Himself, the only truly objective Being.


If we might indulge; we forget who mentioned the Trinity, but we believe that Jesus Christ is God Himself, in the flesh, as the Second Person of the Trinity. The mystery of the Trinity is that God is Three Persons in One Being, absolutely indivisible yet distinct. Also, in response to our brother who found that the absolute unknowability of God to be distressing, we point out that we also said that we do know as much as He has allowed to be revealed of Himself, and we act on that revelation. We Orthodox simply believe that it is beyond human comprehension to fully grasp the Essence of the Godhead as He is in and of Himself; that is the very reason that He has revealed Himself as Christ and in the Scriptures and Tradition.

We must gently remind our Christian brothers and sisters, even those outside the fold of the True Church (Orthodoxy) that as Christians we are called upon to live in such a way that we become an lifeline to salvation, not a whip; that we be a light in the darkness, not a set of blinders; that we show love and mercy, not condescension and arrogance. The fairly banal "What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD)" bumper stickers and keychains and whatnot are asking the wrong question: the question is more accurately, "What has Jesus COMMANDED US to do?" The answer: love one another, as He has loved us.

We hesitate to use our position to make formal pronouncements, but this "covenant" is no more than a show of arrogance and self-superiority, born not of God or His Holy Church, but of vanity and ignorance.

THEREFORE we, as Oecumenical Patriarch of the Throne of Constantinople, the New Rome, Successor to the Holy Apostles and Fathers, pronounce our most formal anathema upon it; let it be cast out into the utter darkness. If any man claims our authority, let him be anathema. If any man claims that this "covenant" is of God and speaks for the Church, let him be anathema. Hagios O Theos, hagios Ischyros, hagios athanatos, eleison hymas. "Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy upon us."

+Theophilus, Patriarch

Innocentius:

Your cause, noble as it may seem to you, and (no offense) may have seemed 600 years ago, it is not very noble in an age where the Church has no say in what happens in the world beyond encyclicals and publicly denouncing actions of leaders. Forced conversion in no way increases people's love for God. In fact, probably fewer people would truly love Him if they were forced to. Everyone, deep down, in some way shape or form, loves God, and all His creations (except the very worst sinners, but we won't go there). That should be enough, and we can ask no more. No one has to be a Catholic to love God, but it sure helps to be catholic. Now I'm probably going to end up going around in circles, not actually saying anything, if I keep going. So I will end with this: Stop trying to convert the atheists! If God couldn't convince them, Himself, chances are good you won't either, and they have free will. It's their choice to believe or not to believe.

Theophilus makes a good point only he takes his evidence in the wrong direction. In the situation you presented you are correct that you would say that was wrong, but not because of a higher moral handed down but because you were inconvenienced. Humans possess the power of sympathy, a logical progression that allows us to understand how our actions affected the lives of others. We are not inherently guilty when our actions hurt others, we know what they feel, and our guilt stems from that. With the Nazis, do you not anguish everytime you think of a concentration camp? Why? Not because your god says that it is wrong to send Jews to a concentration camp, but because you can understand what it would be like to be in a the camp, go through the torture that they went through.
In fact, the Nazis are a perfect piece of evidence against your argument. If everyone is blessed with this higher moral governance, how could a whole society, (a christian society even) be so easily swayed to the side of "evil".

Another Fox News watcher: Anyone who fears Liberals and thinks Moderates are scum 90% of time watches Fox News.

I wish Fox had a legal issue with lying, but they won a court case over lying. They can and will lie and its okay.

Anyhoo, So tell me since we are name calling and placing history: Magdhans
What do you know of Mormons aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Besides the false rumor of multi-marriage because only fundamentalist do that. Fundamentalist lost authority since they went against the church's council that forbids multi-marriage. Anyhoo... Anything about them too?

I should get back on topic:
Catholic church is only religion with Dogmas I think, is that true?
I may be wrong so its good to ask :lol:

Please try to understand that I promote religion, but not mandatory religion, and if I sound like lucifer or the beaast or 666 or whoever your demon may be, I apologize. The main thing is if you attempt to force religion upon me, you will get a foul reaction, like if you were to hit a wasp's nest with a hammer or step on a skunk or call someone's mother a bi*&#. That said, I have no problems with mormons. (Nor do I despise catholics, you see I have a family history of catholic and southern baptist, wow, my family is Christian) However, if you want a super-duper criticism of mormonism I can try to figure something out. But I don't really care to.

Theophilus makes a good point only he takes his evidence in the wrong direction. In the situation you presented you are correct that you would say that was wrong, but not because of a higher moral handed down but because you were inconvenienced. Humans possess the power of sympathy, a logical progression that allows us to understand how our actions affected the lives of others. We are not inherently guilty when our actions hurt others, we know what they feel, and our guilt stems from that. With the Nazis, do you not anguish everytime you think of a concentration camp? Why? Not because your god says that it is wrong to send Jews to a concentration camp, but because you can understand what it would be like to be in a the camp, go through the torture that they went through.
In fact, the Nazis are a perfect piece of evidence against your argument. If everyone is blessed with this higher moral governance, how could a whole society, (a christian society even) be so easily swayed to the side of "evil".

To Furguson and all our brothers and sisters in the nations:

Our question would be: why is being inconvenienced "bad"? What makes being in a concentration camp "bad"? Pain? Why is pain "bad"? Torture? What makes torture "bad"? How can we describe anything as "good" or "bad", down to the very lowest level, the most basic point, without some frame of reference? There are people in the world who get pleasure from pain, so pain cannot be necessarily bad in and of itself. However, human societies have, in all times and places, made clear not just that they had laws and societal norms; they have understood that the very act of adopting these norms/laws/etc. was a recognition of an authority higher than their own. Whether they attribute it to "God" or "the gods" or "karma" or whatever, it is a force above and beyond simple human existence. As I mentioned in an earlier post, regarding clean and unclean animals and the Law of Moses, to the Jews it was NOT a matter of "feeling" different or "acting" different; it was a matter of being COMMANDED to be different from their neighbors. It was precisely the opposite of what Furguson posits: it was indeed a direct order from God that made the Jews obey their civil laws.

The Nazis KNEW what they were doing was wrong; that is why they lied to the people to whom it was being done, desperately attempted to destroy the evidence when it was obvious they were going to be defeated, and often killed themselves after being captured. The shame and guilt of what they were doing has colored their national conscience for 60 years. The Nazis consciously and purposefully violated natural and revealed law by their atrocities; they were simply evil for evil's sake.
They were caught up in that evil because they denied the voice of God, the divine spark within themselves, and allowed themselves to be corrupted.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

Another question for you, if there is a handed down morality, how do you explain the gray areas, is it wrong to lie in cases when another's feelings are at stake. The teachings of God would say to not lie, but one understands that how someone would feel if you said something hurtful to them no matter how truthful it was. A greater morality would seem to make these decisions easier but I am sure you are faced with these everyday.

If and only if the Vatican can provide the following proofs, Marentina will support its proposal:
1. Proof their deity exists
2. Proof their deity is the Creator
3. Proof their deity wants what the Vatican says he/she/it wants.

Otherwise, we would respectfully ask the representatives of the Vatican not to meddle.

“I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organise peace on this planet.”

- Albert Einstein.

:wink:

* Has inserted his two units of national finance and awaits reaction from the great big opinion vending device that is the U.N. Forum.

:wink:

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All

First, Pope Innocentius XIV is being recognized as the legitimate pope in the EU and in the European Union. (Two different regions). Cohersion with all nationstates is impossible, and therefore you can see him as either the real pope of these regions, or as the anti-pope of the world. Whatever suits your criticism best. For more background information, browse through the forums at : http://s6.invisionfree.com/European_Union , where we are really active.

Yes, that's what I said, I think Innocentious would be viewed as an anti-pope, as the last time someone came in going "Ha! I am pope!" got smacked down by most of the Catholic NS nations, who normally recognise Holy Vatican See. And obviously it's not that hard to get to a majority of Catholic nationstates if Holy Vatican See can do it.

"Insert random indict of pointless discussion here."

Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Eastern Orthodoxy, the innate sense of right and wrong you speak of, as well as the ability to sympathise mentioned by TF, need not be divinely inspired. It is just as possible that they are evolved mechanisms which proliferated because they help human societies to work together (I have explained this kind of thing earlier in the thread in more detail)

Eastern Orthodoxy, the innate sense of right and wrong you speak of, as well as the ability to sympathise mentioned by TF, need not be divinely inspired. It is just as possible that they are evolved mechanisms which proliferated because they help human societies to work together (I have explained this kind of thing earlier in the thread in more detail)

*The Patriarch climbs down from his pulpit after proclaiming the anathemas*

To our brother Myopia:

We understand your thought here; we would only suggest that a close reading of human history would show that every attempt by man to promote a "just" society contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction *despite* our attempts to answer that innate sense. Many empires have risen and fallen, though based upon noble principles, because mankind has fallen from its Creator, and a by-produict of this Fall is our inability to truly adhere to that innate sense. This is tied closely to the Orthodox sense of the Fall of Man, which is *very* different from the Western/Roman Catholic view:

In the West, the Fall of Man leaves mankind destitute, depraved, and utterly unable to do anything righteous in the eyes of God. Sin is inescapable and has made every aspect of mankind's nature corrupt.

In Orthodoxy, mankind has fallen away from the Truth, yes, but in the Greek of the New Testament, the word that has been translated as "sin" is "hamartia", which is a term used in archery for "missing the mark". Orthodoxy teaches that mankind truly *desires* to be good, and is capable of great and astounding acts of righteousness; we are simply unable to *keep* to that course because our nature has been subverted by our own attempts to replace our Creator with ourselves as the focus of existence.

Orthodoxy says that because of this, any system of government we create cannot reach the mark of compassion and righteousness that it could if we were in obedience to God; Orthodoxy believes that through the merit of Christ, we *can* become perfect. It is God's way of training us (like an archer) to once again hit the mark. We are much more concerned with bringing the hearts and minds of men into a right communion with the Eternal One than we are with forcing governments to legislate morality; because we believe that all governments are corrupt, and you cannot get sweet water from a bitter well. When men's hearts change, their institutions change to reflect that. The striving of mankind to better itself shows most clearly that we are trying to reach a mark that we have *not* set for ourselves; a mark that was placed by something outside human experience as a water-mark. "Utopia" is only achievable with help from a super-natural power, because we are unable to achieve it by ourselves. History proves this.

It is, of course, necessary as Christians that we teach that *only* through Christ is this possible. We have spoken much about love, because if we do not show the world the face of Christ's love, who will? If men see the Church as the brute force of dogma, they are not seeing the wondrous work of salvation, and we (as Christians) have failed.

Today is the day in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when our homosexual brothers and sisters are receiving official recognition by that state of their bonds of love; even if we disagree on whether or not homosexuality is the best possible exhibition of love, we see two consenting adults standing before the civil power and their community declaring that the love which created the universe has drawn them together. We would rather welcome them on their journey of discovery and love than hurl abuse at them. Did Christ shrink from sinners? How can we do any less?

+Theophilus, Patriarch

A question for Theophilus:

Is not believing in God a mortal sin according to your belief, or is also considered "missing the mark"? I consider myself a good person and still abide by the christian values I was raised with, but I find it impossible to believe in God.

Not trying to spark debate, it's just that your last post showed a view of christianity that i can actually respect, so I feel you might be able to answer this.

A question for Theophilus:

Is not believing in God a mortal sin according to your belief, or is also considered "missing the mark"? I consider myself a good person and still abide by the christian values I was raised with, but I find it impossible to believe in God.

Not trying to spark debate, it's just that your last post showed a view of christianity that i can actually respect, so I feel you might be able to answer this.

To our brother Furguson and all our brothers and sisters in the nations:

Because we are created by God, in His image, we do bear a responsibility to recognize and react to Him. Throughout His ministry, Our Lord Jesus Christ called upon mankind to have faith: faith in Him, faith in His Father, faith in the Kingdom of God. The very foundation of human life is a response to the Creator. Orthodoxy recognizes that there is a strong distinction between faith and knowledge, between faith and reason; Orthodoxy believes however, that they may never oppose each other, or be separated from each other. In the first place, one cannot believe anything which he does not somehow already know. Faith must have its reasons; it must be built on some internal knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge itself cannot be built upon absolute skepticism; it is often itself built upon faith, even faith as simple as that in the ability of man to reason.

We may have confused you by mentioning the difference between the Western sense of "sin" and the actual Greek word meaning "to miss the mark". One thing must remain clear: hamartia is a failure on the part of mankind to to be what it should be and to do what it should do. Because, as in archery, to miss the mark means failure. Mankind failed in his original vocation by disobeying God's command through pride, jealousy, and simple lack of humble gratitude to the God Who made him. Because of that failure man subjected himself, and all creation, to the struggle against evil and corruption in which the world finds itself now. The Orthodox Church, unlike its Western counterparts, teaches that we are not totally depraved: mankind still remains the created image of God, and the world is still good, even "very good", but it is struggling under the consequences of its created master’s actions. The Orthodox Church does not place any difference in sin; for us, there is no “mortal” or “venial” sin, it is simply sin. Once you have missed the target, does it matter how much? We believe it is more important to put ourselves in a position to actually hit the mark, than to try to “grade” levels of sin.

Our brother Furguson, you speak of living by “Christian values”; we believe you are sincere. We would offer that you are answering the human cry for justice and peace, love and forgiveness, that is in the hearts of all men, placed there by their Creator. The difficulty we see is that Christian values, without the supportive power of God working through you, in Christ, are a goal that will frustrate you forever. You cannot live by Christ’s words without Christ. It is often remarked that Christ was a “good” man, a “great teacher”, and so on, without further comment. Unfortunately, Jesus Himself does not give us the option of stopping there. He claims absolute equality with His Father, and bases the authority by which He taught upon His being Who He says He is. Either He is Who He says He is, or He is not. If He is not, then you could pick and choose any jumble of moral philosophies to live by. If He is, then you must answer the imperatives that He calls us to live by: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, watch out for widows and orphans, proclaim His Gospel.

We might suggest that you are doing good actions, but the impact they have on your soul may be impeded because you are selling them short; you are not putting them in the proper perspective: they are a response to the divine within your nature.

C.S. Lewis, in "The Chronicles of Narnia", posited a position that is entirely possible within the framework of the human experience: that those "outside" the Church may actually be doing Christ's work without knowing in Whose Name they are acting. At the End of Times, they will stand before His Throne and recognize their true Master.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

The Archbishop of Sydney has defended the right of religious schools to discriminate, claiming it is integral to religious freedom in Australia.

The Australia Institute has found private schools in New South Wales and Victoria are exempt from anti-discrimination laws and therefore can legally expel gay or pregnant students.

The Institute and the Australian Education Union have called for the exemption to be removed to bring private schools in line with the values of the general community.

But Cardinal George Pell says the Catholic Church should not be coerced into implementing other values.

"We have a right to teach our Christian teachings and to follow out the consequences of that," he said.

"Nobody is forced to send their children to Catholic schools.

"Parents send children to Catholic schools because they know they will get a certain set of values there."

Link : This links directly to the page of the story. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1110803.htm)

( This actually makes me feel some shame to be Australian :oops: )

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Personally, I would argue that the downfall of human societies and our inability to reach utopia despite our innate instinct to cooperate and work for the good of the group is not necessarily due to theological factors. Another possible explanation is the conflict between the two evolved instincts - the social instinct, and the selfish instinct. So in my own opinion I don't think that your explanation is the only one, nor even the most likely, though it is interesting.

I would like to ask something similar to TF - where OP and the like would most likely tell me that unless I develop faith in god and christ and become a good christian, I will go to hell, do you agree with them that it is necessary to develop christian faith during one's life in order to go to heaven after death?

To our brothers and sisters in the nations:

Myopia: two interesting points.

We would boil down the response regarding the two clashing instincts you mention (with which I agree in great part) to their simplest forms. Why do we consider the social instinct "good" and the selfish instinct "bad"? What is it in ourselves that makes that distinction? Would it not be the logical conclusion to this difficulty that all the "good" people would exterminate the "bad" people, leaving only those who act upon the social instinct? Within this context, the act of destroying the selfishly-driven would itself be a "good" thing, one that would result in the Utopia of which we dream. But then, to do so would be a selfish act, based upon the "good" group's desire for a world that has only other "good" people in it; creating a catch-22. Thus, we appeal to a supra-human code of Right and Wrong.

Now, the scary one. Without trying to play semantics, we would look carefully at some of the phrases you use. We would consider "develope" and "during one's life" to be key here. First, we consider that mankind is eternal, in the sense that "you only live once, but it's forever". Your body may fail, and die, but your soul is everlasting. We Orthodox (along with most Christians) even believe that at the Last Day, our bodies will be returned to us, incorruptible, to fully enjoy the glories of Heaven. "The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruption must put on incorruption, and this mortality must put on immortality." (1 Corinthians 52-53) So, although our natural, physical bodies were present first, our spiritual beings, once created, are eternal. That being said, we Orthodox believe that the whole point of human existence is to glorify its Creator, by faith and good works, both during life and afterwards. We are judged by what we know of God, in whatever way He has revealed Himself to us. Our reaction to that revelation, whether the natural (i.e., the created world) or the supernatural (i.e., the Written Word [the Scriptures], Christ [the Incarnate Word] ), is the basis upon which we are brought before the Throne of the Eternal. As a Christian, we must believe (and teach) that the only way to approach the Throne and live is through the advocacy of Jesus Christ. However, if there is a human being living in accordance with the dictates of the divine spark within his heart, who does not see Christ for Who He truly is, does God destroy him? We believe not. God, seeing this person in struggle to reach Him, does not EVER desire the "death of a sinner", but rather that they be reconciled to Him. We believe that these persons will see Christ, even if it is after physical death, and recognize Him. There is a breadth to the divine Mercy which we cannot possibly comprehend. When Jesus remarks to the faithful at the End of Time that they clothed Him and fed Him and visited Him in prison, and they ask "when?", He answers them by saying "whenever you did this for the least of my brethren, you did it for Me." He does NOT say, "whenever you did it for another believer"...which leads us to act as if every human being is Christ when we come into contact them.

You must examine your own heart, brutally, clearly, giving yourself no quarter whatsoever. If you come out without being able to believe in Christ, not based upon 2000 years of ecclesiastical mischief but upon a full contemplation of the Gospel, we leave you in God's hands. But we CANNOT JUDGE you. That is God's (and ONLY God's) prerogative.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

* The Rep of Komokom is constantly amazed how people think they can follow a religion and as such have a god given right ( Forgive me for any pun-age, :wink: ) to declare some one is going to suffer for not also following this religion.

Then again, they also seem to ignore that fact we will probably have unified physics and sciences before we unify the various factions of the major churches.

...

* Laughs at the tragedy of it all before he cries into his coffee ...

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Umm innocentious just so you know by trying to force the dogma and teachings of the Catholic Church on others you are violating that very dogma. As much as I wish and pray people would convert you CANNOT make them. God gave us free will for a reason and trithfully all you can do is presen this to them. And by doing so you will make them responsible for that and will be judge by God from that. So innocentious I say just back off because its first of all against your own teachiongs and second you will never convince alot of these people they are very blind in some ways (but thats another issue).

-everyone's favorite orthidox Catholic OP

OK, let's assume that Christianity rather than any other religion or non-religious creed is correct. Hey, let's even assume that Protestants etc are also wrong. How can you justify Roman Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy? The schism arose because of the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople. The only religious justification I have seen is on behalf of the Orthodox: Catholics break the Commandment concerning the worship of graven images. One may therefore argue that Catholicism (and hence Popery) is heretical.

Burn them! Burn them!

Ahem. Catholicism offers one truth. It is arrogant, vain and maybe even sinful to presume that your beliefs are the absolute truth to which we must all submit.

well first of no eastern orthadox worship statues period. And if you dont know that please next time researc a little better.

and to innocentious:
Umm innocentious just so you know by trying to force the dogma and teachings of the Catholic Church on others you are violating that very dogma. As much as I wish and pray people would convert you CANNOT make them. God gave us free will for a reason and trithfully all you can do is presen this to them. And by doing so you will make them responsible for that and will be judge by God from that. So innocentious I say just back off because its first of all against your own teachiongs and second you will never convince alot of these people they are very blind in some ways (but thats another issue).

-everyone's favorite orthidox Catholic OP

Umm innocentious just so you know by trying to force the dogma and teachings of the Catholic Church on others you are violating that very dogma. As much as I wish and pray people would convert you CANNOT make them. God gave us free will for a reason and trithfully all you can do is presen this to them. And by doing so you will make them responsible for that and will be judge by God from that. So innocentious I say just back off because its first of all against your own teachiongs and second you will never convince alot of these people they are very blind in some ways (but thats another issue).

Eh, he's still ridiculous, but hardly violating the "edicts of the faith." The Catholic Church (and probably the Eastern Orthodox rite as well) has always held that it possesses the "fullness of truth" and that evokes a certain calling to spread the truth through different mediums. Apparently, some are called to the apostolic life, and even in the Apostle's Creed it's indicated that, "We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." Apologetics is essentially "active testament to the truth," and apparently this is what he's up to in his own whacked out little head. I wouldn't say he's got dandy methods, just that it's not "against the faith" and I can hardly say he's managed to "force anything," mostly because that's impossible.

And do you like, EVER spell check any of your stuff? I mean if you can't spell "Orthodox," jee whiz...

* The Rep of Komokom is constantly amazed how people think they can follow a religion and as such have a god given right ( Forgive me for any pun-age, :wink: ) to declare some one is going to suffer for not also following this religion.



To our brother Komokom and all our brothers and sisters in the nations:

We have already pointed out that it is true that Christianity especially, by virtue of its own teachings, is an exclusive religion. We cannot change that and remain faithful to the Church. We have been endeavoring solely to explain *why* we believe what we believe; and in contrast to the "orthidox catholic", our brother OP :wink: , we have *not* been advocating legislating morality, but have been answering pointed questions regarding our Faith.

Our brother Galdago makes an interesting point, as it is true that we Orthodox *do* believe that we alone have remained unchanged in our Faith as it was handed down by Christ to the Apostles. The Roman church has slipped into human error through arrogance and vanity; the Orthodox Church is the golden ikon upon which the gems of Truth are displayed and cared for throughout the centuries. We have been speaking of ways in which we believe we must live in order to convince the world that that is the truth, rather than trying to force them to do so.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

OOC: hey! look! I can do short posts too! woohoo!

Our brother Galdago makes an interesting point, as it is true that we Orthodox *do* believe that we alone have remained unchanged in our Faith as it was handed down by Christ to the Apostles. The Roman church has slipped into human error through arrogance and vanity; the Orthodox Church is the golden ikon upon which the gems of Truth are displayed and cared for throughout the centuries. We have been speaking of ways in which we believe we must live in order to convince the world that that is the truth, rather than trying to force them to do so.

I'm still trying to figure out the UN forum evangelization, but hey whatever floats your boat.

As for the error, vanity, and arrogance of the Church of Rome, that's a lot of silly boo-hooing over things that have happened far too long ago in the past that people are still licking their non-existant wounds over. Keeping up that kind of attitude can only end up hurting the ever-increasing move for unity first within the Catholic church and second within the Christian faith as a whole. The Second Vatican Council did much to move the church in a wholly positive direction, and more so now than ever before has Pope John Paul II been making a concerted effort to reach out in sensativity and unity to Eastern Brothers in the Faith. It is not as if there exists a vast ideological chasm between the Catechism of Rome and that of Eastern Orthodoxy, nor is there reason to conclude that the Traditions of the church, not the rites and rituals but the immutable Truths to which both subscribe, are not wholly similar. It's really quite past time that people get over the fact that Roman Catholics place their faith in the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of Peter and Mouthpiece of the Spirit. Honestly, is it THAT big of a deal? Cripes. The church has made several errors in its two thousand year history, but honestly, times change, things evolve, and errors are repaired. However, rarely is this done by being divisive and cutting losses only to move away from the problem. There's no need to be sandwiching wedges inbetween everyone and claiming that, "We're the only one's who've never screwed up." THAT is quite the arrogant boast.

To our brother Komokom and all our brothers and sisters in the nations:

High-light by me

I don't want to sound rude, but please, do not call me your "brother"

Its clearly in my mind a marker relating to faith and I am as I constantly decree, an Atheist, and I am personally offended when people of any faith claim they are related to me by this faith of theirs. I acknowledge you would probably not yet know this, and make point of it only out of the continuation of friendly debate. That is all.

:)

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Our brother Galdago makes an interesting point, as it is true that we Orthodox *do* believe that we alone have remained unchanged in our Faith as it was handed down by Christ to the Apostles. The Roman church has slipped into human error through arrogance and vanity; the Orthodox Church is the golden ikon upon which the gems of Truth are displayed and cared for throughout the centuries. We have been speaking of ways in which we believe we must live in order to convince the world that that is the truth, rather than trying to force them to do so.

I'm still trying to figure out the UN forum evangelization, but hey whatever floats your boat.

As for the error, vanity, and arrogance of the Church of Rome, that's a lot of silly boo-hooing over things that have happened far too long ago in the past that people are still licking their non-existant wounds over. Keeping up that kind of attitude can only end up hurting the ever-increasing move for unity first within the Catholic church and second within the Christian faith as a whole. The Second Vatican Council did much to move the church in a wholly positive direction, and more so now than ever before has Pope John Paul II been making a concerted effort to reach out in sensativity and unity to Eastern Brothers in the Faith. It is not as if there exists a vast ideological chasm between the Catechism of Rome and that of Eastern Orthodoxy, nor is there reason to conclude that the Traditions of the church, not the rites and rituals but the immutable Truths to which both subscribe, are not wholly similar. It's really quite past time that people get over the fact that Roman Catholics place their faith in the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of Peter and Mouthpiece of the Spirit. Honestly, is it THAT big of a deal? Cripes. The church has made several errors in its two thousand year history, but honestly, times change, things evolve, and errors are repaired. However, rarely is this done by being divisive and cutting losses only to move away from the problem. There's no need to be sandwiching wedges inbetween everyone and claiming that, "We're the only one's who've never screwed up." THAT is quite the arrogant boast.

To all of our brothers and sisters in the nations, and also those who are not, greetings:

To Komokom: our apologies; we understand your desire and will, of course, comply.

To Gadalgo: we are not evangelizing; there has been a series of questions, asked and answered, regarding Orthodoxy. We would be derelict in our duty if we ignored them.
However, your comment regarding "silly boo-hooing" denotes an amazing lack of knowledge of the historic divide between Orthodoxy and the Roman church. Yes, of COURSE it "matters" (within the context of Christianity) that the bishop of Rome claims supremacy over Christianity; it is unbiblical, and unsupported by the Church acting in Council in its first 450 years. This error has *not* been repaired, although attempts to do so have indeed been made by both parties. There are other theological issues which are of great importance to the health and well-being of the Church, and its interaction in the affairs of mankind, which we have touched upon as well; to you, they may be unimportant. To us, they color the relationship between mankind and his Creator, and mankind with itself, to a great degree. The Truth that the Church has guarded over the centuries is, indeed, immutable; we in the Orthodox Faith have not changed it. Whether you consider that fact to be a claim to have "never screwed up", is your concern. We have not claimed to be perfect in any way; quite the contrary, if you read our previous posts. We did not attempt to legislate the morality of the nations, Innocentius XIV has; in doing so, he has brought down much grief regarding Christianity in general, and we respond to that as we see fit. If you read the "covenant" which this thread is about, we think you might discover where the true arrogance here lies.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

The only time when christianity can truly be united is when the various churches are disbanded and christians finally come to grips with the fact that God, by how I(an atheist, so take my words with a grain of salt) could only logically view him, does not need a church of any sort to give you an understanding of what he wants.

This infighting amongst churches is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard of. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox church holds a grudge because the Roman Catholic Church displays some sort of holier than thou image justs shows the kind of social club atmosphere that churches create. People should explore how they feel about their spirituality and not allow the pope or some idiot like the guy who started this thread to tell them how they should feel.

Why is science outpacing religion? Because where science has libraries and laboratories to experiment and explore, religion has churches to listen and be subjugated. Where science takes changes and new observations and adjusts, religion refuses to accept changes. Where science has millions of people taking data and exploring it ways that feel right to them and coming up with their own ideas, religion has millions of people getting the ideas fed to them.

Just stop bickering about what is the right way to worship and encourage people to explore their religion, take changes in stride, and eliminate these holier-than-thou social clubs you call churches in favor of true places of learning.

The only time when christianity can truly be united is when the various churches are disbanded and christians finally come to grips with the fact that God, by how I(an atheist, so take my words with a grain of salt) could only logically view him, does not need a church of any sort to give you an understanding of what he wants.

This infighting amongst churches is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard of. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox church holds a grudge because the Roman Catholic Church displays some sort of holier than thou image justs shows the kind of social club atmosphere that churches create. People should explore how they feel about their spirituality and not allow the pope or some idiot like the guy who started this thread to tell them how they should feel.

Just stop bickering about what is the right way to worship and encourage people to explore their religion, take changes in stride, and eliminate these holier-than-thou social clubs you call churches in favor of true places of learning.

To all our brothers and sisters in the nations, and all others, greetings:

Furguson, you have, in this instance, hit the mark :? The Head of the Church is Jesus Christ, not the pope on his chair nor the Patriarch on his throne nor the Bible-thumping zealot in his...hmmm...wherever Bible-thumping zealots find their home. There is a necessity for the Church, because Christ Himself founded it, and commands us to gather in His Name to worship Him. We, however, have acted out of the very vanity of which we accuse our brothers, and we humbly apologize. We are ready to answer questions about the Orthodox Faith, but will keep them in the context of the questions which are asked. We do, however, still oppose any attempt to legislate morality, on the part of any religion.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

To Komokom: our apologies; we understand your desire and will, of course, comply.

My-thanks. :)

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

So, EO, if you guys don't utilize 'graven images', does that mean you don't have crucifixes as well?

And will someone tell me how to make a signature for my posts?

So, EO, if you guys don't utilize 'graven images', does that mean you don't have crucifixes as well?

And will someone tell me how to make a signature for my posts?

To all those in the nations, greetings:

First, we'd like to know about the signature thing too :)

Vivelon, regarding "graven images"...we have little if any statuary; it tends to be "bas-relief" if at all. The most predominate form of any kind of engraving would be the sort of molded metal used as ikon-coverings, where the metal is formed to imitate the image that is painted below it on the wood. We utilize ikons in place of an actual carved Crucifix, although at the Good Friday Liturgy, many Orthodox Churches erect a cross in the sanctuary, placing an ikon of the Crucifixion before it for veneration.

The basis for the use of only bas-relief is in the Ikonoclastic Controversy. Here's a link to a description of it:

http://www.greece.org/Romiosini/iconoclastic.html

The Ikonoclastic Controversy occurred between the mid-8th century and the mid-9th century in the Orthodox Church over the question of whether or not Christians should continue to revere ikons. Most unsophsticated believers tended to revere icons (thus they were called ikonodules), but many political and religious leaders wanted to have them smashed because they believed that venerating icons was a form of idolatry (they were called ikonoclasts), following the Second Commandment.

The controversy was inaugurated in 726 when Byzantine Emporer Leo III commanded that the iamge of Christ be taken down from the Chalke ("Bronze") Gate of the imperial palace. After much debate and controversy, the veneration of ikons was official restored and sanctioned during a council meeting in Nicaea in 787. However, conditions were put on their use - they had to be painted flat with no features which stood out. Down through today ikons play an important role in the Orthodox Church, serving as "windows" or "mirrors" to heaven. We believe that the ikon is used not to admire its physical beauty, but to point us towards the Reality which the ikon represents.
One result of this conflict was that theologians developed the distinction between veneration and reverence ("proskynesis" or in Latin "duleia") which is paid to ikons and other religious figures, and adoration ("latreia"), which is owed to God alone.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

If by signature you mean how I always post with my The Rep of Komokom in what-ever style I use at the time, plus extra bits of text, and my flag as a link to my nation, then,

1) I'm touched, :) and

2) Go to

This Link For The BB Code Guide (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/faq.php?mode=bbcode#0)

And by using this information, one can write a text document which you can copy and paste ( Ctrl key + c for copy and Ctrl + v key for paste, using Win I think, don't know the Mac version. ) at the end of every post.

Just don't make anything overtly large, there have I think been instances of Moderation getting mildly agro at massive sig. like uses of php BB Code.

Please be aware this may all be defunct once we move to Jolt, as I think there is a different set up there, I don't know how the powers that be will handle it.

Hope that helps, now on with the debate ! :D

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

hey! it works! woohoo! thanks Komokom! Just because we're a Patriarch doesn't mean we can't get jiggy wit technology...

...uhhh...*cough*... *re-arranges vestments* ....hruuumph... yes, then, well now we'll just get along with the discussion... *cough*

+Theophilus, Patriarch

On page one of this thread, Innocentius wrote:
The Papal authority of all catholics can be found in the 'Donatio Constantini' in which Emperor Constantine gives the Pope the supreme authority over his realm, for he acknowledges his mortality and his subjected status to God. The pope is the servant of God on earth, the brigde between heaven and earth (the pontifex) and therefore has the MORAL supremacy over all christain subjects superceding the authority of the national leaders.

Dude, the Donatio Constantini was a forged document! It was a fake written by the Catholic Church in order to claim supremacy over the lands owned by the defunct western Roman Empire. It was proven forged during the Middle Ages because the Latin used in the document was a later version of Latin than the Latin used during the days of Constantine.

Besides, Constantine only converted to Christianity on his deathbed, and Christianity didn't become the official religion until nearly a century after Constantine's death.

Dang, I love history.

To all in the nations, greetings:

Suna, take a look at page 8 of this thread :)

We think you will be pleased.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

Salve omnes,

I agree with the remarks Innocentius made in his first post, but for the fact that he names the Bishop of Rome, a.k.a. the head of the whole of Christianity. He's not.

He also stated: The Papal authority of all catholics can be found in the 'Donatio Constantini' in which Emperor Constantine gives the Pope the supreme authority over his realm, for he acknowledges his mortality and his subjected status to God. The Donatio Constantini is a fraud, which has already been proven somewhere in the 15th century, IIRC.

Ave!
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=romanum_imperium)


Post scriptum,
I see this last statement was already adressed :)
Ave!
Earendilyon, Caesar etc.

Know this.

The Catholic Church, or any other religious body, has no right to declare sovereignty over all the nations in the world. It is the final authority in the lives of those who choose to submit to the will of the church and its god, and not upon any others.

If the Catholic Church seeks to govern the lifestyles of every man, woman and child in the world in such an intolerant, dogmatic, authoritarian manner, the Commonwealth of Promenea will stand against it to the bitter end. We are a purely secular nation, and the exclusive nature of Catholicism shall not so much as brush shoulders with our government. No writ or document can wrest from our people their dignity, autonomy, and free will.

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
Adieu.

Interesting :?

Umm innocentious just so you know by trying to force the dogma and teachings of the Catholic Church on others you are violating that very dogma. As much as I wish and pray people would convert you CANNOT make them. God gave us free will for a reason and trithfully all you can do is presen this to them. And by doing so you will make them responsible for that and will be judge by God from that. So innocentious I say just back off because its first of all against your own teachiongs and second you will never convince alot of these people they are very blind in some ways (but thats another issue).

Eh, he's still ridiculous, but hardly violating the "edicts of the faith." The Catholic Church (and probably the Eastern Orthodox rite as well) has always held that it possesses the "fullness of truth" and that evokes a certain calling to spread the truth through different mediums. Apparently, some are called to the apostolic life, and even in the Apostle's Creed it's indicated that, "We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." Apologetics is essentially "active testament to the truth," and apparently this is what he's up to in his own whacked out little head. I wouldn't say he's got dandy methods, just that it's not "against the faith" and I can hardly say he's managed to "force anything," mostly because that's impossible.

And do you like, EVER spell check any of your stuff? I mean if you can't spell "Orthodox," jee whiz...

WEll consider i dont give a crap bout spelling less it is officail. remmebr its a game. And actually the teachings of the Church says that you cannot force someone to belive ill get it out of the canon law if I must but i is true and he in the attempt to defend it violated it

I just wanted to clear something up. I am a Christian. I belive that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. I belive that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah because they wanted a Messiah who would free them from Roman rule. I belive that the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" has traditions that mix Truth and traditions to make dogma. I believe that slavery is wrong and that the Bible has never approved of slavery or any of the other vile deeds. I belive the Bible has historical narractive of actual events that that Bible itself does not approve of. I belive the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were events that came about beacuse Christians mixed the Islamic belive of jihad with Christianity. I do not recognize the Pope as a religious figure, because the Pope falsely claims to have authority from God. The Bible does not recognize a Pope as a "high priest" between us and God, rather it designates Christ as the high priest. I belive that all people have a right to an opnion and that logically all people can come to the following conclusions.
Jesus claimed to be God
THEREFORE
1) He was a liar because he knew he wasn't God and a fool and died for it.
2) He was a lunatic because he thought he was God
3) He was LORD
THEREFORE
1) If Jesus was a liar he was the greatest hoax in global history and also the biggest hypocrite as well as one of the greatest philosphers. (assumption of Jesus as liar doesn't make sense logically)
2) If Jesus was a lunatic he gave us teachings and rationalities that were beyond human thought at the time and have lasted centuries to be used by people such as Gandhi and MLK)
(assumption of Jesus as lunatic makes less sense than Jesus as a liar)
THEREFORE
Jesus has to be who he said he was The MESSIAH
THEREFORE
We have two options
Reject Christ
Or
Accept Christ
As A Christian I have chosen to accept Christ and to follow him because it makes sense rationally and scientifically (I can't get into the evidence here) I do not force people to agree with me or force others to convert. I don't believe in forcing people to convert, as I said people are entitled to an opinion.
-Bahamut

I wanted to add something. The original Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, not Latin.

WEll consider i dont give a crap bout spelling less it is officail. remmebr its a game.

Then why should we care what you say?

Your argument is completely screwed up, I will begin with the unsupported rambling you started with. The bible has stated that slaves can be held as long as you treat them fairly for slaves, how that is possible, I don't know. And as for the crusades, you were pulling that argument out of nowhere, it is much more plausible that the rulers of Europe were going out and doing some land snatching under the false pretext of christianity. And the Spanish Inquisition has nothing to do with Jihad, and everything to do with the stonings that were commonplace in the bible. Remember that the bible is one of the most violent books ever written. The trouble is I don't think you know much about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or even the Bible.

As for that little string of logic you posted.
First off there is no proof that Jesus ever claimed to be God, remember that the new testament was not written by Jesus but by men who lived several generations after Jesus. If you choose that option the rest of your argument isn't relevant.
But just for prosperity I would like to point out some things about the rest of your argument. First off, Jesus was a Jew, his teachings were not his own work, he merely taught the true Judaic values set forth in the Old Testament. Also the same values and and rationalities taught by Jesus were taught by Judaic philosophers, Hindu philosophers, and Buddha hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus. And finally Gandhi was Hindu, not christian and lived in an area of the world that was almost entirely Hindu and Muslim, so apparantly that is another topic you are not well educated on.

WEll consider i dont give a crap bout spelling less it is officail. remmebr its a game.

Then why should we care what you say?

Dictated to me by OP:

"Because it's a stupid game, and it really doesn't matter, considering it's not real"

Edit: DP

" If you judge people you have no time to love them. "

- Mother Teresa

:shock: OMG, irony, I just saw irony ! :D

:wink:

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

As for that little string of logic you posted.
First off there is no proof that Jesus ever claimed to be God, remember that the new testament was not written by Jesus but by men who lived several generations after Jesus. If you choose that option the rest of your argument isn't relevant.
But just for prosperity I would like to point out some things about the rest of your argument. First off, Jesus was a Jew, his teachings were not his own work, he merely taught the true Judaic values set forth in the Old Testament. Also the same values and and rationalities taught by Jesus were taught by Judaic philosophers, Hindu philosophers, and Buddha hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus. And finally Gandhi was Hindu, not christian and lived in an area of the world that was almost entirely Hindu and Muslim, so apparantly that is another topic you are not well educated on.

To all those in the nations, greetings:

Furguson, there is one point we would interject here. The Orthodox believe that the Bible (as comprised by the books of the "Old" Testament, "New" Testament, and the books commonly called "Apocrypha" by our Protestant brethren), are the inspired Word of God. To discuss Christianity, we must agree on certain fundamental points. This is one of them. In the Gospels, as accepted by the Church, Jesus does indeed claim His authority as God. Here are but a few texts:

"so that all men may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who refuses the honor the Son refuses also to honor the Father" St. John 5:23

"Jesus answered them, saying, 'I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM" St. John 8:58 (here He used the most sacred Name of God to refer to Himself --- after which the crowd tried to stone Him for blasphemy for claiming for Himself the Name of God)

"The Father and I are One" St. John 10:30

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." St. Matthew 28:19
These are just a few. Because we understand the Scriptures to be the Word of God, we accept that what is written in them is the Truth.

A second point is that, unlike all other religions, Christianity is self-referential. Jesus does not say "that is the way", or "that is the truth", or "that is the right belief"; He points to Himself and says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; he who believes in Me shall never die", etc. He points to Himself as the center of reference, for He is pointing at God. All other religions are expressions of a way to get to God; Jesus claims that He is it.

A last point is that He did NOT simply re-hash the Old Testament values; He very purposefully CHANGED them: "You have heard it said, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you..."
and
"You have been taught to love your neighbors and hate your enemies, but I say to you..." so here He claims authority to change the Law of Moses; since He is the author of the Law given to Moses, He has that right.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

P.S. - we're really loving this color thing (thanks again, Komokom)...but haven't figured out the way to attach a picture to our signature yet. We will keep trying. +Theophilus

A Short Bit On Some BB Code.

To stick on a picture : Use the php BB Code with your picture address here .

In between and put in the url of the picture, for example, the address for my nations flag is :

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg

so ["img"]http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg["/img"] gives us :

( When using the php BB code for images, please remove the " and " where I put " and " above, this was added to show the code in practice, do not put it in, it will stop the code from working, I think. Well, it should, if you can actually see the code above, lol. )

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg

Also, if you don't know how to get an images address from some where, go to the online image, right click it, and select properties, there should be an address on that which you can select, copy, and paste. Also please note when I used " and " in a or thing it was to stop it working as it should, so you could see my demonstration of how you should type it up.

Try that. :)

( You can also make your image a button for your nation too, try learning from the php BB Code guide I linked up to a bit back in this thread to find out how. )

On another note, maybe try quoting my sig. I copy and paste all the time now, it should, I think end up giving you an example which you can remove my html from and re-insert your own nation page address for the and fields, and your online image address for the and fields.

Hope that helps, :)

WARNING : I am sure you'll all use this information correctly, because remember, linking to offensive material of any sort is definately against the rules and will get you Moderated. So just don't, okay ?

:wink:

Or Else. :twisted:

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Edited quite a bit because I am having trouble spelling. I must be sober again, awww shucks.

It looks as if my point was already made by Komokom, but I have some things to add. I was presenting the information about the Crusades and the inquisition as a theory not as a fact. Also Ganndhi wasn't Hindu. His beliefs came from a mix of a little of everything, but you are right most of India is Hindu, while some of eastern India and Pakistan are Muslim.

WOOHOO! IT WORKS!!!



+Theophilus, Patriarch
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/icons/data/johnmax_sm.gif

:roll: Why on some level do I now feel guilty, :wink: + :D

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

OK lets just make this simple-let nations do what they want with religion, not force them. Everyone happy, no problem. Even though it looks like the debate's over. Give me reasons why forcing religion through UN is good before telling me to vote for it. I've given reasons why nationsal level politics are better, goodbye.

OK lets just make this simple-let nations do what they want with religion, not force them. Everyone happy, no problem. Even though it looks like the debate's over. Give me reasons why forcing religion through UN is good before telling me to vote for it. I've given reasons why nationsal level politics are better, goodbye.

*snaps fingers, and every nation can decide for themselves what they want with religion*
*random nation screams 'Blood for the Blood God' and invades a few others*

Fellow Lovers of Peace, Freedom, and the Sanctity of Life,

Repeal the ill-conceived "Fight the Axis of Evil" law!

We urge your support of the "Selective Defense Act", a proposal to end all compulsory production of weapons by UN member states.

Check out the proposal within the UN, or visit our forum post for more details.

-First Among Equals (C.O.P.)

EO and UE
My point was not to say that the bible does not proclaim Jesus to be an earthly form of God, my only point was that Jesus wrote none of the bible, it was written decades after his death by men desperate to spread religious ferver. So it should be easy to understand my distrust of the bible to be the true words of Jesus. If you are like me and believe that Jesus proclaimed himself a prophet given power by God through the Holy Spirit instead of proclaiming himself the messiah, then most of his logic has no relevance.
Also, even though Gandhi regarded himself to be a Vaishnava, he was, as you said a mixture. It was a mixture of all the different Hindu sects, as he made no studies of Christianity.
And Finally:
II Cor 10:3-6 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Does the bible not give ample justification for the crusades and inquisition?

*snaps fingers, and every nation can decide for themselves what they want with religion*
*random nation screams 'Blood for the Blood God' and invades a few others*[/quote]

So lets just ban all religions, right? Wrong. Thats worse than forcing one religion in the UN. Let nations choose, forcing them is just plain evil.

EO and UE
My point was not to say that the bible does not proclaim Jesus to be an earthly form of God, my only point was that Jesus wrote none of the bible, it was written decades after his death by men desperate to spread religious ferver. So it should be easy to understand my distrust of the bible to be the true words of Jesus. If you are like me and believe that Jesus proclaimed himself a prophet given power by God through the Holy Spirit instead of proclaiming himself the messiah, then most of his logic has no relevance.
Also, even though Gandhi regarded himself to be a Vaishnava, he was, as you said a mixture. It was a mixture of all the different Hindu sects, as he made no studies of Christianity.
And Finally:
II Cor 10:3-6 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Does the bible not give ample justification for the crusades and inquisition?

To all the peoples in the nations, greetings:

Furguson, we see the point you are making (vis-a-vis Christ and the Scriptures), and we can without rancor agree to disagree; the Orthodox do trust that God inspired both the writers of the Canon of Scripture and the Church, in Council, to proclaim that Canon as the Truth. We do, however, also acknowledge (and we think we have mentioned this briefly before) that the Bible is not a word-for-word transcription of the utterances of God; it was written by men for men, at specific times and in specific places. As such, we believe that there are societal and political circumstances which have changed, and so the views of the writers must be adapted to our understanding of the world as God intended it, as He has allowed our reason to develope. We do believe that the Scriptures are, without any doubt, absolute Truth, in that they contain within themselves every single thing necessary for the salvation of the world. Those things that are not necessary for salvation (women wearing veils in church, slaves obeying their masters, etc.) are social conventions appropriate to the times in which they were written.

If the actions of the Christian Church in history have given you pause, you are right to be skeptical. It is our duty, as Christians, to try to correct that image you have, for the Church should be holy, above all else. St. Paul writes of spiritual warfare, and indeed we believe that every day we (Christians) are at war with the Prince of this World and his followers. We draw upon the strength of God to fight them. But our sword is the Word of God, and our shield is the Faith. To draw a physical weapon in the Name of Christ is abhorrent. We condemn those who would do so, in no uncertain terms.

+Theophilus, Patriarch
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/icons/data/johnmax_sm.gif

*snaps fingers, and every nation can decide for themselves what they want with religion*
*random nation screams 'Blood for the Blood God' and invades a few others*

So lets just ban all religions, right? Wrong. Thats worse than forcing one religion in the UN. Let nations choose, forcing them is just plain evil.[/quote]

That's what I said? :shock:

it was written decades after his death by men desperate to spread religious ferver

I haven't bothered to research the specifics of his life, but Mark could have lived at the time of Jesus and been a witness to everything he wrote about 30 years later. I wouldn't know because I am not a biblical scholar, but he could have.

But when it was written has no bearing to anyone of any faith that follows the Bible, or even just the OT. We recognize that it was inspired by God, and contains the truth. Not necessarily historical truth (in fact, Luke and Matthew, if I'm not mistaken, conflict with each other about Jesus' DOB), but religious truth. The books of the Bible serve as a guide for how to live your life. (and now I know OP's gonna give me some BS about "how come you don't follow it then?" or something along those lines)

+His royal highness:
Prince Tony of Vivelon
Unofficial UN Dead Horse beater (but only on ethics topics)
http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v215/TonyS37/vivelon_flag.jpg
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." ~Mahatma Gandhi

Whats important as Christians is that we agree that
1) We are all sinners -Romans 3:23
2) We can't get to heaven on our own. - Romans 6:23
3) Jesus Christ died for our sins to allow us to get to heaven -Romans 5:8
4) Confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that he died for your sins personally and you will go to heaven. -Romans- 10:9

I have a new idea, ban roman catholicsim!!!!!

Several things:
1) Jesus does, in fact claim to be the Son of God. The books in the bible that claim this were written by people who witnessed him say that. (According to Catholic tradition) Also the Scriptures and books in the bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which stopped inspiring them around 150 CE. This should be enough proof for a Catholic.
2) Hakartopia- no thats not what you said, but what should we do?
3) What does the origional founder of this thread have to say about it now? Or did you just leave us forever Innocentius?
4) Hello everybody!
5) On the topic: do we really want to force Catholicism everywhere? Use the UN to make every nation have it?
6) Why are atheists/ agnostics/ new agers bad? Or at least bad in the mind of my Catholic teacher?(He claims they will try to destroy the Catholic faith)Or is he just a rambling idiot?
7) I'm sorry if I offended you Komokom, I'm just trying to get people to notice my posts, and apparently it only worked a little. Just don't take it so DARN SERIOUSLY!!!
8) Who here thinks socialism in the UN is bad?
9) Goodbye everybody!

Goodluck to all your nations!
Dictator LG

Several things:
1) Jesus does, in fact claim to be the Son of God. The books in the bible that claim this were written by people who witnessed him say that. (According to Catholic tradition) Also the Scriptures and books in the bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which stopped inspiring them around 150 CE. This should be enough proof for a Catholic.
2) Hakartopia- no thats not what you said, but what should we do?
3) What does the origional founder of this thread have to say about it now? Or did you just leave us forever Innocentius?
4) Hello everybody!
5) On the topic: do we really want to force Catholicism everywhere? Use the UN to make every nation have it?
6) Why are atheists/ agnostics/ new agers bad? Or at least bad in the mind of my Catholic teacher?(He claims they will try to destroy the Catholic faith)Or is he just a rambling idiot?
7) I'm sorry if I offended you Komokom, I'm just trying to get people to notice my posts, and apparently it only worked a little. Just don't take it so DARN SERIOUSLY!!!
8) Who here thinks socialism in the UN is bad?
9) Goodbye everybody!

Goodluck to all your nations!
Dictator LG

It has been shown that the gospels were written no earlier than 90 CE and no later than around 130 CE.

Now I know that the bible talked about people living a long time and all, but reason would state that to be a peer of Jesus and write a gospel in 60 years after his death would mean you would have to be around 90 years old. Living to 90 years old, 2000 years ago? I have to doubt it.

Jesus condoned cannibalism.

Atheism forever!!!!!!!

http://www.landoverbaptist.com

It has been shown that the gospels were written no earlier than 90 CE and no later than around 130 CE.

Now I know that the bible talked about people living a long time and all, but reason would state that to be a peer of Jesus and write a gospel in 60 years after his death would mean you would have to be around 90 years old. Living to 90 years old, 2000 years ago? I have to doubt it.

The books that were written about Jesus were written from between 75 and 90 CE were inspired by the Holy Spirit if you choose to believe that. Also, facts were handed down through tradition by peoples. This is what separates many religions, whether to believe the books of the holy book or to believe tradition. Mainly Catholic tradition is that christ said he was son of god. Plus if you are catholic you have chosen to believe the eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Plus the fact that by physically healing people Jesus showed he had the power of god to cleanse their soul.(back in those days you were smitten physically if you were spiritualy unclean) By showing he had this power to cleanse souls, which only God(or his son, im asuming you believe the whole trinity gig), thus showing he is God. The writer of Mark was a boy when Jesus died, and wrote what he learnd through tradition. Or so I learned at Catholic school.

Plus, Peter himself told Jesus that he was the son of god, and Jesus confirmed it, showing he was.

Or did he?
-Dictator LG

PS- sry about the double post.

Jesus condoned cannibalism.

Atheism forever!!!!!!!

http://www.landoverbaptist.com

hahahaha jeez this goes back to the life of Christ obviously you do not understand my faith. Well first of all he did not mean cannibalism he meant we must share in his life throught the Eucharist. You see we are not truely eating him instead we are takeing him into our bodies and he is not digested by us but becomes one with us and our soul. There is alot more too it it is described in countless areas canon law council of trent and the cathecism of the Church so next time reasearch please

More BB Code information with The Rep of Komokom,

Magdha in case you don't know, when posting a link, simply put down the actual link itself, for example,

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=9

See, just by putting it down by copying and pasting, with no BB code, makes a link to the moderation forum, no need to use BB code at all.

Unless you want a line of text to say something and have it act like a hyper-link, then you use Then Place Your Word or Words Here Followed By (the url like the one above to moderation)

Hence, the link to moderation will become

A Link To Moderation Forum (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=9)

:D Hope that helps you all in future, :wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Thats some pretty cool stuff. I need to go back to how you post a picture. That would be really cool. And the fontss changes. The only form of exageration I have is ALLCAPS.

"Sweet!"
Dictator LG

It has been shown that the gospels were written no earlier than 90 CE and no later than around 130 CE[/quote[

Check your facts, Turd. Mark's Gospel was written between 65 and 75 AD. Many (if not all) of Paul's epistles were written even before that. The writers could have easily (although we know Paul did not) been with, or heard direct eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life.

[quote]Jesus condoned cannibalism

I think OP just about covered it, but another thing, Jesus did not condone canibalism, only the ingestion of his body and blood.

+His royal highness:
Prince Tony of Vivelon
Unofficial UN Dead Horse beater (but only on ethics topics)
http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v215/TonyS37/vivelon_flag.jpg
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." ~Mahatma Gandhi

pk what aboput someone who is truely skitso? and wants to marry his laternate personality.

I don't know if this has been covered, but this just angered me so much. Obviously you don't do your research on this subject, but schizophrenics, or as you put them "skitsos", do not have multiple personalities. There are four kinds of schizophrenia: disorganized, catatonic, paranoid, and undifferentiated. None of them deal with alternate personalities, those are covered in multiple personality disorder.

Anyway, I noticed that someone already mentioned it, but I thought I'd mention it real quick anyway. The alternate personality (or personalities, the most recorded was a person with over 90 as I recall) never meets any of the others. Therefor, no bond is formed.

Anyway, I'm sorry this is off topic (pages and pages behind), but I had to comment on this. Psychology is my planned major (along with education-high school most likely) and I felt this mistake had to be rectified.

Jesus condoned cannibalism.

Atheism forever!!!!!!!

http://www.landoverbaptist.com

hahahaha jeez this goes back to the life of Christ obviously you do not understand my faith. Well first of all he did not mean cannibalism he meant we must share in his life throught the Eucharist. You see we are not truely eating him instead we are takeing him into our bodies and he is not digested by us but becomes one with us and our soul. There is alot more too it it is described in countless areas canon law council of trent and the cathecism of the Church so next time reasearch please

To all the peoples of the nations, greetings:

We read these posts with some consternation. Furguson, as HRH Prince Tony has said, the earliest Gospel (St. Mark) was written sometime around 70 A.D., and the Book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine was written about 90 A.D. We would point out two things regarding this:

1. It is not at all unusual in antiquity for events to be recorded decades after they occurred; remember that most civilizations (at least non-Oriental ones) relied primarily on oral tradition, as much of the population was unable to read or write. Judaism is one exception to this, and although Christianity was born out of Judaism, remember that there was a great deal of (understandable) animosity between Christians and Jews, so it would be unlikely that the events in question would be written in Hebrew. On top of which, the earliest Books of the New Testament (after St. Mark) were the Pauline Epistles, written in the lingua franca of the day, Greek. The idea that only something written immediately at the time of the event is reliable is an extraordinarily modern one.

2. It must not be forgotten that it is a fundamental belief in Christianity that (as we have mentioned) the writers of the Canon of the New Testament were, indeed, inspired by God; and that the Church, in Council, was led by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Canon as the Truth. Whether or not this is "acceptable" outside of Christianity is of little or no importance. We believe it, and any discussion of Christianity, while also using logic and history, will by necessity be based (on our part) in reference to the Faith taught in the Scriptures.

Of Portugal, we applaud your recent post to Innocentius, but must make a very strong case here against the heresy you have put forth. We are commanded to eat His Body and His Blood. The Real Presence of Our Saviour in the Eucharistic Feast is the actual consumption of His Body and Blood. It is not simple cannibalism, because as HRH Tony pointed out, we are not to eat human flesh and drink human blood, but the Flesh and Blood of the Divinity.

Verily, verily I say unto you: except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no life within you. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood dwelleth in Me and I in him. John 6:53-58

The Church has always believed in the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist. We Orthodox do not attempt to logically define it, as the Roman church has in the dogma of transubstantiation, because we believe it is a Mystery of the Faith. We do not need to know, only that it is true because He said it was.

As far as referring to those among mankind who suffer from mental illnesses, we would ask that great care be used; not because it is "politically correct", but because these too are made in the image of God, and are due respect and love as are all men. Any way in which God can reach these people is in His great and eternal mercy. We would not care to comment on their salvation.

+Theophilus, Patriarch
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/icons/data/johnmax_sm.gif

pk what aboput someone who is truely skitso? and wants to marry his laternate personality.

I don't know if this has been covered, but this just angered me so much. Obviously you don't do your research on this subject, but schizophrenics, or as you put them "skitsos", do not have multiple personalities. There are four kinds of schizophrenia: disorganized, catatonic, paranoid, and undifferentiated. None of them deal with alternate personalities, those are covered in multiple personality disorder.

Anyway, I noticed that someone already mentioned it, but I thought I'd mention it real quick anyway. The alternate personality (or personalities, the most recorded was a person with over 90 as I recall) never meets any of the others. Therefor, no bond is formed.

Anyway, I'm sorry this is off topic (pages and pages behind), but I had to comment on this. Psychology is my planned major (along with education-high school most likely) and I felt this mistake had to be rectified.

Thanks for clearing that up, I thought I'd heard something like that about schizophrenia, but didn't want to say anything in case it turned out I was wrong.

OOC: I find it quite upsetting that so many people have such an appalling ignorance of the nature of schizophrenia. My thanks to Fat Rich People for their words of wisdom.

OOC: I find it quite upsetting that so many people have such an appalling ignorance of the nature of schizophrenia. My thanks to Fat Rich People for their words of wisdom.

I'm glad to help in any way I can. I have quite a personal attachment and knowledge of psychological disorders (my mother is bipolar and somewhat schizophrenic [paranoid type] during her depression phase), which is probably why I'm so interested in the study of abnormal psychology.

I'm sorry to hear, that Fat Rich People, and I am glad you cleared the issue up. I understood schizophrenia to be multi-personality disorder, but now understand it to be different. Thank you,
Dictator LG

Fat Rich people: Thank you for clearing that up. I've heard all the misinterpretations (ie OP's) and I was then wondering last time I saw Ghostbusters why having multiple personalities would have to do with people seeing ghosts. Now I know, it has nothing to do with multiple personalities.

as much of the population was unable to read or write. Judaism is one exception to this

I thought the majority of Jews (at Christ's time) were also iliterate, hence the scribes and Pharisees were important. They knew the Law.

Oh, komokom. Next time you're in town, can you give a brief lesson on how to get your quotes to say who wrote it? I've never figured it out, and I've preferred to simply quote small sections, rather than quote the entire thing and delete everything I didn't want to quote.

+His royal highness:
Prince Tony of Vivelon
Unofficial UN Dead Horse beater (but only on ethics topics)
http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v215/TonyS37/vivelon_flag.jpg
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." ~Mahatma Gandhi

OMG .

My net security and anti-virus up-date was huge.

Too big, I just switched to UNLIMITED D-LOAD + HOURS though.

But its only effective after my next bill on the 9th of next month,

So I am * gone * ( dammit ) until then. But then I will be back even more.

I hope. :wink:

So, in conclusion, me going all of a sudden ( only 2 mb in my account )

...

Means I'll just post you this link, which should solve your problems, I've done it before, in here I think, but many of you may have missed it, its where I learned the acrcane mystery that is php BB code. Enjoy, and be see-ing you all after the 9 th.

" Ta da da da ! " ( Let there be link ! )

The php BB Code Guide, With Everything You Need To Know (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/faq.php?mode=bbcode#0)

" Until we meet again, some sunny day ... :D "

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/brotherharry/july2001.html

Truly informative.

Thats some pretty cool stuff. I need to go back to how you post a picture. That would be really cool. And the fontss changes. The only form of exageration I have is ALLCAPS.

"Sweet!"
Dictator LG

theres nothing to it

The Vatican Council has decided to reinstate the Catholic Covenant once more. We will not participate in the following, without a doubt, unflattering discussion.

http://www.shurik.org/travels/images/vatican.jpg

Signed,

The Chancellor of State
Lothario Conti de Segni

In nomine patris, filius et spiritus sanctus

The following what? :?

I think he means he's resubmitting the proposal, but he won't be discussing it because he won't like what is being said.

The true words of Jesus are written in the gospel of Saint Thomas:

'The Kingdom of God is within you and all around you. God does not live in temples of wood or stone.'

The theocracy embraces this gospel and does not acknowledge the decadent church organisation of the Vatican.

Immanuel Quist
Prime Minister and Pontifex Maximus

[quote="Darlockion"]
The theocracy embraces this gospel and does not acknowledge the decadent church organisation of the Vatican.

I would agree with Darlockion, and say that the Vatican had no authority to dictate to us, the citizens of the world, that it is the Supreme Authority, because that position has already been fufilled by Jesus Christ.
-Bahamut
Dragonic Chancellor of Ultimate End

The Vatican Council has decided to reinstate the Catholic Covenant once more. We will not participate in the following, without a doubt, unflattering discussion.

http://www.shurik.org/travels/images/vatican.jpg

Signed,

The Chancellor of State
Lothario Conti de Segni

In nomine patris, filius et spiritus sanctus

To all the people of the nations, greetings.

My dear Innocentius, why on earth would you illustrate your announcement of the "reinstatement" of this foolish decree with the picture of the pagan "School of Athens"? A picture of the Vatican itself might have been more apt.

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/icons/data/johnmax_sm.gif

+Theophilus, Patriarch