NationStates Jolt Archive

A few things I've noticed and would like to cmment on.

Firstly, most of you have heard jokes or story lines where there's the devil that "rules" Hell. Biblically, this is totally false because Hell is actually a prison meant for Lucifer (Satin) and his followers.

Secondly, I've heard it said that the world is caotic but this isn't the case. Planets, gravity, stars, atoms, etc aren't caotic. They follow paths and usually are similar to one another and can be traced. However, tracing them is very difficult since we don't understand everything about them.

Not to insult anyone but quite honestly I don't believe Catholics are Christians. Just an opinion like just about everything else.

If you think there are any other misconceptions out there then post or if you have a comment then do so but no swearing, etc. plz. Thank you.

Just because the bible says one thing about hell, doesn't make it true.

We are free to believe as we will. Therefore, the so-called misconception isn't one after all; it's just a difference in believes.

Just because the bible says one thing about hell, doesn't make it true.

We are free to believe as we will. Therefore, the so-called misconception isn't one after all; it's just a difference in believes.

But still where did Hell originate from? The Bible so it would be accurate to assume that what it says about Hell would be quite accurate rather than what a sientist says about it.

Y'know, it's really funny, because Catholics used to be called Christians. Just flat out Christian. There have basically been three major branches of Christianity throughout history, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. And how can you call the Vicar of Christ a non-Christian, eh? Of course, I am saying this from my standpoint as an atheistic individual.

The worst misconception I've noticed has been that humans are above animals and/or Nature. We're not, though we are a fairly unique species, I must say.

Also, that evolution is a completely random process. It is through cumulative selection, not random chance.

Also, that ants are not the coolest thing to ever inhabit this planet. ;)

A few things I've noticed and would like to cmment on.

Not to insult anyone but quite honestly I don't believe Catholics are Christians. Just an opinion like just about everything else.


you are such a protestant!

what do you think about the orthodox christian churches?

But still where did Hell originate from? The Bible so it would be accurate to assume that what it says about Hell would be quite accurate rather than what a sientist says about it.


Not at all, if you look back the idea of hell is borrowed from a multitude of beleif systems.

Also, that ants are not the coolest thing to ever inhabit this planet. ;)
aren't ants the most common creature on the planet?

I don't get why so many people don't consider Catholics Christian.

i would say something, but its all so ludicrous there is nothing to say

A few things I've noticed and would like to cmment on.

Firstly, most of you have heard jokes or story lines where there's the devil that "rules" Hell. Biblically, this is totally false because Hell is actually a prison meant for Lucifer (Satin) and his followers.


:eek: Satin is evil? What about lace?

But anyway, you may find that in a lot of stories this fact is recognised. eg. The Inferno. The Devil is at the point furtherst away from God grace, right in the centre of the deepest circle of Hell.

But then again, you probably don't read things written by pagans.

I don't get why so many people don't consider Catholics Christian.
Because they're not. I mean they don't even believe in Jesus.

I don't get why so many people don't consider Catholics Christian.

because they listen to their hell-fire and brimstone preachers instead of finding out for themselves

but does that mean that there was NO christianity until martin luther?

aren't ants the most common creature on the planet?
They are indeed the most populous animal on the planet!

because they listen to their hell-fire and brimstone preachers instead of finding out for themselves

but does that mean that there was NO christianity until martin luther?

Apparently not.

I mean they don't even believe in Jesus.
News to them! :eek:

Because there not. I mean they don't even believe in Jesus.

How so?

They are indeed the most populous animal on the planet!
and furthermore

are there not many species of ants yet undiscovered and unnamed?

How so?

I don't know. I don't think, I get all my opinions from Jack Chick tracts.

I don't know. I don't think, I get all my opinions from Jack Chick tracts.

Ahh.

and furthermore

are there not many species of ants yet undiscovered and unnamed?
It is predicted that we may, as of yet, have only identified half of all insects. And they are 70% of all animals. So, yeah, there's a whole hell of a lot of them out there. Order Hymenoptera is the most varied of all insect orders, which includes ants. Though I personally believe that there are primarily coleopterans, beetles, left to discover. But only time will tell!

I don't know. I don't think, I get all my opinions from Jack Chick tracts.
Ahh, ok. Good show, lad/lass!

Ahh, ok. Good show, lad/lass!
Eep, you've just made me realize that I haven't the foggiest whether Conceptualists is a guy or a gal.

Erm, I hope I've been using the right pronoun, as I've been saying "he"...

Ahh, ok. Good show, lad/lass!

Lad. This is it from the horses mouth.


Didn't Christianity consist of the Catholic Church for the first 1500 years?

No. While the Catholic Church was seeking to control the world through religion, true Christians were running for their lives from the Catholic holocaust that ran for centuries.

God has always had His people, faithful to Him and His Word. They had no part in the Roman Catholic Church. Through much of history, organized religion has hunted and slaughtered God's people. For an excellent overview of this, read the classic work, "The Trail of Blood," at one of these websites:
http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/baphist/blood/trail.htm

Ahh, the sweet smell of fire and brimstone. (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp)

Eep, you've just made me realize that I haven't the foggiest whether Conceptualists is a guy or a gal.

:D I get that a lot. Well actually, people that can't see me seem to get it right more often. :D

I'm male.

Apparently not.

i suppose you could say, catholics started out fine but slowly corrupted.. I don't really know...

But still where did Hell originate from? The Bible so it would be accurate to assume that what it says about Hell would be quite accurate rather than what a sientist says about it.
But, if other religioms which had no ties to the Bible have their own hell, how is the Bible accurate? It's all a matter of perception.

But still where did Hell originate from? The Bible so it would be accurate to assume that what it says about Hell would be quite accurate rather than what a sientist says about it.


Could you point me to where Hell is mentioned in the Bible? I remember Sheol from the OT but really don't remembe a reference to hell beyond Dante.

Because they're not. I mean they don't even believe in Jesus.
lmao, thats great

Y'know, it's really funny, because Catholics used to be called Christians. Just flat out Christian. There have basically been three major branches of Christianity throughout history, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. And how can you call the Vicar of Christ a non-Christian, eh? Of course, I am saying this from my standpoint as an atheistic individual.

The worst misconception I've noticed has been that humans are above animals and/or Nature. We're not, though we are a fairly unique species, I must say.

Also, that evolution is a completely random process. It is through cumulative selection, not random chance.

Also, that ants are not the coolest thing to ever inhabit this planet. ;)

Firstly, how do you know that anything is random at all? Technically there's no answer. It's all belief. I've actually never heard of the Vicar of Christ, seriously. Still, I believe that Catholics aren't Christians because it doesn't match up with some of what Christ said. Still, just what I believe.

Firstly, how do you know that anything is random at all? Technically there's no answer. It's all belief. I've actually never heard of the Vicar of Christ, seriously. Still, I believe that Catholics aren't Christians because it doesn't match up with some of what Christ said. Still, just what I believe.

Who are true Christians, then? And what are Catholics?

Could you point me to where Hell is mentioned in the Bible? I remember Sheol from the OT but really don't remembe a reference to hell beyond Dante.

Revelation, reffered to as Lake of Fire. I think there's also a place in Ezekial. Not sure about that place however. Also, in one of the gospels it talks about it. Part of the tale of the rich man and Lazuras.

But, if other religioms which had no ties to the Bible have their own hell, how is the Bible accurate? It's all a matter of perception.

They have their own "hell" but not called Hell. Also, probably differentr in description, etc.

Firstly, how do you know that anything is random at all? Technically there's no answer. It's all belief. I've actually never heard of the Vicar of Christ, seriously. Still, I believe that Catholics aren't Christians because it doesn't match up with some of what Christ said. Still, just what I believe.

If you judge who is and who is not Christian on the basis of what Jesus said in four accounts of his life you may find that few people are actually Christian since their beliefs don't match up with what he 'said'

Revelation, reffered to as Lake of Fire. I think there's also a place in Ezekial. Not sure about that place however. Also, in one of the gospels it talks about it. Part of the tale of the rich man and Lazuras.
Isn't Revelations allegory?

Revelation, reffered to as Lake of Fire.
"Where do bad folks go when they die.
They don't go to Heaven where the Angels fly.
Go to a Lake of Fire and fry.
See em' again til' the 4th of July.

I knew a lady who came from Duluth,
Bit by a dog with a rabid tooth,
She went to her grave just a little too soon,
Flew and laid down on the yellow moon.

Where do bad folks go when they die.
They don't go to Heaven where the Angels fly.
Go to a Lake of Fire and fry.
See em' again til' the 4th of July.

People cry, people moan.
Look for a damn place to call their home.
Try to find some place to rest their bones.
While the Angels and the Devils try to make their own.

Where do bad folks go when they die.
They don't go to Heaven where the Angels fly.
Go to a Lake of Fire and fry.
See em' again til' the 4th of July."
-"Lake of Fire", the Meat Puppets

Oh wait, you said Revelations, not the Meat Puppets.
:(

They have their own "hell" but not called Hell. Also, probably differentr in description, etc.
The word 'Hell' has know been copyrighted?

If it has, it would probably be by a non-Christian religion, like Catholicism, that has been around longer then protestantism.

Catholics are different from christens. Catholics refer to Orthodox and Roman when christens refer to protestants.

Ants aren't the most abundant species. Bacteria are the most abundant specie.

But, if other religioms which had no ties to the Bible have their own hell, how is the Bible accurate? It's all a matter of perception.
not so much perception as a matter of WHICH hell one is talking about. most are mutually exclusive.

I learned how to copyright today
This is how.

Jibea
1-7-05
Witnesses:everyone who reads this

"Hell"

Jibea
x_____

Catholics are different from christens. Catholics refer to Orthodox and Roman when christens refer to protestants.


Christian is an umbrella term for many different types of religion with common strands running through them. Catholicism is one of those religions. There is no religion called 'Christian' (well not entirely true, some 'born again' types refer to themselves exclusively as Christian, but it all get very confusing when trying to label things)

Catholics are different from christens. Catholics refer to Orthodox and Roman when christens refer to protestants.

Ants aren't the most abundant species. Bacteria are the most abundant specie.
OUCH
ok ants are the most abundant animal specie

and no, there are several different kinds of christians. catholic, protestant, coptic, orthodox and a few others. they are all christians.

not so much perception as a matter of WHICH hell one is talking about. most are mutually exclusive.
Even so, the meaning of hell has changed and has taken on a life of its own in this world. It no longer bears the same conotations it once did. So, to one, it means something, but to someone else it means something else. No matter where you go, there will always be a different perception. No one is right or wrong.

and no, there are several different kinds of christians. catholic, protestant, coptic, orthodox and a few others. they are all christians.
Not according to DF and his puppets...
;)

I've been told that the reason some Christians (especially the more evangelical, fundamental type, apparently) don't see Catholics as Christians is because Catholicism holds that the sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, whereas the people I've spoken to believe that they are saved simply through a faith in Christ as their saviour, and that works are not necessary for their salvation.

The friends who explained this to me also disagreed with aspects of Catholicism such as confession through the priest, and the practice of asking the Virgin Mary and the Saints to intercede for you with God. They saw this as simply getting in the way of the person's relationship with God.

I should add that although I went to a Catholic school and have been to more Masses than was good for me, I'm an atheist and wasn't raised religiously either, so all this is second hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostikos
The worst misconception I've noticed has been that humans are above animals and/or Nature. We're not, though we are a fairly unique species, I must say.

Also, that evolution is a completely random process. It is through cumulative selection, not random chance.

Also, that ants are not the coolest thing to ever inhabit this planet.


The first two of those wind me up as well, and ants are pretty nifty but I'm really much more of a beetle girl.

But still where did Hell originate from? The Bible so it would be accurate to assume that what it says about Hell would be quite accurate rather than what a sientist says about it.


Actually, it originated when the island got too populated and people started moving cross the river.

Oh wait - that's New Jersey...

But what's the difference really?

:D

Even so, the meaning of hell has changed and has taken on a life of its own in this world. It no longer bears the same conotations it once did. So, to one, it means something, but to someone else it means something else. No matter where you go, there will always be a different perception. No one is right or wrong.
well
yes and no

yes since its all a fiction so your fiction is as correct as mine

no if you work only within a certain theological framework. for example that of the catholic church... if you were to say that THIS hell is a place where all good people go, you would be wrong. but only within that framework.

Christian is an umbrella term for many different types of religion with common strands running through them. Catholicism is one of those religions. There is no religion called 'Christian' (well not entirely true, some 'born again' types refer to themselves exclusively as Christian, but it all get very confusing when trying to label things)
Damn, I hate my pedantry:

'Christianity' is the religion. Roman Catholic/Greek Orthodox/Lutherian/whatever are denominations. 'Catholic', I think, just means universal.

No one is right or wrong.

Only according to the world now-a-days but tell me is it wrong to believe that if you shoot someone in the head, through the heart and every organ that that person wouldn't have been harmed? THat is wrong. so there is still wrong or right, it's just that it's harder to find out what is right and what is wrong in this world.

Not according to DF and his puppets...
;)
oh my we dont have to use HIS ideas do we??

oh my we dont have to use HIS ideas do we??
Well, there's only ONE Christian church, and evolution of dogma is CONDEMNED, and all the old stuff seems to back him up, and for some reason the stuff that didn't ran into a corner and hid or something.
So he's *obviously* correct.
:D

well
yes and no

yes since its all a fiction so your fiction is as correct as mine

no if you work only within a certain theological framework. for example that of the catholic church... if you were to say that THIS hell is a place where all good people go, you would be wrong. but only within that framework.

Fiction? Quite honestly the only absolute fiction I see in religion is atheism.

Damn, I hate my pedantry:

'Christianity' is the religion. Roman Catholic/Greek Orthodox/Lutherian/whatever are denominations. 'Catholic', I think, just means universal.
Yes your right. (REally I should learn to read over what I write, well never mind).

Catholic does mean Univeral. But that is from the days when it was the basically the only Christian Church in existence and was by far the largest one. Everyone was a member of it (except those that didn't count of course).

The idea of it being labeled as Roman Catholic is really a contradiction and I have been told it was originaly a kind of insult toward the church (not sure how true this is though.)

Fiction? Quite honestly the only absolute fiction I see in religion is atheism.
Hmm?
I'd say that's the least steeped in fiction, as it relies only on what can be observed.

Only according to the world now-a-days but tell me is it wrong to believe that if you shoot someone in the head, through the heart and every organ that that person wouldn't have been harmed? THat is wrong. so there is still wrong or right, it's just that it's harder to find out what is right and what is wrong in this world.
Ok, I say no one is right or wrong about what they believe about hell and suddenly you're talking about killing someone? That is not at all what I was talking about when I made my post.

Hmm?
I'd say that's the least steeped in fiction, as it relies only on what can be observed.

Not on what can be observed but what people want to observe.

Ok, I say no one is right or wrong about what they believe about hell and suddenly you're talking about killing someone? That is not at all what I was talking about when I made my post.

I know but what I'm saying is that in any case there is a right and wrong. At least one right and one wrong.

Not on what can be observed but what people want to observe.
Hmm...
Are you saying that it can be observed that other religions are true?

<snip>

The idea of it being labeled as Roman Catholic is really a contradiction and I have been told it was originaly a kind of insult toward the church (not sure how true this is though.)
LOL. That occurred to me as I wrote the words too! But I think it originates from a post-schism distinction between western (Roman) christianity and the eastern (Byzantine) version.

Hmm...
Are you saying that it can be observed that other religions are true?

Yes. Look at how everything is organized or "designed" with a purpose in mind in the human body or how about the world. A design usually means a designer. Organization usually means an organizer. That can be observed.

Yes your right. (REally I should learn to read over what I write, well never mind).

Catholic does mean Univeral. But that is from the days when it was the basically the only Christian Church in existence and was by far the largest one. Everyone was a member of it (except those that didn't count of course).

The idea of it being labeled as Roman Catholic is really a contradiction and I have been told it was originaly a kind of insult toward the church (not sure how true this is though.)
i think it comes from the schism with the orthodox church. to differentiate it from the catholic church/ constantinople

Not on what can be observed but what people want to observe.
:confused:

If only choose to look staight ahead all I see is my computer. However simply because I don't move my head, or leave my room doesn't mean that my computer is fiction since it is only showing part of reality.

i think it comes from the schism with the orthodox church. to differentiate it from the catholic church/ constantinople
I thought it came in with the Protestant reformation.

But honestly I have no idea.

:confused:

If only choose to look staight ahead all I see is my computer. However simply because I don't move my head, or leave my room doesn't mean that my computer is fiction since it is only showing part of reality.

If I said that there was the boogy man and I got all these eye witnesses and evidence, would it be true? It might be but it might not. However, if you believe there is aboogie man your going to support it and say that there's proof. Evidence can be interpreted many ways sometimes.

Fiction? Quite honestly the only absolute fiction I see in religion is atheism.
yeah but youre also the one who doesnt see that catholics are christians so.....*shrug*

I thought it came in with the Protestant reformation.

But honestly I have no idea.

No idea here either as to where what groups actually came from other than Christianity came from Jesus. And Judaism from God (long story).

yeah but youre also the one who doesnt see that catholics are christians so.....*shrug*

But are they? They believe as I said before that you go to purgatory to wait till your sin leaves but Jesus said that he was to die for the remission of sins. So they aren't actually following Jesus. No offense intended, simply trying to make a point.

[QUOTE=Teckor]
Secondly, I've heard it said that the world is caotic but this isn't the case. Planets, gravity, stars, atoms, etc aren't caotic. They follow paths and usually are similar to one another and can be traced. However, tracing them is very difficult since we don't understand everything about them.
QUOTE]
actually yhe universe is pretty chaotic, while it is true that we can trace the paths and motions of planets and stars, several proofs show that the properties of many atoms (especially the radioactive ones) can change over periods of time depending upon the rate of expansion of the universe. ALso, the universe is running out of energy slowly, eventually the entire thing will be one giant floating minefield of rocks and such, reduced to pure chaos.... of course I could be wrong

Ants aren't the most abundant species. Bacteria are the most abundant specie.
Ha! That's rich. Ants are not a species, they are a family, Formicidae. Not to mention the fact that I called them the most populous animal on the planet, not organism. And bacteria are far, far from a species. They are their own kingdom. Not merely kingdom, however. Their own domain, Prokaryota. Though then you can get into the discussion of Bacteria and Archaea, but I don't want to do that right now.

But, yes. Bacteria have the largest biomass of anything on the planet.

ok ants are the most abundant animal specie
Yes.

Okay. You said that Catholics weren't Christians. just because they don't believe in Jesus doesn't mean their not Christian. Just another branch of Christianity. However, I can relate to where you got that idea from. They do have a pretty crazy outlook on life.

If I said that there was the boogy man and I got all these eye witnesses and evidence, would it be true?

I'll say yes. But I will qualify that later if you just get a bunch of people to say that "I saw the bogeyman."

It might be but it might not. However, if you believe there is aboogie man your going to support it and say that there's proof. Evidence can be interpreted many ways sometimes.

You really don't understand science do you. You remind of someone I know that refuses to believe scientific facts that go against his viewpoints using the logic "you can prove anything with science."

Okay. You said that Catholics weren't Christians. just because they don't believe in Jesus doesn't mean their not Christian. Just another branch of Christianity. However, I can relate to where you got that idea from. They do have a pretty crazy outlook on life.
1) They do believe in Jesus.
2) If they didn't, they obviously wouldn't be Christian, right?

[QUOTE=Teckor]
Secondly, I've heard it said that the world is caotic but this isn't the case. Planets, gravity, stars, atoms, etc aren't caotic. They follow paths and usually are similar to one another and can be traced. However, tracing them is very difficult since we don't understand everything about them.
QUOTE]
actually yhe universe is pretty chaotic, while it is true that we can trace the paths and motions of planets and stars, several proofs show that the properties of many atoms (especially the radioactive ones) can change over periods of time depending upon the rate of expansion of the universe. ALso, the universe is running out of energy slowly, eventually the entire thing will be one giant floating minefield of rocks and such, reduced to pure chaos.... of course I could be wrong

Energy ius equalising but not running out. Laws of Thermodynamics. Chaos is non-existant, it's just that we aren't good at calculating how things will work out. Properties may change but usually there is a general rule as to why or time. And as you said you could be wrong I could be just as equally wrong too. But I like third option, we're all wrong :)

But are they? They believe as I said before that you go to purgatory to wait till your sin leaves but Jesus said that he was to die for the remission of sins.

You misinterpreting the theology of purgatory. Try. www.newadvent.org/cathen/p.htm

So they aren't actually following Jesus. No offense intended, simply trying to make a point.

So you disagree over one part of dogma/belief. That means they aren't Christian. I wish I could decide who was Christian and who wasn't.

I'll say yes. But I will qualify that later if you just get a bunch of people to say that "I saw the bogeyman."



You really don't understand science do you. You remind of someone I know that refuses to believe scientific facts that go against his viewpoints using the logic "you can prove anything with science."

I understand science. It's just that things can be manipulated for whatever purpose someone wants since observations vary.

excellent...

Not to insult anyone but quite honestly I don't believe Catholics are Christians. Just an opinion like just about everything else.

How do you define a Christian? What do you think makes someone a Christian? Out of curiosity, do you think Mormons are Christian? A lot of people don't.

I think that a Christian is anyone that believes that Christ is the Saviour of the world, or in other words, someone that believes in the power and reality of the Atonement and Ressurection, and someone that tries to emulate the example that Jesus set. I think that the Catholic and Mormon churches are Christian because their doctrine teaches these things. Of course there are people in every Christian denomination that aren't exactly 'Christian'.

Okay. You said that Catholics weren't Christians. just because they don't believe in Jesus doesn't mean their not Christian. Just another branch of Christianity. However, I can relate to where you got that idea from. They do have a pretty crazy outlook on life.
Is anyone else having trouble getting their heads round this one?

You misinterpreting the theology of purgatory. Try. www.newadvent.org/cathen/p.htm



So you disagree over one part of dogma/belief. That means they aren't Christian. I wish I could decide who was Christian and who wasn't.

I'm simply saying I don't believe they are Christians. Tell me briefly then what the point of purgatory is (short on time).

I understand science. It's just that things can be manipulated for whatever purpose someone wants since observations vary.
That's not science. That is spin.

PS. What do you mean by "observations vary?"

Do you mean that two people that observe the same experiment will record things differently, or that when the experiment is repeated by someone else different results are recorded or something else?

if one must accept Jesus as Lord to be cleanse of sin, they are forgiven because Jesus has already died for them, but what about the people who lived before Jesus leved? Wouldnt that make 'saving ones soul' impossible? Is this forigveness somehow retroactive?

I'm simply saying I don't believe they are Christians. Tell me briefly then what the point of purgatory is (short on time).

The answer is in the word. To purge us of venal sins so that we are pure so we can enter heaven.

No idea here either as to where what groups actually came from other than Christianity came from Jesus. And Judaism from God (long story).

yes long story, for sure. Judaism and Christianity were started by the same God. Christ is the God of the Old Testament. He fulfilled the same law which He gave to Moses.

[QUOTE=Mystic Vikings]
And as you said you could be wrong I could be just as equally wrong too. But I like third option, we're all wrong :)
most excellent, lets all dance in our ignorace!

How do you define a Christian? What do you think makes someone a Christian? Out of curiosity, do you think Mormons are Christian? A lot of people don't.

I think that a Christian is anyone that believes that Christ is the Saviour of the world, or in other words, someone that believes in the power and reality of the Atonement and Ressurection, and someone that tries to emulate the example that Jesus set. I think that the Catholic and Mormon churches are Christian because their doctrine teaches these things. Of course there are people in every Christian denomination that aren't exactly 'Christian'.

but from what i understand about Catholics they don't believe Jesus died for the remission of sins so they aren't Christians. Just my opinion.

But are they? They believe as I said before that you go to purgatory to wait till your sin leaves but Jesus said that he was to die for the remission of sins. So they aren't actually following Jesus. No offense intended, simply trying to make a point.
*shaking my head*

the catholic church has 2000 years of big thinking behind it. purgatory can be inferred from certain passages of the bible, as can everything else they believe.

that its not necessary to believe it to be a christian doesnt make them wrong.

in order to be a nonheretical christian you must believe the nicean creed.

you know the one.

i believe in god the father almight creator of heaven and earth.....

everything in there is believed by catholics, orthodox, lutherans, baptists, etc

other churches belived in jesus but differ with certain aspects of the creed. for example jehova's witnesses dont believe that jesus is the only begotten son of god. or the trinity. but they are still christians

mormons have a whole nother book and beliefs that no other christian denominations believe. but they are still christians.

what do all christian churches have in common? the belief that jesus christ died for their sins as outlined in the new testament.

yes long story, for sure. Judaism and Christianity were started by the same God. Christ is the God of the Old Testament. He fulfilled the same law which He gave to Moses.
but how is worshipping a man the same law that was given to Moses? Christians either worship three gods, or pray to Mary... im confused

but from what i understand about Catholics they don't believe Jesus died for the remission of sins so they aren't Christians. Just my opinion.
Yes they do. They just come to different conclutions [I butchered that somehow, but cannot tell how].

Largely they believe that Jesus cleanses us of original sin. However, we must still atone for subsequent sins.

The answer is in the word. To purge us of venal sins so that we are pure so we can enter heaven.

But didn't Jesus die for our sins in the first place so that we could enter into Heaven? In the book of Matthew, last supper, after the part about the wine being his blood he says that it would be spilt for the remission of sins.

But didn't Jesus die for our sins in the first place so that we could enter into Heaven? In the book of Matthew, last supper, after the part about the wine being his blood he says that it would be spilt for the remission of sins.
but do you actually have to do anything good if youve already been forgiven???

Im sorry if these questions are kind of irritating, but im kind of ignorant.

Yes they do. They just come to different conclutions [I butchered that somehow, but cannot tell how].

Largely they believe that Jesus cleanses us of original sin. However, we must still atone for subsequent sins.

But he was the final sacrafice. Any sin is pnisable by death. Jesus died for our sin so that we wouldn't have to die spiritually. So why is there purgatory then if the Catholics are right?

but do you actually have to do anything good if youve already been forgiven???

Im sorry if these questions are kind of irritating, but im kind of ignorant.

Actually, no. But you shouldn't do the bad things just because you can. Good things simply gives more glory to God.

But he was the final sacrafice. Any sin is pnisable by death. Jesus died for our sin so that we wouldn't have to die spiritually. So why is there purgatory then if the Catholics are right?
perhaps a purgatory is necesasry for people who were not alive at the time of Jesus?

But didn't Jesus die for our sins in the first place so that we could enter into Heaven? In the book of Matthew, last supper, after the part about the wine being his blood he says that it would be spilt for the remission of sins.

That is taken to be original sin. You still have to make ammends for other minor sins you have commited and haven't purged yourself of.

However, let me ask you this. Do you think that all Christians, no matter how bad they have been in life, go to heaven?

They have their own "hell" but not called Hell. Also, probably differentr in description, etc.
"Hell is other people."
--Jean-Paul Sartre

The first two of those wind me up as well, and ants are pretty nifty but I'm really much more of a beetle girl.
Eh, if you're into coleopterans, more power to ya. Hymenopterans are my passion.

if one must accept Jesus as Lord to be cleanse of sin, they are forgiven because Jesus has already died for them, but what about the people who lived before Jesus leved? Wouldnt that make 'saving ones soul' impossible? Is this forigveness somehow retroactive?

No, Christ's atonement was infinite. There were people before Christ that looked forward to His coming (it was prophesied by Isaiah, among MANY others). But there are millions of people that lived and died without even hearing the name of Jesus Christ. God loves these people as much as any. All who do not have the oportunity to accept in this life will have that opportunity before Judgement Day (this is possible because their spirits still live, though their bodies are dead). It is my belief that everyone, before Judgement day, will have equal opportunity to understand what truth is, and will either accept it or reject it.

Misconceptions

Contrary to popular belief:

God's last name is not "damn."

"Just relax and trust me, everything is going to be fine," does not reassure most people.

People who get shot in real life do not just "shrug it off."

Most of life on Earth does not resemble upper middle class America.

People, given the choice, will always choose to be free to set their own course.

Nothing works "perfectly," not your new car, a "free market" economy, or government programs.

That's not science. That is spin.

PS. What do you mean by "observations vary?"

Do you mean that two people that observe the same experiment will record things differently, or that when the experiment is repeated by someone else different results are recorded or something else?

Science is actually mostly observation. Look at it. Galilao, Newton, etc. they all observed things multiple times that had similar results so they thought that there must be a reason. Observation is a key part of science.

Actually, no. But you shouldn't do the bad things just because you can. Good things simply gives more glory to God.
how can god have anymore glory than He already does? He's God! SHouldnt any good deed you do be for your own soul? I mean, in theory a person who celebrates christmas and goes to church once a year is a christian, but they're going to be given equal statues for the really good people out there.

perhaps a purgatory is necesasry for people who were not alive at the time of Jesus?
Apparently they went to Hell. Although Christ died go to Hell to save those in their that deserved to be in heaven. A bit.....odd, I know.

Secondly, I've heard it said that the world is caotic but this isn't the case. Planets, gravity, stars, atoms, etc aren't caotic. They follow paths and usually are similar to one another and can be traced. However, tracing them is very difficult since we don't understand everything about them.
Um, how much do you actually know about quantum theory?

but from what i understand about Catholics they don't believe Jesus died for the remission of sins so they aren't Christians. Just my opinion.

really. I would have to investigate that before believing it. Doesn't exactly make sense. their are a lot of misconceptions about every religion I think.

Misconceptions

Contrary to popular belief:

God's last name is not "damn."

"Just relax and trust me, everything is going to be fine," does not reassure most people.

People who get shot in real life do not just "shrug it off."

Most of life on Earth does not resemble upper middle class America.

People, given the choice, will always choose to be free to set their own course.

Nothing works "perfectly," not your new car, a "free market" economy, or government programs.

Too true. Until, there's no such thing as human error, then we'll continue to make a mess of things.

"Hell is other people."
--Jean-Paul Sartre


Eh, if you're into coleopterans, more power to ya. Hymenopterans are my passion.
my cat is really into crickets

she has ALMOST learned that if you bite one, it is no longer fun to play with. crickets are so different from mice.

No, Christ's atonement was infinite. There were people before Christ that looked forward to His coming (it was prophesied by Isaiah, among MANY others). But there are millions of people that lived and died without even hearing the name of Jesus Christ. God loves these people as much as any. All who do not have the oportunity to accept in this life will have that opportunity before Judgement Day (this is possible because their spirits still live, though their bodies are dead). It is my belief that everyone, before Judgement day, will have equal opportunity to understand what truth is, and will either accept it or reject it.
yes, but christians sidestep the fact the Jesus foretold the coming of the prophet Mohammed, and that his divinity was the result of a vote---

Nothing works "perfectly," not your new car, a "free market" economy, or government programs.
Oh, I beg to differ. Ants' social systems are indeed perfect. ;) Yes, I'm indeed a myrmecophile through and through.

really. I would have to investigate that before believing it. Doesn't exactly make sense. their are a lot of misconceptions about every religion I think.

That is probably true.

Science is actually mostly observation. Look at it. Galilao, Newton, etc. they all observed things multiple times that had similar results so they thought that there must be a reason. Observation is a key part of science.
You haven't answered my question. What do you mean by "observations vary?"

And maybe I am miss reading you, but you seem to be infering that Newton and Galileo were wrong.

perhaps a purgatory is necesasry for people who were not alive at the time of Jesus?

Actually, that was called Abrahams Bossom and that was actually emptied into Heaven after Christs resurection if I recall correctly.

my cat is really into crickets
Lucky crickets!

she has ALMOST learned that if you bite one, it is no longer fun to play with. crickets are so different from mice.
Yes, isn't it such a pity?

yes, but christians sidestep the fact the Jesus foretold the coming of the prophet Mohammed, and that his divinity was the result of a vote---
sorry if this offends anyone by the way-

sorry if this offends anyone by the way-
Just wondering, how was his divinity a result of a vote?

I fear we are wondering onto Dan Brown's sugar coated wonderland of history and would like to get out.

Just wondering, how was his divinity a result of a vote?

I fear we are wondering onto Dan Brown's sugar coated wonderland of history and would like to get out.
not necessarily, there was a vote at the council of nicea, it is a proven historical fact-- if its on the history channel, i belive it. and this was the time where the bible was formed and the canons were edited or stored away in the apogryhpa

sorry if this offends anyone by the way-
How did Jesus fortell the xcoming of Mohamed? I'd seriously like to know.

And oh ya, why'd there be any more prophets if Jesus was God (although you probably don't believe that). Also, (no offense) but Muslims could easily be said to sidestep the fact that all the evidence points to Jesus as the Messiah.

You haven't answered my question. What do you mean by "observations vary?"

And maybe I am miss reading you, but you seem to be infering that Newton and Galileo were wrong.

Observations differ, they probably differ as much as people do but if someone gets evidence that seems logical and is reasonable then it could be assumed to be true. Evolution however has evidence that tends to be based upon observation such as examaning bones.

How did Jesus fortell the xcoming of Mohamed? I'd seriously like to know.

yes me too. do you have a reference? Also about the vote....not quite sure that you're not crazy at this point.

Just wondering, how was his divinity a result of a vote?

I fear we are wondering onto Dan Brown's sugar coated wonderland of history and would like to get out.
They had a big council to agree on the fundimental creed Christianity, which (I think) is where the Nicene Creed comes from. Among the topics for discussion was the three-fold nature of the divinity, within that the divinity of Christ. It was quite a hot topic for a while. Much settling of scores and massacring (sp?) of those who disagreed with whoever had the biggest sticks.

not necessarily, there was a vote at the council of nicea, it is a proven historical fact-- if its on the history channel, i belive it. and this was the time where the bible was formed and the canons were edited or stored away in the apogryhpa
The canon was already consolidated by the time of Nicea, so was the belief that Jesus was divine.

I think you (or the History Channel) is misinterpreting what happened at Nicea. It wasn't put to vote that Jesus was divine, but that Arianism (the belief that Jesus wasn't divine) was deemed heresy. Try the Catholic Encyclopedia (I gave the link somewhere earlier in the tread).

They had a big council to agree on the fundimental creed Christianity, which (I think) is where the Nicene Creed comes from. Among the topics for discussion was the three-fold nature of the divinity, within that the divinity of Christ. It was quite a hot topic for a while. Much settling of scores and massacring (sp?) of those who disagreed with whoever had the biggest sticks.

Lost me there. What are you talking about anyways? Shorten it plz.

Oh, I beg to differ. Ants' social systems are indeed perfect. ;) Yes, I'm indeed a myrmecophile through and through.
Of course, if you gave several different ant colonies nuclear weapons the entire world would be permanently irradiated.

How did Jesus fortell the xcoming of Mohamed? I'd seriously like to know.


Try here (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/prophet.html).

Observations differ, they probably differ as much as people do but if someone gets evidence that seems logical and is reasonable then it could be assumed to be true. Evolution however has evidence that tends to be based upon observation such as examaning bones.

What the hell do you mean by observations differ? You are just repeating yourself. And I think evolution has more going for it then a few bones.

Of course, if you gave several different ant colonies nuclear weapons the entire world would be permanently irradiated.

Lol, ants with nukes. That's hilarious. Too bad the ants wouldn't be samrt enough to use them.

Lost me there. What are you talking about anyways? Shorten it plz.
Ach, Conceptualists has better recall than me on the details of this one - see his post above mine.

Basically, there was the council of Nicea, which codified basic Christian theology, and which excommunicated those Christians that didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

And much oppressing of those that disagreed ensued.

You haven't answered my question. What do you mean by "observations vary?"

And maybe I am miss reading you, but you seem to be infering that Newton and Galileo were wrong.
At the least, Galileo was wrong on his observations concerning comets. He also arrived at his proof the the earth circled the sun wrongly. It was the right conclusion, but he made quite a few mistakes to get there.

but how is worshipping a man the same law that was given to Moses? Christians either worship three gods, or pray to Mary... im confused

Jesus Christ was the same person that gave the law to Moses. He existed before He was born on earth. All the laws and such in the law of Moses were 'types and shadows' of things to come, or in other words, symbolic, in some way or another. (I think the symbolism primarily was in reference to the sacrifice of the Messiah who was to come...the Jews were waiting for such a character, although there may have been symbolism to other events as well, I don't know the law in its entirety). As to worshiping three gods, well, I think only Catholics pray to Mary. That's their thing. Most other Christians believe in a Godhead or Trinity, God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost. I believe these are three separate beings that together make up the Godhead. God the Father is the Almighty, and Christ is One with Him. So by accepting the Atonement of Christ, we become His, and by being one with Christ we are one with the Father, thus St. John, 14:6 "I am the way, the Truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

They had a big council to agree on the fundimental creed Christianity, which (I think) is where the Nicene Creed comes from. Among the topics for discussion was the three-fold nature of the divinity, within that the divinity of Christ. It was quite a hot topic for a while. Much settling of scores and massacring (sp?) of those who disagreed with whoever had the biggest sticks.

meh.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Try here (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/prophet.html).



What the hell do you mean by observations differ? You are just repeating yourself. And I think evolution has more going for it then a few bones.

Interesting but I'm sceptical as to the version of Bible they were using and I haven't have had time to read that entire area.

Evolution is mostly bones, rocks, and ideas. All could be said to be biased, yet almost everything now-a-days is biased.

Of course, if you gave several different ant colonies nuclear weapons the entire world would be permanently irradiated.
Yes, and they would survive much better than many other things, because insects have incredibly radiological resistances.

Lol, ants with nukes. That's hilarious. Too bad the ants wouldn't be samrt enough to use them.
What? I don't think so. Though I unwillingly accept that the ants would not be able to or have motivation to use the nukes, don't dis the ants. Ever.

Lol, ants with nukes. That's hilarious. Too bad the ants wouldn't be samrt enough to use them.
It was a comment on what happens when a certain colony of ants meets another colony of ants. Total ant war ensues.

but there was SOME council where the basic tenets of christitanity were worked out and agreed upon. majority ruled so it was accepted that jesus was divine and that god is a trinity and stuff like that

wasnt there soem kind of vote?

in theory, jesus is divine or not regardless of what we believe, eh?

Interesting but I'm sceptical as to the version of Bible they were using and I haven't have had time to read that entire area.

Evolution is mostly bones, rocks, and ideas. All could be said to be biased, yet almost everything now-a-days is biased.

Can you please explain to me how an inanimate object like a rock can be biased?

yes me too. do you have a reference? Also about the vote....not quite sure that you're not crazy at this point.
in the bible, when Jesus is on the cross he says 'lo god shall send you a comforter', however into aramaic, it means something more like 'lo, god shall send you the admirable' it is the belief amongst muslims that each prophet fortolled the coming of another prophet, prophet Jesus was the second-last prophet after prophet Mohammed. Mohammed is the arabic word for 'admirable'

im pretty sure about the vote, but of course the majority of historical belief could be wrong

about the crazy thing, dont worry, lots of people think im a few clowns short of a circus :)

Evolution is mostly bones, rocks, and ideas. All could be said to be biased, yet almost everything now-a-days is biased.
Actually, evolution is mostly life. I have no idea where you got the idea that evolution is mostly palaeontology, geology, and philosophy. It is so much more.

Can you please explain to me how an inanimate object like a rock can be biased?

How people use the rock or the information the rock gives is what I'm talking about.

meh.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Indeed.

Funnily enough, I checked out that site looking for an easy reference to the bit about Catholics not believing that Jesus died for the remission of sins. And got a surprising result in the Nicene Creed, that I'm too tired to analyse right now.

Jesus Christ was the same person that gave the law to Moses. He existed before He was born on earth. All the laws and such in the law of Moses were 'types and shadows' of things to come, or in other words, symbolic, in some way or another. (I think the symbolism primarily was in reference to the sacrifice of the Messiah who was to come...the Jews were waiting for such a character, although there may have been symbolism to other events as well, I don't know the law in its entirety). As to worshiping three gods, well, I think only Catholics pray to Mary. That's their thing. Most other Christians believe in a Godhead or Trinity, God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost. I believe these are three separate beings that together make up the Godhead. God the Father is the Almighty, and Christ is One with Him. So by accepting the Atonement of Christ, we become His, and by being one with Christ we are one with the Father, thus St. John, 14:6 "I am the way, the Truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
then why does jesus say on the cross 'why have you abondoned me God?'.. or something to that effect?

in the bible, when Jesus is on the cross he says 'lo god shall send you a comforter', however into aramaic, it means something more like 'lo, god shall send you the admirable' it is the belief amongst muslims that each prophet fortolled the coming of another prophet, prophet Jesus was the second-last prophet after prophet Mohammed. Mohammed is the arabic word for 'admirable'

im pretty sure about the vote, but of course the majority of historical belief could be wrong

about the crazy thing, dont worry, lots of people think im a few clowns short of a circus :)

Funny, I don't recall reading Jesus saying that God would send a comforter. If anything I think he was in more pain than anything. Also, Jesus said he would return. Don't recall him saying that there would be a prophet. I'll have to look more into it.

How did Jesus fortell the xcoming of Mohamed? I'd seriously like to know.

And oh ya, why'd there be any more prophets if Jesus was God (although you probably don't believe that). Also, (no offense) but Muslims could easily be said to sidestep the fact that all the evidence points to Jesus as the Messiah.
not true at all, Jesus was one of the prophets of God, like MOses, Mohammed, Noah, etc, etc (peace be upon them all)

Actually, evolution is mostly life. I have no idea where you got the idea that evolution is mostly palaeontology, geology, and philosophy. It is so much more.

Life shows no signs of evolution. They show signs of survival. Design, not chaos.

Indeed.

Funnily enough, I checked out that site looking for an easy reference to the bit about Catholics not believing that Jesus died for the remission of sins. And got a surprising result in the Nicene Creed, that I'm too tired to analyse right now.
what does remission of sin mean?

catholics certainly believe that jesus died for our sins but they dont believe, as teckor seems to, that all sin is forgiven no matter when you do it or what you do. you have to repent you sins and live a good life no matter what you believe about jesus.

Funny, I don't recall reading Jesus saying that God would send a comforter. If anything I think he was in more pain than anything. Also, Jesus said he would return. Don't recall him saying that there would be a prophet. I'll have to look more into it.
at some point im fairly certain he said it, not necessarily on the cross, but at some point in time. and, like I said, he didnt say a prophet he said, god would send them 'the admirable', same difference

not true at all, Jesus was one of the prophets of God, like MOses, Mohammed, Noah, etc, etc (peace be upon them all)

Quite honestly, Jesus was the Son of God. Also, Noah wasn't a prophet. Mohamed isn't even mentioned directly (if at all) in the Bible. If so, I'd like a verse, version of the Bible and I'd like time to look it over,etc.

How people use the rock or the information the rock gives is what I'm talking about.
How?

Give me an example. preferably a recent one.

then why does jesus say on the cross 'why have you abondoned me God?'.. or something to that effect?
he was having a bad day

its a quote from somehwere else in the bible

he was having a bad day

its a quote from somehwere else in the bible
from where? And if prophet Jesus is God (which I dont believe) why would he ask if he has abandoned himself?

Quite honestly, Jesus was the Son of God. Also, Noah wasn't a prophet. Mohamed isn't even mentioned directly (if at all) in the Bible. If so, I'd like a verse, version of the Bible and I'd like time to look it over,etc.


Quite honestly, you assume JEsus was the Son of God - you have never met either and asked them.

at some point im fairly certain he said it, not necessarily on the cross, but at some point in time. and, like I said, he didnt say a prophet he said, god would send them 'the admirable', same difference

I don't think so but I haven't memorized the Bible so I won't say that there isn't mention of "the admirable" (although I doubt it). If there is, there's probably another logical answer.

from where? And if prophet Jesus is God (which I dont believe) why would he ask if he has abandoned himself?

Maybe to show that he was in some ways actually separated from himself. Not entirely sure. Don't know everything.

Quite honestly, Jesus was the Son of God. Also, Noah wasn't a prophet. Mohamed isn't even mentioned directly (if at all) in the Bible. If so, I'd like a verse, version of the Bible and I'd like time to look it over,etc.
its the opinino of Islam the prophet Jesus was a prophet, not god in any way, he served God, and so did Noah, it was smart of the catholics to make him god though, that would mean that the current religious leader would be the roman emperor, therefore, everyone had to listen to him. Then of course the pope came along...

Quite honestly, you assume JEsus was the Son of God - you have never met either and asked them.

But I know what I've heard and read. Seems to make sense.

Quite honestly, Jesus was the Son of God. Also, Noah wasn't a prophet. Mohamed isn't even mentioned directly (if at all) in the Bible. If so, I'd like a verse, version of the Bible and I'd like time to look it over,etc.
Acts 3:22-24[King James Bible] (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/44/3.html#22)

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me;
him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days

I don't think so but I haven't memorized the Bible so I won't say that there isn't mention of "the admirable" (although I doubt it). If there is, there's probably another logical answer.
like perhaps the prophet Mohammed was spreading the word of God as well?

Acts 3:22-24[King James Bible] (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/44/3.html#22)

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me;
him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days
well, that was for prophet Jesus was it not? ACtually... i dont think i know the entire chronological order for the prophets, how many children did the prophet Moses have?

its the opinino of Islam the prophet Jesus was a prophet, not god in any way, he served God, and so did Noah, it was smart of the catholics to make him god though, that would mean that the current religious leader would be the roman emperor, therefore, everyone had to listen to him. Then of course the pope came along...
Umm, Sylvester was already Pope, and it was the Emperer [sp] that called the Council of Nicea so he could codify and unify religion.

then why does jesus say on the cross 'why have you abondoned me God?'.. or something to that effect?

Father, why hast thou forsaken me?

The Father and the Son are separate beings. They are one with each other....but Christ had to suffer the atonement alone, this is the only way that He could take upon himself our sins, and know exactly what we go through.....this is not possible if He got help. He had the power to save himself, but He willingly gave his life for us, and suffered for our sins. That is why He is the Saviour. Just before He dies He said, It is finished (meaning the Atonement, or the price of sin has been paid) and then Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. (thus returning to the Father and being one with him.)

Umm, Sylvester was already Pope, and it was the Emperer [sp] that called the Council of Nicea so he could codify and unify religion.
to their specifications, there was a lot of canons that were rejected. Sorry for the error though.

Father, why hast thou forsaken me?

The Father and the Son are separate beings. They are one with each other....but Christ had to suffer the atonement alone, this is the only way that He could take upon himself our sins, and know exactly what we go through.....this is not possible if He got help. He had the power to save himself, but He willingly gave his life for us, and suffered for our sins. That is why He is the Saviour. Just before He dies He said, It is finished (meaning the Atonement, or the price of sin has been paid) and then Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. (thus returning to the Father and being one with him.)
so at one time there were two gods with two different minds? and then there was this holy ghost (if someone could explaint hat id be greatful)

to their specifications, there was a lot of canons that were rejected. Sorry for the error though.
So? They didn't match up to the Theology of those at the council (NB: There were only two bishops that disagreed with Nicea out of around 300 [at the least]). IIRC Protestants reject the book of Maccabees, for some reason. You cannot really attack them for rejecting work that they disagreed with.

Also, a lot of books were agreed with. But it was realised that they all could not go into the Bible (it would be far to large), which is why most were put into the Apocrypha. Very few were rejected, and those that were were mainly written by groups that were around over a century or two after Jesus and wanted to give themselves some legitimacy.

//So? They didn't match up to the Theology of those at the council (NB: There were only two bishops that disagreed with Nicea out of around 300 [at the least]). IIRC Protestants reject the book of Maccabees, for some reason. You cannot really attack them for rejecting work that they disagreed with//
so the entire christian religioin was voted upon by regular men, and not divine intervention? apologies if im misinterpreting

Also, a lot of books were agreed with. But it was realised that they all could not go into the Bible (it would be far to large), which is why most were put into the Apocrypha. Very few were rejected, and those that were were mainly written by groups that were around over a century or two after Jesus and wanted to give themselves some legitimacy.
well, only a few of the book were written by the disciples of Jesus, I thought about two.. but hose are just observers arent they?

I think there are two different prophecies going around, which are supposedly refering to Mohammed. The first is in Deuteronomy, which was given by Moses, prophesying about Christ. The second, in John 16, is Jesus prophesying about the Holy Ghost.

Earlier someone asked why we needed prophets after God himself came.
Is the world still sinful? Do we live the way that God told us to live? No. We still need guidance and reminders. AND, when Christ came He didn't tell us EVERYTHING. That would be overload. He told us what we needed to know at that point, but we can always learn more. If we understood absolutely everything God said in the Bible, would we have complete understanding? no. If it was enough for Christ to come once, why will He come again? That was only the beginning.

so the entire christian religioin was voted upon by regular men, and not divine intervention? apologies if im misinterpreting

There was no vote. Everything was put together and was agreed on nearly unanimously. The two that didn't agree were excommunicated, so in a sense it was unanimous :)

Also one could make the arguement that God was working through those present. Also, by far, most of the beliefs were argreed upon well before the Council. Constantine [?] just wanted it all ratified and officially sorted out. The whole council was just a rubber stamp and a way to make the religion 'official' and one that everyone could agree with.

So? They didn't match up to the Theology of those at the council (NB: There were only two bishops that disagreed with Nicea out of around 300 [at the least]). IIRC Protestants reject the book of Maccabees, for some reason. You cannot really attack them for rejecting work that they disagreed with.

Also, a lot of books were agreed with. But it was realised that they all could not go into the Bible (it would be far to large), which is why most were put into the Apocrypha. Very few were rejected, and those that were were mainly written by groups that were around over a century or two after Jesus and wanted to give themselves some legitimacy.

Does it really matter what a bunch of people said in a meeting? Christ said himself that he was the Messiah. That's enough for me. It's something for each individual to discover, not for a committee to decide. He is Divine no matter what we think.

But I know what I've heard and read. Seems to make sense.

Well, the fact that something "makes sense" to you in no way represents any sort of proof.

I mean, David Koresh "made sense" to some people too.... indeed he made sense to a larger following in his lifetime than Jesus did.

well, only a few of the book were written by the disciples of Jesus, I thought about two.. but hose are just observers arent they?
The synoptic Gospel (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were all written before the end of the century. IIRC it is thought that the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke were based off the one that Mark wrote. I think that Mark and John were the only two Gospel written by disciples of Jesus that made it into the Bible.

And what do mean by them just being observers, they were witnesses to the acts of a man they considered God. AFAIK Jesus didn't write anything so there accounts are all we have to go on.

JESUS!
























I just trolled, I am ashamed. :(

On the other hand, it was quite funny. :)

Does it really matter what a bunch of people said in a meeting? Christ said himself that he was the Messiah. That's enough for me. It's something for each individual to discover, not for a committee to decide. He is Divine no matter what we think.

Jesus never said he was the Messiah for obvious reasons.

Well, the fact that something "makes sense" to you in no way represents any sort of proof.

I mean, David Koresh "made sense" to some people too.... indeed he made sense to a larger following in his lifetime than Jesus did.
Remember, you are talking to the person that distrusts science because 'observations differ'

so at one time there were two gods with two different minds? and then there was this holy ghost (if someone could explaint hat id be greatful)

I do not know the mind of God. I don't know if the thoughts of Christ and God are always the same, or similar, or not. Obviously they won't be opposed to each other. That doesn't make sense. But you're missing the point. The Father and the Son always were separate entities. They have separate functions. Same with the Holy Ghost: always was a separate being. They are one with each other, they understand each other, represent each other, work with each other, Christ is how we get to the Father, and the Holy Ghost is how the Father gets to us. The Holy Ghost is like a messanger of God, when you feel Gods prescence, or pure goodness, ie when you feel closest to God, it is the Holy Ghost, because we cannot literally be in the presence of God, but we can feel the goodness that He is the source of. At least this is my understanding of it. I'm not a prophet or anything....I'm human, I cannot misinterpret or misunderstand as well as the next person, but this is how I understand it.

I don't get why so many people don't consider Catholics Christian.

Because the Catholics are better!

<- Was Catholic for a while

And hey, wasn't it the Catholics who started this religion anyways!?

Jesus never said he was the Messiah for obvious reasons.

Yes he did, in the synagogue.....I think in Capernaum...He quoted a prophecy as part of some event, and then He said something like, I am He of whom they speak....I've been trying to find a reference...I know it's there, but I have to go....so, look for it. He definitely knows of His divine calling, there is no question.

Jesus never said he was the Messiah for obvious reasons.

Oh yeah and He did say to Pilate, for this end have I been born, etc. It is very clear He knew who He was, and He asked the apostles Whom say ye that I am, Peter said, thou art the Christ the Son of the living GOd.

Yes he did, in the synagogue.....I think in Capernaum...He quoted a prophecy as part of some event, and then He said something like, I am He of whom they speak....I've been trying to find a reference...I know it's there, but I have to go....so, look for it. He definitely knows of His divine calling, there is no question.
You cannot find where he says that he is the Messiah, but you know it is there so he must of known that he had a divine calling [which when you think about it ever cleric/rabbi/etc has]. Yet you expect me to look for it.

On the trinity thing, just think of it as a deific Voltron.

:D

Oh yeah and He did say to Pilate, for this end have I been born, etc. It is very clear He knew who He was, and He asked the apostles Whom say ye that I am, Peter said, thou art the Christ the Son of the living GOd.
Peter said it, not Jesus.

If I say you are the Son of God, that does not make you the son of God.

Also, Jesus never explicitly stated who he is deemed to be. In front of Pilate he was very cryptic iirc. Anyway, the whole Roman side of the trial was unconcerned with him being the Son of God, so it is even less likely he would have mentioned that to Pilate.

But still where did Hell originate from? The Bible so it would be accurate to assume that what it says about Hell would be quite accurate rather than what a sientist says about it.
actually, Hel originated with the vikings.

Yep.

Named after Hel, the lady who owned the place.

She made everyone in Hel sit at her dinner table, starving because the food didn't help.

A land of Hungry Ghosts also pop up in some Eastern mythology, interestingly.

Life shows no signs of evolution. They show signs of survival. Design, not chaos.
:p I love people like that. Sure, there may be a watchmaker, but, guess what? He's blind. And his name is evolution. Life shows no signs of anything but evolution.

You cannot find where he says that he is the Messiah, but you know it is there so he must of known that he had a divine calling [which when you think about it ever cleric/rabbi/etc has]. Yet you expect me to look for it.

Ok, I don't expect you to look for it....if you want to find out you can look for it. Either you actually want to know, or you just want to see if you can get me to mess up.....
anyway, look at Luke 4:21, that whole section is when Jesus announces His divine Sonship in Nazareth. Also, the Father announces the calling of His Son when He is Baptised, and throughout he New Testament Jesus acknowledges that is sent from His Father, and that He is about His Father's business. I agree He does seem to speak in parables, and indirectly, but I think there are enough hints that He knows who He is.

Ok, I don't expect you to look for it....if you want to find out you can look for it. Either you actually want to know, or you just want to see if you can get me to mess up.....
anyway, look at Luke 4:21, that whole section is when Jesus announces His divine Sonship in Nazareth. Also, the Father announces the calling of His Son when He is Baptised, and throughout he New Testament Jesus acknowledges that is sent from His Father, and that He is about His Father's business. I agree He does seem to speak in parables, and indirectly, but I think there are enough hints that He knows who He is.
" And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears" - Luke 4:21. Nothing explicit there. (Especially when you put it together with v.24 where he refers to himself as a prophet).

" And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears" - Luke 4:21. Nothing explicit there. (Especially when you put it together with v.24 where he refers to himself as a prophet).

yeah, we both agree that He's not explicit. So what. He is what He is. There's enough evidence for me. Maybe some things aren't meant to be obvious. But the Father still testifies of Him, explicitly, so, if God thinks that Jesus is His Son, I'm gonna go with what He says! :)

yeah, we both agree that He's not explicit. So what. He is what He is. There's enough evidence for me. Maybe some things aren't meant to be obvious. But the Father still testifies of Him, explicitly, so, if God thinks that Jesus is His Son, I'm gonna go with what He says! :)
This really begs the question. Did God tell you this? Why didn't he tell anyone else?

A few things I've noticed and would like to cmment on.

Firstly, most of you have heard jokes or story lines where there's the devil that "rules" Hell. Biblically, this is totally false because Hell is actually a prison meant for Lucifer (Satin) and his followers.

Secondly, I've heard it said that the world is caotic but this isn't the case. Planets, gravity, stars, atoms, etc aren't caotic. They follow paths and usually are similar to one another and can be traced. However, tracing them is very difficult since we don't understand everything about them.

Not to insult anyone but quite honestly I don't believe Catholics are Christians. Just an opinion like just about everything else.

If you think there are any other misconceptions out there then post or if you have a comment then do so but no swearing, etc. plz. Thank you.
Are you retarded, Catholics are the original Christians. Protestants branched off of the Catholics (hence the protest part). So if anything, protestants aren't christians...

This really begs the question. Did God tell you this? Why didn't he tell anyone else?

He says it in the scriptures! luke 3:22, mark1:11, matt 3:17. A voice from Heaven saying"this is my beloved Son" who do you think the voice was? Santa? Like I said, some things are not meant to be explicit. Peter was an apostle of Christ. He testified that He was the Son of God. I believe him too. If you don't, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.

Not to insult anyone but quite honestly I don't believe Catholics are Christians.
I would like to clear up a misconception that someone can decide for others whether or not they are Christian.

They cannot.

If someone calls himself or herself a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Rastafarian, it is nobody else's place to contradict them. To do so is an insult, whether you preface your arrogance with a disclaimer or not.

It seems that neighter will budge.

Looks like we'd better agree to disagree :)

It seems that neighter will budge.

Looks like we'd better agree to disagree :)

Yup. So what religion do you have, or are you atheist?

Yup. So what religion do you have, or are you atheist?
Agnostic. Ex-Catholic.

Not to insult anyone but quite honestly I don't believe Catholics are Christians. Just an opinion like just about everything else.

You have GOT to be joking....

I mean to say that ignant that it's comparable to saying that the sky is green!

One of the central mantras of the church, the "Hail Mary" even says

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus Christ...."

And, what part of the "reformation" do you not understand. Every Single "Christian" WAS Catholic before Martin Luther.

That statement isn't so much "insulting" as it is moronic and laughable.

Agnostic. Ex-Catholic.

Yes, that makes sense. I'm LDS, but if I had to choose another, I honestly don't think I could. I would have to have my own belief system....which I sort of do anyway, it is just within the doctrines of my church. I think everyone has a belief system to some extent.

A few things I've noticed and would like to cmment on.

Firstly, most of you have heard jokes or story lines where there's the devil that "rules" Hell. Biblically, this is totally false because Hell is actually a prison meant for Lucifer (Satin) and his followers.

Secondly, I've heard it said that the world is caotic but this isn't the case. Planets, gravity, stars, atoms, etc aren't caotic. They follow paths and usually are similar to one another and can be traced. However, tracing them is very difficult since we don't understand everything about them.

Not to insult anyone but quite honestly I don't believe Catholics are Christians. Just an opinion like just about everything else.

If you think there are any other misconceptions out there then post or if you have a comment then do so but no swearing, etc. plz. Thank you.

"Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance...." (1 Samuel 2:3)

"...in humility consider others better than yourselves." (Philippians 2:3 )

I like this one story where satan refuses to love humans, not because he hates them, but because he cannot love anything more then god, so god says "Don´t love me, love humans", but he can´t "unlove" someone, so god gets mad and throws him at hell, a place without god.
Satan, obviously, got really depressed and the only thing that would keep him sane was god´s voice echoing through hell saying "Go to hell"
So, you see, I really like this, first, because the worst place in existence is not a lake of fire, but really, being away from the people you love and then because it teaches something like "obeying god includes to respect humans"

Apparently they went to Hell. Although Christ died go to Hell to save those in their that deserved to be in heaven. A bit.....odd, I know.

I grew up very Catholic and I was taught that all the good people pre-Christ went to Limbo, and when Jesus died he went down to Limbo and brought everyone out and 'opened the gates of Heaven' to them. It's all metaphorical, obviously, but you get the drift.

And Catholics do believe Jesus died for their sins, believe me. They just don't believe in predestination or that saying you're Christian is enough - you have to actually lead a good life, too. That's why people who aren't Christian but have still led good, upright lives according to their beliefs can still go to heaven.

in the bible, when Jesus is on the cross he says 'lo god shall send you a comforter', however into aramaic, it means something more like 'lo, god shall send you the admirable' it is the belief amongst muslims that each prophet fortolled the coming of another prophet, prophet Jesus was the second-last prophet after prophet Mohammed. Mohammed is the arabic word for 'admirable'

Again, here I was taught that the 'Comforter' was the Holy Spirit, rather than another human person. Remember the story in the Bible where the Apostles are sititng in their upper room too scared to say anything and then Ka-Pow, suddenly they're brave and speaking in tongues so that all the masses of people who were in town from all over the region understood them in their own language? That's the Holy Spirit, supposedly. The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) is also described as the manifestation of the love between God the Father and God the Son. (Or so I was told, anyway, and my parents are pretty orthodox Catholics - not the scary separatist kind, the normal orthodox pope-loving, rosary-toting kind.) You get taught about the 'Gifts of the Holy Spirit' at Confirmation, if you're Catholic. My Confirmation was probably the time I felt closest to God, actually; sadly I lost it a lot after that. They probably should confirm you after you're done being a teenager rather than before...

Sorry if this is sort of treading old ground, this is just what came to mind as I read this thread.

I like this one story where satan refuses to love humans, not because he hates them, but because he cannot love anything more then god, so god says "Don´t love me, love humans", but he can´t "unlove" someone, so god gets mad and throws him at hell, a place without god.
Satan, obviously, got really depressed and the only thing that would keep him sane was god´s voice echoing through hell saying "Go to hell"
So, you see, I really like this, first, because the worst place in existence is not a lake of fire, but really, being away from the people you love and then because it teaches something like "obeying god includes to respect humans"

I don't know where you heard that story form but there's one tiny little problem, Satin would only be in Hell at the end of the world. But ya, respect to humans is something that we should do to obey God.

I grew up very Catholic and I was taught that all the good people pre-Christ went to Limbo, and when Jesus died he went down to Limbo and brought everyone out and 'opened the gates of Heaven' to them. It's all metaphorical, obviously, but you get the drift.

And Catholics do believe Jesus died for their sins, believe me. They just don't believe in predestination or that saying you're Christian is enough - you have to actually lead a good life, too. That's why people who aren't Christian but have still led good, upright lives according to their beliefs can still go to heaven.



Again, here I was taught that the 'Comforter' was the Holy Spirit, rather than another human person. Remember the story in the Bible where the Apostles are sititng in their upper room too scared to say anything and then Ka-Pow, suddenly they're brave and speaking in tongues so that all the masses of people who were in town from all over the region understood them in their own language? That's the Holy Spirit, supposedly. The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) is also described as the manifestation of the love between God the Father and God the Son. (Or so I was told, anyway, and my parents are pretty orthodox Catholics - not the scary separatist kind, the normal orthodox pope-loving, rosary-toting kind.) You get taught about the 'Gifts of the Holy Spirit' at Confirmation, if you're Catholic. My Confirmation was probably the time I felt closest to God, actually; sadly I lost it a lot after that. They probably should confirm you after you're done being a teenager rather than before...

Sorry if this is sort of treading old ground, this is just what came to mind as I read this thread.

Don't worry about treading old ground. People often times have to tread old ground because sometimes the same questions are asked over and over again.

Actually, I found the verse that talks about the comforter and ya I believe it probably was the Holy Ghost he was refering to.

Yep.

Named after Hel, the lady who owned the place.

She made everyone in Hel sit at her dinner table, starving because the food didn't help.

A land of Hungry Ghosts also pop up in some Eastern mythology, interestingly.

How do you know however that Hell started there? What if I'm right that Hell started even before Judaism as it is known and before the Vikings? Still.

:p I love people like that. Sure, there may be a watchmaker, but, guess what? He's blind. And his name is evolution. Life shows no signs of anything but evolution.

Blind watchmaker goes to build a watch, would he ever finish? Also, why would he even be a watchmaker. Life shows design, flexability, versitility. That leads to a designer. Also, if he has a name and is blind then it's better to have him that made us with a purpose in mind than to be worthless nothings that have no future or purpose. But since that will never be totally agreed upon until the end then you go believe what you want, but the end will prove who is right.

About what I've said I've spoken what I think just as you have spoken what you think, but what I'm trying to do however is simply state something that makes sense. Catholics also probably didn't start until years after so the first Christians were actually the disciples and the other ppl that followed Christ. Not to make things worse or anything but by saying that I am ignorant or stupid etc. is to be just as bad as me. I'll admit that maybe I am a little ignorant sometimes but to shove it right in someones face? Disagreement is in someways healthy as long as it finds the truth or expands upon the truth in a respectfull manner. (Chances are I'll probably go against this but hey, then someone will have the right to go and repeat it to me exactly what I said)

Remember, you are talking to the person that distrusts science because 'observations differ'

Only science that isn't science but rather a belief which either shouldn't be called science or science should envelop all religions (which by the way, as far as I know, it doesn't).

Sry bout all the posts but lot I've missed.

Jesus surprising actually was a prophet. However, he was much more. He was a king, a priest (somewhere it says something about him being like Malachi who was a priest) and he was the Son of God if everything that's written about him in the Bible is true.

Only science that isn't science but rather a belief which either shouldn't be called science or science should envelop all religions (which by the way, as far as I know, it doesn't).
What?
Science shouldn't be a science?
I think you lost me somewhere along the way...

What?
Science shouldn't be a science?
I think you lost me somewhere along the way...

Evolution shouldn't be science otherwise Creationism should be as much of science as Evolution, etc is.

Evolution shouldn't be science otherwise Creationism should be as much of science as Evolution, etc is.
Creationism can definately be researched scientifically, and evidence can be gathered for it, so I would think it could be called a science.

I'm not sure though...

Creationism can definately be researched scientifically, and evidence can be gathered for it, so I would think it could be called a science.

I'm not sure though...

How often do you hear the theory of Creationism in Science textbooks or Geography or how about atlases? Not as much as Evolution or Big Bang.

How often do you hear the theory of Creationism in Science textbooks or Geography or how about atlases? Not as much as Evolution or Big Bang.
I don't often, although with the last update of science textbooks that I saw in high school, they did have a chapter on the theory of intelligent design, which pleased me. I think that both sides should have representation, and it's unfortunate that it's not happening.

Oh, and I think that you could call creationism science:
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
It seems as though it falls under 2 and 3, and possibly 1. So I think that one could rightly call creationism a science.

I don't often, although with the last update of science textbooks that I saw in high school, they did have a chapter on the theory of intelligent design, which pleased me. I think that both sides should have representation, and it's unfortunate that it's not happening.

Oh, and I think that you could call creationism science:

It seems as though it falls under 2 and 3, and possibly 1. So I think that one could rightly call creationism a science.

Wow. Don't hear that come from a pro-Evolutionist (if that's what you are) too often. Thx for the support.

Wow. Don't hear that come from a pro-Evolutionist (if that's what you are) too often. Thx for the support.
I've always been of the opinion that all viewpoints should be heard before one makes a decision, and this is a case where a perfectly valid viewpoint is being stifled, which irks me to no end. Unfortunately, the things that have been done so far haven't helped much, like the putting "Evolution is a theory" stickers on textbooks. I think what they should have done is put that money towards putting intelligent design as a possible alternative into the textbooks, although it would take up considerably more funds...

Wow, I'm going on a complete tangent here...

I've always been of the opinion that all viewpoints should be heard before one makes a decision, and this is a case where a perfectly valid viewpoint is being stifled, which irks me to no end. Unfortunately, the things that have been done so far haven't helped much, like the putting "Evolution is a theory" stickers on textbooks. I think what they should have done is put that money towards putting intelligent design as a possible alternative into the textbooks, although it would take up considerably more funds...

Wow, I'm going on a complete tangent here...

Not really. It's a tangent on what they could have done, probably should have done, but didn't do because they probably didn't think they could do successfully.

Unfortuantely, I'll be unable to continue this converstion till tommorrow. Probably not until Thursday so c ya.

.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................Tell me when this forum gets interesting......................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ..........................................................................are we there yet?................................................................................................ ........................................................nope guess not...

How often do you hear the theory of Creationism in Science textbooks or Geography or how about atlases? Not as much as Evolution or Big Bang.
It's not a theory of creationism. At least not in a scientific sense. There is no evidence for it. Rather it is the absence of any other provable means that it uses to explain itself. It's just a belief that something created us. Again, no basis in anything remotely provable.

Blind watchmaker goes to build a watch, would he ever finish?
In the metaphorical sense we're using, nope. He can never finish his watch. Because the watch has no end point in its construction.

Also, why would he even be a watchmaker. Life shows design, flexability, versitility.
Is that so? I happen to agree with you, but the only design that is shown is self-made "design" in order to survive better.

That leads to a designer.
Sorry, I'm just not following your logic. How is it that flexability and versatility lead to a designer? The thing is, there is a designer, but he has no end in sight. There is no goal.

Also, if he has a name and is blind then it's better to have him that made us with a purpose in mind than to be worthless nothings that have no future or purpose.
So your argument now is that because it makes you feel better to think you were created by intelligent design, that makes it true? Well, it makes me feel better that Bush is not president of the U.S. right now. Does that make me feel better? Yes. Is it true? No.

But since that will never be totally agreed upon until the end then you go believe what you want, but the end will prove who is right.
How does the end prove the beginning. We are currently arguing life, not afterlife.

About what I've said I've spoken what I think just as you have spoken what you think, but what I'm trying to do however is simply state something that makes sense. Catholics also probably didn't start until years after so the first Christians were actually the disciples and the other ppl that followed Christ. Not to make things worse or anything but by saying that I am ignorant or stupid etc. is to be just as bad as me. I'll admit that maybe I am a little ignorant sometimes but to shove it right in someones face? Disagreement is in someways healthy as long as it finds the truth or expands upon the truth in a respectfull manner. (Chances are I'll probably go against this but hey, then someone will have the right to go and repeat it to me exactly what I said)
The Catholic church started the very day that Jesus said this:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Peter being the very first pope. That is if you would actually believe any of this garbage... but whatever.

Evolution shouldn't be science otherwise Creationism should be as much of science as Evolution, etc is.

Why shouldn't Creationism be science, I mean, an aspect of it is religious, but there is still a lot of evidence for Creationism. People think that God just snapped his fingers and there was a universe. I think God used science (on a much higher level than ours) to create the world, maybe it did evolve, but not randomly. Maybe there was a Supreme Being overseeing it all. Who knows.....You can't prove or disprove it. It's just there for us to think about.

I do not know the mind of God. I don't know if the thoughts of Christ and God are always the same, or similar, or not. Obviously they won't be opposed to each other. That doesn't make sense. But you're missing the point. The Father and the Son always were separate entities. They have separate functions. Same with the Holy Ghost: always was a separate being. They are one with each other, they understand each other, represent each other, work with each other, Christ is how we get to the Father, and the Holy Ghost is how the Father gets to us. The Holy Ghost is like a messanger of God, when you feel Gods prescence, or pure goodness, ie when you feel closest to God, it is the Holy Ghost, because we cannot literally be in the presence of God, but we can feel the goodness that He is the source of. At least this is my understanding of it. I'm not a prophet or anything....I'm human, I cannot misinterpret or misunderstand as well as the next person, but this is how I understand it.

so... do christians actually worship Jesus alogn with the Holy Ghost and God?

so... do christians actually worship Jesus alogn with the Holy Ghost and God?
Yes. They are tritheists. :D

The Catholic church started the very day that Jesus said this:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Peter being the very first pope. That is if you would actually believe any of this garbage... but whatever.


You know, there is an alternate interpretation of that verse that it is not upon Peter himself that Jesus was building his church, but that it was upon the rock of faith that Peter exemplified.

Just food for thought.

Why shouldn't Creationism be science, I mean, an aspect of it is religious, but there is still a lot of evidence for Creationism. People think that God just snapped his fingers and there was a universe. I think God used science (on a much higher level than ours) to create the world, maybe it did evolve, but not randomly. Maybe there was a Supreme Being overseeing it all. Who knows.....You can't prove or disprove it. It's just there for us to think about.

It is the very fact that you cannot disprove Creationism that makes it unscientific. Scientific principles work by the formulation of a hypothesis and the forming of experiments to test that hypothesis. Since an omnipotent creator could conceivably work outside of science or affect the outcome of your experiment, it is unherently unscientific.

Evolution on the other hand can, theoretically, be disproven. That is why it is scientific. It doesn't make one more right or more wrong than the other. It just makes it so one should be taught in science classes and one should be taught in religion/philosophy classes.

Blind watchmaker goes to build a watch, would he ever finish? Also, why would he even be a watchmaker. Life shows design, flexability, versitility. That leads to a designer. Also, if he has a name and is blind then it's better to have him that made us with a purpose in mind than to be worthless nothings that have no future or purpose. But since that will never be totally agreed upon until the end then you go believe what you want, but the end will prove who is right.

I never understand why people seem to think that evolution automatically means that life has no purpose. I happen to believe in evolution (granted, I'm not a pure atheist. . .more of an anti-theist) but my life isn't meaningless. Why you ask? Because I live it. I don't need to believe in a Creator-father/mother figure somewhere "up there" to give me life meaning. I find it right here in my work, in my feelings, in my family,a nd in my friends.

Not to insult anyone but quite honestly I don't believe Catholics are Christians. Just an opinion like just about everything else.
You found out our secret! We are really just a pope-worshipping cult! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

It is the very fact that you cannot disprove Creationism that makes it unscientific. Scientific principles work by the formulation of a hypothesis and the forming of experiments to test that hypothesis. Since an omnipotent creator could conceivably work outside of science or affect the outcome of your experiment, it is unherently unscientific.

Evolution on the other hand can, theoretically, be disproven. That is why it is scientific. It doesn't make one more right or more wrong than the other. It just makes it so one should be taught in science classes and one should be taught in religion/philosophy classes.

I see your point. Although creationism works against the scientific process, that doesn't mean that science wasn't used in the creation of the earth....it just means we can't study the creation in the same scientific way that we can study evolution.

I see your point. Although creationism works against the scientific process, that doesn't mean that science wasn't used in the creation of the earth....it just means we can't study the creation in the same scientific way that we can study evolution.

Exactly. The thing is that you can never answer those questions as right or wrong. And because of that, you cannot include them as scientific.

I never understand why people seem to think that evolution automatically means that life has no purpose. I happen to believe in evolution (granted, I'm not a pure atheist. . .more of an anti-theist) but my life isn't meaningless. Why you ask? Because I live it. I don't need to believe in a Creator-father/mother figure somewhere "up there" to give me life meaning. I find it right here in my work, in my feelings, in my family,a nd in my friends.

But the point is that evolution or atheism say that life is a mistake. How much of a purpose does a mistake have. Believing in a Creator gives a defined purpose. Maybe some people don't need an absolute reason for life, but the bear essentials is this (my opinion), if everything is a mistake, then why live since it'll continue to be one mistake to another one which will simply get larger and larger.

Exactly. The thing is that you can never answer those questions as right or wrong. And because of that, you cannot include them as scientific.

Creationism and evolution are both in the same field, religion. If you say that evolution is science then creationism is science b/c they are both trying to explain how we came to be and they both have support.

You found out our secret! We are really just a pope-worshipping cult! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

(Sarcasim) Mouhahaha! (Real life) I'm guessing either you're insulting just me or both Catholics and me.

Why shouldn't Creationism be science, I mean, an aspect of it is religious, but there is still a lot of evidence for Creationism. People think that God just snapped his fingers and there was a universe. I think God used science (on a much higher level than ours) to create the world, maybe it did evolve, but not randomly. Maybe there was a Supreme Being overseeing it all. Who knows.....You can't prove or disprove it. It's just there for us to think about.

But then unfortunately, it would go against the first chapter of Genesis which doesn't really allow millions of years to happen. Just what I believe.

It's not a theory of creationism. At least not in a scientific sense. There is no evidence for it. Rather it is the absence of any other provable means that it uses to explain itself. It's just a belief that something created us. Again, no basis in anything remotely provable.

If there's no proof for creation then why would there be proof for evolution? Also, evidence can be interpreted in many ways.

It's not a theory of creationism. At least not in a scientific sense. There is no evidence for it. Rather it is the absence of any other provable means that it uses to explain itself. It's just a belief that something created us. Again, no basis in anything remotely provable.

But there is proof. It's everywhere. Although, it's sometimes misinterpreted. Not to say that I don't misinterpret but somtimes things are misinterpreted more often than others.

In the metaphorical sense we're using, nope. He can never finish his watch. Because the watch has no end point in its construction.


Is that so? I happen to agree with you, but the only design that is shown is self-made "design" in order to survive better.


Sorry, I'm just not following your logic. How is it that flexability and versatility lead to a designer? The thing is, there is a designer, but he has no end in sight. There is no goal.


So your argument now is that because it makes you feel better to think you were created by intelligent design, that makes it true? Well, it makes me feel better that Bush is not president of the U.S. right now. Does that make me feel better? Yes. Is it true? No.


How does the end prove the beginning. We are currently arguing life, not afterlife.

So if I wanted to become bullet proof, my body would? Not likely.

Alright, so atheism is they same way then as Christianity. Don't like the truth, make up your own. Is it true, who knows since it's all based on observations.

But what happens in the afterlife will prove how life was first created or purpose of life. If there is a heaven, there's a God. If not, no God. Basics are that.

.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................Tell me when this forum gets interesting......................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ..........................................................................are we there yet?................................................................................................ ........................................................nope guess not...

What? Don't you find debates fascinating? Especially one's that can't be won? By either side?

i didn;t take the time to read the whole thread, too much, and i have dinner reservations in an hour. I believe that most catholics aren;t true christians. Christians read the bible and understand it for themselves, they don;t kjust blidly follow their priest. They also commit the same sins over and over and expect it to be hunkey dorey because they told a priest, not true. Confession is realizing it was wrong and turning from it. Also confession is directly tto God, not to a priest. We have a direct link to god. Priest, pastors, etc. are shepherds, they merely guide the flock, they don;t tell it whre to go. This point is illustrated after Jesus Died, there was a earthquake, and the temple veil ripped (btw, the veil of the temple was approximately 18 inches thick, this was no small feat). This illustrates that the curtain between God and man had been ripped, that priests were no longer required to ask for the forgiveness of the peopel, catholics seem to miss that. And i don't see anywhere in the bible where there is a purgatory. Nowhere, nohow not ever. The Jesus said there as no way to the Father but through Him. Your friends and relatives cannot pray you into heaven, at least that's what my bible says.

i didn;t take the time to read the whole thread, too much, and i have dinner reservations in an hour. I believe that most catholics aren;t true christians. Christians read the bible and understand it for themselves, they don;t kjust blidly follow their priest. They also commit the same sins over and over and expect it to be hunkey dorey because they told a priest, not true. Confession is realizing it was wrong and turning from it. Also confession is directly tto God, not to a priest. We have a direct link to god. Priest, pastors, etc. are shepherds, they merely guide the flock, they don;t tell it whre to go. This point is illustrated after Jesus Died, there was a earthquake, and the temple veil ripped (btw, the veil of the temple was approximately 18 inches thick, this was no small feat). This illustrates that the curtain between God and man had been ripped, that priests were no longer required to ask for the forgiveness of the peopel, catholics seem to miss that. And i don't see anywhere in the bible where there is a purgatory. Nowhere, nohow not ever. The Jesus said there as no way to the Father but through Him. Your friends and relatives cannot pray you into heaven, at least that's what my bible says.

I am ever glad to at least have some support on that. Thx.

Originally Posted by Autocraticama
I believe that most catholics aren;t true christians. Christians read the bible and understand it for themselves, they don;t kjust blidly follow their priest. They also commit the same sins over and over and expect it to be hunkey dorey because they told a priest, not true. Confession is realizing it was wrong and turning from it. Also confession is directly tto God, not to a priest.

I'm an atheist and I can realize that Catholics are closer to "Biblical truth" than Protestants. First, Catholics do believe that one must be truly penatent to be forgiven through confession. Moreover, in John 20:22-23, Jesus tells his apostles “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven,” and in Matthew 16:19, Jesus tells the apostles "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” From the first verse the Catholic Church declares that confession to priests (who have Apostolic succession) is biblical. In the second verse, Jesus gave the authority of God to the Church.
Furthermore, to debunk the terrible theology of the Bible worshiping [that remark is sarcastic] protestants who believe that the Bible explicitly says that Creation occured in six days: one translation of the word for "day" in Hebrew is "period of time." In other words, God created the world in six "periods of time" which does not limit Creation to six days.
Finally (and this is a major blow to the Solo-Scripturus Christian Churches that dominate protestant theology in America) "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." This is 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Paul told the Thessalonians that they should hold to the teachings passed on by word of mouth (tradition) as well as those from the letters (scripture). Paul would not have told them this if all Christian traditions were contained in the scripture. Therefore, there must be some legitimate Christian traditions outside of Scripture. (All these translations are from the NIV, so that there will be no disagreement from protestants).
Of course, these are only true if the Bible is definitely true. I don't believe that, but at the least protestants could understand the book on which they base their religion.

I'm an atheist and I can realize that Catholics are closer to "Biblical truth" than Protestants. First, Catholics do believe that one must be truly penatent to be forgiven through confession. Moreover, in John 20:22-23, Jesus tells his apostles “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven,” and in Matthew 16:19, Jesus tells the apostles "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” From the first verse the Catholic Church declares that confession to priests (who have Apostolic succession) is biblical. In the second verse, Jesus gave the authority of God to the Church.
Furthermore, to debunk the terrible theology of the Bible worshiping [that remark is sarcastic] protestants who believe that the Bible explicitly says that Creation occured in six days: one translation of the word for "day" in Hebrew is "period of time." In other words, God created the world in six "periods of time" which does not limit Creation to six days.
Finally (and this is a major blow to the Solo-Scripturus Christian Churches that dominate protestant theology in America) "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." This is 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Paul told the Thessalonians that they should hold to the teachings passed on by word of mouth (tradition) as well as those from the letters (scripture). Paul would not have told them this if all Christian traditions were contained in the scripture. Therefore, there must be some legitimate Christian traditions outside of Scripture. (All these translations are from the NIV, so that there will be no disagreement from protestants).
Of course, these are only true if the Bible is definitely true. I don't believe that, but at the least protestants could understand the book on which they base their religion.

You know what i don't get, what is the definition of a protestant? Also, there are plenty of translations out there. But which one's are more acurate? One's which use only a couple of letters or look at all the letters? The letters to the Thesalonians, etc. would have been copied out many times and sent out to other churches. Since there is something called human error in copying something then isn't it better to look at all of the letters and weed out most of the errors or look at one or two (possibly more) and say "this is it". Not to start a debate on which version is best but just sometihngs to point out.

Genesis says however that it was "the morning and the evening".This would indicate that there was a set amount of time. Also, plants came before the sun and since plants require sunlight then they couldn't have been living for thousands of years.

Firstly, you don't actually need to confess to a priest because when you pray your talking to God. Secondly, Matthew and actually a number of the other new testament books are written for the Jews. Romans, and the other books are mostly meant for Christians. Thirdly, if you heard one of the original disciples of Christ talking, you'd probably record it. Also, the message is much the same, Jesus is God. He died for our sins. He is the only way to heaven. Other than that,it outlines how we should live or will live in heaven. Romans 5:1 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." This basically says it all. Through God we recieve salvation. I don't know everything about the confession but there have been times where things have been done through people. Moses, Ezekial, etc. Most of the prophets were given power to do miracles. The original disciples had the same thing happen. But it was only with God's will that they were able to do those things.

Also, I'm using the King James Version and John 20:22-23 says "remit" not "forgive". I'll have the definition of remit in a second.

What I got for the definition of remit was "to forgive, pardon, remove" It could actually mean in John 20:22-23 human forgiveness or mistakes. But I didn't write it or say it so I don't know for sure.

But then unfortunately, it would go against the first chapter of Genesis which doesn't really allow millions of years to happen. Just what I believe.

But if you translate the bible correctly, the original word for 'day' is a word that actually means "period of time". Which would allow for millions of years....although I'm not entirely convinced it took that long anyway.....did time even exist then? Not our form of time.....if the sun and moon and earth hadn't even been created yet, then how did God separate the light and the dark on the first day? If a day is one revolution of planet earth, then how could God do this in one day seeing as how the earth hadn't been created yet? Obviously Genesis is refering to a different time system. Our perception of time was non existent at this point. Looking back, to us it might appear to have been millions of years, but to a different observer the creation could have happened instantly for all we know.

But if you translate the bible correctly, the original word for 'day' is a word that actually means "period of time". Which would allow for millions of years....although I'm not entirely convinced it took that long anyway.....did time even exist then? Not our form of time.....if the sun and moon and earth hadn't even been created yet, then how did God separate the light and the dark on the first day? If a day is one revolution of planet earth, then how could God do this in one day seeing as how the earth hadn't been created yet? Obviously Genesis is refering to a different time system. Our perception of time was non existent at this point. Looking back, to us it might appear to have been millions of years, but to a different observer the creation could have happened instantly for all we know.

But they Bible says that "and it was the evening and the morning of" so it is indicating, even if the actually translation was a period of time, a set amount of time. Also, the Sun was created a day after the plants. Since plants can only live for a very short period of time without sunlight, then the "day" couldn't have been millions of years long. Days didn't actually start until the Earth was created because the division of Day and Night happened and then the Earth was created. Also, if the book of Genesis is refering days to millions of years then why is called a day throughout the rest of the book, even the entire Bible. About the separation of light and dark first, it might simply be that it's telling us that he had set up a system of time so that the Days of Creation couldn't be said to be millions of years. Your question about time is indeed interesting. I think that it wasn't until God actually created the Earth that "time" started. Since God isn't actually physical, and isn't restrained by natural laws that he created, then time doesn't affect him.

Because they're not. I mean they don't even believe in Jesus.

Wow where did you get that information from? Some of my friends are Catholics and they believe in Jesus.

But they Bible says that "and it was the evening and the morning of" so it is indicating, even if the actually translation was a period of time, a set amount of time. Also, the Sun was created a day after the plants. Since plants can only live for a very short period of time without sunlight, then the "day" couldn't have been millions of years long. Days didn't actually start until the Earth was created because the division of Day and Night happened and then the Earth was created. Also, if the book of Genesis is refering days to millions of years then why is called a day throughout the rest of the book, even the entire Bible. About the separation of light and dark first, it might simply be that it's telling us that he had set up a system of time so that the Days of Creation couldn't be said to be millions of years. Your question about time is indeed interesting. I think that it wasn't until God actually created the Earth that "time" started. Since God isn't actually physical, and isn't restrained by natural laws that he created, then time doesn't affect him.

you are assuming that the plants didn't have another source of light/energy. They can't survive without sunlight--as far as we know! But we really know next to nothing about all this. I'm not sure if the word 'day' used later in the bible is from the same latin word. It may be...I don't know. I don't necessarily think that it took millions of years....I don't think that years existed. I think there was a process that happened. Looking back that process might appear to have 'taken time' (if time even existed or was measurable). Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but it happened...we know that.

Wow where did you get that information from? Some of my friends are Catholics and they believe in Jesus.

This should help you understand. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm)

i didn;t take the time to read the whole thread, too much, and i have dinner reservations in an hour. I believe that most catholics aren;t true christians. Christians read the bible and understand it for themselves, they don;t

Yes they do. The amount of Bible reading I had to do almost drove me nuts.

kjust blidly follow their priest.

No they don't. At least I never did, and no one I know does. You are also making the supposition that all Catholic Priests are the same, they are not.

They also commit the same sins over and over and expect it to be hunkey dorey because they told a priest, not true.

You are misinterpreting Reconciliation. Catholics don't believe that, and any that do have got the wrong end of the stick.

Confession is realizing it was wrong and turning from it.

Rome would agree with you.

Also confession is directly tto God, not to a priest.

Catholics believe that too.

We have a direct link to god. Priest, pastors, etc. are shepherds, they merely guide the flock, they don;t tell it whre to go. This point is illustrated after Jesus Died, there was a earthquake, and the temple veil ripped (btw, the veil of the temple was approximately 18 inches thick, this was no small feat). This illustrates that the curtain between God and man had been ripped, that priests were no longer required to ask for the forgiveness of the peopel, catholics seem to miss that.

Have you actually done any research on Catholicism or are you just parroting?

And i don't see anywhere in the bible where there is a purgatory.

In various places it is implied. Do a search for thread titles with purgatory in them, I've probably replied there (probably under my former name). Or use Google, just look for Catholic websites, that is, get it from the horses mouth.

Nowhere, nohow not ever.

Definite statement. Unfortunately centuries of theologians disagree with with you. If I was still a believer I think I would side with them over you.

The Jesus said there as no way to the Father but through Him. Your friends and relatives cannot pray you into heaven, at least that's what my bible says.

Again, this is misinterpretation.

You know what i don't get, what is the definition of a protestant?

Traditionally, a Christian that follows in the tradition of the Reformation.

you are assuming that the plants didn't have another source of light/energy. They can't survive without sunlight--as far as we know! But we really know next to nothing about all this.
All photosynthesisers, which includes plants, require enough photons for sufficient photosynthesis to survive. There is no other possible source of photons that can have existed that would permit photosynthesisers to survive. There are, of course, chemosynthesising bacteria, which do not require photons in order to get calories, but bacteria are most certainly are not plants.

i suppose you could say, catholics started out fine but slowly corrupted.. I don't really know...

Pretty much. We're seeing the same thing happen now with the Southern Baptists. They have enough patrons that they weild political clout. Using that clout makes them beholden to the republican party and vice versa so both of them are corrupting each other to maintain power.

Pretty much the same thing that happened with Christianity and the government of the Roman Empire.

i didn;t take the time to read the whole thread, too much, and i have dinner reservations in an hour. I believe that most catholics aren;t true christians. Christians read the bible and understand it for themselves, they don;t kjust blidly follow their priest.

There are plenty of protestants that blindly follow their ministers. Look up the word reverend. It means deserving of worship.

Now I can see how you think that some Catholic ideas are wrong, frankly I think the whole business is messed up, but the word Christian simply means having to do with Christ. If you worship Christ you're a Christian. Whatever quibbles you have with HOW they worship Christ does not give you the right to make up a new definition of the word.

They also commit the same sins over and over and expect it to be hunkey dorey because they told a priest, not true. Confession is realizing it was wrong and turning from it. Also confession is directly tto God, not to a priest.

I think you're missing the point there too. The point of confessing with a priest is precisly what you complain that it isn't. If someone goes into his room and says "sorry God," he's not really confessing and he's perfectly likely to continue to do this again. When you go to a priest he will recommend something that you can do to help you connect with God and help you learn from your failings. Sometimes a particular charitable act, sometimes just a particular prayer. If the priest is a useless jerk who's just phoning it in he'll probably tell you to write a check out to the Church, but that's a failing of the individual, not the Church.

The Jesus said there as no way to the Father but through Him. Your friends and relatives cannot pray you into heaven, at least that's what my bible says.

I thought it was customary, even in most protestant denominations to pray for the souls of the departed. Isn't that what's supposed to be going on when people add "God rest his soul," after mentioning the name of the departed? Not to mention all those people who send emails to atheists saying "I know you don't believe but I'll pray for your salvation anyway."

Firstly, how do you know that anything is random at all? Technically there's no answer. It's all belief. I've actually never heard of the Vicar of Christ, seriously. Still, I believe that Catholics aren't Christians because it doesn't match up with some of what Christ said. Still, just what I believe.

You could say pretty much the same thing about the Southern Baptists. An arrogant, corpulent, wrathful bunch of hatemongers don't sound very Christian, but we don't run around saying that they're not a real religion, just an evil one.

All photosynthesisers, which includes plants, require enough photons for sufficient photosynthesis to survive. There is no other possible source of photons that can have existed that would permit photosynthesisers to survive. There are, of course, chemosynthesising bacteria, which do not require photons in order to get calories, but bacteria are most certainly are not plants.

How do you know there was no other possible source of photons that would permit photosynthesisers to survive? Were you there? You can't assume anything!

Not to insult anyone but quite honestly I don't believe Catholics are Christians. Just an opinion like just about everything else.


*sighs* mate whatever shred of credability you may ever have had dissapated the moment you said that.

in the bible, when Jesus is on the cross he says 'lo god shall send you a comforter', however into aramaic, it means something more like 'lo, god shall send you the admirable' it is the belief amongst muslims that each prophet fortolled the coming of another prophet, prophet Jesus was the second-last prophet after prophet Mohammed. Mohammed is the arabic word for 'admirable'

im pretty sure about the vote, but of course the majority of historical belief could be wrong

about the crazy thing, dont worry, lots of people think im a few clowns short of a circus :)


The Comforter is the Holy Spirit

Replying to a post over 100 psts ago. This has probably already been stated. Sorry for repeating it , if so. Don't have the time to read another 100 posts.