NationStates Jolt Archive

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

Personally I would think that Christians should not follow the church but follow Christ.

If i was to become a Christian, thats probably how I would live.

Depends on if you believe in the Commandments or not. If you do, and "fail to keep holy the Sabbath Day", well, you're kinda screwed, I guess...

I totally agree. Actually, I am not sure if the Bible mentions church, even if it did I doubt God said anything about it. Why can't people just have humble faith instead of trying to symbolize their religion everywhere?

going to church has nothing to do with being a Christian, I am not even sure it would make you a "better one" (whatever that is) especially if you can't find a church family that will help you grow.

Fellowship is important, but it's not the be-all and end all of Christianity. It's not really all that important if your walk is strong enough to be "going it alone".

going to church has nothing to do with being a Christian, I am not even sure it would make you a "better one" (whatever that is) especially if you can't find a church family that will help you grow.

Fellowship is important, but it's not the be-all and end all of Christianity. It's not really all that important if your walk is strong enough to be "going it alone".

But is this the majority Christian viewpoint?

But is this the majority Christian viewpoint?

Does it matter?

Does it matter?

No.... but I'm interested.

But is this the majority Christian viewpoint?

Depends on your denomination. For Catholics, church is crucial. For a lot of protestant denominations, it's what you say to god in private that matters.

going to church has nothing to do with being a Christian, I am not even sure it would make you a "better one" (whatever that is) especially if you can't find a church family that will help you grow.

Fellowship is important, but it's not the be-all and end all of Christianity. It's not really all that important if your walk is strong enough to be "going it alone".

I would add that fellowship need not be in a church setting. I can sit down with a friend and discuss the Bible, religion, etc. I can go to a college class and have fellowship with other Christians. I can go on a forum and have fellowship.

I don't think worship should be restricted solely to churches, chaplains preach their sermons in the open air, muslims can pray anywhere as long as they face mecca, I believe(unsure) jews can pray outside of temples, but they must follow sabbath laws.......I never liked the concept of churches, individuals should be able to interpret and praise god in whatever way they want........

I have special disdain for evangelist "mega-churches", seems like they're flaunting their wealth, very un-christian.

The bible doesn't make church-going mandatory. It says "remember the sabbath day and keep it holy", but that's it.

And while Catholics insist church is crucial, they also practice large-scale idolatry, so they might not be the best source for doctrine.

As an aside, over 50% of Americans attend church at least once a week. In Canada, that number is less than 10%.

But is this the majority Christian viewpoint?
the majority of Christians I have been around.

There are a few quotes that get passed around here quite often

"going to church won't make you a Christian any more than sitting at McDonalds makes you a chicken mcnugget"

and

"There is a "C" that can save you, but it's not church"

I would add that fellowship need not be in a church setting. I can sit down with a friend and discuss the Bible, religion, etc. I can go to a college class and have fellowship with other Christians. I can go on a forum and have fellowship.
oh, of course, and it doesn't need to be even a group, even having a good Christian friend who you can talk to, pray with, etc is helpful.

But is this the majority Christian viewpoint?

Just realized: Catholics are the majority denomination. So yes, the majority Christian viewpoint is that going to church is mandatory.

Just realized: Catholics are the majority denomination. So yes, the majority Christian viewpoint is that going to church is mandatory.

yeah, you are right.

And while Catholics insist church is crucial, they also practice large-scale idolatry, so they might not be the best source for doctrine.
:p

Thanks for answering my question people :D

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

Personally I would think that Christians should not follow the church but follow Christ.

If i was to become a Christian, thats probably how I would live.

It depends on what your reasoning is. If your on vacation and you're just too lazy to go, then you're in sin. If you can't find a church, then you're not in sin, but you had better be trying hard to find a church.

As for whether doctrinal differences should prevent you from going to church, that is debatable. I have a list (in my head, not a physical list) of the order of denominations I would attend. So in the absence of a PCUSA, I would attend another Presbyterian Church, in the absence of Presbyterian churches, Reformed churches, etc.

If I were to be in a town where there was nothing but a Roman Catholic church (I have major doctrinal differences with them), I would attend, but not participate in many of the things they do. I would encourage other Christians to do the same in that position no matter what denomination they are. It could be Roman Catholics attending a Presbyterian church.

As long as there is a church that has the basics right, you should attend it. Try for one that has the more advanced stuff right, too, but "do not forsake meeting together as some have done." I can't remember where Paul says that.

It depends on what your reasoning is. If your on vacation and you're just too lazy to go, then you're in sin. If you can't find a church, then you're not in sin, but you had better be trying hard to find a church.

Because if you don't have others to tell you what to do every Sunday, you can't follow Christ?

As for whether doctrinal differences should prevent you from going to church, that is debatable. I have a list (in my head, not a physical list) of the order of denominations I would attend. So in the absence of a PCUSA, I would attend another Presbyterian Church, in the absence of Presbyterian churches, Reformed churches, etc.

Weren't you arguing in another thread that doctrinal differences should get someone kicked out of a congregation?

If I were to be in a town where there was nothing but a Roman Catholic church (I have major doctrinal differences with them), I would attend, but not participate in many of the things they do.

In truth, it would be against their rules for you to participate in many things they do. Like take Communion.

I would encourage other Christians to do the same in that position no matter what denomination they are. It could be Roman Catholics attending a Presbyterian church.

If you are going to take issue with much of the service, and don't agree with the congregation or the preacher/priest on the method of worship, what reason do you have to go?

As long as there is a church that has the basics right, you should attend it. Try for one that has the more advanced stuff right, too, but "do not forsake meeting together as some have done." I can't remember where Paul says that.

Where does Paul say that "meeting together" has to be in a specified church? Is Christ not there "wherever two or three" are gathered in his name?

I seem to recall somewhere in the Bible, it states something to the effect of "anyhwere 2 Christians meet in my name, and a covenanat is formed, I am there"

As a young man, I took that to mean the I didn't need to go to the Church to speak with Jesus, or God. I could do that from where-ever I was at a given moment.

I think the Gnostic's got it closer to correct, with thier dissavowing of the formal structure of the Church hierocracy, and the idea that one communicates with God (and Jesus) by ones own thought and actions, and one does not need an intercessor (or a priest) to direct one's thought towards his God of choice.

Because if you don't have others to tell you what to do every Sunday, you can't follow Christ?

When I go to church, no one tells me what to do. They tell me to shut up a lot, usually accompanied with expletives, but that's pretty much all they tell me.

Weren't you arguing in another thread that doctrinal differences should get someone kicked out of a congregation?

There's a difference between attending church with a congregation and being a member of the congregation.

In truth, it would be against their rules for you to participate in many things they do. Like take Communion.

Yes, and?

If you are going to take issue with much of the service, and don't agree with the congregation or the preacher/priest on the method of worship, what reason do you have to go?

I'm commanded to go.

Where does Paul say that "meeting together" has to be in a specified church? Is Christ not there "wherever two or three" are gathered in his name?

The fact that the meetings together were the churches in Paul's time should lead to the same rules applying to the meetings for today. And Christ's presence is not limited to the "church setting" but nearly everything done in Christ's name is affiliated with a church in some respect.

Meeting in church allows you to be edified and it helps to keep you from error. Though you are the sole person responsible for whether you are in error or not.

When I go to church, no one tells me what to do.

A sermon is usually full of things that the priest/reverend/preacher is telling you to do.

There's a difference between attending church with a congregation and being a member of the congregation.

And the point of going on a regular basis if you are not a member would be?

Yes, and?

Nothing. Just a personal pet peeve of mine. I don't think any church that denies access to the Lord's Table has even begun to get the message right.

I'm commanded to go.

You are? God commands you to go to a church and listen to sermons you don't agree with?

The fact that the meetings together were the churches in Paul's time should lead to the same rules applying to the meetings for today.

But one obviously need not go to a large-scale organized meeting at an actual church.

And Christ's presence is not limited to the "church setting" but nearly everything done in Christ's name is affiliated with a church in some respect.

Not in my experience.

Meeting in church allows you to be edified and it helps to keep you from error. Though you are the sole person responsible for whether you are in error or not.

If you think the church you are attending is doctrinally wrong, how exactly are you going to be edified? You are going to be sitting there listening to doctrine you already believe is wrong. Sounds like it would be more likely to lead you into error than away from it.

And, once again, you are getting into the, "I need someone to tell me what to do - to teach me how to have a relationship with Christ." Why do you need someone else to build that relationship for you?

The fact that the meetings together were the churches in Paul's time should lead to the same rules applying to the meetings for today. And Christ's presence is not limited to the "church setting" but nearly everything done in Christ's name is affiliated with a church in some respect.

Meeting in church allows you to be edified and it helps to keep you from error. Though you are the sole person responsible for whether you are in error or not.

I couldn't agree less. And I suspect, given what I've read of Christ's teachings, neither could Christ. In Christ's time it was widely believed that the Church had a better hold on the path to Salvation than the individual. Guess who found that to be in error? I'll give you hint, it starts with a "CH" and it's not the CHurch.

Christ taught a personal religion. You would actually have people sit in a room and be taught by someone they believe to have misinterpreted the Bible for some false idea that being in a Church someone how increases your likelihood of salvation? How warped is that?

There is no Biblical mandate for Church attendance, only fellowship (associating with other Christians, and according to Jesus not only other Christians).

Meanwhile -
Matthew 6:5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

A relationship with God is personal. One should find those who help them explore there faith, but there is no requirement for that to occur in an expensive building filled with people who mostly go "to be seen by men".

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

I asked this exact question once, and got this answer: Suppose you don't agree with something your parents say. Does that mean you stop visiting them?

I don't agree with some of my church's (Catholic) positions, like its opposition to married priests (and even women priests) and its (IMHO) overemphasis on abstinence before marriage--not to mention the scandals involving abusive priests. Doesn't mean I quit going to church. When I miss church it's almost always due to laziness :)

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

Personally I would think that Christians should not follow the church but follow Christ.

If i was to become a Christian, thats probably how I would live.

I've come to believe that I do not need someone telling me how to practice my faith. With all of the controversies and the fact that I disagree with just about every sect out there on one level or another, I feel that I should just find God my own way.

And as for "keeping the Sabbath Day holy", I try, and if I fail (even I am not perfect), then I acknowledge it, ask forgiveness, and move on. I try to stay away from the old fashioned "Catholic Guilt" as possible.

EDIT: And never, ever, go to Church just because someone says if you don't you'll go to Hell. That fearmongering captured me briefly at one point and I was literally scared into going. Know what I got out of it? Nothing. Faith is about belief, not fear.

I've come to believe that I do not need someone telling me how to practice my faith. With all of the controversies and the fact that I disagree with just about every sect out there on one level or another, I feel that I should just find God my own way.

And as for "keeping the Sabbath Day holy", I try, and if I fail (even I am not perfect), then I acknowledge it, ask forgiveness, and move on. I try to stay away from the old fashioned "Catholic Guilt" as possible.

EDIT: And never, ever, go to Church just because someone says if you don't you'll go to Hell. That fearmongering captured me briefly at one point and I was literally scared into going. Know what I got out of it? Nothing. Faith is about belief, not fear.

On your second paragraph the one part of repentance you are missing is trying to change. That commandment does not mean the exact same thing it did when it was first given out but there are plenty of other good reasons to go to Church. If you can't find a Church that you agree with and you live in any decently large area then are you sure the problem is with the Churches? You last point is absolutely true, assuming not going to Church is a sin it will not cause you to go to hell. Faith is also about actions. Read James 2.

Someone mentioned going to a Church without agreeing with all its doctrine. I do that every so often mainly for social reasons. Some other valid reasons: you want to find out exactly what they believe, you want different opinions on a matter, you have problems with the congregation you are with right now and personal matters override theological ones. You can still quite easily worship God at another Church. Most differences between protestant churches are generally quite small and have little effect on actual teaching.

On your second paragraph the one part of repentance you are missing is trying to change. That commandment does not mean the exact same thing it did when it was first given out but there are plenty of other good reasons to go to Church. If you can't find a Church that you agree with and you live in any decently large area then are you sure the problem is with the Churches? You last point is absolutely true, assuming not going to Church is a sin it will not cause you to go to hell. Faith is also about actions. Read James 2.

I agree with you 100%. There are many good reasons to go to Church: fellowship, peace, reflection. It also has much to do with the father/reverend/preacher there. My former priest was an absolute saint, as was the man before him. Sadly they both moved on. But even before that I wasn't attending church very often. It just didn't work for me.

Faith, in my humble opinion, is about YOUR relationship with God, not what a mortal says it should be. I try to stay as far away from the doctrine and the dogma and the controversy as possible, and focus on that.

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

Personally I would think that Christians should not follow the church but follow Christ.

If I was to become a Christian, thats probably how I would live.

Neither the Bible nor Jesus say anything about going to 'church'.
Going to 'church' is not keeping the sabbath holy.
There is no commandment to attend Sunday morning services.

If you can't agree with any of the religious institutions that have weekly meetings in buildings in your area, find others that are in the same boat as you and get connected to them.

The bible doesn't make church-going mandatory. It says "remember the sabbath day and keep it holy", but that's it.

And while Catholics insist church is crucial, they also practice large-scale idolatry, so they might not be the best source for doctrine.

As an aside, over 50% of Americans attend church at least once a week. In Canada, that number is less than 10%.

Ummm...Idolatry?

We do not practice Idolatry any more than the Orthodox Church does. We use ICONS of our holy men and women to remind us of how it is that we are supposed to act in life. But they are not Idols. There is a massive difference between Idolatry and the use of Icons.

The effectiveness of church is held up in this verse

Matthew 18:20 (this is Jesus talking)
20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.

Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy, is more about taking time apart to recognize God for what He has done.

Mark 2:28
So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Which is in reference to the Pharisee's legalstic interpertations of the Sabbath, allowing for no work at all, to be done on the Sabbath.


The Church building itself is a meaningless manmade icon, the original church had no building, it was at a communial place, generally in someone's home, due to the need for secrecy. The emphasis was on the fellowship of believers coming together to Worship God and to love eachother.


As for the faith enough to withstand on your own comments I've seen. Yes your faith should be able to stand up in the absence of other believers around you, however it in know means is a good faith alone. Humans love to be around people (generally speaking). We all like to hang out, and to do things with others. That is a simple fact, and Christianity is clear in the benefits of fellowship.

Genesis 2:18a
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone.

Relationships are the main element of Christianity.

There is no necessity of going to church. But it's sort of like why every business type has their own journals, conventions, etc. You can never know everything about anything. It is always a matter of learning from the time you are born until you die. No one graduates college with all knowledge of their subject area. The same is true with religion. It's like going to school or a convention to learn new insights about the subject that will help you understand the subject and adjust to that new knowledge.

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

Personally I would think that Christians should not follow the church but follow Christ.

If i was to become a Christian, thats probably how I would live.

Church services are not only unencessary, but actually discouraged by Christ.

Jesus said that wherever two or more people gather in his name, he is there.

It also says that you should "be not like the hypocrites" who go to church just to be seen as a church goer. It is better to go quietly into your room and pray by yourself. Which, by extension, means that no one, not even your minister/priest, has any right to criticize you for your lack of Christianity as a lax church goer. He's judging where he ought to "judge not lest he himself be judged."

Ummm...Idolatry?

We do not practice Idolatry any more than the Orthodox Church does. We use ICONS of our holy men and women to remind us of how it is that we are supposed to act in life. But they are not Idols. There is a massive difference between Idolatry and the use of Icons.

I think my problem comes in that you guys "petition the saints" which is basically praying to them, and that you "venerate" mary meaning you worship her, oh, and the whole thing where you think you need a middle man to talk to God, that makes no sense to me.

I think my problem comes in that you guys "petition the saints" which is basically praying to them, and that you "venerate" mary meaning you worship her, oh, and the whole thing where you think you need a middle man to talk to God, that makes no sense to me.

Though I don't agree with that at all, it is probably in the same way to them as when we ask members of our congregation to pray for us, however we are living, while saints have already gone to be with God, those minor things aren't that important.

Though I don't agree with that at all, it is probably in the same way to them as when we ask members of our congregation to pray for us, however we are living, while saints have already gone to be with God, those minor things aren't that important.

You ask dead people to pray for you? isn't that like contacting the dead? doesn't the Bible say NOT to do that?

Jesus' law is that whether or not you go, the women ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Jesus' law is that whether or not you go, the women ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

that's something that Paul said, in a letter to specific people about a specific situation......nice try at shutting me up though. ;)

that's something that Paul said, in a letter to specific people about a specific situation......nice try at shutting me up though. ;)

Well, "paul" (who gives out jesus laws) goes on to predict that people in more modern times would object to this kind of law, so he insists:

1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

They didn't have churches back then.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

Not necessarily. But it's often the case that those who aren't regular attendees do become uncommitted for some reason.

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

Go for it.

Personally I would think that Christians should not follow the church but follow Christ.

Personally, I think that Christians should follow the example of Christ and minister to those who believe in him.

And while Catholics insist church is crucial, they also practice large-scale idolatry, so they might not be the best source for doctrine.

And while you may insist that Catholics practice large-scale idolatry, in all my years as a practicing Catholic who has attended many parishes in many areas, I have seen very few instances of it, so you might not be the best source for information regarding Catholic practice.

Well, "paul" (who gives out jesus laws) goes on to predict that people in more modern times would object to this kind of law, so he insists:

1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

uh.........no. Paul doesn't hand out any laws, he wrote a commentary that's it.

You ask dead people to pray for you? isn't that like contacting the dead? doesn't the Bible say NOT to do that?

No its asking other members of the body of christ to pray for you.

No its asking other members of the body of christ to pray for you.

who are living or dead?

oh, wait, that's right.........dead.

I think my problem comes in that you guys "petition the saints" which is basically praying to them, and that you "venerate" mary meaning you worship her, oh, and the whole thing where you think you need a middle man to talk to God, that makes no sense to me.

Ever heard of the Litany of the Saints? It goes something like this.

[insert Saint name here], Pray for us.

[insert Saint name here], Pray for us.

[insert Saint name here], Pray for us.

[insert Saint name here], Pray for us.

etc.

We're asking for those Christians who have gone before us and are now with God to pray for us. Please tell me you're not opposed to asking other folks to pray for us?

who are living or dead?

oh, wait, that's right.........dead.

If they're with God, they're considerably more alive than we are here.

Ever heard of the Litany of the Saints? It goes something like this.

[insert Saint name here], Pray for us.

[insert Saint name here], Pray for us.

[insert Saint name here], Pray for us.

[insert Saint name here], Pray for us.

etc.

We're asking for those Christians who have gone before us and are now with God to pray for us. Please tell me you're not opposed to asking other folks to pray for us?


dead people.........seriously what do you guys not get about that?

Well, "paul" (who gives out jesus laws) goes on to predict that people in more modern times would object to this kind of law, so he insists:

1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Actualy Spunkee is right a number of theologians today are of the opinion that that passage was in response to a problem that community was having with women interupting services to ask questions and was basicly Paul saying that they should wait until a more appropriate time to were they wouldn't be interupting.

who are living or dead?

oh, wait, that's right.........dead.

What does the passing state of their physical body have to do with a spiritual matter? They are part of the Body of Christ just as much as those who are alive.

dead people.........seriously what do you guys not get about that?

What do you not get about this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11647946&postcount=43)?? I find your suggestion that people who are in heaven with eternal existence in God's presence are dead a bit silly.

What does the passing state of their physical body have to do with a spiritual matter? They are part of the Body of Christ just as much as those who are alive.

meh, it's this whole thing I have about not trying to contact dead people, it's something that's been beaten into me for a while, you know it goes along with the witchcraft stuff........

we can agree to disagree. My problems with the Catholic church shouldn't be of any concern to anyone, really.

Actualy Spunkee is right a number of theologians today are of the opinion that that passage was in response to a problem that community was having with women interupting services to ask questions and was basicly Paul saying that they should wait until a more appropriate time to were they wouldn't be interupting.

I dont let no women folk speak in MY charch, what so I dont get hit like SODDOM AND GOMMORRAH! We'll see whos goin to hell.

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

Personally I would think that Christians should not follow the church but follow Christ.

If i was to become a Christian, thats probably how I would live.
no the bible never says you have to go to church as a chrisitan. the only way to be a christian is to accept jesus christ as your lord and savior. if you have anymore questions feel free to TG me its not often people ask questions about jesus on here :P

meh, it's this whole thing I have about not trying to contact dead people, it's something that's been beaten into me for a while, you know it goes along with the witchcraft stuff........

Witches do a lot of things. That doesn't make them all bad. Is it wrong for a man to stand at the grave of his son and tell the boy "goodbye" or "I love you"?

we can agree to disagree. My problems with the Catholic church shouldn't be of any concern to anyone, really.

I'm not concerned that you have problems with the Church. I do myself. What bothers me is when your objections are poorly argued or based on a misrepresentation of Catholic practice.

Witches do a lot of things. That doesn't make them all bad. Is it wrong for a man to stand at the grave of his son and tell the boy "goodbye" or "I love you"?
you aren't praying to them, you aren't even really talking to them and asking them for anything.

I'm not concerned that you have problems with the Church. I do myself. What bothers me is when your objections are poorly argued or based on a misrepresentation of Catholic practice.
lets leave it with the fact that I believe that we don't need to contact spirits to get them to pray for us, we can just pray ourselves, and that God commanded that we not talk to spirits or call upon them for favors.

you aren't praying to them, you aren't even really talking to them and asking them for anything.


lets leave it with the fact that I believe that we don't need to contact spirits to get them to pray for us, we can just pray ourselves, and that God commanded that we not talk to spirits or call upon them for favors.
The Church's position, put simply, is that saints aren't dead per say but alive in Heaven with God. Also you don't have to pray to God through them you can just ask them to pray for you the same as you might ask a friend or relative.

you aren't praying to them, you aren't even really talking to them and asking them for anything.

So? Talking to the "dead" is what it is, regardless of whether the statements are declarative or interrogative.

lets leave it with the fact that I believe that we don't need to contact spirits to get them to pray for us, we can just pray ourselves,

I would agree that there's no need. I'm just not sure why it being unnecessary also means it's a bad idea.

and that God commanded that we not talk to spirits or call upon them for favors.

Well that's odd, considering God is a spirit and is okay with us talking to him and asking him for favors.

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

I know you are still a Christian, but does that make you a bad/lazy/uncomitted etc.. Christian for not going to church?

What if you don't agree with the interpretation and guidliens of any of the Churches in your area? And you want to follow him your own way?

Personally I would think that Christians should not follow the church but follow Christ.

If i was to become a Christian, thats probably how I would live.

The Bible doesn't say anything about going to church. Christians are not required to go to church, I just think it is a good idea, so to have fellowship with other Christians. It is not by going to church that we are saved. We are saved by the grace of God, which is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ.

If you don't agree with any churches in your area, then you have two options: Look for churches not quite in your area, or just worship on your own.

As far as following Him in your own way goes: As long as it is within the bounds of the Bible, it shouldn't be a problem.

Im not as versed in the scripture as some are, but I could sear theres a passage that reads something to the effect of "The church is within the heart, not a building made of wood or stone..."

Something to that effect.

It could be an apocraphyl title, becuase thats probably something the Catholic Church would want removed, but maybe its not.

Anyone know what Im talking about?

Im not as versed in the scripture as some are, but I could sear theres a passage that reads something to the effect of "The church is within the heart, not a building made of wood or stone..."

Something to that effect.

It could be an apocraphyl title, becuase thats probably something the Catholic Church would want removed, but maybe its not.

Anyone know what Im talking about?

I'm recalling a story to that effect in one of the Gospels, which were approved by the Church, but I'd have to look it up to be sure, and I'm feeling lazy at the moment so I won't. :p

The bible doesn't make church-going mandatory. It says "remember the sabbath day and keep it holy", but that's it.

And while Catholics insist church is crucial, they also practice large-scale idolatry, so they might not be the best source for doctrine.

As an aside, over 50% of Americans attend church at least once a week. In Canada, that number is less than 10%.

Large scale idolatry?!

I've never worshipped a statue in my life. :(

Large scale idolatry?!

I've never worshipped a statue in my life. :(

Ever said the Pledge of Alleigance?

Pretty much the same thing.

Ever said the Pledge of Alleigance?

Pretty much the same thing.

Yeah, except I don't believe that the flag is going to intervene in my day to day life with divine powers.

Yeah, except I don't believe that the flag is going to intervene in my day to day life with divine powers.

neither is God....

But lets move on...

neither is God....

But lets move on...

Be that as it may or may not be, it doesn't change the fact that I have never worshipped a statue.

Be that as it may or may not be, it doesn't change the fact that I have never worshipped a statue.

By your interperetation of the word "worship".

The Pledge thing I mentioned is becuase its not a stretch to imply that reciting the Pledge of Alleigance, is much like praying.

Hand, over your heart, dutifully reciting a speech, that is much like a prayer.

Its almost a religious ceremony.

Its quite conceivable that you may have done something, or will do something very similar to that at some point.

By your interperetation of the word "worship".

The Pledge thing I mentioned is becuase its not a stretch to imply that reciting the Pledge of Alleigance, is much like praying.

Hand, over your heart, dutifully reciting a speech, that is much like a prayer.

Its almost a religious ceremony.

Its quite conceivable that you may have done something, or will do something very similar to that at some point.

I will agree with you that the pledge is quite like a religious ceremony. I've found myself offended by its recitation at times, because I feel that my loyalty doesn't need to be pledged.

Anyway, I was just saying that it's kind of stupid to call Catholics idolators because we don't worship statues. Just because I've prayed doesn't mean I've prayed to a statue.

I will agree with you that the pledge is quite like a religious ceremony. I've found myself offended by its recitation at times, because I feel that my loyalty doesn't need to be pledged.

Anyway, I was just saying that it's kind of stupid to call Catholics idolators because we don't worship statues. Just because I've prayed doesn't mean I've prayed to a statue.

I dont call them idolators, thats a little far-fetched.

However, ive had this arguement several times on this board.

Catholics DO worship Mary.

The very definition of "worship" means the action of reverence, or prayer, to a thing, diety, idol....whatever.

By the very definition of the word, Catholics worship Mary.

I dont call them idolators, thats a little far-fetched.

However, ive had this arguement several times on this board.

Catholics DO worship Mary.

The very definition of "worship" means the action of reverence, or prayer, to a thing, diety, idol....whatever.

By the very definition of the word, Catholics worship Mary.

Catholic means all encompassing, or all welcoming. Not "We worship Mary LOL".

From the 1997 edition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

catholic : 1. of or relating to Catholics, especially Roman Catholics. 2. General, universal.

So my definition was a bit off, but as you can see, Webster disagrees with you.

cath·o·lic (kth-lk, kthlk) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "Catholic" [P]
adj.

1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: “what was of catholic rather than national interest” (J.A. Froude).
3. Catholic
1. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
3. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
4. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

Dictionary.com also disagrees with you, however an unreliable source it may be.

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus has this to say about the word catholic:
all-embracing, general. all-inclusive, broad-minded, charitable, comprehensive, and so on and so forth.

Lastly, from my Begginer's Catholic Bible (I couldn't find my really nice one, so this will do):

Why Do We as Catholics VENERATE Mary and the Saints?

"Catholics distinguish between dulia, by which we mean reverence and veneration of saints, hyperdulia, a higher veneration for Mary, and latria, divine worship of God, and God alone. This is a biblical distinction.The Greek word douleia appears five times in the New Testament (Rom 8:15, 21, Gal 4:24, 5:1, Heb 2:15). not in reference to God - and has several cognates."

Therefore, no, I do not worship Mary.

EDIT: I may have misinterpreted what you meant, in which case, you meant the definition of the word "worship." If this is true, then the last entry I put in shows why that's not true to begin with. However, if that's how you feel, you might as well come out and say we also worship the saints, which we don't. Honoring and venerating is one thing, worshipping is different.

Large scale idolatry?!

I've never worshipped a statue in my life. :(

again, the virgin mary seems to be mentioned more in the catholic church than jesus. do they ask her to forgive their sins sometimes, or am i horribly mistaken?

i've long thought Catholic's fixation with Mary is like winning the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweapstakes... and giving all the credit/praise to the UPS guy that handed you the envelope.

Catholic means all encompassing, or all welcoming. Not "We worship Mary LOL".

Oh no, not the word "Catholic"...maybe you read that wrong, or maybe I didnt use a comma correctly.

I meant the word "Worship".



wor‧ship  /ˈwɜrʃɪp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wur-ship] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -shiped, -ship‧ing or (especially British) -shipped, -ship‧ping.

–noun 1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually prec. by Your, His, or Her).
–verb (used with object) 6. to render religious reverence and homage to.
7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
–verb (used without object) 8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.
9. to attend services of divine worship.
10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.


Yes, you do.

again, the virgin mary seems to be mentioned more in the catholic church than jesus. do they ask her to forgive their sins sometimes, or am i horribly mistaken?

i've long thought Catholic's fixation with Mary is like winning the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweapstakes... and giving all the credit/praise to the UPS guy that handed you the envelope.

The only person we ever ask to forgive our sins is God.

You might be thinking of a Hail Mary prayer:

"Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst sinners, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Hail Mary mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hours of our deaths."

We ask her to pray on her behalf, just like the saints. This is exactly the same as asking a church to pray for someone, except these people happen to be dead.

Oh no, not the word "Catholic"...maybe you read that wrong, or maybe I didnt use a comma correctly.

I meant the word "Worship".

Which I figured out of course right as I finished my post.

But no, we don't worship her any more than the saints, as I mentioned. We hold her high in esteem because it's believed she had to have been born without original sin, but she's not God.

Which I figured out of course right as I finished my post.

But no, we don't worship her any more than the saints, as I mentioned. We hold her high in esteem because it's believed she had to have been born without original sin, but she's not God.

I know shes not God, but by the very action of praying to her, and venerating her above mankind, you perform the action of worshipping her.

I know that Catholics dont like to hear this, and I also know there is indeed a difference between the esteem placed upon Mary, and God, but facts is facts, and whether or not they like to admit it, they do, indeed worship Mary.

She even has her own special prayer.....

no the bible never says you have to go to church as a chrisitan. the only way to be a christian is to accept jesus christ as your lord and savior. if you have anymore questions feel free to TG me its not often people ask questions about jesus on here :P


Ummm last time I checked Jesus never told us to accepting Him as Lord and Saviour was the only requirement for salvation. In fact He rarely talked about it. Recognizing Him as the Messiah was only part of it. "Even the demons believe..." The words Jesus preached were "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near"; "Pick up your Cross and follow me" and "Go and make disciples of all the nations" Jesus never said were His follower if you just believed in Him and "accepted Him"

That is a common misconception held by alot of mainstream christians.

Ummm last time I checked Jesus never told us to accepting Him as Lord and Saviour was the only requirement for salvation. In fact He rarely talked about it. Recognizing Him as the Messiah was only part of it. "Even the demons believe..." The words Jesus preached were "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near"; "Pick up your Cross and follow me" and "Go and make disciples of all the nations" Jesus never said were His follower if you just believed in Him and "accepted Him"

That is a common misconception held by alot of mainstream christians.

No man shall enter heaven except through me...

Matthew something...

around the same place as the "Its is far easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter Heaven", thing...

I know shes not God, but by the very action of praying to her, and venerating her above mankind, you perform the action of worshipping her.

I know that Catholics dont like to hear this, and I also know there is indeed a difference between the esteem placed upon Mary, and God, but facts is facts, and whether or not they like to admit it, they do, indeed worship Mary.

She even has her own special prayer.....

She's not above any other person, she's just especially awesome. Like the saints.

I've never attended a service where Mary was the focus and worshipped as a god. I've never heard anyone say "Thank Mary! My day was made better because..."

Facts are facts, sure. We don't recognize her as a god. I suppose if you want to keep insisting honoring Mary and her memory is the same thing as worshipping her, then that's fine.

However, that's the same thing as saying we're worshipping Abraham Lincoln and George Washington on President's day, because we're honoring their memory then.

I know shes not God, but by the very action of praying to her, and venerating her above mankind, you perform the action of worshipping her.

I know that Catholics dont like to hear this, and I also know there is indeed a difference between the esteem placed upon Mary, and God, but facts is facts, and whether or not they like to admit it, they do, indeed worship Mary.

She even has her own special prayer.....

:rolleyes:

Silly stupid billion catholics, i wonder how they got tricked into thinking they don't worship mary?

"facts is facts" indeed.

About seeing those magical ghosts all the time, did I tell you about the bridges i've got for sale?

The only person we ever ask to forgive our sins is God.

You might be thinking of a Hail Mary prayer:

"Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst sinners, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Hail Mary mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hours of our deaths."

We ask her to pray on her behalf, just like the saints. This is exactly the same as asking a church to pray for someone, except these people happen to be dead.

okay, i'll give you that.

to be honest, my biggest beef with the Catholic Church (other than, ya know, that whole Empire/Crusades thing :p ) is that it's soooo ritualistic. for some people that structure works great, but i know a ton of people (myself included) that wouldn't be able to develop even the slightest passion for God in something so... institutionalized

No man shall enter heaven except through me...

Matthew something...

around the same place as the "Its is far easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter Heaven", thing...

The verse is Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25 or Mark 10:25, unfortunately that is not the whole of the story. You have to look beyond the verse that you like. It isn't a pick and choose type deal

Matthew 19
26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"

28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

okay, i'll give you that.

to be honest, my biggest beef with the Catholic Church (other than, ya know, that whole Empire/Crusades thing :p ) is that it's soooo ritualistic. for some people that structure works great, but i know a ton of people (myself included) that wouldn't be able to develop even the slightest passion for God in something so... institutionalized

That's fine by me. I happen to like the rituals, but also try to make time for God in a personal way in my private life too. It just thrills me to think that I'm participating in a ritual that hasn't changed for centuries, maybe even more than a thousand years. Just cool.

But yeah, the structure can be restricting, which is why I dig private prayer and reflection too. :D

She's not above any other person, she's just especially awesome. Like the saints.

I've never attended a service where Mary was the focus and worshipped as a god. I've never heard anyone say "Thank Mary! My day was made better because..."

Facts are facts, sure. We don't recognize her as a god. I suppose if you want to keep insisting honoring Mary and her memory is the same thing as worshipping her, then that's fine.

However, that's the same thing as saying we're worshipping Abraham Lincoln and George Washington on President's day, because we're honoring their memory then.

and as I said...the very definition of the word "worship" is something that all catholics do, everytime in a service.

You pray to her.

She is sacred amongst mortals.

Held in higher regard than normal people, or even above the Saints.

The very act of reverence, is worshipping.

I dont know why all of you deny it, I wouldnt assume its any big deal.

Also, I believe the Vatican made her "Co-Redemptrix" or something like that, basically implying that there are two ways to get to God, Jesus, and Mary.

okay, i'll give you that.

to be honest, my biggest beef with the Catholic Church (other than, ya know, that whole Empire/Crusades thing :p ) is that it's soooo ritualistic. for some people that structure works great, but i know a ton of people (myself included) that wouldn't be able to develop even the slightest passion for God in something so... institutionalized

Ritual is what makes religion worth half a damn, no religion worth the name should be less ritualized or institutionalized than Catholicism. It should be the model.

"Passion for god" is nutjobbery, a set of half-decent ethics and healthy social bonding are found ideally in a institutional church.

The verse is Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25 or Mark 10:25, unfortunately that is not the whole of the story. You have to look beyond the verse that you like. It isn't a pick and choose type deal

Well, if you'd like to get technical..I "choose" none of it.

and as I said...the very definition of the word "worship" is something that all catholics do, everytime in a service.

You pray to her.

She is sacred amongst mortals.

Held in higher regard than normal people, or even above the Saints.

The very act of reverence, is worshipping.

I dont know why all of you deny it, I wouldnt assume its any big deal.

Also, I believe the Vatican made her "Co-Redemptrix" or something like that, basically implying that there are two ways to get to God, Jesus, and Mary.

Nope, they never did that, and if they did, they repealed it. We've talked about this in the classes I took before I became a Catholic, and she's not a co-savior of any sort. Awesome, yes, revered, yes, holy, no.

You have to understand why she's so important though, she's one of TWO people to be born without original sin. That's why she's so important.

I think where we're butting heads is just our definition of worship and reverence. I can feel reverence in a graveyard or a memorial and not be worshipping it, but it seems you don't feel that's a distinction, and that's fine.

I will respectfully awknowledge your opinion and go on my jolly way.

around the same place as the "Its is far easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter Heaven", thing...

as a random side-note, that whole "eye of a needle" thing was actually a metaphor, rather than literal: the gates to cities were called Eyes of the Needle (not exactly sure why, but likely because everyone had to filter through them, and they looked vaguely like needle eyes :p), and camels are pretty tall - about 6 feet at the shoulders and 7 feet at the head. they had to get camels to duck/squat down to fit em inside the gates, and another annoying trait of camels is they can be pretty stubborn when pushed or prodded.

hence, the "camel through an eye of a needle" phrase :)

as a random side-note, that whole "eye of a needle" thing was actually a metaphor, rather than literal: the gates to cities were called Eyes of the Needle (not exactly sure why, but likely because everyone had to filter through them, and they looked vaguely like needle eyes :p), and camels are pretty tall - about 6 feet at the shoulders and 7 feet at the head. they had to get camels to duck/squat down to fit em inside the gates, and another annoying trait of camels is they can be pretty stubborn when pushed or prodded.

hence, the "camel through an eye of a needle" phrase :)

Those feisty camels!

Nope, they never did that, and if they did, they repealed it. We've talked about this in the classes I took before I became a Catholic, and she's not a co-savior of any sort. Awesome, yes, revered, yes, holy, no.

Thats funny, most Catholics Ive asked consider her being VERY Holy, as she gave birth to God. "Mary, Mother of God" and all...(Jesus and God=same person, is where Im assuming theyre going with that one..*shrug*..)


You have to understand why she's so important though, she's one of TWO people to be born without original sin. That's why she's so important.

If you exclude the Roman soldier theory....


I think where we're butting heads is just our definition of worship and reverence. I can feel reverence in a graveyard or a memorial and not be worshipping it, but it seems you don't feel that's a distinction, and that's fine.

I will respectfully awknowledge your opinion and go on my jolly way.

Eh, Ive left debates on worse terms than this one.

But remember, its not MY definition of the word worship....its the Dictionary's.
So, if you really, really dont feel as though you actually worship Mary, argue with Webtser....not me.

as a random side-note, that whole "eye of a needle" thing was actually a metaphor, rather than literal: the gates to cities were called Eyes of the Needle (not exactly sure why, but likely because everyone had to filter through them, and they looked vaguely like needle eyes :p), and camels are pretty tall - about 6 feet at the shoulders and 7 feet at the head. they had to get camels to duck/squat down to fit em inside the gates, and another annoying trait of camels is they can be pretty stubborn when pushed or prodded.

hence, the "camel through an eye of a needle" phrase :)

Rich people who don't want to give their money away have always loved that particular little ditty.

I don't see why they'd be anywhere but hell.

Thats funny, most Catholics Ive asked consider her being VERY Holy, as she gave birth to God. "Mary, Mother of God" and all...(Jesus and God=same person, is where Im assuming theyre going with that one..*shrug*..)



If you exclude the Roman soldier theory....



Eh, Ive left debates on worse terms than this one.

But remember, its not MY definition of the word worship....its the Dictionary's.
So, if you really, really dont feel as though you actually worship Mary, argue with Webtser....not me.


I would like to hear the Roman Soldier theory, as I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I may have mispoken, I guess she's holy, but to me, she's just super-great.

I will take up my beef with Webster later. ^_^

as a random side-note, that whole "eye of a needle" thing was actually a metaphor, rather than literal: the gates to cities were called Eyes of the Needle (not exactly sure why, but likely because everyone had to filter through them, and they looked vaguely like needle eyes :p), and camels are pretty tall - about 6 feet at the shoulders and 7 feet at the head. they had to get camels to duck/squat down to fit em inside the gates, and another annoying trait of camels is they can be pretty stubborn when pushed or prodded.

hence, the "camel through an eye of a needle" phrase :)


Hey, actually I didnt know that!

I just assumed it was a little parable about avarice.

Well..i guess I was right, actually...it is.

You have to understand why she's so important though, she's one of TWO people to be born without original sin. That's why she's so important.

woah, wait a minute: what's this about her being born without original sin? i mean, i know the Bible mentions her being specially chosen or "favorite among women" or something like that, but how was her exit from a womb any different from yours or mine?? (unless you were a C-Section baby, that is :D )

I would like to hear the Roman Soldier theory, as I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I may have mispoken, I guess she's holy, but to me, she's just super-great.

I will take up my beef with Webster later. ^_^


Some folks dont hold much with the "Immaculate Conception" theory.
In fact, they think that Mary may have been actually raped by a Roman soldier, and that this person, was actually Jesus birth-father.

However, they also believe that he was nonetheless the "Messiah".

Witches do a lot of things. That doesn't make them all bad. Is it wrong for a man to stand at the grave of his son and tell the boy "goodbye" or "I love you"?



I'm not concerned that you have problems with the Church. I do myself. What bothers me is when your objections are poorly argued or based on a misrepresentation of Catholic practice.

And yours are based on a misinterpretation of the scripture. Hers are based in fact. I think I'll take hers.

Meanwhile, they do venerate Mary. And praying to people who are no longer on this earth is idolatry. By the Catholic's own definition of idolatry.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm

Saints are usually actually an idol (a statue), they are prayed to (not with), they are considered to have performed miracles in order to become saints. They pretty much fit every definition of being assigned divinity and worshiped as can possible be found to anyone actually trying to analyze it without bias.

As for other forms of worship, they kiss the rings of the Popes, while the true leader of the Church, Jesus, was washing the feet of those he led. The Pope sits in the place of honor and is honored on earth as the mouth of God. They rebuilt the hierarchy of the Church of Jesus's time, the one he spoke out against. A hierarchy that permits, excommunicating people from the Church and basically claims to deny people access to Heaven.

Matthew 23 1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

Hmmmmm... Jesus could be describing the leadership of the Catholic Church if I didn't know better.

woah, wait a minute: what's this about her being born without original sin? i mean, i know the Bible mentions her being specially chosen or "favorite among women" or something like that, but how was her exit from a womb any different from yours or mine?? (unless you were a C-Section baby, that is :D )

As the post below yours mentions, it's the Immaculate Conception idea. The reasoning is that a perfect being could not enter the world without a sin-free vessel. Thus, Mary was born without original sin.

Some folks dont hold much with the "Immaculate Conception" theory.
In fact, they think that Mary may have been actually raped by a Roman soldier, and that this person, was actually Jesus birth-father.

However, they also believe that he was nonetheless the "Messiah".

er, wouldn't that kinda negate the Divinity/Son-of-God aspect of Jesus, except in a symbolic/metaphoric sense??

Some folks dont hold much with the "Immaculate Conception" theory.
In fact, they think that Mary may have been actually raped by a Roman soldier, and that this person, was actually Jesus birth-father.

However, they also believe that he was nonetheless the "Messiah".

Ah, ok. Do they have any reasons in particular to believe this is the truth, or is it just speculation?

As the post below yours mentions, it's the Immaculate Conception idea. The reasoning is that a perfect being could not enter the world without a sin-free vessel. Thus, Mary was born without original sin.

ah. that kinda seems like faulty logic to me... i mean, Adam wasn't "perfect" since he sinned, but he was made by the very Hand of God. kinda seems like reverse-step reasoning or something...

oh yeah! and she wasn't a "sin-free vessel" when she had Jesus - even if she was born without "original sin" (another term i might have issues with, but oh well), you don't claim she never sinned until at least after she was 14 or so???

er, wouldn't that kinda negate the Divinity/Son-of-God aspect of Jesus, except in a symbolic/metaphoric sense??

I would think so, but with dealing with a Diety, it would seem as though "anything is possible".

So, if "God" wanted to reach down and invest some divine power to a recently impregnated woman....how the hell would anyone know any differently?

Making up an "Immaculate conception" however, would make it MUCH easier for the general populace to swallow, certainly.

Ah, ok. Do they have any reasons in particular to believe this is the truth, or is it just speculation?

Heh.

About as much as any other religious person.

Wich is to say, "none".

Truthfully, Im not certain, they may have some ancient dusty old manuscipt that "contains the truth" for all I know.

And yours are based on a misinterpretation of the scripture. Hers are based in fact. I think I'll take hers.

Meanwhile, they do venerate Mary. And praying to people who are no longer on this earth is idolatry. By the Catholic's own definition of idolatry.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm

Saints are usually actually an idol (a statue), they are prayed to (not with), they are considered to have performed miracles in order to become saints. They pretty much fit every definition of being assigned divinity and worshiped as can possible be found to anyone actually trying to analyze it without bias.

As for other forms of worship, they kiss the rings of the Popes, while the true leader of the Church, Jesus, was washing the feet of those he led. The Pope sits in the place of honor and is honored on earth as the mouth of God. They rebuilt the hierarchy of the Church of Jesus's time, the one he spoke out against. A hierarchy that permits, excommunicating people from the Church and basically claims to deny people access to Heaven.

Matthew 23 1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

Hmmmmm... Jesus could be describing the leadership of the Catholic Church if I didn't know better.

Part of the idea is that "praying" to saints is ok because we're asking for them to pray for us, not to do things for us. As in
"Saint Francis, can you pray on my behalf that my cat heals from his illness?"
That's more along the lines of what people are ideally supposed to do.

Jesus' definition of a bad hierarchy is accurate, sure. However, can we really say that, for instance, John Paul II was unwilling to go out and help people with his own two hands? He did not hold himself above anyone if I'm to understand how people felt about him. He did his best to be a great humanitarian and leader, nothing more.

Keep in mind that Jesus is also referring to people who are posturing. While there are likely people in the church who are there only for the reason to be "holier than thou", not all persons associated with the clergy are this way.

As for Catholics who pray to statues, that's something they'll have to deal with when they die.

I'm pretty sure the Pope is not the mouth of God. He's not to make religious proclamations, he's there to interpret scripture. He's more or less first among equals.

I would think so, but with dealing with a Diety, it would seem as though "anything is possible".

So, if "God" wanted to reach down and invest some divine power to a recently impregnated woman....how the hell would anyone know any differently?

Making up an "Immaculate conception" however, would make it MUCH easier for the general populace to swallow, certainly.

i would also think that, following the "anything is possible" line of thought, there would be no NEED for Mary to be without "original sin"! i mean, couldn't it be just as miraculous for God to go "Behold, I brought forth a Perfect Being even from the womb of a normal human with normal faults!" ?

ah. that kinda seems like faulty logic to me... i mean, Adam wasn't "perfect" since he sinned, but he was made by the very Hand of God. kinda seems like reverse-step reasoning or something...

oh yeah! and she wasn't a "sin-free vessel" when she had Jesus - even if she was born without "original sin" (another term i might have issues with, but oh well), you don't claim she never sinned until at least after she was 14 or so???

Adam wasn't made to be perfect, would be my understanding, but by taking a bite of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he made himself able to sin. Innocence is a big part of sin. A 6 year old, most people would say (and most societies agree) is unable to commit a true sin. They make mistakes and do bad things, but their understanding of good and evil is incomplete. Thus Adam was innocent until that point.

With Mary, it's hard to judge. Sure, she probably sinned, but there are ways to negate sin. I think the point was that she was born without Original Sin, which is different.

I could be wrong though.

Heh.

About as much as any other religious person.

Wich is to say, "none".

Truthfully, Im not certain, they may have some ancient dusty old manuscipt that "contains the truth" for all I know.

That's not a theory I had heard. ^_^

I was just wondering if there were conflicting accounts, like a Roman soldier kinda came forward and was like "Dude, Jesus is totally MY son."

Or if there were descriptions of Jesus that made him unlike..well..Mary and Joseph? That's an interesting idea, since half of his genes were God's he'd have to have strongly resembled God I would think.

Anywho, thanks for sharing that with me. I totally don't mind alternate histories or theories, I was just wondering if they had some sort of written account or something to back it up.

Interesting to speculate on, I assume most people would be offended by the idea that Jesus could have been born of rape, but I find it an interesting enough idea. :D

i would also think that, following the "anything is possible" line of thought, there would be no NEED for Mary to be without "original sin"! i mean, couldn't it be just as miraculous for God to go "Behold, I brought forth a Perfect Being even from the womb of a normal human with normal faults!" ?

Yah, theres alot surrounding that I just dont get.
Thats why I tend to think that maybe the Roman Soldier thing, might have some truth to it.

I mean, as an Atheist, asking me wich one is m,ore plausible.....thats a no-brainer.

It would explain the NEED for Mary to be "without sin", and have such an "Immaculate Conception".

It adds a necessary element to the story, to have it make any kind of sense at all.

THATS why she and her husband had to leave their home, and travel, THATS why they couldnt have just stayed where they were.

"Saint Francis, can you pray on my behalf that my cat heals from his illness?"
That's more along the lines of what people are ideally supposed to do.

Jesus' definition of a bad hierarchy is accurate, sure. However, can we really say that, for instance, John Paul II was unwilling to go out and help people with his own two hands? He did not hold himself above anyone if I'm to understand how people felt about him. He did his best to be a great humanitarian and leader, nothing more.
er... ideally, i'd think we'd pray to God for our troubles - it's not like he'll get bogged down, the Guy's omnipotent for Pete's sake!

I'm pretty sure the Pope is not the mouth of God. He's not to make religious proclamations, he's there to interpret scripture. He's more or less first among equals.

he's not to make religious proclamations, but he can re-structure the very cosmos? i'm talking about how the Catholic Church within the past few years DID AWAY with limbo (so many African babies were dying of AIDS, i guess they were feeling bad for keeping them from Heaven?)

and why was that? does it have something to do with the fact that, if they said "babies are initially born without sin, and therefore get into Heaven," that'd clash with a few other doctrines, like "original sin"?!

i'm no expert... but i think "maybe".

i would also think that, following the "anything is possible" line of thought, there would be no NEED for Mary to be without "original sin"! i mean, couldn't it be just as miraculous for God to go "Behold, I brought forth a Perfect Being even from the womb of a normal human with normal faults!" ?

I actually like that idea better than Mary being without sin. Makes Jesus more human.

There might be some scriptural reasoning, or it might be canon. I'll ask. :D

And yours are based on a misinterpretation of the scripture. Hers are based in fact. I think I'll take hers.

Care to elaborate on what misinterpretation you're referring to?

Meanwhile, they do venerate Mary. And praying to people who are no longer on this earth is idolatry. By the Catholic's own definition of idolatry.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm

Saints are usually actually an idol (a statue), they are prayed to (not with), they are considered to have performed miracles in order to become saints. They pretty much fit every definition of being assigned divinity and worshiped as can possible be found to anyone actually trying to analyze it without bias.

Read your own source? How exactly do you know that the statues are exclusively prayed to? I've seen it on a rare occasion, but generally the people I've talked who feel they have saintly devotions are inspired by the Sain't life story and/or actions, and feel it draws them closer to Christ.

An essential difference exists between idolatry and the veneration of images practised in the Catholic Church, viz., that while the idolater credits the image he reverences with Divinity or Divine powers, the Catholic knows "that in images there is no divinity or virtue on account of which they are to be worshipped, that no petitions can be addressed to them, and that no trust is to be placed in them. . . that the honour which is given to them is referred to the objects (prototypa) which they represent, so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose likenesses they are" (Conc. find., Sess. XXV, "de invocatione Sanctorum").

----------

As for other forms of worship, they kiss the rings of the Popes, while the true leader of the Church, Jesus, was washing the feet of those he led. The Pope sits in the place of honor and is honored on earth as the mouth of God. They rebuilt the hierarchy of the Church of Jesus's time, the one he spoke out against. A hierarchy that permits, excommunicating people from the Church and basically claims to deny people access to Heaven.

I'm very much in agreement with you on this. I really dislike the condemning trend that has become a part of the Church, and the way the Pope and Bishops are treated with inappropriate regard.

Matthew 23 1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

Hmmmmm... Jesus could be describing the leadership of the Catholic Church if I didn't know better.

Some of them certainly, though I've met some truly holy and sincere and humble ones. That's something that has bothered me about the Church for a long time.

er... ideally, i'd think we'd pray to God for our troubles - it's not like he'll get bogged down, the Guy's omnipotent for Pete's sake!



he's not to make religious proclamations, but he can re-structure the very cosmos? i'm talking about how the Catholic Church within the past few years DID AWAY with limbo (so many African babies were dying of AIDS, i guess they were feeling bad for keeping them from Heaven?)

and why was that? does it have something to do with the fact that, if they said "babies are initially born without sin, and therefore get into Heaven," that'd clash with a few other doctrines, like "original sin"?!

i'm no expert... but i think "maybe".

Being quite honest, purgatory is not in scripture, so the church can decide that it doesn't exist quite suddenly.

Much like their change on their stance about suicide, which is no longer an unforgiveable sin.

My assumption with the removal of purgatory is...well I have no reasons behind that, but I haven't heard they did that either. I've only missed mass for like a year, WHAT ELSE HAVE THEY DONE TO THE CHURCH I LOVED?!

I'mma check up on some of this...

I agree about you with God being omnipotent, but as most Christians believe in group prayer, asking a saint to pray with you is the same as asking family members to pray for your sick cat as well.

THATS why she and her husband had to leave their home, and travel, THATS why they couldnt have just stayed where they were.

no, they had to leave because there was a national census in effect, and Joseph had to go back to his place of birth (Bethlehem).

That's not a theory I had heard. ^_^

I was just wondering if there were conflicting accounts, like a Roman soldier kinda came forward and was like "Dude, Jesus is totally MY son."

I would assume, if it were true, that the soldier didnt care. Not to mention, whos gonna admit to raping a civillian?
There were probably pretty stiff punishments for it, even then.


Or if there were descriptions of Jesus that made him unlike..well..Mary and Joseph? That's an interesting idea, since half of his genes were God's he'd have to have strongly resembled God I would think.

You mean, why Jesus always looks like a Whitey?

Could be.

Or, it could be from Rennaisance painters' sketches of the Shroud of Turin.
AND of course, the probable belief that Jesus SHOULD be white. (to them...I dont mean me).



Anywho, thanks for sharing that with me. I totally don't mind alternate histories or theories, I was just wondering if they had some sort of written account or something to back it up.

Interesting to speculate on, I assume most people would be offended by the idea that Jesus could have been born of rape, but I find it an interesting enough idea. :D

How about Jesus' daughter Sarah?

Or how some folks think he escaped, and sailed to England with Mary Magdeliene?

Or the one that thinks Moses wasnt just a spiritual leader, but a Mercenary General, and THATS why the Pharoah let him go...becuase they werent actually slaves, but hired mercenaries?

That one is actually plausible.

Part of the idea is that "praying" to saints is ok because we're asking for them to pray for us, not to do things for us. As in
"Saint Francis, can you pray on my behalf that my cat heals from his illness?"
That's more along the lines of what people are ideally supposed to do.

Jesus' definition of a bad hierarchy is accurate, sure. However, can we really say that, for instance, John Paul II was unwilling to go out and help people with his own two hands? He did not hold himself above anyone if I'm to understand how people felt about him. He did his best to be a great humanitarian and leader, nothing more.

Keep in mind that Jesus is also referring to people who are posturing. While there are likely people in the church who are there only for the reason to be "holier than thou", not all persons associated with the clergy are this way.

As for Catholics who pray to statues, that's something they'll have to deal with when they die.

I'm pretty sure the Pope is not the mouth of God. He's not to make religious proclamations, he's there to interpret scripture. He's more or less first among equals.


Did you read the Catholic definition of idolatry? It is not limited to statues, regardless of what a simple dictionary definition might say. Saints are held to have a measure of divinity that is above other men. Mary is held to be above even them. She is venerated, by the admission of the Catholic Church. They make excuses to claim that there are 'levels' of worship, but Jesus actually said quite clearly that we are equally in the eyes of the Lord. Praying to St. Augustus is no different than praying to your brother.

One has to close one eye and poke out the other to not see that the Catholic Church created a hierarchy of people while Jesus condemned such an idea.

And the Pope regardless of what acts he performs does NOT humble himself. He wears ceremonial robes and takes the seat of honor and had to do so for decades before ever getting the opportunity to become Pope. While Jues was washing the feet of his followers, people are kissing the ring of the Pope. All I have to say is I know what Jesus had to say about people who get such rewards on earth, do you?

Being quite honest, purgatory is not in scripture, so the church can decide that it doesn't exist quite suddenly.

Much like their change on their stance about suicide, which is no longer an unforgiveable sin.

My assumption with the removal of purgatory is...well I have no reasons behind that, but I haven't heard they did that either. I've only missed mass for like a year, WHAT ELSE HAVE THEY DONE TO THE CHURCH I LOVED?!

I'mma check up on some of this...

I agree about you with God being omnipotent, but as most Christians believe in group prayer, asking a saint to pray with you is the same as asking family members to pray for your sick cat as well.

He said they did away with limbo, not purgatory. I don't have a problem with that even some of the priests I've known have been a little uncomfortable with limbo.

no, they had to leave because there was a national census in effect, and Joseph had to go back to his place of birth (Bethlehem).

Yah, thats what I was always told too.

But, Ive never heard of anyone having to travel a thousand miles, with a nine month pregnant wife, on the back of a donkey.....

Why couldnt the census taker merely counted them where ever they were currently living?!

BUT....if they had to leave becuase Mary was carrying the child of a Roman soldier, and the baby, and the parents, would likely not be very welcomed ibn the community anymore......that would make more sense to me.

I would assume, if it were true, that the soldier didnt care. Not to mention, whos gonna admit to raping a civillian?
There were probably pretty stiff punishments for it, even then.



You mean, why Jesus always looks like a Whitey?

Could be.

Or, it could be from Rennaisance painters' sketches of the Shroud of Turin.
AND of course, the probable belief that Jesus SHOULD be white. (to them...I dont mean me).




How about Jesus' daughter Sarah?

Or how some folks think he escaped, and sailed to England with Mary Magdeliene?

Or the one that thinks Moses wasnt just a spiritual leader, but a Mercenary General, and THATS why the Pharoah let him go...becuase they werent actually slaves, but hired mercenaries?

That one is actually plausible.

I am being 100% honest here.
I don't think Jesus was white. IT WOULD BE FRICKIN' RIDICULOUS.
Jesus was as black as any one else there, or Arabic looking at the very least.

Moving on.

Now that you mention it, admitting to raping a woman would probably get a legionnaire a helluva lotta trouble. The Romans were quite good with their military. (Thanks Captain Obvious (Me)).

I read the Da Vinci code. Interesting enough for me, a few logical flaws... Can you give me some references where I could read up on Moses being a mercenary?

I'm totally open to all these ideas, I just want to do some reading for myself.

Yah, thats what I was always told too.

But, Ive never heard of anyone having to travel a thousand miles, with a nine month pregnant wife, on the back of a donkey.....

Why couldnt the census taker merely counted them where ever they were currently living?!

BUT....if they had to leave becuase Mary was carrying the child of a Roman soldier, and the baby, and the parents, would likely not be very welcomed ibn the community anymore......that would make more sense to me.

Because the Romans were dicks?;) :p

He said they did away with limbo, not purgatory. I don't have a problem with that even some of the priests I've known have been a little uncomfortable with limbo.

Ahhh limbo not purgatory. I was going to ask the distinction then realized it myself.

Hmm...I haven't asked any priests about this, I'll get back to you.

Being quite honest, purgatory is not in scripture, so the church can decide that it doesn't exist quite suddenly.
.

i'm not talking about purgatory, i'm takling about limbo.

although you're right, they're not in scripture... though they're both "places" deigned existant by the catholic church, and limbo has since been, well un-existant

Did you read the Catholic definition of idolatry? It is not limited to statues, regardless of what a simple dictionary definition might say. Saints are held to have a measure of divinity that is above other men. Mary is held to be above even them. She is venerated, by the admission of the Catholic Church. They make excuses to claim that there are 'levels' of worship, but Jesus actually said quite clearly that we are equally in the eyes of the Lord. Praying to St. Augustus is no different than praying to your brother.

One has to close one eye and poke out the other to not see that the Catholic Church created a hierarchy of people while Jesus condemned such an idea.

And the Pope regardless of what acts he performs does NOT humble himself. He wears ceremonial robes and takes the seat of honor and had to do so for decades before ever getting the opportunity to become Pope. While Jues was washing the feet of his followers, people are kissing the ring of the Pope. All I have to say is I know what Jesus had to say about people who get such rewards on earth, do you?

Leaders are always going to be perceived as "above" anyone else in the structure, that's how it is. Sure he wears ceremonial robes. Name a religion without some sort of special dress that shows you who is what.

I see your point about Jesus though, but let's not forget his feet were washed by other people just as often. I wouldn't mind seeing the Pope take a knee and wash someone's feet though.

Being Catholic, I've got a pretty good idea of what idolatry is. There's still nothing wrong with asking a saint to pray for you. The reason why we remember and honor saints is because THEIR FAITH WAS SO STRONG THEY WERE GRANTED THE ABILITY TO WORK MIRACLES.

They were regular joes like the rest of us, but had so much faith they worked the impossible, which is why they are remembered.

Care to elaborate on what misinterpretation you're referring to?

Hmmm... let's see. Well, there's your misinterpretation of what Catholics are doing and that it's supported by scripture. Your reference to Pauline scripture as the teachings of Christ or, well, pretty much everything you've typed.

Read your own source? How exactly do you know that the statues are exclusively prayed to? I've seen it on a rare occasion, but generally the people I've talked who feel they have saintly devotions are inspired by the Sain't life story and/or actions, and feel it draws them closer to Christ.

I should read my source. Let's see what it says in THE FIRST LINE - "Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God."

Gosh, I sure am glad I bothered to read the first sentence where it says it applies to MORE than just the worship of a statue.


----------



I'm very much in agreement with you on this. I really dislike the condemning trend that has become a part of the Church, and the way the Pope and Bishops are treated with inappropriate regard.



Some of them certainly, though I've met some truly holy and sincere and humble ones. That's something that has bothered me about the Church for a long time.

And that's the form of idolatry she is referring to. The significance of idolatry, by the very doctrine of the Catholic Church, extends beyond just images (which praying to statues of the saints, something that is a Catholic practice) and is what Smunkee was referring to. But hey, who said you have to understand what you're talking about or the context of the argument. Keep talking out your behind. Perhaps only I will notice.

I read the Da Vinci code. Interesting enough for me, a few logical flaws... Can you give me some references where I could read up on Moses being a mercenary?

I'm totally open to all these ideas, I just want to do some reading for myself.

Yes.

The History Channel had a documentary on the very subject a couple of months ago.'

(Thats where I first learned of it)

They may even have a link to the very show. Its probably availalble on DVD.

It was interesting, even tried to explain that the column of fire that was referenced was a decoy, to throw Pharoahs troops off the trail, and Moses people turned south.

Like a smokescreen....

i'm not talking about purgatory, i'm takling about limbo.

although you're right, they're not in scripture... though they're both "places" deigned existant by the catholic church, and limbo has since been, well un-existant


Gotcha. I'll ask someone to explain it to me, though it could easily be what someone else mentioned...awkward in regards to original sin. Although, it could be something else altogether.

Ahhh limbo not purgatory. I was going to ask the distinction then realized it myself.

Hmm...I haven't asked any priests about this, I'll get back to you.

i forget when exactly it was, but i remember seeing it on yahoo news... and my jaw flat-out dropped.

Yes.

The History Channel had a documentary on the very subject a couple of months ago.'

(Thats where I first learned of it)

They may even have a link to the very show. Its probably availalble on DVD.

It was interesting, even tried to explain that the column of fire that was referenced was a decoy, to throw Pharoahs troops off the trail, and Moses people turned south.

Like a smokescreen....

Cool, I'll look that up when I have a spare moment between working a shitty job and going to classes. :D

i forget when exactly it was, but i remember seeing it on yahoo news... and my jaw flat-out dropped.

Kinda strange to get rid of it. One of my reasons for becoming Catholic was the idea that virtuous non-Christians could get into heaven by way of purgatory...if they change that, then there's no dice. I don't believe in good people going to hell, no matter what.

Leaders are always going to be perceived as "above" anyone else in the structure, that's how it is. Sure he wears ceremonial robes. Name a religion without some sort of special dress that shows you who is what.

I see your point about Jesus though, but let's not forget his feet were washed by other people just as often. I wouldn't mind seeing the Pope take a knee and wash someone's feet though.

It's not just how it is. It's a practice that was wholly condemned by Jesus Christ. I'd say that the Church that claims to be His Church regularly conducts itself in a way that Jesus condemned is worrisome, but, hey, that's just me. Jesus made a point of humbling himself. This is not something regularly present in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

As far as a religion that has not special dress or hierarchy. How about... dun, dun, dun... Christianity? Basic Christianity. My religion. In my religion, there is no hierarchy, just the worshippers and the worshipped. God, and his Son, are the worshipped and we, ALL of us, are the worshippers. We are all equal according to the Christ. I'm not in the habit of telling Him He's wrong. Are you?

Being Catholic, I've got a pretty good idea of what idolatry is. There's still nothing wrong with asking a saint to pray for you. The reason why we remember and honor saints is because THEIR FAITH WAS SO STRONG THEY WERE GRANTED THE ABILITY TO WORK MIRACLES.

They were regular joes like the rest of us, but had so much faith they worked the impossible, which is why they are remembered.


You mean Catholicism doesn't admit to idolatry? Really? I'm shocked since they consider it to be the greatest of sins. Of course, you justify it. It doesn't make you any less of an idolator.

Yes, the reason why you worship the Saints is because they are more Divine than regular men. I understand.

Hmmm... let's see. Well, there's your misinterpretation of what Catholics are doing and that it's supported by scripture. Your reference to Pauline scripture as the teachings of Christ or, well, pretty much everything you've typed.



I should read my source. Let's see what it says in THE FIRST LINE - "Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God."

Gosh, I sure am glad I bothered to read the first sentence where it says it applies to MORE than just the worship of a statue.




And that's the form of idolatry she is referring to. The significance of idolatry, by the very doctrine of the Catholic Church, extends beyond just images (which praying to statues of the saints, something that is a Catholic practice) and is what Smunkee was referring to. But hey, who said you have to understand what you're talking about or the context of the argument. Keep talking out your behind. Perhaps only I will notice.
You relize the source says Dvine Worship correct, which is diferent than the veneration of the saints, the terms the church uses are latria for the worship of God (i.e. divine worship), dulia for the veneration of the saints, and hyperdulia for the veneration of Mary. You see it seems that a lot of church dogma was not for some reason originally written/devised in english and thus the words that are utilized by english speaking Catholics sometimes are given additional meanings so that they fit the meaning of those words.

It was interesting, even tried to explain that the column of fire that was referenced was a decoy, to throw Pharoahs troops off the trail, and Moses people turned south.

heh, i remember a show a while back that contemplated the possiblility of alien ships doing much of the things attributed to god: pillar of smoke/fire = ship kicking up dust/firing rocket boosters; the Nephilim ("giants" or "sons of God") = human-like aliens (or possibly the "original stock" that we diverged from); the Chariot of Fire that swept up Elija = abduction (i think Enoch was the name of the only other person mentioned in the Bible to never have "died," i.e., they were "taken to be with God")

a lot of it (okay, most) sounds pretty far-fetched, but it was still a fascinating show all the same :)

Kinda strange to get rid of it. One of my reasons for becoming Catholic was the idea that virtuous non-Christians could get into heaven by way of purgatory...if they change that, then there's no dice. I don't believe in good people going to hell, no matter what.

Funny isnt it?

The Gospel of Peter says that he asked went to Jesus with the very same concerns, and that Jesus tells him that EVERYONE ends up in Heaven, eventually.
However, it also says that everyone goes to Hell, even if for just a little while.

He also tells Peter not to go around telling everyone this, because it might make people think they can sin willy-nilly.

Any wonder that the Church didnt like that book?

It's not just how it is. It's a practice that was wholly condemned by Jesus Christ. I'd say that the Church that claims to be His Church regularly conducts itself in a way that Jesus condemned is worrisome, but, hey, that's just me. Jesus made a point of humbling himself. This is not something regularly present in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

As far as a religion that has not special dress or hierarchy. How about... dun, dun, dun... Christianity? Basic Christianity. My religion. In my religion, there is no hierarchy, just the worshippers and the worshipped. God, and his Son, are the worshipped and we, ALL of us, are the worshippers. We are all equal according to the Christ. I'm not in the habit of telling Him He's wrong. Are you?




You mean Catholicism doesn't admit to idolatry? Really? I'm shocked since they consider it to be the greatest of sins. Of course, you justify it. It doesn't make you any less of an idolator.

Yes, the reason why you worship the Saints is because they are more Divine than regular men. I understand.

Doesn't admit to idolatry? When did I say that? I've been saying that the stance on it is asking someone to pray for you is not the same as worshipping them.

No one is better than anyone else, even in the Church's eyes. Were you aware that no one has ever been pronounced evil and in hell officially? That the current stance is that Hell is currently empty?

Are you aware of the distinction between asking people to pray for you and worshipping them?

Do you believe in miracles? That the most faithful are able to perform them?

I'm not going to say you do or don't believe in these things, I'm just asking questions. However, since you decided to shove a bunch of crap in my mouth and then accuse me of spewing it, I'm not much interested in talk to you.

It's not just how it is. It's a practice that was wholly condemned by Jesus Christ. I'd say that the Church that claims to be His Church regularly conducts itself in a way that Jesus condemned is worrisome, but, hey, that's just me. Jesus made a point of humbling himself. This is not something regularly present in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

As far as a religion that has not special dress or hierarchy. How about... dun, dun, dun... Christianity? Basic Christianity. My religion. In my religion, there is no hierarchy, just the worshippers and the worshipped. God, and his Son, are the worshipped and we, ALL of us, are the worshippers. We are all equal according to the Christ. I'm not in the habit of telling Him He's wrong. Are you?


You know in addition to saying people should be humble Jesus also made a point of say that one should not judge others its nice to see that you follow that about as well as you follow his call not to make a big deal about how much holier one is than ones neighbor.

Funny isnt it?

The Gospel of Peter says that he asked went to Jesus with the very same concerns, and that Jesus tells him that EVERYONE ends up in Heaven, eventually.
However, it also says that everyone goes to Hell, even if for just a little while.

He also tells Peter not to go around telling everyone this, because it might make people think they can sin willy-nilly.

Any wonder that the Church didnt like that book?

Cool! I didn't know that about my gospel, perhaps I should re-read my Bible. ^_^

Funny isnt it?

The Gospel of Peter says that he asked went to Jesus with the very same concerns, and that Jesus tells him that EVERYONE ends up in Heaven, eventually.
However, it also says that everyone goes to Hell, even if for just a little while.

He also tells Peter not to go around telling everyone this, because it might make people think they can sin willy-nilly.

Any wonder that the Church didnt like that book?
You mean that it told something Jesus specifically said shouldn't be told?

Kinda strange to get rid of it. One of my reasons for becoming Catholic was the idea that virtuous non-Christians could get into heaven by way of purgatory...if they change that, then there's no dice. I don't believe in good people going to hell, no matter what.

again, it WAS NOT purgatory!!! limbo was done away with. the place where dead newborns supposedly go, not the place where "basically good non-christians" go:mad: :mad: :mad:

hehe... i'm actually getting a laugh from all the confusion, to be honest :p

again, it WAS NOT purgatory!!! limbo was done away with. the place where dead newborns supposedly go, not the place where "basically good non-christians" go:mad: :mad: :mad:

hehe... i'm actually getting a laugh from all the confusion, to be honest :p

I was aware he didn't mean purgatory a few posts back, I was just relating one of the reasons I became a Catholic.

Limbo...for dah poor dead babies. :(

again, it WAS NOT purgatory!!! limbo was done away with. the place where dead newborns supposedly go, not the place where "basically good non-christians" go:mad: :mad: :mad:

hehe... i'm actually getting a laugh from all the confusion, to be honest :p

Purgatory is where everyone goes that is getting into heaven, not just good non-christians, they do pennance there to attone first.

You mean that it told something Jesus specifically said shouldn't be told?

lol, touche!

i believe there was a brief mention of something like that was in Revelation...:p

Purgatory is where everyone goes that is getting into heaven, not just good non-christians, they do pennance there to attone first.

ah, my bad. i forgot that first part of the definition i was reading.

but still... purgatory is still around, limbo is not (according to catholics)

ah, my bad. i forgot that first part of the definition i was reading.

but still... purgatory is still around, limbo is not (according to catholics)

My assumption would be then that babies get defaulted to purgatory then, instead of limbo. Which, in the end, is kinda more in line with what purgatory is all about.

You mean that it told something Jesus specifically said shouldn't be told?

I did always think that was a wee-bit self-defeating.....

I did always think that was a wee-bit self-defeating.....

Don't question GOD. If he tells you something and then tells you to not tell anyone else what he told you, you'd better not tell anyone what he told you not to tell them.

Amirite? ;)

Don't question GOD. If he tells you something and then tells you to not tell anyone else what he told you, you'd better not tell anyone what he told you not to tell them.

Amirite? ;)

The chalice from the palace holds the pestle with the posion, and the flagon with the dragon is the brew that is true?

This religion stuff is hard....

My assumption would be then that babies get defaulted to purgatory then, instead of limbo. Which, in the end, is kinda more in line with what purgatory is all about.

either way, that's not the point of what i was mentioning. that the catholic church CREATED then NULLIFIED an entire state of existance... that's kinda a big thing ;)

The chalice from the palace holds the pestle with the posion, and the flagon with the dragon is the brew that is true?

This religion stuff is hard....

>BRAINMELT<

>BRAINMELT<

Eeeexcellent.

One down.....so many to go...

The chalice from the palace holds the pestle with the posion, and the flagon with the dragon is the brew that is true?

This religion stuff is hard....

Damn, I know I've heard that before, but I can't remember where:confused:

It's not just how it is. It's a practice that was wholly condemned by Jesus Christ. I'd say that the Church that claims to be His Church regularly conducts itself in a way that Jesus condemned is worrisome, but, hey, that's just me. Jesus made a point of humbling himself. This is not something regularly present in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

As far as a religion that has not special dress or hierarchy. How about... dun, dun, dun... Christianity? Basic Christianity. My religion. In my religion, there is no hierarchy, just the worshippers and the worshipped. God, and his Son, are the worshipped and we, ALL of us, are the worshippers. We are all equal according to the Christ. I'm not in the habit of telling Him He's wrong. Are you?

You’re not in the habit of actually reading the words of Christ yourself, or so it would seem. Where did you get the idea that Christ had anything against the existence of Hierarchy? He, subservient to God, and likewise others subservient to him, others in places of first to last. "He who would be first will be last, he who is last will be first," or, "First to the Jews" Or, setting Peter above the others, Or, saying John was the greatest of all the old prophets but that all future believers would be greater than him still... There is certainly a diagram of hierarchy that could be drawn with the lessons from Christ’s own mouth.

Christ is always talking about hierarchy, your idea that there is no hierarchy on earth might be supported a little bit with some of Paul's writings, about our position with each other in God’s eyes, but Christ himself said that if you want to be first you must make yourself last/least, he never said that there was no such thing as first and last, as you suggest. He said lots of positions and different rewards for different things.

Yes, the reason why you worship the Saints is because they are more Divine than regular men. I understand.

Your sarcasm is telling. He told you straight up that they talk to a dead Christian/saint to ask them to pray for them, and since the catholic person praying for prayers are in fact Christians, they believe in eternal life in Christ and thus the saint they are talking to can't be "dead," in as much as they must be alive, somewhere. So, they ask them to help them pray for a particular need. I am not a catholic and I am not defending their practice per-se, but your accusation against them simply comes across as bitter and mean spirited, something Christ most certainly did NOT suggest that you should do when talking to a brother in Christ about reproaching their behavior or trying to give them guidance and direction. You should work on that.

Damn, I know I've heard that before, but I can't remember where:confused:

You have.

Danny Kaye I think?

You’re not in the habit of actually reading the words of Christ yourself, or so it would seem. Where did you get the idea that Christ had anything against the existence of Hierarchy? He, subservient to God, and likewise others subservient to him, others in places of first to last. "He who would be first will be last, he who is last will be first," or, "First to the Jews" Or, setting Peter above the others, Or, saying John was the greatest of all the old prophets but that all future believers would be greater than him still... There is certainly a diagram of hierarchy that could be drawn with the lessons from Christ’s own mouth.

Christ is always talking about hierarchy, your idea that there is no hierarchy on earth might be supported a little bit with some of Paul's writings, about our position with each other in God’s eyes, but Christ himself said that if you want to be first you must make yourself last/least, he never said that there was no such thing as first and last, as you suggest. He said lots of positions and different rewards for different things.



Your sarcasm is telling. He told you straight up that they talk to a dead Christian/saint to ask them to pray for them, and since the catholic person praying for prayers are in fact Christians, they believe in eternal life in Christ and thus the saint they are talking to can't be "dead," in as much as they must be alive, somewhere. So, they ask them to help them pray for a particular need. I am not a catholic and I am not defending their practice per-se, but your accusation against them simply comes across as bitter and mean spirited, something Christ most certainly did NOT suggest that you should do when talking to a brother in Christ about reproaching their behavior or trying to give them and direction. You should work on that.

...
...
...
<3

You have.

Danny Kaye I think?

Ah, yeah in The Court Jester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Court_Jester)

In my opinion (as a Christian) going to Church is crucial. If you look at the early days of christianity, the church's were large and growing. I believe that fellowship with believers is very important and church is definately one way to do that. Don't get me wrong, there are human beings in churches, and as human beings we tend to do stupid things. Being part of a church doesn't mean we won't get hurt by others, but being a Christian isn't for perfect people its for broken and hurting people, so that we can lean on eachother and grow closer to and trust God
If you want to read more on early churches, Read up on Acts, Romans and most of the books after the gospels in the New Testement. The apostles did amazing things to keep church's alive

Ah, yeah in The Court Jester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Court_Jester)

Ding! Ding!

You’re not in the habit of actually reading the words of Christ yourself, or so it would seem. Where did you get the idea that Christ had anything against the existence of Hierarchy? He, subservient to God, and likewise others subservient to him, others in places of first to last. "He who would be first will be last, he who is last will be first," or, "First to the Jews" Or, setting Peter above the others, Or, saying John was the greatest of all the old prophets but that all future believers would be greater than him still... There is certainly a diagram of hierarchy that could be drawn with the lessons from Christ’s own mouth.

Christ is always talking about hierarchy, your idea that there is no hierarchy on earth might be supported a little bit with some of Paul's writings, about our position with each other in God’s eyes, but Christ himself said that if you want to be first you must make yourself last/least, he never said that there was no such thing as first and last, as you suggest. He said lots of positions and different rewards for different things.

HA. Amusing. I didn't say ALL hierarchies. I am talking about this specific hiearchy. Now, let's if it can be drawn, why don't you show it IN CHRIST'S WORDS.

I'll show where he says we are ALL equal.

Matthew 23:"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.


Yep, I guess I didn't read right there where he says in clear and obvious language that we are to call no one father, rabbi or teacher because in the ways of the spirit we are all equal. There goes me countering your claims about scripture that used no ACTUAL scripture with actual scripture. Perhaps if you just accuse me of not reading it, no one will notice the ignorance of such an act on your part.



Your sarcasm is telling. He told you straight up that they talk to a dead Christian/saint to ask them to pray for them, and since the catholic person praying for prayers are in fact Christians, they believe in eternal life in Christ and thus the saint they are talking to can't be "dead," in as much as they must be alive, somewhere. So, they ask them to help them pray for a particular need. I am not a catholic and I am not defending their practice per-se, but your accusation against them simply comes across as bitter and mean spirited, something Christ most certainly did NOT suggest that you should do when talking to a brother in Christ about reproaching their behavior or trying to give them guidance and direction. You should work on that.

Amusing. Have you read the words of Christ. He wasn't particularly tolerant of the same behavior I'm not particularly tolerant of. But, hey, when telling me how to be a Christian why bother to talk about the behavior of Christ. Just make things up instead.

My sarcarsm is for my amusement. I'm not being mean-spirited. He's wrong. We're debating. Pointing out that he's wrong is a part of debating. He came here and involved himself in debate, so I'd assume that he knew that being told how and why he is wrong is a part of that practice and nothing I've done is outside of the spirit of the discussion.

Meanwhile, you make out like the fact that he made an argument makes it necessarily true. It's not. The behavior is by definition worship. It's idolatry. I pointed out how his statement is just verbal trickery. It's a fairly common debate tactic.

Now do you have an argument or did you just come here to tell me I'm mean.

Damn, I know I've heard that before, but I can't remember where:confused:

The Princess Bride?

HA. Amusing. I didn't say ALL hierarchies. I am talking about this specific hiearchy. Now, let's if it can be drawn, why don't you show it IN CHRIST'S WORDS...

Ah, so NOW you say you didn't really mean what you said, not entirely anyway, only against this particular group you don’t like. But lets see, first you actually quote Jesus where he says the ranking system of the first and the last, and the first should humble themselves in order to be first. You hope to point out that the Catholics must be wrong for no real reason other than because they call their church leaders Father? Yet you have not shown how they are not worthy. If the Pope humbles himself and makes himself a servant to others, he meets the first requirements of that quote to be called first, by the verse/quote YOU posted there is no reason to say the Pope can’t be first.

Here's another one for seeing what Jesus taught and liked and disliked, Matthew 8:
7Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

8The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

This example gives us many things, such as, Jesus ‘approval’ of people creating and acknowledging institutions of authority, of one person over another etc., AND it clearly shows us that some people will be rated as ‘higher’ than others, even when it comes to Heaven itself, with the guests at the feast being thrown out to make room for new arrivals. Jesus was clearly NOT anti-institutions of Authority, and the Church would fall under that description/definition, whether they call their leaders Father, Minister, Preacher, Monk, or some other title to meet with your approval. You seem to have misunderstood Jesus intention with the leadership teaching. Do you want to pretend that Jesus always objected to being called rabbi? Or rather, Jesus intends the message to mean that if the spiritual leader does NOT point to God for all the glory and praise and in all things, then that leader is not to be followed.


Amusing. Have you read the words of Christ. He wasn't particularly tolerant of the same behavior I'm not particularly tolerant of. But, hey, when telling me how to be a Christian why bother to talk about the behavior of Christ. Just make things up instead.

My sarcarsm is for my amusement. I'm not being mean-spirited. He's wrong. We're debating. Pointing out that he's wrong is a part of debating. He came here and involved himself in debate, so I'd assume that he knew that being told how and why he is wrong is a part of that practice and nothing I've done is outside of the spirit of the discussion.


Lets all re-read the first paragraph of yours there... then re-read the second paragraph again. Then compare it to the verse you quoted previously, especially the part where Jesus says "do as they say, not as they do," because you are doing that. You are acting badly and pretending that it is right.


Now do you have an argument or did you just come here to tell me I'm mean.

I came here and showed you a mirror, you are actively and meanly accusing others of being bad Christians and saying that they are doing things Christ said not to do, but you are equally guilty of that sin and you even boast of doing so for your own amusement. If you don’t like the mirror, don’t look at it. The others here can see what you are doing and measure your behavior and tone and see for themselves who is NOT acting Christ like in their condemnation of other Christians.

Ah, so NOW you say you didn't really mean what you said, not entirely anyway, only against this particular group you don’t like. But lets see, first you actually quote Jesus where he says the ranking system of the first and the last, and the first should humble themselves in order to be first. You hope to point out that the Catholics must be wrong for no real reason other than because they call their church leaders Father? Yet you have not shown how they are not worthy. If the Pope humbles himself and makes himself a servant to others, he meets the first requirements of that quote to be called first, by the verse/quote YOU posted there is no reason to say the Pope can’t be first.

Well, let's begin with the FACT that you're confused. I did not quote that passage. Second, that passage is about an order being called into Heaven. It has nothing to do with a hierarchy. Also, it's a call for humility, it's not an argument for ranking. It's a metaphor. Why would anyone care what order they were called into Heaven, really, as long as they got there? However, one would care about not valuing humility in the same Jesus does.

And I'm not saying I didn't mean what I said. I said specifically that I was talking about a Church hierarchy. I was clear. You just seem to have a little trouble keeping what I say and your fantasies separate.

Now, back to the Pope. Are you claiming the Pope doesn't take the seat of honor at every banquet? Doesn't love to pray in synogogues? Doesn't wear ornate robes? Are you claiming the rest of the Catholic hierachy doesn't do all of those things? And did Jesus condemn the Chuch leaders of his day for doing exactly those things? Yep. I haven't condemned the Pope or the Catholic Church. I just happen to have two open eyes. And it's impossible to not notice the similarities.



Here's another one for seeing what Jesus taught and liked and disliked, Matthew 8:
7Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

8The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

This example gives us many things, such as, Jesus ‘approval’ of people creating and acknowledging institutions of authority, of one person over another etc., AND it clearly shows us that some people will be rated as ‘higher’ than others, even when it comes to Heaven itself, with the guests at the feast being thrown out to make room for new arrivals. Jesus was clearly NOT anti-institutions of Authority, and the Church would fall under that description/definition, whether they call their leaders Father, Minister, Preacher, Monk, or some other title to meet with your approval. You seem to have misunderstood Jesus intention with the leadership teaching. Do you want to pretend that Jesus always objected to being called rabbi? Or rather, Jesus intends the message to mean that if the spiritual leader does NOT point to God for all the glory and praise and in all things, then that leader is not to be followed.

First, Jesus treated civil authority much differently than religious authority. But then you knew that, no? Second, it is talking METAPHORICALLY about people getting in or being left out, not about creating a hierarchy in the Church where he gave specific direction about all men being equal. Third, you again try to make a general argument about authority when I was talking specifically about creating such authority in the Church. Something Jesus spent his life condemning. Fourth, I wasn't talking about the fact they call their leaders "Father". I was talking about the same thing Jesus was talking about, that in matters of the faith, we are all equal. And in the Catholic Church this is not the case. Fifth, Jesus never praises or even accepts that even the civil hierarchy is necessary or desired. He simply doesn't condemn the soldier who is a part of it, because of his great faith. It's an endorsement of having faith, not of hierarchies. But, hey, they're only the words of Jesus, feel free to lie about what they say if you have a free moment.




Lets all re-read the first paragraph of yours there... then re-read the second paragraph again. Then compare it to the verse you quoted previously, especially the part where Jesus says "do as they say, not as they do," because you are doing that. You are acting badly and pretending that it is right.

Ha. Again, amusing. What verse did I quote where it says "do as they say, not as they do"? I've quoted Matthew 23 and Matthew 6. Please show where that appears in those passages. I'll wait. Honestly, I think you're having a little problem reading here. That's twice you claimed I quoted something I didn't.

Meanwhile, I'm not acting badly. I'm showing with all vigor the behavior of the modern hypocrites. With the same level of vigor, that Jesus used. I'm quite certain people in his day thought he was 'acting badly' as well.



I came here and showed you a mirror, you are actively and meanly accusing others of being bad Christians and saying that they are doing things Christ said not to do, but you are equally guilty of that sin and you even boast of doing so for your own amusement. If you don’t like the mirror, don’t look at it. The others here can see what you are doing and measure your behavior and tone and see for themselves who is NOT acting Christ like in their condemnation of other Christians.

Mirrors are honest. They show us what we look like. They don't make dishonest accusations, bastardize passages of the Bible, claim people said things they didn't, etc. Calling yourself a mirror doesn't make you one. You haven't said anything true since you've arrived. Your claims about what certain passages say, don't match the text. Your claims about what I've said doesn't match my text. Your claims about Jesus doesn't match the behavior of Jesus. Your claims about me don't match my behavior. A mirror? Ha.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm pointing out what is abundantly clear. That Catholic Church's behavior is clearly reminiscent of the same behavior Christ was speaking out against. Again, it's a debate. I've proven my argument. If that upsets you, well, I don't know what to tell you, little buddy.

Do you have any better argument than "if people don't like what you have to say then you're wrong to say it" and dishonest claims about what I've said? You come here and you take passages of the Bible and try to claim they mean other than they say. I post passages that clearly condemn certain behaviors, in clear language. You claim that my passages mean something other than what they say and that dishonestly claim I've said things I haven't. I really hope you have a better argument than this.

And if you don't like debate. This probably isn't a place you'll enjoy.

Meanwhile, I'm not actually condemning anyone. It's not my place. These are only some activities engaged in as part of very complicated lives. I don't know how Jesus will judge such people. I only know how he will judge these activities and only because he told us. I'm am condemning the institution. The people within the institution, creating it, holding it up, I think will answer for such behavior, but since our judgement is based on things few us will ever begin to understand, I can only talk about the specific behavior condemned by Jesus in explicit language.

I cannot see inside the hearts of men. I am condemning an institution that reverted back to many of the Jewish practices that were condemned by Jesus openly. I'm not throwing stones. I'm throwing quotes from Jesus in context that were an argument he was making against the format of the Church and the behavior of the members of the institution in general. The same type of format and the same type of behavior we see within the Catholic hierarchy today.

You're argument is equivalent to suggesting that Christians cannot ever argue for a better Church because according to you to do so would be un-Christian. However, I can't imagine a more Christ-like behavior than exposing and speaking out against corruption in the Church. (Actually, I can. Many of them. But it is a behavior Jesus engaged in frequently and with great vigor.)

woah, wait a minute: what's this about her being born without original sin? i mean, i know the Bible mentions her being specially chosen or "favorite among women" or something like that, but how was her exit from a womb any different from yours or mine?? (unless you were a C-Section baby, that is :D )

The Catholic Church in ancient times (before they understood basic biology) thought that Original Sin could be passed on in two ways. (1) By the seed of a man and (2) By passage through the birth canal. Christ had to be born without Original Sin, and thus had to be born without the seed of a man. He also, however, could not pass through a corrupted birth canal. As such, Mary's birth canal had to be completely pure - virginal and devoid of the Original Sin she should have gotten from her own father. A few bishops put forth the idea that, perhaps, Jesus did not pass through the birth canal at all, but sprung from Mary's side. This idea was, however, rejected. As such, Mary was declared the product of Immaculate Conception herself - born without Original Sin. Of course, the Church failed to take the logical next step, which would be to declare Mary's mother an Immaculate conception as well. Otherwise, Mary would have picked up Original Sin by passing through her birth canal. And so on....

Basically, for the idea to work, every woman in Mary's line all the way back to the beginning would have had to be born of an immaculate conception, but the Church has never followed it back that far. They simply left the question of how Mary didn't get Original Sin during her own birth unanswered....

And the Pope regardless of what acts he performs does NOT humble himself. He wears ceremonial robes and takes the seat of honor and had to do so for decades before ever getting the opportunity to become Pope. While Jues was washing the feet of his followers, people are kissing the ring of the Pope. All I have to say is I know what Jesus had to say about people who get such rewards on earth, do you?

Not to mention that the Catholic Church tracing popes back to Peter is nothing but a blatant rewrite of history. It was fairly late in church history that the bishop of Rome began to take on more power than other bishops of the five major Sees. One of the "popes" listed in the Catholic Church's list of popes specifically wrote to another bishop that they should *not* call him pope - that he had no more power or authority than they. He, at least, seemed fairly humble. As time went on, however, the Roman bishops began to see themselves as authorities over all other bishops (hardly humble). Some went along with it, and others didn't. This divide was one of that major differences in the schism that formed the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

You know in addition to saying people should be humble Jesus also made a point of say that one should not judge others its nice to see that you follow that about as well as you follow his call not to make a big deal about how much holier one is than ones neighbor.

I'm not judging people. I'm judging an institution that teaches in contradiction to the words of Jesus, himself, and that resurrected the very practices Jesus sought to destroy. This is about the institution. I have no idea where the individual people in the Catholic Church will end up. You'll notice, for example, I have not mentioned a single Pope or Bishop, but rather the positions, in the same way Jesus discussed the institution of the Church. This isn't about the people in the positions of the nature of the Church itself.

Not to mention that the Catholic Church tracing popes back to Peter is nothing but a blatant rewrite of history. It was fairly late in church history that the bishop of Rome began to take on more power than other bishops of the five major Sees. One of the "popes" listed in the Catholic Church's list of popes specifically wrote to another bishop that they should *not* call him pope - that he had no more power or authority than they. He, at least, seemed fairly humble. As time went on, however, the Roman bishops began to see themselves as authorities over all other bishops (hardly humble). Some went along with it, and others didn't. This divide was one of that major differences in the schism that formed the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Shhh... pointing out facts that people don't like is un-Christ-like.

Doesn't admit to idolatry? When did I say that? I've been saying that the stance on it is asking someone to pray for you is not the same as worshipping them.

No one is better than anyone else, even in the Church's eyes. Were you aware that no one has ever been pronounced evil and in hell officially? That the current stance is that Hell is currently empty?

Are you aware of the distinction between asking people to pray for you and worshipping them?

Do you believe in miracles? That the most faithful are able to perform them?

I'm not going to say you do or don't believe in these things, I'm just asking questions. However, since you decided to shove a bunch of crap in my mouth and then accuse me of spewing it, I'm not much interested in talk to you.

Your choice. However, the fact is that one can change the terms all they like. They are just language games. Meanwhile, saints are made so by performing miracles, divine acts not explainable by nature, and are prayed to (according to the Catholic Church) are the subject of reverence and an are considered to be above other humans (and if that's not in divinity, what is it?). Sainthood is worshipping men even if they are not placed at the same level as God or Jesus. You can play with the terms, but the actions are still what they are.

You made an argument that the Catholic Church doesn't admit it's idolatry. Of course, they don't. However, they do define idolatry and what it in essence condemns and they do define the practice of praying TO saints (not WITH them). They do define all of the terms and when one does an unbiased analysis, they violate their own definitions.

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

The Bible doesn't say a thing about not going to "church." (Nevermind that technically "church" is an assembly of people not a building.) Nor did Jesus say anything specific. As a Roman Catholic, attending on Sundays and holy days of obligation is a precept of the church, and there is a lot of things in the Bible about how it is important to follow the successors of those who Jesus appointed, although at the same time warning not to place those precepts over divine commandments. (In other words, given a choice between helping a dying man or going to church, you choose the former every time.)

You relize the source says Dvine Worship correct, which is diferent than the veneration of the saints, the terms the church uses are latria for the worship of God (i.e. divine worship), dulia for the veneration of the saints, and hyperdulia for the veneration of Mary. You see it seems that a lot of church dogma was not for some reason originally written/devised in english and thus the words that are utilized by english speaking Catholics sometimes are given additional meanings so that they fit the meaning of those words.

Yes, they play word games. However, when you assign Divine acts to saints, place them above other humans and pray to them, that meets the definition of Divine worship. They call it something else as a work around to the concept, but the point is that there is only one you should pray to according to Jesus and it ain't St. Augustus.

Yes, that since they started 'venerating' Saints they used leveled words to get around the fact that their practice goes against the purpose of the idolatry restriction. It's nothing more than making excuses for the behavior. Can I pray to Muhammed as long as I say I'm only venerating him? Will the Catholic Church support me in the practice? We both know the answer. They've chosen certain 'special' humans, let's call them superhumans (not in the superhero way, but in the better than human way), to be prayed to. To be venerated. To be considered to have special access to the Divine. Call it what you like, but I see it for what it is.

You have.

Danny Kaye I think?

Yep, in The Court Jester.

The bible says nothing at all about going to church.
Jesus was a Jew and regularly went to synagogue, the so-called early church worshipped at the temple in Jerusalem until it was torn down by Vespasian.
A church is identified as a group of people. Paul writes even to a church in someone's home!

Church is not a building that should be gone to. To not worship with a group of like-minded believers is in no way sin, it's just that you are more likely to be spiritually built up when part of such a congregation than when on your own.

To quote the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy is correct. But much as it will hurt many poseters the technical sabbath day is a saturday and thus most churches meet on the wrong day of the week anyway.

Doesn't admit to idolatry? When did I say that? I've been saying that the stance on it is asking someone to pray for you is not the same as worshipping them.

I agree that it isn't the same. However, the way saints are asked is very different than asking a friend to pray for you. When you ask a friend, you aren't suggesting that said friend is closer to God than you are, or has more pull with God than you do. The idea is more to encourage fellowship, to let your friend know what you are going through and that you need support, and possibly to increase the petitions going to God. When a saint is asked to pray, the idea is that the saints' prayers actually carry more weight with God than your average believer - that the saints are somehow closer to God - closer to the divine. It may not be the same as worshipping God, but it is placing some (dead) human beings on a pedestal above others, suggesting that they are closer to divine than others.

No one is better than anyone else, even in the Church's eyes.

What would be the point of declaring saints if this were actually true?

Do you believe in miracles? That the most faithful are able to perform them?

I don't think that people can perform miracles. God can perform miracles and *might* use people to do so or to demonstrate them. Human beings cannot take on the power of God through their own will, however.

((I know these questions were posed to Jocabia, but I figured I'd answer anyways. =))

*snip*
I thank you for your answers. They are very similar to my own answers and come from a different angle so I view that as only beneficial. I like the way you presented it and might have done the same had I thought of it.

To quote the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy is correct. But much as it will hurt many poseters the technical sabbath day is a saturday and thus most churches meet on the wrong day of the week anyway.

Here we go with the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law. Does it really matter what day you consider sabbath? Seems to me that the point is to set aside time for God - for worship. That could be (and has been, for me, in the past) a Thursday for all it matters.

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XXI

5. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and consionalbe hearing of the word; in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.

6. Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now under the gospel, either to be tied unto, or made more acceptable by, any place in which it is performed, or to which it is directed; but God is to be worshipped every where in spirit and in truth; as in private families daily, and in secret each one by himself; so more solemnly in the publick assemblies, which are not carelessly or wilfully to be neglected or forsaken, when God, by his word or providence, calleth thereunto.

Emphasis is mine.

...*snipped denial of quoting the verse*..

You DID quote it, I didn't lie about it...


...
Matthew 23 1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

Hmmmmm... Jesus could be describing the leadership of the Catholic Church if I didn't know better.

You DID quote it, I didn't lie about it...

Way to miss the point of how that passage would relate to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church takes that authority but they do not sit in Moses's seat and thus don't have it. However, I actually intended to bold the other part which is to say that they are not examples of how we should behave.

And what about the other thing you claimed I quoted that I didn't, or is one lie your limit per post? You ignore my entire post I must assume because you don't actually have an argument here. No surprise. I assessed that FACT in your first post.

Where in that passage does it say about first being last and last being first or the humble being first or anything remotely relating to what you claimed I posted? Hey, but let's pretend you only accused of one quote that was an inaccurate assessment, like you did in your lying snip?

I agree that it isn't the same. However, the way saints are asked is very different than asking a friend to pray for you. When you ask a friend, you aren't suggesting that said friend is closer to God than you are, or has more pull with God than you do. The idea is more to encourage fellowship, to let your friend know what you are going through and that you need support, and possibly to increase the petitions going to God. When a saint is asked to pray, the idea is that the saints' prayers actually carry more weight with God than your average believer - that the saints are somehow closer to God - closer to the divine. It may not be the same as worshipping God, but it is placing some (dead) human beings on a pedestal above others, suggesting that they are closer to divine than others.



What would be the point of declaring saints if this were actually true?



I don't think that people can perform miracles. God can perform miracles and *might* use people to do so or to demonstrate them. Human beings cannot take on the power of God through their own will, however.

((I know these questions were posed to Jocabia, but I figured I'd answer anyways. =))


Who says some people’s faith doesn’t affect the outcome of the prayers being answered?

Matthew 17:

14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."

17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"

20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

It would appear that Jesus disagrees with you. If your are praying for a healing and you ask someone with greater faith to also pray with and for your cause, who say’s you can’t get a different outcome? Jesus says faith is relevant to the outcome.

Several quotes have Jesus telling people that it is their faith which hinders the answer to their concerns/prayers coming to pass. If they could NOT influence the outcome through their prayer, why would Jesus say it was their lack of faith at fault, not, as you propose, that they can’t change the outcome of an eventuality through their will.

Matthew 8:26 He replied, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.

Matthew 14:31Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

Matthew 17: 20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

It seems as if he is saying something entirely different than your conclusion, Jesus says we can have the power over the weather, power over walking on water and even move mountains with our prayers alone.

Feel free to tie and bind your own faith, and limit what God can and cannot give to his believers, but the rest of us can be liberated through Christ to the true life that he gives.

...snip...

Your entire post was based around calling me a liar, I showed very quickly that you were mistaken in the premise, thus, the rest of your supposition/conclusion in your post was a moot point based on faulty data.

Your entire post was based around calling me a liar, I showed very quickly that you were mistaken in the premise, thus, the rest of your supposition/conclusion in your post was a moot point based on faulty data.

Nope. You showed fault in one part of my post. But, hey, let's just quote you, since you're trying to pretend both you AND I said something we didn't.

But lets see, first you actually quote Jesus where he says the ranking system of the first and the last, and the first should humble themselves in order to be first.

Meanwhile, you ignore the large part of the post that addresses the mistakes in your references to the scripture and to the Catholic Church. But hey, dropping arguments isn't faulty debate. Oh, wait, it is faulty debate. Sad and faulty.

Let's look at how much of my post you didn't address at all, shall we?

"Second, that passage is about an order being called into Heaven. It has nothing to do with a hierarchy. Also, it's a call for humility, it's not an argument for ranking. It's a metaphor. Why would anyone care what order they were called into Heaven, really, as long as they got there? However, one would care about not valuing humility in the same Jesus does.

And I'm not saying I didn't mean what I said. I said specifically that I was talking about a Church hierarchy. I was clear. "
"Now, back to the Pope. Are you claiming the Pope doesn't take the seat of honor at every banquet? Doesn't love to pray in synogogues? Doesn't wear ornate robes? Are you claiming the rest of the Catholic hierachy doesn't do all of those things? And did Jesus condemn the Chuch leaders of his day for doing exactly those things? Yep. I haven't condemned the Pope or the Catholic Church. I just happen to have two open eyes. And it's impossible to not notice the similarities."
"First, Jesus treated civil authority much differently than religious authority. But then you knew that, no? Second, it is talking METAPHORICALLY about people getting in or being left out, not about creating a hierarchy in the Church where he gave specific direction about all men being equal. Third, you again try to make a general argument about authority when I was talking specifically about creating such authority in the Church. Something Jesus spent his life condemning. Fourth, I wasn't talking about the fact they call their leaders "Father". I was talking about the same thing Jesus was talking about, that in matters of the faith, we are all equal. And in the Catholic Church this is not the case. Fifth, Jesus never praises or even accepts that even the civil hierarchy is necessary or desired. He simply doesn't condemn the soldier who is a part of it, because of his great faith. It's an endorsement of having faith, not of hierarchies."
"I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm pointing out what is abundantly clear. That Catholic Church's behavior is clearly reminiscent of the same behavior Christ was speaking out against. Again, it's a debate. I've proven my argument. If that upsets you, well, I don't know what to tell you, little buddy.

Do you have any better argument than "if people don't like what you have to say then you're wrong to say it" and dishonest claims about what I've said? You come here and you take passages of the Bible and try to claim they mean other than they say. I post passages that clearly condemn certain behaviors, in clear language. You claim that my passages mean something other than what they say and that dishonestly claim I've said things I haven't. I really hope you have a better argument than this.

And if you don't like debate. This probably isn't a place you'll enjoy.

Meanwhile, I'm not actually condemning anyone. It's not my place. These are only some activities engaged in as part of very complicated lives. I don't know how Jesus will judge such people. I only know how he will judge these activities and only because he told us. I'm am condemning the institution. The people within the institution, creating it, holding it up, I think will answer for such behavior, but since our judgement is based on things few us will ever begin to understand, I can only talk about the specific behavior condemned by Jesus in explicit language.

I cannot see inside the hearts of men. I am condemning an institution that reverted back to many of the Jewish practices that were condemned by Jesus openly. I'm not throwing stones. I'm throwing quotes from Jesus in context that were an argument he was making against the format of the Church and the behavior of the members of the institution in general. The same type of format and the same type of behavior we see within the Catholic hierarchy today.

You're argument is equivalent to suggesting that Christians cannot ever argue for a better Church because according to you to do so would be un-Christian. However, I can't imagine a more Christ-like behavior than exposing and speaking out against corruption in the Church. (Actually, I can. Many of them. But it is a behavior Jesus engaged in frequently and with great vigor.)"

But, hey, that's just a tiny percentage, around 90%, of my post. And even in the part where you lied, you didn't address this -

But lets see, first you actually quote Jesus where he says the ranking system of the first and the last, and the first should humble themselves in order to be first.
Well, let's begin with the FACT that you're confused. I did not quote that passage.


So let's see how much of my post you address -
"Ha. Again, amusing. What verse did I quote where it says "do as they say, not as they do"? I've quoted Matthew 23 and Matthew 6. Please show where that appears in those passages. I'll wait. Honestly, I think you're having a little problem reading here. That's twice you claimed I quoted something I didn't."

Yep, that's not dropping arguments. Well, unless one actually looks at your behavior and you pretending like a summary of a post that includes one small paragraph about you claiming the "do as they say not as they do" part should look like -
"...*snipped denial of quoting the verse*.."

But hey, I guess there is nothing less amusing that a person trying to prove he's not lying by, you know, lying about what my post said.

Now, are you prepared for an actual debate or you just going to continue dishonestly sniping?

Who says some people’s faith doesn’t affect the outcome of the prayers being answered?

Matthew 17:

14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."

17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"

20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

It would appear that Jesus disagrees with you. If your are praying for a healing and you ask someone with greater faith to also pray with and for your cause, who say’s you can’t get a different outcome? Jesus says faith is relevant to the outcome.

Several quotes have Jesus telling people that it is their faith which hinders the answer to their concerns/prayers coming to pass. If they could NOT influence the outcome through their prayer, why would Jesus say it was their lack of faith at fault, not, as you propose, that they can’t change the outcome of an eventuality through their will.

Matthew 8:26 He replied, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.

Matthew 14:31Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

Matthew 17: 20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

It seems as if he is saying something entirely different than your conclusion, Jesus says we can have the power over the weather, power over walking on water and even move mountains with our prayers alone.

Feel free to tie and bind your own faith, and limit what God can and cannot give to his believers, but the rest of us can be liberated through Christ to the true life that he gives.

Again, a bastardization of the passages. You are rewarded for your faith. Not for the faith of people you petition. Praying to someone else because you don't have enough faith demonstrates a lack of faith, not a surplus of it. Every example you can give of Jesus rewarding someone for great faith, they were petitioning him directly, not saying, hey, since I'm not very faithful and can one of you apostles ask him for me? Your faith is your own. I don't look to others to make up for my lack of faith. When I pray to God it is with all understanding that God is interested in the outcome of my soul. I don't tie myself up in the idea that my fiath is weaker than that of other humans. I expect full faith of myself. Not of somone that a beauracracy determined has great faith and gave credit for acts of God, but instead taking responsiblity for your own faith, something Jesus was clearly interested in.

Looking to others as a conduit to God versus having a personal faith was basically the subject of Jesus's life. He preached a personal relationship and you are arguing for looking to other 'higher' humans as a substitute for relying on the personal relationship. That basically misses the point of the entire ministry of Christ.

What does the Bible or Jesus say about not going to church.

A church is just a congregation of christians. You don't have to be following a specific denomination. You could bring your family together and worship God. So, not going to church really means you don't have time for God, since you could theoretically have church whenever you wanted. And Jesus blatantly ignored the rules about the Sabbath Day, so I can't see why I would be bound by them.

Too many denominations get caught up in dogma, and then contradict themselves so much they can't help but make it easier for non-christians to laugh at us. After all, Catholics might as well have invented their own religion at this point, with all the dogma they've added to scripture.

Again, a bastardization of the passages. You are rewarded for your faith. Not for the faith of people you petition. Praying to someone else because you don't have enough faith demonstrates a lack of faith, not a surplus of it. Every example you can give of Jesus rewarding someone for great faith, they were petitioning him directly, not saying, hey, since I'm not very faithful and can one of you apostles ask him for me? Your faith is your own. I don't look to others to make up for my lack of faith. When I pray to God it is with all understanding that God is interested in the outcome of my soul. I don't tie myself up in the idea that my fiath is weaker than that of other humans. I expect full faith of myself. Not of somone that a beauracracy determined has great faith and gave credit for acts of God, but instead taking responsiblity for your own faith, something Jesus was clearly interested in.

Looking to others as a conduit to God versus having a personal faith was basically the subject of Jesus's life. He preached a personal relationship and you are arguing for looking to other 'higher' humans as a substitute for relying on the personal relationship. That basically misses the point of the entire ministry of Christ.

All you are doing here is saying that the parents who had sick children in the first place shouldn't have needed to look up the apostles for help, because they should have had faith enough themselves, and that even then, the apostles who couldn't do it also had to go to Jesus himself for help getting enough faith involved to petition through their prayers for help...

Who do you want to correct with your admonition? The Parent that petitioned for help at all? That's absurd, there is nothing wrong with seeking help, even help from people that are simply more faithful than yourself. We are stronger in groups than we are as individuals, even Jesus sent them out in pairs of two, not as singles.

All you are doing here is saying that the parents who had sick children in the first place shouldn't have needed to look up the apostles for help, because they should have had faith enough themselves, and that even then, the apostles who couldn't do it also had to go to Jesus himself for help getting enough faith involved to petition through their prayers for help...

Who do you want to correct with your admonition? The Parent that petitioned for help at all? That's absurd, there is nothing wrong with seeking help, even help from people that are simply more faithful than yourself. We are stronger in groups than we are as individuals, even Jesus sent them out in pairs of two, not as singles.

The apostles were just the vessel for the miracle. They didn't petition the apostles to pray for them. They requested of God that the apostles acted as that vessel. The Saints are performing miracles when they are prayed to. They are being petitioned to pray to God for them. They are requesting things of Saints they should directly ask of God.

Going to Jesus is going to God. The apostles were imbued with the abilities of Jesus by the words of Jesus. Petitioning the apostles was petitioning Jesus during that time. When you make the comparisons you are making you are elevating the saints to the level of Jesus and betraying your own argument. When these individuals have equal access to Jesus and to some saint they are choosing to petition a saint because they don't have enough faith that a request to Jesus is sufficient.

You're missing it. Jesus supported fellowship. Petitioning saints rather than Jesus is not fellowship. It's a lack of faith. It's elevating them in the same way you just did in your argument. Placing them as equals to Jesus. You're trying to equivocate fellowship with praying TO saints. It's not the same no matter how much whine that we should ignore the differences.

Curiously, how often did Jesus in his life suggest that people pray to Abraham or Moses for help? I don't remember a single time. Interesting that in your fantasies Jesus was such a big supporter of praying TO people who have already left the earth and yet in his entire life he never once suggested anyone do it? I guess he must have just forgotten he was such a big supporter.

Who says some people’s faith doesn’t affect the outcome of the prayers being answered?

I didn't say that faith doesn't affect outcome. Try again.

It would appear that Jesus disagrees with you. If your are praying for a healing and you ask someone with greater faith to also pray with and for your cause, who say’s you can’t get a different outcome? Jesus says faith is relevant to the outcome.

Who can judge faith? Can you? Can you look into my heart and tell me how much faith I have? If you cannot, how can you know that you are asking someone with greater faith?

It seems as if he is saying something entirely different than your conclusion, Jesus says we can have the power over the weather, power over walking on water and even move mountains with our prayers alone.

....granted by God, not by our own will.

And note that Christ never says, "Go ask your buddy who you think has more faith than you to move a mountain, and it will come to pass."

Feel free to tie and bind your own faith, and limit what God can and cannot give to his believers, but the rest of us can be liberated through Christ to the true life that he gives.

What a wonderful strawman you have constructed.

I see some interesting posts about, so I'm going to be back to talk some more on this. I'm going out for dinner and a movie for now though, so behave. ;)

I see some interesting posts about, so I'm going to be back to talk some more on this. I'm going out for dinner and a movie for now though, so behave. ;)

Have fun!

((If the movie is good, start a thread about it, hehe =) I don't even know what's out right now.))

Hmmm... let's see. Well, there's your misinterpretation of what Catholics are doing and that it's supported by scripture. Your reference to Pauline scripture as the teachings of Christ or, well, pretty much everything you've typed.

Please link me to where I referenced Pauline scripture as the teachings of Christ, and support your claim that I'm misinterpreting Catholic practice.

I should read my source. Let's see what it says in THE FIRST LINE - "Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God."

Very well. Going strictly by that line, I haven't noticed any Catholic giving Divine worship to anything other than God. Sometimes I've seen them give other people or things what I would consider inappropriate regard, but not on the level of Divine worship. Perhaps I was wrong about there being some idolatry within the Church.

Gosh, I sure am glad I bothered to read the first sentence where it says it applies to MORE than just the worship of a statue.

I read it. I even conceded your secondary points about non-statues. I'm beginning to wonder if you have me confused with another poster.

And that's the form of idolatry she is referring to. The significance of idolatry, by the very doctrine of the Catholic Church, extends beyond just images (which praying to statues of the saints, something that is a Catholic practice) and is what Smunkee was referring to. But hey, who said you have to understand what you're talking about or the context of the argument. Keep talking out your behind. Perhaps only I will notice.

Talking out of my behind? I'm talented, but not that talented.

In all my years as a Catholic I've seen maybe two or three people actually pray to a statue. Slightly more common is asking a Saint that happens to be the designated Patron Saint of a particular concern they're worried to take care of that concern for them, but that's still pretty rare. So I'm incredibly disinclined to accept your allegation that praying to statues is Catholic practice.

If you said that Catholics praying in front of statues was not uncommon, I'd agree. Though I'd question the relevance of that. Plenty of people pray in front of wooden crosses and use other objects to focus their attention during prayer, and I'd hardly consider that idolatry. Actually, back before I was Catholic, I attended a church where there was a large wooden cross at the front, and people prayed while facing it all the time. I certainly didn't see a problem with that. I knew they weren't praying to the cross itself, or at least I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Generally, as long as people are using the world God has given them to draw closer to Him rather than allowing it to take their focus off of Him, I'm not going to be particular worried about it, and I certainly wouldn't feel justified in calling it idolatry.

That said, I certainly agree that there are a lot of idols beyond just statues. People can end up making financial gain, pleasure, an organization, an object or collection of objects, or perhaps a person who's important to them into the focus of their life rather than letting God be that focus.

Please link me to where I referenced Pauline scripture as the teachings of Christ, and support your claim that I'm misinterpreting Catholic practice.

The claim that you are misinterpreting Catholic practice and belief is admitted in this very post where you realized that according to Catholic belief statues are not required, but those types of mistakes are also riddled throughout your posts claiming they don't hold Saints at a level of divinity above other humans.


Very well. Going strictly by that line, I haven't noticed any Catholic giving Divine worship to anything other than God. Sometimes I've seen them give other people or things what I would consider inappropriate regard, but not on the level of Divine worship. Perhaps I was wrong about there being some idolatry within the Church.

I guess that's what we're debating, no? And one has to consider that Divine acts, miracles, must be credited to a saint as part of the application for sainthood, they are prayed to, they are considered 'closer to God' than 'normal' humans, using them as mediators (in violation of the one mediator concept as well), etc. It's a hard argument to claim there is no form of Divine worship going on.


I read it. I even conceded your secondary points about non-statues. I'm beginning to wonder if you have me confused with another poster.

You just conceded it in THIS post. I'm good, but I can't see into the future. At the time I wrote this post you were making claims that did not follow with the claims of the link. I reposted it and you THEN realized you were inaccurate and conceded the point. Just that information alone suggests I was dead on when I wrote the statement you are replying to.



Talking out of my behind? I'm talented, but not that talented.

In all my years as a Catholic I've seen maybe two or three people actually pray to a statue. Slightly more common is asking a Saint that happens to be the designated Patron Saint of a particular concern they're worried to take care of that concern for them, but that's still pretty rare. So I'm incredibly disinclined to accept your allegation that praying to statues is Catholic practice.

Idolatry actually refers to an image, not just statue, even at it's root meaning.

http://www.elementsofhome.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=11905/index.html
http://www.statue.com/saint-statues.html
http://www.catholicfreeshipping.com/cfs_24_statues.html (Catholic Saint Statues? Can't be. Because Catholics don't use such statues, right?)
http://www.plastercraft.com/religious2.html
http://www.catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=1899 (What does that say? Prayer card enclosed? Why would they do that? Catholics don't pray to statues,right? The fact that it's called Catholic Company must just be coincidence.)

Interesting that no one uses them, yet there are for sale in so many palces. Marked as Catholic and with prayer cards enclosed.


If you said that Catholics praying in front of statues was not uncommon, I'd agree. Though I'd question the relevance of that. Plenty of people pray in front of wooden crosses and use other objects to focus their attention during prayer, and I'd hardly consider that idolatry. Actually, back before I was Catholic, I attended a church where there was a large wooden cross at the front, and people prayed while facing it all the time. I certainly didn't see a problem with that. I knew they weren't praying to the cross itself, or at least I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Generally, as long as people are using the world God has given them to draw closer to Him rather than allowing it to take their focus off of Him, I'm not going to be particular worried about it, and I certainly wouldn't feel justified in calling it idolatry.

Word games. You're praying TO the person whose image the statue is made from. It is praying to the statue as much as any practice of praying to a graven idol has ever been. When they were making these rules people were praying to the subjects of the statues as well. Look at the origin of the condemnation and it was meant to prevent the exact practice that now occurs.


That said, I certainly agree that there are a lot of idols beyond just statues. People can end up making financial gain, pleasure, an organization, an object or collection of objects, or perhaps a person who's important to them into the focus of their life rather than letting God be that focus.

There's more to it than focusing on God. Would you support it if the Catholic Church suddenly declared the Saints part of a Pantheon of Sub-Gods and God as the lead God? It's not an ends justifies the means kind of a game.

...They are being petitioned to pray to God for them. They are requesting things of Saints they should directly ask of God.

Going to Jesus is going to God. The apostles were imbued with the abilities of Jesus by the words of Jesus. Petitioning the apostles was petitioning Jesus during that time. When you make the comparisons you are making you are elevating the saints to the level of Jesus and betraying your own argument. When these individuals have equal access to Jesus and to some saint they are choosing to petition a saint because they don't have enough faith that a request to Jesus is sufficient.

...

That's a rather odd statement of theology you have there. According to you, during the time when a person could have simply walked over and talked to Jesus himself in person, were instead given the option to petition the apostles on Christ’s behalf. And NOW, in this later time, when people can NOT simply walk over and talk to Jesus in the flesh, and now they have a legitimate need and or desire for assistance in petitioning through prayer for the answer to some need, you say the ability to talk to the representatives of Christ on earth, the apostles decedents in the spirit, has been taken away from the people. Well that would be pretty ass backwards don’t you think?

Perhaps you have misunderstood the purpose of the position of the apostles in the first place. Their job is the spread the good news and to answer questions and to be leaders in the Christian community. When did God take away the right of the apostles to represent the Christ on earth? You suggest you believe they had that ability at one time or that it existed at that time, perhaps you would like to share with us the verses that show you when that power and right was taken away from them. Otherwise it is perfectly logical believe that that power and ability has been passed down to the church leaders of today.

That's a rather odd statement of theology you have there. According to you, during the time when a person could have simply walked over and talked to Jesus himself in person, were instead given the option to petition the apostles on Christ’s behalf. And NOW, in this later time, when people can NOT simply walk over and talk to Jesus in the flesh, and now they have a legitimate need and or desire for assistance in petitioning through prayer for the answer to some need, you say the ability to talk to the representatives of Christ on earth, the apostles decedents in the spirit, has been taken away from the people. Well that would be pretty ass backwards don’t you think?

Were not talking about people on earth. We're talking about the Saints. They aren't on earth any more than Jesus is. Unlike when people were petitioning the apostles, today they have direct access to Jesus since he is now in the Spirit.

He gave them the abilities in order to spread the ministry while they went out among the people. Jesus wasn't there so access to Him had to be through another mediator.

Now when did God take back that position? Hmmm...

1 Timothy 2:5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

There I go reading scripture and looking at it for exactly what it says. I'm silly that way.

Perhaps you have misunderstood the purpose of the position of the apostles in the first place. Their job is the spread the good news and to answer questions and to be leaders in the Christian community. When did God take away the right of the apostles to represent the Christ on earth? You suggest you believe they had that ability at one time or that it existed at that time, perhaps you would like to share with us the verses that show you when that power and right was taken away from them. Otherwise it is perfectly logical believe that that power and ability has been passed down to the church leaders of today.

We aren't talking about anyone on earth. Nice attempt to pretend like you were arguing something else. How many of the Saints are still alive?

Well, I'm actually kind of tired of this thread. It seems to me the people I'd want to talk to I've finished with, so I'm not going to be posting further.

It kinda seems pointless to debate with someone who is going to use this argument over and over:
"YOU WORSHIP STATUES AND SAINTS AND MARY."

Despite any kind of evidence to the contrary, even that of actual Catholics. I know in my heart I've never done anything improper along those lines.

These are the facts:
Saints aren't attributed with divinity, they are rewarded for their faith.

Matthew 17:20
"He said to them, "Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

I think Jesus' point is pretty clear, and I feel no need to explain this any farther.

As for statues of saints, and their veneration, we do the exact same thing with public figures. We have statues and paintings of our past presidents and generals and great men and women. Why should it be different for Catholics?

They're there to remind us how great our deeds can be with strong faith, nothing more.

I'm done arguing this though. If people want to skip about with hands over their ears yelling "YOU WORSHIP SAINTS AND MARY!!!!!" that's their perogative.

...

We aren't talking about anyone on earth. Nice attempt to pretend like you were arguing something else. How many of the Saints are still alive?

Nice attempt at dodging the fact that you have been adamantly anti-church-authority-hierarchy this whole thread and in this last post of yours here you entirely try to ignore that fact altogether and try to misdirect attention to another aspect of the conversation. :rolleyes:

As to the teachings of Paul, yes, I am fully aware of them and willing to accept their doctrines. And since you must be a big fan of Paul’s insight and teachings we can begin to use his verses in this thread as well as Christ's words as we have already been doing. Glad to see that you've broken the ice on the letter book verses for the rest of us to begin to use.

Nice attempt at dodging the fact that you have been adamantly anti-church-authority-hierarchy this whole thread and in this last post of yours here you entirely try to ignore that fact altogether and try to misdirect attention to another aspect of the conversation. :rolleyes:

You are mixing arguments because you're losing. You are arguing for people praying to people not on earth, not petitioning people for fellowship on earth. So do you have an honest argument or are you simply conceding that you can't actually win an argument that Saints should be mediators?

I am anti-church hierarchy. I believe we are all brothers, but that's just me listening to the words of the savior. I tend to be silly that way.

Meanwhile, when people start praying to their priests and carrying around statues of them and such, then you can pretend like that was the argument I was referring to when you replied.


As to the teachings of Paul, yes, I am fully aware of them and willing to accept their doctrines. And since you must be a big fan of Paul’s insight and teachings we can begin to use his verses in this thread as well as Christ's words as we have already been doing. Glad to see that you've broken the ice on the letter book verses for the rest of us to begin to use.

Actually, the Church recognizes Paul, even if I don't. They are violating the tenets of their own faith. Jesus may not have said, but he did say something a little group called "Hypocrites". You amuse me. You can't win an argument actually debating so you try to wrap things around the axle in the hopes that you'll confuse some people into thinking you're not being made a fool of.

Well, I'm actually kind of tired of this thread. It seems to me the people I'd want to talk to I've finished with, so I'm not going to be posting further.

=(

It kinda seems pointless to debate with someone who is going to use this argument over and over:
"YOU WORSHIP STATUES AND SAINTS AND MARY."

Despite any kind of evidence to the contrary, even that of actual Catholics. I know in my heart I've never done anything improper along those lines.

Hehe. Don't get too discouraged. That debate has been raging for over 1000 years, IIRC. What you consider worship may be different than what another considers worship, so neither of you is necessarily wrong. What one person considers an idol, another might label an icon and therefore OK.

These are the facts:
Saints aren't attributed with divinity, they are rewarded for their faith.

Saints are declared by men - specifically, the church hierarchy. Men cannot reward others for their faith. Only God can do that, and only God can determine how much or how little faith a person truly has.

As for statues of saints, and their veneration, we do the exact same thing with public figures. We have statues and paintings of our past presidents and generals and great men and women. Why should it be different for Catholics?

We don't ask presidents or generals or others (generally) to intervene with God for us. That's a pretty big difference. We generally do not assume that they have a closer relationship with God than any other believer.

They're there to remind us how great our deeds can be with strong faith, nothing more.

If that is true, why are they specifically asked for intercession?

I'm done arguing this though.

Ah well. Maybe someone else will answer.

As for statues of saints, and their veneration, we do the exact same thing with public figures. We have statues and paintings of our past presidents and generals and great men and women. Why should it be different for Catholics?


That rather depends.

Does the heathen world doing something make it 'okay' for the true believer?

The indictment not to fashion images is repeated a number of times... call them icons or idols, it doesn't matter. According to scripture you shouldn't make them.

So - statues of past presidents? They are counter to scripture.

Pictures of famous people? They are counter to scripture.

According to the scripture, when people make statues of Caesar or of Kennedy, they are creating graven images, and are engaged in sin. When people put a poster of Shakira on their wall, they are bowing the knee to another god, and are engaged in sin.

Logically, if you have a crucified Jesus on your wall, or necklace... or even if you wear an empty cross... you are counter to scripture.

I'd say Deuteronomy is fairly clear on the subject:

Deuteronomy 5:8-9 "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..."

Explicitly... no statues or likenesses of any person, creature or entity, on this plane or any other.

Nice attempt at dodging the fact that you have been adamantly anti-church-authority-hierarchy this whole thread and in this last post of yours here you entirely try to ignore that fact altogether and try to misdirect attention to another aspect of the conversation. :rolleyes:


Jesus was anti-church-authority-heirarchy. Those who claim to walk in his footsteps could do worse than actually following what he taught.

Well, I'm actually kind of tired of this thread. It seems to me the people I'd want to talk to I've finished with, so I'm not going to be posting further.

It kinda seems pointless to debate with someone who is going to use this argument over and over:
"YOU WORSHIP STATUES AND SAINTS AND MARY."

Despite any kind of evidence to the contrary, even that of actual Catholics. I know in my heart I've never done anything improper along those lines.

These are the facts:
Saints aren't attributed with divinity, they are rewarded for their faith.

Matthew 17:20
"He said to them, "Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

I think Jesus' point is pretty clear, and I feel no need to explain this any farther.

As for statues of saints, and their veneration, we do the exact same thing with public figures. We have statues and paintings of our past presidents and generals and great men and women. Why should it be different for Catholics?

They're there to remind us how great our deeds can be with strong faith, nothing more.

I'm done arguing this though. If people want to skip about with hands over their ears yelling "YOU WORSHIP SAINTS AND MARY!!!!!" that's their perogative.

Let's see we made arguments. Your reply is to complain that you don't like that we're making those arguments. Yep, it must be me who is skipping about with my hands over my ears.

How many of us are praying to presidents? Is being prayed to one of those rewards? I thought Jesus said we should seek rewards in Heaven as opposed to on earth? Personally, I would be insulted if someone made a saint. It certainly isn't something I would want.

As Dem said, the reward for strong faith isn't and shouldn't be given on earth. And you can claim all you want that it's just a historical issue, but then why is it required they be given credit for three miracles? Catholics credits men with miracles, pray to those men, create graven idols of those men and light candles around those candles and care images of them with prayers requesting help from them on the back. You've not answered to any of this. You've simply whined that we won't just concede the argument because you don't want to continue it. You might be surprised by this, but in a debate, it's actually necessary for you to present your argument not just claim you're right and that anyone who disagrees isn't allowed to disagree.

And, in case you're wondering, I've spent just a bit of time in a Catholic Church. My father is a Catholic, as was his entire family and their families. Also my maternal grandfather was Catholic. I'm not unaware of their traditions. I even know quite a bit of Latin.

If that is true, why are they specifically asked for intercession?


The argument that saints can be intercessors always troubles me on a logical level. The power of the Apostles was something Jesus gave to them during their earthly ministry... he gave them the ability to 'do his work' on earth... not after they were dead.

You can look to the scripture.... and it says that miracles can be done in Jesus' name, through faith... but 'faith' is something we earthbound creatures have.

The other problem I always had.... the Bible seems to suggest that the dead are as sleeping people. Perhaps the dead could be 'resurrected' at some future apocalyptic time, but I don't see any reason to believe it is currently so. Which would - of course - make the whole idea of intercession ridiculous.

And, in case you're wondering, I've spent just a bit of time in a Catholic Church. My father is a Catholic, as was his entire family and their families. Also my maternal grandfather was Catholic. I'm not unaware of their traditions. I even know quite a bit of Latin.

:) Another of those similarities... my father was also a Catholic...

The argument that saints can be intercessors always troubles me on a logical level. The power of the Apostles was something Jesus gave to them during their earthly ministry... he gave them the ability to 'do his work' on earth... not after they were dead.

You can look to the scripture.... and it says that miracles can be done in Jesus' name, through faith... but 'faith' is something we earthbound creatures have.

The other problem I always had.... the Bible seems to suggest that the dead are as sleeping people. Perhaps the dead could be 'resurrected' at some future apocalyptic time, but I don't see any reason to believe it is currently so. Which would - of course - make the whole idea of intercession ridiculous.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but I didn't want to have explain that part as well. There's already steam coming from their ears.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but I didn't want to have explain that part as well. There's already steam coming from their ears.

I'll admit - I almost didn't comment. If I come into a thread where someone is already positioning themselves against a platform that can be roughly considered 'shared' by Smunkee, Dempublicents and yourself... I pretty much figure that person is going to be having a hard enough time already.

The Sabbath day is a day when you do not work. To keep holy the sabbath day, it is not required that you go to church. it is required that you do no work outside of what is needed

Yeah that would make sense, If "god" existed. so i dono do what you want haha

The Sabbath day is a day when you do not work. To keep holy the sabbath day, it is not required that you go to church. it is required that you do no work outside of what is needed

What if you find pleasure in work ... I know my dad would be bored off his ass if he did not get to build something or movie something

The Sabbath day is a day when you do not work. To keep holy the sabbath day, it is not required that you go to church. it is required that you do no work outside of what is needed

I keep every day holy. I must be a very good Christian. :)

...that is, if I believed in Christ and God and whatnot.

I keep every day holy. I must be a very good Christian. :)

...that is, if I believed in Christ and God and whatnot.

... When I get there, I'll ask him to overlook such formalities. ;)

I'll admit - I almost didn't comment. If I come into a thread where someone is already positioning themselves against a platform that can be roughly considered 'shared' by Smunkee, Dempublicents and yourself... I pretty much figure that person is going to be having a hard enough time already.
to be fair, I got bored pretty quickly and just left it to them......but yeah, Jocabia and I are on the exact same page on this one.

... When I get there, I'll ask him to overlook such formalities. ;)

Thanks for saying you'd put in a good word for me with the magical being in the sky some people believe in.

...it's the thought that counts. ;)

Thanks for saying you'd put in a good word for me with the magical being in the sky some people believe in.

...it's the thought that counts. ;)

I'm thinking of engaging in a very sinful behavior right now...

I'm thinking of engaging in a very sinful behavior right now...

Oh my Garden Gnome! I thought you wasn't bothered about me teasing you for worshipping an imaginary being? I'm sorry if I have upset you. :(

I keep every day holy. I must be a very good Christian. :)

...that is, if I believed in Christ and God and whatnot.

Rom 14:5 One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of theLord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.


There are only two rules in Christianity: Love God; Love everyone else.

Anything beyond those two is someone adding unneeded burdens.

Oh my Garden Gnome! I thought you wasn't bothered about me teasing you for worshipping an imaginary being? I'm sorry if I have upset you. :(

... rofllmao As if you could offend me. The sinful activity involved you. It starts with an "F".

... rofllmao As if you could offend me. The sinful activity involved you. It starts with an "F".

Playing frisbee is a sin?! :eek:

to be fair, I got bored pretty quickly and just left it to them......but yeah, Jocabia and I are on the exact same page on this one.

I like the part where I was told I was not a good Christian because I stood up for you, another Christian, and condemned another institution they think should be unreproachable. It would be a great comedy act if they were kidding, but mostly, because they're serious, it just makes me sad that people can misread the teachings of Christ so badly.

I like the part where I was told I was not a good Christian because I stood up for you, another Christian, and condemned another institution they think should be unreproachable. It would be a great comedy act if they were kidding, but mostly, because they're serious, it just makes me sad that people can misread the teachings of Christ so badly.

Yeah we had one of thoes crazy preachers on campus today

This year his sermon was on the fact that women should not be going to school they should be working to find a man that can support them for the rest of their life so they can have start having children (I am not joking)

Its bi anual crazy time on campus


I am kind of sad the only ones we get up here are christian

Rom 14:5 One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of theLord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.


There are only two rules in Christianity: Love God; Love everyone else.

Anything beyond those two is someone adding unneeded burdens.

What about having perfect eyesight? Doesn't it say that people with "defects in their sight may not approach the altar of the lord."

What about Jesus saying that "no man who hateth not his father may be with me."

I like the part where I was told I was not a good Christian because I stood up for you, another Christian, and condemned another institution they think should be unreproachable. It would be a great comedy act if they were kidding, but mostly, because they're serious, it just makes me sad that people can misread the teachings of Christ so badly.

Pat yourself on your own back all you like, you've done your fair share of attacking others and claiming others aren't as good a Christian as yourself via attacking their church. You can pretend you aren't attacking individuals, but it is simply semantics, you attack and you ridicule and you do all the things you accuse them of doing to you... :rolleyes: How boring.

As to petitioning the saints in Christ and your accusations that "Christians" can't or shouldn't do those things because the saints are dead and cannot be in fellowship with us, the living, etc., If you are a Christian (and I have no reason whatsoever to believe you are not), then you should know that there is no such thing as ‘dead’ in Christ. God is the God of the living, in Christ there is eternal life, not death.

Luke 20
...36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

John 5:24
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Therefore, there are no dead saints, there is no logical theological reason to assume that they are incapable of praying on your behalf if they can be petitioned (which I am not defending).

Jesus was anti-church-authority-heirarchy. Those who claim to walk in his footsteps could do worse than actually following what he taught.

No, Jesus was anti-ABUSE of-church-authority-hierarchy, Jesus was not against the establishment itself, God started it, the institution of leaders and rulers, they abused it. The Hierarchy institution itself is not and was not itself at fault nor was it attacked by Jesus.

Pat yourself on your own back all you like, you've done your fair share of attacking others and claiming others aren't as good a Christian as yourself via attacking their church. You can pretend you aren't attacking individuals, but it is simply semantics, you attack and you ridicule and you do all the things you accuse them of doing to you... :rolleyes: How boring.

Again, according to you the Church is beyond reproach because I might offend somebody. How do you suppose I expose a corrupt religious institution if I'm must never offend the members? You mentioned being Christ-like. Was anyone offended by Christ's condemnation of the institution?

And yes, it's not about individuals. There may individuals in these position or supporting the institution, but no matter how you slice, the Church in its current state existed before anyone living today was alive. I can't possibly condemn anyone alive today for it's condition.



As to petitioning the saints in Christ and your accusations that "Christians" can't or shouldn't do those things because the saints are dead and cannot be in fellowship with us, the living, etc., If you are a Christian (and I have no reason whatsoever to believe you are not), then you should know that there is no such thing as ‘dead’ in Christ. God is the God of the living, in Christ there is eternal life, not death.

Luke 20
...36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

John 5:24
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Therefore, there are no dead saints, there is no logical theological reason to assume that they are incapable of praying on your behalf if they can be petitioned (which I am not defending).

Quick, how many times in the life of Christ did anyone suggest that we petition people who are no longer on earth? None? Keeping making things up, but no matter how you slice it we have the same or less access (depending on if you actually read the scripture about the state of those who have passed one) to people who have left the earth as we do to Jesus, thus petitioning those who have left the earth is doing so INSTEAD of petitioning Jesus or in addition to petitioning Jesus. And if it's instead it violates the one mediator rules and if it's in addition to it violates the one mediator rules. It's really very simple.

Meanwhile, you continue to embarrass yourself. There are people we can speak to and people we can't. When Christ was on earth people petitioned the apostles because they had no access to Christ and thus the mediator wasn't there yet so they needed Christ or his disciples to reach God. When he died, he bacame accessable to all of us. When people pray to others and not him or in addition to him it demonstrates a lack of faith in our own ability to reach Christ and it also lifts other people to the level of Christ, both violations of the faith preached by the Catholic Church.

Come on, you have a better argument than this pathetic attempt, don't you? Please. Tell me you have something more than "you can't speak out against a corrupt church because you might hurt someone's feelings".

No, Jesus was anti-ABUSE of-church-authority-hierarchy, Jesus was not against the establishment itself, God started it, the institution of leaders and rulers, they abused it. The Hierarchy institution itself is not and was not itself at fault nor was it attacked by Jesus.

Hmmm... can you tell me where Jesus suggested that we build a beauracracy in the Church? Quote him, please. Thus far, you've mentioned some case where he didn't condemn civil hierarchies, but not one case of him suggesting we build or support men in ornate clothing, sitting in the place of honor, preaching in the synogogues and street corners, etc. Now, do we think, that maybe, just maybe, I can demonstrate him speaking out against such people? Hmmm... I wonder if I can.

Don't make false claim. Prove it. So far all we've seen is so much air.

What about having perfect eyesight? Doesn't it say that people with "defects in their sight may not approach the altar of the lord."

What about Jesus saying that "no man who hateth not his father may be with me."
I can't find the first, you'll have to give me a verse. There is Luke 14:21 .....Then the householder in anger said to his servant, 'Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame.......

Perhaps you are talking of an OT law. The OT laws were symbols for an illiterate people. They could see how they were to believe through how they lived. There was a vision of perfection to strive for in sheep and people. That's why they had dietary laws. They were to live like the animals they ate instead of those they didn't eat. For instance they could eat chicken because it lived primarily on grain, but not eagles because they lived on the suffering of others.


In regard to the second:

Luke 14: 26 ----- If you read on it talks about understanding what the cost of loving God may be. Before you build a building, you figure the cost; Before you go to war you figure the cost (I'll skip a political comment here);

14:33 "So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple."

We in the west don't always have to make these decisions but that is not true around the world, nor was it true in Jesus time and place. The odds were that anyone making the decision would (or at least could) lose everything. Even today in the US, some parents will abandon their children if the child marries outside of their denomination. The question is "Do you love God more than anything else--here are some things you might lose---think hard before you say Yes?"

...Quick, how many times in the life of Christ did anyone suggest that we petition people who are no longer on earth? None?

Elijah's name sure was brought up and into the conversations a lot, and once, Jesus, Elijah and Moses were seen together on the mountain top in a cloud of smoke before the Crucifixion....

Oops yourself.


Come on, you have a better argument than this pathetic attempt, don't you? Please. Tell me you have something more than "you can't speak out against a corrupt church because you might hurt someone's feelings".

This repeated strawman is particularly pathetic on your part and worthy of it's own quotation... You made it up, you stuffed the straw in, you made the figurine to be crushed. If that's the best defense you have to pretend that you aren't claiming your Christianity superior to their Christianity and thus yourself better then them, then it's a sorry state of affairs at your house isn't it?

And yes, it's not about individuals. There may individuals in these position or supporting the institution, but no matter how you slice, the Church in its current state existed before anyone living today was alive. I can't possibly condemn anyone alive today for it's condition.

Of course you can. Assuming that the current persons are refusing to reform, you could very well condemn them. Whether you ought to is debatable. And you seem to be condemning PootWaddle.

Quick, how many times in the life of Christ did anyone suggest that we petition people who are no longer on earth? None? Keeping making things up, but no matter how you slice it we have the same or less access (depending on if you actually read the scripture about the state of those who have passed one) to people who have left the earth as we do to Jesus, thus petitioning those who have left the earth is doing so INSTEAD of petitioning Jesus or in addition to petitioning Jesus. And if it's instead it violates the one mediator rules and if it's in addition to it violates the one mediator rules. It's really very simple.

Um since Jesus is God he had as much access as God the Father did. You assume that Christians' ability= Christ's ability, which is false. But I agree with your conclusion.

Meanwhile, you continue to embarrass yourself. There are people we can speak to and people we can't. When Christ was on earth people petitioned the apostles because they had no access to Christ and thus the mediator wasn't there yet so they needed Christ or his disciples to reach God. When he died, he bacame accessable to all of us. When people pray to others and not him or in addition to him it demonstrates a lack of faith in our own ability to reach Christ and it also lifts other people to the level of Christ, both violations of the faith preached by the Catholic Church.

You're embarrassing yourself in my mind. You talk of the proud, yet you sound the most of anyone I've heard here, including myself and pride is one of my vices that I have not yet been freed of (:( ). Again, I agree with your conclusion.

Come on, you have a better argument than this pathetic attempt, don't you? Please. Tell me you have something more than "you can't speak out against a corrupt church because you might hurt someone's feelings".

Can you be kind? Please? Can you tell me something beyond that Jesus stepped on toes, too? Because His manner and your manner are not the same. He stepped on toes as a result of what He said. You seem to step on toes simply to do so. Let's try to be civil, humble, and not insulting. :)

Hmmm... can you tell me where Jesus suggested that we build a beauracracy in the Church? Quote him, please. Thus far, you've mentioned some case where he didn't condemn civil hierarchies, but not one case of him suggesting we build or support men in ornate clothing, sitting in the place of honor, preaching in the synogogues and street corners, etc. Now, do we think, that maybe, just maybe, I can demonstrate him speaking out against such people? Hmmm... I wonder if I can.

Don't make false claim. Prove it. So far all we've seen is so much air.

You're the one on the side that says Jesus was against the rule and hierarchy that Moses established, YOU are the one that needs to prove that Jesus was anti-Moses hierarchy. Jesus was anti-abuse of power, not the position itself.

You're the one on the side that says Jesus was against the rule and hierarchy that Moses established, YOU are the one that needs to prove that Jesus was anti-Moses hierarchy. Jesus was anti-abuse of power, not the position itself.

I'm not sure what the exact debate is about, but I'm going to try to contribute anyway.

Paul abolished the priesthood by declaring a preisthood of all believers. And the temple curtain was torn at Christ's death, thus allowing everyone (in a symbolic fashion) access to God.

I'm not sure what the exact debate is about, but I'm going to try to contribute anyway.

Paul abolished the priesthood by declaring a preisthood of all believers. And the temple curtain was torn at Christ's death, thus allowing everyone (in a symbolic fashion) access to God.

First, feel free to contribute, do not hesitate, your opinion is welcome :)

Second part.
Paul DID preach that we are all equal in Gods eyes, in salvation and in Christ, none are higher than another, man, woman, slave, master, child or senior citizen. I agree.

However, you carry that lesson too far. Paul ALSO taught how a church community needs to be run, and what kind of people need to be in charge of it and what is expected of them. The hierarchy was left in place...

1 Timothy 3
Overseers and Deacons
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

These are rules for people that are to be placed in positions of authority in the church, thus, obviously, Paul was not trying to eliminate all positions of authority in the church of Christ. Agreed?

First, feel free to contribute, do not hesitate, your opinion is welcome :)

Second part.
Paul DID preach that we are all equal in Gods eyes, in salvation and in Christ, none are higher than another, man, woman, slave, master, child or senior citizen. I agree.

However, you carry that lesson too far. Paul ALSO taught how a church community needs to be run, and what kind of people need to be in charge of it and what is expected of them. The hierarchy was left in place...

1 Timothy 3
Overseers and Deacons
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

These are rules for people that are to be placed in positions of authority in the church, thus, obviously, Paul was not trying to eliminate all positions of authority in the church of Christ. Agreed?

Of course. But perhaps it would be better if I understood whether you are arguing in support of the Roman Catholic priesthood (as I thought you were) or whether you are arguing for a heirarchy in general.

You're the one on the side that says Jesus was against the rule and hierarchy that Moses established, YOU are the one that needs to prove that Jesus was anti-Moses hierarchy. Jesus was anti-abuse of power, not the position itself.

Jesus spoke of the specific actions I reverenced as supported by the Church. Your response, "waaaa, you can't say that because it offends people and that is un-Christlike." You haven't addressed it shown that Jesus supported sitting in the place of honor. I've shown he doesn't.

You haven't shown Jesus supported praying in synogogues (meaning at the frong of a congregation). I've shown he doesn't.

I've shown that Jesus gave the authority now claimed by the Church to the seat of Moses even though he condemned what people did with that power. The Church claims that authority despite not holding the seat of Moses. I've shown this. You ignored it.

You haven't shown Jesus says we are not all equal in the spirit. I've shown that he does.

As proof goes, there is only one side that's shown ANY. My side. All you've done is try to bastardize scripture that is in some tangential to the subject.

Come on, where is all the scripture where Jesus encourages praying to men? So far, you've shown none. Where is all the scripture where Jesus shows respect for the institution? So far, none.

In a debate, when all the evidence is on the side opposite you, you lose.

Jesus spoke of the specific actions I reverenced as supported by the Church. Your response, "waaaa, you can't say that because it offends people and that is un-Christlike." You haven't addressed it shown that Jesus supported sitting in the place of honor. I've shown he doesn't.

You haven't shown Jesus supported praying in synogogues (meaning at the frong of a congregation). I've shown he doesn't.

I've shown that Jesus gave the authority now claimed by the Church to the seat of Moses even though he condemned what people did with that power. The Church claims that authority despite not holding the seat of Moses. I've shown this. You ignored it.

You haven't shown Jesus says we are not all equal in the spirit. I've shown that he does.

As proof goes, there is only one side that's shown ANY. My side. All you've done is try to bastardize scripture that is in some tangential to the subject.

Come on, where is all the scripture where Jesus encourages praying to men? So far, you've shown none. Where is all the scripture where Jesus shows respect for the institution? So far, none.

In a debate, when all the evidence is on the side opposite you, you lose.

Calm down! Are you arguing for the correction of heresy or for your own glory? Calm down, calm down.

I think, now that I think that I really understand the argument, that you are the one taking things out of context.

But, let's be calm and discuss and not be concerned with who is right, but what is.

First, feel free to contribute, do not hesitate, your opinion is welcome :)

Second part.
Paul DID preach that we are all equal in Gods eyes, in salvation and in Christ, none are higher than another, man, woman, slave, master, child or senior citizen. I agree.

However, you carry that lesson too far. Paul ALSO taught how a church community needs to be run, and what kind of people need to be in charge of it and what is expected of them. The hierarchy was left in place...

1 Timothy 3
Overseers and Deacons
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

These are rules for people that are to be placed in positions of authority in the church, thus, obviously, Paul was not trying to eliminate all positions of authority in the church of Christ. Agreed?

There was no Pope in Paul's time which is what I'm condemning. There was no Pope for centuries after Paul. There were elders in the Church to help people explore the faith. They were meant to be examples. Holy and humble men. I'm not talking about the a simple classroomish set up of a single church, but the beauracratic creation called the Catholic Church and it didn't exist in any form remotely resembling today's at Paul's time or even in the centuries near Paul's time.

Meanwhile, you continue to demonstrate that you have no real argument that Jesus ever intended such a creation. Where is the quote of Jesus supporting such an institution with the veneration of certain individuals as promoted by the Catholic Church? I've shown he condemns the level of power, pride and beauracracy excercised by the current Church. You've shown NOTHING to counter His condemnation.

Of course. But perhaps it would be better if I understood whether you are arguing in support of the Roman Catholic priesthood (as I thought you were) or whether you are arguing for a heirarchy in general.

I am arguing for their right to exist as an entity in real Christianity. (I am not myself Catholic), defending them as a Christian sect. And I argue that hierarchy in Christianity is acceptable in Christ's own words and in the NT in specifics.

Of course. But perhaps it would be better if I understood whether you are arguing in support of the Roman Catholic priesthood (as I thought you were) or whether you are arguing for a heirarchy in general.

He keeps shifting the goalposts because he's losing the argument. If you make an argument about the beauracracy that includes the Pope, he'll talk about civil beauracracies or about priests. If you make an argument about praying to Saints, he'll pretend your argument is about living people. Want quotes? I can quote him doing it. It's a common practice of someone who realizes they are in over their head, which, despite my demeanor, causes me to respect him a little, because at least he recognizes that he's in over his head.

I am arguing for their right to exist as an entity in real Christianity. (I am not myself Catholic), defending them as a Christian sect. And I argue that hierarchy in Christianity is acceptable in Christ's own words and in the NT in specifics.

Oh, yeah, show those words or quit claiming it. You've not shown a single passage of Christ's words supporting such a hierarchy and I've shown that Christ said we are all equal, as did Paul. Certainly the veneration of certain people as 'more holy' or 'closer to God' or 'above normal humans' is not equal in any sense of the word. You've been trying to mix ideas all day because you're losing the argument. Now, quit claiming that Christ said it and SHOW IT. SHOW he supported an unequal beauracracy that treats various saved individuals (all called saints by scripture but NOT by the Catholic Church) on varying levels of closeness to God. SHOW he supported praying to people who are no longer in the flesh (you keep equivocating about death but the Bible treats bodily death as different from spiritual death, obviously). SHOW anything that actually says openly and clearly what you've been falsely claiming.

He keeps shifting the goalposts because he's losing the argument. If you make an argument about the beauracracy that includes the Pope, he'll talk about civil beauracracies or about priests. If you make an argument about praying to Saints, he'll pretend your argument is about living people. Want quotes? I can quote him doing it. It's a common practice of someone who realizes they are in over their head, which, despite my demeanor, causes me to respect him a little, because at least he recognizes that he's in over his head.

You need to calm down. I've said it several times, but I'm going to say it again: calm down.

You are not God, so you had to learn. And either you learned incorrectly or PootWaddle did. Either way, insults and lack of adequate respect are not going to solve the problem.

Calm down.

...

You haven't shown Jesus supported praying in synogogues (meaning at the frong of a congregation). I've shown he doesn't.

Are you kidding? Jesus read, taught and attended synagogues frequently, throughout the stories in the gospels, what can you be thinking about when you make such absurd claims?

I've shown that Jesus gave the authority now claimed by the Church to the seat of Moses even though he condemned what people did with that power. The Church claims that authority despite not holding the seat of Moses. I've shown this. You ignored it.

Jesus gave the authority on earth to Peter and the Church before his ascension, you ignore it.

You haven't shown Jesus says we are not all equal in the spirit. I've shown that he does.

I don't argue against it, I agree with it.

As proof goes, there is only one side that's shown ANY. My side. All you've done is try to bastardize scripture that is in some tangential to the subject.

Come on, where is all the scripture where Jesus encourages praying to men? So far, you've shown none. Where is all the scripture where Jesus shows respect for the institution? So far, none.

In a debate, when all the evidence is on the side opposite you, you lose.

Nah, this stuff here is just you patting your own back again, complete nonsense. You bury yourself and you don't even realize you're getting dirty as you go...

Calm down! Are you arguing for the correction of heresy or for your own glory? Calm down, calm down.

I think, now that I think that I really understand the argument, that you are the one taking things out of context.

But, let's be calm and discuss and not be concerned with who is right, but what is.

I'm amused, not upset. And I'm arguing on a debate forum for two reasons, because I believe what I'm arguing and because I like winning arguments. I have not even the slightest hope that this will correct the behavior of the institution.

We are on a debate forum, so I'm as concerned with who is right as with what is right. It's part of debate and I enjoy debate.

Well, I'm going to bed.

Pootwaddle, check your telegrams.

Jocabia, calm down.

:)

Are you kidding? Jesus read, taught and attended synagogues frequently, throughout the stories in the gospels, what can you be thinking about when you make such absurd claims?

Hmmm... so Jesus was wrong when he condemned the behavior of prayer in Synogogues? Interesting position. Prove it. Teaching/attending and praying are not the same thing. Come on, you can do better than this.


Jesus gave the authority on earth to Peter and the Church before his ascension, you ignore it.

So the current papacy is filled with decendents of Peter? Hmmmm... I guess you're going to have to prove that. Especially since the papacy did not exist at any time during the early Church.



I don't argue against it, I agree with it.

Catholics claim that Saints are not equal to the rest of us. It proclaims them as 'more faithful', 'closer to God', etc.


Nah, this stuff here is just you patting your own back again, complete nonsense. You bury yourself and you don't even realize you're getting dirty as you go...

Oh, looky, more dropped arguments. You continue to claim I bury myself, but yet again, nothing to prove it. At all. Do you have anything more to argue than the fact you don't agree? I came looking for a debate and this is just sad.

You need to calm down. I've said it several times, but I'm going to say it again: calm down.

You are not God, so you had to learn. And either you learned incorrectly or PootWaddle did. Either way, insults and lack of adequate respect are not going to solve the problem.

Calm down.

It's a debate. I debate with vigor. I'm practically asleep. I don't know how I could be calmer. Don't confuse vigorous debate with being asleep.

And I'm of the position that respect is earned.

Oh, yeah, show those words or quit claiming it. You've not shown a single passage of Christ's words supporting such a hierarchy and I've shown that Christ said we are all equal, as did Paul. ...

Your own quote, in the early stages of this thread already quoted one passage for me...

Matthew 23
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus did NOT say get rid of them. They were currently abusing their power but Jesus did not start a revolution to overthrow the hierarchy, as you would have us do. As Judas would have Jesus do by some accounts. Begin the revolution by forcing God's hand to abandon the hierarchy of the established institutions etc.

It’s a slippery path of peril you preach, and not one that Jesus preached in the gospels or in his actions.

It's a debate. I debate with vigor. I'm practically asleep. I don't know how I could be calmer. Don't confuse vigorous debate with being asleep.

And I'm of the position that respect is earned.

Your definition of vigor is confused with bile I think, but I'm sure you won't believe me when I point that out...

Your own quote, in the early stages of this thread already quoted one passage for me...

Matthew 23
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus did NOT say get rid of them. They were currently abusing their power but Jesus did not start a revolution to overthrow the hierarchy, as you would have us do. As Judas would have Jesus do by some accounts. Begin the revolution by forcing God's hand to abandon the hierarchy of the established institutions etc.

It’s a slippery path of peril you preach, and not one that Jesus preached in the gospels or in his actions.

No, the Catholic Church started that revolution. The Catholic Church does not sit in Moses' seat. They do not respect the authority of that seat as commanded by Jesus. You argue against yourself.

I'm not suggesting a revolution against the chosen people. If you'd seen in other threads, I also point out that Jesus's ministry was focused on Jews. The Catholic Church took all of the things Jesus argued to change and left the seat of Moses and divided themselves from the Jews. They went exactly backwards from what Jesus requested they do.

Read the quote? Does the Pope sit in Moses' seat? Nope. He does not.

Meanwhile, I don't preach revolution. I preach adherence to the scripture. Please tell me you have an argument that's not a strawman. Just one.

Your definition of vigor is confused with bile I think, but I'm sure you won't believe me when I point that out...


Take it how you like. I don't care that you disagree. The only thing in this debate that disappoints me is that your argument is so weak. It's not attack Jocabia time unless you're admitting your argument has run it's course absent anything that supports the idea of the current structure of the Catholic Church. Amusingly, I attack your argument, you attack me. Iv'e suggested your argument is weak. You insist on complaining that I'm not 'behaving' properly in your eyes. Concentrate on the argument. I am.

The claim that you are misinterpreting Catholic practice and belief is admitted in this very post where you realized that according to Catholic belief statues are not required, but those types of mistakes are also riddled throughout your posts claiming they don't hold Saints at a level of divinity above other humans.

I'm still waiting for the link supporting your assertion that I used Pauline scripture.

I realized that statues aren't required? That was hardly a realization. Nor did I make the claim that statues are required. I'm beginning to suspect that you're giving a straw man what-for.

I guess that's what we're debating, no? And one has to consider that Divine acts, miracles, must be credited to a saint as part of the application for sainthood, they are prayed to, they are considered 'closer to God' than 'normal' humans, using them as mediators (in violation of the one mediator concept as well), etc. It's a hard argument to claim there is no form of Divine worship going on.

I do consider that. A few points:

-Prophets have also performed miraculous acts and we don't claim that aknowledging their miracles is idolatry, so I don't see the fact that canonized Saints have to perform miracles as particularly relevant.

-Saints are sometimes prayed to, yes. I consider it inappropriate. Those who do pray to Saints are not in line with the Church teaching I was given when becoming Catholic. However, claiming that praying to Saints rather than asking for their prayers as in the Litany of the Saints is somehow the official Catholic practice is incorrect. Also, claiming that it is Catholic practice to pray to Saints is incorrect. Most of the Catholics I've met do not.

-They are indeed considered closer to God. Given that they are in heaven, participating in an eternal existence with God, I dare say that they are indeed closer to Him than we are. I also dare say they are more truly alive than we are.

-The mediator problem only applies in those cases where people are asking the Saints to intercede for them. In my experience, those cases are pretty rare in Catholic circles. Is it a problem in some cases? Yes. Is it in line with official Catholic teaching and practice? No.


When it comes down to it, my claim is not that there is no Divine Worship going on, even though I haven't seen it, but rather that it is not Catholic practice in general. Just because some members of a group do something, that does not necessarily mean that the action is the practice of that group as a whole.

And personally I suspect that, given the characteristics of Divine worship you've just mentioned, we're operating from very different understandings of the word "worship". "Worship" for me does not include aknowledging that a person has, through the grace of God, performed a miracle, and it does not necessarily include being a mediator either. I can certainly call someone a mediator (say my supervisor) between myself and the highest authority in a particular context (say the head of my depertment) without suggesting that they are equal to the highest authority.

You just conceded it in THIS post. I'm good, but I can't see into the future. At the time I wrote this post you were making claims that did not follow with the claims of the link. I reposted it and you THEN realized you were inaccurate and conceded the point. Just that information alone suggests I was dead on when I wrote the statement you are replying to.

Given that I'm now entirely confused as to what you're talking about on this point, I'm fairly sure there's been a miscommunication.

Idolatry actually refers to an image, not just statue, even at it's root meaning.

http://www.elementsofhome.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=11905/index.html
http://www.statue.com/saint-statues.html
http://www.catholicfreeshipping.com/cfs_24_statues.html (Catholic Saint Statues? Can't be. Because Catholics don't use such statues, right?)
http://www.plastercraft.com/religious2.html
http://www.catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=1899 (What does that say? Prayer card enclosed? Why would they do that? Catholics don't pray to statues,right? The fact that it's called Catholic Company must just be coincidence.)

Interesting that no one uses them, yet there are for sale in so many palces. Marked as Catholic and with prayer cards enclosed.

You seem to have a habit of attacking a position I haven't taken. I did not claim that no one uses them. In fact, I've mentioned repeatedly that some do indeed use them, and what's more that some use them inappropriately. What I disagree with is your claim that praying to statues and/or Saints is Catholic practice in general, in the same way that I would disagree with you if you claimed that murder or pre-marital sex was Catholic practice just because some Catholics have done it and continue to do it.

Word games. You're praying TO the person whose image the statue is made from. It is praying to the statue as much as any practice of praying to a graven idol has ever been. When they were making these rules people were praying to the subjects of the statues as well. Look at the origin of the condemnation and it was meant to prevent the exact practice that now occurs.

Ah, it must be word games rather than a genuine explanation. Right.

I'll try again, for the sake of being fair. There's a nook in my current church, in which rests a statue of Joseph. In front of the statue is a row of candles and a kneeler. I've gone there to pray before. Guess who I was praying to while on that kneeler in that nook? It certainly wasn't Joseph. Strangely enough, I was praying to God the Father. I know a number of people who like to pray there, and all of them I've talked to about it were also praying to God the Father.

I've prayed in front of statues of Saints, in front of my car, in front of trees, in front of a cross, and not once while doing so have I actually prayed to a Saint, my car, trees, or a cross. When I'm praying, regardless of what objects are around me, I'm praying to God. Funny how that works.

There's more to it than focusing on God. Would you support it if the Catholic Church suddenly declared the Saints part of a Pantheon of Sub-Gods and God as the lead God? It's not an ends justifies the means kind of a game.

I would not support that, no. And I agree that it's not an ends justifies the means game, especially considering that the Saints already serve their function of drawing people closer to God without making them Sub-Gods. Making them Sub-Gods would be of no benefit.

I'm still waiting for the link supporting your assertion that I used Pauline scripture.

I realized that statues aren't required? That was hardly a realization. Nor did I make the claim that statues are required. I'm beginning to suspect that you're giving a straw man what-for.

You didn't? Let's see if you did - "Read your own source? How exactly do you know that the statues are exclusively prayed to? I've seen it on a rare occasion, but generally the people I've talked who feel they have saintly devotions are inspired by the Sain't life story and/or actions, and feel it draws them closer to Christ."

You clearly suggested that statues were required. Why bother denying it? Nevermind. I know why.



I do consider that. A few points:

-Prophets have also performed miraculous acts and we don't claim that aknowledging their miracles is idolatry, so I don't see the fact that canonized Saints have to perform miracles as particularly relevant.

They weren't credited with those miracles. God was. The miracles have nothing to do with how we classified them. In the case of Saints, it requires that we credit them with three in order for them to be classified as Saints.


-Saints are sometimes prayed to, yes. I consider it inappropriate. Those who do pray to Saints are not in line with the Church teaching I was given when becoming Catholic. However, claiming that praying to Saints rather than asking for their prayers as in the Litany of the Saints is somehow the official Catholic practice is incorrect. Also, claiming that it is Catholic practice to pray to Saints is incorrect. Most of the Catholics I've met do not.

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=544 (Prayer TO St. Michael)
http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19980501/SAINTS/ST_ANTH_PRAY.HTM (Prayer TO St. Anthony)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRAYER/BRIDPRAY.TXT (Prayer TO St. Bridget)

Need more?



-They are indeed considered closer to God. Given that they are in heaven, participating in an eternal existence with God, I dare say that they are indeed closer to Him than we are. I also dare say they are more truly alive than we are.

So you have judged them and have deemed the worthy? And here I thought that was left to our Mediator.


-The mediator problem only applies in those cases where people are asking the Saints to intercede for them. In my experience, those cases are pretty rare in Catholic circles. Is it a problem in some cases? Yes. Is it in line with official Catholic teaching and practice? No.


So you are unaware of the Catechism and its teachings on intercession, huh? Unless, of course, one argues the CATECHISM is not official Catholic teaching and practice.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p5.htm
Now let's see what it says...

The intercession of the saints.

Next...



When it comes down to it, my claim is not that there is no Divine Worship going on, even though I haven't seen it, but rather that it is not Catholic practice in general. Just because some members of a group do something, that does not necessarily mean that the action is the practice of that group as a whole.

And your claim is not supported by regular Catholic practice nor my the Catechism that teaches the intercession of Saints, and redefines Sainthood to something NOT of the Bible.


And personally I suspect that, given the characteristics of Divine worship you've just mentioned, we're operating from very different understandings of the word "worship". "Worship" for me does not include aknowledging that a person has, through the grace of God, performed a miracle, and it does not necessarily include being a mediator either. I can certainly call someone a mediator (say my supervisor) between myself and the highest authority in a particular context (say the head of my depertment) without suggesting that they are equal to the highest authority.

Worship to me means considering one to be closer to God than other Christians and to be in a position to grant miracles (one of the miracles required for sainthood is one that occurs after death in response to a request to intercession. It requires that the saint be considered responsible for the miracle.) Give them a position spiritually above other humans and suggesting they have divine powers obviously while excercising the level of reference and suggesting prayer to obviously crosses into worship to anyone not just hoping it's otherwise.


Given that I'm now entirely confused as to what you're talking about on this point, I'm fairly sure there's been a miscommunication.

You suggesting that you don't know why I was making the point about the Catholic view on idolatry since you'd already conceded. However, when you were chastising me for bringing it up, you had only then conceded the point. When I wrote the post, you hadn't yet conceded.



You seem to have a habit of attacking a position I haven't taken. I did not claim that no one uses them. In fact, I've mentioned repeatedly that some do indeed use them, and what's more that some use them inappropriately. What I disagree with is your claim that praying to statues and/or Saints is Catholic practice in general, in the same way that I would disagree with you if you claimed that murder or pre-marital sex was Catholic practice just because some Catholics have done it and continue to do it.

No, you claimed that it's not a general practice or supported by the Church in general. I've shown repeatedly that it's a widespread practice and even noted the Catholic response to such practices, a response in support of said practices.


Ah, it must be word games rather than a genuine explanation. Right.

I'll try again, for the sake of being fair. There's a nook in my current church, in which rests a statue of Joseph. In front of the statue is a row of candles and a kneeler. I've gone there to pray before. Guess who I was praying to while on that kneeler in that nook? It certainly wasn't Joseph. Strangely enough, I was praying to God the Father. I know a number of people who like to pray there, and all of them I've talked to about it were also praying to God the Father.

*Gasp* There is? I'm shocked. But the Catholic Church doesn't support praying to statues. Oh, wait...



I've prayed in front of statues of Saints, in front of my car, in front of trees, in front of a cross, and not once while doing so have I actually prayed to a Saint, my car, trees, or a cross. When I'm praying, regardless of what objects are around me, I'm praying to God. Funny how that works.

Yes, but you don't have a kneeler and candles in front of your car, do you? The Bible warns against praying to graven images and Catholics do it.


I would not support that, no. And I agree that it's not an ends justifies the means game, especially considering that the Saints already serve their function of drawing people closer to God without making them Sub-Gods. Making them Sub-Gods would be of no benefit.

I would argue that venerating them at the level the Church does is just another way of considering them Sub-Gods. It's clear that you're wrong about intercession. They are considered to be special conduit to God and to have powers that you and I don't possess. They are credited with divine acts, miracles. They are Sub-Gods. They just aren't called that for obvious reasons. The Church is wrong (in my opinion). I'm not suggesting they are completely crazy, however (which is what would be required for them to call Saints Sub-Gods).

By the way, I DO notice that you're trying to be reasonable. I am too, in fact. My sarcasm is just a source of amusement. This is a lot to type and a lot to read. I find the sarcasm makes it a little more fun. I think you're wrong, but I don't think you're stupid or even generally ignorant. We just disagree and I appreciate that you're taking the time to make an argument.

No, Jesus was anti-ABUSE of-church-authority-hierarchy, Jesus was not against the establishment itself, God started it, the institution of leaders and rulers, they abused it. The Hierarchy institution itself is not and was not itself at fault nor was it attacked by Jesus.

No... Jesus was pretty explicit about it, actually.

Matthew 22:21 "...Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's..."

The first part is about respecting heirarchy... but you'll note that it is a 'mundane' temporal heirarchy of human governance.

The second part is a counterpoint - "and unto God the things that are God's...". Note that this is set up as the 'other' option... the alternative to the mundane heirarchy.

Jesus clearly establishes a pattern of heirarchy for the mundane plane, and a direct relationship with God for the spiritual plane.

Are you kidding? Jesus read, taught and attended synagogues frequently, throughout the stories in the gospels, what can you be thinking about when you make such absurd claims?


You are defending a different point to the one that was made. Just thought I'd point that out.

And personally I suspect that, given the characteristics of Divine worship you've just mentioned, we're operating from very different understandings of the word "worship".


Worship means 'attaching worth' to. In the religious context, it means 'attaching religious worth to'.


I can certainly call someone a mediator (say my supervisor) between myself and the highest authority in a particular context (say the head of my depertment) without suggesting that they are equal to the highest authority.


Not in the case of interaction with The Father, you can't. The text is quite explicit that there is only ONE mediator which counts. Any other 'mediator' is a false mediator. Scripturally, it would not be unfair to say that any entity that is acting as an intercessor between a Christian and The Father, is an aspect of Satan.


I'll try again, for the sake of being fair. There's a nook in my current church, in which rests a statue of Joseph. In front of the statue is a row of candles and a kneeler. I've gone there to pray before. Guess who I was praying to while on that kneeler in that nook? It certainly wasn't Joseph. Strangely enough, I was praying to God the Father. I know a number of people who like to pray there, and all of them I've talked to about it were also praying to God the Father.


Well - first, the scripture prohibits that graven image from ever existing in the context of worship. It has no place in a church.

Second - if you kneel before an image, sint or otherwise, you are 'bowing your knee' to an idol. It isn't the most unforgivable of sins, but it is certainly high on the list.

No... Jesus was pretty explicit about it, actually.

Matthew 22:21 "...Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's..."

The first part is about respecting heirarchy... but you'll note that it is a 'mundane' temporal heirarchy of human governance.

The second part is a counterpoint - "and unto God the things that are God's...". Note that this is set up as the 'other' option... the alternative to the mundane heirarchy.

Jesus clearly establishes a pattern of heirarchy for the mundane plane, and a direct relationship with God for the spiritual plane.

Well, then there's just a couple of other facts. One there was no Papacy in the time of Peter, despite the claims of the Catholic Church. There was no recognized Papacy for centuries after Peter. Unless, of course you listen to the made-up Papal line of the Catholic Church. There's the fact that the Divine infallibility of the Pope wasn't declared an article of faith until 1870.

How about the titles - The vicar of Christ? We are sheep and have one Shepard according to Christ. Was he wrong? Is Christ not that Shepard? Vicar of Christ literally means substitute for Christ, one authorized to perform the functions of Christ in His office. Really? That's a bold claim. There is only one reference to a man sitting in place of God on earth. 2 Thess 2:3-4. That man is called the "man of sin".

The Bishop of Rome? Hmmmm... could this be that until they suddenly declared the Roman Bishop to be the head of the Church the leadership of the Church was shared by several Bishops until the Bishop of Rome declared himself Archbishop (another title he holds today)? Could this be why the title remains?

Supreme Pontiff? Seriously? Supreme Pontiff? No one notices that?

Holy Father? How many times was this used in the Bible? Once. By Christ. And to whom was Christ referring? GOD!!! We use the same title for the Pope that Jesus Christ himself used for God!!!

How can anyone not notice this is a problem? The Catholic Church in the Catechism talks about one shepard, one fold, referring to the Papacy and the Church, but Jesus said He was a good shepard the one shepard of the one fold.

John 10:14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Was Jesus wrong when he said he was the one shepard? Did he really mean TWO?

Then there is Luke 22 when the apostles are discussing who is greatest among them and Jesus tells them that the very concept is a Gentile concept and that they are not to declare themselves benefactors and kings. He says the one who rules is to be just as the one who serves. The Church destroyed that concept.

Worship means 'attaching worth' to. In the religious context, it means 'attaching religious worth to'.



Not in the case of interaction with The Father, you can't. The text is quite explicit that there is only ONE mediator which counts. Any other 'mediator' is a false mediator. Scripturally, it would not be unfair to say that any entity that is acting as an intercessor between a Christian and The Father, is an aspect of Satan.



Well - first, the scripture prohibits that graven image from ever existing in the context of worship. It has no place in a church.

Second - if you kneel before an image, sint or otherwise, you are 'bowing your knee' to an idol. It isn't the most unforgivable of sins, but it is certainly high on the list.


Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


It not only says that we shouldn't worship the idols but that we shouldn't even bow before them as idols. It's very clear.

Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


It not only says that we shouldn't worship the idols but that we shouldn't even bow before them as idols. It's very clear.

Indeed - it is very clear... we shouldn't even MAKE images... much less kneel before them to do something as 'sactified' as prayer. And that's before you add the blasphemy of 'intercession'.

The first five pages of this thread stank so bad I couldn't bear to read the rest, so I just skipped it and hit reply.

Christ: "Wherever there are two or more together in a covenant with god, I will be there"

God: "I'm everywhere."

Personally I think Christ doesn't care if you have a pray-buddy, as long as you're not Fred Phelps. Pray alone, pray in public, pray wherever you want, or don't pray at all. Doing it out loud is unnecessary because god can hear your thoughts, and going further than that, he knows what you're going to think before you think it. He knows. It's okay. Calm down. We don't need anymore songs telling god that his name is blessed, and he is the holy one, and that you hold him 'on high' - he fucking knows. Now can we stop making shitty music in his name? Thank you.

They didn't have churches back then.


Lol

Whoops.

Lol

Whoops.

Pretty sure there were churches. They were little huts at the time for the then-newborn christian believers to congregate in and hide from the romans in, but they were churches nonetheless.

Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


It not only says that we shouldn't worship the idols but that we shouldn't even bow before them as idols. It's very clear.


You're trying to tell fellow Christians, equally covered in the salvation of Christ, that you reprimand them, using scriptures you found in Exodus? Interesting.

Perhaps you should think more about what Christ himself said about disagreeing with other Christians, and how you should react to them...

Mark 9 38-41
"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

That's like you, crying about how you don't like how the Catholics do it and they aren't like you...

Continued: "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Indeed - it is very clear... we shouldn't even MAKE images... much less kneel before them to do something as 'sactified' as prayer. And that's before you add the blasphemy of 'intercession'.

So saith the man that calleth himself a "graven idol?"

Depends on if you believe in the Commandments or not. If you do, and "fail to keep holy the Sabbath Day", well, you're kinda screwed, I guess...

I suspect that, if it's important to you, you can keep the Sabbath without going to church.

You're trying to tell fellow Christians, equally covered in the salvation of Christ, that you reprimand them, using scriptures you found in Exodus? Interesting.

Perhaps you should think more about what Christ himself said about disagreeing with other Christians, and how you should react to them...

Mark 9 38-41
"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

That's like you, crying about how you don't like how the Catholics do it and they aren't like you...

Continued: "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

What's your point? I'm not talking about individuals. You keep up with the strawman. I'm not talking about individual salvation. The point is that there is an institution misleading men and women to do things that are counter to the direction of the Bible. That passage refers to not tripping up individuals. I'm not addressing individuals or whether or not they are saved. I'm addressing a corrupt institution and no amount of whining will change my message? But hey, if you can't defeat an argument, just pretend I said something else, right? Point to the post where I told any individual person that there salvation was in danger? Go ahead I'll wait.

Meanwhile, if you're going to argue that direction of Exodus no longer applies, you're going to have to prove it, not just make spurious claims. Are you actually going to claim that the Church that itself preaches against idolatry may practice it because idolatry is no longer a sin? Hmmm... again, you're going to have to support that.