NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, then, why could that not be the same in the case of Aphrodite?
Gods got born in very odd ways, after all.

Because unlike the small passage in the Bible which is in the same book, the passage is clearly a summary. However the two accounts of Aphrodite are not even written by the same people and are visually to different stories, like Jack and the Beanstalk and Goldilocks and the Three Bears are. In one Aphrodite is borne hundreds of years before Zeus and in another she is Zeus' daughter.

Almost, it was more to do with Nana's claim to not belive any of the Pagan influenses that have crept into Christianity, yet he has admitted to not only beliving this(sorta) but alos not minding it.

Ah ok.

Even if your first bit is true Jesus Christ died for our sins which which means everyone regardless of wether we believe in him or not or God or not, all sins of men (which means everybody just like we might say mankind).

It really comes down to two houses, one with God in it, one without Him. If you come to my house, you have to follow certain rules. You go to God's house, you have to follow his. You don't like the rules, then go to the other house. But God won't be there.

Even if your first bit is true Jesus Christ died for our sins which which means everyone regardless of wether we believe in him or not or God or not, all sins of men (which means everybody just like we might say mankind).

No in the Bible the atonement for sin his the blood. Thats why people died and gave sacrifices for their sin, however when Jesus died he made it so we need only plead his blood and our sins will be atoned.

It really comes down to two houses, one with God in it, one without Him. If you come to my house, you have to follow certain rules. You go to God's house, you have to follow his. You don't like the rules, then go to the other house. But God won't be there.

But he still loves you and considers you as equal as those in his house. (to borrow your analogy)

The way more awesome god of the Old Testament, who sets wild bears on children for their cheek towards their elders and betters :p

No in the Bible the atonement for sin his the blood. Thats why people died and gave sacrifices for their sin, however when Jesus died he made it so we need only plead his blood and our sins will be atoned.

If you live a good life you will still find yourself in heaven after you have passed away, even if you aren't Christian.

No in the Bible the atonement for sin his the blood. Thats why people died and gave sacrifices for their sin, however when Jesus died he made it so we need only plead his blood and our sins will be atoned.

Like in the prayer, "Eternal Father, I offer to you the body, blood, soul and divinity of your dearly beloved son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and the sins of the world."

Interesting - you worship the Son, but not the Father?

Christian Theology 101: Jesus (the Son) is God (the Father) who is the Holy Spirit, who is also the Son.

Three facets of the same being.

EDIT: I'm also "Keen on Jesus." as Monty Burns once put it.

In regards to the assertion that the Jews were punished for allowing horrible social conditions, I have to ask: what detectable difference is there between being punished by God and the other countries invading Israel because that was the normal thing to do in that time? And if there is no difference, I have to object to the use of the word punishment, because it clearly is being used in a context in which it makes no sense whatsoever.

Additionally, "all people are equal" is materially false in many circumstances and useless in others. True, all people are human, but it would simply be a lie to say they are all equally responsible, depraved, moral, intelligent, evil, capable of love, etc etc. So what does it mean that "all people are equal"?

Also you did not answer my question. If God is everywhere, how can one be seperated from God?

See, your failure to grasp this seperation comes you not understanding the concept of seperation. God is 'everywhere' sure, but God also happens to be 'nowhere' He is simply unbounded by physical limitations, such as space. Without a body, or physical presence he can indeed still be 'here' He need no move from one place to another, He transends the concept of space, in the same way he transcends time, these concepts have no binding on Him in he least.

Additionally, "all people are equal" is materially false in many circumstances and useless in others. True, all people are human, but it would simply be a lie to say they are all equally responsible, depraved, moral, intelligent, evil, capable of love, etc etc. So what does it mean that "all people are equal"?

The same way that Martin Luther King Jr said that all men were created equal.

If you live a good life you will still find yourself in heaven after you have passed away, even if you aren't Christian.

I may like to party. I may loooove to party. But if I refuse to go the house where the party is being thrown, then I'm left out of the party. I know this is going to sound very Protestant, but good works don't mean squat if faith isn't attached to them (as far as orthodox Christian thought is concerned)

Additionally, "all people are equal" is materially false in many circumstances and useless in others. True, all people are human, but it would simply be a lie to say they are all equally responsible, depraved, moral, intelligent, evil, capable of love, etc etc. So what does it mean that "all people are equal"?

Going solely off of reading your post (and not the initial post that you seem to have responded to) 'equality' is not the same as 'same'.

All people are equal, as in, all people should have equal rights, and freedoms, which is quite different than all people are facsimiles of each other.

In regards to the assertion that the Jews were punished for allowing horrible social conditions, I have to ask: what detectable difference is there between being punished by God and the other countries invading Israel because that was the normal thing to do in that time? And if there is no difference, I have to object to the use of the word punishment, because it clearly is being used in a context in which it makes no sense whatsoever.



But you're the one ignoring the context. The context is: in the OT, God uses things of this earth (including other nations) to reprimand his people. So if his people were worshiping other gods, oppressing the poor, etc, then it makes sense (in this context, the context of the scripture) that he would let the Babylonians invade, rather than divinely intervene.

Wait a second. Of just over 2 billion Christians in this world, 1 billion are Catholics, so the idea that Catholicism isn't "mainstream Christianity" is rather ridiculous, especially when you consider that every other denomination sprung from the Roman Church, with the exception of the Orthodox, which is, in regards to the sacraments, the same Church (as far as Rome is concerned -- Orthodox bishops sometimes feel differently).

I'm sorry my friend but that is not true. You know scripture and history very well, but I will have to disagree with you on this one. The Roman Catholic Church surfaced in between 400-600 AD. The Roman Church is not comaptible with the Christianity of Scripture. The praying to saints, the papacy, the killing of non-believers(in medieval times, protestants are held in contempt for this sin also) and the priesthood are all against Christianity. The Bible preaches against these things. The Roman Catholic Church was created by the Romans because they saw that Christianity was growing in the Empire, so they wanted to make it appear that the government had converted to Christianity but at the same time they wanted to keep thier pagan religion. They incorporated thier pagan religion in to Christianity and created Catholicism. Read your Bible and you will know what I say is truth. The Roman Church was in no way the original church of the Bible. No one should call themselves a protestant or a catholic or anything else we are all one in Christ we are all Christians plain and simple. I am not a protestant I do not follow Martin Luther, I am a Christian and I follow Christ.

I may like to party. I may loooove to party. But if I refuse to go the house where the party is being thrown, then I'm left out of the party. I know this is going to sound very Protestant, but good works don't mean squat if faith isn't attached to them (as far as orthodox Christian thought is concerned)

Are you saying that Protestant faith is Orthodox or what? Yes I do know that Orthodox means 'correct' but you know what I mean.

As I say even if you refuse to go to the party God will still love you the same as people who have gone to the party.

If you live a good life you will still find yourself in heaven after you have passed away, even if you aren't Christian.

Ok, and see, though I respect you viewpoint, I disagree. The tone of your post suggests that you do not repsect the Christian viewpoint. Now this is text-based so I could be wrong.

Additionally... who is the judge of whether you lived a 'good life'? What is a 'good life'? Do you judge? Does each person judge for themselves? What are the standards? Are there exceptions? Can non-moral achievement outweigh some negative moral chocies?

Ok, and see, though I respect you viewpoint, I disagree. The tone of your post suggests that you do not repsect the Christian viewpoint. Now this is text-based so I could be wrong.

Additionally... who is the judge of whether you lived a 'good life'? What is a 'good life'? Do you judge? Does each person judge for themselves? What are the standards? Are there exceptions? Can non-moral achievement outweigh some negative moral chocies?

You would know that Christians themselves do not decide who has lived a good life, but rather by God. But now you are asking me questions that go beyond my knowledge.

Wow we've been talking for quite a while huh?

You would know that Christians themselves do not decide who has lived a good life, but rather by God. But now you are asking me questions that go beyond my knowledge.

What religion or demonination are you friend?

What religion or demonination are you friend?

As I have said numerous times including in this thread I am Catholic.

As I have said numerous times including in this thread I am Catholic.

Oh I am sorry I must have missed that my internet kept going down maybe I missed it then

Oh I am sorry I must have missed that my internet kept going down maybe I missed it then

Yeah maybe it hardly matters though. Was there a reasoning behind your question or just curious?

revere Mary's Immaculate heart. Christianity is a faith of the heart.

Umm, not to pick a fight... but can you provide any scriptural evidence to support this crazy idea that Mary (Jesus' mamma) was concieved immaculately? And were she thus conceived, why did we need Jesus? If Mary were capable of sinlessness, why didn't God just anoint her to the human sacrifice of Christianity.

I ask because as soon as I learned that the Catholic Church made such a claim, I tried not to laugh, the Bible seems strongly against such an idea. I asked another Catholic friend of mine who had prior suggested that Job probably never actually happened, but was written as a good moral story... she told me that everyone needs to just take it on faith that Mary was born without sin, I can't take on faith what isn't in the Bible, I mean, sheesh there's enough there to take purely by faith, without adding whimsical things just to curry the favor of Goddess figure Germanic pagans.

The request for scriptural evidence is still valid, however.

You would know that Christians themselves do not decide who has lived a good life, but rather by God. But now you are asking me questions that go beyond my knowledge.

I was asking because I assume you had some kind of justification for that belief. I already have justification for my belief, as well as who judges, and based on what criteria.

You made a similar claim, I was merely asking for some kind of information... you were laughably vague.

As I have said numerous times including in this thread I am Catholic.

Umm, actually, a Catholic cannot believe that 'all good people go to Heaven'

If you are a Catholic, you agree to abide by Catholic doctrine, which currently states that you need to take all appropriate sacrements, and that only somone baptized Catholic can go to Heaven. The morally best person in the world would go to Hell (according to Catholicism) even if he believed in Jesus, but were not Catholic, I suggest researching what you claim to believe.

Yeah maybe it hardly matters though. Was there a reasoning behind your question or just curious?

Just curious

Umm, not to pick a fight... but can you provide any scriptural evidence to support this crazy idea that Mary (Jesus' mamma) was concieved immaculately? And were she thus conceived, why did we need Jesus? If Mary were capable of sinlessness, why didn't God just anoint her to the human sacrifice of Christianity.

I ask because as soon as I learned that the Catholic Church made such a claim, I tried not to laugh, the Bible seems strongly against such an idea. I asked another Catholic friend of mine who had prior suggested that Job probably never actually happened, but was written as a good moral story... she told me that everyone needs to just take it on faith that Mary was born without sin, I can't take on faith what isn't in the Bible, I mean, sheesh there's enough there to take purely by faith, without adding whimsical things just to curry the favor of Goddess figure Germanic pagans.

The request for scriptural evidence is still valid, however.

That is true

I was asking because I assume you had some kind of justification for that belief. I already have justification for my belief, as well as who judges, and based on what criteria.

You made a similar claim, I was merely asking for some kind of information... you were laughably vague.

Laughably vague hey despite me telling you that it did exceed my knowledge, perhaps since you know you can tell me.

Just curious

kk

Laughably vague hey despite me telling you that it did exceed my knowledge, perhaps since you know you can tell me.

Christ is the judge, as is pointed out by the Bible.

The request for scriptural evidence is still valid, however.
It's a useless request. Catholics are not sola scriptura, they weigh history and tradition the same as scripture, and where the two collide, the "church" is right.


"Where scripture speaks we speak and where scripture is silent we are silent." does not apply to them, they are more "Where scripture speaks we haven't read it, and if scripture is silent we'll make shit up".

Just nod and smile and move on. It's what they're going to do anyway.

Umm, actually, a Catholic cannot believe that 'all good people go to Heaven'

If you are a Catholic, you agree to abide by Catholic doctrine, which currently states that you need to take all appropriate sacrements, and that only somone baptized Catholic can go to Heaven. The morally best person in the world would go to Hell (according to Catholicism) even if he believed in Jesus, but were not Catholic, I suggest researching what you claim to believe.

Well you better inform the Pope so he can excommunicate one bishop and two priests.

Wow this threads collapsed into a Christian discussion, thats a shame really.

Christ is the judge, as is pointed out by the Bible.

Well according to you. (and me)

Christian Theology 101: Jesus (the Son) is God (the Father) who is the Holy Spirit, who is also the Son.

Three facets of the same being.

EDIT: I'm also "Keen on Jesus." as Monty Burns once put it.

That is what I said God judges, if mine was laughably vague then yours was just as much.

Why would he do that? You have to understand there are other powers and principalities out there opposed to God. And he has set down one path directly to himself. There is only one God why would there be more than one way to him. And if there is only one God and one faith, think about where the others most lead to. Also God loved us so much he took on flesh for us and lived with us for 33 years in the person of Jesus Christ. Not only did he greatly lower his position, the Bible says he made himself lower than even the angels he created and he lowered himself to that of a servant of men. Not only did he do this but he lived a perfect sinless life, so he could bare our sins on the cross. So now we don't have die for own sins, we don't have to give sacrifices, we don't need an intermediary between us and God. We are under a new covenant.

You yourself have said that there are many cultures out there, would it not make sense that God would provide a way that is in keeping with cultural practices and belifes for all of us, rather than trying to shoehorn all into one cultural belife system?

But you're the one ignoring the context. The context is: in the OT, God uses things of this earth (including other nations) to reprimand his people. So if his people were worshiping other gods, oppressing the poor, etc, then it makes sense (in this context, the context of the scripture) that he would let the Babylonians invade, rather than divinely intervene.So it only makes sense within the context of scripture. Okay.

Going solely off of reading your post (and not the initial post that you seem to have responded to) 'equality' is not the same as 'same'.

All people are equal, as in, all people should have equal rights, and freedoms, which is quite different than all people are facsimiles of each other.I don't think that all people should have equal freedoms. For example, I don't think that people who are mentally incapable should be allowed to operate dangerous machinery. And rights such as voting etc, are only universal because there is no feasible better way to do it- I don't consider an uninformed vote equal in value to an informed one, even if I were to disagree with it. So tell me again why all people should have these completely equal rights and freedoms, save sometimes in the interest of expediency? I don't think that the expediency thing really works with God, though.

The quote was that before God all people are equal. And I'm asking: in what sense are they equal? It is just that they're all people and not God?

It's a useless request. Catholics are not sola scriptura, they weigh history and tradition the same as scripture, and where the two collide, the "church" is right.


"Where scripture speaks we speak and where scripture is silent we are silent." does not apply to them, they are more "Where scripture speaks we haven't read it, and if scripture is silent we'll make shit up".

Just nod and smile and move on. It's what they're going to do anyway.

tru dat

And were she thus conceived, why did we need Jesus? If Mary were capable of sinlessness, why didn't God just anoint her to the human sacrifice of Christianity.
Or, just make every human from then on equally capable of sinlessness. What is the point of the melodrama, anyway?

It's a useless request. Catholics are not sola scriptura, they weigh history and tradition the same as scripture, and where the two collide, the "church" is right.


"Where scripture speaks we speak and where scripture is silent we are silent." does not apply to them, they are more "Where scripture speaks we haven't read it, and if scripture is silent we'll make shit up".

Just nod and smile and move on. It's what they're going to do anyway.

Well I wasn't going to reply because I have never heard of any Catholic saying that Mary was without sin. But I would like to know where you are getting your little quotes from.

No this is not true. Because of the curse of original sin we are all bound to go to hell. God is not sending us there. God created Hell as a place for sin, therefore it was originally intended Satan and his demons, however when Adam sinned we are all born with a sinful nature and are all hellbound. Bound the blood of Jesus Christ is the ticket off the train to hell if you except it. Yet you are not held accountable for the things you do not know, so if your an innocent child you will still go to heaven without believing on Jesus, the same for the man who lives out in the wilderness and never even heard of the Gospel.

Ahhhh and there is that scizhm again. So which one of your two is right and which one wrong ummm?

That is what I said God judges, if mine was laughably vague then yours was just as much.

Not actually accurate, you said all good people go to Heaven, I asked for a little more information, and you claimed to not really know any of it.

Thats vagueness... when you ask me a question,a nd I answer it, and you piggy-back ride it, it doesnt make me equally vague....

No I am not like other Christians espeicially some American Christians whom I dislike almost as much as you. And yes I may be wrong but then so is my Bishop and priests which is what I learnt from them.

But as I say God still loves you even if you hate him or don't even believe that he exists, and one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is this and that all people are equal. Yes I know a lot of Christians didn't follow this important tenet, yes I understand that it is not right that they didn't and many were and are hypocrites while others are only human and forget about what the claim to believe in.

But as I say maybe I am wrong, so too were the the members of the clergy that told me this I don't know, but I can tell you I am vastly different to the many other Christians you have met.

As for your last passage I cannot tell you, it was not something I thought of when I had the chance to be able to speak, and I won't claim that I know everything.


Then your brand of Christianity I can certianly get behind.:D

I did answer it. I wrote about separation in the heart.

In the OT, God talks about His law written in our hearts. As Catholics, we worships the Sacred Heart, revere Mary's Immaculate heart. Christianity is a faith of the heart.

Heh that is actualy very funny, when you reliase that the heart has nowt to do with love. Shouldn't that be Christianity is is a faith of the brain?

As to worshiping the sacred heart, my head tells me that is idoltry.

Not actually accurate, you said all good people go to Heaven, I asked for a little more information, and you claimed to not really know any of it.

Thats vagueness... when you ask me a question,a nd I answer it, and you piggy-back ride it, it doesnt make me equally vague....

No I said that God judges as for what are the standards something which you never answered I said I didn't know. You said me saying God judged was wrong and that Jesus judged on it. Perhaps you should look at my post again.

Well I wasn't going to reply because I have never heard of any Catholic saying that Mary was without sin. But I would like to know where you are getting your little quotes from.

She's pulling from Catholic practice... and you realize that according to Catholicism, Mary is the Mother (somehow, mind you) of God, perhaps, should you try to actually be Catholic, you might want to do a little research into what you claim to believe. That way you can actually decide to believe in it or not. By stating something like "I am Catholic." I am stating that I believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, not "I have relatives that were Catholic, so I must be too"

And Mary was not completely sin free, she was jsut somehow born without Original Sin, for no reason, and only so that she could give birth to Jesus, so He would be pure... I guess being God incarnate isn't enough for Catholics....

Well I wasn't going to reply because I have never heard of any Catholic saying that Mary was without sin. But I would like to know where you are getting your little quotes from.

They aren't direct quotes, were they direct quotes they would have reference to who said them.

As far as my "information"......

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
(bold added by me)


The truth is exactly what I said.

I don't believe in the holiday I believe in Jesus Christ. I am not worshipping idols and I am not bowing down to graven images. I am not doing anything wrong in innocently celebrating the Lord's birthday.

Yet this still goes against your claim not to have anything to do with Pagan influense into Christiany doesn't it.

Also if you know that the 25th is wrong, yet you still celebrate it, then that cannot be innocent.

Then your brand of Christianity I can certianly get behind.:D

Well you are welcome to join if you want but then if you don't want to I am not really fussed either way. :wink: (And I don't mean to sound rude when saying that, it does come across to me as maybe being rude sorry)

It really comes down to two houses, one with God in it, one without Him. If you come to my house, you have to follow certain rules. You go to God's house, you have to follow his. You don't like the rules, then go to the other house. But God won't be there.

Again that makes no sense if the claim is that God is everywhere. Either God is everywhere, in which case hell(as seperation from God is a lie) or God is not everywhere.

No I said that God judges as for what are the standards something which you never answered I said I didn't know. You said me saying God judged was wrong and that Jesus judged on it. Perhaps you should look at my post again.

What?

Link to this fabled post... you said (as early as I joined in) that good people go to Heaven, I asked for context, and whatnot... you claimed not to know.

You had never once said 'God' or anything like that as far as who judges.

She's pulling from Catholic practice... and you realize that according to Catholicism, Mary is the Mother (somehow, mind you) of God, perhaps, should you try to actually be Catholic, you might want to do a little research into what you claim to believe. That way you can actually decide to believe in it or not. By stating something like "I am Catholic." I am stating that I believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, not "I have relatives that were Catholic, so I must be too"

And Mary was not completely sin free, she was jsut somehow born without Original Sin, for no reason, and only so that she could give birth to Jesus, so He would be pure... I guess being God incarnate isn't enough for Catholics....

:rolleyes:

Yeah I mean despite being baptised into the church along with the confirmation and still attending church I can't be. Now you say she was pulling from Catholic practice and now that she has posted I will have a look at what she says. As I said you better inform the Pope that he has at least one bishop and two priests to excommunicate because they aren't saying what you think they should be saying

Again that makes no sense if the claim is that God is everywhere. Either God is everywhere, in which case hell(as seperation from God is a lie) or God is not everywhere.

God transcends material existence. He isn't literally everywhere, because He has no need to be a physical entity that exists inside the space-time continuum. In the sense that God is everywhere, He is also nowhere, because He need not even be anywhere, and He need not travel, or move to go somewhere.

Your lack of understanding will persist until you realize that God is not bound by the physical universe, nor by humans poor understanding of existence in it's diverse forms.

See, your failure to grasp this seperation comes you not understanding the concept of seperation. God is 'everywhere' sure, but God also happens to be 'nowhere' He is simply unbounded by physical limitations, such as space. Without a body, or physical presence he can indeed still be 'here' He need no move from one place to another, He transends the concept of space, in the same way he transcends time, these concepts have no binding on Him in he least.

I understand this perfeclty, and it is in fact one of my core belifes about God. It does not explain about hell as seperation though; this knowledge does not help explain hell as seperatation though does it.

:rolleyes:

Yeah I mean despite being baptised into the church along with the confirmation and still attending church I can't be. Now you say she was pulling from Catholic practice and now that she has posted I will have a look at what she says. As I said you better inform the Pope that he has at least one bishop and two priests to excommunicate because they aren't saying what you think they should be saying

No Catholic Priest is saying what they should be saying as representatives of Jesus Christ.

The Pope... well, scripturally shouldn't exist as a position, nor Bishops, nor Deacons, nor Cardinals, nor Holy Water, nor statues and idols of Christ, and saints, nor most of what Catholicism is.

What?

Link to this fabled post... you said (as early as I joined in) that good people go to Heaven, I asked for context, and whatnot... you claimed not to know.

You had never once said 'God' or anything like that as far as who judges.

Here you go http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13884173&postcount=269

Now I was clear in it but God is mentioned in this fabled post. God judges if we have lived a good life, now will you answer the rest of the questions (which are quoted in the fabled post) according to your beliefs something which you have yet to do.

:rolleyes:

Yeah I mean despite being baptised into the church along with the confirmation and still attending church I can't be. Now you say she was pulling from Catholic practice and now that she has posted I will have a look at what she says. As I said you better inform the Pope that he has at least one bishop and two priests to excommunicate because they aren't saying what you think they should be saying

What do you actually do at church? As far as Christianity I have only spent enough time in various brands of protestant to judge but mostly they talk over and over and over and over again about doctrine. When you went to confirmation classes you didn't learn what Catholics believe? How can you align yourself with Catholicism when you barely know the basic doctrines?

I understand this perfeclty, and it is in fact one of my core belifes about God. It does not explain about hell as seperation though; this knowledge does not help explain hell as seperatation though does it.

Umm... yes it does. Hell is a concept that also exists outside of the physical universe... so presence is a sketchy concept.

No Catholic Priest is saying what they should be saying as representatives of Jesus Christ.

And yet they do, which is why I am saying you should tell on their superiors Cardinal George Pell should be good enough. I think I can nearly wrap up talking to you.

Well you are welcome to join if you want but then if you don't want to I am not really fussed either way. :wink: (And I don't mean to sound rude when saying that, it does come across to me as maybe being rude sorry)

No thanks, I 'm fine with what I have, but I do belive that you are on the right track, so good luck with it.

As to you not being fussed, thats fine too, ones relationship with God should be a personal thing, I too don't really care what yours is, I'm too selfish in that I'm realy only interested in my own.

They aren't direct quotes, were they direct quotes they would have reference to who said them.

As far as my "information"......


http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp


http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
(bold added by me)


The truth is exactly what I said.

Thank you but holding the Scripture and tradition is hardly the same as "making shit up"

Hell is divine punishment of sinners. Sinners being those who are igorant of God's Grace, those who walk with the world instead of God. You could see that as seperation or as very painful torturing, I will not decide for you. What I think is tortue by demons, until of course Judgment, where they'll be tortured AGAIN. As for God's character, I believe that God's actions are what makes omnipresent, not his character. That means that God can do anything (omnipotent) anywhere (omnipresent). That also menas he must have the knowledge to be able to do something anywhere (omniscient). Because their is a hell, he has supreme justice (omnibenevolence). Because God is omniscient, free will is a thought created by man's selfish desires. I got to go now, but expect more when I get on.

PS. I now see the huge rift between Protestantism and Catholiscism.

Here you go http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13884173&postcount=269

Now I was clear in it but God is mentioned in this fabled post. God judges if we have lived a good life, now will you answer the rest of the questions (which are quoted in the fabled post) according to your beliefs something which you have yet to do.

in this post you do not actually intimate your own beliefs but the beliefs of 'Christians' with whome you don't associate yourself with yet.

Nice try though.

What do you actually do at church? As far as Christianity I have only spent enough time in various brands of protestant to judge but mostly they talk over and over and over and over again about doctrine. When you went to confirmation classes you didn't learn what Catholics can believe? How you align yourself with Catholicism when you barely know the basic doctrines?

Well apart from participating in the mass service I also aide the priest in distributing the wine to parishioners, and finishing off the left over wine (the best bit lol)

At the mass services doctrine is hardly talked about we will say a prayer or two have a reading from the gospel then the priest will give his sermon (not very long 5 minutes at the maximum) not always about doctrine but related to the scripture, then there is the eucharist and then a final goodbye and that is about it for the service of course afterwards there is coffee and chatting with other people but that is about it.

in this post you do not actually intimate your own beliefs but the beliefs of 'Christians' with whome you don't associate yourself with yet.

Nice try though.

I don't associate myself with yet? What?

And that was my post, and I am still waiting for your answers on the rest of your questions will you give them to me?

God transcends material existence. He isn't literally everywhere, because He has no need to be a physical entity that exists inside the space-time continuum. In the sense that God is everywhere, He is also nowhere, because He need not even be anywhere, and He need not travel, or move to go somewhere.

Your lack of understanding will persist until you realize that God is not bound by the physical universe, nor by humans poor understanding of existence in it's diverse forms.


Bwhahahah, again trotting out the same line does not show me how one can be seperated from God? The words above do not address that issue, and whats more despite my telling you that I fully understand what you mean, you insist on telling me that I don't.

Try this one.

God is outside of time, when I say that I mean the 'intelegence' or the 'soul' or the 'spirit'(pick which one makes more sense to you) transendes the creation.

By the creation I mean all that is phyisical, the entire universe and all laws, and parts thereof.

It can be said then that God is apart from the creation(as one would expect of a creator). It can also be understood that God is also part of the creation, in fact we can say that the universe is the 'body' of God as the 'spirt' is transendant, the 'body' is the 'material'.

Thus God is apart of and yet a part from the creation. If this is so, then there is nowhere that God is not, or in other words 'omnipresenct'

If so, how can anything that is 'living', or anything that is 'spirt' ever be apart from, or seperated from God?

This teaching is just soooooo wrong, it's a barefaced lie!

Unless you care to explain it to me, without trying to wriggle out by telling me 'you just don't understand'?

.PS. I now see the huge rift between Protestantism and Catholiscism.

Yes I ws thinking the exact same thing.

No thanks, I 'm fine with what I have, but I do belive that you are on the right track, so good luck with it.

As to you not being fussed, thats fine too, ones relationship with God should be a personal thing, I too don't really care what yours is, I'm too selfish in that I'm realy only interested in my own.

As I say that's ok, and I hope you have good luck with your faith too and that your relationship with God is to your satisfaction (after all that is what matters)

You yourself have said that there are many cultures out there, would it not make sense that God would provide a way that is in keeping with cultural practices and belifes for all of us, rather than trying to shoehorn all into one cultural belife system?

Jesus is for everyone not just one culture.

How do you pronounce Cthulhu anyways?

kuh-TOO-loo
kuh-TOOL-hoo
kuh-luh
KTLOO

Yes, the last one is one syllable.

Lovecraft gave at least the first three, and Leiber, who was in contact with Lovecraft, once gave the last one.

Ahhhh and there is that scizhm again. So which one of your two is right and which one wrong ummm?

Read the Bible and you will figure it out. Study different faiths as I said do not take my word for it.

Thank you but holding the Scripture and tradition is hardly the same as "making shit up"

Unless your Catholic!

Bazzzing!

(It was a joke, before people get offended).

Well I wasn't going to reply because I have never heard of any Catholic saying that Mary was without sin. But I would like to know where you are getting your little quotes from.
you didnt know that?

mary was born without original sin. on the feast of the immaculate conception the conceptEE isnt jesus, its mary.

as to whether or not she sinned later--only venial sins im sure.

She's pulling from Catholic practice... and you realize that according to Catholicism, Mary is the Mother (somehow, mind you) of God, perhaps, should you try to actually be Catholic, you might want to do a little research into what you claim to believe. That way you can actually decide to believe in it or not. By stating something like "I am Catholic." I am stating that I believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, not "I have relatives that were Catholic, so I must be too"

And Mary was not completely sin free, she was jsut somehow born without Original Sin, for no reason, and only so that she could give birth to Jesus, so He would be pure... I guess being God incarnate isn't enough for Catholics....

Exactly and with that logic all of her ancestors would have to be of virgin birth and sinless

as to whether or not she sinned later--only venial sins im sure.

She had to have right? Otherwise, wouldn't she be the Christ?

Oh well, Catholicism doesn't always put too much stock in following with anything the Bible says.

She's pulling from Catholic practice... and you realize that according to Catholicism, Mary is the Mother (somehow, mind you) of God, perhaps, should you try to actually be Catholic, you might want to do a little research into what you claim to believe. That way you can actually decide to believe in it or not. By stating something like "I am Catholic." I am stating that I believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, not "I have relatives that were Catholic, so I must be too"

And Mary was not completely sin free, she was jsut somehow born without Original Sin, for no reason, and only so that she could give birth to Jesus, so He would be pure... I guess being God incarnate isn't enough for Catholics....
she was born without sin so that she would be good enough to carry the son of god.

how that jibes with her CHOICE to do so well after the fact of her imaculate conception...i dont know.

Yet this still goes against your claim not to have anything to do with Pagan influense into Christiany doesn't it.

Also if you know that the 25th is wrong, yet you still celebrate it, then that cannot be innocent.

It is not wrong if we have gotten rid of the pagan practices associated with the holiday and made it a Christian one.

She had to have right? Otherwise, wouldn't she be the Christ?

Oh well, Catholicism doesn't always put too much stock in following with anything the Bible says.
no she would never be the christ but im pretty sure that catholic doctrine is that everyone sins at least a little bit.

There is only one God with many names. Every religion worshipping him but everyone in different way...

no she would never be the christ but im pretty sure that catholic doctrine is that everyone sins at least a little bit.

Christian belief certainly follows that rule. I was just saying that sometimes the Bible is dispensible for Catholic purposes (such as... well almost everything about Catholicism except what almost amount to tidbits, the basic idea with Jesus is pretty much the big link)

She had to have right? Otherwise, wouldn't she be the Christ?

Oh well, Catholicism doesn't always put too much stock in following with anything the Bible says.

Still with the jokes or will we be hearing more crap like how nuns drown the babies of unwed teenage mothers?

It's a useless request. Catholics are not sola scriptura, they weigh history and tradition the same as scripture, and where the two collide, the "church" is right.


"Where scripture speaks we speak and where scripture is silent we are silent." does not apply to them, they are more "Where scripture speaks we haven't read it, and if scripture is silent we'll make shit up".

Just nod and smile and move on. It's what they're going to do anyway.
it is not that catholics make shit up willy-nilly. none of the "extras" conflict with scriptures. (as long as you interpret them in a catholic manner, catholics arent responsible to make it work with protestant interpretations)

i cant defend them all but the church can.

Hold up people do not just be bashing unbelievers now. I want Christ for them, but believing in Christ is nothing with out good deeds and following God's commands and vice-versa. A so called Christian who claims to believe on Jesus and continues to committ sin without having a true repentant heart will also die in their sins.

There is only one true god.

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn192/KelsakaHaruhi/02.gif

There is only one God with many names. Every religion worshipping him but everyone in different way...

Thats not particularly accurate.

No Catholic Priest is saying what they should be saying as representatives of Jesus Christ.

The Pope... well, scripturally shouldn't exist as a position, nor Bishops, nor Deacons, nor Cardinals, nor Holy Water, nor statues and idols of Christ, and saints, nor most of what Catholicism is.

In regard to the papacy, you might want to check out the Gospel of St. Matthew, the part when Jesus hands the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter and tells him what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven, etc.

Statues are only idols when you believe the statue itself is God, which we do not. We don;t believe a statue of Jesus is actually Jesus anymore than you believe a photo of Britney Spears is actually Britney Spears.

As to Bishops, deacons and the general episcopal structure, refer to Acts of the Apostles and the epistles.

And holy water is simply blessed water.

I can't believe this thread is still going on. How long do these things last?

it is not that catholics make shit up willy-nilly. none of the "extras" conflict with scriptures. (as long as you interpret them in a catholic manner, catholics arent responsible to make it work with protestant interpretations)

i cant defend them all but the church can.

I wasn't trying to defend it either way. I was merely trying to point out to Der that asking a Catholic for scriptural backing for anything they believe is most likely useless as most of it isn't from scripture.

Christian belief certainly follows that rule. I was just saying that sometimes the Bible is dispensible for Catholic purposes (such as... well almost everything about Catholicism except what almost amount to tidbits, the basic idea with Jesus is pretty much the big link)
no. nothing in the bible is disposable (if thats what you meant). the church has had ....1800ish years to think about it and how to interpret everything to fit with church teachings (or vice versa)

the protestants fixed certain interpretational problems by ditching books of the bible that didnt fit with their ideas.

I can't believe this thread is still going on. How long do these things last?

It's been non-stop since August of 2005, I hear it was around before that too.

I wasn't trying to defend it either way. I was merely trying to point out to Der that asking a Catholic for scriptural backing for anything they believe is most likely useless as most of it isn't from scripture.
noooooo
there is scriptural backing for ALL of it. whether or not you agree is up to you.

She had to have right? Otherwise, wouldn't she be the Christ?

Oh well, Catholicism doesn't always put too much stock in following with anything the Bible says.

By the way, who do you think gave us the Bible? By bible I mean the sacred scriptures collected and ordered as they are. That was us Catholics, thank you very much.

As I recall, Protestants didn't exist until 1,500 yrs AFTER Jesus...

In regard to the papacy, you might want to check out the Gospel of St. Matthew, the part when Jesus hands the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter and tells him what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven, etc.

Where it does it say Pope? Where in Matthew does it define te position of Pope? The keys, and binding are extremely vague... and the Catholic Church has stepped well outside scriptural bounds to get there.

Christ has also said that all believers are completely equal, so, from where do you derive your notion of hierarchy?

Whats more is that Paul refers to all believers generically as saints, so where does Mary/saint worship come in to play in the scripture.

noooooo
there is scriptural backing for ALL of it. whether or not you agree is up to you.

What they mean is it's not directly contradicted. There's a difference you know. Not that many of your average Joe Catholic people can actually point you to where the Church has taken their idea and let it grow into "sacred tradition" because most of them will tell you that the Bible isn't important to them, nor do they study it, nor have they read it. A priest can, a bishop, that old lady in the back with the funny hat with the big ugly flowers on it, perhaps, but not random Catholic dude whose parents were Catholic and he goes to mass sometimes if he feels guilty or if it's a holiday. (not that the protestants are any different 99% of the time either, with the exception of mega-fundamentalists who are expected to memorize entire sections of scripture)

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.

Which concept is the best one?

Come on now, don't be shy, leave your gloves at the door!:D

tl:dr.

My Concept of God? The stern but loving father. Sure he punishes us for our sins, but he gives us alot of chances to repent our sins. Sure he loves us all, but he will abide by the rules he laid down. if we break them, then we are held accountable. Fortunately, he's also a forgiving God. Unfortunately, alot of us don't ask for forgiveness.

I wasn't trying to defend it either way. I was merely trying to point out to Der that asking a Catholic for scriptural backing for anything they believe is most likely useless as most of it isn't from scripture.

Except that I just gave you scriptural backing for what we believe. I can do it for just about everything we believe, via my trusty copy of the CCC.

It's been non-stop since August of 2005, I hear it was around before that too.

lol nice answer Smunkee.

By the way, who do you think gave us the Bible? By bible I mean the sacred scriptures collected and ordered as they are. That was us Catholics, thank you very much.

As I recall, Protestants didn't exist until 1,500 yrs AFTER Jesus...

And the Catholics not until 200 years after Jesus.

Also, the Protestants were attempting to reclaim (based on faithful translation, rather than political translation) the real Christian Theology.

What exactly does blessing water do? isn't it still just water?

In regard to the papacy, you might want to check out the Gospel of St. Matthew, the part when Jesus hands the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter and tells him what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven, etc.

Statues are only idols when you believe the statue itself is God, which we do not. We don;t believe a statue of Jesus is actually Jesus anymore than you believe a photo of Britney Spears is actually Britney Spears.

As to Bishops, deacons and the general episcopal structure, refer to Acts of the Apostles and the epistles.

And holy water is simply blessed water.

Yes Peter was a pillar of the Church. But he does not take the place of Jesus on Earth. And he most certainly was not a pope. The first known pope arrived in about 400 AD. Furthermore, no offense, if you bow down before a statue and pray to it that is idolatry. The Bible says not to bow down before idols. You are right in saying that bishops and deacons and the like are scriptural. The Bible does not tell us to use holy water but anointing oil.

Not that many of your average Joe Catholic people can actually point you to where the Church has taken their idea and let it grow into "sacred tradition" because most of them will tell you that the Bible isn't important to them, nor do they study it, nor have they read it.

Where do you get this from? The Bible is read from at every Mass. It's studied in every CCD class. I'd like to know where you got this strange idea from that we're unaware of the scriptures.

Except that I just gave you scriptural backing for what we believe. I can do it for just about everything we believe, via my trusty copy of the CCC.

I don't even remember asking you anything :tongue: what were you talking about? Linky?

I'm not ignoring you, I was trying to stay out of the conversation (read failing horribly)

There is only one true god.

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn192/KelsakaHaruhi/02.gif
... and she MUST be kept entertained! :hail:
It's been non-stop since August of 2005, I hear it was around before that too.
much, MUCH longer than that... a whole lot longer...

Except that I just gave you scriptural backing for what we believe. I can do it for just about everything we believe, via my trusty copy of the CCC.

right, but, sadly, you are using a twisted translation, and twisting the meanings of that into something completely unrecognisable to the thing Jesus talked about.

Where do you get this from? The Bible is read from at every Mass. It's studied in every CCD class. I'd like to know where you got this strange idea from that we're unaware of the scriptures.

90% of the Catholics I have ever encountered in my entire life. Most of you are even blissfully unaware of what the Church believes. 10% of you aren't, but I rarely encounter that 10%.

There is only one God with many names. Every religion worshipping him but everyone in different way...

Yes, not one way is more correct than another.

Your creator calls you to worship him in the best way you can. Why be a piece of shit mediocre Christian when you could make an excellent Buddhist or Muslim? It even works with atheists too, because if you think about it, science searches for the same answers as religion, just in a different way.

Some day we will evolve to a point where we stop doing this :hail: :mad: and start doing this :confused: :fluffle:

First of all, I don't pray to statues. I don't know anyone who does. I do pray in front of statues, using them as a visual reminder of who I'm talking to, like you might gaze at a photo of a loved one. But there's no worship of the actual statue.

Also, it's Protestants who conveniently throw the Bible out of the window when they ignore John, ch. 6 and the real presence in the Eucharist.

All this talk about reclaiming the early church... the early church was Catholic. Read the Church Fathers - Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.

right, but, sadly, you are using a twisted translation, and twisting the meanings of that into something completely unrecognisable to the thing Jesus talked about.

That's a little more than unfair. You asked him why he believed that, he told you.

And to those who say it is okay to add tradition to God's word is wrong. The Bible says you must not add to his word.

What they mean is it's not directly contradicted. There's a difference you know. Not that many of your average Joe Catholic people can actually point you to where the Church has taken their idea and let it grow into "sacred tradition" because most of them will tell you that the Bible isn't important to them, nor do they study it, nor have they read it. A priest can, a bishop, that old lady in the back with the funny hat with the big ugly flowers on it, perhaps, but not random Catholic dude whose parents were Catholic and he goes to mass sometimes if he feels guilty or if it's a holiday. (not that the protestants are any different 99% of the time either, with the exception of mega-fundamentalists who are expected to memorize entire sections of scripture)
what im saying is that it is (catholically speaking) IMPLIED by the scriptures but not spelled out.

now some common catholic ideas are not church teachings but cultural traditions that have grown up over the years. those dont count.

but every "odd" tenet of the church is there because some big thinker realized that there was a problem in scripture that had to be thought through and they came up with a "work around" that leaves us with an all powerful all merciful god.

for example infant limbo is there because unbaptised babies CANT go to heaven--no unbaptised person goes to heaven (at least not ones from christian families)--but a loving god is surely not going to condemn a baby to eternal hell fire. so you have the limbo work-around that made sense for a long time. as you might remember its been recently ditched because the pope decided that its not merciful enough--all babies go to heaven.

And the Catholics not until 200 years after Jesus.

Also, the Protestants were attempting to reclaim (based on faithful translation, rather than political translation) the real Christian Theology.

What exactly does blessing water do? isn't it still just water?

Try 200 years even later than that.

90% of the Catholics I have ever encountered in my entire life. Most of you are even blissfully unaware of what the Church believes. 10% of you aren't, but I rarely encounter that 10%.

And I rarely encounter Protestants who actually read the whole Bible and interpret it through the lens of 2000 yrs of tradition, rather than cherry-pick verses and ignore scriptural context. But I wouldn't paint all Protestants that way.

First of all, I don't pray to statues. I don't know anyone who does. I do pray in front of statues, using them as a visual reminder of who I'm talking to, like you might gaze at a photo of a loved one. But there's no worship of the actual statue.

Also, it's Protestants who conveniently throw the Bible out of the window when they ignore John, ch. 6 and the real presence in the Eucharist.

All this talk about reclaiming the early church... the early church was Catholic. Read the Church Fathers - Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.

Eucharist? Isn't that the same thing as Communion? Just curious.

And to those who say it is okay to add tradition to God's word is wrong. The Bible says you must not add to his word.

Revelation 22:19-20 says not to add/remove from the words of the Book of Revelation.

what im saying is that it is (catholically speaking) IMPLIED by the scriptures but not spelled out.

now some common catholic ideas are not church teachings but cultural traditions that have grown up over the years. those dont count.

but every "odd" tenet of the church is there because some big thinker realized that there was a problem in scripture that had to be thought through and they came up with a "work around" that leaves us with an all powerful all merciful god.

for example infant limbo is there because unbaptised babies CANT go to heaven--no unbaptised person goes to heaven (at least not ones from christian families)--but a loving god is surely not going to condemn a baby to eternal hell fire. so you have the limbo work-around that made sense for a long time. as you might remember its been recently ditched because the pope decided that its not merciful enough--all babies go to heaven.

i.e. making shit up.

All I'm saying is I came from a tradition that where scripture is silent you are silent, you don't go running around doing God apologetics in the sense that if you don't have an answer you make one up. You just say "I don't know" and move on.

Revelation 22:19-20 says not to add/remove from the words of the Book of Revelation.

Says the Mormon:tongue:

Okay, I have to sleep now. Fun times. Fun times.

And I rarely encounter Protestants who actually read the whole Bible and interpret it through the lens of 2000 yrs of tradition, rather than cherry-pick verses and ignore scriptural context. But I wouldn't paint all Protestants that way.

Nope, only about 99%. Catholics are really winning this war, due to confirmation classes.

Says the Mormon:tongue:

Okay, I have to sleep now. Fun times. Fun times.

Damn straight, baby.:p

i.e. making shit up.

All I'm saying is I came from a tradition that where scripture is silent you are silent, you don't go running around doing God apologetics in the sense that if you don't have an answer you make one up. You just say "I don't know" and move on.
yeah making shit up but not willy-nilly. in the end, even when it is later decided to be wrong--infant limbo--it is somehow implied by scripture and not contradicted by it (given catholic interpretation of scripture)

90% of the Catholics I have ever encountered in my entire life. Most of you are even blissfully unaware of what the Church believes. 10% of you aren't, but I rarely encounter that 10%.

Yeah smunkee is right. :(

i'm an ex-catholic (i went to catholic school for 10 years) and it is surprising how ignorant catholics are of themselves. I met one Catholic who I could hold an intelligent philosophical conversation, and he was a theologian.

catholics in general don't know half the shit they belief. With the exception of a few, even the catholics that go to mass haven't picked up a bible within the last several years. its all brainwashing and empty participation. its getting close to becoming a dead religion in the USA. now i dunno about spain, italy, france, and the african and south american continents.. perhaps they are a bit more in touch with their inner catholic.

And the Catholics not until 200 years after Jesus.
??? They were calling themselves "Catholics" a lot earlier than that, continuing church-meetings that had been getting together from the first generation.

What they mean is it's not directly contradicted. There's a difference you know. Not that many of your average Joe Catholic people can actually point you to where the Church has taken their idea and let it grow into "sacred tradition" because most of them will tell you that the Bible isn't important to them, nor do they study it, nor have they read it. A priest can, a bishop, that old lady in the back with the funny hat with the big ugly flowers on it, perhaps, but not random Catholic dude whose parents were Catholic and he goes to mass sometimes if he feels guilty or if it's a holiday. (not that the protestants are any different 99% of the time either, with the exception of mega-fundamentalists who are expected to memorize entire sections of scripture)

Look Smunkee I am sure you are partly correct, and even those that will not go to church at all (I am sure you are not talking about me:wink:) Now have I read the Bible from cover to cover? No, have I read a lot of it yes there may have been a few books which I haven't read a couple of the letters some of the prophets from the OT which must mean I can't be Catholic because I don't attend Church every day oh yeah my parent were Catholic too so that must mean I am not Catholic. Can I point out exactly where every tradition came from and how it is linked with the scripture? No not immediately I could go through the Bible and have a look and I am sure I could Is the Bible important to me? Yes it is I am sure it is important to quite a number of Catholics do too why would it be. And even if they didn't study it and memorise it from heart why does that matter? Apart from allowing your good self to have a good sense of smugness.

Try 200 years even later than that.

The Church was founded when Jesus handed the keys to Peter and said that on this rock, I will build my church. And Ignatius of Antioch was calling the church "Catholic" as early as 107 AD.

what im saying is that it is (catholically speaking) IMPLIED by the scriptures but not spelled out.

now some common catholic ideas are not church teachings but cultural traditions that have grown up over the years. those dont count.

but every "odd" tenet of the church is there because some big thinker realized that there was a problem in scripture that had to be thought through and they came up with a "work around" that leaves us with an all powerful all merciful god.

for example infant limbo is there because unbaptised babies CANT go to heaven--no unbaptised person goes to heaven (at least not ones from christian families)--but a loving god is surely not going to condemn a baby to eternal hell fire. so you have the limbo work-around that made sense for a long time. as you might remember its been recently ditched because the pope decided that its not merciful enough--all babies go to heaven.

Baptism is only a representation of your sin being washed away by the blood of Jesus. Your acceptance in to heaven has nothing to do with baptism. Furthermore, you must be accountable and must be knowledgable of what you are doing. So a baby can not be baptised because he does not know what he is doing. A baby is innocent and the Bible says you are not accountable for the things you do not know. So a baby will go to heaven. There is no purgatory. God is black and white. Either you follow him or you do not. Consider the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The Rich Man was not a bad man, but in the end he did not go to heaven or purgatory he was sent directly to hell. And why would a loving God send an innocent baby who knows nothing of salvation in to limbo, that is not fair to the child at all.

Look Smunkee I am sure you are partly correct, and even those that will not go to church at all (I am sure you are not talking about me:wink:) Now have I read the Bible from cover to cover? No, have I read a lot of it yes there may have been a few books which I haven't read a couple of the letters some of the prophets from the OT which must mean I can't be Catholic because I don't attend Church every day oh yeah my parent were Catholic too so that must mean I am not Catholic. Can I point out exactly where every tradition came from and how it is linked with the scripture? No not immediately I could go through the Bible and have a look and I am sure I could Is the Bible important to me? Yes it is I am sure it is important to quite a number of Catholics do too why would it be. And even if they didn't study it and memorise it from heart why does that matter? Apart from allowing your good self to have a good sense of smugness.

I don't really care either way. I was just pointing out to Der (originally) that the expectations for Catholics and protestants about doctrine, belief, and scripture are completly different.

Eucharist? Isn't that the same thing as Communion? Just curious.

Our Holy Communion (Eucharist) is different from Protestant communion. We believe Jesus is really present in the bread and wine, as He states in John. Ch 6. Protestant, for some reason unknown to me ignore that part of the Bible, and see the bread as only a symbol of Christ.

Of course, this is in general. Presbyterians and some Anglicans have an interesting middle-of-the-road approach.

The Church was founded when Jesus handed the keys to Peter and said that on this rock, I will build my church. And Ignatius of Antioch was calling the church "Catholic" as early as 107 AD.

Catholic was only an old term which later came to be identified as the Roman Church.

Baptism is only a representation of your sin being washed away by the blood of Jesus. Your acceptance in to heaven has nothing to do with baptism. Furthermore, you must be accountable and must be knowledgable of what you are doing. So a baby can not be baptised because he does not know what he is doing. A baby is innocent and the Bible says you are not accountable for the things you do not know. So a baby will go to heaven. There is no purgatory. God is black and white. Either you follow him or you do not. Consider the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The Rich Man was not a bad man, but in the end he did not go to heaven or purgatory he was sent directly to hell. And why would a loving God send an innocent baby who knows nothing of salvation in to limbo, that is not fair to the child at all.
Baptist?

Revelation 22:19-20 says not to add/remove from the words of the Book of Revelation.

Amen brother

Baptism is only a representation of your sin being washed away by the blood of Jesus. Your acceptance in to heaven has nothing to do with baptism. Furthermore, you must be accountable and must be knowledgable of what you are doing. So a baby can not be baptised because he does not know what he is doing. A baby is innocent and the Bible says you are not accountable for the things you do not know. So a baby will go to heaven. There is no purgatory. God is black and white. Either you follow him or you do not. Consider the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The Rich Man was not a bad man, but in the end he did not go to heaven or purgatory he was sent directly to hell. And why would a loving God send an innocent baby who knows nothing of salvation in to limbo, that is not fair to the child at all.
that is YOUR interpretation. in YOUR interpretation limbo is unnecessary.

in the catholic interpretation it was.

Baptist?

What do you mean by "Baptist"? Are you saying I am Baptist, because I am not. I am not a protestant and I am not a catholic. I do not follow the Pope or Martin Luther. I am a Christian and I follow Jesus Christ.

i.e. making shit up.

All I'm saying is I came from a tradition that where scripture is silent you are silent, you don't go running around doing God apologetics in the sense that if you don't have an answer you make one up. You just say "I don't know" and move on.

Yes and that is your tradition and beliefs Smunkee, but I suppose we should just all change to your way hey?

And their was a few questions that Der asked me which I said I didn't know and that I couldn't answer them, but that's a Catholic for you.

Of course he said he knew the answers and when I asked him to tell me what they were he is yet to.

The Church was founded when Jesus handed the keys to Peter and said that on this rock, I will build my church. And Ignatius of Antioch was calling the church "Catholic" as early as 107 AD.

Who cares what an ugly hairy old man was calling the church. When did it reach religion status? I can tell you that it wasn't in the instant the prophet jesus decided to put peter in charge.

I would say that it didn't reach religion status until Constantine mixed catholicism with paganism. the romans were pretty efficient at keeping the catholic population at a minimum prior to that... wouldn't you imagine?

Catholic was only an old term which later came to be identified as the Roman Church.

Not just the church in Rome, but ALL of the old churches going back to the first generation: none of those churches ever stopped. They have mutated some over time, to be sure, what group doesn't? But the institutional continuity is just a plain fact.

Mark 16:16 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Baptism ain't optional.

For the Protestant posters, this might help:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Gotta eat now.. later!

that is YOUR interpretation. in YOUR interpretation limbo is unnecessary.

in the catholic interpretation it was.

Do you understand that God has no in betweens? Consider the Kings of Israel and Judah in ancient times. Just because the kings did some good things for their country, did not matter in God's eyes it only matter if they followed his commands or no.

I don't really care either way. I was just pointing out to Der (originally) that the expectations for Catholics and protestants about doctrine, belief, and scripture are completly different.

Well there is no arguing with that.

the romans were pretty efficient at keeping the catholic population at a minimum prior to that... wouldn't you imagine?
You might "imagine" so, but this turned out not to be the case. Since no sociologists were around to conduct methodologically sound surveys, the numbers are inevitably speculative, but scholars think the Catholic population in the Empire by the time of Constantinople was about 20-30%, making them the largest single religious body.

Yes and that is your tradition and beliefs Smunkee, but I suppose we should just all change to your way hey?
Not particularly since it's not my current way. I've evolved 10 times since that. I was working on the assumption that Der was asking for scriptural backing due to him being from a similar tradtion of sola scriptura and explaining to him that the entire conversation is null until you both set out where you come from.

And their was a few questions that Der asked me which I said I didn't know and that I couldn't answer them, but that's a Catholic for you.

Not uniquely. Most religious people can't/won't/shouldn't try to answer things on the spur of the moment.
Of course he said he knew the answers and when I asked him to tell me what they were he is yet to.
He knows his answers, not yours.

Our Holy Communion (Eucharist) is different from Protestant communion. We believe Jesus is really present in the bread and wine, as He states in John. Ch 6. Protestant, for some reason unknown to me ignore that part of the Bible, and see the bread as only a symbol of Christ.

Of course, this is in general. Presbyterians and some Anglicans have an interesting middle-of-the-road approach.

Why does something like that even matter? In the big scheme of things, why does something as nonessential and trivial as that even matter?

Does that effect anything??

yeah making shit up but not willy-nilly. in the end, even when it is later decided to be wrong--infant limbo--it is somehow implied by scripture and not contradicted by it (given catholic interpretation of scripture)

Where in scripture does it say an unbaptised child who knows nothing of salvation will forever live limbo?

What do you mean by "Baptist"? Are you saying I am Baptist, because I am not. I am not a protestant and I am not a catholic. I do not follow the Pope or Martin Luther. I am a Christian and I follow Jesus Christ.

Church of Christ? Independent Christian? or Non-denominational?

I put my guesses in order of likelihood.

What do you mean by "Baptist"? Are you saying I am Baptist, because I am not. I am not a protestant and I am not a catholic. I do not follow the Pope or Martin Luther. I am a Christian and I follow Jesus Christ.

I think she's saying that Baptists believe that Baptisim is one way to be accepted into Heaven because
1) Jesus was baptised.
2) the Baptism Cerimony (as apposed to Christiening) includes the acceptance of Christ.

and Babies are Christened. not Baptised. Because Baptism is, as you said, a choice.

I would love to stay but I have to grab some sleep before I have a lot of stuff to do, deadlines to meet people to see places to go, I may be on sometime in my late afternoon before I head out for dinner and then the pubs. This thread (at least the past 4.5 hours I have been following it) has certainly gone all over and a lot of things have been raised which has provided food for thought others have been rubbish others have been insightful and others I just really haven't paid attention to.

So I say goodnight fellow Generalities.

Mark 16:16 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Baptism ain't optional.

There is more than one baptism. Water baptism is optional it is merely a representation. But all Christian must be baptized in the Holy Spirit. A true Christian is not physical, but spiritual in all things. That is why John the Baptist said,"I baptise with water, but there is one (Jesus) who will baptise with fire and with the holy spirit."

Do you understand that God has no in betweens? Consider the Kings of Israel and Judah in ancient times. Just because the kings did some good things for their country, did not matter in God's eyes it only matter if they followed his commands or no.
do you understand that scripture is always interpreted?

why would your interpretation be better than 1800ish years of roman catholic thought or 500ish years of lutheran thought or 150ish years of mormon thought?

Not uniquely. Most religious people can't/won't/shouldn't try to answer things on the spur of the moment.

No but you did say that Catholics will make shit up, when they didn't know the answer and I was showing that I do not do that at all.

He knows his answers, not yours.

I have told him I don't have the answers to the questions he asked, I asked him for his answers since he said that he had them

Where in scripture does it say an unbaptised child who knows nothing of salvation will forever live limbo?
as i explained its a solution to the problem of needing to be baptised to get into heaven AND not punishing the innocent who never had a chance to be baptised.

AND that the concept is now defunct in the church anyway.

Church of Christ? Independent Christian? or Non-denominational?

I put my guesses in order of likelihood.

I follow the direct Christianity from the Bible my friend. I do not add, I do not remove. I used to say that I was non-denominational, but I have noticed that to is a denomination. I claim Jesus nothing else.

as i explained its a solution to the problem of needing to be baptised to get into heaven AND not punishing the innocent who never had a chance to be baptised.

AND that the concept is now defunct in the church anyway.

Forever living in limbo sounds like punishment to me.

I follow the direct Christianity from the Bible my friend. I do not add, I do not remove. I used to say that I was non-denominational, but I have noticed that to is a denomination. I claim Jesus nothing else.

:eek2: I haven't met one of you in a LONG TIME. Welcome to the board. Do post often!

No but you did say that Catholics will make shit up, when they didn't know the answer and I was showing that I do not do that at all.
Not Catholics, the Catholic Church. There is invariably a difference.

I follow the direct Christianity from the Bible my friend. I do not add, I do not remove. I used to say that I was non-denominational, but I have noticed that to is a denomination. I claim Jesus nothing else.

yet each denomination is created because of a different interpretation of the bible. so your interpretations would follow one more closely than the others...

There's nobody in limbo. If there was, it wouldn't be limbo anymore. ;)

There's nobody in limbo. If there was, it wouldn't be limbo anymore. ;)
yup completely empty.

a hellish ghost town.

I am not "religious", per say, I believe in Animism.

do you understand that scripture is always interpreted?

why would your interpretation be better than 1800ish years of roman catholic thought or 500ish years of lutheran thought or 150ish years of mormon thought?

The Bible is plain and simple there is no room for any other interpretation. Now perhaps the prophecies from the Bible could be left to some interpretation I will give you that. You would need a man/woman full of the Spirit to interpret such things. But when God said you shall not bow down before graven images there is no other interpretation. When God tore the curtain of the Temple from top to bottom it was obvious that we no longer need intermediaries between us and God, Jesus made the way. Paul said there is one gospel, one faith, one God.

AND that the concept is now defunct in the church anyway.
It was never official church doctrine in the first place. It was a common speculation among theologians, including some of such high repute (like Aquinas) that a lot of people assumed it was official doctrine. The recent statements don't necessarily mean that it is now official doctrine that limbo is false, either: they just say that it is not doctrine that it's true.

Rather than saying the concept is "defunct", you might say it's been "left in limbo".

I'm the best god of all that Whallaha, even my dear fiend Cthulu agrees on that one.

The Bible is plain and simple there is no room for any other interpretation. Now perhaps the prophecies from the Bible could be left to some interpretation I will give you that. You would need a man/woman full of the Spirit to interpret such things. But when God said you shall not bow down before graven images there is no other interpretation. When God tore the curtain of the Temple from top to bottom it was obvious that we no longer need intermediaries between us and God, Jesus made the way. Paul said there is one gospel, one faith, one God.
if that were true there would not be hundreds of christian denominations.

The Bible is plain and simple there is no room for any other interpretation.
Oh my aching sides!:D:D:D

:eek2: I haven't met one of you in a LONG TIME. Welcome to the board. Do post often!

I have done NationStates for a while but I have gotten in to the boards just recently. I really quite naive about the whole thing really. I usually go on the boards about God, it is hard for me to witness to others in my schedule and where so that is why I come here. God Bless You, Brother.

Not Catholics, the Catholic Church. There is invariably a difference.

Ah yes I misunderstood you there. But when you used the term Catholics instead of Catholic church surely you can see why.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13884240&postcount=282

Ah yes I misunderstood you there. But when you used the term Catholics instead of Catholic church surely you can see why.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13884240&postcount=282

Mea Culpa. I was unclear! Thank you. I will be more careful in the future. ;)

Ah yes I misunderstood you there. But when you used the term Catholics instead of Catholic church surely you can see why.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13884240&postcount=282
so now you understand that all she meant by that is that the catholic church has a different approach than protestant churches do and there isnt much sense in arguing about it since you wont be on the same page as the other guy is?

yet each denomination is created because of a different interpretation of the bible. so your interpretations would follow one more closely than the others...

Any other interpretation of obvious statements in the Bible is not of God. God does not have differing thoughts he is always true to his word. He gave us the Bible and preserved it for so long, so we can learn from it and obey it not so we can have some lost wierd interpretation of it. Their should only be one faith, but those working in the flesh and not the Spirit have created their own interpretation of the obvious. God is truth he is not confused and differing. Truth is truth. That is why Jesus said,"Those on the side of Truth here my voice."

Any other interpretation of obvious statements in the Bible is not of God. God does not have differing thoughts he is always true to his word. He gave us the Bible and preserved it for so long, so we can learn from it and obey it not so we can have some lost wierd interpretation of it. Their should only be one faith, but those working in the flesh and not the Spirit have created their own interpretation of the obvious. God is truth he is not confused and differing. Truth is truth. That is why Jesus said,"Those on the side of Truth here my voice."
are you claiming that only YOU have the correct understanding of the bible and that all other denominations are incorrect in any way that they do not agree with you?

We are all one in Christ brothers.

are you claiming that only YOU have the correct understanding of the bible and that all other denominations are incorrect in any way that they do not agree with you?

No I do not have the correct interpretation of anything. God does and I know what his truth, because I study his word and I pray to him for wisdom and in the Spirit.

Any other interpretation of obvious statements in the Bible is not of God. God does not have differing thoughts he is always true to his word. He gave us the Bible and preserved it for so long, so we can learn from it and obey it not so we can have some lost wierd interpretation of it. Their should only be one faith, but those working in the flesh and not the Spirit have created their own interpretation of the obvious. God is truth he is not confused and differing. Truth is truth. That is why Jesus said,"Those on the side of Truth here my voice."

then please tell me what God is saying in Proverbs 13:24?

I feel it is time for Christians to stop being lukewarm and it is time for Christians to step up and preach what the clearly written word of God says.

are you claiming that only YOU have the correct understanding of the bible and that all other denominations are incorrect in any way that they do not agree with you?
Rather, the voice in his head has the correct understanding.
That's because the voice in his head is God.
The voice in anybody else's head is Satan.
All clear now?

A parent who loves his child will chastise him. A parent who does not love his child will not chastise him.

No I do not have the correct interpretation of anything. God does and I know what his truth, because I study his word and I pray to him for wisdom and in the Spirit.
then how can you say that anyone else is wrong in their understanding of the bible?

then how can you say that anyone else is wrong in their understanding of the bible?

The Spirit reveals all things. You must read the Bible with your spirit and meditate on. There should be no divisions in God's Church none. Now I am not God, I do not have the answers to everything. No one did, Moses didn't, Elijah didn't, Joshua didn't, and John the Baptist didn't. God reveals his word to those who work in the Holy Spirit. If you do not work in the Holy Spirit you have nothing.

Jesus is for everyone not just one culture.

Awwww come on now you can't have it both ways. Either you claim that the OT is relevant to people who still have that mindest(as you have done) or you claim that Christianity is valid for all(as you do now) which one is it?

Either way you rescind on a previous claim.

The Spirit reveals all things. You must read the Bible with your spirit and meditate on. There should be no divisions in God's Church none. Now I am not God, I do not have the answers to everything. No one did, Moses didn't, Elijah didn't, Joshua didn't, and John the Baptist didn't. God reveals his word to those who work in the Holy Spirit. If you do not work in the Holy Spirit you have nothing.
then how can you say that anyone else is wrong in their intepretation of scriptures?

Awwww come on now you can't have it both ways. Either you claim that the OT is relevant to people who still have that mindest(as you have done) or you claim that Christianity is valid for all(as you do now) which one is it?

Either way you rescind on a previous claim.

You don't understand still. The Old Testament was the old covenant between God and man. When Jesus died on the cross he changed everything.

Awwww come on now you can't have it both ways. Either you claim that the OT is relevant to people who still have that mindest(as you have done) or you claim that Christianity is valid for all(as you do now) which one is it?

Either way you rescind on a previous claim.

What does the OT have to do with Christianity?

66 seperate books in one binding (more if you're Catholic) and you expect them to gel perfectly?

What if one just really likes that stuff Jesus supposedly said?

You must read the Bible with your spirit and meditate
And lots of people do, and they come to wildly differing conclusions.
There should be no divisions in God's Church none.
But there are. How come?
If you do not work in the Holy Spirit you have nothing.
How do you know if you are working in the spirit or not? Everybody THINKS they are.

then how can you say that anyone else is wrong in their intepretation of scriptures?

All right if your doctrine is against Holy Scripture is false. Paul said that if you here any gospel other than that which we have preached whether it be from angels or men it is not of God."

Norse goods hands down. I like their version of the afterlife better than anyother, execpt maybe FSM, which has a beer volcano and a striper factory. The Norse afterlife takes place in Valahalla, if your a worthy warrior, were you spend entirenty feasting on wild game, hunting and pillaging. Sounds like a pretty kickass way to spend the rest of time.

But there are. How come?

Apostasy. Ask the Jehovah's Witnesses, they'll explain it to you.

And lots of people do, and they come to wildly differing conclusions.

But there are. How come?

How do you know if you are working in the spirit or not? Everybody THINKS they are.

In the past, Satan has come to divide the Church. Jesus said these things would happen.

In the past, Satan has come to divide the Church. Jesus said these things would happen.

Oh, look at that. A monkey just flew out my ass. :D

In the past, Satan has come to divide the Church. Jesus said these things would happen.OK, so then your interpretation is probably just Satan, coming to give a good-sounding but false understanding like always. How do YOU know that you're not being misled by Satan, let alone how would I know to trust you?

And lots of people do, and they come to wildly differing conclusions.

But there are. How come?

How do you know if you are working in the spirit or not? Everybody THINKS they are.

That is it they think they are? That is the flesh. How can you interpret what is right in front of you. If I said Martin Luther King, Jr was a civil rights activist. How could you interpret that any other way? Now people are raised in these religions and think they are in the Spirit, but the Bible says Satan comes as an angel of light. And Jesus said by their fruits you will know them. If there is one God, one faith, one gospel like Paul said that means there is only one interpretation and that is the one given by God. Anything that goes against God's word is of Satan. As I said before God is black and white. If it is not God's word it is Satan's word.

OK, so then your interpretation is probably just Satan, coming to give a good-sounding but false understanding like always. How do YOU know that you're not being misled by Satan, let alone how would I know to trust you?

Because what I believe is in line with God's word. I am not perfect but I know my God is perfect and his word is perfect. Why would he preserve his word only to have it divided up for different interpretations? Now as I said before things like prophecy could be left to interpretation, you would need a man of the Spirit to interpret those things.

Read the Bible and you will figure it out. Study different faiths as I said do not take my word for it.

Hehe I have read more bibles than I can remember at this point.

The bible, is full of contradictions, and as is the case with yourself and Blouman, you can belive either this or that, no Christian I have ever met can give me a difinative clarification.
I have also studied most of the worlds religons, to attempt to 'get to know God' is like stepping into a mindfield of human logic, ilogical, emotional, misrepresentional, down right barefaced lieing, decetful, and intecetual dishonesty.

We, that is the 'faithfull', are nowt but a bunch of self deluded fools and it sems to me, that God never intended it to be so hard to figure. So I'll always go with the idea that is less diversive and all emcompassing then any idea that tries to preach that 'this is the only way'.

Why would God populate Gods creation with such diversity and then leave us to argue who is right and wrong?

A truth is that, there is only one God, and God is true(absolute). How you reach this 'truth' is largly imaterial, God does not punish, nor does Gods love extend to a chossen few, or peoples. The important thing is that one reaches for God. Do you disagree with this?

As to the bible, the Christian bible, I'm sure that some of it IS divinly inspired, not all of it, not even most of it, but no Christian has managed to persude me that what Christains say, do, preach or practice is any way to reach God nor any way to view what God is or what Gods plans for us are.

Even a coursery look at this scripture shows it for what it is; a man made attempt to control and pacify intelect, and honest questing.

Hehe I have read more bibles than I can remember at this point.

The bible, is full of contradictions, and as is the case with yourself and Blouman, you can belive either this or that, no Christian I have ever met can give me a difinative clarification.
I have also studied most of the worlds religons, to attempt to 'get to know God' is like stepping into a mindfield of human logic, ilogical, emotional, misrepresentional, down right barefaced lieing, decetful, and intecetual dishonesty.

We, that is the 'faithfull', are nowt but a bunch of self deluded fools and it sems to me, that God never intended it to be so hard to figure. So I'll always go with the idea that is less diversive and all emcompassing then any idea that tries to preach that 'this is the only way'.

Why would God populate Gods creation with such diversity and then leave us to argue who is right and wrong?

A truth is that, there is only one God, and God is true(absolute). How you reach this 'truth' is largly imaterial, God does not punish, nor does Gods love extend to a chossen few, or peoples. The important thing is that one reaches for God. Do you disagree with this?

As to the bible, the Christian bible, I'm sure that some of it IS divinly inspired, not all of it, not even most of it, but no Christian has managed to persude me that what Christains say, do, preach or practice is any way to reach God nor any way to view what God is or what Gods plans for us are.

Even a coursery look at this scripture shows it for what it is; a man made attempt to control and pacify intelect, and honest questing.

What contradiction may I ask?

A parent who loves his child will chastise him. A parent who does not love his child will not chastise him.
Chastisement as in Punish?

Then by your interpretation, is Proverbs 10:13 talking about punishment
and also Proverbs 14:3 and 26:3?
are they all talking about punishment?

how does one apply chastisement on someone's back?

Because what I believe is in line with God's word.
They ALL say that. And according to you, everybody who says that, except for you, is really Satan. How do I know that YOU are not Satan, and one of those others the "real" word of God?

what if its NOT against holy scripture but also not the way you understand it?

Like what?

How do you pronounce Cthulhu anyways?

Ka-thee Lee Gih-ferd.

:)

All right if your doctrine is against Holy Scripture is false. Paul said that if you here any gospel other than that which we have preached whether it be from angels or men it is not of God."
what if its NOT against holy scripture but also not the way you understand it?

It is not wrong if we have gotten rid of the pagan practices associated with the holiday and made it a Christian one.

You contradict yourself again and again and again. Your original claim to not be affectedby any Pagan influense to your religooin is false. Come on be honest(if only to yourself) your faith is based on learned stories, you appear to have spent no time, thinking about it yourself and can only trot out the same old tired retoric that you have learned rom some pastor or other.

Think man, Christianity makes no sense at all. I started this thread to give you the chance to show me, that my thoughts about Christianity(and other religoins) are wrong. Thus far all you have done is confirm my suspicions.

They ALL say that. And according to you, everybody who says that, except for you, is really Satan. How do I know that YOU are not Satan, and one of those others the "real" word of God?

Exactly. If all other religions say that the rest are false, how do you know that yours is right?

Chastisement as in Punish?

Then by your interpretation, is Proverbs 10:13 talking about punishment
and also Proverbs 14:3 and 26:3?
are they all talking about punishment?

how does one apply chastisement on someone's back?

Proverbs 14: 3 is talking about chastising your children. Those other two are talking about what a foolish person deserves. In any rate when I speak of in line with scripture I'm talking about spiritual matters.

Ka-thee Lee Gih-ferd.

:)

Damn you LG... I almost summoned the Old One by pronouncing it's name! :mad:

that's almost as bad as getting my CoC player to say the Other One's name by leaving a sheet of paper that had "Tur Has" written on it repeatedly.

Thats not particularly accurate.

I disagree. Unless you are saying that there is more than one God? Which would explain the jelousness of the OT God.

Like what?
like mark 16:16 that neo brettonia brought up before.


16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

very straightforward word of god. flat out says what it means. yet you say that unbaptised babies go to heaven.....

Exactly. If all other religions say that the rest are false, how do you know that yours is right?

When did we get off the topic of demonination and in all around religion. At any rate most religions actually except the others. Some extremists mights not, but essentially all religions except one another. The Quran says that any religion that teaches good deeds is of God. Christianity is the only faith that teaches that Jesus is the way the truth and the life.

Proverbs 14: 3 is talking about chastising your children. Those other two are talking about what a foolish person deserves. In any rate when I speak of in line with scripture I'm talking about spiritual matters.

yet isn't how we live in this world affects our spirtiual status as well?

We are instructed on how to treat our husbands and wives, how parents treat their children and vice versa.

so this is in line with spiritual matters since it's living a life instructed by the bible.

so you are saying that foolish person get's what that they deserve. chastisement applied to the back? corporal punishment?

or perhaps your interpretation of 'rod' is in itself wrong?

like mark 16:16 that neo brettonia brought up before.


16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

very straightforward word of god. flat out says what it means. yet you say that unbaptised babies go to heaven.....


red and red match up, blue is left.....without it's mate.

like mark 16:16 that neo brettonia brought up before.


16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

very straightforward word of god. flat out says what it means. yet you say that unbaptised babies go to heaven.....

Yes you see that is obvious because the Bible says you are not accountable for the things you do not know. There is no mention of purgatory in the Scriptures. There is only Heaven and Hell.

When did we get off the topic of demonination and in all around religion. At any rate most religions actually except the others. Some extremists mights not, but essentially all religions except one another. The Quran says that any religion that teaches good deeds is of God. Christianity is the only faith that teaches that Jesus is the way the truth and the life.

But how do you know that Jesus is really Jesus, not Satan?

Do you know when the Bible was truely written? Or when it was first published?

Yes you see that is obvious because the Bible says you are not accountable for the things you do not know. There is no mention of purgatory in the Scriptures. There is only Heaven and Hell.
so you are INTERPRETING the word of god to not mean what it flat out says....

which is what everyone does with varying results.

red and red match up, blue is left.....without it's mate.
which is why unbaptised babies dont go to HELL. not why they DO go to heaven.

Damn you LG... I almost summoned the Old One by pronouncing it's name! :mad:

If she materializes and starts singing "If They Could See Me Now", you will either die or go mad. *nod*

which is why unbaptised babies dont go to HELL. not why they DO go to heaven.

meh. does it matter either way?

You don't understand still. The Old Testament was the old covenant between God and man. When Jesus died on the cross he changed everything.

And again you contradict yourself. Did you not say that the one cannot read the NT without the OT, that both fit together and are valid still for not only our times, but all times?

I understand a lot, when it comes to faith in God, I understand much, much more than you think I do.

Why does the defacto stance seem to be,'ohhh you lack understanding'? That seems to me like a dodge, like intelectual dishonesty of the highest order.

like mark 16:16 that neo brettonia brought up before.


16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

very straightforward word of god. flat out says what it means. yet you say that unbaptised babies go to heaven.....

Also I said earlier that water baptism is optional, that is why John the Baptist said," I baptise with water, but there is one (Jesus) who is coming after me who will baptise with fire and the Holy Spirit. Jesus baptises with fire and the Holy Spirit. Just like during the Pentacost when the Apostles were baptised with the Holy Spirit with tongues of fire. You must be baptised with the Holy Spirit, water is optional. As I said before you must read the Bible in Spirit and in truth.

meh. does it matter either way?
not in the least. it only serves to demonstrate that scripture is not straightforward requiring no interpretaion.

Also I said earlier that water baptism is optional, that is why John the Baptist said," I baptise with water, but there is one (Jesus) who is coming after me who will baptise with fire and the Holy Spirit. Jesus baptises with fire and the Holy Spirit. Just like during the Pentacost when the Apostles were baptised with the Holy Spirit with tongues of fire. You must be baptised with the Holy Spirit, water is optional. As I said before you must read the Bible in Spirit and in truth.
how can you say its optional after reading that verse??

so . . .basically what your saying is . . .that everyone reads the bible their own way right? So how then is the bible an absolute truth as some here have claimed (and I mean on NSG in general)

What does the OT have to do with Christianity?

66 seperate books in one binding (more if you're Catholic) and you expect them to gel perfectly?

What if one just really likes that stuff Jesus supposedly said?

If the OT has no baring on Christianity, why include it in the bible?

I don't expect them to gel, and it is clear that they do not, I do expect the true, unadultereted, divinly inspired word of God to gel though, and be easily understood for all people irrigardless of culture or timeline.

Nana has claimed both that the OT has no baring on modern day Christianity, and that is has.

Typical rhetoric from a person that belives and follows blindly without thought.

And again you contradict yourself. Did you not say that the one cannot read the NT without the OT, that both fit together and are valid still for not only our times, but all times?

I understand a lot, when it comes to faith in God, I understand much, much more than you think I do.

Why does the defacto stance seem to be,'ohhh you lack understanding'? That seems to me like a dodge, like intelectual dishonesty of the highest order.

They do compliment each other. During the Old Testament there were prophesies both verbally and hidden within the Feasts and Celebrations that predict the coming of Christ and what he will do in the future. The Old Testament is kind of a prologue to the New Testament.

Nice talking to you folks it was fun, but now I must go. I will pray that God will speak to your hearts. God bless

Nice talking to you folks it was fun, but now I must go. I will pray that God will speak to your hearts. God bless

Tell Him He still owes me $15.

What contradiction may I ask?

How old is the Earth? How can the Messiah be both of the line of David, and God's only begoten son in a time when liniage was taken through the paternal line? Who exactly found the empty tomb after the crucifixtion?

And of course he leaves just before I can get back in it.

:mad:

Well, rather than list a bunch of quotes I'll just address the issues I was rarin' to go on...

1)Water Baptism is NOT optional. If Jesus Christ Himself had to do it, so do you.

2)Reading Scipture is NOT for individual interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

3)The Old Testament is absolutely essential to Christianity. How can you put the New testament in context without the Old Testament?

4)There is no warning anywhere in scripture that tells us we can't have any more scripture other than the Bible. And no, Revelation 22:19-20 doesn't say so.

2)Reading Scipture is NOT for individual interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Yet sadly, we rely on other people's interpretation of the scripture.

Yet sadly, we rely on other people's interpretation of the scripture.

Ever wonder who, exactly, accredits Bible Colleges?

Ever wonder who, exactly, accredits Bible Colleges?

not god that's for sure

If you read the Bible using the Hebrew letters you would understand. You see like our alphabet the hebrew alphabet has a numerical value like A=1, Z=26. Now you know how Haman tried to destroy the Jewish people and he was put to death because of Esther's plea of help from to her husband. Not only Haman was put death but so were his 10 sons. Now when the Bible lists the names of Haman's sons, the numerical value of their names in Hebrew come out to 1946. In 1946 11 Nazis were scheduled to be hanged. One of them was found dead earlier with his mistress, that Nazi was Adolf Hitler.


Michael Drosnin, eh? How does this system actually work? There are nowhere near 26 letters in the hebrew aleph-bet, and any imagined 'prophecies' are coincidences - you can find similar stuff in Moby Dick if you look. I have found all sorts of random words in a crossword puzzle - hardly any of them have had any significance. Also, you don't understand history - Hitler died before 1946, so the list is therefore baloney.

They do compliment each other. During the Old Testament there were prophesies both verbally and hidden within the Feasts and Celebrations that predict the coming of Christ and what he will do in the future. The Old Testament is kind of a prologue to the New Testament.

What? There are no actual 'jesus wil come' type prophecies in the Hebrew bible! All of the supposed ones are either a)taken out of context or b)nothing to do with the messiah at all. All of the messianic prophecies are about a human king who will rule during the messianic age. Jesus failed this. He will not die, being only human (jesus failed this) and will bring about peace and harmony during his lifetime (jesus failed this). Out of all the messianic prophecies in the bible, jesus hardly managed one.

After the Messiah comes, all the Jews who are scattered around the world will be regathered into the homeland, the Temple will be rebuilt, and the Jews will become the most revered people in the world, leading the world into a time of universal peace and justice.

After Jesus came, all the Jews who were in the homeland were scattered around the world, the Temple was trashed, and the Jews became the most despised people in the world, as the world sank into an escalating cycle of brutal wars and atrocious tyrannies.

Nice going, "Messiah"!

Holy bouncing sentrets, it's been ten hourts and we have clsoe to 500 posts....

I don't see any of the deities described in the monotheistic religions as being better than neutral -- and some (such as jehovah) are noticably worse.

Frankly, I've looked at a dozen or so human religions (starting form the most well-known, of course), and all of them either have either a fatal flaw or just aren't right for me.

Some of you may be shaking their heads, but deities have to AT LEAST hold up to their standards of our leaders -- if your president/primeminister/whatever nuked two foreign cities because he felt there weren't even ten good people in them, would you support the guy?

Some of you may be shaking their heads, but deities have to AT LEAST hold up to their standards of our leaders -- if your president/primeminister/whatever nuked two foreign cities because he felt there weren't even ten good people in them, would you support the guy?
Depends. Were there a bunch of queers in those cities?

Some of you may be shaking their heads, but deities have to AT LEAST hold up to their standards of our leaders -- if your president/primeminister/whatever nuked two foreign cities because he felt there weren't even ten good people in them, would you support the guy?
well... considering another city was threatened with being nuked unless they said sorry and they did... and He didn't...

and he did give the Fact Finding committee (of one) a chance to find those 10 good people that he insisted was there...

1)Water Baptism is NOT optional. If Jesus Christ Himself had to do it, so do you.


Totally, those guys who worship god and never do wrong fucking deserve to be fucked in hell for an eternity.


2)Reading Scipture is NOT for individual interpretation.


Yet it's 99% of the time, individually interpreted or sheepishly following someone else's individual interpretation.

Michael Drosnin, eh? How does this system actually work? There are nowhere near 26 letters in the hebrew aleph-bet, and any imagined 'prophecies' are coincidences - you can find similar stuff in Moby Dick if you look. I have found all sorts of random words in a crossword puzzle - hardly any of them have had any significance. Also, you don't understand history - Hitler died before 1946, so the list is therefore baloney.

I never said that there were 26 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, I was just explaining the concept of numerical value to the folks who don't know. And I said that Hitler died before the other ten, I did not say he died in 1946.

1)Water Baptism is NOT optional. If Jesus Christ Himself had to do it, so do you.


By which logic, real Christians remain virgins, absolve themselves of all worldy possessions, divorce themselves from their families, and commit suicide.



3)The Old Testament is absolutely essential to Christianity. How can you put the New testament in context without the Old Testament?


This is a good point. Although it ignores the fact that the Tankah isn't ALL of the (prophetic) scripture of the Hebrews.

It's also a bit of a shame that the consensus of the Hebrew scripture is that Jesus fails to meet the requirements of 'messiah'.

I'm partial to Kali-ma

http://www.goddess-kali-ma.com/

The Morrigan

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/morrigan.html

and Hecate

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

Dododecapod are you a christian?

Sorry to have taken so long to get back to this - basically no, I'm an Atheist, but I was brought up in a Christian tradition (as you'll probably find most of the people here were). You surprised me by naming Jesus as God - most Christians make a clear distiction between the Son and the Father, despite their supposed unification in the Trinity. I was wondering if you had a slightly different belief than most Christians

By which logic, real Christians remain virgins, absolve themselves of all worldy possessions, divorce themselves from their families, and commit suicide.

Wow...that was like the gay mormon returned missionary life agenda, right in a nutshell.

Print that fucker out, put in your Steven Covey Dayplanner, and presto.

How old is the Earth? How can the Messiah be both of the line of David, and God's only begoten son in a time when liniage was taken through the paternal line? Who exactly found the empty tomb after the crucifixtion?

No one knows how old the Earth is. Based on Biblical geneaology many historians claim the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. However you have to be careful when basing the Earth's age on these geneologies because unless the passage says something,"... and he knew his wife and she conceived, so one and so forth." or if it says, "he had the child at a certain time and says and then he had other sons and daughters." If it does not say something like that the person in question may not exactly be the actual son or daughter of that person. In many geneologies certain people are skipped but this is not a contradiction. If I said my name is David and my father is Thomas and his father is Archibald, but I am called the son of Archibald this is not a contradiction, I am his son and he did beget me.
As for the Messiah question, in Genesis, "God said that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent." Women do not have seed only men do. This is saying the Messiah who will crush the serpent will come of a woman, not a man, and will get his bloodline from her. And if he does not have a father and the Bible says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, this means that God is ultimately Jesus' father how ever since he was the seed of the woman who came from David, he is of the line of David. Now I understand your confusion on who found Jesus. One account says Mary Magdalene found the empty tomb and another says Mary was with other women. This is not a contradiction. The account that just mentions Mary did not say she was alone. If I was with a group of people and we saw Brad Pitt on TV, but I said I saw him no one is lying, I merely just did not mention the others. These are not contradictions.

If one chose their deity based on the reward and/or punishment woven into the particular beliefs surrounding said deity, I think I'd like to go Norse Gods. Fucking, fighting, drinking and carousing all day in Valhalla beats out any sort of weird happy-slappy cherubic prozac-like boredom the Christians seem to be offering.

Good gods are like good neighbors: invisible, silent, they stay out of your business and don't bother you with theirs.

By this standard, my gods are top notch. They never get in my way about anything.

I'm partial to Kali-ma

http://www.goddess-kali-ma.com/

The Morrigan

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/morrigan.html

and Hecate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate
Ah, the most fun trio. :D (Kali-ma is my fave, though.)

If one chose their deity based on the reward and/or punishment woven into the particular beliefs surrounding said deity, I think I'd like to go Norse Gods. Fucking, fighting, drinking and carousing all day in Valhalla beats out any sort of weird happy-slappy cherubic prozac-like boredom the Christians seem to be offering.
And this, too. :D

The one that decided to come and live with His people, and then die for them. :)

Jesus Christ, is the best God, because He is the only God.

The one that decided to come and live with His people, and then die for them. :)

Jesus Christ, is the best God, because He is the only God that Zilam believes in.

Fixed.

Also, are you another one that worships the son but not the father?

It's interesting the way some Christians seem to think of their god. I can never quite get just what it is they think Jesus is or will do for them.

Fixed.

Also, are you another one that worships the son but not the father?

It's interesting the way some Christians seem to think of their god. I can never quite get just what it is they think Jesus is or will do for them.

According to Paul, Jesus is like your lawyer, he'll speak on your behalf when God is wanting to throw you out.

According to Paul, Jesus is like your lawyer, he'll speak on your behalf when God is wanting to throw you out.
:D Does he charge by the hour like my lawyer, too? ;)

As I look back I find so many questions that I overlooked. Huh. Oh well maybe tomorrow

According to Paul, Jesus is like your lawyer, he'll speak on your behalf when God is wanting to throw you out.

No God does not want to throw you out. Remember the Father and the Son are one they have the same aganda. They are not three Gods but one. Jesus is our attorney against Satan, our accuser.

No God does not want to throw you out. Remember the Father and the Son are one they have the same aganda. They are not three Gods but one. Jesus is our attorney against Satan, our accuser.
What is Satan accusing you of?

OK, so then your interpretation is probably just Satan, coming to give a good-sounding but false understanding like always. How do YOU know that you're not being misled by Satan, let alone how would I know to trust you?

How is saying that their is only one way to God which is in the Scriptures good sounding to the fleshy ear. Furthermore I am not telling you to believe me, but actually read and study the word of God and what it says and do not do it with the flesh but in the Spirit of God.

:D Does he charge by the hour like my lawyer, too? ;)

All he wants is for you to obey, in everything, forever. Also, you have to think he's pretty cool and that you suck and he rocks and basically state that as such.

Satan is.

He just has the worst PR team in history.

What is Satan accusing you of?

The meaning of the word Satan is accuser in Hebrew. He is a figure in the Bible that tempts people to sin, but at the same to time goes before God and accuses the sinner. Consider the book of Job, when he said that if God took off his hedge over Job then he would curse him to his face. Paul said Satan stands as our accuser while Jesus stands in our defence.