Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on May 06, 2005, 01:07:48 AM
-
1. Why do you worship/pray to the virgin Mary? Where in the bible are you instructed to do so?
2. Rosary beads and Hail Mary's, where did that come from?
3. Is any man holy? What about the pope? ANy refernece for a pope in the bible?
4. Confession of sins to another man. Where is that called for in the bible.
5. granting of sainthood. How is it that the church decides who will be elevated to "saint" ?
Thank you for your thoughful answers.
-
watch out, hes angry, soon he'll be kicking the crap out of the currency exchanges
-
Originally posted by bunch
watch out, hes angry, soon he'll be kicking the crap out of the currency exchanges
wow, can't really define your answer as anything but bizarre and completley off topic.
-
angry & confused
enter this thread at your own risk
-
Originally posted by bunch
angry & confused
enter this thread at your own risk
why are you angry and confused? I just asked some simple questions.
-
lol bunch is some kind of stalker?
-
The catholoc church is the direct descendant of the 12 apostles and the chuches they founded. Peter, the lead apostle asa appointed by christ is considered the first pope.
Nuke you are being an bellybutton with your catholic bashing - it is only beacuse of the catholic church that christianity survived.
And why pick on the catholic church, why pick on fellow worshipers of christ? Is hating the jews and the muslims not enough? Or are you one of those who even hates the other protestant sects that are not your own?
Now I know that none of this will change your mind, but I wanted to point out that you are acting like an ass. You have been doing that a lot lately and I think you should stop.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The catholoc church is the direct descendant of the 12 apostles and the chuches they founded. Peter, the lead apostle asa appointed by christ is considered the first pope.
Nuke you are being an bellybutton with your catholic bashing - it is only beacuse of the catholic church that christianity survived.
And why pick on the catholic church, why pick on fellow worshipers of christ? Is hating the jews and the muslims not enough? Or are you one of those who even hates the other protestant sects that are not your own?
Now I know that none of this will change your mind, but I wanted to point out that you are acting like an ass. You have been doing that a lot lately and I think you should stop.
I dont hate the jews or muslims or anyone.
Grun, can you answer any of my questions?
-
I actually love the Jews. The catholic church is not the reason that the church survived, Jesus is the reason.
-
Ok THATS IT NUKE!!!
...anyone have the number to the Spanish Inquisition?
:D
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Ok THATS IT NUKE!!!
...anyone have the number to the Spanish Inquisition?
:D
isn't that a catholic thing?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I actually love the Jews. The catholic church is not the reason that the church survived, Jesus is the reason.
So christianity would have survived as a living religion oj earth even if no human beings took up the cause and spread the word after Jesus death? FYI those humans were the founders of the catholic church, the original form of christianity and still the biggest by far.
Maybe the protestans are going to hell because they are not catholics?
-
Yes... I'm going to call them to come boil you in oil until you confess to heresy, after which you'll be fried in bacon grease.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
isn't that a catholic thing?
True! Good god loving protestans only burned, stoned and drowened to death evil witches. Just like in the Bible..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So christianity would have survived as a living religion oj earth even if no human beings took up the cause and spread the word after Jesus death? FYI those humans were the founders of the catholic church, the original form of christianity and still the biggest by far.
Maybe the protestans are going to hell because they are not catholics?
If you read the bible, it is clearly stated that no man can enter into heaven without accepting Jesus as your savior. Pretty simple.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
True! Good god loving protestans only burned, stoned and drowened to death evil witches. Just like in the Bible..
BLASPHEMER!!!
{edit} only when they weigh more than ducks.
-
Hey grun, where in the bible is it stated that man should worship the virgin Mary, rub rosary beads, elect a holy father or chant hail Mary's?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If you read the bible, it is clearly stated that no man can enter into heaven without accepting Jesus as your savior. Pretty simple.
And where in your warped mind do catholics not recoginize Jesus as god and savior?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Hey grun, where in the bible is it stated that man should worship the virgin Mary, rub rosary beads, elect a holy father or chant hail Mary's?
Are you saying every single rite of worship practiced by protestants is exactly spelled out in the Bible, and thats what makes them your true christians?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And where in your warped mind do catholics not recoginize Jesus as god and savior?
Why insult me?
I don't know what catholics think, I only know what the catholic religion defines.
The catholic religion calls for the worship of of the virgin mary, rubbing of rosary beads, recognition of a holy pope, confession of sins to men and granting of sainthood to humans.
Can you explain any of my questions about the catholics? Are you catholic??
-
Nuke, just out of curiosity can you point out the passage in the Bible that dictates the figure of Christ crucified or the crucifix be used as the offical symbol of christianity? And also that it would be displayed on and in chuches, worn on necklaces, prayed to etc.
In fact does the bible mention praying to a wooden cross type figurine as a stand in for christ?
Why does the protestant religion require these things, are they all spelled out in the bible?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
1. Why do you worship/pray to the virgin Mary? Where in the bible are you instructed to do so?
2. Rosary beads and Hail Mary's, where did that come from?
3. Is any man holy? What about the pope? ANy refernece for a pope in the bible?
4. Confession of sins to another man. Where is that called for in the bible.
5. granting of sainthood. How is it that the church decides who will be elevated to "saint" ?
Thank you for your thoughful answers.
I am not a Cristian (catholic or protestant), but I will try some answer, even if this will bring the risk of the inquisition for me.
1. The Virgin Mary worshipping/praying, like for many female "siding" divinity in the precedent times, is the heritage of the original Female Divinity, representing the fertility and the capability of the woman to give birth, and, by magic similitude, to give fertility to the land too, generally called "Great Mother" by the Antropologists/Archeologists.
2. Dont know, ask a specific religious expert.
3. Same as 2 with the adding that there is something said in the new testament, with probably a mixing with the "Sacred King" tradition, or, better the "pontifex maximus" of the Roman heritage (in fact, the pope is called alsoo Pontefice, a direct derivation of the term.
4. See 2.
5. If you acquire a little knowing of the way the religion is praticed here in Italy by the masses, you will see the amaizing similitude with the original way the different deitys were worshipped/prayed, each with unique and specific areas of "influence", including the use of ex voto and specific prayers.
For example, Santa Lucia (Lucy) for the view diseases, or Sant'Antonio da Padova (Antony from Padua) for speech and tongue and study problems, and many other possible examples.
I guess that, in the initial phase of the ufficialization (?sp?) of the religion as state religion, during the "capillarization" (uh?) this mix was intended to ease up the penetration of the new religion in the lower masses, generally more resistant to the novelty.
As to how to become saint, see point 2.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Hey grun, where in the bible is it stated that man should worship the virgin Mary, rub rosary beads, elect a holy father or chant hail Mary's?
it is right after "in thy spare time, be sanctimonious on the internet"
Al Gore 7:13
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke, just out of curiosity can you point out the passage in the Bible that dictates the figure of Christ crucified or the crucifix be used as the offical symbol of christianity? And also that it would be displayed on and in chuches, worn on necklaces, prayed to etc.
In fact does the bible mention praying to a wooden cross type figurine as a stand in for christ?
No, I cannot. Only catholics seem to wear a dipiction of Jesus on the cross. Catholics are the only one's I have ever seen wearing symbols like a "holy" cross.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
2. Rosary beads and Hail Mary's, where did that come from?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07110b.htm
5. granting of sainthood. How is it that the church decides who will be elevated to "saint" ?
Thank you for your thoughful answers.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
-
Maybe only in your world do only catholics wear crosses.
But here (in the real world) protestants wear them too and put them on their churces etc.
Since none of that is spelled out in the bible are they all in violation of gods will and thus going to hell?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Maybe only in your world do only catholics wear crosses.
But here (in the real world) protestants wear them too and put them on their churces etc.
Since none of that is spelled out in the bible are they all in violation of gods will and thus going to hell?
If you accept Jesus as your savior, you are not going to hell.
-
Do you belive catholics accept Jesus as savior?
In other words, are catholics going to hell or not?
And dont even try to waszel out of answering that by saying something like:
"Aw gosh I dont knoe, I cant make sucha satement because I'm not a catholi."
You cant say that because you seem very comfortable in making sweeping generalizations and absolotist satements such as your idea that catholics are no christians.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Do you belive catholics accept Jesus as savior?
I don't know and I am not catholic.
I only know that the only way into heaven is to accept Jesus as your savior.
-
LOL, i predicted that you would try to wazel out of that..
So, ypu dont know about catholics beacuse you arent a catholic. But you know enough about them to male the absurdist statenent that they arent christians...
NUKE your arguments are pathetic and laughable.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL, i predicted that you would try to wazel out of that..
So, ypu dont know about catholics beacuse you arent a catholic. But you know enough about them to male the absurdist statenent that they arent christians...
NUKE your arguments are pathetic and laughable.
I was raised a catholic and went to catholic school as a kid.
-
So now you know what catholics think? Or do you not have clue?
Which is it? Or do you just change stances as required to shore up your arguments?
Come on Nuke, answer me this.
Can people who are not christians get into heaven?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So now you know what catholics think? Or do you not have clue?
Which is it? Or do you just change stances as required to shore up your arguments?
Come on Nuke, answer me this.
Can people who are not christians get into heaven?
Well, I was raised as a catholic, so I think I may have an idea how they think. I have more than a clue, sir.
The only people that can get to heaven are the one's who accept Jesus as their savior.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Can people who are not christians get into heaven?
I thought that catholics were christians?
-
Did you accept christ as savior when you were a catholic? Did members of your family or members of your church?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Did you accept christ as savior when you were a catholic? Did members of your family or members of your church?
Do you accept Jesus as your savior? I do.
-
Did you do that when ypu were a catholic?
Did your catholic frinds and family?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Did you do that when ypu were a catholic?
Did your catholic frinds and family?
Now you just lost me Grun....
I asked you if you accepted Jesus as your savior, and you did not answer.
-
Nuke you are obviously trying to avoid the embarassement of stating your absurd opinion. Let me help you...
You belive that catholics will go to hell.
Why not just come out and say it?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke you are obviously trying to avoid the embarassement of stating your opinion.
You belive that catholics will go to hell.
Why not just come out and say it?
I believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus as savior will go to hell.
I stated my "embarassing" opinon more than once.
-
When you were a catholic did you accept jesus as savior?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
When you were a catholic did you accept jesus as savior?
no
-
NUKE 2: The Return of Agenda Man.
Now attacking people's religions eh? And before you say, "I was just asking questions.".
Sure you were, in the same sense as me asking, "Why are you such a tard?".
-
At least some honesty. Lets see if we make some more progress..
All catholics go to hell, right?
BTW Nuke when did chritianity start?
You see Jesus died in lets say 35AD (a common figure) and the catholic church was pretty much the only game in town for some 1500 years until the protestant reformation.
So, since catholics arent christians and consideing protestants only came 500 years ago give or take, does that mean christianity only starte with luther?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
At least some honesty. Lets see if we make some more progress..
All catholics go to hell, right?
No, the only people that will go to hell are those who do not accept Jesus. Pretty simple.
-
Point to Grunhertz, Nuke's turn at service now.
1-0
-
Nuke, in your belief, what is the single most important characteristic of beng a christian?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke, in your belief, what is the single most important characteristic of beng a christian?
That Jesus died for our sins.
-
Does the catholic church preach the idea thatr jesus died for our sins?
Remember now, you know about the catholic church...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Does the catholic church preach the idea thatr jesus died for our sins?
Remember now, you know about the catholic church...
What do YOU believe? Do you think that Jesus is the only way for your salvation? I believe Jesus is my only salvation.
-
Naso please update the score board.
-
well, Im going toi bed.
all.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What do YOU believe? Do you think that Jesus is the only way for your salvation? I believe Jesus is my only salvation.
Who cares what I belevie?
The topic at issie are your fanatically wrong anti-catholic beliefs.
You said that the single most important definig charcteristic of christianty is the idea that jesus died to save us from our sin.
I want to know if you think the catholic church does not preach this idea.
Because if they do then catholics are christinians by your definition.
So, offically, according to NUKE does the catholic church hold and preach the belief that jesus died to save us from our sins?
YES or NO
-
Originally posted by NUKE
well, Im going toi bed. all.
LOL...
-
Well Grun, I honestly cannot clearly assign another hippon for the last Nuke's move:
Nuke
What do YOU believe? Do you think that Jesus is the only way for your salvation? I believe Jesus is my only salvation.
Can be defined a moral point, since your adversary is avoiding the question, but not a clear Hippon like:
nuke
The only people that can get to heaven are the one's who accept Jesus as their savior.
Grun
When you were a catholic did you accept jesus as savior?
nuke
no
Spectacular.
For the last Nuke's post:
well, Im going toi bed. all.
I am tempted to declare a Technical KO, but Maybe it's better to suspend the match and wait for the fighters to rest a bit.
Your call.
:)
-
Pretty obvious..
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40441000/jpg/_40441077_tysonap.jpg)
-
Owned.
:D
Nuke has lost his touch... someone call Airhead, the walk-man.
Gotta go, need to earn my pay now.
Cya.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The catholoc church is the direct descendant of the 12 apostles and the chuches they founded. Peter, the lead apostle asa appointed by christ is considered the first pope.
Catholic church is one of the decendants of the churches the apostles founded BUT it's not the one which is following the original sacraments, liturgies and heritage of the "first churches"; that honor goes to the church of Constaninople (Byzantine and Orthodox christians.
The Orthodox Church is a family of "autocephalous" (self governing) churches, with the Ecumenical (= universal) Patriarch of Constantinople holding titular or honorary primacy as primus inter pares (the first among equals). The Orthodox Church is not a centralized organization headed by a pontiff. The unity of the Church is rather manifested in common faith and communion in the sacraments and no one but Christ himself is the real head of the Church. The number of autocephalous churches has varied in history. Today there are many: the Church of Constantinople (Istanbul), the Church of Alexandria (Egypt), the Church of Antioch (with headquarters in Damascus, Syria), and the Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania and America
That's how the Churches were run in the beginning of the christianity; there were't any "Pope" running the show...
-
Time for Q-1 only,
Catholics do not pray TO Mary. The ask Mary to pray FOR them. "Pray for us Mary".
The same can be said for saints.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Staga
Catholic church is one of the decendants of the churches the apostles founded BUT it's not the one which is following the original sacraments, liturgies and heritage of the "first churches"; that honor goes to the church of Constaninople (Byzantine and Orthodox christians.
That's how the Churches were run in the beginning of the christianity; there were't any "Pope" running the show...
Thanks Staga. You beat me to it. I was getting a little tired of hearing that the Catholic Church was the only game in town for 1500 years! :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I was raised a catholic and went to catholic school as a kid.
Someone wasn't listening during catechism classes. Hold out your hand and let me get a ruler.
-
I was raised catholic and even went to their schools.
We did not worship the virgin mary nor did we worship statues.
We revered Mary as the son of JC who died for our sins on the cross. We had statues that represented these people (if they indeed existed).
So nuke.... why do you guys worship snakes and drink poison at your church?
lazs
-
btw... when was last time you heard in news that Orthodox Christian extremists have been clashing out with Lutherans, Catholics or any other part of population in any country?
Why are Catholics extremists in news several times per year?
Why is Catholic church interfering to politics; in nation- and world wide?
-
Huh? Are you saying that catholics are acting like the pompous U.N.?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw... when was last time you heard in news that Orthodox Christian extremists have been clashing out with Lutherans, Catholics or any other part of population in any country?
Why are Catholics extremists in news several times per year?
Why is Catholic church interfering to politics; in nation- and world wide?
Funny.
I'm looking and the only Theocracy I can find that is Catholic is called Vatican City. I'm thinking maybe your limp lance is pointed at the wrong religion.
-
Nuke you are completely ignorant of what a 'Catholic' believes.
Mary isn't worshiped neither are any of the Saints. They (or one in particular) are asked to pray with us or implored to intercede for us because we believe that when two or more are gathered in prayer our the power of our prayers are greater. If you went to Catholic school surely you have heard of intercession.. (I doubt you did though).
It has nothing to do with 'worshiping' of Mary.
Prayers always are in the name of Jesus. The Pope is not an intermediary for prayer or for a relationship with God.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The 'Pope' follows a direct line of succession from Peter to the present. Peter was chosen by Jesus to build his church.
The Bible didn't mysteriously write itself, it arose out of the traditions of the Church. Certainly the inspiration of God but meant to viewed within the tradition and teachings of the Church.
Non-Orthodox (ie Protestants) break that line of succession and tradition. Luther basically taught that all men are can become their own Church and can interpret the Bible any way they wish. Even though all the various sects of Protestants claim their understanding of Scripture are correct because they were "led by the Holy Spirit."
If that was the case they why are there so many sects? This is why tradition is so essential. It keeps people from misinterpreting their own ego or prior false understanding for "guidance by the Holy Spirit." Tradition keeps restraint on the wild-eyed among us who have big imaginations.
Orthodox Christianity (which includes but not exclusively Catholic) provides that context through tradition.
I'm not singling anyone out here. Neither am I saying that ONLY Protestants have to be on guard against this pitfall. Anyone should, but it seems Protestants are the most reluctant to acknowledge this danger. Its like they read something, assume some interpretation, and that's the end of it. And if their interpretation happens to conflict with the traditional interpretation, well, then too bad for the traditional interpretation! Well, not all of them are that ego-centric, but this is the basis from which virtually every Protestant sects originated. Usually it was one man or a small group of persons, who adopted some innovative interpretation and then split-off from whatever group they were affiliated with and then created yet another sect. As if one more sect added to the hundreds already existing was what the world really needed.
All Protestantism pivots on this false idea. It must attack the real Church or else they have nothing, no legitimacy, nothing. Even the cults within Protestantism use the same tactic against earlier establish Protestant sects to establish their own legitimacy. But from the beginning it is a tactic based on a groundless premise.
Most all Protestant sects identify themselves either by their founder's name or some particular aspect of Christian doctrine which they have chosen to emphasize: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Russellites, Methodism, Baptist, Pentecostal, Seven Day Adventists, etc. Each name in itself bespeaks a partial or man-made doctrine.
For example, Calvinism is just a doctrine according to John Calvin, not Jesus Christ. It presumes by its very name that nobody prior to 1500 knew what they were doing - an unbelievably arrogant and self-serving premise which essentially brands the all the great theologians, evangelists, and martyrs of Christianity as dimwits, fools, or liars.
Catholic church is one of the decendants of the churches the apostles founded BUT it's not the one which is following the original sacraments, liturgies and heritage of the "first churches"; that honor goes to the church of Constaninople (Byzantine and Orthodox christians.
I can write up a comparison between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox but it would but 3 posts long. They have far more in common with each other they say any of the numerous Protestant sects.
-
Heh...
Pope means father; he is even called by the divine title "Holy Father" - but the disciples of Jesus Christ know only one Father, God. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9). Nor do we call anyone by the title "holy" except our God, for the Scriptures say: "Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy" (Revelations 15:4). The Pope is also known as Supreme Pontiff, a title inherited from the old Roman pagan mystery religion. Pontiff (Latin pontifex) means a bridge; but for us Christians we have only one bridge to heaven -- one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).
-
>>chant hail Mary's?<<
Hmmm, I chant Hail Marys' because it makes me feel good.
-
A 'Hail Mary' is simply a request asking Mary to pray for us 'sinners'.
It has nothing to do with 'worshiping' her.
-
No church today particularly resembles the primitive Christian Church.
The Catholic and Orthodox churches do have the advantage of saying they adhere to a continuous tradition rooted in the primitive church. But to say "the Orthodox got it right and the Catholics got it wrong" lacks any basis in reality.
As for the rest, this board does have an ignore list folks. I use it for a reason, though I currently only have one person on that list. If your opponent does not agree on any reasonable principles of argument, there's no point discussing with him.
-
I have SEEN THE LIGHT!
I just realized that almost everybody in the world is going to hell.
Our kind and loving God and Father is going to turn his face away, and condemn to eternal damnation, all Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Animalists, and anyone else...even aborigines... that haven't had Jimmy Swaggart preach the Bible to them and "save" them.
Knowing all, God knew since creation that he would eventually condemn the vast majority of the men made in his own image and likeness to eternal hellfire.
Isn't that what all loving fathers really want? Most of their children to suffer eternally?
Thanks, Nuke! Truly an AB/FAB thread. Best one in quite a while.
-
Don't worry Toad; "He" is the kind and forgiving holy father and not a god of vengeance like some like to think.
No father would put his daughters and sons into a eternal suffering; that would be against all teachings of Jesus.
-
Sorry, Staga.
Nuke KNOWS.
It's all over amigo..... eternal hellfire for the present world's non-christians (including those damnable non-christian Catholics apparently).
It's the only thing a loving Father can do.
Something like 70% of the world's population is non-christian, (more if you don't count Catholics as christian like Nuke). So the all-knowing Creator knew up front he was going to have to damn 70% of His creations in His own image.
Sad.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
No church today particularly resembles the primitive Christian Church.
The Catholic and Orthodox churches do have the advantage of saying they adhere to a continuous tradition rooted in the primitive church. But to say "the Orthodox got it right and the Catholics got it wrong" lacks any basis in reality.
Actually, and depending on your definition of "the primitive Christian Church," I believe the Orthodox are closest to representing the early Church of the first millennium. They still perform the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom unaltered from the first millennium. Since the schism they have not held any Ecumenical Councils (due to the absence of the Western Patriarchate) and have resisted theological change. They still recite the original Creed without the filioque. They have resisted dogmatic definitions of Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception (among others) even though, in essence, they believe these things. They regard the Pope only as "the first among equals" as it was in the first millennium.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
1. Why do you worship/pray to the virgin Mary? Where in the bible are you instructed to do so?
2. Rosary beads and Hail Mary's, where did that come from?
3. Is any man holy? What about the pope? ANy refernece for a pope in the bible?
4. Confession of sins to another man. Where is that called for in the bible.
5. granting of sainthood. How is it that the church decides who will be elevated to "saint" ?
Thank you for your thoughful answers.
Sorry, I'll keep my practice of Catholicism to myself and family.
Karaya
-
Jaged, I will hold Dinger's informations in great consideration.
(In my mind he is the real counterpart of the main character of "The Da vinci code"). ;)
A 2 voices lesson of Dinger and Wotan will be a refreshing moment in this board.
:)
-
:confused:
What's AB/FAB? Does it have anything to do with the "F.A.B." phrase the Thunderbirds International Rescue Team keeps saying?
-
Lions.
We need more lions.
RTR
-
Nuke seems convinced that catholics are not christians..
lol
-
Originally posted by oboe
:confused:
What's AB/FAB? Does it have anything to do with the "F.A.B." phrase the Thunderbirds International Rescue Team keeps saying?
Ab Fab (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/abfab/)
IE: Good Comedy
-
Okay, I'm back. I went to bed because it was 2 am and I was pretty tired.
Now, can any Catholic explain where in the bible it you are instructed to pray to Mary, rub rosery beads and say hail Marys? Where does it instruct you to confess your sins to another man or elect a Pope who is then dubbed "holy"
And Laz, I don't play with snakes. And Toad, I only know my belief and follow it as best I can.
My point in that todays catholic church is more of a cult in my opinion and is not the Church Jesus founded. Satues and idols?
I beleive that Jesus forgives me of my sins, and I don't need to confess them to any man on order to be forgiven.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Does the catholic church preach the idea thatr jesus died for our sins?
Remember now, you know about the catholic church...
Yes it does.
-
I have questions for you Nuke.
If a 1 month old baby dies, does it go to hell since it didn't accept Jesus as its saviour?
If an aborigine in the deepest wilds of the amazon never hears teh word of God preached by a missionary, never sees a bible, never is granted any sort of contact with the entire concept of Jesus dies... does he go to hell too?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry, Staga.
Nuke KNOWS.
It's all over amigo..... eternal hellfire for the present world's non-christians (including those damnable non-christian Catholics apparently).
It's the only thing a loving Father can do.
Something like 70% of the world's population is non-christian, (more if you don't count Catholics as christian like Nuke). So the all-knowing Creator knew up front he was going to have to damn 70% of His creations in His own image.
Sad.
I believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus as savior will not go to heaven.
Hey Toad, God created hell for a reason, didn't he? He must have known that he was creating people that would be destined for hell, since he is all knowing.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I have questions for you Nuke.
If a 1 month old baby dies, does it go to hell since it didn't accept Jesus as its saviour?
If an aborigine in the deepest wilds of the amazon never hears teh word of God preached by a missionary, never sees a bible, never is granted any sort of contact with the entire concept of Jesus dies... does he go to hell too?
I honestly do not know Toad, and I feel that God is fair and just. Maybe after you die, if you have never known of Jesus, you have some chance to still accept him or not. That's always been interesting to me.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I actually love the Jews. The catholic church is not the reason that the church survived, Jesus is the reason.
So what's the reason that judaism survived?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So what's the reason that judaism survived?
No Idea.
And for those of you who think I'm "Bashing" Catholics....if you have noticed, I simply asked questions and no one has answered one of them yet.
I asked questions and stated my beliefs.
-
Oh well, it's OK. It barely registered on the careometer anyway.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yes it does.
Good, then by your very own definition Catholics are christians who accept that Jesus died to save them from their sins and are thus are going to heaven.
Thanks NUKE.
And as for your qestions, the simple answe is humans develeped those rites as tghe Church evolved. This is not in any way unique to the Catholic branch of christianity unless yiou are saying all the protestsnt churces never do anything that is not 100% laid out verbatim in the Bible.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
True! Good god loving protestans only burned, stoned and drowened to death evil witches. Just like in the Bible..
Don't forget Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "She turned me into a newt......I got better."
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Good, then by your very own definition Catholics are christians who accept that Jesus died to save them from their sins and are thus are going to heaven.
Thanks NUKE.
That's all you need to do, so why do catholics add the Virgin Mary, Rosery beads, Hail Mary's and Holy Fathers into the equation? Where in the bible are you instructed to do that?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And as for your qestions, the simple answe is humans develeped those rites as tghe Church evolved.
So, if all you have to do is accept Jesus as your savior, why would you want to follow human rituals developed by humans in addition to believing in Jesus?
Why would you ever go to a confession and tell your sins to another man? Why would you pray to Mary or rub rosery beads?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, if all you have to do is execpt Jesus as your savior, why would you want to follow human rituals developed by humans in addition to believing in Jesus?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that, as a Christian, you are familiar with the "Our Father, who art in heaven" prayer and may even recite it on occasion. Does the Bible tell you to do this?
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Time for Q-1 only,
Catholics do not pray TO Mary. The ask Mary to pray FOR them. "Pray for us Mary".
The same can be said for saints.
eskimo
How do they ask Mary to pray for them? By praying to her? Nowhere in the bible is Mary mentioned as someone to pray to or to glorify in any way.
-
1. Why do you worship/pray to the virgin Mary? Where in the bible are you instructed to do so?
Where in the bible are you instructed NOT to? Where in Catholic dogma does it say you MUST?
This is a red herring.
2. Rosary beads and Hail Mary's, where did that come from?
You been show "where" how the Hail Mary originated.
I'll clip you an explanation of "where" the Rosary came from. You could easily answer your own questions with just a bit of effort, you know. But that's not what you are after, is it?
Origin of the Rosary
The origin of the Rosary is most interesting. From its early days the Church urged its faithful to recite the 150 Psalms of David from the Bible. This custom still prevails today. Priests and consecrated religious are obliged to pray the Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) each day which consists in a large measure of the Psalms of David.
In former days, before the printing press, it was not easy for anyone to memorize the 150 Psalms and hand inscribed scrolls of Scripture were a rarity. The people who could not learn the 150 Psalms by heart, wanted to do something to make up for it. So they substituted 150 “Hail Mary’s.” They broke up these 150 Hail Mary’s into 15 decades, or series of ten. Each 10 Hail Mary’s were said while meditating on different aspects of the life of Our divine Lord. We call them the mysteries.
There you go.
3. Is any man holy? What about the pope? ANy refernece for a pope in the bible?
Jesus was man wasn't he? Was he holy?
What about the pope? Do you consider priests or ministers "holy"? The pope's a priest and a minister. Each man makes his own call.
What was Peter then?
4. Confession of sins to another man. Where is that called for in the bible.
URL=http://www.saintaquinas.com/confess_essay.html]Why Do Catholics Practice Confession of Sins to a Priest?[/URL]
5. granting of sainthood. How is it that the church decides who will be elevated to "saint" ?
Becoming a Saint (http://itotd.com/index.alt?ArticleID=493)
There you go, have a nice day.
-
Well, Nuke from your posts in this thread, I'd say YOU must believe that aborted babies and aborigines in the deepest jungles are all going to hell.
That's what you said.
Now I have a question for you:
Is that the kind of merciful God you want to serve?
-
Nuke do you honestly believe that the Catholic churchis the only christian church that has developed rites of worship over the years that are not exatly spelled out and mandated in the Bible.
Actually do tell, which church do you attend services at? I will have to come visit and note this miraculius church that only does tgings as 100% spelled out in the bible.
Do yiu even attend church?
-
Originally posted by Toad
[ You could easily answer your own questions with just a bit of effort, you know. But that's not what you are after, is it?
I asked catholics why they do those things Toad.
I believe that a lot of the rituals in the Catholic church are a distraction from the message of the bible.....just rituals. Jesus was God sent to earth, no other man is god on earth. No other man should be called "Holy Father".
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke do you honestly believe that the Catholic churchis the only christian church that has developed rites of worship over the years that are not exatly spelled out and mandated in the Bible.
I never said that I thought Catholics are the only christian church that has developed rituals.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I asked catholics why they do those things Toad.
I believe that a lot of the rituals in the Catholic church are a distraction from the message of the bible.....just rituals. Jesus was God sent to earth, no other man is god on earth. No other man should be called "Holy Father".
so when i say "holy crap!", im actually wrong?
-
Nuke, us catholics prey to the Blessed Mother because she intercedes for us. Read the wedding of Cana, where she told her Son to take care of the wine, he stated "Woman my hour has not come" He did it because his mother asked him to. That's where we see her intersessions for us.
Rosary beads came from the visitation of our Blessed Mother at Fatima. She instructed the little girl to learn the prayer.
As far as our Pope being Holy Father, read in Matthew where Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter. "What ever you bound on earth shall be be bound in heavan and what ever you lose on earth shall be lose in heaven. These are the rules that were inspired by the Holy Spirit for Peter to govern us with. Jesus gave Peter this comission because Christ asked them, "who do they say I am"? Peter stated the Christ and Jesus said yes you are correct because no one knew this but the Father and that was reveiled to Peter.
Nuke if you a serious about finding out more on the Catholic faith, stop in at your local catholic church and inquire about the RCIA process. The rite of Christian Initiatiuon for Adults, your answers will be given in that forum. I teach RCIA at our parish.
-
Originally posted by BTAirsol
Nuke, us catholics prey to the Blessed Mother because she intercedes for us. Read the wedding of Cana, where she told her Son to take care of the wine, he stated "Woman my hour has not come" He did it because his mother asked him to. That's where we see her intersessions for us.
Rosary beads came from the visitation of our Blessed Mother at Fatima. She instructed the little girl to learn the prayer.
As far as our Pope being Holy Father, read in Matthew where Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter. "What ever you bound on earth shall be be bound in heavan and what ever you lose on earth shall be lose in heaven. These are the rules that were inspired by the Holy Spirit for Peter to govern us with. Jesus gave Peter this comission because Christ asked them, "who do they say I am"? Peter stated the Christ and Jesus said yes you are correct because no one knew this but the Father and that was reveiled to Peter.
Nuke if you a serious about finding out more on the Catholic faith, stop in at your local catholic church and inquire about the RCIA process. The rite of Christian Initiatiuon for Adults, your answers will be given in that forum. I teach RCIA at our parish.
Jesus called her "woman", did not even acknowledge her as his mother, because he was not her son. He is the son of God, not Mary.
Mary is not to be prayed to or worshiped. God did not send Mary to earth, he sent Jesus. Jesus never told any of his followers that Mary was to be prayed to. He didn't tell them to follow Mary and that Mary would intercede on their behalf.
-
Nuke you asked and I answered. Do not take it personal. Why do you feel uneasy about an answer? Whats tugging in your heart? You asked very good questions that a lot of people ask.
-
I'm not taking your answer personally. Nothing about catholic rituals that distract from the bible tug at my heart.
-
Just a point of clarification - is Mary being prayed to and worshipped? Or prayed to and revered?
Neither of which rules out praying to God.
-
Nuke, why do you say that Jesus is not the Son of Mary? Read in Luke that it describes his birth. What about Mary being visited by the Angel Gabriel and talked to her about the conceptiion of the Son of God? Mary was the first Christian Nuke. She said yes to Gods plan.
-
Oboe, revered. We only worship God. We believe in the communion of saints, which we ask them to pray for us. We are all working saints in the making.
-
Originally posted by BTAirsol
Nuke, why do you say that Jesus is not the Son of Mary? Read in Luke that it describes his birth. What about Mary being visited by the Angel Gabriel and talked to her about the conceptiion of the Son of God? Mary was the first Christian Nuke. She said yes to Gods plan.
Jesus was born to Mary, but was the son of God. God himself sent to earth. Mary was not an authority figure to Jesus when he started his ministry. She was just another woman on earth.
Can you give some examples in the bible where Jesus or anyone else instructs that Mary is to be prayed to or followed in any way?
Mary may have been the first Christian, I agree
-
Nuke you are as ignorant as they come.
You know nothing about Catholicism or Christianity in general.
As I explained in Vulcan's thread the Bible did not spontaneously generate itself. It was compiled from many works.
To understand the Bible and to understand Orthodox Christianity you need to come to grips with this fact.
The Bible or Sacred Scriptures are not separate from the Sacred Traditions of the Church. 'Bible Worship' alone is just as heretical as 'Idol worship'.
Back to Mary and the Saints once again:
Mary is alive in heaven. She hears our prayers and joins in them. With out any concept of the Sacred Traditions of the Church you won't ever get it. Your ignorance only proves your ignorance, nothing else.
Mary is not prayed to but asked to join in our prayers or to pray for us (intercede).
In reference to the Holy Father:
Peter was chosen by Jesus to build his church. All the Popes through out history directly descended from this line.
The term 'Holy Father' doesn't refer to the divinity of the Pope but to his roll with in the Church. The word 'Holy doesn't mean "God Like". The Pope is the Steward of the flock but is not an intermediary between the flock and God. You are the one who is confused. Any one who has spent 10 minutes in Catholic School would know this.
Name one Catholic Ritual and what it means with in the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
You asked 'why Catholics do these things...', well the answer is they don't. Either you are lying about your Catholic education or you suffer from some mental defect that didn't allow you to understand what you were taught.
BTW, I am not a Christian (Catholic or other wise). If one is going to make judgments about 'religion' it only stands to reason that one would take the time to fully understand what it is they 'are judging'.
Nuke himself claims "I am just asking questions' but goes out his way to claim that Catholics aren't Christians. Its clear he has not even the basic understanding of Christianity in general and more specifically of Orthodox Christianity.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Mary is not prayed to but asked to join in our prayers or to pray for us (intercede).
How do you ask her to join in your prayers?
The bible is the living word of God, not the word and traditions of the catholic Church.
-
Woton try not to attack Nuke, he has the courage to ask. He beleives strongly on his thoughts. The accusations seperate us instead of bringing us together. If his heart is truthful and he wants to know why, well we answered him. If this was a troll topic well maybe someone got something out of this thread.
-
Nuke do you know the Hail Mary prayer? That is one way we pray. "Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed are you among women and blessed is thy fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary Mother of God PRAY FOR US NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH, AMEN."
-
Why would you pray to Mary and ask her to pray for you when all you have to do is pray to Jesus?
-
Nuke I need all the help that I can get. I do pray to our father, Son and Holy Spirit. I ask for someone to put in a good word for me. We ask others to pray for us. Don't you or ever have you asked for prayers? Like family illness to be healed or lost love one? We ask people to pray for us, why not ask the ones that are in heaven to pray they are with the numero uno.
-
Of course its a troll like 99% of his posts he is just looking for some one to talk with.
Even now he tries to play word games instead of taking the time to read and understand the context of 'prayed to' as he inferred it and how it is meant in my paragraph above.
He claims Catholics 'worship Mary' by praying to her as if she is equal to 'God'. Just like he plays word games with the phrase "Holy Father" to mean "God Like'.
His replies are typical of his personality and at least imho are a sign of his desperation for human contact.
He is not curious about Catholicism. He is simply using this topic of the day to garner attention.
Even now he comes with this Stupidity:
Why would you pray to Mary and ask her to pray for you when all you have to do is pray to Jesus?
Its well with in the Orthodox and Christian tradition to invoke others into joining in prayer with you. Protestants have their 'prayer requests'; those in need typically ask for others to join in their prayers, those who suffer losses ask others to pray for who ever it was (see Bodhi's thread). Nuke is just playing games so that folks talk to him.
I explained to Nuke already that:
Mary isn't worshiped neither are any of the Saints. They (or one in particular) are asked to pray with us or implored to intercede for us because we believe that when two or more are gathered in prayer our the power of our prayers are greater. If you went to Catholic school surely you have heard of intercession.. (I doubt you did though).
It has nothing to do with 'worshiping' of Mary.
Prayers always are in the name of Jesus. The Pope is not an intermediary for prayer or for a relationship with God.
He just plays dumb and asks the same thing over and over. I typically don't respond to his nonsense and Dinger may be right in the use of the ignore feature but I think its clear to every one here what Nuke is really after.
-
Sure, but why Mary? Why not pray to Moses or Joseph?
The point is that Mary is not mentioned by Jesus or the bible as someone to be revered in any way. The Catholic church has turned Mary into a distraction, in my opinon.
-
Wotan, I hear what you are saying. There might be a time in Nukes life that he might reflect on what was said and then be sincere about looking into the truth the correct way. I know one thing, I would not want that judgement on my soul. Think of it as what Saul (St. Paul) was doing by persicuting the christians. The Lord new what he was doing and Paul converted. Maybe Nuke....?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sure, but why Mary? Why not pray to Moses or Joseph?
The point is that Mary is not mentioned by Jesus or the bible as someone to be revered in any way. The Catholic church has turned Mary into a distraction, in my opinon.
You also stated earlier that "She was just another woman on earth." How many other women on earth do you know that was assumed bodily into heaven?
-
1.Though English words like 'worship' and 'adoration' are occasionally used to signify only veneration, honor or affection, they are generally understood to refer to that highest type of worship reserved for God alone. In this sense, Catholics do NOT adore or worship Mary, or any other created person or thing.
The Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea in 787 considered the issue of veneration which is not directed to the Divine persons in relation to sacred images. At this Council, the Church taught that the special type of worship called adoration may only be offered to God: Latria from the Greek term for enslavement. However, the Church also acknowledged that certain persons, though only creatures of God, are entitled to honor or veneration of a qualitatively lesser degree than the absolute allegiance owed to God. The Conciliar Fathers termed this lesser devotion: Dulia. Such veneration was proper for Mary and the Saints. In view of Mary's important role in salvation history as Mother of Jesus, the Church recognized that Mary warranted a special degree of honor among the Saints. For this class of devotion, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) suggested the term hyperdulia.
No, Catholics do not worship Mary, if by worshiping is meant adoring. She is not God for us, has never been and will never be. Addressing prayer to Mary is like asking a dear and close friend for help. Do we make a God of our friend when asking him to keep us in his prayers? Do we divinize him/her when asking for his prayerful support in sickness and the trials of life? Believers on earth and in heaven constitute a living community which the major Christian denominations recognize as the communion of saints. The saints in heaven are not dead. Their Christian example of virtuous living and their closeness to God make of them powerful allies for us struggling mortals. They do not take God's place; they are an expression of his grace.
Likewise, there is nothing in Mary that would not have been in God and come from him. She is a pure product of God; this is the essential meaning of Mary's sinlessness. Never forget: if God wanted the exclusively direct relation between him and you and me he would never send Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, never allow scripture to be the foundation of our faith, never encourage his Son to found the Church or institute the sacraments. Christianity is the religion of mediation, essential and foundational in Christ; participative and subordinate in his Church and in varying degrees in the believers.
2.The traditional story of the rosary was that Mary herself appeared to Saint Dominic in the twelfth century. At that time, tradition says she gave him the rosary and promised Dominic that if he spread devotion to the rosary, his religious order would flourish. It is quite true that Dominic was quite devoted to the Blessed Mother, but no one knows for sure if Our Lady herself gave Dominic the rosary. If she did, it is quite certain that she did not give him a rosary that looks like the one we have today.
Originally the rosary had 150 beads, the same number of psalms in the Bible. In the twelfth century, religious orders recited together the 150 Psalms as a way to mark the hours of the day and the days of the week. Those people who didn’t know how to read wanted to share in this practice, so praying on a string of 150 beads or knots began as a parallel to praying the psalms. It was a way that the illiterate could remember the Lord and his mother throughout the day. The “Divine Office”; the official prayer of the church; is the recitation of the psalms over a four week period, and is still prayed today.
This first rosary was prayed as we do today, a person would pass their fingers over each bead and say a prayer, usually the “Our Father”.
4.The discipline of confessing sins to a priest and having him set a penance to make satisfaction is a practice from the Old Testament (See Numbers 5:5 and Leviticus 5:5). The idea of examination of conscience and the confession of sin was the norm for Jews (e.g., Leviticus 26:40, Ezra 10:1, Nehemiah 9:2-3, Daniel 9:20) especially on the Day of Atonement (e.g., Leviticus 16:21). So much so that St. John could say:
1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and
just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us
from all unrighteousness.
And St. James:
James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to one
another, and pray for one another, that you
may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man
has great power in its effects.
In the first several Christian Centuries, there was public confession of sin (usually to the Bishop) and public penance. Around the 4th Century, the Monks in Ireland had developed a method for spiritual direction which involved the private confession of sin to a spiritual director. This style of confessing sins in secret was quite successful as a tool for spiritual direction. The Bishops decided to use it as the normative way of hearing confession and absolving from sin. This also was the occasion for the development of less public and less severe penances for sin. Spiritual direction replaced most of the more punitive public penances.
That is where our current custom of confession came from.
(geez nuke. don't ya' got google?)
-
WMLute, right on bro. Well put.
-
Originally posted by BTAirsol
WMLute, right on bro. Well put.
Yes it was. A good history of how the church began to slowly work away from the word of the living bible by adding their own traditions and rites.
Call me silly, but I'd rather stick with God's word as much as I possibly can, the bible.
I don't believe that a lot of the Catholic traditions are healthy for an open relationship with God.
-
"
The point is that Mary is not mentioned by Jesus or the bible as someone to be revered in any way. The Catholic church has turned Mary into a distraction, in my opinon."
more likely because having a "holy mother" was more in tune with pagan rituals, so conversion would be a bit easier, same with the timing of christmas (btw, where does it say in the bible to celebrate jesus's birth?)
-
I'm missing one of my lions.
This has got to stop.
They are expensive, and are hard to replace.
Ain't gonna be much of a "circus" without the lions.
RTR
-
Originally posted by BTAirsol
Nuke, why do you say that Jesus is not the Son of Mary? Read in Luke that it describes his birth. What about Mary being visited by the Angel Gabriel and talked to her about the conceptiion of the Son of God? Mary was the first Christian Nuke. She said yes to Gods plan.
I thought Mary was a Jew?
Christians came after Jesus died?
And Christians are just Jews gone bad:)
:D
-
According to Orthodox teaching, Sacred Scripture is the fundamental monument of Sacred Tradition and contains the fullness of the divine revelation. But the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Apostles and Evangelists in their oral and written evangelism, guides the Holy Church even now, promoting the understanding and assimilation of Christ's truth.
The Bible is meant to understand with in the tradition of the teachings of the Church.
That's the problem with protestants, each of them think they are able to interpret the Bible on their own. Same with a lot of modern western Catholics.
With out acknowledging that the Bible was born out of the Sacred Traditions you have no hope in comprehending what it really means. You simply make it up as you go.
If protestantism was the end all then why are so many different sects? Each claim that their 'theology' is true. Anyone who can read can in affect become their own 'mini-Pope'.
If you can not acknowledge the Idea of "sacred tradition" then you reject a good portion of Christ life. Christ didn't work from a 'Bible' He taught through his word which spread down to us from his disciples. The books of the Bible were put together to compliment the teachings and traditions of the Church and Christ not the other way around.
So what ever you read in the Bible originated from the traditional teachings (for the most part these were oral).
Regardless of what you claim to have read or haven't read in the Bible none of it takes away from the Sacred Traditions of the Church.
Now if you look into the 'protestant tradition' you will see that 'theology' is adapted and adjusted from sect to sect.
If any man can re-interpret the Bible on his own then in fact there is no truth. It becomes as subjective as the individual reading it.
Luther was a Jew hating heretic, Calvinism is the Bible according to Calvin etc...
West Virginia Snake handlers, Racist Christian Identist all have their own interpretation of the Bible. All claim their version is true. Well they all can't be.
The Orthodox Churches trace their lineage right back to Jesus Christ. No protestant cult can do that.
Nuke if I were you I wouldn't trust your interpretation of anything.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
so when i say "holy crap!", im actually wrong?
As long as you dont pray to or revere the crap you are OK:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
As long as you dont pray to or revere the crap you are OK:)
thats nice :)
im hungry
-
This is getting boreing. Someone please perform a covert hijack!
-
Nuke do you get upset like this when somebody in trouble asks his friends to pray for him?
Bob, my good friend, please pray for me or for my family etc.
Nuke, you should go check out the thread about Bodhi's late father, it should be a good place for you to lay down the law about asking others to pray for you...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke do you get upset like this when somebody in trouble asks his friends to pray for him?
Bob, my good friend, please pray for me or for my family etc.
Nuke, you should go check out the thread about Bodhi's late father, it should be a good place for you to lay down the law about asking others to pray for you...
I pray on behalf of other people all the time, I just don't pray to people. Do you pray to people?
And I did respond to Bodhi's request for prayer regarding his uncle.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't know and I am not catholic.
I only know that the only way into heaven is to accept Jesus as your savior.
Famous last words until Satans army marchs into heaven muahahahahahahahahaha!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Call me silly, but I'd rather stick with God's word as much as I possibly can, the bible.
Umm wasn't the bible a compilation of annecdotes selected by a group of people who represented the early catholic church? And that group elected to leave many papers submitted for inclusion out that would have had a huge effect on the way christianity was taught?
-
I will explain it one more time:
Protestants do not recognize the veneration of saints, since it, in their opinion, debases the worth of the Saviour, as "the one mediator between God and men," and contradicts those passages of Sacred Scripture where it says that one should worship God alone. Protestants consider the veneration of saints as useless, since the saints cannot hear our prayers.
I assume this is your misguided belief as well.
In the Orthodox teaching on the veneration of saints there is no belittling of the Lord's redemptive sacrifice, since we ask of the saints not that which is not within their power - the forgiveness of sins, the granting of grace and the future blessed life - but we ask the saints, as members of the Church who have been redeemed by the most pure blood of Jesus Christ and are nearer to God than we, that they intercede for us before the one Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the passages of Sacred Scripture cited by the Protestants (Deuteronomy 6:13, I Timothy 1:17), the rendering of divine honor to God alone is spoken of; but we do not render such honor to the saints. We venerate God's grace, which resides in them; we venerate God, Who is, according to the words of the Psalmist, "wondrous in His saints."
You don't pray to the Saints as if they are equal to God.
You simply ask that they join in your prayers just as you would a living person. After all they are not dead, they are alive in Heaven.
As for the hearing of our prayers by the saints, for this there is no necessity to possess omniscience, which really is proper to God alone. What I meani s the Saints don't have the authority or power to fulfill prayers, this is Gods domain.
Asking a Saint or Mary to pray for us is much like a prayer request given in Bodhi's thread or when a Church Pastor asks his congregation to pray for the President etc...
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
'Holy' like the 'Holy' in 'Holy Father' doesn't mean divine. It means full of God's grace.
You simply don't have the knowledge base to make any sort of conclusion on what Catholics or Orthodox Christians believe. Mentally you aren't equipped to disseminate what is being told to you.
-
Please tell me that you just went to Stormfront to clip and save time typing.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I pray on behalf of other people all the time, I just don't pray to people. Do you pray to people?
And I did respond to Bodhi's request for prayer regarding his uncle.
Thought I covered this. I shall go slower if it's required.
Possibly re-read what I posted up this page. It is very easily understood. I made sure a simple child could understand it.
I answered your questions, yet you are still posting and showing your lack of cognitive ability.
Why is that?
What about the histories of the Church are you not understanding? How is it you can not understand the foundations of your own church and where it came from?
Your questions are showing nothing more than ignorance. I would dare say even intolerance, because even AFTER given the answers, which are 100% factual, you persist with your misinformed posts. Do I HAVE to dumb it down? Or are you so sorely lacking in some facet that you are unable to grasp the obvious?
Feeling sorry for Nuke... poor guy. Why don't you ask some of these questions to your preacher? He should be able to shed some light on just how totally wrong you indeed are.
Actually, you better not. Heaven forbid you have to learn. Best way to defeat ignorance is knowledge, so better not go there. You might end up being tolerant and understanding.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Why is that?
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Thought I covered this. I shall go slower if it's required.
Actually I was replying to Grunhurtz, who was trying to frame an argument that I did not believe people should pray on behalf of others.
And yes, you answered my questions and it confirmed to me my opinion that the Catholic church has incorporated rites and rituals into their teachings which have no relation to the bible or the teachings of Jesus.
Go ahead with your personal attack style of argument though, if you want.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
the Catholic church has incorporated rites and rituals into their teachings which have no relation to the bible or the teachings of Jesus.
You yourself have no proof that the bible you read actually reflects the teachings of Jesus.
You take that on faith but you could be wrong and the Catholics could be right.
Like it or not.
However, I do think it's folks like you that give Christians a bad name.
It's laughable that you believe a loving God would condemn aborted babies to eternal damnation, would condemn those who never heard of Jesus through no fault or inaction of their own to eternal damnation.
That is not the God I worship, I assure you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You yourself have no proof that the bible you read actually reflects the teachings of Jesus.
You take that on faith but you could be wrong and the Catholics could be right.
Like it or not.
However, I do think it's folks like you that give Christians a bad name.
It's laughable that you believe a loving God would condemn aborted babies to eternal damnation, would condemn those who never heard of Jesus through no fault or inaction of their own to eternal damnation.
That is not the God I worship, I assure you.
Toad, I simply have faith and the bible is what I believe to be the word of God. Faith is exactly correct. Also, I do not believe in things that any church creates ( as far as teachings) that have no validation in the bible. That's all.
And as I answered you before, I said that I didn't know what would happen to someone who has never even heard of Jesus after they died. I said that it has always interested me and that I would hope there is a way for such people to have the option to accept Christ after they have died. I can look up my exact answer in this thread, but that's basically what I typed in reply.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I only know that the only way into heaven is to accept Jesus as your savior.
Originally posted by NUKE
No, the only people that will go to hell are those who do not accept Jesus. Pretty simple.
Originally posted by NUKE
I believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus as savior will go to hell.
THIS is what you said.
Now, please explain how you don't know what would happen to someone who has never even heard of Jesus after they died.
There's only two possibilities here.
1. They have not accepted Jesus as Savior and will go to hell.
2. Aborted babies and/or remote aboriginies somehow accept a Jesus they have never heard of at all.
Why don't you explain how one actually "accepts Jesus as Savior" in an "approved by Nuke" fashion (wouldn't want the Catholic version, now would we?)? Perhaps just tell us how you did it... speaking out loud, secret handshake, proclaiming it from the mountaintop...whatever.
And THEN tell us how you think an aborted baby might do the same.
Thanks.
-
Toad, I already asnwered you twice now. I said I do not know what happenes to people who die and have never heard of Jesus. I said that I felt God was fair and just and that maybe these people have a chance to accept him or not after they have died. I also said that interests me. I honestly do not know.
Romans 10:9-10 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raiseth him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
I personally addmitted that I was a sinner, admitted my sinful nature to Jesus in prayer ( I do this a lot) and accepted (out loud) from within my heart my belief that Jesus came, died for my sins and was risen again from the dead.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, I already asnwered you twice now. I said I do not know what happenes to people who die and have never heard of Jesus.
[/b]
Of course you do. This is what you said, remember?
Originally posted by NUKE
I believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus as savior will go to hell.
That's what your bible tells you, does it not? And clearly, aborted babies have never accepted Jesus in the approved biblical fashion. Nor have the amazonian aborigines beyond the reach of civiliaztion's missionaries.
I said that I felt God was fair and just and that maybe these people have a chance to accept him or not after they have died.
[/b]
But that's not in your bible is it Nuke? And, as we all know... if it's not in YOUR bible... well, it just isn't at all.
I also said that interests me. I honestly do not know.
[/b]
Don't be tiresome Nuke. Of course you know. Your bible TELLS you the answer and you've posted it repeatedly.
"I believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus as savior will go to hell."
Romans 10:9-10 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raiseth him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
[/b]
See, there you go. How will an aborted baby confess with its mouth the Lord Jesus? Can't be done. Same for our Amazonian Aboriginie. Can't be done.
Zip, off to hell they go by your own words and choice of biblical quote.
I personally addmitted that I was a sinner, admitted my sinful nature to Jesus in prayer ( I do this a lot) and accepted (out loud) from within my heart my belief that Jesus came, died for my sins and was risen again from the dead.
Now how do you expect an aborted baby to do that Nuke? How can an Amazonian Aboriginie admit he's a sinner if he has no concept of sin? How can an aborted baby accept out loud from within it's heart if it's mouth and tongue are not formed enough to speak?
Zip.. off to hell with 'em. By your own statements and biblical quotes.
So you KNOW that's where they're going Nuke.
That's the god you worship? That's not my God, I assure you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Please tell me that you just went to Stormfront to clip and save time typing.
Are you referring to me?
The info my post comes from this site:
Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John (http://www.stjohndc.org/)
Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, by V.Potapov (http://www.stjohndc.org/russian/orthhtrdx/e_title.htm)
-
Toad, the bible does say that God is fair and just, but does not specifically address what would happen to people who have never heard the word of God.
-
IIRC, it doesn't specifically address the Rosary either now does it?
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Are you referring to me?
That's a relief. The same text is posted on Stormfront, a white supremacist site.
I sure don't always agree with you but you've got one of the better debate capabilities on this board.
Glad to hear you're not using that capability for David Duke! ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Romans 10:9-10 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raiseth him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
I personally addmitted that I was a sinner, admitted my sinful nature to Jesus in prayer ( I do this a lot) and accepted (out loud) from within my heart my belief that Jesus came, died for my sins and was risen again from the dead.
SkyWolf 9:6-7 "That if thou shalt die then thou shalt be no different from the opossum, rabbit, or other roadkill. For the man that believeth shall be as dead as they, and just as odiferous. Thou shalt discover that dead it dead, there is no afterlife, and humans are no more important in the big scheme of things than ants or roadkill. Thou aren't going anywhere after death except into a hole in the ground where thou shalt rot and be worm food. :D
Woof
-
Originally posted by NUKE
but does not specifically address what would happen to people who have never heard the word of God.
But it does specifically address what happens to those who do not accept Jesus as their saviour.
So, by default, people who have never heard the word of God fall into the "non-accepter" category.
Off to hell with 'em, Nuke.
No choice. Your bible tells you so.
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's a relief. The same text is posted on Stormfront, a white supremacist site.
I sure don't always agree with you but you've got one of the better debate capabilities on this board.
Glad to hear you're not using that capability for David Duke! ;)
Doh, nope just the top of page 2 on a google search
EDIT
The link is porked but just search 'Orthodox Church'.
-
I didn't read everything but I'm going to offer my experience with Catholics.
Most of these experiences are with Mexicans BTW.
A lot of the people that I knew and hung around had Virgin Mary tattoos on them somewhere. One guy had a very cool mural on his back. But they also like to get drunk, smoke weed, talk about fornicating (nice word for ****) this girl and that girl, talk about the fighting they had done, maybe even a murder they had done, and say, 'Golly-geemit'. You could say, 'God is dead' or 'God sucks dicks' or 'Jesus wore dresses and smelled like a gnome." NO response. They might even laugh and buy you a beer. Mention the Virign Mary and things were different.
Even if you didn't say anything directly offensive, it might have even seem implied, and they would threaten to hit you, cut you, or kill you for desecrating the Virgin Mary.
I remember being in a bar with several people and one guy was talking about being wacked out of his mind the other night and screwing this girl and leaving her and she might be pregnant but he didn't care but he had a Virgin Mary tattoo on his forearm and a leather wrist band with a cross on it. I thought this a strange contraposition of belief and actions but it was typical.
Someone mentioned something about the Virgin Mary and IT was ON. Throw down right there between the pool tables. Surprised the feces out of me.
From my experience...you cannot say that Catholics dont' worship the Virgin Mary in some fashion. I'm not saying ALL Catholics do this but in my experience certainly some do.
Shrewd questions come to mind:
It seems that Catholics tend to ask the Virgin Mary for help with prayers rather the Jesus or God. Why?
Isn't God and Jesus pretty bad ass? They are GOD and the SON of GOD. Yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus. But isn't she just a vessel for the spirit of God? A subheading under 'The Big Cheese'?
When you think of the Holy Trinity do you think of God, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary? or do you think of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?
You don't hear about Catholics seeing the face of Jesus under an overpass and visiting it. Why?
If I go into my local grocery store I find tall more candles in glass containers with the picture of the Virgin Mary than Jesus. Why?
The Catholics that I know have the Virgin Mary tattooed on them but none have a picture of Jesus tattooed on them. Why?
I'm sorry if this offends. That is not it's intent. I've have read some of what has been said in this thread and I simply offer what I consider to be experience contrary to what has been.
My questions are also not meant as a troll or flame. These are questions that I have had for some 14 years plus and I would be curious to hear ACTUAL answers...not some defensive tripe.
Wotan, for one seems, both knowledgeable and in control of his emotions enough to answer accurately and informatively.
-
Originally posted by Toad
But it does specifically address what happens to those who do not accept Jesus as their saviour.
So, by default, people who have never heard the word of God fall into the "non-accepter" category.
Off to hell with 'em, Nuke.
No choice. Your bible tells you so.
Like I said, the bible doesn't directly address that.
Romans 15:21 Rather, as it is written: "Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand."
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
-
Is it possible to make the leap then, to say that by not factoring in aborted fetuses, that Jesus didn't consider aborted fetuses to be "life"... mmmm? ;)
-
Don't be obtuse Nuke...
It says the ONLY way in is through Jesus. You just quoted it. Do you not read what you quote?
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Tell me how an aborted baby comes to the Father through Jesus. Please. In the biblically specified manner, of course. You don't need me to post the Romans quote on that I trust.
Explain that and I'll let ya go.
If you cannot explain it then it is PERFECTLY CLEAR what happens to aborted babies and the aforementioned Amazonian Aboriginies.
They go to hell. Can't get to the Father except through Jesus. Gotta do the Romans 10:9-10 thing to accept Jesus.
So, which is it? And DON'T say you don't know. That's a cop out. This IS spelled out in your bible man, very, very specifically. John 14:6. Now explain how the aborted babies comply with Romans 10:9-10.
-
Toad, just because it clearly states in the bible that no one will get into heaven except through Jesus, that does not equate to an aborted baby not having a means to acccept Jesus.
The bible does not address what happens to people who have never been exposed to the word of God, but that does not mean these people will not have a chance to accept Jesus.
God is fair and just. Every knee will bow before the Lord. Maybe they will have that chance at this time.
I'm standing by the belief that nobody will get into heaven unless they accept Jesus. That's my belief and that's what the bible says.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The bible does not address what happens to people who have never been exposed to the word of God, but that does not mean these people will not have a chance to accept Jesus.
Ahhhhh. So if the BIBLE does not address something SPECIFICALLY then you just don't know right?
Is that what you are saying?
That if it's not specifically addressed then you just don't know and have to trust in God that it'll be OK?
Is that it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ahhhhh. So if the BIBLE does not address something SPECIFICALLY then you just don't know right?
Is that what you are saying?
That if it's not specifically addressed then you just don't know and have to trust in God that it'll be OK?
Is that it?
I'll make it clear. I believe that nobody will get into heaven unless they accept Jesus. I do not rule out that people who have never heard the word will have their chance to accept Jesus.
Toad, I really don't think I can be more honest about answering you. I know you are trying to paint me into a corner, but I have given you my honest answers.
-
Nuke, what a chickensplit answer that is.
You badgered the absolute shirt out of anyone who responded to you in the early part of this thread asking for answers.
And now you shuck and jive like Ali.
You're a hypocrite unless you answer straight-up.
Let's try this again:
So if the BIBLE does not address something SPECIFICALLY then you just don't know right?
Is that what you are saying?
That if it's not specifically addressed then you just don't know and have to trust in God that it'll be OK?
Is that it?
Dodge again and I'll start slinging the shirt at YOU that you were slinging at others up thread.
-
I just asked some simple questions.
-
Nuke, can you answer any of my questions?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I just asked some simple questions.
And I answered them all.
-
Can you explain any of my questions about things not specifically in the bible? Do you study the bible??
-
No you didn't answer them at all. Do multiple questions overload your sensory input system?
Take them one at a time then.
So if the BIBLE does not address something SPECIFICALLY then you just don't know right?
-
Originally posted by Toad
So if the BIBLE does not address something SPECIFICALLY then you just don't know right?
It depends on what is being discussed. Be specific if you want me to answer ....that's way to open to interpretation. I have a feeling I already answered you.
You asked me to answer what happens to aborted babies and I said I did not know. Then you asked again, and told me it was a cop out to say I did not know. I then tried again to give you my best,honest answer.....that I beleive no one gets into Heaven without accepting Jesus, and the bible doesn't say what would happen to an aborted fetus.
Are you asking me to say that I do not know what happens to aborted babies who die? My answer is that the bible doesn't mention that specific case, so I truly do not know.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Actually I was replying to Grunhurtz, who was trying to frame an argument that I did not believe people should pray on behalf of others.
And yes, you answered my questions and it confirmed to me my opinion that the Catholic church has incorporated rites and rituals into their teachings which have no relation to the bible or the teachings of Jesus.
Go ahead with your personal attack style of argument though, if you want.
Take the bit of my last post about talkin' to your preacher to heart. Hopefully they will be able to discuss this with you, and help you find answers to your searching’s. It seems like, from what I have read from your posts, you really, REALLY need the help. Possibly join a bible study fellowship like http://www.bsfinternational.org/
Nobody has all the answers. Nobody is 100%. The bottom-line is faith. If the millions of Catholics find salvation through their church, well God bless 'em. If the Baptist find it in their preaching, God bless them. Not a single denomination has cornered the market on "the one and only true path". We are all searching, and hopefully we find it. BUT to knock another’s religion, just because you were raised differently, or hold different opinions, is against EVERYTHING Jesus taught. How could you possibly say another Christian denomination is wrong? Just silly. They all spring from the same well. MAN changed them. What is the difference between a Calvinist, and a Lutheran? What some MAN said. The interpretations of MEN make the diff. In the Protestant denominations, that is the separation. The opinions of some guys at some point in history. You can not say that one denomination is "divinely" inspired. That’s just silly.
One thing I really dig about my preacher, is in his sermons, he takes scriptures, and reads them in Hebrew and Greek. He gives us the various translations on what they could mean, and then tells us what HE thinks it means. (Which is to say he could be wrong, and he admits this) How cool is that? Be careful when you start spouting "the Bible says this" or that, because the Bible is not the same book it was 1000 years ago. That isn't to say it is not divinely inspired. I feel it is. I also understand what translating words into a language, and then another language does to said words. The Bibles has changed over the years. It has been edited, translated, and butchered by many. Don't use "the bible says so" as an excuse for ignorance. A learned Theologian wouldn't.
Quick story. My ex (may she burn in hell *cough*) was raised Freewill Baptist. They are only 2 steps removed from David Koresh's Branch Dividians. Anyhow, she asked her preacher if cursing was a sin. He said yes, if you curse, you are damned to hell, unless you ask forgiveness. She asked, "if you were about to be hit by a train, and lived a righteous life, but the split second before that train hit you said a curse word. Would you go to hell” and that preacher replied "yes, yes you would, because you never asked forgiveness".
REALLY pathetic. No wonder the chick was screwed up. I know that preacher. I attended many of his services when I was newly married. Had to quit going to 'em 'cause I would interrupt his sermons, and start debating with the guy. All he would spout was guilt, and fear, and IMHO Christ is love. He never did win a Sermon argument with me. He would take scripture, and give HIS interpretation of it to the church like it was law. THAT is where most go wrong. People are far too willing to accept whatever is spouted out of a guy’s mouth in a church, and consider it law, when it is usually just some guys’ opinion.
You are reminding me of that preacher. Don't loose sight about the whole "Christ is love" part. Don't dog the Catholics just because YOU don't understand them. Have faith in God that he knows what he's doing. Just love them. Accept them. Show some faith.
(sigh) oh well I tried.
FYI I'm not Catholic, and attend one of the most biblically based churches in the world. How can I say that? We take care of our fellow man, as Jesus taught us to in the Bible. So following Jesus’ example, we provide 100% free medical, and dental care to anyone. Now THAT'S biblically based. We practice what we preach. Not many churches do that.
http://www.hhbc.com/MOJ/
(now the Sikhs, now THEM some crazy fuggers....)
-
Jesus is a freind to all.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Toad
Please tell me that you just went to Stormfront to clip and save time typing.
hehe. Thanks for the laugh:)
-
These kind of threads always befuddle me, seeing such a retrograde, conservative institution as the catholic church accused of not being conservative and retrograde enough cracks me up to no end.
It's like, when I thought of someone as far from my own way of thinking as I can conceive, I used to picture it as a fervorous catholic... but, no, here comes someone like from other planet, someone who is a loonie even for a catholic loonie.
And all for what's written on a politically abridged copy of a translation of another translation of a collection of ancient desert goat herder lore.
So in the end it's no different than Tolkien nuts dicussing if elves really have pointy ears, or wannabe Jedis wondering about the true nature of "blue glowie Ben Kenobi". If it's not crearly spelled in your fantasy of choice, you can make up your own fancy answer, but please don't fight over it.
About the extreme pagan rites of the Catholic masses, they scare even the Pope. In southern Spain worship for some particular images of Christ or Mary is fanatical. Not long ago, a flamenco dancer, asked about werther he was religious, said "I believe in El Cachorro and La Macarena" which are two well known images of Jesus and Mary in churches in Seville. A few years ago JPII attended the "Romería del Rocío" a huge yearly pilgrimage through rivers and marshes towards an image of Mary in some chapel. He was reported astounded by the dancing, drinking and generally non pious behaviour of the pilgrims as well as the crazed crowds that storm the chapel and fight to get to touch the image, that seems to float aimlessly over the sea of raised arms trying to get hold of it.
Well, seeing that, I'd understand how this minimalist "zen" protestants are surprised, so Nuke, is not that catholics are not christians, it's just that if you remove the fiesta, religion is a bore.
-
Oh? The Catholic Church is a religion? I thought it was more focused on being a cash business that allowed it's Preists to molest young boys and then hid them from the law and transferred them to other parishes so they could continue their pedophilic practices.
I really couldnt care less what religion a person is, just dont care. But I do take offense when a church allows evil practices to take place inside its own halls and does nothing to stop it rather than risk a financial penalty.
dago
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It depends on what is being discussed.
[/b]
So, if the bible doesn't mention a particular thing, in some cases you know but in other cases you don't know?
What a load of horse doobers.
You've just set yourself up as judge, do you realize that? You're making your own interpretation.
Be specific if you want me to answer ....that's way to open to interpretation.
[/b]
I already HAVE been specific. You claim the bible says the only way to salvation is in the way prescribed in Romans through Jesus.
Then you turn around and say "you don't know" if this is true in all cases.
Make up your mind.
I have a feeling I already answered you.
[/b]
A dodge is not an answer.
that I beleive no one gets into Heaven without accepting Jesus, and the bible doesn't say what would happen to an aborted fetus.
[/b]
You don't see the contradiction in your own beliefs there? The bibles says no one and yet you "don't know"?
My answer is that the bible doesn't mention that specific case, so I truly do not know.
Do you know about the Amazonian Aboriginie that has never heard the word of God or even heard of Jesus because he's just geographically beyond the reach of missionaries?
You said all Muslims are going to hell, right? What about the Muslim kid that lives in a remote Afghan valley who dies having never heard of Jesus? What about an aborted Muslim baby? They all go to hell right? Because they're Muslim?
Tell me something Nuke. Do you attend church services regularly or is it just you and the bible?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tell me something Nuke. Do you attend church services regularly or is it just you and the bible?
Thats a very good question. I dont think Nuke could stand to attend achurch with all it's non Bible prescribed human rites.
Then I again I think NUKE could hardly stand to answer that question directly without some sort of dodge. Personally I'm hoping he answers with "I don't know." Or maybe repeating the jesus is only way to salvation line.
-
nuke... think of it as Mary and the Saints have only as much power as god let's em have... think of em as ur representitives to the big guy.
We even used to pray to some saints to help us find our car keys... I got a virgin Mary statue on my dash of my El Camino and I bet you would change your whole outlook about praying to her if I gave you a ride.
I really don't understand why you guys worship snakes and drink poison tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
A dodge is not an answer.
I have some friends who thinks Dodge really is an answer and a good one.
-
Wait till their Dodges start falling apart at 30k miles.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I already HAVE been specific. You claim the bible says the only way to salvation is in the way prescribed in Romans through Jesus.
Then you turn around and say "you don't know" if this is true in all cases.
Make up your mind.
[/B]
I already told you, I believe that nobody will get into heaven, except through Jesus. I have answered, what, five times?
And I'm not being the judge, just tellling you my belief.
And I have not attended church regulary for many years.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You don't see the contradiction in your own beliefs there? The bibles says no one and yet you "don't know"?
I said that I beleive nobody will get to heaven unless they accept Jesus. How many times do you want me to say it?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Does the catholic church preach the idea thatr jesus died for our sins?
Remember now, you know about the catholic church...
I thought I answered this before and the answer is yes they do teach that.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So now you know what catholics think? Or do you not have clue?
Which is it? Or do you just change stances as required to shore up your arguments?
Come on Nuke, answer me this.
Can people who are not christians get into heaven?
Flip Flop....LOL...
:D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I thought I answered this before and the answer is yes they do teach that.
So by your own definition catholics are christians. Right? They preach and practice the single most important and most distinguising idea of belief in christ.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nuke... think of it as Mary and the Saints have only as much power as god let's em have... think of em as ur representitives to the big guy.
We even used to pray to some saints to help us find our car keys... I got a virgin Mary statue on my dash of my El Camino and I bet you would change your whole outlook about praying to her if I gave you a ride.
I really don't understand why you guys worship snakes and drink poison tho.
lazs
Thanks Laz. Really, I stopped asking those questions after someone explained the origin a little bit back in this thread.
Too funny about your El Camino comment :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So by your own definition catholics are christians. Right? They preach and practice the single most important and most distinguising idea of belief in christ.
Sure, they are Christians.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
And I have not attended church regulary for many years.
Doesnt the bible at least suggest that yiu should? Jesus did much of his teaching in temples. The apostles are called by jesus to spread the message to many communities and to found churches throughout. Paul was instructed specifically to bring to the church to you, to the gentiles. All of this involved establishing and supporting churches. Have you ever read Paul's writings in the new testaments? Read any of his letters to the churches he founded? Remember, every word in the bible is devinely inspired, it is the word of god put to paper by man. It is very clear on how one should pray in church, very detailed instructions are given.
But you do not go to church! Tell me where in the bible does it say that you should not go to church? Give it to me literally, book, chapter, verse everything. Show me.
If you cant show me , then please answer: are you going to hell for your blasphemus behavior?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sure, they are Christians.
NUKE now you are saying catholics are christions?
You seemed to hvae a different opinion before...
Why the change?
-
1. snakes and poison kick ***
2. a Dodge is definately the answer
(http://www.tristatelugnuts.com/images/bar0201.JPG)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Doesnt the bible at least suggest that yiu should? Jesus did much of his teaching in temples. The apostles are called by jesus to spread the message to many communities and to found churches throughout. Paul was instructed specifically to bring to the church to you, to the gentiles. All of this involved establishing and supporting churches. Have you ever read Paul's writings in the new testaments? Read any of his letters to the churches he founded? Remember, every word in the bible is devinely inspired, it is the word of god put to paper by man. It is very clear on how one should pray in church, very detailed instructions are given.
But you do not go to church! Tell me where in the bible does it say that you should not go to church? Give it to me literally, book, chapter, verse everything. Show me.
If you cant show me , then please answer: are you going to hell for your blasphemus behavior?
I never said that I was not a sinner, Grunhurz, and I never said I was a role model Christian. Everyone of us sin.
I don't know where in the bible it is instructing anyone to go to a church though.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
NUKE now you are saying catholics are christions?
You seemed to hvae a different opinion before...
Why the change?
here is what I said a few days ago in the thread about "666"
Yeah, I know that technically, Catholics are Christian. However, when someone mentions "Catholics" and "Christians", most people in America understand what the difference is.
If I say "Christian evangelist", do you think of a television preacher or the Catholic Pope?
Catholics fashioned themselves into whole new cult in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I said that I beleive nobody will get to heaven unless they accept Jesus. How many times do you want me to say it?
I know you have said that.
Now my question is that since aborted babies, Amazonian Aboringinies and Muslim children in the most remote valleys of Afghanistan cannot accept Jesus because there is absolutely no way they can hear about him and comply with
Romans 10:9-10 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus
So go ahead and say it, Nuke.
The abortions, aboriginies and Muslim kids are going to hell.
Because , in your own words:
I believe nobody will get to heaven unless they accept Jesus.
Now, since you don't go to services, how do you comply with the 3rd Commandment?
Or do the Commandments not count in the Bible According To Nuke?
-
Actually NIKE proteststrans are the ones who evolved into a whole bunch of new cults. Hundreds of them, many of which hate each ocher (and all other christians), many of which have bizzare practices (snakes, poision, no alcohol), many of which who think all others are going to hell.
Proterstants are the recent 500 year old freaks, catholicism and eastern orthodox are the 2000 year old traditional church tracing back to jesus and the 12 apostles.
Oh, and get your arse to church!
-
The commandments are the old law Toad, after Jesus they are no longer the standard for salvation, Jesus is.
And here is my final answer to you about aborted fetuses and people who have never heard of Jesus before.
1. I believe, as most Christians do, that nobody will get into heaven , except through Jesus Christ. That's black and white to me.
2. answer number one does not rule out , in any way, that aborted fetuses and people who have never heard of Jesus, will not have the chance to accept Jesus and go to heaven.
3. God is fair and Just.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The commandments are the old law Toad, after Jesus they are no longer the standard for salvation, Jesus is.
[/b]
So we can violate the 10 Commandments then, right?
Ash-Can that "keep holy the Sabbath" stuff because it doesn't count anymore.
Great! This self-interpretation of the Bible makes life a lot easier. The entire Old Testament is outta here!
Originally posted by NUKE
And here is my final answer to you about aborted fetuses and people who have never heard of Jesus before.
1. I believe, as most Christians do, that nobody will get into heaven , except through Jesus Christ. That's black and white to me.
2. answer number one does not rule out , in any way, that aborted fetuses and people who have never heard of Jesus, will not have the chance to accept Jesus and go to heaven.
3. God is fair and Just.
Of course it rules out aborted fetuses and people who have never heard of Jesus. Otherwise, it is NOT BLACK AND WHITE.
Surely you are intelligent to see that much.
Maybe not. In any event, please continue to contradict yourself. It puts the value of your arguments where it belongs.
-
NUKE what do you do to accept Jesus?
I'm curious do you go around robbing and stealing and murdering and commiting adutery with a clear conscience because you "accepted Jesus?"
-
It's real simple, Grun:
Romans 10:9-10 is your get out of jail free card.
Do it once, do it twice... use it as many times as you like.
Humans are expected to have failures but as long as you are truly sorry each time and hit the Romans 10:9-10 reset button, you'll be OK.
You just don't want to get caught in failure by death with no time to hit reset.
-
So an old Catholic woman genuflects as she enters the church, and quietly proceeds to the alter. She reverently kneels and begins a long stretch of praying.
After about 20 minutes, before her is an apparition of the Savior Himself, Jesus H. Christ.
"What troubles you my child?"
"Shut up kid, I'm talking to your mother."
-
The Pope's secretary comes to the Holy Father and says "Your Holiness I have some good news and some bad news."
"What's the good news?"
"Christ has returned, he's on the phone, and he want's to talk to you."
"Well halleluhah, that is wonderous news! What bad news could possibly taint such a wonderous occurance?"
"He's calling from Salt Lake City"
-
Originally posted by NUKE
No, the only people that will go to hell are those who do not accept Jesus. Pretty simple.
So thats does the Jews, Hindu's Muslims and just about everyone except for you and the rest of the pointy heads?
-
Nuke where does earthly behavior figure in for a christian?
-
Yeah Nuke, and if Jesus was a Jew, why the Hispanic name?
-
Originally posted by Schaden
So thats does the Jews, Hindu's Muslims and just about everyone except for you and the rest of the pointy heads?
In order for there to be a right answer, there has to be a wrong one. Sucks to be those guys I guess.
-
That's probably what they say about Nuke. ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke where does earthly behavior figure in for a christian?
Are you asking me if I try to lead a good life and be honest and live as much as I can, a Christian life, my answer is yes I do.
Grunherz, do you beleive that people cannot enter heaven unless thay accept that Jesus is their savior and has died for our sins?
-
Originally posted by Toad
So we can violate the 10 Commandments then, right?
Ash-Can that "keep holy the Sabbath" stuff because it doesn't count anymore.
Great! This self-interpretation of the Bible makes life a lot easier. The entire Old Testament is outta here!
Of course it rules out aborted fetuses and people who have never heard of Jesus. Otherwise, it is NOT BLACK AND WHITE.
Surely you are intelligent to see that much.
Maybe not. In any event, please continue to contradict yourself. It puts the value of your arguments where it belongs. [/B]
Toad, it's not MY self interpretation of the bible.
How does what I have said rule out that aborted fetuses and people who have never heard the word, would not have some chance to accept Jesus?
I am very intelligent, thanks. It's you who is not seeing the obvious. Want me to tell you again?
1. I believe that the only way ANYONE is getting into heaven, is through accepting Jesus Christ.
2. number one is black and white to me, but does not rule out the possibility that aborted fetuses and people who have never heard of Jesus, will have their chance to do so.
Instead of insulting me , just try to let that sink in a little.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Grunherz, do you beleive that people cannot enter heaven unless thay accept that Jesus is their savior and has died for our sins?
Sure, that is the traditional christian view of salvation from day one.
-
I don't believe that.
I believe there are exceptions to that rule.
I think you can guess what a few of them might be.
Your own Bible tells you there will be exceptions but Nuke's New Church seems to have overlooked that part.
Matthew 25:31-46 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
The sole criteria in this passage for routing individuals to heaven or hell is whether the person gave food, drink or clothing to the destitute, and welcomed strangers and visited the sick or persons in prison.
You can see that unlike Romans,, salvation is totally dependent upon one's treatment of one's fellow humans while on earth. The ancient creeds of the Christian church appear to agree with this concept. The ANCIENT CREEDS, Nuke, the ones that are closest in time to Jesus. Not the new revised Nuke Bible.
I think this is the one you need to study on Brother Nuke:
Matthew 7:21
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't believe that.
So you don't believe that, so all the Christians are wrong and YOU know ( using your argument style here)
What is this new Bible of Toad?
You like that argument style Toad? Ridicule my beliefs just because you don't believe it? Point to stupid old Nuke as the only person dumb enough to believe that Jesus is the salvation and that no one will eneter Heaven, except throught Christ.
And before you try to say that I was bashing the Catholic faith, just re-read this whole thread.
I like how at one point you even said that I was being the judge regarding who goes to heaven or not.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Sure, that is the traditional christian view of salvation from day one.
We are probably not far off on our basic views Grun. I apologize if I came across poorly while discussing the Catholic faith.
-
What's the matter, not enough attention span to read the whole post?
Here, let me help:
Originally posted by Toad
I don't believe that.
I believe there are exceptions to that rule.
I think you can guess what a few of them might be.
Your own Bible tells you there will be exceptions but Nuke's New Church seems to have overlooked that part.
[/b]
Clearly, I said I don't believe that the ONLY way in; I believe there are exceptions.
Even you should probably be able to guess what a few of them are.
Matthew 25:34 shows an alternate way to Heaven, one signficantly different from what you posted from Romans.
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Did you read Matthew?
Because there's another important part of Matthew, 7:21
:
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven
Cast some doubt on Romans, doesn't it?
Further, "but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" is consistent with the ENTIRE rest of the new testament. Jesus was all about loving your neighbors and helping those in need.
Seems to me THAT'S where the focus on the path to Heaven is throughout the book. The Parable of the Good Samaritan familiar to you?
Lip service isn't going to open the gate. It's not the talk, it's the walk.
I'm sorry you're upset that you're getting waxed in this entire thread. However, it's self-inflicted. Don't hate the rest of us for showing you where you misunderstand the Book.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What's the matter, not enough attention span to read the whole post?
Thanks for the insult Toad. Yes I did read the whole post. You said you did not believe that, and that you thought there were exceptions to the rule. You then posted some verses that back up your beliefs. I have no problem with you or what you believe.
That's pretty much what I have done. I stated my belief and posted some verses to back up what I was saying, yet you ridicule me for my belief and tell me I am self interpreting the bible and that I have a new Church of Nuke.
So, rather than asking you the same questions over and over, then ridiculing and insulting your beliefs, I'm just going to tell you that I do not agree with your views.
-
My view is that chistianity is about individual faith and the bible is a basic guide book and primer on the history of the Jewish tradition that eventually brought forth Christ and Christinanity.
Considering that variopus books in the Bible disagree on various aspects I think its safe to say that both good deeds and faith are important in getting into heaven. However I think faith is much more important considerin that the emergenge of Jesus did lower the value of good works and rules per the old jewish contract. But dont discount the old testament as it is full of prophecies about Jesus puls God's covenant with Abraham is very valid and Jesus is a direct descendant of abraham.
"For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. "
Also remember that Jusus is very human, Son of Man. His very nature is dual so Mary is indeed his mother and even Joseph his earthly father in a way so as to link him with Abraham per Matthews gospel.
-
Well your reply certainly did not convey that you had read the whole post, nor did it convey that you understood my position.
As for the rest, I see.
You don't like it when the tables turn.
Gotcha.
One suggestion: if you don't like being in threads like this where your views are shown to be lacking, either have a better argument or don't start them at all.
Just a thought.
-
Luther and his followers could not bring themselves to draw the extreme conclusions that logically flowed from their false teaching on man's salvation. Calvin and Zwingli and their reformer-followers proved to be more consistent. If good works have no significance whatsoever in the matter of salvation, if man through sin has lost every capacity for good, and if even faith - the sole condition for salvation - is God's gift, the question naturally arises: why then are not all men saved, why do some receive grace, while others believe and perish? There can be only one answer to this question, and the reformers give it: "From eternity, God predestined some for salvation, others for perdition, and this predestination depends not at all on a man's personal freedom and life."
The erroneousness of the reformers' teaching is obvious. It perverts the truly Christian understanding of God's justice and mercy, of man's worth and purpose as a free and rational being. God appears here not as a loving, merciful Father, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Timothy 2:4), but as a cruel, unjust despot, who saves some without any merit and dooms others without fault to perdition.
The Orthodox Church also recognizes predestination, but does not consider it unconditional, that is, independent of men's free well and based on a groundless decision of the divine will. According to Orthodox teaching, God, as omniscient, knows, foresees the moral state of men and, on the basis of this foresight, preordains, predetermines for them a certain fate.
But He does not preordain for anyone a definite moral state; He does not preordain either a virtuous or a sinful life and does not at all inhibit our freedom. Therefore, even the Apostle Paul, whom the reformers cite, very closely connects the teaching on predestination with the teaching on God's foresight. In the Epistle to the Romans, he explains this thought in detail, and, incidentally, says concerning predestination: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son? Moreover whom he did pre-destinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30). In this way, God predestinates to glory not according to His groundless arbitrariness, as the reformers think, but according to His foreknowledge of a man's merits accomplished through his free will.
As a counterweight to the exaggerated significance in Catholicism of a man's personal merits before God, the followers of Luther teach that good works do not constitute an essential condition for a man's salvation, that they can even be harmful, since they develop self-conceit and Pharisaical pride. God's grace, acting on a man, instills in him faith in Jesus Christ, and this faith, which places a man in an immediate relationship to the Redeemer, also affords a man salvation and makes him righteous.
Lutherans, as proof of their teaching on justification by faith alone, cite the words of the Apostle Paul: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28), and further: "...a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16). But in these and similar expressions, the Apostle Paul does not at all deny the significance of good works for salvation, but only rejects the false view of the Jews, who in proud self-assurance hoped to attain salvation by an exact, formal fulfillment of the outward prescriptions of the law, apart from heartfelt faith in Jesus Christ. This faith, according to the Apostle Paul, ought to be alive and active, that is, united with good works. It ought to be that "which worketh by love" (Galatians 5:6); "and though," he says, "I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" (I Corinthians 13:2). The Saviour Himself says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). But the idea of the necessity of good works for salvation is especially clearly set forth in the Epistle of the Apostle James, which the Protestants so dislike that they even reject its authenticity: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ...as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:14, 26).
Nuke read the above a few times and let in sink in.
Also please inform us to what domination / sect you belong and if its not too personal what Church you attend.
Drunky,
It seems that Catholics tend to ask the Virgin Mary for help with prayers rather the Jesus or God. Why?
No they don't. They simple ask Mary or the saints to join in their prayers. All prayers are through and in the name of Jesus Christ. Only God has the power the answer prayers.
You don't pray to Mary for grace, salvation or mercy, you simply ask that see join in your prayer.
Isn't God and Jesus pretty bad ass? They are GOD and the SON of GOD. Yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus. But isn't she just a vessel for the spirit of God? A subheading under 'The Big Cheese'?
The answers to your first 2 questions can found int he reply I gave to Nuke.
In the Orthodox teaching on the veneration of saints there is no belittling of the Lord's redemptive sacrifice, since we ask of the saints not that which is not within their power - the forgiveness of sins, the granting of grace and the future blessed life - but we ask the saints, as members of the Church who have been redeemed by the most pure blood of Jesus Christ and are nearer to God than we, that they intercede for us before the one Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the passages of Sacred Scripture cited by the Protestants (Deuteronomy 6:13, I Timothy 1:17), the rendering of divine honor to God alone is spoken of; but we do not render such honor to the saints. We venerate God's grace, which resides in them; we venerate God, Who is, according to the words of the Psalmist, "wondrous in His saints."
You don't pray to the Saints as if they are equal to God.
You simply ask that they join in your prayers just as you would a living person. After all they are not dead, they are alive in Heaven.
When you think of the Holy Trinity do you think of God, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary? or do you think of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit
The Father (God), The Son (Jesus), The Holy Spirit (God's Presence).
You don't hear about Catholics seeing the face of Jesus under an overpass and visiting it. Why?
First whether you believe these 'Mary sightings' or not there's a rich and documented history / tradition of the Saints and in particular Mary revealing themselves. The answers to why are to be answered by those who truly believe.
As I said above I am not a Christian (all though I was raised in a devote Catholic Family).
However, there are any number of claims of 'weeping Jesus's' from paintings to Statues etc...
I would not presume to tell those who truly believe what they see as a sign of God that they are wrong. They believe and have faith in what they see. It not not seem logical or even sane but whether its 'true' or psychological' faith has power.
The Catholics that I know have the Virgin Mary tattooed on them but none have a picture of Jesus tattooed on them. Why?
I dunno. I am covered in tattoos. None of them are of Mary or Jesus.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As for the rest, I see.
You don't like it when the tables turn.
Gotcha.
One suggestion: if you don't like being in threads like this where your views are shown to be lacking, either have a better argument or don't start them at all.
Just a thought.
Toad, I didn't ridicule anyones beliefs. What views did I post that you find lacking? You talking about my faith and beliefs?
In your last post, you say that you and others are showing me how I missunderstand the bible. You said that I'm self interpreting it, then go on to show me YOUR interpretation.
And I can take the threads, can you? Look at your behavior in this thread. Borders on childish.
-
Wotan, no need to keep explaining. I already acknowedged that my questions had been answered awhile back in this thread.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Wotan, no need to keep explaining. I already acknowedged that my questions had been answered awhile back in this thread.
What questions?
-
The ones I asked in the first post.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, I didn't ridicule anyones beliefs.
[/b]
No... of course not.. you just tell them they're all going to hell for what they believe. How can anyone possibly construe that as ridicule?
Originally posted by NUKE
What views did I post that you find lacking? You talking about my faith and beliefs?
[/b]
I'm talking about your interpretation of the Bible which I find narrowly focused and excludes parts you don't wish to talk about but are just as important as the ones you emphasize.
In your last post, you say that you and others are showing me how I missunderstand the bible.
[/b]
Yes, I think several have done that.
You said that I'm self interpreting it,
[/b]
What research into it's meaning do you do? You don't go to a bible-based church where every meeting a verse is examined. You have a bible study group you attend with a qualified leader?
then go on to show me YOUR interpretation.
[/b]
My interpretation? I read it. I listen to various discussions of it, some that are televised preachers, I actually go to services and pay attention, I read the book itself and I also read interpretations of the book by people who have studied it far longer than I have. My interpretation is an amalgam of all those things and more. I also suspect that I am far more motivated to get this right at this point in my life than you are at your point in life. But that's a guess.
And I can take the threads, can you? Look at your behavior in this thread. Borders on childish.
But then.... I'm not the one saying everyone else that doesn't believe the same way I do is going to hell, am I?
Still want to talk childish? That's a really childish interpretation of the Bible. It's shared by many though, so you have company. Like I said earlier, I think you're in the group that gives Christianity a bad name.
If you wish to continue in this vein, be my guest.
-
Toad, you have no idea about how I have come to understand and form my beliefs. You have been very condensending from the begining of the thread on page one.
You chose to belittle my understanding of the word and my faith, while presenting your understaning and belief as superior to mine.
You have discussed nothing much other than your "aborted baby" question....which you have asked and I have answered since page one.
I made a comment to Steve over lunch today that I was a little surprized at your attitude in this thread. He hadn't seen it yet. I'm still surprized.
You say my views are narrowly focused? Well, like I have said, you have been asking me the same question for 5 pages. Who's being narrowly focused? How could the focus be on anything else with your questions directly regarding one specific point?
My belief is that the only way into heaven is through Jesus Christ.
Do you think someone can go to heaven while rejecting Jesus Christ?
-
That's a really childish interpretation of the Bible.
This is rediculous Toad and I believe you know this. Who are you to tell someone their interpretation is better or worse than yours?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, you have no idea about how I have come to understand and form my beliefs. You have been very condensending from the begining of the thread on page one.
[/b]
But telling everyone that unless they believe and testify as you do they are going to hell is not condescending?
You chose to belittle my understanding of the word and my faith, while presenting your understaning and belief as superior to mine.
[/b]
Wrong. I presented alternative verses that highlight the fact that your stated belief on the only way to heaven is not the only route mentioned in the bible.
You choose not to discuss those, however.
What I did was try to make you think, to question your own beliefs in light the situation of innocents (abortions) and of other verses in the bible that disagree with your position.
[You have discussed nothing much other than your "aborted baby" question....which you have asked and I have answered since page one.
[/b]
You never answered it. You dodged it. You proclaim there is ONLY ONE WAY INTO HEAVEN and then you say "you don't know" if those that CANNOT follow that way can get into heaven. Couple this with the fact that the bible mentions other ways and you have a pure dodge.
I made a comment to Steve over lunch today that I was a little surprized at your attitude in this thread. He hadn't seen it yet. I'm still surprized.
[/b]
I'm not suprised at yours. You display this attitude in almost every thread you enter. And you always claim innocence. You don't ridicule, yet you call the Catholic Church a "cult".
You say my views are narrowly focused? Well, like I have said, you have been asking me the same question for 5 pages. Who's being narrowly focused?
[/b]
When you refuse to answer and dodge, I'll keep asking. You're still dodging btw. Either the way you posted is the ONLY way (Romans) or it is not. Black and white. After stating it's the ONLY way, you crawfish and say "I don't know".
How could the focus be on anything else with your questions directly regarding one specific point?
[/b]
By narrowly focused, I mean that you seem to have no awareness of other parts of the NT. Care to comment on the verses from Matthew? Please do... you haven't yet.
My belief is that the only way into heaven is through Jesus Christ.
[/b]
That's pretty generic. I think just about any Christian, including the Catholics can say that.
Do you think someone can go to heaven while rejecting Jesus Christ?
I think someone can get into heaven without even ever hearing the words "Jesus Christ".
I think there's verses in the Bible that support that too.
1 Timothy 4:10: "...we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially those who believe."
See, God saves ALL MEN, including and especially those who believe.
(Acts 10:34-35 RSV) And Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Fear God and do what is right. Hmmmm Muslims certainly fear God and many of them do what is right.
Galatians 5:14 (RSV)
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your
neighbor as yourself."
Romans 13:8 (RSV)
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:10 (RSV)
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Lookie there.. love thy neighbor as thyself FULFILLS the law.
That's what I mean by narrow focus. It's a big book.
-
Originally posted by Steve
This is rediculous Toad and I believe you know this. Who are you to tell someone their interpretation is better or worse than yours?
Who is Nuke to tell Catholics they are members of a cult?
Let me guess Steve... you are another one of the "everyone else is going to hell" guys?
Or not?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Who is Nuke to tell Catholics they are members of a cult?
Let me guess Steve... you are another one of the "everyone else is going to hell" guys?
Or not?
cult: worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings" "a particular form or system of religious worship; especially in reference to its external rites and ceremonies"
devotion or homage to a particular person or thing."
I said that I though( my opinion) the Catholic relegion had fashioned themselves into a new cult, in a reference in another thread when asked if I thought todays Catholic church was the same going back to the time of Jesus.
-
Toad, you said you go to services and pay attention? What organized religion are you partial too?
-
Let me guess Steve... you are another one of the "everyone else is going to hell" guys?
No Toad, I'm not. I am concerned that one person's (not necessarily mine) view is the right view and others are wrong. This means I'm concerned that my view is wrong as well.
I go on faith that my interpretaion is correct but I do not try to impose it on others nor do I hold them as heathens if they believe other than I do.
I am concerned about this because I do not want people I care about, or even good people like you to go to hell. No, I'm not saying anyone is going to hell. I'll not decide or judge, if that's ok w/ you.
My point to you is sort of related to all of this. You don't really know that Nuke's interpretation is more right or wrong than yours. So calling his views childish is..... out of line IMHO.
Theres' nothing wrong w/ believing differently than Nuke, I respect your right to worship as you see fit.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
cult: worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being
Guess your in a cult too then, right?
You do worship and pay reverential homage to Jesus, a divine being?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, you said you go to services and pay attention? What organized religion are you partial too?
At the present time I regularly attend Catholic services. I was reared in the religion but was away from it for quite a while. I haven't decided if coming back is for me yet.
I also have attended a few others locally because I'm an open minded guy. Various sects; not to impressed so far. Been to Lakewood Church in Houston and liked that quite a bit but it's a bit of a drive. Osteen is on TV though, so I've seen him both in person and in the tube.
The one that just spiked my radar was upthread the one linked by Lute. Did you check that one out? From a cursory look, it seems they are on target. I'm going to look into them for sure.
Ministries of Jesus/Henderson Hills Baptist. (http://www.hhbc.com/MOJ/)
See, I have this really WEIRD idea. I think there's ONE God. For all of us. I think, if I make it, I will Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and maybe even Druids in paradise. Puzzle on that a while and maybe it'll come to you.
One God. All powerful, able to represent/manifest himself to any or all of mankind in any one or multiple ways that he might choose.
Isn't it funny that about all the major religions have the same basic tenet? One that is repeated over and over in the Bible?
All of them have some variation of love thy neighbor as thyself. One might even say they all have a variation on
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
Coincidence? One God for all?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Guess your in a cult too then, right?
You do worship and pay reverential homage to Jesus, a divine being?
Correct.
And when I said the I felt the Catholic religion had fashioned themselves into a whole different cult since the time of Jesus, this is the context in which I was refering to the word:
"a particular form or system of religious worship; especially in reference to its external rites and ceremonies"
Nothing wrong with the word, Toad.
-
Originally posted by Steve
My point to you is sort of related to all of this. You don't really know that Nuke's interpretation is more right or wrong than yours. So calling his views childish is..... out of line IMHO.
[/b]
If you can't see the inconsistency in Nuke's position, I can't help you.
I think that inconsistency is so grossly obvious that to argue his point in that manner is childish.
IMHO. Of course. Feel free to think me out of line.
Originally posted by Steve
Theres' nothing wrong w/ believing differently than Nuke, I respect your right to worship as you see fit.
There's nothing wrong with believing exactly as Nuke does. Each is free to follow his own conscience.
However, you can believe the Sun rises in the West too. I suggest that if you put that out on the board, you will draw counterarguments that point out other aspects of nature.
I would respect your right to believe that but I wouldn't think you very well versed in the natural sciences.
That's what has happened here with Nuke. I'm certainly not the only one who thinks so, either.
As I said, perhaps it will make him think the next time he starts a thread like this one. Note again that I'm neither the first or only one in this thread to assess Nuke's attempts here as either attacks on or ridicule of other religions in his usual oh-so-innocent way.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nothing wrong with the word, Toad.
Exactly what I mean by "oh-so-innocent".
Yeah, right... you used cult in a purely scientific, academic manner. You certainly didn't mean to advance any negative implication.
You should understand that this is one of your traits that puts everyone's back up.
But then... butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Exactly what I mean by "oh-so-innocent".
Yeah, right... you used cult in a purely scientific, academic manner. You certainly didn't mean to advance any negative implication.
You should understand that this is one of your traits that puts everyone's back up.
But then... butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it?
Toad, I have said that I think that a lot of the rites in the Catholic religion are not ever mentoned in the bible.
I have been and still am, 100% honestly interested in hearing Catholics reasoning for some of these things. I have been this way all my life.
I have had these discussions and asked these same questions with some of my best friends, who are Catholic. One friend had a Priest friend, Father Allen, stay with us back when we where roomates. Had the discussion with him.
I know that I do not always state things in the most user friendly manner, but I assure you that when I argue ( or try too) on this bbs, that I am very sincere. When I stay in a thread for any length of time, I can assure you it's because I genuinly believe my what I am saying and am not just trolling or trying to insult people.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Lookie there.. love thy neighbor as thyself FULFILLS the law.
Always found this interesting.
"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal."
--The Dalai Lama
Bahá'í World Faith:
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
Brahmanism:
"This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517
Buddhism:
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4
Ancient Egyptian:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written.
Hinduism:
"One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself." Mencius Vii.A.4
"This is the sum of the Dharma [duty]: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517
Humanism:
"(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3
Islam:
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5
Jainism:
"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6
Native American Spirituality:
"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
Roman Pagan Religion:
"The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto:
"The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"
Sikhism:
Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib
"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299
Sufism:
"The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.
Taoism:
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Unitarian:
"We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles.
Wicca:
"An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede
Yoruba: (Nigeria):
"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
Zoroastrianism:
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
Some philosophers' statements are:
Epictetus:
"What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Plato:
"May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Socrates:
"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
Seneca:
"Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; As I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." [Gospel of John, King James Bible version].
Based on the above quote, if you lived by the above standard, you'd also be a Christian, regardless of whatever else you were.
Cool.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If you can't see the inconsistency in Nuke's position, I can't help you.
[/B]
I have been 100% consistant. I believe that nobody will go to heaven without accepting that Jesus Christ is their savior.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, I have said that I think that a lot of the rites in the Catholic religion are not ever mentoned in the bible.
[/b]
So? A lot of the things in the various Protestant religions.. ALL of which split off from Catholicism as Wotan pointed out, are not in the Bible either.
Further, as many have pointed out, all of the tales/stories/precepts/lessons/parables of/by Jesus were not included in the Bible from the very first version. The life of Jesus was "edited" heavily in the very first edition of the bible.
So, we obviously have an incomplete bible, don't we?
Therefore, why would you give a fig what rites the Catholics include or choose not to include?
The bottom line is they believe in Jesus Christ and that salvation is through him in word and deed.
In short, they're Christians just like you.
So your interest is or should be of no importance to you unless you are considering a return to Catholicism.
Beyond that, I am not a Muslim but I have this sneaking suspicion that they worship their God under many of the same tenets we worship our God. I suspect this is not coincidence.
As I pointed out above, I also suspect that, if God chose to do so, he could manifest himself to his Muslim children in a manner different than he manifests himself to his Christian children......... yet he would be the same ONE God that rules over the heavens and the earth.
So you know what? As a result, I don't judge Muslims, Buddhists, Druids, Protestants, etc. lest I be judged in the same manner. I don't know God's plan for dealing with other people that he may or may not have decided to approach in a totally different manner.
Father Allen, stay with us back when we where roomates. Had the discussion with him.
[/b]
Apparently you've been asking the same questions all your life. I suspect you're getting pretty much the same answers all the time, none of which satisfy you. Why is that?
You talked directly to a Padre (although I've met some of them that couldn't pour pee out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel when it came to explaining their religion in a coherent manner...that group is just like every other group. Protestants included.) and he couldn't answer you? Or you couldn't accept his answers?
I know that I do not always state things in the most user friendly manner
[/b]
Indeed, sir, you do not. In fact, I would classify that as an understatment. I believe that is why you got the reaction you got with this thread.
-
Toad, the bible, in my opinion, is the word of God. No church and no religion's rites outside what is validated by the bible interest me.
The bible is not incomplete. The bible is not the story of any church and it's traditions, it's the word of God.
The reason I ask and care about some of the things Catholics do as rites, is that I feel it is a distraction away from the word of God. Other religions do the same thing.......kiss snakes and drink poison.....it's all a distraction and deviation from the teachings and the word in the bible.
I don't judge anyone either, that's Gods job.
-
But.. .but... .Lute... only ONE of those was from the Bible!!!
;)
Thanks Lute. Nicely done. Is there a page of that somewhere or did you dredge them all up individually.
Also, thanks for the link to your church. Seems you folks are "livin' it".
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have been 100% consistant. I believe that nobody will go to heaven without accepting that Jesus Christ is their savior.
How tiresome.
EXCEPT that you "don't know" if those who have never, ever heard of Jesus will or will not get in.
So you mock your own absolutist statement. You mock yourself.
-
Originally posted by Toad
How tiresome.
EXCEPT that you "don't know" if those who have never, ever heard of Jesus will or will not get in.
So you mock your own absolutist statement. You mock yourself.
Try to really understand this. I accept as 100% fact that nobody will go to heaven, unless they accept Jesus.
Is that understood? Nobody, in my belief, will get into heaven without accepting Jesus as savior. Pretty much a solid answer if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by Toad
But.. .but... .Lute... only ONE of those was from the Bible!!!
;)
Thanks Lute. Nicely done. Is there a page of that somewhere or did you dredge them all up individually.
Also, thanks for the link to your church. Seems you folks are "livin' it".
sadly, I googled that one.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
BUT in the distant past, I created a slightly longer list by hand. This was pre-internet days. Always found it interesting.
-
off topic, Toad google " irshad manji pbs "
"The Trouble with Islam Today"
i think you'll get a kick outta it
-
Toad, you never answered my question: do you believe that anyone can go to heaven if they reject Jesus as savior?
Maybe I'll ask you this same question for the next five pages.
Take you for instance, having been exposed to the word and Jesus. If you live a a good life, do the will of God and love your neighbor, can you reject Jesus as your Savior and still go to heaven?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, the bible, in my opinion, is the word of God. No church and no religion's rites outside what is validated by the bible interest me.
[/b]
Then why have you been buggin' the shirt out of Catholics your whole life? The rites are of no interest to you. Poor Father Allen.
The bible is not incomplete. The bible is not the story of any church and it's traditions, it's the word of God.
[/b]
Unfortunately for you Nuke, the Bible has a history. It was written by men and it was translated... many different times by men.
30 - 40 AD - Sayings of Jesus
Some bible scholars believe the sayings of Jesus were collected during this period and that parts of this document, called the "Q" source by scholars, underlie the gospels of both Matthew and Luke.
59 AD - Paul's Letters
Most of the apostle Paul's letters were in circulation by this date, and they are the first unified Christian writings that have come down to us today.
367 AD - Earliest New Testament List
The earliest surviving list of books exactly matching the modern New Testament Canon dates from 367 AD
So you see Nuke, from say 30AD until 367AD there WAS no "standardized" bible. The one you read was compiled from many sources, taking bits and pieces of each. Some pieces were the same, some were not. Not all were included.
300+ years of various versions of God's Word. The years closest in time to when Jesus acutally lived.
Yet you're certain that NOTHING was left out. By fallible men that wrote it.
The reason I ask and care about some of the things Catholics do as rites, is that I feel it is a distraction away from the word of God.
[/b]
Why ever would it distract YOU? You don't go to any church at all.
It is undeniable that they are preaching the word of God. The Catholic Bible is so similar to the KJV that it's not really worth discussing the differences. So they are complying with Jesus' instructions to spread the word.
Why don't you quit worrying about them and let Jesus do the judging?
I don't judge anyone either, that's Gods job.
I'm tempted to use the rolleyes thingie.
You judge the Catholics, saying their rites distract from the Word of God.
You immediately say you don't judge people.
You inconsistencies are amazingly regular. They cause me ponder whether you ever read what you write or if you really are that blind to yourself.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, you never answered my question: do you believe that anyone can go to heaven if they reject Jesus as savior?
Maybe I'll ask you this same question for the next five pages.
You won't have to ask me for the next five pages, because I won't crawfish and try to hide an obvious inconsistency by saying "waaahh! No fair!! I don't know!"
The answer to your question is no.
See how easy it is? Yes or No.
Give it a try.
-
LOL Toad, saying I believe that the rites distract from the bible is not judging the Cathlics, that's called expressing an opinon.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You won't have to ask me for the next five pages, because I won't crawfish and try to hide an obvious inconsistency by saying "waaahh! No fair!! I don't know!"
The answer to your question is no.
See how easy it is? Yes or No.
Give it a try.
So you are saying that if you cannot go to heaven if you reject Jesus as Savior?
-
LOL, you really are amazing.
Definitions of opinion on the Web:
a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"
You're absolutely judging them.
Man, I'm beginning to think you share a rather singular classification with Zulu7.
-
Originally posted by Toad
See how easy it is? Yes or No.
Give it a try.
Okay, then I have a great question for you. Is an aborted baby, or someone who has never heard of Jesus going to Heaven?
Is a person who has never heard the word going to heaven? Yes or no Toad. Should be easy.
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL, you really are amazing.
You're absolutely judging them.
Man, I'm beginning to think you share a rather singular classification with Zulu7.
So, if you have an opinion that Liberals are not correct regarding any given policy, you are judging them? Come on Toad.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You won't have to ask me for the next five pages, because I won't crawfish and try to hide an obvious inconsistency by saying "waaahh! No fair!! I don't know!"
The answer to your question is no.
See how easy it is? Yes or No.
Give it a try.
You CAN read, can't you?
Now it's your turn. No more "I don't know".
Do you believe that aborted babies can go to heaven without confessing with their mouth the Lord Jesus?
Go, Crawfish, go!
-
Originally posted by Toad
You CAN read, can't you?
No, you didn't answer my yes or no question. You stiplulated a yes or no answer for the first time in this thread, and now refuse to live up to your own standard.
Yes or No: Is an aborted fetus or a person who has never heard the word going to heaven? Yes or no, just like you demand.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Okay, then I have a great question for you. Is an aborted baby, or someone who has never heard of Jesus going to Heaven?
Is a person who has never heard the word going to heaven? Yes or no Toad. Should be easy.
It is easy.
Aborted babies absolutely. They cannot possibly have done wrong in this world.
Someone who never heard of Jesus? Yes, absolutely if they have followed the "two commandments".
Matt 22:36-40
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
If such a person loves his God (and as I explained there is only ONE for all of us) and loved his neighbor as himself he would most certainly go to heaven.
He has complied with Jesus' two greatest commandments.
Bet that just twists your knickers.
Now, see if you have the courage to answer the same question yes or no.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It is easy.
Aborted babies absolutely. They cannot possibly have done wrong in this world.
Someone who never heard of Jesus? Yes, absolutely if they have followed the "two commandments".
If such a person loves his God (and as I explained there is only ONE for all of us) and loved his neighbor as himself he would most certainly go to heaven.
He has complied with Jesus' two greatest commandments.
Bet that just twists your knickers.
Now, see if you have the courage to answer the same question yes or no.
How do you know that an aborted fetus is going to heaven? Does the bible say that, or do you just "feel" that?
And you just told me that anybody who hasn't heard the word is going to heaven, then added an *if* statement. What if the person lived alone in a cave, never talked to one person?
Isn't that nice, your own answer is pretty much the same as mine. You have no Idea if they are going to heaven.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
No, you didn't answer my yes or no question. You stiplulated a yes or no answer for the first time in this thread, and now refuse to live up to your own standard.
Yes or No: Is an aborted fetus or a person who has never heard the word going to heaven? Yes or no, just like you demand.
You are quite a simpleton.
I answered your first question
Take you for instance, having been exposed to the word and Jesus. If you live a a good life, do the will of God and love your neighbor, can you reject Jesus as your Savior and still go to heaven?
with a clear "no".
I just answered your second question
Is an aborted baby, or someone who has never heard of Jesus going to Heaven?
with a yes.
Are you stoned or something? Are you having trouble keeping track of what you say?
BTW, you are judging someone's relationship with God. I think that's a bit different than opposing a political viewpoint. But I'm not surprised you can't see it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You are quite a simpleton.
I answered your first question
with a clear "no".
I just answered your second question
with a yes.
Are you stoned or something? Are you having trouble keeping track of what you say?
BTW, you are judging someone's relationship with God. I think that's a bit different than opposing a political viewpoint. But I'm not surprised you can't see it.
So, you believe that unless you accept Jesus as your savior, you are going to hell.
And, having an opinion about weather someone's belief is correct or not judging them. By your definition, you are judgimg me .
-
Thank you Wotan...that actually helped quite a bit to answer most of my questions.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
How do you know that an aborted fetus is going to heaven? Does the bible say that, or do you just "feel" that?
[/b]
I've never found a reference to aborted babies in the bible, have you? I HAVE found reference to an all merciful and just God. From that I KNOW he wouldn't punish the unborn.
All reference to sin is made with "born" as a qualifier. Gotta be born to sin... that clears the aborted ones.
So yep, I KNOW that. That's the God I worship. Not one that sends unborn children to eternal damnation.
You still don't have the balls to answer the same question yes or no.
And you just told me that anybody who hasn't heard the word is going to heaven, then added an *if* statement. What if the person lived alone in a cave, never talked to one person?
[/b]
Here one more time real slowly because I can see you have trouble.
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
(take a deep breath, Nuke)
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
(take a deep breath, Nuke)
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
(take a deep breath, Nuke)
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Do those two things and you have complied with what Jesus considered the two most important things.
So, did the caveman do these things? If so, he's in.
Isn't that nice, your own answer is pretty much the same as mine. You have no Idea if they are going to heaven.
Not at all. I have a firm idea. Unlike you who can't see the obvious contradiction in your statement about who can and can't get into heaven.
You really aren't worth the candle, Nuke. You just don't have what it takes to debate.
So, I'm off to bed.
Study hard. Maybe you'll be able to make a valid argument some day.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, you believe that unless you accept Jesus as your savior, you are going to hell.
And, having an opinion about weather someone's belief is correct or not judging them. By your definition, you are judgimg me .
You left out your own caveat poseur.
Look at the WHOLE question you asked and then edited to suit your purpose:
Take you for instance, having been exposed to the word and Jesus. If you live a a good life, do the will of God and love your neighbor, can you reject Jesus as your Savior and still go to heaven?
having been exposed to the word and Jesus is key here. And THAT'S what I answered, no your abridged version.
Putz. Now you even have to argue dishonestly.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I've never found a reference to aborted babies in the bible, have you? IStudy hard. Maybe you'll be able to make a valid argument some day. [/B]
LOL, you pretend to KNOW about what happens, yet there is no reference in the Bible? You are the one who has been asking about aborted babies.
I have had a more realistic answer: I don't KNOW, but that God is Fair and Just.
Go to bed you hypocrite.
You have been exposed to the word, so the ONLY way you are going to heaven is to accept Jesus as your Savior. Suck it up Mr Hypocrite.
-
No, Putz, I KNOW precisely because God is Fair and Just.
I know because reference to sin in the bible goes hand and hand with "man born of woman" . Aborted babies arent' born.
God gave you a mind, try to use it.
That's an insult. It's the Jewish word for a Fool or an Idiot. You earned it in this thread.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You have been exposed to the word, so the ONLY way you are going to heaven is to accept Jesus as your Savior. Suck it up Mr Hypocrite.
How do you know I haven't, Judge?
Putz.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
And, having an opinion about weather someone's belief is correct or not judging them. By your definition, you are judgimg me .
I'm not judging your religious beliefs at all, I'm judging your intelligence, Putz.
-
Wotan, thanks.. .that is interesting.
The more I read, the more I wouldn't be suprised if that woman gets whacked.
-
Originally posted by Toad
How do you know I haven't, Judge?
Putz.
What? You have told me that you have been going to church and have been raised a Catholic. Therefore, you have been exposed to the word and can ONLY get into heaven if you accept Jesus as your Savior, by your own definition.
You agreed that you cannot get into heaven if you reject Jesus as Savior, as long as you've been exposed to the word.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not judging your religious beliefs at all, I'm judging your intelligence, Putz.
Well, then it's okay if I say I think Cathics are stupid? That makes it okay? All you have to do is call someone stupid, then you get a magic star that allows you to attack their beliefs?
-
Putz. Here, I'll print single word vertically to give you time to comprehend.
You have heard of Sylvan, right?
How
do
you
know
I
haven't
accepted
Jesus
as
my
Savior?
-
Go ahead and say Catholics are stupid.
Don't say they are stupid because you disagree with their worship of the same God you worship.
That would be stupid.
Putz.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, Putz, I KNOW precisely because God is Fair and Just.
So do I. You make the mistake of pretending to know what is fair and just in Gods eyes.
You claim to KNOW what happens to an aborted fetus, when in reality, you have no clue other than your "faith".
The same thing that I go by, faith. I have faith that God is fair and just, but I don't pretend to KNOW what happens after a fetus dies. I'll just trust that God does the right thing, yet I'm not going to state as fact that I know what happens.
You have no clue what happens, just a "feeling"
-
Originally posted by Toad
Putz. Here, I'll print single word vertically to give you time to comprehend.
You have heard of Sylvan, right?
How
do
you
know
I
haven't
accepted
Jesus
as
my
Savior?
I don't know. All I know is that, despite your "other ways" to get into heaven, you are not going unless you accept Jesus.
-
It's all in the book Putz, but you have to be able to read it.
Can't get into heaven with sin on you.
Sin is in man born of woman.
Can't sin unless you are born.
Deductive logic appears beyond your capability. I'll bet God figured most of us would use the brains he gave us. so he didn't have to spell out every single detail.
Otherwise the book would be 10 milliion pages.
Why don't you show your belief again and tell everyone that doesn't believe exactly as you do that they're going to hell?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
1. Why do you worship/pray to the virgin Mary? Where in the bible are you instructed to do so?
2. Rosary beads and Hail Mary's, where did that come from?
3. Is any man holy? What about the pope? ANy refernece for a pope in the bible?
4. Confession of sins to another man. Where is that called for in the bible.
5. granting of sainthood. How is it that the church decides who will be elevated to "saint" ?
These questions have been answered. Accept it. Roman/Orthodoc Catholic traditions might seem alien to other denominations but it its the only true form of Christianity surviving today.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's all in the book Putz, but you have to be able to read it.
Can't get into heaven with sin on you.
Sin is in man born of woman.
Can't sin unless you are born.
Deductive logic appears beyond your capability. I'll bet God figured most of us would use the brains he gave us. so he didn't have to spell out every single detail.
Otherwise the book would be 10 milliion pages.
Why don't you show your belief again and tell everyone that doesn't believe exactly as you do that they're going to hell?
You said that people can go to heaven by following just two commandments.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't know. All I know is that, despite your "other ways" to get into heaven, you are not going unless you accept Jesus.
Yes, I showed you with biblical quotes that if you KNOW you have to accept.
I also showed you that there are other ways for those that don't KNOW, also with biblical quotes.
So be proud of yourself. You finally know something.
You're welcome.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You said that people can go to heaven by following just two commandments.
Yes, little Nuke, I said that. Of course, that's not all I said, but feel free to just take little pieces one at a time so you can grasp them. Still, you need to eventually take ALL the little pieces and put them together in the correct order.
Why don't you go back and quote every line I posted in this thread and do it one line at a time.
Perhaps it will help you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, I showed you with biblical quotes that if you KNOW you have to accept.
I also showed you that there are other ways for those that don't KNOW, also with biblical quotes.
So be proud of yourself. You finally know something.
You're welcome.
yet, you said you cannot get into heaven with "sin on you", then explained that one only needs to follow two commandments.
"37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"
So , someone can get into heaven if they have never heard the word if they follow these two commandments? Is this the bible as YOU interpret it? The Church of Toad?
What if they have sinned, but followed these two commandments?
-
So, someone who has never heard of the word can sin all they want, as long as they love god and their neighbor?
That's good Toad. The Church of Toad states that God is basically not fair to all humans.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, someone who has never heard of the word can sin all they want, as long as they love god and their neighbor?
That's good Toad. The Church of Toad states that God is basically not fair to all humans.
always an excellent point there nuke. I posed a similar question to my preacher not THAT long ago.
His answer was (roughly) that if one loved God with all their heart, they wouldn't want to sin. It's that simple. If you sin, then your heart isn't truely given to the Lord God, and you have not given Him your heart, soul and mind.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I know because reference to sin in the bible goes hand and hand with "man born of woman" . Aborted babies arent' born.
Are you saying that anyone who has never been born is without sin? Please tell me you are not taking that stance.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
always an excellent point there nuke. I posed a similar question to my preacher not THAT long ago.
His answer was (roughly) that if one loved God with all their heart, they wouldn't want to sin. It's that simple. If you sin, then your heart isn't truely given to the Lord God, and you have not given Him your heart, soul and mind.
Yeah, but every man sins no matter how much they try not to.
-
religous subjects allways turn into 300 page fight monsters..hehe
as for the kid thing..im not major bible thumper..but i have my beliefs and somtimes attend the church of christ...i asked my preacher the same thing about kids...showed me were it said somthing like..god watches over children...and he said...but he wasnt sure of cource..but he took that as a sign that god watches over your soul till your old anuff and smart anuff to know good from bad and figure out your path that is free for you to choose..sounded right to me..but again im not scholar
yup..nuke is right every man sins,,you still get bad thoughts in your head..thinking about bad things is allmost as bad as doing them in his eyes..your hart hungers for sin...it says if you have the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains with only a thought...but only one man had that kinda faith on this earth and it was jesus..who raized a dead man who stunk of death for weeks..must of been amazing to see..lol..wish i could have that kinda faith..but i never will
-
However, you can believe the Sun rises in the West too.
This implies that your interpretation of things is somehow more right than nuke's.
Now all I see is a bunch of name calling in your argument.
Clue in: It doesn't matter how much you think you "Know" about religion. People are entitled to interpret things as the see it.
You simply are not the supreme authority on this. Who died and made you right? Simply because you disagree w/ Nuke doesn't mean he's wrong. You have no way of knowing if he's wrong.
Judge not...............
Hypocrite.
-
Steve I know its a good thing to stick up for friends, but there is no way you can defend NUKE by saying that other people judge his views wrong unfairly. NUKE has been doing that the whole thread and in other threads on thsi topic.
And the supreme ironly is you call others hypocrites.
-
Ahh these religious discussions are very much like but even more entertaining than Jerry Springer show.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Steve I know its a good thing to stick up for friends, but there is no way you can defend NUKE by saying that other people judge his views wrong unfairly. NUKE has been doing that the whole thread and in other threads on thsi topic.
And the supreme ironly is you call others hypocrites.
I have not judged other people's views, Grun.
Toad sure has though.
-
And the supreme ironly is you call others hypocrites
Really? Spell it out for me.. I am too dull to see how
-
LOL you two are something else, pure and inocent as the driven snow...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL you two are something else, pure and inocent as the driven snow...
I never claimed to be pure and innocent Grun. But, can you take a look at Toad's attitude towards me and honestly say that his attitude and demeanor in this thread have been civil?
I'd like to think that I have been civil.
-
LOL you two are something else, pure and inocent as the driven snow
This is completely nonsensical. While i enjoy a good debate, I do not find gibberish entertaining. Not going to respond to you in this thread.
-
I'm devested by your taking of the moral high ground here stevie...
:lol
-
nuke... in some ways you remind me of WC Fields..
When he was dying a friend came over to see him and was startled to see Fields reading a bible. The friend asked if Fields had gotten religion at the last minute and was reading the bible to better get in touch with the saviour... "Naa" said Fields.. "Looking for loopholes"
A good person is a good person regardless of if he ever heard of ol heyzoos or not. A bad person is still a bad person no matter how many people he harasses in the name of the cross hanger.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What if they have sinned, but followed these two commandments?
This is why I suspect you need to get professional guidance for your bible study.
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"
Do you see the message there?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, someone who has never heard of the word can sin all they want, as long as they love god and their neighbor?
They can't do both, it's mutually exclusive.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
always an excellent point there nuke. I posed a similar question to my preacher not THAT long ago.
His answer was (roughly) that if one loved God with all their heart, they wouldn't want to sin. It's that simple. If you sin, then your heart isn't truely given to the Lord God, and you have not given Him your heart, soul and mind.
Nuke, we're trying to help you here.
Examine Lute's statement. Note that he posed it to his preacher. Note he got an answer that makes sense to everyone who does not willingly blind themselves to the truth.
I suggest you consider finding a good preacher to help you in your study.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, but every man sins no matter how much they try not to.
Which would mean they are breaking one of those two commandments cited by your Lord and Savior in that text.
Are you getting it now?
-
LOL - Toad and NUKE going at it. :lol
NUKE - you're an idiot, but I still like you. :)
And now I'm off to Austria, to check out some masonry. ;)
Toodle Pip.
-
Originally posted by Steve
This implies that your interpretation of things is somehow more right than nuke's.
[/b]
No, not at all.
Now all I see is a bunch of name calling in your argument.
[/b]
There's a lot more there than name calling. However, he's either continually trolling or he's really that stupid. Either way he's an idiot. Just callin' it like I see it.
Clue in: It doesn't matter how much you think you "Know" about religion. People are entitled to interpret things as the see it.
[/b]
Clue for you: Nuke started this thread by casting aspersions on Catholics and calling them cult members.
Now, find I quote where I said Nuke wasn't entitled to interpret things as he sees it. Be careful here.... I admit I don't agree with many of his interpretations but that is not the issue. Show me where I told him he's not entitled to whatever beliefs he chooses to hold. Again, I'm not the one saying Muslims are going to hell.. that would be Nuke.
You simply are not the supreme authority on this. Who died and made you right? Simply because you disagree w/ Nuke doesn't mean he's wrong. You have no way of knowing if he's wrong.
[/b]
Best you address this to Nuke, I think, I again issue you this challenge:
Now, find I quote where I said Nuke wasn't entitled to interpret things as he sees it. Be careful here.... I admit I don't agree with many of his interpretations but that is not the issue. Show me where I told him he's not entitled to whatever beliefs he chooses to hold. Again, I'm not the one saying Muslims are going to hell.. that would be Nuke.
Hypocrite.
Poopy-head! :p
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A good person is a good person regardless of if he ever heard of ol heyzoos or not. A bad person is still a bad person no matter how many people he harasses in the name of the cross hanger.
lazs
Two to one Nuke now thinks you're going to hell, Laz.
:)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I never claimed to be pure and innocent Grun. But, can you take a look at Toad's attitude towards me and honestly say that his attitude and demeanor in this thread have been civil?
I'd like to think that I have been civil.
My attitude towards you after this exchange is that you are either:
1. One of, if not the most, badgering troll on this board.
or
2. A gen-u-ine idiot surpassing even Zulu7. In the last 6 months I can't recall a single topic here to which you have lucidly contributed and advanced the cause of civil debate. You seem unable to frame a cogent argument and unable to understand one.
Now I don't know which of those you are but either one makes you a prime candidate for the ignore list.
You like to think that you've been civil but you never really are. You are careful to couch your barbs and insults so they you have deniability, at least in your own mind.
Good Day, Sir. I think I'll give you a temporary test Ignore and see if I feel I'm missing anything.
I think I already know the answer.
-
Originally posted by Toad
2. A gen-u-ine idiot surpassing even Zulu7.
Windex/paper towel time again.
Dammit, this coffee is too expensive to be wasting it. :D
A good person is a good person regardless of if he ever heard of ol heyzoos or not. A bad person is still a bad person no matter how many people he harasses in the name of the cross hanger.
Gonna have to agree with Lazs on this.
-
toad... if there is such a thing as karma or justice or whatever.... I could save a baby and an old person every day from now till I die and all it would get me was maybe a little shade in hell every other eternity or so.
You don't do it for salvation in the hereafter. you do it for your salvation in the here and now.
lazs
-
Nuke you are completely in error.
Once again the Bible didn't spontaneously generate itself. For years there was no 'Bible' and there were 'Christians'.
There were faithful Christians who didn't base their 'theology' on any written book. The sacred traditions and teachings that were practiced by the early Church come from many different sources both written and oral.
There are many other 'Gospels' that exist and are not included in what we call the "New Testament". The 'Bible' was compiled from many sources to provide a basic 'Theological' guide book to compliment the Sacred traditions not the other way around. 'Christianity' came before the Bible.
The Bible can not be correctly understood if you fail to comprehend the context in which it was intended
Of course it's the inspired word of God but its obviously been re-interpreted many times. That's why you see the hundreds of various sects. Each 'want to be Pope' re-interpreted the Bible on his own. All claim to be the 'true teachings of Christ'. All claim that their 'interpretation' is supported by the 'Bible'. You make some nonsensical claim that 'Catholicism' has changed. You can't even point out how, where or when. OTOH I can fill another thread with Protestant adaptations and re-interpretations. The Orthodox Churches trace their lineage right back through Peter to Jesus Christ. All others get no further then Luther at best.
With out understanding the context you can't just pick up the Bible and find truth.
If each man can 'interpret' the Bible any way he sees fit then that destroys the whole idea of 'universal truth' and as such truth becomes as subjective as each individual.
So what guidance, education or study have you made of the Bible? Who is your teacher? What Church do you attend?
'Bible' worship won't get you any closer to Heaven then 'Idol Worship'.
That's not to say honest men can't disagree. But when some one like yourself makes absolute claims with out understanding 'context' and by making insulting judgments it's clear you haven't got a clue.
You can believe whatever you want to believe but there are 'facts' and there are 'lies'. The original questions in this thread and based on lies and false premises. Your accusations against 'Catholics' are lies and false premises. Your 'interpretation' of the Bible are lies and false premises.
If you are insulted when folks call you on it then good you should be.
Again what domination and or Chruch do you belong to? I only ask this question because I suspect much like your claim about going to Catholic school you don't attend any.
If you get a chance read through the below link:
Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, by V.Potapov (http://www.stjohndc.org/russian/orthhtrdx/e_title.htm)
-
I meant to include this link:
Sola Scripture (Scripture Alone) (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm)
The other link is a good one as well so instead of editing I will just include the one above in a new post.
False Assumption # 1:
The Bible was intended to be the last word on faith, piety, and worship.
a). Does the Scripture teach that it is "all sufficient?"
The most obvious assumption that underlies the doctrine of "Scripture alone" is that the Bible has within it all that is needed for everything that concerns the Christian’s life — all that would be needed for true faith, practice, piety, and worship. The Scripture that is most usually cited to support this notion is:
...from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Timothy 3:15-17).
Those who would use this passage to advocate Sola Scriptura argue that this passage teaches the "all sufficiency" of Scripture — because, "If, indeed, the Holy Scriptures are able to make the pious man perfect... then, indeed to attain completeness and perfection, there is no need of tradition." [1]
The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests. Taken from its context, within the Holy Tradition, the solid rock of Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into whatever shape its handlers wish to mold it. It is no honor to the Scriptures to misuse and twist them, even if this is done in the name of exalting their authority. We must read the Bible; it is God’s Holy Word. But to understand its message let us humbly sit at the feet of the saints who have shown themselves "doers of the Word and not hearers only" (James 1:22), and have been proven by their lives worthy interpreters of the Scriptures. Let us go to those who knew the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, if we have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us inquire of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance.
-
FALSE ASSUMPTION # 2:
The Scriptures were the basis of the early Church, whereas Tradition is simply a "human corruption" that came much later.
Especially among Evangelicals and so-called Charismatics you will find that the word "tradition" is a derogatory term, and to label something as a "tradition" is roughly equivalent to saying that it is "fleshly," "spiritually dead," "destructive," and/or "legalistic." As Protestants read the New Testament, it seems clear to them that the Bible roundly condemns tradition as being opposed to Scripture. The image of early Christians that they generally have is essentially that the early Christians were pretty much like 20th Century Evangelicals or Charismatics! That the First Century Christians would have had liturgical worship, or would have adhered to any tradition is inconceivable — only later, "when the Church became corrupted," is it imagined that such things entered the Church. It comes as quite a blow to such Protestants (as it did to me) when they actually study the early Church and the writings of the early Fathers and begin to see a distinctly different picture than that which they were always led to envision. One finds that, for example, the early Christians did not tote their Bibles with them to Church each Sunday for a Bible study — in fact it was so difficult to acquire a copy of even portions of Scripture, due to the time and resources involved in making a copy, that very few individuals owned their own copies. Instead, the copies of the Scriptures were kept by designated persons in the Church, or kept at the place where the Church gathered for worship. Furthermore, most Churches did not have complete copies of all the books of the Old Testament, much less the New Testament (which was not finished until almost the end of the First Century, and not in its final canonical form until the Fourth Century). This is not to say that the early Christians did not study the Scriptures — they did in earnest, but as a group, not as individuals. And for most of the First Century, Christians were limited in study to the Old Testament. So how did they know the Gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, how to worship, what to believe about the nature of Christ, etc? They had only the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Sure, many in the early Church heard these things directly from the Apostles themselves, but many more did not, especially with the passing of the First Century and the Apostles with it. Later generations had access to the writings of the Apostles through the New Testament, but the early Church depended on Oral Tradition almost entirely for its knowledge of the Christian faith.
This dependence upon tradition is evident in the New Testament writings themselves. For example, Saint Paul exhorts the Thessalonians:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word [i.e. oral tradition] or our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15).
The word here translated "traditions" is the Greek word paradosis — which, though translated differently in some Protestant versions, is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking of Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute this meaning. The word itself literally means "what is transmitted." It is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3-8), and also when referring to authoritative Christian teaching (I Corinthians 11:2, Second Thessalonians 2:15). So what makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when He called them "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (First Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (first Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition — "the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowledge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (I Timothy 3:15).
The testimony of the New Testament is clear on this point: the early Christians had both oral and written traditions which they received from Christ through the Apostles. For written tradition they at first had only fragments — one local church had an Epistle, another perhaps a Gospel. Gradually these writings were gathered together into collections and ultimately they became the New Testament. And how did these early Christians know which books were authentic and which were not — for (as already noted) there were numerous spurious epistles and gospels claimed by heretics to have been written by Apostles? It was the oral Apostolic Tradition that aided the Church in making this determination.
Protestants react violently to the idea of Holy Tradition simply because the only form of it that they have generally encountered is the concept of Tradition found in Roman Catholicism. Contrary to the Roman view of Tradition, which is personified by the Papacy, and develops new dogmas previously unknown to the Church (such as Papal Infallibility, to cite just one of the more odious examples) —the Orthodox do not believe that Tradition grows or changes. Certainly when the Church is faced with a heresy, it is forced to define more precisely the difference between truth and error, but the Truth does not change. It may be said that Tradition expands in the sense that as the Church moves through history it does not forget its experiences along the way, it remembers the saints that arise in it, and it preserves the writings of those who have accurately stated its faith; but the Faith itself was "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).
But how can we know that the Church has preserved the Apostolic Tradition in its purity? The short answer is that God has preserved it in the Church because He has promised to do so. Christ said that He would build His Church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Christ Himself is the head of the Church (Ephesians 4:16), and the Church is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23). If the Church lost the pure Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease being the Truth — for the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15). The common Protestant conception of Church history, that the Church fell into apostasy from the time of Constantine until the Reformation certainly makes these and many other Scriptures meaningless. If the Church ceased to be, for even one day, then the gates of Hell prevailed against it on that day. If this were the case, when Christ described the growth of the Church in His parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32), He should have spoken of a plant that started to grow but was squashed, and in its place a new seed sprouted later on — but instead He used the imagery of a mustard seed that begins small but steadily grows into the largest of garden plants.
As to those who would posit that there was some group of true-believing Protestants living in caves somewhere for a thousand years, where is the evidence? The Waldensians [7] that are claimed as forebearers by every sect from the Pentecostals to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, did not exist prior to the 12th Century. It is, to say the least, a bit of a stretch to believe that these true-believers suffered courageously under the fierce persecutions of the Romans, and yet would have headed for the hills as soon as Christianity became a legal religion. And yet even this seems possible when compared with the notion that such a group could have survived for a thousand years without leaving a trace of historical evidence to substantiate that it had ever existed.
At this point one might object that there were in fact examples of people in Church history who taught things contrary to what others taught, so who is to say what the Apostolic Tradition is? And further more, what if a corrupt practice arose, how could it later be distinguished from Apostolic Tradition? Protestants ask these questions because, in the Roman Catholic Church there did arise new and corrupt "traditions," but this is because the Latin West first corrupted its understanding of the nature of Tradition. The Orthodox understanding which earlier prevailed in the West and was preserved in the Orthodox Church, is basically that Tradition is in essence unchanging and is known by its universality or catholicity. True Apostolic Tradition is found in the historic consensus of Church teaching. Find that which the Church has believed always, throughout history, and everywhere in the Church, and then you will have found the Truth. If any belief can be shown to have not been received by the Church in its history, then this is heresy. Mind you, however, we are speaking of the Church, not schismatic groups. There were schismatics and heretics who broke away from the Church during the New Testament period, and there has been a continual supply of them since, for as the Apostle says, "there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest" (I Corinthians 11:19).
-
False Assumption # 3:
Anyone can interpret the Scriptures for himself or herself without the aid of the Church.
Though many Protestants would take issue with the way this assumption is worded, this is essentially the assumption that prevailed when the Reformers first advocated the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The line of reasoning was essentially that the meaning of Scripture is clear enough that anyone could understand it by simply reading it for oneself, and thus they rejected the idea that one needed the Church’s help in the process. This position is clearly stated by the Tubingen Lutheran Scholars who exchanged letters with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople about thirty years after Luther’s death:
Perhaps, someone will say that on the one hand, the Scriptures are absolutely free from error; but on the other hand, they have been concealed by much obscurity, so that without the interpretations of the Spirit-bearing Fathers they could not be clearly understood.... But meanwhile this, too, is very true that what has been said in a scarcely perceptible manner in some places in the Scriptures, has been stated in another place in them explicitly and most clearly so that even the most simple person can understand them. [8]
Though these Lutheran scholars claimed to use the writings of the Holy Fathers, they argued that they were unnecessary, and that, where they believed the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers conflicted, the Fathers were to be disregarded. What they were actually arguing, however, was that when the teachings of the Holy fathers conflict with their private opinions on the Scriptures, their private opinions were to be considered more authoritative than the Fathers of the Church. Rather than listening to the Fathers, who had shown themselves righteous and saintly, priority should be given to the human reasonings of the individual. The same human reason that has led the majority of modern Lutheran scholars to reject almost every teaching of Scripture (including the deity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc.), and even to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures themselves — on which the early Lutherans claimed to base their entire faith. In reply, Patriarch Jeremias II clearly exposed the true character of the Lutheran teachings:
Let us accept, then, the traditions of the Church with a sincere heart and not a multitude of rationalizations. For God created man to be upright; instead they sought after diverse ways of rationalizing (Ecclesiastes 7:29). Let us not allow ourselves to learn a new kind of faith which is condemned by the tradition of the Holy Fathers. For the Divine apostle says, "if anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:9). [9]
-
Originally posted by Toad
You like to think that you've been civil but you never really are. You are careful to couch your barbs and insults so they you have deniability, at least in your own mind.
Yeah Toad, I have been civil. You are the one who has been mocking my beliefs and calling me names. You are the one with the attitude and superiority complex.
-
MOST excellent reads wotan. I really, REALLY hope Nuke takes the time to read everything at both links, prints it out, and takes it to his preacher for discussion.
Good job
(edit) woot page 7.
-
In the bible according to Toad, I guess God didn't really need to send Jesus to earth. It didn't really serve a purpose, did it Toad
Everyone is going to heaven in Toads version, as long as they live by two of the ten commandments.
-
A quote from the bible scholar, Toad. Less than a year ago
I've never been big on organized religion, finding my truths in the cathedrals of the outdoors. It seems to me that the beauty I find, the intricately entertwined balance of nature and the chaotic order therein cannot possibly be purely by chance.
So while I am not of a particular religion, I am indeed a "believer". The personal proofs I have found in the universe around me were all the convincing that I needed.
Toad, you seem to have your own truths and understanding about God and his word, yet you mock me for mine.
Now, you Toad, know all about the bible and are able to mock another person's beliefs.
Toad, from the very begining of your input into this thread, your intent was not to enlighten me or anyone else or explain what you beleived. Your intent was to "wax" me and mock my understanding of the bible and my beliefs.
-
Give it up Nuke. No one believes you to be the victim in this thread.
It is you who started this thread to 'wax' Catholics and 'mock their understanding of the bible and their beliefs'.
For that matter not only have done it this thread but many others.
You cast the first stone if anyhting. Now butch up and take your medicine like a man.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Which would mean they are breaking one of those two commandments cited by your Lord and Savior in that text.
Are you getting it now?
You are the one who doesn't get it, Toad. Jesus came to earth in order to provide a perfect sacrifice, so that man would not have to go to hell for not being able to live by the ten commandments.
No man can perfectly obey the ten commandments. Jesus died for our sins.
You cannot obey the ten commandmenst Toad, impossible not to break them. Just what in your mind do you think was the whole point of Jesus comming to earth?
-
No, you're just a sneak. You snipe from cover but you snipe all the same. Not just this thread.
I'm out in the open about it. You're either a troll or you can't handle either side of debating in a coherent manner.
Old "joke" Nuke that like all good jokes has a big chunk of truth at it's heart.
"If one person calls you a horse's ass, laugh it off. If two people two people call you a horse's ass, be reflective and evaluate your behavior. If three people call you a horse's ass, buy a saddle."
Want to take a poll on this BBS and see how many and what response you get on that?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It didn't really serve a purpose, did it Toad
What really doesn't serve any purpose is trying to help an idiot. I'm sorry I even tried.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Give it up Nuke. No one believes you to be the victim in this thread.
It is you who started this thread to 'wax' Catholics and 'mock their understanding of the bible and their beliefs'.
For that matter not only have done it this thread but many others.
You cast the first stone if anyhting. Now butch up and take your medicine like a man.
Look at all my posts in this thread. I have asked why the Catholics did certain things, then when someone gave a good answer, I stopped. I didn't badger anyone or mock thier beliefs.
Now look at Toads responses to me, from about page one. Nothing civil about them. He came with the intent of bashing my beliefs and understanding of the bible.
And, as I have said before in this thread, I can take the responses. Toad seems to be the one who "badgered" in this thread, now he seems to be the one who can't handle it.....as he put me on ignore apparently.
In fact, this thread would only be about half as long if not for Toad alone. I appoligized to Grunhurz for comming across poorly regarding Catholics. Toad is the one who went after me personally.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What really doesn't serve any purpose is trying to help an idiot. I'm sorry I even tried.
Yeah, off to Church soon? Nice attitude.
You really came into this thread with the intent to help me, Toad. You are a truely compassionate person. Do you usually beging helping people by mocking them?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Now, you Toad, know all about the bible and are able to mock another person's beliefs.
You are familiar with the story of Saul on the road to Tsarsus? Well, things change and so have I. As I said before, I'm pretty sure I have good reason to study this salvation thing a whole lot more closely than you do at this point in time.
Nuke, from the very starting of this thread by you, your intent was not to enlighten me or anyone else or explain what you believed. Your intent was to "wax" Catholics and mock their rites their understanding of the bible and their beliefs.
I'm not mocking your beliefs. I don't mock anyone's beliefs. You seem to feel that pointing out your obvious self contradictions is mocking you. Just shows you have no clue about anything, really.
You don't see yourself as mocking Muslims and Jews when you say their going to hell for their beliefs, do you?
And you toss around the word hypocrite. It's obvious you have no clue what it means or no self-awareness.
You're free to believe as you like. I don't care a whit what or how you believe and worship. But when you use your beliefs to mock other religions, I'll always confront your hypocrisy.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You are the one who doesn't get it, Toad.
LOL.
Despite Lute, Wotan and others besides myself attempting to help you, you still have no clue about the concept expressed there.
A good preacher could really help you.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, off to Church soon? Nice attitude.
Been to church already, Nuke. Made my peace with the fact that you are an idiot and I know what to do now.
You been to church today?
No, I guess not. :rofl
I suggest you ask Seagoon to give you a hand. I respect his views a lot, I think he's a good source. Lute can help you quite a bit too, I think.
I can't help you. Your history of sniping people here has poisoned the well.
So, welcome to my ignore list. You and Zulu7 make a fine pair.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You are familiar with the story of Saul on the road to Tsarsus? Well, things change and so have I. As I said before, I'm pretty sure I have good reason to study this salvation thing a whole lot more closely than you do at this point in time.
Nuke, from the very starting of this thread by you, your intent was not to enlighten me or anyone else or explain what you believed. Your intent was to "wax" Catholics and mock their rites their understanding of the bible and their beliefs.
I'm not mocking your beliefs. I don't mock anyone's beliefs. You seem to feel that pointing out your obvious self contradictions is mocking you. Just shows you have no clue about anything, really.
You don't see yourself as mocking Muslims and Jews when you say their going to hell for their beliefs, do you?
And you toss around the word hypocrite. It's obvious you have no clue what it means or no self-awareness.
You're free to believe as you like. I don't care a whit what or how you believe and worship. But when you use your beliefs to mock other religions, I'll always confront your hypocrisy.
Fair enough, Toad, just don't try to come off as a bible scholar, then tell me I have a child's understanding of the bible
I didn't pretend to start this thread to "enlighten" you or anyone else. I wanted to hear from Catholics. I wanted to hear thier reasons for doing the things I asked about.
Why did you come into, and stay in this thread?
And you did mock me and my beliefs. You did from the begining. You said that I have a child's understanding of the bible. You said that I self-interpret the bible.
You have no clue of my understanding of the bible.
-
You don't see yourself as mocking Muslims and Jews when you say their going to hell for their beliefs, do you?
I have not mocked them. I have said I believe that nobody will go to heaven without accepting Jesus.
How does that mock them? They can believe whatever they want, and I would never mock them for their beliefs.
You said that if someone was exposed to the word, that they could not get into heaven without accepting that Jesus was thier savior, correct?
-
Toad, you have said that if someone was exposed to the word, that they would have to accept Jesus as their savior in order to get into heaven.
Well, why would you mock the Muslims and the Jews like that?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have said I believe that nobody will go to heaven without accepting Jesus.
So God is such an bellybutton that he, after he created whole universe and our little planet with hundreds of different races and religions would give access to heaven only for a part of humankind while sending others to damnation and oblivion.
What an stunninghunk would a god like that be... Anyways that doesn't sound like the one I've heard about but if someone likes to think his creator is a God of vengeance and malevolence who am I to critisize his faith.
-
Nuke, Toad thinks you are insulting people by saying that if they don't belive in Jesus they are going to hell. I think if you go back over the posts it really all boils down to that:
"Why don't you show your belief again and tell everyone that doesn't believe exactly as you do that they're going to hell?" - Toad
I find the position silly, myself... but then I find 99% of it silly. You hold the bible as the word of God, and rituals as a distraction from that word. Me, I think the "word of God" itself is a distraction from the word of God... if that makes any sense.
But it doesn't matter, because I recognize that religious tolerance works both ways. Your belief is narrowly defined. Toad finds that troublesome. Yet, many people would find Toad's more open interpretation still too narrow and could easily take just as much offence to his version as he does to yours.
You are as much entitled to your beliefs (however offensive to others) as others are entitled to theirs. You simply think that not accepting Jesus means going to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I don't think you've strayed from that position in this thread, nor does it apear that you have you mocked people who believe otherwise. Stating a position at odds with someone else's position is not mocking.
And I think you should be commended for remaining civil.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke, Toad thinks you are insulting people by saying that if they don't belive in Jesus they are going to hell. I think if you go back over the posts it really all boils down to that:
"Why don't you show your belief again and tell everyone that doesn't believe exactly as you do that they're going to hell?" - Toad
I find the position silly, myself... but then I find 99% of it silly. You hold the bible as the word of God, and rituals as a distraction from that word. Me, I think the "word of God" itself is a distraction from the word of God... if that makes any sense.
But it doesn't matter, because I recognize that religious tolerance works both ways. Your belief is narrowly defined. Toad finds that troublesome. Yet, many people would find Toad's more open interpretation still too narrow and could easily take just as much offence to his version as he does to yours.
You are as much entitled to your beliefs (however offensive to others) as others are entitled to theirs. You simply think that not accepting Jesus means going to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I don't think you've strayed from that position in this thread, nor does it apear that you have you mocked people who believe otherwise. Stating a position at odds with someone else's position is not mocking.
And I think you should be commended for remaining civil.
Nash, thanks. That means a lot to me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke, Toad thinks you are insulting people by saying that if they don't belive in Jesus they are going to hell. I think if you go back over the posts it really all boils down to that:
Actually, if you read the thread backwards, it says "Nuke is Satan, Nuke is Satan, and Zulu7 is a retard".
What's just as crazy, if you read the thread from the start, it goes all over the place, and they says "Zulu7 is a retard".
Weird.
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke, Toad thinks you are insulting people by saying that if they don't belive in Jesus they are going to hell. I think if you go back over the posts it really all boils down to that:
"Why don't you show your belief again and tell everyone that doesn't believe exactly as you do that they're going to hell?" - Toad
I find the position silly, myself... but then I find 99% of it silly. You hold the bible as the word of God, and rituals as a distraction from that word. Me, I think the "word of God" itself is a distraction from the word of God... if that makes any sense.
But it doesn't matter, because I recognize that religious tolerance works both ways. Your belief is narrowly defined. Toad finds that troublesome. Yet, many people would find Toad's more open interpretation still too narrow and could easily take just as much offence to his version as he does to yours.
You are as much entitled to your beliefs (however offensive to others) as others are entitled to theirs. You simply think that not accepting Jesus means going to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I don't think you've strayed from that position in this thread, nor does it apear that you have you mocked people who believe otherwise. Stating a position at odds with someone else's position is not mocking.
And I think you should be commended for remaining civil.
Chrissy Snow?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yet, many people would find Toad's more open interpretation still too narrow and could easily take just as much offence to his version as he does to yours.
They may think it narrow and they might take offense to my version. Always possible.
Of course, they'd never find me claiming that there's only "one way" and everyone else is going to hell, would they?
They'd never find me dissing their religious rituals either.
In my Father's house there are many mansions.
I think, although I've got to check this out some more, that I may be what some call a Universalist.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Of course, they'd never find me claiming that there's only "one way" and everyone else is going to hell, would they?
But so what?
"One way" is just as much a belief as "more than one way". It's obvious that you think your belief is right, and his is wrong. Which is fine. But why take offense?
-
Originally posted by Nash
But so what?
Well, there's valid reasons to take offense and there are not so valid reasons.
-
Well okay, sure. There are. What constitutes "valid" is an individual matter.
It's pretty pointless to argue one's belief over another's then, aint it?
-
Go to square one.
Tell me you REALLY think Nuke started this thread purely in an academic search for knowledge about Catholicism.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Go to square one.
Tell me you REALLY think Nuke started this thread purely in an academic search for knowledge about Catholicism.
I asked some questions, they got answerd and then I stopped asking them. Read my exchanges, I'm completey civil. I even apoligized for possibly coming of poorly regarding the Catholic faith.
From page two, I have been defending my beliefs from your assault on them. And I never once said that I thought you're beliefs were invalid.
You have called me a simpleton, putz, and said that my understanding was childish. Then, you claimed you entered thkis thread to try and "help" me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well okay, sure. There are. What constitutes "valid" is an individual matter.
It's pretty pointless to argue one's belief over another's then, aint it?
And that takes you back to the start of this thread: Pointless. It serves no purpose other than to mock a different religion and to be self promoting. The great irony is that this is the primary "flaw" people cite with Christianity in general. Catholics get defensive because someone's mocking their religion and non-Catholic Christians get defensive because nuke is personifying all that is wrong with Christianity and providing a solid foundation for the stereotyping.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well okay, sure. There are. What constitutes "valid" is an individual matter.
It's pretty pointless to argue one's belief over another's then, aint it?
Faith requires that one takes an illogical leap, a leap of faith. If one were securely footed in logic, the illogical leap would not happen.
Therefore pure faith is illogical and pure logic is faithless.
This is why argueing religion is a fruitless endeavour and 7 pages of posting has not yet made progress.
So a man is killed, and checks in at the gates of Heaven. St Peter invites him in for the initiates tour, and he and Peter walk by a group of souls at a lovely lakeside park having a picnic. The folks smile and wave at the new guy, and Peter informs him that the group are Catholics.
A little farther down the path, another group are playing softball, the folks smile and wave at the new guy, and Peter informs him that the group are Methodists.
Still further down the path, another group are playing music, singing and dancing. The folks smile and wave at the new guy, and Peter informs him that the group are Baptists.
Then the pair walk past a high alabaster wall. Peter gestures withg a finger to his lips for the initiate to be very quiet as they pass. After passing by, the new guy asks, "What was with the wall and why did we need to remain silent?"
Peter says, "Behind the wall is the Mormon contingent. They think they are the only ones here."
-
I think there's a lot of truth in that MiniD.
Originally posted by Toad
Tell me you REALLY think Nuke started this thread purely in an academic search for knowledge about Catholicism.
And you joined this thread purely in an academic.....
Not so much, it turns out.
In fact, your version of things now is that Nuke was trolling and that you were messin' with him on account of it. And that the religious discussion was just smoke and mirrors. And these 7 pages of debate between you and him were never really about the particulars of faith, but your way of telling him that you think he's a troll?
Granted, brevity never really was your strong suit...
Nor mine.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
And I never once said that I thought you're beliefs were invalid.
Actually you did do that. You stated it in slightly different terms but you certainly made your position clear. Here is the quote.
Originally posted by NUKE
They were catholics, not Christians.
Frankly I have been offended by your statements regarding Catholicism. It's not your place to make such statements regarding the validity of any faith much less another Christian faith. After seeing the second quote I disregarded anything to do with this thread until I saw some folks I do respect posting on it. After I read your opening on it I was really having second thoughts about entering it at all and was tempted to just place you on ignore.
IMO any person who's faith allows them to ACT in a Christ like manner is one that benefits them. It is not my place to determine or state that it is valid or not. That issue is between that person and God. It's certainly not my position to belittle another persons faith. Please note that I am not criticizing you for how you believe in God but your actions regarding it in this bbs. How you believe is not my place to judge. Neither is it your place to judge others.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Actually you did do that. You stated it in slightly different terms but you certainly made your position clear. Here is the quote.
Frankly I have been offended by your statements regarding Catholicism. It's not your place to make such statements regarding the validity of any faith much less another Christian faith. After seeing the second quote I disregarded anything to do with this thread until I saw some folks I do respect posting on it. After I read your opening on it I was really having second thoughts about entering it at all and was tempted to just place you on ignore.
IMO any person who's faith allows them to ACT in a Christ like manner is one that benefits them. It is not my place to determine or state that it is valid or not. That issue is between that person and God. It's certainly not my position to belittle another persons faith. Please note that I am not criticizing you for how you believe in God but your actions regarding it in this bbs. How you believe is not my place to judge. Neither is it your place to judge others.
I did not say that the Catholic faith was invalid. Not all Christians are Catholics. In name only was I seperating two different sects of Christianity. I believe that Catholics are Christians.
The only things I do not believe in are some of the rites and traditions of the Catholic church. I beleive that some of the rites are a distraction from the word of God and wanted to hear what people felt about those things.
And who are you to tell me it's not my place to talk about those things?
How do you feel about Toad bashing my beliefs? Or, was it just me that was out of line and shouldn't be talking about others religions?
-
Please show me where I said it wasn't your place to "talk" about those things. I said it wasn't your place to judge them did I not?
Your earlier statement that said "They were catholics, not Christians. " is rather judgemental don't you think?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Please show me where I said it wasn't your place to "talk" about those things. I said it wasn't your place to judge them did I not?
Your earlier statement that said "They were catholics, not Christians. " is rather judgemental don't you think?
I was seperating two sects by name. If you call someone a Christian, that doesn't mean that they are Catholic.
Maverik, I have not judged anyone's faith, but my faith has been belittled by Toad. Why don't you tell Toad that it's not his place?
I asked questions regarding rites of the Catholic faith. People answered them, and I stopped asking. I apolgized if I came across poorly.
Toad has attacked ME and my beliefs. Most of this thread consists of Toad belittling my beliefs, and myself stateing over and over my beliefs.
-
I've made my point to you twice now and quoted your own words, yet all you do is argue something I have neither raised nor stated.
-
Originally posted by Nash
And you joined this thread purely in an academic.....
[/b]
Nope, never said I did and I'm not saying that now.
Originally posted by Nash
never really about the particulars of faith,
[/b]
Of course there were "particulars of faith" in this discussion. I certainly did provide other views and so did many others in this thread. I admittedly did not provide the information as sweetly as some but that's because I feel Nuke never really wanted information.
I've been as impolite towards Nuke as I've ever been on this BBS, in any thread.
I've tried to feel sorry for that, but when I review his posting history here I less sorry than "it's about time".
I do apologize to the rest of you that couldn't drag yourselves away from reading it, however.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I've made my point to you twice now and quoted your own words, yet all you do is argue something I have neither raised nor stated.
Which is his modus operandi in every thread, Mav.
It's what he did from the beginning in this thread.
I just finally got tired of it. For that I apologize... to the rest of yas.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I've made my point to you twice now and quoted your own words, yet all you do is argue something I have neither raised nor stated.
Frankly I have been offended by your statements regarding Catholicism. It's not your place to make such statements regarding the validity of any faith much less another Christian faith.
And I asked, who are you to tell me it's not my place?
You quoted me, and I answered. I did not bring up a different issue than what you had raised. You basically said that I was judging another's faith, which I have not done.
If you are saying that by me saying "They were Catholics, not Christian? is judging someone's faith, then I dissagree. I later clarified what I meant after I made that statement.
I beleive that Catholics are Christians.
-
There is one person in this thread who has questioned the validity of another's faith, and that would be Toad.
From the beginning, I have been honest with all the answers I have given when asked about anything. I have been civil and have not disrespected anyone's views.
Toad has called me names, riddiculed my beliefs, said that I had a childish understanding of the bible, and has been very condscending. He told me that I have been self-interpreting the bible, just because I don't believe what he does.
I find it laughable that someone would come in here and accuse ME of questioning the validity of another's faith.
Toad must be invisible.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
My point in that todays catholic church is more of a cult in my opinion and is not the Church Jesus founded.
No question, just a statement disrespecting the belief of more than a billion people worldwide.
-
nuke, last post on this thread. From the Christian faith IIRC, judge not lest ye be judged. That is why I said it isn't your place to judge, that is God's positioon to do so.
I am through here. I already told you my objections I won't repeat them again where you ignore them.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No question, just a statement disrespecting the belief of more than a billion people worldwide.
And questioning the valiidy of other's faith... So yes, NUKE was just posing "questions."
:rofl
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And questioning the valiidy of other's faith... So yes, NUKE was just posing "questions."
:rofl
I believe that was from another, earlier thread. And I clarified my views since then.
I believe that Cathoilics are Christians. I appoligize to anyone if I offended their religious beliefs.
-
Eegads! Toad has used the Round Shield of Rationality to deflect Agendaman's mighty Rhetoric and has pierced him repeatedly with the Longspear of Logic.
But what's this! Agendaman's stupendous powers of Ignorance is preventing him from realising he has been soundly beaten and he fights on...
-
Thrawn,, That is a classic!
:aok :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Eegads! Toad has used the Round Shield of Rationality to deflect Agendaman's mighty Rhetoric and has pierced him repeatedly with the Longspear of Logic.
But what's this! Agendaman's stupendous powers of Ignorance is preventing him from realising he has been soundly beaten and he fights on...
Classic Thrawn! Completely wrong as usual. But, you probably didn't read the thread.
Toad didn't win one point. But how could he when his point was to simply ask the same question over and over again, act like he was a bible scholar while saying I interpret it incorrecly, then call names, belittle my beliefs and understanding of the bible because they didn't match his, then finally putting me on ignore for some bizzare reason.
I'd say he lost soundly and made himself look bad in the process with his nasty, un-Toadlike attitude.
He could have saved 5 pages by just saying he dissagreed with my beliefs. Instead he went nutz trying to "prove" my belief was wrong.
-
You don't have any 'beliefs' that I see. Just a bunch of stereotyping and made up nonsense.
Toad pretty whooped your arse in this thread.
FYI...
I never (or very rarely) am on the same side of an arguement with Toad. He and I have been at odds over many subjects but at least his points are well informed and articulated. He doesn't play games when pressed on an issue. You don't even pretend to know what you are talking about. You just jump from one point to the next as your arguements wear thin.
I am curious as to how you think other people view you. It's not just this thread either.
I would suspect that most folks view you the same way I do, as a clown that just needs something to 'talk about'.
Toad hit it right on the head right here:
"If one person calls you a horse's ass, laugh it off. If two people two people call you a horse's ass, be reflective and evaluate your behavior. If three people call you a horse's ass, buy a saddle."
Saddle up buddy....
-
Originally posted by Wotan
You don't have any 'beliefs' that I see. Just a bunch of stereotyping and made up nonsense.
For the record Toad pretty whooped your arse. Just for the record I never agree (or very rarely) am on the same side of an arguement with Toad.
When in this thread did Toad win a single point? He didn't even have a point, other than saying my belief (that no one will go to heaven without accepting Jesus as their savior) was not valid because he didn't agree with it .
He spent most of the thread trying to "prove" my belief was wrong and that my stance was inconsistant.
In fact, I used his own questions against him and showed that he was being a hypocrite.
-
I was bored and started jumping around different forums and thought what the heck let me see what this ones got going on. Well it seems NUKE has some issues that only a Priest can help with. So why don't you, NUKE, go find the nearest Catholic Church and sit down with one of the Priests to answer all your questions. I have no doubt what so ever he'll clear things up for you. Unless of course a Catholic Priest is already monitoring this thread you started and has weighed in.
-
Matrix, if your read it all, you'll find earlier in his life he did talk to one.
-
Sometime I ask myself why I still lurk in this super conservative/nationalistic BBS.
Among many "Other-nations" bashing sessions, "Amerihaters" witch hunts, and general intollerance-based discussions, you can find gems like this thread.
Yes, it was a dogma fight, by definition without winners, but it gave me another big contribute to improve my personal journey out of my ignorance.
But it remainded me that in this BBS there is people worth listening, the general cultural level is high, and there are always occasions to learn something new.
Thank to you all, and to you particularly, Nuke, because your stubborn research for a point never made, kept the informations flowing.
Thank you, friends (can I call you that?).
-
Originally posted by NUKE
When in this thread did Toad win a single point? He didn't even have a point, other than saying my belief (that no one will go to heaven without accepting Jesus as their savior) was not valid because he didn't agree with it .
He spent most of the thread trying to "prove" my belief was wrong and that my stance was inconsistant.
In fact, I used his own questions against him and showed that he was being a hypocrite.
you are kidding right????
-
Nuklu7 is in the house.
Man, this is an internet beating I have never seen the likes.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
you are kidding right????
No. not only did Toad act poorly, he also tripped up on his own arguments at least three times.
1. He riddiculed me for believing that no one will go to to heaven without accepting Jesus as savior. He said I was saying that All muslims and Jews were going to hell for not accepting Jesus, then later said that he believed you cannot go to heaven if you have heard of Jesus and did not accept him as savior
2. He riddiculed me for saying I did not KNOW what happens to aborted babies and people who have never heard of Jesus. I explained that I took it on faith that God was fair and just. He then used my EXACT reasoning, which he mocked, to explain that he KNOWS that they would go to heaven, based on his FAITH that God is fair and just.
3. He explained that I self-interpret the bible ( without a clue), that my understanding of it was childish. He then set out to prove I was wrong by self-interpreting the bible himself. I brought up a post from him from 7 months ago stating that he had never been a fan of organized religion, he got his religion from the things he has seen around him. He then proceded to act as though he KNOWS that correct way to interpret the bible.
4. He never made ONE point. His entire point was to try to "prove" my belief was wrong and that his was right. He attemped to do this by asking the same question over and over.
He was rude and condenscending, called me names and said my beliefs where wrong, but never made a point.
Why don't you give me an example of how he "waxed" me, as he says.
I can give you a couple more examples.
5. Toad said that, if you have not heard of the word, that you would go to heaven by following just two Commandments.
(Love thy God and love thy neighbor). He then later said you cannot go to heaven with "sin on you", in his words. I asked him to explain how, if you follow ONLY these two commandments, how you could go to heaven with "sin on you", since all men sin. He said that if you follow those TWO commandments, you did not sin, "mutually exclusive" he said
6. Toad seemed not to be able to explain the point of Jesus coming to earth, as he never answered that and riddiculed me for saying the ten commandments were nullified as the standard of Salvation by Jesus dying for ours sins.
Toad acted childish and he knows it. I would say that I trounced Toad. He did not make a point and had no point.
7. He then put me on ignore and bailed out of the thread after earlier telling me that I can't handle when "the tables are turned" and implied that I couldn't handle the heat.
8. I've been as impolite towards Nuke as I've ever been on this BBS, in any thread.
I've tried to feel sorry for that, but when I review his posting history here I less sorry than "it's about time".
I do apologize to the rest of you that couldn't drag yourselves away from reading it, however.
Then, the exit strategy. Attempt to take the high road (laughable) and explain that my posting history merits his actions in this thread.
And he said I was "waxed"?
-
I believe I will ‘riddicule’ you for misspelling ‘ridicule’.
-
Trust me... use the button. ;)
-
Catholicism is the original sect of the christ followers, therefore the truest. Like it or not, subsequent forms of the religion are bastardized, diluted and compromised versions of catholicism. Just as christianity, aka catholicism, is a bastardized, diluted and compromised form of judaism. And judaism borrowed heavily from the older mythologies of supersahara and asia minor. It's all a rich tapestry.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Catholicism is the original sect of the christ followers, therefore the truest. Like it or not, subsequent forms of the religion are bastardized, diluted and compromised versions of catholicism. Just as christianity, aka catholicism, is a bastardized, diluted and compromised form of judaism. And judaism borrowed heavily from the older mythologies of supersahara and asia minor. It's all a rich tapestry.
I do not beleive that todays Catholic church is the same Catholic church that it was in the time of Jesus though.
The rites and rituals which are done today by a lot of different Christian sects I do not agree with, unless they are validated by the bible.
I know what you aree saying though, a lot of the worlds religions seem to have borrowed from each other in many ways.
-
I'm only responding to this thread because it is a topic that I, as an excommunicated Catholic, have researched at some great length.
First, there is documentation to support the argument that the creation of the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" was the "Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" response by a Roman emperor to the growing Christian faith. Numerous aspects of the older pagan religions were incorporated into the dogma of the church, and indeed, into the Mass itself (example: the offering of the wine is analagous to earlier blood sacrifices). The Romans were unsuccessful in quashing the growing Christian movement, so started a religion resembling Christianity and made it the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire.
Second, as possible proof of this, is the fact that the staff carried by the Pope is the Staff of Ra.
Third, there has been much theological discussion of a certain Catholic Pope (his name escapes me at the moment) who had entire passages stricken from the Bible. Specifically, those that deal with what some call reincarnation. He didn't want anyone to think, evidently, that there were any second chances. you get one shot at life, and that's it. I do not recall chapter and verse, but at one point, a person approaches Jesus and asks who he is. Jesus responds "Who do the people say I am?" "Some say that you are John the Baptist returned to us. Others say you are Elijah." "Child, John the Baptist WAS Elijah."
Fourth, I do not believe that it is coincidence that most, if not all, of the traditional Catholic seasonal happenings (lent, advent, etc) coincide on the calendar with ancient pagan rituals and feasts.
Please do no misunderstand me. By no stretch of the imagination do I condemn Catholics to hell. In my opinion, their beliefs are correct as far as they have been taught. I have come to the belief that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in heresy, and its followers have been deceived. If anyone, the deceivers will burn, not the deceived. Further, I believe that organized religion was intended as a means of protection (read as "Strength in numbers") from persecution, but has outlived its usefulness. No man has the right to tell any other that his way is wrong simply because he does not conform to conventional ideas of faith.
I consider myself a deeply spirtual person. I do have a personal relationship with my Creator. If I go to Heaven, it will NOT be because I stood in front of 300 people and cried as someone asked me if I accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour. It will be because I simply do.
-
Originally posted by paulieb
I'm only responding to this thread because it is a topic that I, as an excommunicated Catholic,
You must have REALLY pissed 'em off.
-
Or he is just making it up like Nuke's 'Catholic Education'.
You can tell by the tone of his post that he thinks he's one of the 'smart ones' or at least smarter then those who would submit themselves to the sacred traditions. He is Luther incarnate...
He ain't gonna stand before no Church, he will get to heaven his own way...
His 'I heard some where that Catholics used to believe in reincarnation until some heretic Pope decided he didn't like that and changed it' proves it.
No man can tell him what the Bible says or means. He is his own 'mini-Pope' and knows as much if not more then any of those herd animals seeking strength in numbers.
Religion sure brings out the kooks...:p
The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests. Taken from its context, within the Holy Tradition, the solid rock of Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into whatever shape its handlers wish to mold it. It is no honor to the Scriptures to misuse and twist them, even if this is done in the name of exalting their authority. We must read the Bible; it is God’s Holy Word. But to understand its message let us humbly sit at the feet of the saints who have shown themselves "doers of the Word and not hearers only" (James 1:22), and have been proven by their lives worthy interpreters of the Scriptures. Let us go to those who knew the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, if we have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us inquire of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance.
By deciding to interpret scripture on your own make it not a rock but clay. You mold it to suit your own arrogance rather then conforming your self to its universal truth. There can be no universal truth since truth becomes as subjective as the individual.
That is the pinnacle of heresy.
If you say your truth is real 'truth' well so do the thousand other Protestant sects. If Luther was right then that should have been it.
I asked Nuke to name some of those 'cult' rituals the Catholic Church uses as a distraction from Christ but hasn't named one.
I know his answer to that question will be
'Toad is picking on me' so at this point I don't expect an answer.
-
I asked Nuke to name some of those 'cult' rituals the Catholic Church uses as a distraction from Christ but hasn't named one.
I know his answer to that question will be
'Toad is picking on me' so at this point I don't expect an answer. [/B]
Well, for the most part I have been ignoring your posts.
You come across as attacking and you seem to have a "cut and paste" wall of text style, which I never usually respond to.
Also, your question. I already stated what I believed are some examples of rites and rituals that I believe are a distraction from the teachings of the bible.
I'll debate you about anything you would like, but I'm not going to respond unless you are civil.
-
I am not going be 'civil with you' because I don't think you are intelligent enough to know the difference. That's not an attack it's the honest truth.
As for your 'wall of text' excuse all my post are spaced and broken up for easy reading. Your problem isn't with reading them, it's in comprehending what you read. You are just making excuses.
Also, your question. I already stated what I believed are some examples of rites and rituals that I believe are a distraction from the teachings of the bible.
You haven't answered that question at all. I re-read every reply you gave in this thread plus a few others. You just keep repeating the same nonsense about rites and rituals with out offering a single example.
I'll debate you about anything you would like, but I'm not going to respond unless you are civil.
This isn't debate. All your assumptions in the original questions you asked about Catholicism have been proven wrong.
If you are capable of naming a Catholic ritual that 'distracts from Christ' I will prove you wrong then as well. You being ignorant does not constitute a debate. If you feel the word 'ignorant' is an attack then look up the definition.
-
Wotan, I'll give you your shot and then we can see how smart you are.
I'll ask you a few things Catholics do, and if you can't show me where in the bible it says to do those things or even give an example of anyone in the bible doing them, will you then be happy?
-
You begin the premise in error. I would first quote this to you:
The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests. Taken from its context, within the Holy Tradition, the solid rock of Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into whatever shape its handlers wish to mold it. It is no honor to the Scriptures to misuse and twist them, even if this is done in the name of exalting their authority. We must read the Bible; it is God’s Holy Word. But to understand its message let us humbly sit at the feet of the saints who have shown themselves "doers of the Word and not hearers only" (James 1:22), and have been proven by their lives worthy interpreters of the Scriptures. Let us go to those who knew the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, if we have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us inquire of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance.
I would then explain one more time to you about the origins of the 'Bible' and re-state that the the original Church members didn't have a 'Bible'; didn't preach from or worship a Bible etc...
Orthodox Churches believe not only in Sacred Scripture (Bible) but in Sacred Tradition (those traditions handed down from Christ through Peter). I would tell you that the key to understanding Orthodox is that the 2 go hand in hand.
As I have already stated...
I would also say that your statement that 'Catholic Rites and Rituals distract from Christ' has little to do with your new premise as worded in your last post.
I asked you for examples of Catholic Rites and Rituals that distract from Christ. I didn't ask you about the Bible.
You may not agree with the Orthodox view but its clear you have no concept of it. You can make up your own mind but it would make more sense if you had a basic understanding of what it is you disagree with. At least you would have a logical place to argue from.
-
That's what I thought, debate over and you lost before it even started.
And just like I figured, a cut and paste answer followed by a wall of text rather than a concise answer to my challenge.
Thanks anyway.
-
(sigh) I figured that someone would flame me for what I said. I had hoped not, but oh, well....
I responded to this thread because I felt I had a reasonable, well thought out response.
Yes, I was excommunicated, not because of my actions, but because after being married in the Church, my wife divorced me. I may attend Mass, but I may not take communion, nor give confession, or participate in any of the other sacraments. This is what led me to research. Of course, a few years later, the Vatican changed its stance on divorce, but did not reverse any rulings it had previously made regarding one's status within the Church. If you think that I'm looney, you should talk to my friend who believes that the modern Mass is really the Black Mass.
Wotan: Or he is just making it up like Nuke's 'Catholic Education'.
1. You can tell by the tone of his post that he thinks he's one of the 'smart ones' or at least smarter then those who would submit themselves to the sacred traditions. He is Luther incarnate...
2. He ain't gonna stand before no Church, he will get to heaven his own way...
3. His 'I heard some where that Catholics used to believe in reincarnation until some heretic Pope decided he didn't like that and changed it' proves it.
4. No man can tell him what the Bible says or means. He is his own 'mini-Pope' and knows as much if not more then any of those herd animals seeking strength in numbers.
I will address these points one at a time.
1. Do you prefer to believe yourself to be "one of the smart ones", or something else? Which in your mind is more important, the rituals or the faith that they instill and inspire? The process, or the end result? By your phrasing "submit themselves to the sacred traditions", you imply submission, or even capitulation is required in order to believe. Do you really believe that true faith should be defeatist, or did I misread you? If you really believe that, then you understand Catholicism much less than you know. If I misread you, then the fault is mine, and no further discussion is required. However, I do not believe that one should submit to tradition, but only to the will of God. How does anyone know that these are God's traditions? You demand proof of things discussed in these posts, and state clearly that I am Luther incarnate. Can you prove this?
2. When (or if, if you prefer) I get to Heaven, it will be because I have followed the teachings of our Lord and Saviour, and accept that he died for the sins of mankind, not because I put a wafer in my mouth every Sunday and cross myself with holy water. To believe otherwise is simply ludicrous. If I don't get to Heaven, sure, I'm going to feel pretty stupid about it. But if I do, won't you feel pretty silly? But I agree with one point, and then only partially. I will stand before no church or man that states that their way is the only way. God is love. Jesus Christ taught on the value of love and tolerance. Anyone who says "we're right and everyone else is wrong" is certainly not teaching tolerance. This belief of mine is not anti-(insert religion here). It IS, however, anti-intolerance. "he will get to heaven his own way"... isn't the way I talk about Christ's way? Can you prove I'm wrong?
3. At no time do I state that this is my belief. I simply say that there has been some considerable discussion of the topic in theological circles. Even if I had said that I believed this, I fail to see what it "proves".
4. In a way, you are correct. No one can tell me what the Bible says or means, nor should they tell you or anyone else. A person's relationship with Christ and with his Creator is a deeply personal and subjective thing. As far as being my own "mini-pope", I don't tell anyone what to believe. Not even you. "herd animals"... I'd like you to show me where I called anyone that. I did state my belief that organized religion began as a defense mechanism, and that I believe the concept is obsolete. More specifically, I believe that it has in many cases become an engine of intolerance, the precise thing that it was created to defend against.
I don't even usually speak on the subject of religion because of the animosity that usually follows. More blood has been shed allegedly in the name of God than for any other reason. In no translation of the Bible that I've ever read does it say Thou Shalt Be Catholic, or Protestant, or Seventh Day Adventist, or Baptist, or Snake Handler.
I have one final question to ask: do you suppose that God appreciates more a person who accepts on blind faith everything he has been told about Him from birth through repetition and ritual, or a person who lost his faith and found it again through study and introspection? There is, as far as I know, no way to answer this, for we are not meant to know the mind of God... it's meant to make you think. But if you like, ask Him when you see Him. I plan to.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
That's what I thought, debate over and you lost before it even started.
And just like I figured, a cut and paste answer followed by a wall of text rather than a concise answer to my challenge.
Thanks anyway.
Challenge? You simply duck and weave when pressed. As has been pointed out.
You offer no challenge that survives the first glance. The question isn't about what you read in or out of the Bible. I asked for a sinlge example of a Rtie or Ritual that distracts from Christ as you claimed.
You keep dodging an answer.
Wall of texts? I can give a word count if you like? I can even help with the big words if needed...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
That's what I thought, debate over and you lost before it even started.
You keep on telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. :aok
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I asked for a sinlge example of a Rtie or Ritual that distracts from Christ as you claimed.
I'll make it simple.
1. I believe that the bible is the word of God
2. I believe that any rite or ritual which is not validated in the bible is a distraction from the word of God. I have said this same thing about 4 or five times in this thread.
Now, do you want me to list some things Catholics do and teach which I believe to be a distraction from the bible, the word of God?
-
I figured that someone would flame me for what I said. I had hoped not, but oh, well....
I responded to this thread because I felt I had a reasonable, well thought out response.
You weren't flamed, lets not pretend you are made of glass.
IMHO, your reply was not that well thought out but full of anti-Catholic characterizations from an ex-pat Catholic.
How do you think your post would be read?
Yes, I was excommunicated, not because of my actions, but because after being married in the Church, my wife divorced me. I may attend Mass, but I may not take communion, nor give confession, or participate in any of the other sacraments. This is what led me to research. Of course, a few years later, the Vatican changed its stance on divorce, but did not reverse any rulings it had previously made regarding one's status within the Church. If you think that I'm looney, you should talk to my friend who believes that the modern Mass is really the Black Mass.
I am not going to get into your personal life but if your wife was granted a divorce then she had grounds (in court at least). But none of that is my concern.
1. Do you prefer to believe yourself to be "one of the smart ones", or something else? Which in your mind is more important, the rituals or the faith that they instill and inspire? The process, or the end result? By your phrasing "submit themselves to the sacred traditions", you imply submission, or even capitulation is required in order to believe. Do you really believe that true faith should be defeatist, or did I misread you? If you really believe that, then you understand Catholicism much less than you know. If I misread you, then the fault is mine, and no further discussion is required. However, I do not believe that one should submit to tradition, but only to the will of God. How does anyone know that these are God's traditions? You demand proof of things discussed in these posts, and state clearly that I am Luther incarnate. Can you prove this?
I am not a Christian as I have said. But if you know anything of the early Church you know that their was no Bible. That which we call the Bible came much later. The early practices of the Church were spread orally and through tradition.
As I quoted above:
The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests.
Would you assume that you could pick a a tech manual and build your own nuclear reactor? The manual would compliment and be put into context by your training.
If you claim that you can read the Bible and and become your own 'Church' then I would say nonsense.
Do you believe in universal truth? If there is a such thing then not every interpretation of the Bible can be correct. Why would you assume your interpretation would be the correct one? Are sure you are free of human arrogance? Are you sure the ideas you arrive at come from Divine revelation or from else where?
I do know that if I were to chose a Christian Theology it would be the one that goes right back to Christ. Protestantism goes no further then Luther.
If you think as Luther does, that you can read the Bible on its own then you are no different then Luther at all.
Christ submitted to the Cross, you submit to Christ. Faith requires submission. Having faith in Tradition as well as Scripture is a form of submission.
There's nothing defeatist about that.
When (or if, if you prefer) I get to Heaven, it will be because I have followed the teachings of our Lord and Saviour, and accept that he died for the sins of mankind, not because I put a wafer in my mouth every Sunday and cross myself with holy water. To believe otherwise is simply ludicrous. If I don't get to Heaven, sure, I'm going to feel pretty stupid about it. But if I do, won't you feel pretty silly? But I agree with one point, and then only partially. I will stand before no church or man that states that their way is the only way. God is love. Jesus Christ taught on the value of love and tolerance. Anyone who says "we're right and everyone else is wrong" is certainly not teaching tolerance. This belief of mine is not anti-(insert religion here). It IS, however, anti-intolerance. "he will get to heaven his own way"... isn't the way I talk about Christ's way? Can you prove I'm wrong?
Followed the teachings of the Lord according to whom? Your own flawed interpretation?
It's not a wafer you put in your mouth, its not symbolism either. If you believe then it's the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.
You claimed to be a Catholic at one time. Why do you mock them now?
I posted this to Nuke previously and I think it answers the rest of this point:
"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ...as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:14, 26).
You don't get to heaven by simply going along to get along. You don't go through the motions to get to heaven, you still need faith. Faith requires submission.
You claim all you have it figured out. Many other sects do the same. Which one is right? You? Them? Catholics? Orthodox?
3. At no time do I state that this is my belief. I simply say that there has been some considerable discussion of the topic in theological circles. Even if I had said that I believed this, I fail to see what it "proves".
Well as I said there are a lot of kooks when it comes to religion. Want to go to West Va. and handle snakes?
4. In a way, you are correct. No one can tell me what the Bible says or means, nor should they tell you or anyone else. A person's relationship with Christ and with his Creator is a deeply personal and subjective thing. As far as being my own "mini-pope", I don't tell anyone what to believe. Not even you. "herd animals"... I'd like you to show me where I called anyone that. I did state my belief that organized religion began as a defense mechanism, and that I believe the concept is obsolete. More specifically, I believe that it has in many cases become an engine of intolerance, the precise thing that it was created to defend against.
A personal relationship with Christ doesn't require an individual interpretation of the Bible. Catholics and Orthodox believers have very personal relationships with Christ.
Your whole idea on 'organized religion' is just a bunch of nonsense. Christ entrusted Peter to sit at the head of his Church. That implies a level of organization. Organization is also a product of human instinct. The 'organization' served a purpose by spreading the Gospels when there was no Bible. The main tool of the 'organization' was 'tradition' as passed down from Christ through Peter and the Apostles.
I believe that organized religion was intended as a means of protection (read as "Strength in numbers") from persecution
That statement above fulfills the definition of a herd animal.
I have one final question to ask: do you suppose that God appreciates more a person who accepts on blind faith everything he has been told about Him from birth through repetition and ritual, or a person who lost his faith and found it again through study and introspection? There is, as far as I know, no way to answer this, for we are not meant to know the mind of God... it's meant to make you think. But if you like, ask Him when you see Him. I plan to.
I refer you to Toad's replies to Nuke in this thread because he attempts to make sense of that.
I have to get some sleep.
-
Now, do you want me to list some things Catholics do and teach which I believe to be a distraction from the bible, the word of God?
You keep repeating that over and over and I have yet to see a single example...
-
Wotan, I do see your point. I'm not sure that you see mine, however. Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it say which religion is the correct one. All religions disagree with the others on some point or another. Wars have been fought over them. I don't know which one is right, I just know how I feel. A few points:
quote: Christ submitted to the Cross, you submit to Christ. Faith requires submission. Having faith in Tradition as well as Scripture is a form of submission.
Interesting line of thought, if somewhat ambiguous. Mine is probably no better... faith requires nothing more or less than itself. It has no prerequisite. How you GOT it is irrelevant. Yes, arguably, it's circular thinking, but to me it makes perfect sense.
quote: Followed the teachings of the Lord according to whom? Your own flawed interpretation?
Yes. Precisely. Is anyone's intepretation flawless? Universal Truth... now that's one that could take years to discuss fully. In a nutshell: Truth, as humans know it, is subject to perception and interpretation. Example: you are presented with an Absolute Truth, but your perception of it is flawed because you yourself are flawed, therefore for you, the truth is imperfect, and no longer absolute. However, at least for yourself, it is still true.
The Bible, the Scriptures themselves, are indeed the wisdom of God, handed down through the ages by FLAWED humans. I find it unlikely that any modern translation of the Bible is actually 100% accurate. A philosopher might say that the correct interpretation is the one that helps you at the moment you read it, which of course will vary from moment to moment.
quote: A personal relationship with Christ doesn't require an individual interpretation of the Bible.
Actually, you're right there. Don't know how I missed that.
quote: Which one is right? You? Them? Catholics? Orthodox?
My point exactly.
quote: Christ entrusted Peter to sit at the head of his Church.
Okay, fine, I agree. So which one was it that he sat at the head of? Don't they all make the same claim? (I'm actually asking, because I don't know about all of them, just a few.)
quote: The main tool of the 'organization' was 'tradition' as passed down from Christ through Peter and the Apostles.
Originally, yes, but some religions, or at least some people within them, appear to take the tradition as being more important than the lesson it's supposed to teach, and that's where I have a problem.
Slightly less on topic, but I also have a problem with the term "Christian", because it implies the worship of Christ above God. Mind you, what other word for it could we use?
Given that you are not Christian, Wotan, I have to assume that you're something of a student of philosophy. If so, you should understand this core belief of mine quite plainly: wisdom is most meaningfully born from the union of disparate ideas, but this can only occur when an effort is made to truly understand that with which you do not agree. Pretty wild, huh? Wotan!
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yeah Nuke, and if Jesus was a Jew, why the Hispanic name?
They don't make Jews like Jesus anymore © Kinky ;)
culero
-
I've pretty much considered you worthless for some time now, but I was wrong. Looking at the size of this stringer, I gotta say it, you are truly a Master Baiter!
~S~
culero
-
Originally posted by paulieb
quote: Christ entrusted Peter to sit at the head of his Church.
Okay, fine, I agree. So which one was it that he sat at the head of? Don't they all make the same claim? (I'm actually asking, because I don't know about all of them, just a few.)
The Apostolic Churches are those that can trace their lineage to an Apostle. There are five Patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. Tradition has it that each of these were started by Apostles. For Rome it's St. Peter, for Contantinople it's St. Andrew, for Jerusalem it's St. James, for Antioch it's St. Peter & St. Paul, and for Alexandria it's St. Mark.
The early Church was called The Holy Catholic Orthodox Church, of which all five Patriarchates were a part of. The first split occurs at the the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431. It condemns the Nestorian heresy and approves the veneration of the Virgin Mary as Theotokos (God-Bearer or Mother of God). The Nestorians go into exile in the Persian Empire and become the Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East, Antioch Patriarchate.
The second split occurs at the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451. It condemns the Monophysite heresy and affirms that Christ had both a divine and a human nature. The Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Syrian Orthodox Churches would remain Monophysite and become the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Alexandria Patriarchate.
The third split happens gradually between the Patriarchates of Rome and Constantinople over Trinitarian theology and Papal authority issues. Beginning in 1054 with the mutual excommunications of the Patriarch of Constantinople and visiting Papal legates, and culminating with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. After this last action the remaining Patriarchates join Constantinople in solidarity against Rome, rejecting Rome's Trinitarian innovation and Papal authority. They split into the Roman Catholic Church, Rome Patriarchate, and the Greek Orthodox Chruch, Constantinople Patriarchate.
In the last 40 years or so, the Roman Catholic Church has made overtures to all of the other Apostolic Patriarchates in attempts at reconciliation. Efforts are ongoing.
-
Wotan, I do see your point. I'm not sure that you see mine, however. Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it say which religion is the correct one. All religions disagree with the others on some point or another. Wars have been fought over them. I don't know which one is right, I just know how I feel. A few points:
As I have said many times the concept of Sola Scripture is heresy. I posted a link that goes into detail. The Bible does not stand alone. It stands on top of tradition. The 2 are not separate but form the rock of Orthodox theology.
Your point about who agrees with what is irrelevant. If the truth were as subjective as each individual interpretation then there in fact is no truth.
So you may be arrogant enough to assume that you can simple read the Bible and figure it out all in your own head but I if were a Christian I would have no more faith in your interpretation then I would in those snake handlers, Christian Indentists etc...
Wars have been fought by men who assumed they knew more then the traditions and scriptures have taught.
Tradition is constant since the beginning. Its lineage traces back through the Apostolic line to Christ. Luther begins at war with the Church over his interpretations. The foundation of the reformation is simple a rebellion against sacred tradition. Tradition that didn't begin with some Pope but was passed down from Christ.
The early Church had no Bible. How do you think they made it? Through oral traditions... its the height of human arrogance to assume you know more then you are capable of. This isn't an attack on your intelligence. I don't claim to know all the answers but as I said if I were to pick a Christian Theology it would be the one that has remained constant as rock not one that was molded by the hands and mind of every 'mini-Pope' who thinks he knows best.
Whether that be intolerant or not is irrelevant as well. Truth by definition can not be subjective.
Interesting line of thought, if somewhat ambiguous. Mine is probably no better... faith requires nothing more or less than itself. It has no prerequisite. How you GOT it is irrelevant. Yes, arguably, it's circular thinking, but to me it makes perfect sense.
The definition of faith:
Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
Faith demands submission to the authority of another. Be it God or what ever.
My definition isn't 'interesting' it's accurate. Christ submitted himself to the Cross and to faith in his Father. You submit yourself to Christ by believing that it is his blood that will buy you salvation.
Faith is submission.
Yes. Precisely. Is anyone's intepretation flawless? Universal Truth... now that's one that could take years to discuss fully. In a nutshell: Truth, as humans know it, is subject to perception and interpretation. Example: you are presented with an Absolute Truth, but your perception of it is flawed because you yourself are flawed, therefore for you, the truth is imperfect, and no longer absolute. However, at least for yourself, it is still true.
As I have said if I were to adopt a Christian theology it would be one that traces its roots directly to Christ and one that has remained constant. I would not make it up on my own or rely on the made up ramblings of some other heretic.
I answered this in detail before:
I'm not singling anyone out here. Neither am I saying that ONLY Protestants have to be on guard against this pitfall. Anyone should, but it seems Protestants are the most reluctant to acknowledge this danger. Its like they read something, assume some interpretation, and that's the end of it. And if their interpretation happens to conflict with the traditional interpretation, well, then too bad for the traditional interpretation! Well, not all of them are that ego-centric, but this is the basis from which virtually every Protestant sects originated. Usually it was one man or a small group of persons, who adopted some innovative interpretation and then split-off from whatever group they were affiliated with and then created yet another sect. As if one more sect added to the hundreds already existing was what the world really needed.
All Protestantism pivots on this false idea. It must attack the real Church or else they have nothing, no legitimacy, nothing. Even the cults within Protestantism use the same tactic against earlier establish Protestant sects to establish their own legitimacy. But from the beginning it is a tactic based on a groundless premise.
Most all Protestant sects identify themselves either by their founder's name or some particular aspect of Christian doctrine which they have chosen to emphasize: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Russellites, Methodism, Baptist, Pentecostal, Seven Day Adventists, etc. Each name in itself bespeaks a partial or man-made doctrine.
For example, Calvinism is just a doctrine according to John Calvin, not Jesus Christ. It presumes by its very name that nobody prior to 1500 knew what they were doing - an unbelievably arrogant and self-serving premise which essentially brands the all the great theologians, evangelists, and martyrs of Christianity as dimwits, fools, or liars.
So in short your 'Sola Scripture', interpretation carries far less weight.
The personalities in the Orthodox leadership may change but basic 'Theology' doesn't change on the whim of those personalities like it has historically with all the various Protestant sects.
You yourself claim to be 'enlightened' enough to have figured it out on your own. To me that is a sure sign of human arrogance.
The Bible, the Scriptures themselves, are indeed the wisdom of God, handed down through the ages by FLAWED humans. I find it unlikely that any modern translation of the Bible is actually 100% accurate. A philosopher might say that the correct interpretation is the one that helps you at the moment you read it, which of course will vary from moment to moment.
Either you have Faith in what you are reading or you don't. If you believe the Bible itself to be 'flawed' then wouldn't you expect your interpretations to be even more flawed? After all your foundation is already made of clay.
I have stated that Tradition along with Scripture are the rock. Interpretations of Scripture change with the whim person reading it. Traditions places Scripture in context and help guides you through some of the traps. Combined they form a 'Theology' that has remained constant and traces its origin to Christ.
Which one is right? You? Them? Catholics? Orthodox?
Do you admit that only one can be right?
If so then would you choose one that is in a state of constant change and adaptation or one that has remained constant through the test of time?
I can't tell you what to believe. That requires faith (submission) on your part. I can read what you say and decide for myself if I agree with you and I don't. So I reject your version easily enough.
Okay, fine, I agree. So which one was it that he sat at the head of? Don't they all make the same claim? (I'm actually asking, because I don't know about all of them, just a few.)
Who are 'all'? The Catholic Pope has descended directly from Peter. Peter was chosen by Christ to sit at the head of his Church. 'All' those others are in conflict with that and they all can't be right.
For more detail see Jaged's reply.
Originally, yes, but some religions, or at least some people within them, appear to take the tradition as being more important than the lesson it's supposed to teach, and that's where I have a problem.
This has been asked and answered many times:
The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests.
The 2 go hand in hand.
Slightly less on topic, but I also have a problem with the term "Christian", because it implies the worship of Christ above God. Mind you, what other word for it could we use?
No it doesn't. First Christ mediates for you before God. This was the point of the cross. Christ paid the price for your sins. Christianity doesn't necessarily mean 'worship of Christ' ( all though Christ is God made flesh). Christianity simple means the followers of Christ. That you believe and have faith in his message and then its through him that you will find eternal life.
You and Nuke may share the same problem in applying 'literal definitions' to things mean so much more.
Given that you are not Christian, Wotan, I have to assume that you're something of a student of philosophy. If so, you should understand this core belief of mine quite plainly: wisdom is most meaningfully born from the union of disparate ideas, but this can only occur when an effort is made to truly understand that with which you do not agree. Pretty wild, huh? Wotan!
Wisdom doesn't manifest itself. Wisdom does not always equate to truth.
Self declared wisdom isn't really wisdom at all but arrogance. So people search for wisdom their entire lives and never really find it. The idea that you are or I or anyone can become wise relying just on our selves defies logic.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Who are 'all'? The Catholic Pope has descended directly from Peter. Peter was chosen by Christ to sit at the head of his Church. 'All' those others are in conflict with that and they all can't be right.
With all due respect I would argue that, of all of the Patriarchates, Rome has deviated the most from early (1st Millennium) Church teachings and has therefore deviated the most from the path of true Orthodoxy.
-
The gap between Orthodox and Catholics is relatively minor if you consider the gap between Catholics and Protestants (or even Orthodox and Protestants).
Differences like the teachings of the interrelationships of the Holy Trinity.
Orthodox will claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from God (the Father).
Roman Catholics claim it proceeds not only from the Father but of the Son as well.
There are many others but still for the point I was making I didn't think it was necessary to examine them in great detail at this point..
The 'great schism of 1054' didn't have as much to do with 'deviation' of theology as it did with:
The inner contradiction between the ascetic ideal and secular authority appeared as a dangerous enemy of the moral purity of the popes. It entailed a radical change not only in the status, but also in the behavior, in the intentions, in the aspirations and in the modi-operandi of the Roman popes. Conceit, pride, lust for power and the aspiration to subordinate all the local churches to their authority, which had previously appeared in the behavior of the Roman popes only as tendencies, as sporadic phenomena _ now wholly take possession of the popes.
In fact it would would appear the Catholics and Orthodox are on the path toward a new relationship. However that ends up isn't clear but there will never be such a relationship between Protestants and Orthodox (to include Catholics).
-
To me, any sect of Christianity all boils down to weather they try follow the bible's teachings alone, or if they also allow the Church to integrate their own teachings, which are created by men.
The Roman Catholic Church has created a lot of their own teachings in addition to those set forth in the bible, some of which are even contrary to the teachings of the bible, in my opinion.
Not saying that's bad, just that I believe only the bible is the word of God.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The gap between Orthodox and Catholics is relatively minor if you consider the gap between Catholics and Protestants (or even Orthodox and Protestants).
Agreed.
-
Us catholics receive the fullness of God's grace because we have the sacraments. The protestants do not have the sacraments such as Eucharist which is mentioned in John 6. He who easts my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.