Topic awaiting preservation: catholics and other christians

i opened this thread for jade to respond to the questions posed for her - and to try to recover GN's thread for answers to his question

jade - these topics really deserve their own thread.. so here are the posts referred to. looking forward to your answers

WebShaman: I have a question, concerning the creation of Angels, and the war of the heavens (before the creation of Mankind). What exactly happened, and where is it explained? Do Angels have free will? And exactly what are Angels?

Bugimus: I would still love to participate in another thread making the case for Papal Authority but not if it's going to consist of arguments about how "you" Protestants mucked everything up with that schism thing. I don't consider myself a Protestant by the way so I didn't take that personally.

[edit- add link

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 03-11-2003).]

Thanks, velvetrose.

jade, if you're still with us, I would like to extend a welcome for you to make a case for Papal Authority. This is one of the primary reasons I am not a Roman Catholic but still consider myself a Christian.

I believe we should model our churches after the New Testament example of autonomous congregations led by a group of elders. Each church acting in concert with sister churches in the world as opposed to a central authority seated in Rome. I have arguments to back this up and am interested to hear your views.

Thanks for the open invitation.

quote:

---

I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion, under whatever form and in whatever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred that he has to search out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind. - Koot Hoomi

---

I think if people could learn to put aside their differing opinions and guidelines for reaching salvation, we would all realize that we are already in heaven in a sense, and what is afterwards is only another version of the heaven we have here on earth. To bow down to rules created by either Protestans or Roman Catholics is all the same to me, it's just that the rules vary, and the harshness by which they are followed varies.

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

Cool Let's do it.

[edit] GN, you posted while I did. That has already been tried in certain groups and it leads to just as much suffering and injustice as any other *human* endeavor. For every abuse of the Church over the years I have the last century to point out much worse offenses committed during non-religious attempts to create a better world. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-11-2003).]

First of all the I will only give you knowledge of what I know to be cc teaching, not my own opinion. Since I have been a spoon fed catholic I might enlighten you on and maybe not on what the basis is for a lot of cc belief. Their is so much theology but i will try to be brief:

First of all the RC sees all other sects of christianity as separated brothers in sisters in that we believe in the same savior "Jesus". In the inital break with RC, Martin Luther and his spiritual descendents were in are in a state of protest to this day. The RC sees the relationship of the church to Christ as a holy marriage. The church being the bride and Jesus being the bridegroom & spouse (this is biblical info).
Now in RC teaching the church is mystical meaning that it is an institution, a physical building, a holy sacrament, a body of believers, evangelizer & messenger. I will refer to the church as a female in that she is the bride. Now we all know that the instituion of marriage is sacred and that it is a bond that should last forever. At least when you say "I do" you promise to love and obey till death do you part. And in the marriage state you become one. You give yourself to each other in the most personal way. In every way. This becomes the most intense love relationship. So like the church, the bride totally submits to Christ the bridegroom in the most personal way possible. The are one. In the event the bride (referring to people in a RC mystic way) wants to break with the spouse, she separates herself from the body even though she has already become one with it. Though she does not live with the spouse she is still married to him. Unless she no longer wants to be in body of Christ in that she can no longer believe in him(savior) so she wants a total break, like in marraige a divorce. You will notice if you are a bible christian references are made to compare the relationship of between jesus and man to a marriage if you want to research.

Now since the RC considers all other forms of christianity as separated within the body of christ, she considers them under its wing, under its protection and prays for them to become one again in all mystical ways. She does not accept divorce and does not believe in it. And of course even though they do not acknowlege her authority or want to have anything to do with her, she remains commited to them foever.

There is a *huge* difference between being sperated from the catholic church and being seperated from christ.

It is nothing but arrogance that allows catholics to hold the belief that because they have left the catholic church they have left their faith, or are in any way less suitabley 'attached' to jesus.

The catholic church has no grounds on which to think that to be a christian you *should* acknowledge the supposed "authority" of their heirarchal and self aggrandizing organization.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-11-2003).]

Pardon me. But I never said there was no salvation outside the Catholic church. The only way you cannot be saved is if you deny the Holy Spirit (Check your bible).

Ok so let's here the argument for Papal Authority now.

In RC teaching of the "Chair of Peter, Bishop of Rome" This is the highest seat in hierachical world of Christianity and also the world.
In Chuch history and you will not find this in your bible but you can trace every bishop of Rome till Peter. (Peter's bones are also buired directly under the main altar of Pope John Paul and they were not put there because the altar is directly on there. They were unearthed there in the 20th century.)

I don't want to quote scripture but if your a bible christian you will find Jesus himself refering to his Apostle, Peter as the Rock on which he will build his church. Even though Peter was not perfect and with human fault , Jesus sees strength in the faith that Peter has and the Rock is referencing rock solid faith. Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church and what ever he binds on earth willl be bound in heaven, etc. Now I know he did not pull the other apostles aside and tell them the same thing, only Peter, not the favorite evangilizing apostle for evagelicals, Paul. Jesus also says that he will give Peter the Keys to his Kingdom. ( Now in the old testment look up what the chief steward does and how when the king went to sleep he was incharge of all the doors to the kingdom abode. He had the keys to all the doors. This steward is referencing office of Peter, (sorry there is lots of typology to refer to on how NT fulfills the old, like adam-new adam,jesus/eve-new eve, mary, Exodus slaughered lamb/jesus, etc )

For the first 300 plus years of christianity there was no bible only tradition that tells us most of the early bishops of Rome (Popes) were maryted. The RC has recorded history of all this so does your neighborhood library. Later on when the church established councils, they always met to decree doctrine, always recgonizing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, the holy see, the chief steward, the servant of the people. They also decreed what books to put in the bible, determined they were inspired by god and officially closed the cannon of the bible, under the see of the existing pope. Now with the acception of the books taken out of the bible after the reformation the bible is a catholic book authored by cathoics, and its guardian.

In matters of church doctrine the pope is infallible. In matters of tradition with the times, can be changed. The pope is human. He is not perfect. Just like Peter. But in the office that he holds, he is a shephard guarding the flock till the Master arrives. His aim is to unite, not dominate Gods people.

We have to agree that the Pope is considered the world most famous person. He does not see noteriety. He is a peacemaker.

I will try to be brief:

In RC teaching of the "Chair of Peter, Bishop of Rome" This is the highest seat in hierachical world of Christianity and also the world.
In Chuch history and you will not find this in your bible but you can trace every bishop of Rome till Peter. (Peter's bones are also buired directly under the main altar of Pope John Paul in the Vatican and they were not put there because the altar is directly on there. They were unearthed there in the 20th century.)

I don't want to quote scripture but if your a bible christian you will find Jesus himself refering to his Apostle, Peter as the Rock on which he will build his church. Even though Peter was not perfect and with human fault , Jesus sees strength in the faith that Peter has and the Rock is referencing rock solid faith. Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church and what ever he binds on earth willl be bound in heaven, etc. Now I know he did not pull the other apostles aside and tell them the same thing, only Peter, not the favorite evangilizing apostle for evagelicals, Paul. Jesus also says that he will give Peter the Keys to his Kingdom. ( Now in the old testment look up what the chief steward does and how when the king went to sleep he was incharge of all the doors to the kingdom abode. He had the keys to all the doors. This steward is referencing office of Peter, (sorry there is lots of typology to refer to on how NT fulfills the old, like adam-new adam,jesus/eve-new eve, mary, Exodus slaughered lamb/jesus, etc )

For the first 300 plus years of christianity there was no bible only tradition that tells us most of the early bishops of Rome (Popes) were maryted. The RC has recorded history of all this so does your neighborhood library. Later on when the church established councils, they always met to decree doctrine, always recgonizing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, the holy see, the chief steward, the servant of the people. They also decreed what books to put in the bible, determined they were inspired by god and officially closed the cannon of the bible, under the see of the existing pope. Now with the acception of the books taken out of the bible after the reformation the bible is a catholic book authored by cathoics, and its guardian.

In matters of church doctrine the pope is infallible. In matters of tradition with the times, can be changed. The pope is human. He is not perfect. Just like Peter. But in the office that he holds, he is a shephard guarding the flock till the Master arrives. His aim is to unite, not dominate Gods people.

We have to agree that the Pope is considered the world most famous person. He does not see noteriety. He is a peacemaker.

before commenting on your above posts. i would like to hear your comments on the other question posted at the top.

WebShaman: I have a question, concerning the creation of Angels, and the war of the heavens (before the creation of Mankind). What exactly happened, and where is it explained? Do Angels have free will? And exactly what are Angels?

Is this true? That the early Catholic Church decided what the Bible, that we read today (I assume the new testament, BTW?) was to be composed of?

So what was left out? Quite frankly, I'd be very interested to know what was left out...and actually, I'm very interested in just how it was decided what stayed in, and what didn't.

I did not know this. In other words, there are 'holy writings' that didn't make it into the Bible? Which ones, and can one find printed copies?

Oh yeah...what about my questions?


WebShaman

Constantine, after making Christianity the "official" non-persecutable religion of Rome assembled a council that assembled the bible as we know it today around 320-something AD. there's actually quite a number of christian writings that aren't included in the bible, found a list of some of them here; ones that weren't included were primarily left out because of content contradictory to the highly regarded writings of Paul and other apostles.

the catholic bible contains 7 extra OT books that aren't in a standard bible as well as a few edits in the NT verses. its late but i'm guessing some online searching would give a bit more detail there. actually, its VERY late here. night

chris


KAIROSinteractive

and before i crash...

quote:

---

Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church and what ever he binds on earth willl be bound in heaven, etc. Now I know he did not pull the other apostles aside and tell them the same thing, only Peter, not the favorite evangilizing apostle for evagelicals, Paul.

---

um, actually that would be totally inaccurate. matthew 18 ("whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...") is christ talking to the twelve, not peter. it obviously wasn't said to paul as paul wasn't with christ during his time on earth

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Actually you guys have a lot of knowlege too and I wish I can elaborate on more, but it would be redundant. I just post what is RC doctrine. I don't want to argue.

VR.

I will post lots of infor on angels, and it will be a long post, but I am off to work. You guy have good day.

Thanks for the link, Fig.

Oh, Angels! Coolness...I can hardly wait...my questions are going to get answered...yippeee!

jade, you sound surprised that we have a lot of knowledge too. Thanks a lot

Didn't you say this in the other thread?

quote:

---

I am open or discussion. Be ready to go where you haven't before.

---

Are you or aren't you willing to discuss these things with us? Discussing does not mean that everyone automatically agrees with everything you say and I find it very disappointing that you are giving up at the slightest hint of someone possibly knowing a bit more than you.

If you're just going to post doctrine without explaining it and making a good case for why it should be believed then how is that different from me going and reading it in a Catholic reference? Anyway, I'm going to respond to your points here and I'm going to hope you are up to reading what I have to say and responding in kind, fair enough?

quote:

---

In Chuch history and you will not find this in your bible but you can trace every bishop of Rome till Peter.

---

This is of course a major impasse between our two views. Church history traces the Popes back to Peter and I simply disagree with that approach. I do not think the New Testament supports the primacy of Peter vis-à-vis becoming the first Pope. Whether he ended up in Rome or not doesn?t even solve this problem because being prominent in the Roman church does not negate my view of autonomous churches as set up by Paul?s missionary work. In fact, if there was an early center or headquarters for Christ?s church it would surely have to have been the Jerusalem church, pre 70AD of course

quote:

---

I don't want to quote scripture but if your a bible christian you will find Jesus himself refering to his Apostle, Peter as the Rock on which he will build his church.

---

I don?t hesitate to quote scripture and I would encourage you to do so when backing up your positions. We can pretty much say anything we want in this section of the Asylum, that?s really never been a big problem. Anyway, Jesus was saying that he would build His church upon the profound confession of faith that Peter had just uttered. He was *not* saying that Peter would become the first Pope and the church would be built on him. You even said this here:

quote:

---

?the Rock is referencing rock solid faith.

---

I think this is precisely what the church was to be built upon and indeed it is precisely what has sustained it throughout the centuries.

quote:

---

Later on when the church established councils, they always met to decree doctrine, always recgonizing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth?

---

The first council is recorded in the New Testament and occurred in Jerusalem *before* there is any mention of ?Pope?. That was a later invention of the Romanized church. I do not dispute that by 300 AD things really begin to show the foundations of the modern Roman Catholic church but my main point of contention is the form of the church before 300 AD. The early church does not reflect the doctrines that were added after Constantine?s conversion.

quote:

---

?the bible is a catholic book authored by cathoics, and its guardian.

---

I don?t consider the writings of the Apostles which comprise most of the New Testament to be ?catholic? in origin. I do agree with you that the later councils certainly determined what became canon. I am actually perfectly ok with that. I consider the original church to be as close as we get to what Christ intended since it was overseen by His direct successors, the Apostles. But we see a constant mutation of this early church all the way to 300 AD even some of it being described in the New Testament itself. Early heresies are mentioned such the Gnostics.

I should also make it clear that I don't think the church fell into complete apostacy at 300AD. I still think the Holy Spirit did His level best to guide the faithful through the centuries of "catholicism" that were to follow.

If you have read any of the works of the Apostalic Fathers you will see further evidence of this digression. I Clement, for instance, indicates to me that you had a very prominent leader of the church in Rome speaking with another church as an ?equal? and not as a ?pope?. This supports my view that the autonomous sister church model was in play. But later writings, for instace, by Igantius begin to speak of regional Bishops. This indicates that sometime between the passing of the Apostles and Constantine?s conversion, we see the beginnings of some of the modern Catholic structure.

My point here is that the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles is not the same church we see emerging from the mass persecutions around 300 AD. That is why I focus on the New Testament and try very hard to bring us back to the spirit and intent of that model of Christ?s body.

quote:

---

In matters of church doctrine the pope is infallible.

---

I?ll be happy to tackle the infallibility topic later on. I think at the moment, Papal Authority is enough to deal with.

. . : slicePuzzle

B.

I am wondering where your base these views on. Are they totally yours. Are you following your own independ thinking like private revelation or someone elses. Are you being individually inspired to seek a truth. Is it your truth only in respect that your are in agreement with anoher sect, person or institution.

And I was also wondering if you believe in the instituion of the RC on what is inspired by God, (bible), why not anything else. Is the RC so corrupted to you, that you not agree on anything with her.

If you really want to get the closest to Christianity as possible in the earliest days of the church why do non catholics christians not preform the braking of the bread (communion) Thats what they met to do in the earliest days of the faith called Mass if your reading the early church fathers.

Pope(Papa) is a name the italians gave the Bishop of Rome. The actual name doesn't mean much. Its like one in the same just as catholic/christian is

Don't you ponder sometimes that maybe Jesus had to leave someone in charge to guard the faith. A visible head to keep the believers in check. If there was not ever an institution in charge would you have a christian faith today. I wonder. There is inspired writing in the earliest days of Christianity. I don't recall the bishop, he was I believe the 2nd or third one and on the way to his death as a maryter in rome he issued 7 letters and they were all about the bread being the actual body of christ (Oh, but that is another subject). His name escapes me. This writing is b-4 biblical reading was put together.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-12-2003).]

quote:

---

If you really want to get the closest to Christianity as possible in the earliest days of the church why do non catholics christians not preform the braking of the bread (communion)

---

tho it may not be a weekly thing, most non-catholic churches i know of (mine and others i've visited at least) DO practice communion in some form, not necessarily every week or with the same ritual as in the catholic church but it is done. another protestant stereotype?

quote:

---

Don't you ponder sometimes that maybe Jesus had to leave someone in charge to guard the faith.

---

ponder? no, can't say i do. i do recognize that the twelve were the leaders of the Way after christ's death, and tho peter may have had seniority of some type they and other early followers (stephen, etc.) certainly all did massive amounts of ministry and discipling. i wouldn't trust one person to be in charge of anything, because humans screw up, often actually (as peter so often showed us in the gospels). for that reason i have a really hard time placing one person with no accountability (i.e. infallible) in charge of anything.

not quite sure why you're questioning where bugs derives his views from, but i'd imagine they're similar to mine; they come from a combination of study and reading, listening to speakers and pastors, and prayer. i'm sure some agree with certain sub-sections of christianity and some may not. whatever the case in minor doctrinal differences bugs and i and other people i would consider "true" christians agree in grace by faith alone, other things can remain debatable and discussable and not have any huge bearing on the issue of eternal salvation.

any chance you're actually going to answer some of the questions you've been asked now? you mention all you can do is quote RC doctrine and i was really hoping for a lot more than that; believing in a certain church's teachings is one thing, but i'd hope you haven't lost the ability to reason and discuss for yourself while doing so. the moment we stop questioning and wondering is the moment we stop learning.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

In reference to knowledge. I was referring to your knowledgeable in regard to what you believe in. Not saying I know more than you.

What exactly am I suppose to answer to you Fig. If I seem like a deadhead in regard to my belief, I question, I ponder, but I don't go against what my faith teaches. I am submissive to the teaching of the Holy Catholic church.
I don't question its authority or its infabillilty in matters of doctrine.
If I know something to be true, why try to dig up reasons why its not true.
I know, I believe, I trust. To question isn't wrong, it only seeks answers. We are allowed doubts of faith. I think God has a hand in this to make us look for him more. I believe you are a christian and that you accept the lord as your complete savior. I think we are on different boats trying to cross a river and we will both eventually get to the other side of the river

quote:

---

why do non catholics christians not preform the braking of the bread (communion)

---

Somehow, I don't think the intent of meeting to break bread was to end up lining up to have a preist put a cracker on your tongue and take a sip of wine (or grape juice).

I'm pretty sure it was meant to be something more natural and meaningful than that.


And as Fig said, non-catholics do in fact practice communion.

.

How can you *know* anything to be true if you never question its origins or its accuracy?

I think if nothing else your vastly inaccurate comments in the other thread show that you have good reason to question the "facts" on which you seem to base everything.

But more importantly, how can it possibly be "faith" if it is dictated to you?

Faith is something within you, not something that has a formula and is dictated through a hierarchy...

quote:

---

I believe you are a christian and that you accept the lord as your complete savior. I think we are on different boats trying to cross a river and we will both eventually get to the other side of the river

---

it sounds like you are breaking with the catholic notion that *only* catholics will get to heaven??

btw, the communion and wine is taken from the jewish tradition of the blessing of the wine and bread on the sabbath (shabbat), then breaking and sharing the bread and drinking the wine with those present - the central ceremony on the sabbath.

DL

Well why do you take communion at your church? What does it mean you. Its seems your being dictated to partake of it. Do you question it? Where did you get that ritual from. Is it a mindless ritual. Isn't communion meaning comming together, like becomming one.

I get my revelation from the bread of life discourses in John Chaper 6. If you read it you will see, but it has a deep meaning if you read between the lines. But the references to Jesus being the bread of life are in more than one book in scripture. I know Jesus says you have no life in you unless you eat his body and drink his blood. Is this cannabilism, what is he meaning here.

I am not forced to be a believer. I thought we were suppose to respect peoples beliefs on this thread.

How do you know my comments are inaccurate? You are being condesending here.

1) I don't take communion. Yes, as far as what I have seen the church call comminion, it is a meaningless ritual. The real deal would and should be far less mechanical and far more conversational.

2) Nothing in my personal beliefs has been dictated to me. I don't base my views on life on a single book or on what a group of strangers tells me is 'the word of god'.

3) I pointed out your inaccuracies in the other thread, to which you gave no response. Condescending? No...I'm asking a legitimate question here. I have asked several that still remain unaswered.......


???

quote:

---

If I seem like a deadhead in regard to my belief, I question, I ponder, but I don't go against what my faith teaches. I am submissive to the teaching of the Holy Catholic church.
I don't question its authority or its infabillilty in matters of doctrine.
If I know something to be true, why try to dig up reasons why its not true.
I know, I believe, I trust. To question isn't wrong, it only seeks answers.

---

this, i think, is where we greatly differ. first off, i don't seek reasons thing would not be true if i already believe them. however, there are things i've read, heard pastors say, etc., that conflict with something inside me, either from a moral or ethical sense, or simply based on the knowledge i have on a subject. i could care less what the doctrine of a certain church might say is "correct", i want to know the answers for myself. my faith is a personal one, not one i want someone else to dictate for me. i do have friends that keep me accountable for my actions and vice versa, and we'll often get into long theological debates where none of us necesarily claim to have a right answer, because very simply we don't know the right answer on many doctrinal issues, there's evidence for both sides of many things. i absolutely do question the infallibility of the catholic church and its doctrine because i often see it driven by political and social agendas, an understandable but not an "excusable and still infallible" by-product of a group of its size. did the roman catholic church start out as the singular church that christ intended? possibly, but i don't think its ended up there. peter, like any other person and all the other popes, started off with his own personal biases and opinions that make him no more infallible than you or i. that's not something i can agree with as the basis for determining the only way that christianity must be.

i have a communion story to tell that i'll post later on in the thread, i think DL might find it interesting.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

jade, you asked me a few direct questions and I want to answer them.

quote:

---

I am wondering where your base these views on.

---

Fig really did put it quite well. He said, and I agree it's

quote:

---

a combination of study and reading, listening to speakers and pastors, and prayer

---

quote:

---

Is the RC so corrupted to you, that you not agree on anything with her.

---

I have far more in common theologically with the RC than I do with Islam or Hinduism. We agree on a great deal of things and for that, I am very happy. But I believe the RC has perverted many of the teachings of Christ and I don't think it should be immune from criticism or more importantly reform.

quote:

---

...why do non catholics christians not preform the braking of the bread (communion) Thats what they met to do in the earliest days of the faith called Mass if your reading the early church fathers.

---

You're absolutely correct. The New Testament tells us that they made it a habit to meet on the first day of the week for communion and to hear the teaching of the Apostles. This is precisely why you will find me and my family meeting with our church body on the first day of the week and partaking of communion and listening to teaching about God.

quote:

---

Don't you ponder sometimes that maybe Jesus had to leave someone in charge to guard the faith.

---

To be honest, I don't have to ponder that because Jesus specifically told us that He would send the Counselor to guide us in truth. (read John 16:5-16) The faith is guarded by those who are willing to listen to the teachings that have been laid down in the New Testament and are willing to submit themselves to its teachings and that of the Holy Spirit. The church of Christ is to be the institution and physical representation of God's will on this earth.

quote:

---

His name escapes me.

---

Polycarp?

Thanks for your reponses. I appreciate your views. Like I say we have more in common than not. The Jesus who saves.

and....still no actaul response to anything....

And you wonder how I get my views on catholicism Jade? You seem to be a shining example of what I see in catholicism.

Of course, that may come across as negative, but how else could I possibly think after you're repeated refusal to answer any of my questions or statements?

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-13-2003).]

jade, any chance of obliging DL with some honest discussion? He has some serious and interesting questions and challenges to what your saying and I would be interested in hearing how you view them. He is every bit a part of this exchange as anyone else here.

I've been following these three intertwining threads with silence, incredible interest, and a fair amount of enjoyment. Thanks to all.

I'm not sure my previous silence allows me to make a request, but I'm a little disappointed at not yet hearing the argument for the infallibility of the pope. I was raised protestant (presbyterian, no less), but my father's side of the family are all very religious Irish Catholics (and so I'm redundant). I've kept my distance from church for about 11 years.

Even so, I've not dismissed theological discussions as irrelevant. I'd really like to hear the explanation for the infallibility of the pope. The RC's in my family can not explain it to me. They simply have heard it is so, so it is so. A bad way to go about one's afterlife, if you ask me, but that's their problem. The point remains that I still don't understand the argument.

dl44 you come across as not liking me & I presume its because I am a catholic. Thats OK, I am use to the abuse.

Angels from what I have read from catholic reading:

The are rich in beauty and excellent in near divinity. They are made up of three hierarchies, and nine choirs. They were created for the glory of God and to assist in the glory, honor & reverence to the eternal word, whom they are subjects to.. They are commissioned to bear up their hands in all ways.(Ps 90,12) They resemble I would say armies and legions. They have rank with the highly commissioned being that those are nearer to the creator and the lower distant from him. Not all have seen the creator. Like Michael & Gabriel being in the highest stature. The have feelings. They cry in sorrow for us and hurt when we hurt.
(Satan was also in the higest stature too before his fall from grace). They have no gender and six wings, each set symbolic. They wear emblems designating their commission. Here on earth they can assume corporal form. In the beginning with the creation of the heavens, they were made on the same day and this is when the Apocalspe occured sort of like in an instant, in that where it happend there was no time. And this is the time they were given grace & free will.

Now to refer to the the great battle in the heavens refer to Gensis 1 & Revelations 12.
I will try to be brief:
The divines mind plan for creation and whatever followed, it was shown to the angles. Now the angels having free will also could fault and fall away from grace. Lucifier being one of the most highest beautiful angels became prideful and was enriched with power and glory and he was over legions of angels. He bacame envious of what god was and had and wanted to be like him and he invaded the minds of the other angels. When God told him of his plan in the comming of the enternal word and the being that would bring him to us. (Mary), he was filled with rage and jealousy. He would never bow down to the word or his mother so in incited all the other angels who lets say weak in grace to go against God. Michael knowing of this asked the creator if he could do battle and drive him out of the heavens. Michael & his legions conqured. And hell upon the earth was created where Michael cast them into.

"And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars":
The sun refers the true son of justice, the moon at her feet, for as the two planets, the sun & moon, divide day & nite. The moon being the symbol of darkness(without God), the sun being the symbol of light of his grace. The crown of 12 stars represent the her 12 virtues and referencing the 12 tribes of Israel.

" And being with child", (filled with the blessed trinity)shown as being the holy place of the Word in her womb.

"She cried traveiling in birth" Representing proclamaton loudly the news of the birth to all corners of existance.

" And was in pain to be delivered" Of the sorrow knowing of the slaugher of the lamb, her son who would suffer & die on the cross.

" And there was seen another sign in heaven & behold a great red dragon having 7 heads & 10 horns & on his head 7 diadems & his tail threw the 3rd part of the stars of the heaven and cast them down to earth & the dragon stood b-4 the woman who was ready to be delivered that when she delivered, he might devour her son"

At this instant Lucifer the most beautiful was transformed into an ugly dragon. So horrible. He was furious and reared fury with his 7 heads & lead 7 legions or squadrons. Lucifer commaned his followers to undertake sin on their own account and undertook the leadership in the seven mortal sins. (Commenly called capital) They are pride, averice,envy, anger, luxury, imtemperance and sloth. They are the 7 diadems of which Lucifer was crowned. The 10 horns being trimuphs & iniquity & malice & of the dragon in execuction of his wickedness. The 3rd of stars are referencing the angels he took with him to hell. He hated the Word & the Woman who was to bring him, so he sets out to destroy them along with his principalities of bad angels. Lucifer wants to devour him and destroy him, but the most high was with this woman that was to bring forth the god man. God tells Lucifer, that this is his son who will crush his head and be a powerful judge and will be taken up with him on his right side of this throne and will rule with an iron rod representing justice. And that the woman belongs to him, the creator and has chosen her for himself and she is exempted from the jurisdiction of her enemies (without sin) and will assign her a postion of grace that
in the would last 1026 days. ( Days in which the woman was to remain in an interior & extraordinary grace in the last years of her life)

"And there was a great battle in heaven and Michael fought the dragon.
(In that he resisted the evil power of the devil (You know like Lord of the Ring movies is how I can best describe it) It was truth against untruth. Michael & his angels in their victory swore alegiance to God and because of Michaels strength crowed him a prince and protector of the heavens and guardian of the gates of heaven. All this is a in a mystical spiritual sense if that makes any sense.

I could go on and on but I am off on vacation. I know you guys might not agree or believe in this. But it is only inspired writing that is part of the chruch but not necessary to believe in the sense of salvation.




[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-13-2003).]

a lot of my post in the other thread wandered into papal infallibility, i'll go ahead and repost it here as it seems to be more a topic in this thread.

peter may have been given some authority in that early church by christ, but repeated statements throughout scripture (many by jesus himself) reinforce that christ is the cornerstone of the church, its head, and the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11, Col 1:18, Matt 28:18). a statement i found in some reading on the subject was catholics using the term "One fold and one shepherd" in referring to the pope and the catholic church. jesus calls himself the shepherd and the one shepherd tending his father's flock in John 10. seems a bit contradictory to me.

one other fact i found that was interesting. peter never refers to himself as the pope, is referred to as the pope, or settles any matter by his position in the NT. he actually talks about how parts of paul's writings are hard to understand. i'd think that if peter were in charge of things he would've been doing a lot more writing and making decisions and have made his authority known, wouldn't you?

i'll leave it with this:

quote:

---

Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.' (Luke 22:24-26)

---

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Jade - I have explained my position several times, yet you continue to do 2 things

1) ignore my comments/questions

2) postulate ideas as to my opinion of you

I will not hide that I have a negative prejudice towards catholicism. It is not based on 'anti-catholic propaganda' it is based on continual real life experiences when dealing with catholocism.

Number one on the list of things that perturb me about it is the lack of ability to get answers to questions (numer 2 is the blind faith in the heirarchy of the church which deems problem number 1 not to be a problem...).

As you have demonstrated here to an extreme.



So, draw whatever conclusions you'd like...i've asked very fair questions, and offered very fair counters to your statements, yet all you can say back is "you don't like me" and talk about confrontation and abuse.

Abuse???

Asking you to explain your statements is abuse???



Well anyway, as I can see you are unable to answer/respond to what I have said and asked, I will leave it at that.

Good day.

I have so many responses to answer, I can't keep track, I promise when I return I will answer all your questions. I am so preoccupied with lots of other stuff. By then you might of forgotten me.


Forgive me.

I don't man to single you or anyone out.

Well good then. I am looking forward to seeing all of DL's questions answered. That should be quite remarkable

mobrul, I would love to get into the infallibility doctrine more too. Fig already gave some good info about it above. One thing I know will come up is what the infallibility covers. Jade has already pointed out that the Pope is not infallible in all things. The infallibility of the Pope is constrained to when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair) on matters of faith and morals in accordance with all the bishops. In others words, there are plenty of "outs" built into this doctrine But that could just be a bit of bias on my part

You know you guys are really insterested in debating church infallibility because you want to find away to bring the doctrine
down. You already know what it means. There are thousands of sites on the web explaining this position. So you want me to reiterate why for a reason. Yeah Right??

I am really amazed on how much hatred is out there for the Holy Catholic Church. Just by reading post on the threads, every post I send is disected so to make it look I am not a knowledgable Catholic but in all the post in response to my post doesn't hold water. Its really silly what kind of questions I am suppose to respond to in regard to proving the Catholic church is indeed not the whore of babylon, or the antichrist. And I can only assume it is due to insecurity and uneducated guesses and most of all bigotry.

I wonder why other denominations don't have this much scrutiny and I would venture to say that its because they are not as powerful and authorative and mega-big. Over a billion strong & still growing. Thats right. This can be intimitating for some people that make a religion out of disproving her authority. And that the only reason they live, is to persecute, mock and disrespect her. They make it their life long ambition and mission. I would bet that after they are dead 200 years the church will still stand stronger than ever, so it really seems silly that they put so much energy in proving her infallible existence.

To me its like they are nomads roaming the desert for truth and they never find it because when they think they find a truth, they hit a sand dune, so the spin off in another direction only to hit a sand storm and lose truth, then spin off in another direction but they are dying of thirst for no water, so they become disoriented and lose truth again, etc..And they are in this perpetual state of disorientation their whole lives. And when its time to meet their maker, I am sure the first question they are going to ask god is if the Catholic church was indeed infallible, since they will carry this question into the afterlife since it premeated much of the core of their life long existance.

If you want to know what Catholicism is, learn it better from a non-catholic. Walk in his shoes because you will get all the uneducated bias knowledge you need.

Infalliblity of Jesus Christ who is the Holy Catholic Church:

In simple terms since you have read all the doctrine & dogma of Catholic teaching is that Jesus Christ the Savior of the whole human race is the church. She embodies his physical body in that the church is real flesh and real blood. We as Catholics cannot separate the church from the body because they are one. In this way since christ is truth, so is the church which is perfection in the mystical way of its embodiment. Why? Because christ was & is perfect. Being that the heirarchy is part of the church in its faith and morals, it cannot err. That would be mean Christ can err, since they are one in the same. Now of course we cannot see the visibe Christ, but in the
mystical sense he is present in the Holy Spirit. The third person of the trinity. And in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist he presents himself in the most mystical physical way so we can become one with him in thanksgiving and Jesus offers himself up our disgressions to the creator by us eating his body which is real flesh and eating his blood which is his real blood and those who do not believe in this ritual are non-followers. This is scriptual teaching from Jesus own lips(John 6:66) I am sure this is no coincidence to REV (666). All this has deep spiritual meaning. Without the bread consecrated which is called transubstanciation, we would have no Christ, that would mean no church, no authority, no infallibility. This teaching has been in church history since its inception at Pentecost. It has never changed
because Christ was always the church from day one.

Since the Body of Christ is the Real Presence in the Church it can bleed and still does, because it is constantly being crucified. Its like their are so many nails being hammered into it constantly because its being persecuted. Their are so many Sauls running around that it hurts the Son, Jesus who is body, blood, soul and divinity of the Church.

So if you base your own opinion on what the church should be then you have the mentallity of "I exist, therfore I am." I am God. I am infallible, since I have dictated for myself on how the faith should be run according to my own inspiration and revelation. I cannot be fallible since whoever whats his name in the days of Constantine dictated that the church was corrupt is who I believe in. So think about it. Your claiming infallibility too.


WB: In answer to your questions about the slaugher of your indian people, I think you should blame the old us goverment for most of the annilation of your people.

DL: If your referencing questions about the you being submissive to Rome in the holidays, I can't believe you still want an answer. Then if they are pagan to you, you have given in to paganism.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-19-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-19-2003).]

Well, it's rather sad actually jade.

You missed pretty much all of the points anyone made here. Yup, about all of em.
Or, more to the point, you disregarded them entirely in order to justify your belief rather than have to answer questions that you don't have valid answers to.

You speak of jesus being the church, yet catholocism doesn't work that way in practice.

Catholicism is like that a lot (as are a lot of other religions of course, but catholicism tends to take the cake in this area).

Say one thing, do another. Sin one day, confess the next.

Whatever. You jumped in with a lot of statements, and all we did was ask you to back them up. Which you have yet to do.

=)

I'm not sure to whom your little rampage was aimed, Jade, but let me make myself clear.
I do not ask you to talk through your beliefs because I want to tear them down. Point to one single thread around here, in my 3 years of posting here, where I have instigated a fight, and I'll go away and never bother you again.

I asked you to talk about your beliefs, and those of the church to which you belong, because I am genuinly interested. I wouldn't waste my time bothering you or anybody else just to 'bring down' your church or beliefs. I truly want to engage in conversation.

I can also say that I've had many conversations with Bugimus on many many topics (often ridiculously heated) and I can guarantee never once did he treat me with disrespect. Though I don't follow everything he writes, I feel safe in saying being disrespectful is just not part of his standard mode of operation.
While DL is often a bit more 'to the point' and a little less forgiving of stupidity, he also is not known for his disrespect.

I can tell you that this little piece of the web we've carved out here is tough. If you want a place where you can spit out some half-cocked theory and have everybody silently nodding their head in agreement, this is not the place to be. This applies to programming, graphics, animation and, yes, politics and religion. You will be challenged. If you're willing to write and think and answer questions and be reasonable, stick around. If you're looking for mental masturbation, stay in your room.

And just to prove I'm game, ask me anything you want about my own spiritual beliefs, here or by e-mail. I'll answer everyone of them.

Please don't plead ignorance. You insult my intelligence.

If you cannot read into what is being posted about the CC
I thought maybe you would not be bias. I thought i could read sincerity in your post. I was not sure. But I am sure they are glad you come to their defense. I was not referring to you if that means anything. I am sorry I offended you. If your were truly sincere in knowing, then forgive me. I don't disect responses because I respect their opinion. I really do.

Jade, so who here on this forum are you talking about then? I have met the type of people you describe but I am not aware of one of those types here and certainly not one that has posted in these threads about Roman Catholicism. Please tell us.

jade, you said you wanted to discuss things, so on numerous occasions I and others have brought up points, few to none of which have been addressed by you. you don't seem to understand that not agreeing with your opinion does not constitute disrespect. if you feel every disagreement with the catholic church is an attack then oh well, you're going to constantly be offended here because people ask tough questions. if "biased" means that we have an opinon then yes, we're biased. but almost without exception the questions asked have been presented factually, fairly, and with references to scripture that would seem to disagree with the catholic church's stance. you seem to be the one "reading into" the statements that have been made. if you disagree then great, tell me how and why. i'm by no means claiming to be infallible, i'm human and make mistakes like anyone else but i'm offering my interpretations.

i thought we'd get some good discussion in this thread, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

chris

quote:

---

Please don't plead ignorance. You insult my intelligence

---

uh...what the hell are you even talking about?

All you seem to be able to talk about is people insulting you, not liking you, confrontation, adversity, and so on.

For cryin' out loud...this is a discussion forum. Not a "yes we all agree" forum.

oh my god, you're all targeting, tormenting jade now?

It's all part of the membership...don't you worry.

What???

lordy lordy lordy...

I'm just fooling around DL.

Hehe...Yannah duped DL!!!

Now that is funny!!!

Whooohoooo!

duped? confused, sure. But she's done that all along...

Jade, let me get this straight.

Are you just going to pack up and leave because everyone here doesn't agree with everything you have to say about the Roman Catholic church?

How do you expect to ever relate to anyone outside the church with that kind of attitude? How do you expect to ever get more people to see the benefits of the church by calling them names when they don't agree with you? I am so very disappointed that you cannot handle some honest discussion. Perhaps you will reconsider some of this and come back and have a *conversation* with us. You just might learn something from some of us "non-followers" as you put it.

I will have to admit that some of
these last post have merit. I am
guilty of what was posted.

Forgive my catholic pridefulness.
I got too personal.
There was no excuse for
counter & attack that day.
Up to that last post it didn't seem
like discussion, it seemed like
counter and prove her wrong.
I am going to confession for my
pridefulness. If you are all not
mad at me I would want to hear why
you feel the church is fallible.

Morbul. I am so sorry. You seem
open and seem to have keen intellect.
I would appreciate your view.
That Mental M-word did make me think.

We're not mad at you, sister. You think 3000+ members strolling through here hasn't produced a little pride now and then? =)
Everybody does something stupid sometime (I seem to do something stupid at least once an hour...)
If you're up to the task, stick around. You'll be challenged for sure, but most honest people find those challenges make them better, stronger, more thoughful -- regardless the topic. Heed Bugs' advice and you'll make a great addition to this place and a stronger evangelist for your faith.
Welcome back.

Speaking of doing something stupid from time to time, that is pretty much my basis for church fallibility. To put it basically, churches (regardless the faith) are made of people. People, all people, fail, err or sin from time to time (some more often or more costly than others.) Furthermore, people put into power positions often find it difficult to resist the temptations of that power. Nobody on earth -- not even the pope, the preacher in the local church, the rabbi down the street or the Dalai Lama -- is beyond that so-evident human ability to fail.

I suppose one could say that the holy spirit, the chicken gods, or whatever else some religion might call upon, infuses the leader with infallible wisdom at the instant of 'important decisions', leaving the church doctrine perfect, while the rest of the leader's life is still open to failure. From what Bugs said earlier, that may be close to the Roman Catholic position, yes? I'm unfamiliar with the nuances, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

There are too many times in our history where the religious leaders of all sorts have failed, even at the moment of deciding doctrine, for me to believe that. It is not fair to blame all failures on human error and all rights on an omnipotent, all-knowing, infallible spirit.

But, let's take for a moment that this is so. Let us say, for this moment, that all errors, even in church doctrine, are human faults, while all correct things are the responsibility of a holy spirit. Still, even then, that leaves to human beings the opportunity to fail in deciding which of those supposed doctrines are correct and which is the failure of human judgement.

Since we have no way whatsoever of deciding which are the words and actions of a holy spirit and which are the words and actions of a fallible human, we must devise a different plan for deciding policy. A democratic rule, based upon knowledge gained from the useful application of the scientific method seems to me to be the best sort of way to run a society of any sort, religious or otherwise.

One might counter, then, that if humans can fail, most certainly they can fail in deducing what knowledge comes from this scientific method -- and they'd be absolutely correct. The key thing with the scientific method, though, is that it has built in security features for this sort of thing. Built into the method is the opportunity for peer reviews, multiple trials of an experiment, and theory. Evolution, electomagnetic fields, even gravity -- well known and studied for hundreds of years -- are all still theories that can be changed should better evidence be found. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is considered 'sacred', to the point of irrefutability. The plan, then, is to act in the best way we know how today, while leaving open the opportunity that tomorrow we might find a better way.

The downfall of this method is it immediately destroys any sort of notion that we may be acting perfectly already...that's kinda tough on the ego.

I don't think this disagrees with a spirituality at all. It may disagree with the Bible, the Koran, or any other man-written religious text one could think of, but it does not disagree with the notion that there is a higher power of some sort or another. God (or whatever one wants to call this higher power), it is said, created people. Most every religion, most every culture has a creation theory of some sort, yes? So, that creater gave humans a brain with logic; a brain that is capible of deduction and extrapolation; a brain that is capable of thinking beyond the immediate survival needs of air, food, water.
Furthermore, that god gave us senses with which we may experience, test, and learn from the world around us.

I ask then, why would that capability for logic, and those senses exist if not for us to use?

I hope that my rather long-winded post expained a bit of the perspective from which I am coming. Any more questions, just ask.

That was impressive, Mobrul. Excellent post.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Mobrul,

Thanks for your sweet forgiveness.

In reading your post I was thinking that it sounds like new age or maybe your into some scientlogy. Are u? I myself do believe that all creation out there, meaning the universe, stars, gravity, etc all work with us as humans in a harmony. I just don't know exactly how, but since it is all created for us, it has too.

I know all of us, even Pope John Paul fall short of the glory of God.
We are sinners and we will constantaly sin, since there is no perfection in us yet. And looking out thru history, especially in exodus, in the chosen people of God in wandering thru the desert for forty years tell us alot about us today as a people.
It prefigures in that they too fell in to sin, and they went thru all kinds of wars, battles to get to the promise land. And they had leadership and an intercessor, Moses. Thur Moses God spoke to his people and reprimanded them. Why did he need Moses since he could speak individually to them in mind and spirit?

Then again you might not agree in this history in your way of believing, since you beleive in a higher conscienceness theory.

But throughout all of Christian history and history in general, even in a democracy, it has a head or leadership. England's house of Commons has Tony Blair. The United States governing body has George W. Bush. Look when Bill C*****n was in office and the scandal he was in. In the office that he held, he was with fault as a human person. But in the honorable seat as Supreme head of the US, it still held the highest honor and when BC was acting in the positon as Commander in Chief, I respected him in that sense, not in the sense as a human person with dignity. Just in the office that he held because it had dignity. Every person that fills that postion in the future will have that same honor. In the spirit of pride in our patriotism and the constitution that American stands, why can't we accept the same from the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ if thats the way he choses to send it to us. Through a governing body of a lead bishop along with archbishops, and cardinals. Being that they themselves are human but their offices being guided by the holy spirit.

Plus who would start your concept and how would one go about determining & goverinng it.

I know we are growing as a people, spiritually and intellectually.
But we don't even have the full use of the capacity of our brain scientifically speaking. We only use a small percentage of it. (Correct me if I am wrong). We only have a limited amout of intelligence and logic and I wonder why this is? Why did the Creator not give us full use of our brain? I know some humans are endowed with high IQ and other brains can perform inexplicable actions with power of the mind. But why not all of us?

I admit I have not yet read Mobrul's long post nor Jade's reply, just wanted to hit this real quick -

quote:

---

I would want to hear why
you feel the church is fallible.

---

How could it possibly be anything *but* fallible? Regardless what scripture or other ideas there may be to support your belief that the church should be in the form of the catholic church, it is still created by people. People are inherently fallible, and so is anything they create - with or without 'divine influence'.

People are prideful, self serving, arrogant, greedy, and many other things even though the bible may tell them not to be. It's the way things work.

And of course, for me, it seems plain as day that an institution developed around humanitarian and charitable acts yet having their vast - and vastly expensive to build - churches filled with gold, stained glass, marble, and other pointlessly expensive objects and icons (St. Francis must be rolling in his grave) must be particularly fallible.

Wonder what in your life you consider infallible, since there can be no truth in humanity humanly speaking according to your view.
And would that be also in regard to the humanity of Christ in his lifespan on the planet earth.

I don't see that *anything* is infallible.

It just doesn't make sense for anything to be infallible. There are *no* gaurantees!

And yes, since I don't believe there is a god, that would mean that Jesus could not possibly have been the son of god. And of course, like anyone else, Jesus was himself open to human temptation, failure, and all of our other possibilities.

Even were there actually a god, there is nothing whatsoever to say that he/it would be infallible. Except perhaps his own words, if you follow christian doctrine. Which, I'm sorry, isn't good enough for me.

=)


!#REF


{edit - ooh, I just noticed the particular wording - truth in humanity... I'm not sure I follow that?

And I would most definately be interested in your thoughts in the last statement in my previous post...}





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-22-2003).]

just fyi - the reason it took 40 years was, according to theologians, so that only those born in freedom, not slavery, would reach the promised land. according to your proposition that we are all sinners, they were therefore normal in their sinning during the 40 years... the golden cow etc.

DL

Your right to say that there is lots of falliblities in the the mother church & throughout all of history it has been in humanity. There was some popes who had affairs, fathered children, and some had concubines. The were some mistakes made in the growing of the church as a family. There were lots of schisms against us and wars fought and deaths in the thousands all in the name of Christianity. Was it Charles the Great who killed thousands of barbarians who would not be baptized in the Catholic faith? I would not say this was right to do. It was wrong. Even Paul the evangelizer killed Christians in the thousands b-4 his conversion. There are still schisms, adverisity, scandals in the church today. But as a body of believers in faith we look beyond human error, we look up to the sky. We look for the spirit that still guide us. And the faith remains strong, sometimes alittle shaken, but stronger.

In ref to the riches of the church. I will only say in regard to Rome who has the
worlds most priceless artwork, that it is all legacy of Christians. All Christians.
Its a holding for the people. It belongs to us. Its just in safekeekping. The church would never sell it. Its part of Christian history. Could we ever sell the Pieta, the shourd of Turin, the tomb of Peter. Could we ever sell the cross that jesus died on, the nails he was crucified with, the "Jesus, King of the Jews" sign that was on top of the cross, the lance that pierce his side, and some of the thorns that pierced his head. I read somewhere that we also have the veil that Veronica wiped Jesus face with on the way to calvery, and his last robe also.

I know in the early days of the Papacy it was filled with riches and oppulance and because of St. Francis humility it humbled the existing Pope in his time and the view in the way of the grandure of the papacy changed.

Check out Brother Sun, Sister Moon about St. Francis. Good video. I know your not into God but its about the papacy too and that could interest you.

You know not all people are how you describe. I know you have best friends.
Don't you trust in your friendship with them. Is their truth in friendship, that you know you can count on this person(s) until you die?



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-23-2003).]

Well, I know one can get a negative view from what I've said about humanity, but I really don't view things a negative way.

Fallibility does not mean that people aren't good. It just means that they're not perfect and there is absolutely nothing that is gauranteed - nothing is infallible.

Yes, I have people that I have great trust in...that's not really the issue here. There's a *huge* dffernce between having trust in individuals with whom you have a personal relationship with and having trust and faith in a hierarchal organization who claims to speak for god.

.

Regarding the Roman artifacts - well certainly, relics pertaining to the history of the religion are things to be kept. But they are also not things on which kingly fortunes have been spent commissioning and purchasing and building. Those are the things I refer to - statues of marble, gigantic doors of gold, huge elaborate vaulted buildings, gold statues of St Francis (oh the irony hurts on that one...), and so on.

Now, I may be wrong here, as I haven't read much from the bible in quite some time now, but isn't the kind of grandiose and materialistic building and furnishing of churches something that jesus himself spoke against?

Isn't the worshipping if icons somehting that is spoken against in many parts of the bible? Doesn't the over use of the crucifix fall into that category?

DL's point is a good one, not that people can't be good but they also can't be infallible. i have some very close friends who i'd trust with my life, but that doesn't mean they haven't dissapointed me or screwed up in some way before.

jade, i'll agree that God could if he so chose create an infallible person, he did so in jesus. i don't see any evidence that he did so in peter or any of the other popes.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

New age? Like crystals and candles? No. The smell of patchoulli (sp?) insence makes me angry, and I much prefer my steel-toed boots to any wussy hemp sandles.
Scientology? Don't really know what it's all about except there's a scientology temple here in town that's always sending out swarms of their followers to give me coupons for free psychology testing. If I share anything in common with them it is only coincidence.

I have no idea why the story of Moses exists. I suppose it could have happened just like it is written. It is also so that it could be total allegory, written by someone in 400AD to spread Christianity. I'm more inclined to believe that there is some truth to it (like most legends) but over the thousands of years it has become mostly fable, a story meant to show a moral or ethical lesson. As it stands today, I don't know what that lesson is.

The truth is, I'm relatively sure there's a higher power of some sort, but I'm not too terribly interested. I am doing the best I can do in this life (it may be my only one, who knows?) I'll face the next life whenever it comes, if at all.

At the same time, I don't get all worked up over who or how other people worship. If you want to put all your faith in the pope and the catholic church, you're not hurting me. Do it. I'd love to learn more about the things in which you believe, but at the end of the day the rituals that make you comfortable affect me neither positively nor negatively.

And, as for your question about who is going to start this sort of society of which I speak -- it was started hundreds of years ago. The society I described, a democratic society based upon the scientific method, is known as Liberalism (that would be Liberal -- big L -- like Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Rousseau, Proudhon, J.S. Mill, Bakunin, Godwin, Kropotkin, Green; not liberal -- little l -- like Kennedy, C*****n (sic), or FDR). There are lots of 'flavors' of Liberalism, but they all operate under the general principle that each person has inalienable rights and that those people enter into various social agreements based on knowledge and rational thought.

Age of Reason, eh?

It's a goal, come on. We gotta aim at something...

I love patchouli. It takes me back to my hippie days in the 70s. I use to wear it & still buy patchouli soap.

Icons & Statues. I don't know if you guys ever really understood why the church believers venerate these articles. But I will clear up a misconception if you have as best as I can.

We do not worship statues. Worship is for the creator alone.
In the veneration of them, some we emulate and others are reminders. In the case of the crucifix. I know you see crosses everywhere, around necks, above steeples, cemeteries and in church, etc. Inside the cathoic church you see a image of the body of christ hanging with the nails, crown of thorns, blood and his face in agony. We are reminded of the sacrifice in a more realistic way. In that the death he suffered & died for was real for us to see and know. We also are called to imitate Christ in a self sacrificing way. Die to self too. Die for others. In that when you die to self you humble yourself as he did & begin to live for him. So it is a reminder and an emulating. Its not in the same concept as a golden calf.

How come we go to see large statues of men of honor like the Lincoln, Mt. Rushmore, etc.? Why are large statues erected for a hero, a painting, a bust. People travel mils to see these. We are erecting them to show pride and honor for a good that they have done. Look at the Statue of Liberty. Do Americans worship it? Or does it represent freedom. What about living icons like Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, etc. Would we want to have what they have? Be a great athlete and a genius. I would think lots of people would. I am sure there is a lot of Tiger Wood wanabes out there. So in society today there is lots of emulating and also misguided worshiping of living icons and for that matter dead ones like "Elvis" for instance.

Do you guys have pictures of your wives and children in your office or wallet? Why? Isn't it reminders of the people you love that they are close to you. What about your home?
I am sure you have pictures of people you know or love.

In the spritual faithful way the church believers also look at past heros of the faith in regard to saints in the same way.
St. Peter, St Theresa, St. John the Apostle, St. Joseph and of course the Mother of Christ but in a different way. We believe they all direct us to Christ in that they were faithful Chistians and did his will.

Fig,

I see your from Houston. Not that I am going to look for you, but what part of Houston do you live at. I am in southeast near I-45. There is this big non-denomiational church called Sagemont. Huge place. Or have you went to Lakewood Oasis b-4. Huge place too.

In response to Moburls Liberalism idea. Are you for real on this? I know Liberal extermists exist today, but I don't understand how it could be considered an adopted form of democracy as a whole ever. It veers on the edge of Godlessness to me. Forgive my ignornace of how science plays into this idea. Are you talking about social & behavorial sciences??? Gravity?? Can you give me a specific. I am not educated on the Big L.

Lets say, you want to have sexual relations with your best friends spouse. Morally speaking according to spiritual law its wrong. Liberally speaking your at liberty to do so. If its lustful desire, or real love your making your own judgement call. So in this concept you never commit sin since you answer to no one when you choose to do the deed. (I know religious people sin in this way also and they would feel remorse maybe or go to confession or see their minister.) How do you rationalize if its wrong or right scientifically speaking?

Well, I can give an answer (butts in)...

Because one can expect consequences of ones actions. Pure and simple. And in cases like you mentioned, where strong emotion is involved, the consequences can be unpredictable, and dangerous. Also, one is part of a society, and society has rules, both written and unwritten. When these rules are broken, there are consequences, as well. Also, if one is living by a case of personal rules, then one needs to be true to oneself. One thing to consider, in the case that you outlined...it takes two to tango. If both are willing, and are ready to accept the consequences, both on a personal and societal level, well, that's life. That is one of the reasons there is divorce.

Well, I think the more simple answer is this - you don't need a minister or a pope or a church, or even a book, to tell you what is right or wrong.

And on the same note, just because that minister/pope/chruch/book *says* it's right or wrong, doesn't make it so.

(and also on that same note, just because you feel remorse, go to confession, or talk to your minister after the fact doesn't make it 'ok', especially since your aforementioned religious apparatus tells you before hand that it is wrong)





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-27-2003).]

Jade, you are confusing the big-L Liberal with the little-L liberal.

Big-L Liberalism is a grand (and by that I mean big, long studied and examined) political theory that has been written about by political philosophers for hundreds of years. These theories were the basis for our founding fathers' political thoughts. Some of the words in the Declaration of Independence were taken directly (or very slightly modified) from some of the authors I mentioned above...especially Locke and Hobbes. That political theory (as I said above, there are many different theories of Liberalism, and some of them differ in some very significant ways, but, they do have some base things in common) holds in high esteem a few things:
1) trust in the scientific method for knowledge
2) the rights of the individual
3) the responsibility of the individual to act in a rational manner
4) as small a government as possible that will still protect the whole
5) tolerance of the differences that this personal liberty and responsibility allow
Though elements of Big-L Liberalism have been around since ancient Greece, a full theory didn't evolve until around 1600 with the writings of Thomas Hobbes.
Big-L Liberalism has little to do today with the modern notion of little-l liberal.

In Big-L Liberalism, the concept of morality doesn't really come into play. The concept of law is much much bigger. Law is an agreement between people -- I won't kill you, you don't kill me. Now, we can both focus on getting work done without constantly looking over our shoulder. It is rational that we'd agree to that.

In your instance of the sexual affair with your friend's spouse, it is (in most places) not against the law to do that. But law is just one factor. A Big-L Liberal person also must be rational. Is this affair in my best interest, not only in the short-term (the 30 minute pleasure) but in the long term too (losing my friend and perhaps having my good name gone when he finds out)? More than likely, the answer to that question is going to be no. The point is, though, that it relies on knowledgable people acting rationally, and natural consequences for bad behavior. If I sleep with my friend's wife, it will destroy a handful of relationships about which I care deeply, my reputation will be gone, and I might get a disease. Natural consequences.

Big-L Liberalism isn't against a god, or religion, but it does say the government doesn't belong anywhere near that discussion. It also says that people should respect those differences in other people...you have the right to swing your fist, right until the point it hits my nose. If your religion doesn't involve burning my cat or throwing rocks at my house, I am to totally respect it, and you mine.

That's what Big-L Liberalism is all about. Please realize I'm trying to stuff some 400 years of political theory into 4 or 5 paragraphs. I probably missed some details, but the base is there. If you really want to know more, your best bet is to read some of the authors I've mentioned in the post above. Start with Thomas Jefferson and then move to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

(and now to bring us back on topic...)
I believe strongly in Big-L Liberalism as a way to organize societies. I see the top heavy hierarchy of the Catholic Church to be oppressive of knowledge (with few exeptions). I see the insistance on literal interpretations of the bible to be silly and naive. I find the notion that you must communicate with god through a priest appalling. I find the pope insisting his word is infallible arrogant.
That being said, it hurts me absolutely none for you to worship as you wish, take communion how you wish, confess to a priest, or any of the other Roman Catholic rituals in which you have found comfort. Therefore I absolutely support and would even fight for your right to worship as part of the Roman Catholic church. For, if someone could force you to worship against your will, then someone could do it to me too.

MB

Your blowing me out of the water. It would never work.
And if it were too, you and I would be long ago dead.

Knowledgable people would be guilty of irrationalizing too. Science cannot dictate humanism. The heart & soul of a person does.

This system would have a lot of holes in it. For one thing when rationalizing about having an affair for instance, human nature rules. Unless you have a will of steel like superman. Should I or shouldn't I. In my experiences of life usually persons who are not affilliated with any kind of spiritual faith would be likely to live a more permiscous life or lets say go against the grain and are usually the most unhappy.

What about the unknowledgable persons who cannot rationlize and do stupid things? Who would rationalize for them? The rational person with the backing of scientific theory proven? It still all goes back to authoritiy in that someone is going to impose their will on someone else.

Wouldn't work? Are you serious?
The entire Constitution, most (if not all) the writings of the founding fathers of our country, the very basis of the government in which we live is this Liberalism.
I'm not saying we apply it always in the best ways, but this is what this democracy is all about.

This is what Thomas Jefferson was writing about when he wrote in the Declaration of Independance:

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed -- that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

---

I'm not going to write the whole damn thing, go read it.

But I do want to draw your attention to some key phrases:

"All men are created equal, that they are endowed...with certain unalianable rights"
That would be all men, not just the strong, or the smart or the rich or the king or the godly.

"to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Why do governments exist? "...to secure these rights", the unalienable ones mentioned above. Not to make someone money, or because the king said so, or for god, or for any other reason.

With what authority do these governments exist? they derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed." Governments do not get their power from the 'barrel of a gun' or from their lineage, or from god. The get their power from the consent of the governed. We, the citizens, openly agree to give up some of our liberty (the liberty to go kill our neighbor and take his stuff) in exchange for a safer place (our neighbor won't kill us and take our stuff.) We don't agree to this because it is moral, or ethical; we agree to this because it is in our best interest...a rational decision, based on logic.

Next stop, the constitution, the basis for our government. Why was our governement created? It was created for very specific and clearly outligned reasons:

quote:

---

...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

---

More of the same -- our government was founded only for the benefit of the governed. We all agree that it makes sense (rationally, logically) that we can't provide for our common defense seperately and still grow our crops, raise our pigs or program our computers. We make a decision, a pact among us, that some of us will be soldiers while the others of us grow food. The soldiers will protect us the food growers (or whatever we do) and in return we will feed the soldiers (with our taxes.)
In contrast, the army (according to the Constitution) should not be used to further the aims of the king, it should not be used to convert people for a god. It exists for the individual citizens' protections and that is all.

What am I trying to say? The entire basis of the system of democracy in which we live is this Liberalism. It is a government set up with maximum freedom for the individual, and solely for the benefit of each individual (and nothing more), as a rational pact among individuals (law) for each of us to live more productive lives. It's not instituted perfectly, and these days it seems less and less so, but this 'impossible' Liberalism is the 'great experiment' of our nation!

Really, truly, I encourage you to go read Thomas Jefferson. Read Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau. Those are the writings upon which our country's entire political system is based. It amazes me that people can get a high school education in this country and have never heard of Locke or Hobbes; can get a high school education and still have no idea what it's all about.

Most of their writings can be found on line. Please, please, please go read them. People who have no idea the foundation on which our political philosophy is built can not possibly participate adequately. Knowledge is key.

jade, i'm prob closer to you than you think, as weird as that is. i know of sagemont and i've been to lakewood, but i go to grace community (the new building being built at 45 and beltway there is ours).

chris


KAIROSinteractive

As usual, I am in complete agreement with Mobrul.

Jade - you say these concepts that Mobrul speaks of "wouldn't work" and yet, as he makes clear in his last post, they are the concepts of how our american society is run. Obviously, things are corrupt in our governmental systems, but the same can be said for any group of people anywhere.

As a counter point, however, I think it becomes eveident when catholic priests are molesting and raping children and teenagers, that the catholic heirarchy does not work.

You can say all you want about it being the 'exception' and no the rule, but the fact is that it has happened over a long period of time in a relatively widespread pattern and was covered and hidden and ignored by the church heirarchy rather than being dealt with in the quick, decisive, harsh terms that it should have been.

Amen, DL. And Morbul, nice post.

Fig.

I pass by that building all the time. Its been under construction for a long while. Its going to be a huge church. Isn't that the same sect where those two astronauts that died belonged to? I live directly on the other side of I-45 nearer to Pearland. You must live around Clear Lake or out that way.

DL-44
Why do you want to dog me about that priest sex abuse thing again? I thought I already explained it. It happened. It was horrible. It should of never been covered. Not all catholic heirarchy is guilty, just a few. It doesn't represent what the church is as a whole. The CC is a world wide family of believers.

Did it happen in Austrialia or S. America or Germany or Rome for that matter? Are you judging a people in the billions on the sins of a select few? Plus all denominations at some time or another have persons who are guilty of horrible acts too. This came to light in the media and it was a good thing, but it also was overblown in coveage in the prime time news stations for ratings. For what the CC is in the world today more is expected of it. It was a crisis in the CC but we eliminated an evil and learned from it. Most Catholics understand & think this way.

In general what about incest in the family, or sexual abuse of the common person who is not a religious. I would agree this sin of the priest is greater for what he represents. But he is a human person first like you and me. He has all the feelings and senses and thoughts probably of sex like any other ordinary person. He doesn't have any magic powder that makes him more holier than us. He is accountable too. He himself goes to confession. I would venture to say that some hide in the priesthood or use it for their personal gain or aim. And they are not sincere in their call. Hard to believe that you on the outside looking in that there are truly thousands of good priest out there.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-27-2003).]

quote:

---

it also was overblown in coveage in the prime time news stations for ratings

---

This latest bout perhaps.

But these things have been going on - as I said - for a very long time. This isn't a recent ermegence.

I recall hearing about it in the 70's, though it didn't garner much attention at that time. It's something that I have been aware most of my life, which is why I have such a hard time understading how it was so unknown and was so easily swept under the rug.

But that aside, it was simply an example. You stated that the concept of democracy wouldn't work, as there is no moral leadership to keepthings on the right track.

I'm simply pointing out one example of how the presence of a so called morality doesn't realistically function that way.

I really don't mean to dominate this thread (though it seems I'm doing a good job...)

In the instance of the child abuse (not meaning to harp here, there have been several other instances of power abuse in the catholic church and in a democratic society) the general society, the people, have come to an agreement that sexual abuse is not in the best interests of society. Because of that, we build a criminal system whereby abusers suffer discomfort (prison), to persuade them to not abuse and a system of science (medicine and psychology) to learn how to keep them from abusing again.

The matter is not whether or not bad things, sins, whatever you want to call them, happen. I stated WAY up there ^^^ that people, all people, fail, err, sin in some way or another. The matter is 'what is the society going to do about that failure?' Until very recently, I think DL is correct that the hierarchy of the church as a whole made a decision that goes against the voice of the people. The Roman Catholic church is not alone in its sins (nor is this particular sin rampant through the whole church), but when that sin, that failure, occured, the church (represented by it's bishops and priests) valued its pride and reputation over the well-being of the child.

This phenomonon is not special to the Catholic church, it is featured in all those societies where power remains unchecked, where power is not in the hands of the people -- large corporations, certain aspects of our own government, tyranical governments, etc.

You are correct that recently the church seems to have addressed this issue, how effectively we will not know for a while. This is, in fact, another argument for the power of Liberalism. It wasn't the hierarchy of the church or the voice of god, but the rising protest of informed citizens that finally forced the church's hand.
The people spoke.

You know mobrul, it seems like your so passionate about your political philosophy. It seems you have made Liberalism your religion.

You know for most people politics doesn't rule. No matter how educated we are or how many degees we have or even if some of us didn't finish high school or have the opportunity to go to school most of us understand the concept of American liberty. But I don't feel when we are dying will we be concerend with American rights when we are on our death bed. We will be thinking if we were a good person in that we loved and were loved. To me life is all about love, not rights.

From all that I have read from your postings I gather that you only believe in only what you can see & prove, not on what you can't see.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-27-2003).]

Mobrul - Really nice posts, there. I just finished this entire thread and really enjoyed reading your posts.

DL - Love watching you stir the pot. Not that you intend to cause an argument, just that you rarely let people get away with anything.

Jade - You complain about people continuing to bring up the sex abuse problems the CC has had/is having/will have(?), but you have to understand that, to an outsider, every practitioner of a religion is a representative of that religion. They show others what sort of people attend that church. You are an example, but then so are the priests and higher-ups who treated the Church like some perverse child-swapping club. I hold religious officials to a higher standard than the average person, as they're the ones pushing all the rules we're supposed to follow. When they disregard them (while still insisting upon them for the rest of us), it casts such a dark shadow across their entire organization that it takes a heck of a lot of ordinary, good members to make up for it.

I, for one, have nothing against religious-types (and that includes followers of the Catholic Church), but I refuse to let the hypocrisy of their officials fall by the wayside when discussing them.



Evil in theory, not so much in practice...

Wangenstine

Your generalizing & your also guilty of judging the behavior of billions on a select few. Thats like saying if a father is sexually abusing his own child so are all his brothers abusing their own children as well.

I'm still waiting to see an answer to the questions about the angels:

quote:

---

WebShaman: I have a question, concerning the creation of Angels, and the war of the heavens (before the creation of Mankind). What exactly happened, and where is it explained? Do Angels have free will? And exactly what are Angels?

---

quote:

---

Thats like saying if a father is sexually abusing his own child so are all his brothers abusing their own children as well

---

No, not at all.

However, if a father sexually abuses his child, and his brothers tell the child to keep their mouth shut, and then help the father move to a different town so he can molest other people's children, and make sure nobody finds out about it, then the brothers are just as guilty as the father.

=)

I find it funny that you condemn mobrul for believeing so passionately in his philosophy, saying that it won't be what he thinks about on his death bed...yet you do exactly the same.

You just call your philosophy "religion" and proclaim it to be the only acceptable one.

He, on the other hand, reserves plenty of room for your philosophy to exist along with his...

I also look at the worth of my life based on the good that I have done, but I don't require papal approval for the judgement of my deeds.

I also must stress once again, that someone going to confession - while it may satisfy the church - is not absolved of the personal responsibility of his actions.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-27-2003).]

DL

If your basing your opinions and thats all they are on a select few, that means you have tunnel vision. You can't see beyond the perimeters. You select to see what you want to see because your bias keeps you there.

I was not critizing morbrul, (plus I am sure he can speak for himself). I was merely saying its seemed that his liberalism was his passion.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-27-2003).]

quote:

---

Your generalizing & your also guilty of judging the behavior of billions on a select few.

---

Okay, then by your own logic, I'm assuming you leave your keys in your unlocked car and don't lock your doors at night. After all, to do so to avoid theft or assault, you would be guilty of judging the behavior of billions on a select few.

So you see, generalizing isn't always the terrible thing you make it out to be...

I try to give individuals (for example, you) the benefit of the doubt, but I reserve the right to be suspicious of organizations, in whose shadowy depths humanity's worst impulses usually end up with free reign.

BTW, Jade keeps claiming 'billions', but is that accurate? Is there a tally of the numbers of Catholics (and other religions, actually)?

[Edit: can't type today]

[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 03-27-2003).]

Wangenstine

I don't understand how your point of logic applies to sexaul abuse here??? Please enlighten me.

Your right. I stand corrected. Its a billion and something not billions.

Jade - You seem to ride a roller coaster of intellect, I swear.

Wangenstein was merely pointing out that you probably lock your doors and do reasonable things to protect yourself from theft even though you know that not everyone steals. You are judging/generalizing against the whole because you can't separate the good from the bad at a glance (the flip side of "You can't judge a book by it's cover").

Just as you don't know who steals and who doesn't, and therefore protect yourself from the possibility, we can't distinguish between those of the cloth who do or don't abuse children. We have to be careful in establishing our trust in those of the cloth now because of the actions of a few of them until they have proven themselves to be worthy of that trust.

{EDIT}TYPO{/EDIT}
{EDIT2}Wangenstein, here is a link that ranks by volume (people, not loudmouths) some of the major religions.{/EDIT2}

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 03-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 03-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 03-27-2003).]

On the inside that logic doesnt apply. On the outside looking in I would guess it would be for most. Most Catholics feel priest don't have to prove themselves after the scandal. We pray for them constantly for God to give them strength.

Let me just say *again* that the priest/molestation issue was simply an EXAMPLE.

Since you seem to want to latch onto that one issue though, I feel the need to continue explaining my end of it as well.

quote:

---

Catholics feel priest don't have to prove themselves

---

And that is *precisely* why these things have been allowed to happen. And that is why these things have been allowed to be covered up. And that is why these priests are still priests after such wretched behaviour.

I'll take this a step further actually, and say that not only is the order itself to blame, so is much of the congregation.

These are the types of things that blind faith allows to happen.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-28-2003).]

DL

I know you want to continue to be thorn on my side,
but it doesn't hurt me and I know you wouldn't worry
anyway.

You brought up the subject again.

Plus liberalism & catholicism will always butt heads.
If we are talking about rights here. What about the right
to be born?

Jade, please understand that DL is trying to have a conversation with you. He's a thorn in *everyone's* side around here and that is why we love him so much. Don't interpret his honesty as an attack. Just try to stick to the facts of the discussion. I'm not seeing that you are really considering his points and that is why your replies seem to avoid what he's saying. I, for one, would learn far more about your Church and your faith in it by hearing you respond directly to his questions and opinions.

I have so much more to say and so little time today.

heh.

ok then.

Officially done with this conversation. I have tried many times to actually get answers of some sort from you, and to figure out what drives your beliefs.

I can see, as I pointed out before, that you are either unable or unwilling to answer the questions and statements I put forth.

I'm not surprised, but you assured of the catholic faith's encouragement of inquisitiveness, so I asked away.

Apparently that inquisitiveness is very limited in scope - as you demonstrate very well.

As I said, blind faith is what allows such travesty to happen. I hope to hell you're comfortable with that.

jamie: hopefully, you awknowledge that the (far too numerous, even if there are only a few) lowlifes in high position in the catholic religion are poor representatives of their faith - by both giving the faith a bad name, and doing a terrible job of portraying how a follower should act.

perhaps this could be applied on a much smaller scale to other representatives of this religion.



not trying to give praise to this particular brand of christianity, just trying to give it a chance - so few people seem to want to do that. (by this, i mean the advocates, not the cynics)

edit: oh, and a message for
jade: next time you enter into a debate on such topics, i encourage you to consider this:
you are wrong, you are close-minded, you are ignorant - in the eyes of your opponent. There is nothing wrong with being firm in your beliefs, but you must concede that these beliefs are not shared by those you talk with. Moreover, you cannot simply give them your beliefs, and assume this will suffice, for from their perspective, your ignorance and close-mindedness remain.

to have any chance of convincing them in the merit of your beliefs, you must convince them that you respect their views, have listened to and considered their argument, and are providing a well-educated, yet personal response.




[This message has been edited by reitsma (edited 03-28-2003).]

Bugs you really are something. Once, why couldn't you come to my defense. I wasn't serious anyway and you can love him all you want. I don't really think he wants my love anyway.

What haven't I answered considering his constant baggering. How can I change his atheistic beliefs. I am just presenting what catholics believe. If anyone wants to disagree, its their right. Do you seek delight in his way of thinking to rationlize God out of his life to me.

Well, the truth is that I an not the close-minded one around here in that I believe where God is, everything and anything is possible and that I don't need a rational or scientific approach to life to determine an idea. Science and religion do work together in a harmony only because God is the author of science. And I think no one can prove God isn't. Oh well, I am out for awhile to Florida.

Dang it, I really was looking forward to an explanation on the first war, angels, and the free will question.

*sigh*

Oh well, at least it's been a real eye-opener, concerning the Catholic faith...

Thanks to DL, Bugs, and Morbul for the very interesting posts. Sorry to see DL going...I was really interested in the answers to his questions, as well...

WE want Angels!

*starts chant*

Um, OK... I've stayed out of this thread on purpose, but I decided to give it a read today. It has been... disturbing, to say the least. What I am seeing is people just not connecting...

jade: some comments, if you don't mind.

quote:

---

Once, why couldn't you come to my defense.

---

You still see everything as an attack on you, don't you? Let me assure you, nobody here has attacked you. They have asked for the reasoning behind your faith, that is all. Although you may not yet realize what kind of place the Asylum is, people here don't usually let other people get away without backing up their statements.

You have said time and time again that you are "just presenting what catholics believe." Fine. Is this what you believe as well? If so, why do you hesitate to give rational reasons for your faith? While you may be loathe to quote Scripture here, I am not, and I think Paul's advice to the Thessalonians to "test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil" (I Thes. 5:21-22) is relevant here. What does this verse mean to you? To me, it means that we accept nothing at face value (no matter how many hundred of years of tradition it may bring with it), but test everything against the Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, rejecting that which fails the test and holding to that which passes.

Have you tested your faith? Have you tested everything that you hold dear? If so, why are you hesitant to share with us what you have found? If not, how can you call this true faith?

You say that you "don't need a rational or scientific approach to life to determine an idea." What sort of approach would you consider the one that Paul advocates? It seems to me to be both rational and scientific.

quote:

---

How can I change his atheistic beliefs.

---

Forgive me, but this statement is wrong on so many levels. First of all, this "dicussion" is not about changing anyone's beliefs. The point is to have an open exchange of ideas, and I don't understand why you are afraid to engage in such an exchange. True, the people here tend to play hardball, but if you are genuine and sincere you will grow from the experience. My faith has been challenged many times in this very forum. By that I don't mean that someone has attacked me, but that what people have said has made me think long and hard about what exactly I believe and why. And I am very grateful to everyone here for giving me the opportunity to grow.

Secondly, who said you were supposed to change anyone's beliefs? You know your Bible--who is it that moves the hearts of men? There is nothing that we can do or say to "convert" anyone to Christianity unless the Holy Spirit works in their heart.

Thirdly, that statement is laced with defeatism. Since you have seen that DL is not one to be swayed by empty words, you automatically conclude that there is no hope for his soul, and thus you should not even bother answering his questions or explaining why you believe what you do. At the very least, that is not in keeping with the spirit of Christ.

I know that you will mostly likely take this as yet another attack on you, but it is not. If I have been abrupt and crude, I apologize, but this is a message of love from a brother in Christ. I hope you will accept it as such, and that you will be challenged to test your faith and come to a new understanding of your relationship with Christ.

To everyone else: Apologies for the intrustion and perhaps overly religious tone and content of this message. I just could not stay silent after reading through all of this.





www.liminality.org

suho, no need to apologize for adding your thoughts to an open discussion

Jade, I want to try to make clear that none of my abundant words yesterday was intended as an insult or attack upon you or your faith. If I have allowed for that impression, I offer to you my most sincere and humble apologies.

You asked me to describe my point of view (on infallibility, church hierarchy, etc).
I did.
The thread kinda shifted focus at that time, moving more toward an in-depth look at my thoughts on hierarchies, people failing at all sorts of things, and unchecked power. That's fine. As you so rightly noted, this is one of my passions, and one about which I feel very strongly.
But that part is over, I think. There is not much more that I can say that would do anything more than the original writers could do. Of course if you have any specific questions, I'd be more than happy to do my best to answer them.

Now, let's try to get back on topic, eh? To keep it simple, I'll ask but one question.

It is clear that different people have interpreted the bible to advocate at least 2 different ways of church governance. It's likely I'll get neither of these correct, but, for the sake of discussion, I'll attempt to outline each of the ones I've seen.
1) Protestant view - advocates small, decentralized churches operating relatively independantly, using the bible as a source of guidance.
2) Roman Catholic view - advocates a highly centralized church, with a fixed and rigid hierarchy from the local priest through the pope at the head of all the church.

Please help me understand (providing scripture, outlining deduction, or by whatever means you choose) why you believe option #2 is the prefered method for church governance.
Just as you are not well versed in Locke or Hobbes, I am not well versed in Christian theology. Please help me to understand.

quote:

---

Oh well, I am out for awhile to Florida.

---

I take it he won't be replying for awhile...if at all.

And Master Suho, nice post...though I must admit, it was a bit on the religious side...do you 'brothers' really talk like that to one another?

DL. I am never serious in my feedback to you or in anykind of attack. You playing the devils advocate serves a purpose. I would be depressed if you went away and I am not avoiding your questions. What haven't I answered?

Mbl

I understand your passion. I am passionate about my beliefs as well. I presume the view that I give is that I believe everyone should be Catholic. Its not the view I want to present. From the feedback I am getting I don't think anyone understands my total submission with out my reasoning. The reasoning has already been done by the church fathers and this involved great thinkers like the philosophers, St Agustine, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, just to name a few.

The approach of discussing scripture with you on points to me is not a good idea. For one thing I am not a bible only Christian & neither are you. I tend to view life's perspectives on how it blends in with my christian way of thinking and how it all fits together with all that my belief embodies. I often use scripture to express a point. But I don't think the concept of God was meant to be confined to a book.
To me God is in everything living and not living. I see God in the breath I take, the air I breathe, a beautiful sunset, a drop of rain, a babys soft cheek, a warm embrace, a kiss, a cold winter snuggle day but most of all in a persons smile. I see God in a people yesterday and today. In faith its like life is one big giant puzzle and everynow and then I find a piece that fits through experience and a revelation. I will never complete the puzzle but according to your words "we have to aim for something" In a way we are not so different.

In my theology class yesterday, believe it or not we are going to study The "isms", Revolutionary Thinking in Church History". I skimmed through it and read bits. It has nationalism, secularism, empiricism, rationalism with along with Rousseau and Ben Franklin, etc. Its not a big chapter, but I will read up b-4 on the web. So fate brings me to study your passion for a good grade.

Check you when I get back.

WS: Yup. That's my church voice. Pretty funky, huh?

I'm a tad disappointed that I didn't even get a nod of greeting, but oh well...

I nearly fell off my chair, WS! Thanks for that and yes we really do talk that way to each other LOL!!! Is it really so hard to believe we actually try to practice what we preach? I do think I understand how it must look from the outside though. If our roles were reversed I probably would have said the same thing. And remember, you're always more than welcome to join us

Hehe...thanks for the offer...I appreciate it. Been there, done that...no offense, of course. I just wasn't aware that you guys talked like that with each other...

No biggie...

And yes, I do expect you to 'walk it like you talk it'...anything else would be downright insulting, at this point. Good to see that this is true.

Heh, you think the way we talk is funny... you should see our secret handshake.

Mr Web, Not that it matters, but I am female.

Mr suho, so sorry I did not acknowlege you, but you must forgive me. I try. If you notice I stand alone in my beliefs on this thread. I ask for no help. The comment in regard to bugs is that I was being sarcastic. Do you actually believe he would come to my defense? And I am not on this thread to save DL's soul. I don't shy away from his questions either. As I have seen I have explained lots.

In your reference 1 Thess, 5. I believe Paul is speaking of the gifts of the spirit, (speaking in tounges, healing etc. ) to test them that they don't come from evil, but if you want to see the context in regard to me testing my faith, you can.

In reference to me as a person, I can say I am tested always. How can one not be in the world today. I've seen depression, despair, sickness, suffering and death. Ive have fell in a deep pit and and thought I would never climb out. I have sunk in self pity & met the evil one before and I most likely will in the future. Who knows?Through all these tribulations I am still committed to faith.

I am not lothed to use scripure passages, but I figure lots of posters are not bible literate or bible christians so I don't want to seem knowlegable in that they would not communicate with me.

Jade, you might be surprised at what I would agree with you on. In fact, I had planned on explaining to DL how your church views forgiveness, absolution, and penance but I was hoping you would do that since it's your church. But if you don't I'm going to

But just so we're clear, the main thing we do here is try to understand one another clearly. As far as saving DL's soul is concerned, just as long as I have made sure he has heard what I consider to be an accurate version of the gospel, I am quite content to leave that task to One far more qualified than me

There are so many subjects to cover in faith. Setting our divisions aside, you as a christian just like me can find so much common ground. I am connected to you as you are to me and everyone else in the world spritually. I do find much beauty in that.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-01-2003).]

Jade, now that

quote:

---

I am connected to you as you are to me and everyone else in the world spritually. I do find much beauty in that.

---

I can agree with...

But save DLs soul? Ummm...I don't think that is necessary. In fact, if most christians would concentrate more on saving their own soul, and not others, I believe the world would be a much more peaceful place. I'm sure that DL can take care of his own. At least, he's willing to do just that - and leave other peoples souls to themselves. If indeed God gave Mankind free will, he did it for a reason : so that every single person could decide, on their own, what to do with it. Personal choice...

He did indeed give us all free choice but that doesn't mean we stop caring for others in the process. I pray for all the people who don't know Christ because I want what's best for them. I totally understand that you don't believe there is any validity to our Christian beliefs but please understand our perspective too. Basically, our job is simply to love and care for people and make sure they understand our message. We then leave it up to the individual and God to work out the rest because it is a personal choice for every human being to make.

Yes, but in todays society, there is more than enough information available...one doesn't need to be 'reminded' of the fact...it's an intrusion on the free-will process. One has the free will to decide, if one wishes to be informed, or not...that should be respected, IMHO.

I understand what you are saying...and I have no problem with that. It is namely agressive informing (which is really a form of recruitment, actually) that disturbs me. And though one may (or may not, as the case may be) be actually concerned about the state of others, it is largely up to the individual (IMHO) to decide whether or not they wish this concern...glad that you feel the way you do, but remember - give freely, without expecting something in return - then one is never dissappointed (and it avoids problems). So, pray for whomever you wish (or whatever), but don't expect others to acknowledge it, I guess is what I'm saying.

Don't worry, my friend, I'm not giving up anytime soon

I do my best to follow strict "rules of engagement" around here, LOL! But you know where I stand and you know the door is always open... that goes for all my friends here and I think the other "brothers & sisters" would agree too.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-02-2003).]

jade: No, you do not stand alone. We may differ on some points, but we are still brother and sister, right? Don't take anything I said too hard, OK?

WS: Um, sorry about starting the whole thing about saving DL's soul... don't take that the wrong way. I meant that no human being has the right or responsibility to save DL's soul, or even judge whether or not it needs saving. As for saving our own souls, we can't do that either. That was the whole point, really...

My only question/statement is - what makes you think Bugs *wouldn't* come to your defense Jade?

You and bugs agree on far more things than he and I do.

But we get along just fine because we have both been open about our own beliefs and can respect each other based on that. So, it's not a matter whatsoever of how many people have the same beliefs as you...which is kinda the point everyone's been trying to get across here.

As to my questions...I don't really recall any being answered. But that's ok, it's what I expected in fact.

=)

{{edit - that's bizarre...suho's post didn't show before I posted, though it was hours earlier than mine...
hmm, my soul is becoming a hot commodity...where shall we start the bidding?? }}






[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-02-2003).]

$10 and a month of free car washes
(I'm not sure what I'd actually do with a soul...)

Suho. I don't take offense or take your post the wrong way. And thank you for acknowledging me as a sister in Christ.

DL: Your 15 minutes of fame will be up pretty soon.

ah, yep - there it is again. Replace any sort of response to anything I said with a disparaging comment.

Good show.

=)

Gosh!! I did not mean be disbaraging. But since you command attention from me, What? I have paid more attention to you than anyone else on this thread. I am seeing you are spoiled.

Mbl.

I wanted to ask you on your view of the abortion rights issue in the area of the potential life we are exterminating. I know we are focusing on the right of the women, but what about the right of the unborn who is defenseless?

What world are you living in jade?? Obviously not the real one....

quote:

---

Basically, our job is simply to love and care for people and make sure they understand our message. We then leave it up to the individual and God to work out the rest because it is a personal choice for every human being to make.

---

Bugs - This is all well and good on an individual basis, but I think the problem crops up when all the millions of individuals who feel likewise come to me to make sure I understand their message. They then leave it up to me and God to work out the rest... right about the time the next one is coming up the drive...

I see no other offers for DL's soul. $10 and a month of car washes then? Please arrange to have it shipped, C.O.D. to my post office box.

I believe that a woman should have full legal control over her reproductive capabilities. She should have free and legal access to all aspects of knowledge relating to sex and reproduction. Basic medical coverage should include maintaining a healthy reproductive system and the ability to prevent pregnancy, stop (abort) a pregnancy, or start a pregnancy (as best science can allow) at the will of the woman.
Contraception and abortion should be legal, safe, and voluntary.
A woman's decision to abort a fetus growing inside her should be the result of conversations between the woman, her doctor and her god, if she has one.

DL:
Obviouslly not in the same world you live in.


I think your dog needs to be let out, why don't you go take him for a walk. A long walk.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-02-2003).]

DL - Ha! That told you!


<crickets>

<crickets>

Mbl
But what about the dead baby?
Do you not consider it had rights?
Why at even later stages of pregnancy can we consider the slaugher of an innocent who cannot speak for itself? At what point does it become a
human person. It does feel pain in the womb.

Why if we kill it inside the womb it being perfectly legal and if a baby is born early and it is killed we consider it murder, like in that case where a teenage couple killed their baby and put it in a dumpster and got caught, went to trial and had to go to prison.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-02-2003).]

Bear with me here...as I just have a really hard time grasping something...

You keep telling me to ask away and you'll answer, but you haven't answered a *single* question I have asked you, nor responded to a single statement I have made (but you've found the time to insult me on several occasions..).

I just...don't get it.

Maybe I'll ask the dog. =)

Mobrul - it's all yours, but you've got to pick it up your self



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-03-2003).]

Wangenstein - the bigger problem is that the church as a whole (and i use the term generically for anyone considering themselves christian) doesn't understand how to share their faith and ends up just offending people 90% of the time. chances are you (again, the generic you) are not called to preach to the masses (tho a select few are imo) or even to those around you, you really can't expect people who don't believe in the same things you do to abide to the same code of conduct. if christians would simply live their lives the way they're supposed to, let people recognize something different in them (which, from personal experience, they do), then use the opportunities they get to share their faith the church could change the world...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Fig- Amen to that.

I would agree with Fig, Wangenstine and you too . Also add that to pray, hope and not worry about our neighbors salvation as much as our own. I shy away from pushy evangelist myself, but I respect them, even the door to door ones in their quest to spread their faith. My faith itself, does not push evangelization as much as they push prayer life.

Hey, wait! You can't close the bidding that quickly!

$10 and a month of free car washes? Forget that! I'll bid 20,000 won and a year's supply of kimchi!

Well said, Fig

Hmmm...I may have to revoke that decision Mobrul....what can you offer against 20,000 won and a year's supply of kimchi??

Well, I got my dreamcatcher here...and I promise to protect and nuture your spirit...what is that worth?

Well...it seems rather counterproductive to sell my soul in return for a nurtured spirit. The idea of selling one's soul is to get something much more tangible in return.

20,000 won = a bit less than $16, heh?
OK, I'll up to $20, but if you'd rather have dirty stinky cabbage than car washes I don't want you soul anyway...rotten to the core it must be.

Abortion -- This is a complicated matter best not left to my random ramblings. I'll compose something coherent and post soon, I promise. I want to give it the attention it deserves. Fair?

I would love a thread dedicated to that too I can't wait.

You'd like to see thread devoted to discussing abortion or the selling of DL's soul for rotted cabbage? =)

Here's the deal. Tomorrow (Friday, 4 April 2003) I go into surgery to have part of my knee replaced. I'll be 'out of commission' for at least the weekend and probably a couple days longer -- perfect time to compose my 'why, and in what situations, do I support the legality of abortion' post. I'll compose and, if nobody does it before I return, upon my return I'll start a new thread. We can continue the discussion from there.

Mbl

Will think of you & hope you recover ok.

Mob - Just remember to mark that knee with a big 'X', so they know which one to work on...

Excellent, mobrul... the coming thread that is. I hope your "medical procedure" goes well. How's that for a precursor?

Hmmm...why don't we start an official debate, on the Abortion issue? I think it would be a fabulous debate topic...along the lines of 'Abortion, pro or con?'

I am up for the pro side...

And we haven't had a formal debate now, for awhile...time to dust it off...

"dirty stinky cabbage"?! Aaahh! That cuts, mobrul!

And I'll have you know that there are many different kind of kimchi--not just cabbage.

Hmmm... OK, my latest offer: 30,000 won, a year's supply of kimchi, and a guest appearance in the fortune cookie.

*rubs hands together in glee*

Hey people! I know some things about angels. Before Noah's time, the angels saw the humans falling into sin. They asked God for permission to go "downstairs" and teach those "humans" about righteousness. God let the angels do that. Once the angels (Sons of God) went "downstairs" and took on human flesh (angels are spirits created by God which explains where they came from), they saw cute women walkin' around and "went in unto them" and that created the giants. Now you know where giants come from. Anyway, when the Lord looked down on the earth and saw what the angels had done, I'm sure he was furious. He decided to send a flood. God found Noah and his family and had them build an ark (the ark inspired people, a couple thousand years later, to build a boat exactly like the ark and the boat was called, you guessed it (whether you guessed or not), the boat was called the Titanic.) Anyway, during the flood, the Lord confronted those "faithful" angels, bound them, and put them, along with their chains in hell until Christ returns. Don't believe me? Get a Bible and look at Jude. I think it's verse five. In another verse, it also talks about Michael, God's angel, rebuking Satan in a dispute over Moses's body! WOW! Isn't that amazing? I would also like to recommend some material:

The book, (my favorite) is called, Paradise the Holy City and the Glory of the Throne by Elwood Scott. In the book, he talks about (I think) an angel telling him (Elwood) about his first visit to heaven. Amazing, isn't it?

Next, a video for $30.00! You have to call in order to get that great price! I hope the price hasn't changed. If you order the video online, it's $40.00 some dollars! Not bad, huh? Anyway, the video is called, Fallen Angels, Giants, and Evil Spirits. The video can be ordered, I think, from www.perrystone.org So, to close, I hope that I&#8217;ve enlightened you a bit on angels and also, I hope that you visit the website www.covenantkeepers.co.uk The site also has some info that Catholics wouldn&#8217;t like well at all. Like counting all the popes&#8217; numbers then adding them &#8220;miraculously&#8221; comes out as 666. Stuff like that. I&#8217;m only recommending looking at the archaeological discoveries. So, see y&#8217;all soon!

"amazing" doesn't even come close to how I would describe that.

Extra-biblical writings are interesting, of that there is no doubt. They are also very telling of the culture from which they emanated but conflating them with canonized scripture is simply irresponsible... IMHO.

[edit] sorry, I had a double post mishap again [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-15-2003).]