Topic awaiting preservation: Pope Denounces 'Imbalance' of Wealth ...

... while speaking at his summer palace. I wonder if as he spoke he realized how many people could be fed if he sold off his billion dollar art collection or his summer palace.

Pope Denounces 'Imbalance' of Wealth

gotta love irony.

I guess you can't expect anything different from teh head of such a hypocritical organization...

(Edited by DL-44 on 09-26-2004 20:38)

I don't think most non-catholics understand the system of the hierarchy of the church. Any art, etc has value only if its intends to be sold. It does not belong to anyone in particular. Its considered the legacy of the faith belonging to all Christians. Should we consider selling Michaelangelo's masterpiece "The Pieta" or should we sell the building housing the Sistine chapel? Why would we want to rid of our beautiful history in artwork and scatter it all over the world? It doesn't make sense.

The pope will die without owning property his whole life. All religious take a vow of proverty. Yes, the Vatican has the greatest artwork in the world but thats all it is. Besides, the largest contributing orgainization to the poor all over the world is Catholic Charities.

What about protestant pastors who have riches and mansions and own stock in the millions and arrive at their Sunday services in limos? Most televangelist pocket millions and that is contrary to scripture. RC priest are forbidden to own property and if they are willed any property or money or inherit, they cannont keep it. They must give it away or use it to feed the poor or use it for the ministry of the church. They die penniless and live on a very small income in their lifetime. Most retire to a homes for retired priest/nuns and their diocese pays for the home care through donations.

Pick on another denomination like the Rev Moon, who is one of the richest holy men in the world and owns all of UPI, real estate and tons of stock in major corporations in the world.

Better yet, all you who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, sell everthing you have and give it to charity. Live homeless and preach the good news of Jesus Christ. Live on faith. It will sustain you. Remember, before you start to remove the splinter from your brother's eye, remove the board from your own. Then maybe someone will take you serious.

Visit the Vatican sometime, Jade, and tell me that it isn't decadent.
Vows of poverty and arguements of ownership- pfft!

nice, jade.

i'm not Catholic, but i'm not a huge fan of religion-bashing either (at least, not by denomination ) ... mostly because that breeds too much ineffective contention.

that said, though, i think this global approach to erradicating poverty, while noble, is unrealistic. perhaps as true Christians we should be more focused on encouraging individual Christ-like behaviour... and letting the domino affect take over from there ...

--------------
"...cause it's a war between evil and it's a war between good ..."

How'd the saying about the camel, the needle and the rich man go again? Exactly.

^ Ouch! Good point!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Jade: the problem with what you are saying is theory vs. application.

The pope will die without having, technically speaking, owned the decadent riches that surround him. He will also die without having had to be financially responsible for the lavish lifestyle he enjoys.

The papal tiaras alone could feed a small country...

I agree wholeheartedly about the wrongs of many other religious figures.

What we're talking about here, however, is the blatant irony and hypocrisy of condemning the imbalance of wealth while speaking form your 'summer palace' which, if you ahve seen it, is quite splendid and lavishly decorated, as are all things associated with the RC heirarchy.

You need to take a closer look at what you so easily dismiss with convenient but unrealistic explanations. Vows of poverty mean very little when you live like a king on someone else's dime...

Your high horse is sinking in the mud Jade

Were any of the Saints rich?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Ok....
How do you want the supreme head of the global Catholic church to live? Would it satisfy it he lived in a one bedroom shack on the outskirts of Rome. Would he be able to correspond with his people from there? And have dignitaries from all over the world visit him there? Would that be ok? Since most non-Catholics have a problem with the pope's lifestyle, what would you all suggest?

What is not realized here is the honor, dignity & esteem of the Chair of Peter.

There are other hidden artifacts not seen by the public for centuries. They are secret. Some, you just cannot put a price tag on. Who knows their worth??? For all we know the RC could have the mysterious Ark of the Covenant. Would they ever sell it? No.

What about our President Bush or Kerry for that matter, a rich millionaire and a billionaire by marriage. Leaders of the free world.
Do they live in lavish lifestyles? Because of the office they hold, they are allowed certain protocol. Same concept with the religious leaders of the world.

We view the hierarchy as royal subjects of a throne. Like an earthly regal court belonging to Jesus of which he is King. We follow scripture in our esteme of the highest office in Christianity. Out of love for Christ and his mission we are safegarding the Chair.

^Just...wow.

Quite frankly, I'm at a loss for words...you really buy into that, don't you?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

jade -
I think you are giving people far more credit than they are due with regards to "appearances". People see the Pope living in lavish surroundings with marble and gilt walls. It doesn't matter that he does not technically "own" them. He does however with the voice of the Cardinals and Bishops control them.

This also needs to be divided out into religious relics and material wealth. No one asserts that the artifacts and relics (such as the pieces of the Cross or the Shroud of Turin) ever be sold. You are right, one cannot place value on such items. However, the gold plates and cups used in worship - those are material items regardless of the historical context.

Should the Pope live in a shack, no. I agree that he must have a place of dignity (but not decadence) to do his job. However, given that he is the head of a very wide and influential religion, he above all others should live by example. He should live modestly, humbly. Above all others he should seek to be the most Christlike of his congregation, because he is the earthly one that all followers {edit}of the RC Church {/edit} look to for guidance. As I said it matters not that he does not technically "own" the riches of the RC Church, the people see the wealth.

Catholic Charities may be the largest giver to the poor in the world, I've done no research to back up that claim but am willing to concede that on general principle. However, could you imagine the additional support the Charities could provide if even a little of that wealth was sacrificed?

As for G.W. Bush, and John Kerry, their wealth is their own business. As leaders of this country it is not a requirement that they live in poverty or even modestly. In this there is no parallel.

(Edited by Moon Dancer on 09-27-2004 21:07)

quote:

---

In this there is no parallel.

---

Exactly the point.

The leader of a religion based on a man who gave up all posession and walked the earth humbly preaching his message, and inspired his closest followers to do the same is certainly a bit at odds with the founding of his own religion when he lives in the manner of the pope, surrounded by pomp, riches, and the various other trappings of his position.

quote:

---

What is not realized here is the honor, dignity & esteem of the Chair of Peter.

---

Regardless of anything you wish to attach to it, it still comes down to a very broad irony.
(or, in more plain terms - horseshit!)

I was only posting the article to show the irony in his statements, but I suppose it evolved into an actual discussion.

quote:

---

The pope will die without owning property his whole life. All religious take a vow of proverty.

---

The Catholic Church has an interesting idea of poverty.

quote:

---

How do you want the supreme head of the global Catholic church to live?

---

Jade theres a rather large difference between the leader of a country/religion being provided a mansion and where the Pope resides. True, the Pope doesn't actually OWN his palaces. He just has the luxuary of living in them while being waited on hand and foot. His palaces make Saddam Hussein's look like the slums.

quote:

---

Why would we want to rid of our beautiful history in artwork and scatter it all over the world? It doesn't make sense.

---

Well, I'd assume the head of God's church on earth would be willing to part with works of art and homes across Europe in order to feed his people. Clearly I'm wrong but I man can dream, can't he?

You know, it must feel good to pope bash, because non-catholics do it continiously. They are judgemental and righteous it seems. They must go out and implement plans to feed the poor and give constantly of their time and money on a daily basis. I doubt if they get any sleep. They must get less sleeping hours than the current pope, who only sleeps 4 hours a nite. Seems that they too should be penniless, without homes, since they have such disgust for the way the Pope lives, that they themselves must be better examples. They must have power and impact on a global level in the way of making the planet a peaceful and better place to live. I wish I knew them personally, so I could think well of them and pray that they keep up the good work.

Seems the pope gets a lot of hate mail for trying to promote peace and do God's will on earth. Its something that people focus on the man and not his mission. John Paul is a beautiful holy man who would kiss the ground you all walk on just to serve you.

(Edited by jade on 09-28-2004 09:07)

MD

quote:

---

However, the gold plates and cups used in worship - those are material items regardless of the historical context

---

.

Here, you don't understand the veneration we give these cups and plates in the holy sacraments of our rituals in our Mass. If you would, you would understand. But Gold??? Who said they were real gold? Or worth lots of money. We buy them at religious supply stores. But because they handle the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, the transfomed spieces, they themselves become holy utensils.

Where is it said the Pope eats from gold plates, forks and spoons worth thousands? And do you also want the place we worship in or form to be plain jane buildings with no decor. Do you think we should downsize St Peters in Rome? Demonish it and rebuild a smaller church with no marble floors or artwork? Would that make us a more human church that God and you would expect? And how would you know what God expects from the great leaders of Christianity?

(Edited by jade on 09-28-2004 09:31)

*Examines stonewall*

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I am quite amazed by the blindness of some inmates here... *speechless*

jade -

There are a couple of things I would like you to understand:

1) I am not attacking you, your faith or your Religion.
2) I am trying to give you an outsiders perspective on how the Pope -and the religion at large- is seen

I am currenlty in the process of reexamining Christianity. I am attempting to do this by putting aside my preconcieved notions and quieting the cynic within. For once I am able to read without the inner commentary rolling its virtual eyes - and this is finally allowing me to really evaluate what I am reading and form my own opinion. What does this have to do with my two statements above? Simply that in order to understand, one must first listen - not hear - but listen. I understand the passion you have for your faith but all I ask is that you please read everything and think about it before defending your faith in an outburst and not addressing the issues in question.

From the outside, I can see that the Pope works very hard. This I won't deny. From the outside I see he is the leader of a religion that preaches humility, modesty, and giving up of material wealth. From this side there is a disconnection: How can a faith that preaches - tells its followers this is what they must do - glorify the material? These next statements are not directed to the RC church alone, but to Christianity in general? When I see beautiful cathedrals, crosses made of gold, jewel encrusted Communion cups and gold leafed plates it saddens me because in my eyes it cheapens the religion. I see years of labor and countless amounts of money that could have been better spent helping families in need. If a hillside was good enough for Jesus himself, why must the church that rose from him be so opulent?

I don't advocate the destruction of the cathedrals that are already built - that would be a little obnoxious. You say the items used in the Sacrament come from religious supply stores, does this somehow negate the fact that money is spent to purchase them? Can you explain why a plate leafed with gold is better than a simple stoneware plate when the act of the sacrament is what makes them "holy"?

And yes, I would expect that followers of Christianity would be more than happy to worship in "plain jane" buildings with no décor. What use is all of that décor when your purpose is to be closer to God? I don't presume to know what God thinks - however I do know from my upbringings as a Christian, and my subsequent departure and renewed study of the religion that nowhere in the Bible does it say that places of worship are to be places of material wealth and beauty. (However, if there is something I missed which I wholly conceded - feel free to point them out to me.)

p.s.

quote:

---

who said they were real gold

---

I know because I used to handle them after services.

Once again Jade, you manage to totaly avoid any actual issue brought up, and instead become defensive and even attacking.

~shrug~

Whatever - if you prefer to ignore the irony for the sake of being a good catholic, so be it.



Edit - and, yeah....honestly I do think it's natural to expect the "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God" to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us in some matters.

With that many names in your title, you should be doing a little more

(Edited by DL-44 on 09-28-2004 17:45)

I am just going to say this,
All leaders, regardless of religion, culture, ethnicity etc. etc. etc., that are vastly rich then say they are one of us and tell us how we should help others and take on vows of poverty and all that then do not do it themselves are liars. George Bush wants to say he is just another one of the guys? John Kerry wants to say he is just and average citizen? BULL*&^%! How many normal guys go to Yale and have millions of dollars and spend all day at a ranch? Not many that i know. As far as the pope goes he may not own it but he doesn't have to wear it. Same goes for Rev. Moon (WHOEVER THE HELL HE IS) and any other rich person. If I were leading any country or religion and i at the time of appointment lived in a single story house I wouldn't move to a mansion I would*&^%ing stay right there where i was living. The fact that I have a title doesn't give me the right to rub it into everybody's face. If one of the rich people want to get me to give up all my stuff then there is one thing I have to say to that......"THE BEST WAY TO LEAD IS TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE so.. START SELLING YOUR STUFF BUSH!"
Also if he is the SERVANT of the servants of God how come he orders people around? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being a servant (Sorry if I am attacking don't trul mean to just kinda edgy right now)
History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

(Edited by Sangreal on 09-28-2004 18:09)

I don't understand why you're getting so defensive Jade. No one in this thread has attacked the Catholic Church. I, myself, am a Catholic and whole heartedly applaude the Church's charity throughout their history. That doesn't take away from the negative things in the Catholic Church. That includes the Pope's hypocrisy in his view that the imbalance of wealth needs to be addressed.

You seem to be of the opinion that any criticism of the Catholic Church is immoral and implies the person is anti-Catholic. I don't share that belief. While I suppose the Catholic Church in most of its endeavors, I'm more concerned with what the man upstairs is thinking. When Jesus instructed his faithful to live a life of povererty I don't think he meant to give up all possessions and live with your rich uncle. Thats just one man's opinion though.

MD. Don't worry that I ever take comments on post personal. I don't feel attacked at all. If I come across as combative, forgive me. Its true to say, you are on the outside looking in at an institution that can only be seen in a secular view if you do not understand and practice it or read Catholic teaching on it. The essence of catholicism is so deeply personal, it requires much inner light to comprehend it in its fullness. The spiritualism of Catholicism embodies everything from the innerself to the outerself and beyond to the ends of the universe in its sciences. All thought and answers have been justified by the great Catholic thinkers in long gone eras in the history of the church. I wish you well in your endeavor to understand Christianity.

Jestah.

Whats wrong with getting defensive? We are taught to defend our faith till death. Not go along with the majority or current trends. The Church here on earth is human, made up of human people. It errs if people in it err. But on the subject of the wealth of the church and giving its riches to the poor, it gets old and is silly. THats been argued for centuries. Find something else in it to pick on. If the church sells everything it has in artwork and buidings, and property and gives it to the poor, it won't last long. There will still be poor people in the world after its wealth is distributed. So how does this solve the problem? And I don't know where all who point to the wealth and grandure of the pope's lifestyle get their info. He is not rich and does not live rich. Where Catholics and non-catholics get this misconception is beyond me. He works extremely hard every day. Gets up at 4 am every day and goes to bed late midnite because of a heavy schedule and constant constant prayer. Why don't you cut him some slack? Being the age that he is and sick as he is, I say he deserves our prayers. Instead of finding and point out whats wrong with the church by finding fault, pray for it and Pope John Paul. Are you selling your possessions and giving the money to the poor? What are you doing to promote peace and goodwill you your neighborhood? I say, if your not doing these things then you should not point to someone who tries however much fault you find in them as human persons.

(Edited by jade on 09-30-2004 06:26)

(Edited by jade on 09-30-2004 06:35)

quote:

---

Live on faith. It will sustain you.

---

What's an 8-letter word for gullible?

Oh yeah...gullible...

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

jade said

quote:

---

If the church sells everything it has in artwork and buidings, and property and gives it to the poor, it won't last long. There will still be poor people in the world after its wealth is distributed. So how does this solve the problem?

---

wasn't it Jesus who said, concerning the poor, that we would always have them among us, but we would not always have Him. and wasn't he also buried in a borrowed tomb? in fact, i think it actually belonged to his rich uncle.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contradiction

quote:

---

If the church sells everything it has in artwork and buidings, and property and gives it to the poor, it won't last long. There will still be poor people in the world after its wealth is distributed.

---

Good to know. And along that line of reasoning I would advocate an immediate stop to all 3rd world aid, since we can't solve everything for everyone...

quote:

---

Are you selling your possessions and giving the money to the poor? What are you doing to promote peace and goodwill you your neighborhood? I say, if your not doing these things then you should not point to someone who tries however much fault you find in them as human persons.

---

Well, since I have not spoken out about the imbalance of wealth I see no contradiction in keeping my hard earned stuff.

To me this reminds me of the old communist states where equality was preached (one for all bla bla) but the political elite of course were more equal than others and above their own preachings.

I guess my contradiction when it comes to this is that I argue that I get to keep too little of my paycheck due to taxes used for "wealth distribution", but still give to selected charities.... Imagine that...

Jade -

There's plenty wrong with becoming so defensive in a friendly discussion. No on is attacking either you or the Catholic Church. As you point out the Church is run by humans and to err is human. To acknowledge faults and do nothing about them is just wrong. The Catholic Church is wrong to allow members of its elite to live in such luxury when they spend their time preaching about the imbalance of wealthy. Your suggestion that the Pope "does not live a rich" is nonsensical and shows the lengths you'll go to in ignoring the issue. The reality is the Pope lives the single RICHEST life, in terms of material possessions, on this planet. To suggest that because his name isn't actually on the deed of his palaces, he is poor is as silly as suggesting that Bill Gates' children are poor.

There's no real reason to carry on any more of a discussion with you though. Your replies throughout this thread have been irrational, nonsensical, and in some cases outright stupid. There's a big difference between having faith and blindly following something. You seem to equate one with the other.

quote:

---

What about protestant pastors who have riches and mansions and own stock in the millions and arrive at their Sunday services in limos? Most televangelist pocket millions and that is contrary to scripture.

---

i'm curious, what would be an appropriate amount of wealth for someone to have according to what you feel scripture says?

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Well, what would Jesus say?

I think that is the question, right? If Jesus was alive today, what would he say about the Pope?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

http://www.catholic.net/global_catholic_news/template_news.phtml?news_id=56551&channel_id=2

Wealth of the Vatican has long been a subject of scruitny by anti-catholics, secualrist and protestants for years. It gets old and really
is senseless to make statements referring to its enormous wealth and not understand the many complicated systems under which the pope and the Vatican operate funds? For one thing, it sends missionaries all over the world. Maintains vatican city and doesn't charge tourist or sell it articles to make money and pockets wealth for each of the cardianls or bishops, arch bishops for vacation homes, etc. All monies are used to evangelize globally, just like other denominations do.

Fig.

Well, what do you think is too much? Should pastors ever pocket millions for their personal yachts, vacation homes, portfolios. Do they deserve them? Or should they live on a small stipend and give all of it back to the church needs.

(Edited by jade on 10-02-2004 18:46)

Jade - that is all irrelevent. It's a technicality.

The point is very simply that the opulent living conditions are quite enough to classify as "wealthy" whether or not the pope or bishops actualyl own their surroundings.

The immense wealth that was required to build the buildings of the vatican, and decorate them so absurdly lavish a manner is truly mind boggling.

In fact, some of the church's practices while trying to raise the money to build such splendor is the main reason the reformation ever happened...

~shrug~

As for that article - yeah...big deal. The US government has a huge deficit too. That has mothing to do with reality...

i dunno jade, i can give my personal opinion but that's not necessarily relevant to the conversation, i was curious what you felt the scriptural basis was. scripturally we're called to tithe, giving 10% of your earnings to the church. later on paul talks about having an abundance for every need, being a responsible steward so that you have money to give to others' needs. other than not having false idols (which one could certainly classify possessions and money as if they're something you put of great importance) i don't know of other bibilical "rules" dealing with how we should or shouldn't have. i once heard a speaker say something to the effect of "you shouldn't have anything you wouldn't be willing to give up" and i think that's about as succinct as it could be put.

that being said, i don't think there's anything wrong with living comfortably if you are giving as God calls you to (note i said comfortably, not lavishly, i'm not talking huge houses with fountains and dozens of sports cars). as an example, i know of a pastor who's built up a 10,000 member church after starting with 12 people, and his church gives away tens of millions every year to the homeless, missionaries, church planting, and other charities and ministries. he does drive an expensive car and he lives in a nice fairly large house, but he doesn't own six expensive cars and three nice houses. is that wrong? or has he been blessed because he's doing what God wants him to do?

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

I'd say that's wrong and hypocritical.

He should have spent all that money going back to the church, and other churches.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

tntcheats - I can't tell if you're serious or joking...

Fig - IMO, it depends almost entirely on how he acquired the money to live the way he does.

If the money came from the church in the form of donations that people thought were going to help the homeless (or others), then I believe very strongly that it is wrong that he used it, no matter how much good he does.

If, on the other hand, he happens to have a good financial status independent from church sources, I see no issue whatsoever.

Again, I must reiterate: what this thread was started on was not the idea that the Pope should live in squalor! It is the simple idea that denouncing the imbalance of wealth from your extravagant summer palace is just plain old ironic and hypocritical.

That's all.

If you can't even see that, then your head is up your ass. If you feel that such irony is ok, then that's your perogative...

Jade- I think that you have it right. Or atleast almost right. The Pope is an outstanding man that does need our prayers. I would agree that the Vatican is most likely the most charitable anything in the world, and it does have to fund missionaries and evangilists too. The Pope does deserve to have some conveniences to make things easier on him so he can do more. I do agree to that humans err, and he is a human. A very important human, and one whose opinion goes a long way, but he is still human, just like us. Besides, if someone walked up to you and gave you a gift, would you give it back to them? That probably doesn't constitute for much of the money, but atleast a little. Then also, would you rather meet in a small stuff building to pray and worship, or would you rather be surrounded by luxury? That is exactly the reason why the Russians are Eastern Orthodox (I think that is the one from Byzanium) and not from the Holy Roman Empire. It was because back then the HRE was in disrepaire and they were meeting in shacks, old houses, and the like. The Russian delegates saw this and weren't pleased. Then, they went over to Byzantium and saw this building (can't remember its name (I could use some help with this story if the history scholars would like since I am completely botching it)) that was purely beautiful. It had diamonds on the walls, and they sparkled like the stars in the sky. Almost everything in it was gold. It was a very lavish and beautiful church. Guess which church the Russians decided they liked the best? It wasn't the one with rats running around in it I can tell you that. I realize that this is a very extreme story, but I am using it to prove a point. Humans are a very secular species. We don't listen. First we look, if it is enticing, then we allow the person to speak. Sometimes we can even be conned into doing something we don't want to just because it looks good. So, the Catholics realized that if they even wanted to be considered, they had to look the part of beautiful children of God. I do realize that the principle of Christianity is servitude, but even servents can have wealth. God doesn't say that he wants us to be bums. He is a father who wants to bless His children with gifts. That is why some preachers and priests have so much stuff, it is because they are blessed. I do admit that the Pope did say something contrary to what he was living, but let me tell you all something. (I'm sorry I am using this analogy Jade, but just because I am doesn't mean I have any less respect for the Pope and what he does) Jesus didn't denounce the Pharisee's teachings, just them being hypocrits. He said to do what the Pharisees say, not what they do. That is what the Pope is doing. I don't know why, but he wants people to do what he says, not what he does.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

When I'm sarcastic I'll always put a

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

The Greek Orthodox reverence their art and beautiful buildings also. Their artwork is priceless from the days of the Romaovs. Why not pick on them too?

Their Patriarchs live as our Pope does. Though they don't have a global voice like John Paul does, meaning when the pope makes a statement, its heard around the world. The Patriarchs nonetheless are famous religious persons also. I think its because of anti-catholic resentment. And thats the only reason the post was started.

(Edited by jade on 10-04-2004 01:18)

~sigh~

does it ever get old, Jade, this constant fight against reality?

jade-

quote:

---

think its because of anti-catholic resentment. And thats the only reason the post was started.

---

jestah-

quote:

---

I, myself, am a Catholic and whole heartedly applaude the Church's charity throughout their history.

---

Jade, do you ever actually read people's posts or do you just look for keywords to get offended by? In case you hadn't noticed the one who started this thread is Catholic. Or did you miss that part? It has been stated by some, myself included that this isn't strictly a Roman Catholic deal. It isn't about "picking on" the Catholics. It is about preaching one thing and doing the other. Something the whole Christian faith and every other religion in existance is guilty of. Do you ever tire of the "poor me, my poor religion" routine? This thread was about irony. It was about a prime example of preaching one thing and doing another. Do you need a definition of irony? This thread was not about attacking the Pope... It was you who chose to believe it that way. /rant

(sorry, Jestah if I stepped on your toes...)

MD

Yes. I have read all of the post up to your last post. Realistically speaking, you do understand totally where I am coming from. I do know the definition of irony. What I have tried to get across is irony doesn't apply in the comparison of the purported wealth of the Pope and his statements of the plight of the poor. Since your on the outside looking in and don't understand the mission of the RC hierarchy to the simple man on the street you remain blind. You don't see because your not a practicing Roman Catholic who adheres to its teaching. Seems that the Catholic that posted doesn't see it either. Because if he understood, as a follower, he would never have posted it.

Let me educate you a little on Catholicism.
There are Catholics who proclaim to be Catholic but are not because they do not fully believe in its teaching. You cannot be a little Catholic or a touch of Catholic. Or just because you are born Catholic you remain one. A true Catholic is in total submission to the mission of the church in its fullness. Yes, sure you can question something if you don't understand and maybe search for answer. There are Catholics who we call " cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose what they want to believe and choose not to believe because it may fit their lifestyle better. One example would be "Kerry" a proclaimed Catholic who does not believe or adhere to its full teachings in matters of birth control and marriage, etc. For Catholics, its a mortal sin to have an abortion or to remarry if you have divorced your wife and she is still living. Many Catholics may not agree with this. Maybe its because they do not understand the full teachings in reqard to scripture and the church. But you cannot be in full communion with the church if you are against its teachings. Is it up to the people within to change the teachings of the church or the heirarchy? For submissive believers its the hierarchy. Christianity is not a democracy to be voted on. So that should be respected from the outside looking in. And when we believe this way we are following scripture. In matters of doctrine of the church there is never any room for debate. So that being said, if you think the Pope lives too rich, its just an opinion. It doesn't hurt the church if you or anybody else feels that way. It won't make any difference or change anything. The Pope may live that way for another 500 years and it will not shake the faith of its believers.

(Edited by jade on 10-04-2004 04:44)

quote:

---

It is about preaching one thing and doing the other. Something the whole Christian faith and every other religion in existance is guilty of

---

What about we athiests?
I don't preach much; moreover, I don't preach against a god's existence and believe in one.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

Jade - you're right, I don't understand the mission of the Catholic Church. The reason I don't understand it is because I see the message of Christ getting lost in this Hierarchy that you claim is the end-all-be-all of the Church. I don't understand how a Church can tell it's followers to seek redemption, but you can't go straight to the source because you aren't pure enough - you have to go through a priest to seek forgiveness. Is the mission of the Catholic church to be good Christians and show the world what that means; or is the mission to keep control over a congregation by filtering the teachings of the one called Jesus?

I really can't understand where you are coming from, Jade. I can't blindly follow the teachings of men. I wish I could read ancient Greek and Hebrew and have access to all the texts that were scoured before being canonized into the book today called the Bible. I wish this because I don't trust the men who chose the books that became the Bible, regardless of whether or not they were "divinely inspired". However, this gets into a whole separate subject that better belongs in another thread...

Here is my understanding of the Christian faith without all the dogma, without the Heirarchy, without the trappings of Religion: Believe in Jesus as the Savior, truly repent for the wrongs you do others, be kind to those around you and you will gain Salvation. For what it's worth, that is an outsider's view.

From an outsider's view, Jade you are blind to the irony of the posted article because you believe so wholly in the heirarchy of your Chruch. They tell you it is okay and that is good enough for you. I'm sorry, but that sort of blind faith and trust frightens me.

tntcheats - are you asserting that Atheism is a religion?

Umm, Jade I think what Jestah was trying to do with this thread was to point out the IRONY in a SEEMINGLY rich person telling EVERYBODY ELSE to get rid of their riches. That person just happened to be catholic.Also :

quote:

---

If the church sells everything it has in artwork and buidings, and property and gives it to the poor, it won't last long.

---

Doesn't the scripture say that prayer should be a private action done in your closet? Also, the point of The Word is that it is to be passed on to those who do not have it correct? So if a minister of a church, be him/her Catholic, Methodist, Baptist or otherwise, only teaches in his church then he achieves as much as a person that teaches a junior in highschool addition. But if he goes out on the streets and does not preach in his church then he does more good than he could possibly know. Therefore, in my oppinion churches are not needed except as places for christians no matte their denomination to meet, and co-exist, which is what their supposed to do anyhwere not just in church. So by that way of thinking aren't churches more of a hindrance to the passing on of religious knowledge than a helping hand to them?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

quote:

---

A true Catholic is in total submission to the mission of the church in its fullness

---

Which basically means that your viewpoint on the subject is irrelevant. If you are in total submission, whether or not the view in question is supported by reality, then how can you hope to ever have a meaningful conversation about it?

How can you possibly dare to call someone on the "outside" blind, when you have blinded yourself through your submission to a fallable human institution?

Wouldn't somebody on the 'outside' be able to see more of whats going on (once they understand the whole situation) then somebody on the inside? After all you can't see your own nose without a mirror or somebody else describing it to you.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

quote:

---

Moon Dancer: Here is my understanding of the Christian faith without all the dogma, without the Heirarchy, without the trappings of Religion: Believe in Jesus as the Savior, truly repent for the wrongs you do others, be kind to those around you and you will gain Salvation. For what it's worth, that is an outsider's view.

---

I couldn't agree more, and I am not an outsider. Well said.

Hey Ramasax haven't enjoyed a post from a you in a while. did I ever tell you people that you are all mint? Well you are, Gideon, you already know your mint.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Hey Moon Dancer, if tntcheats doesn't assert that Atheism is a religion, then I will. Athiesm - the belief that there is no God or gods - is the definition of a religion that is the opposite of Godly religion, or the anti-religion. But, anti-religion is still religion, is it not?

Jade~ I understand your feelings. Really, I have been through stuff like that before, but I want to ask you to take a breath, open your heart and mind, and hear - not listen, but hear - what I have to say. I am a Christian (no doubt about that), but I do listen to arguments. I even used to be on the other side of them. I don't know if you always were Christian, but I was not. I want to say that I understand both sides. I understand secular, and I understand spiritual. I have found that spiritual makes a lot more sense, even in the face of all the quick, cheap perks of the secular side. When I picked up the Bible I started to read about Jesus and what He said. He said:

quote:

---

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

---

He denounced the nit picky teachings of the pharisees, and told them to look at the big picture. Yes, abortion is bad. Yes, divorce is bad. But, don't let them become stumbling blocks in the path of the weak. Do not accuse, simply forgive, and give a helping hand. Jesus, as He was being crucified, did not curse the people around Him, instead He asked for His Father to forgive them:

quote:

---

Luke 23:34
But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.

---

He wants to forgive people like that, not whip them into His idea of a perfect person. I see this many times that Jesus will help you only if you ask Him to. "If you ask, it will be to given you."

The reason for the rules is to show us how imperfect we really are. Paul says many times in Romans that the Law can only create death not life. That is why Jesus came. He was the life (see John 14:6). I understand all these veiws, and why they should be taken seriously. Abortion is bad: it is killing a life. Divorce is bad: it is forcing the spouses to commit adultry, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. We do need to fight those issues, but it is more important to win peoples' hearts and souls, rather than their agreement in an argument. That can come later when they start having wisdom: "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

Another thing is that we can't do anything. Sorry Jade, but we are just mere mortal shells (right now) with no real power inside of us (contrary to all those "positive" speeches made by those public speakers). Our power comes from Jesus Christ, and that is a mighty power indeed. He wants us to give love, not accusations. That is why I am opposed to some of the things some Catholic churches do. It is because the accusations are needed, but only to show why we need Jesus, not as continuing sight of how bad we are. I was watching this one sermon by a guy on TV, and He said that when you look forward (toward God's grace and forgiveness) things get accomplished, but when you look backward (seeing your sin shoved in your face over and over) you just wallow in your own guilt for a long time. I think there is real validity in this thought.

Also, the Church can be changed by it's congregation, because the congregation is the church, not the hierarchy. Without the people, the priests and bishops would have no one to talk to. People make up the Church, but the real power of the Church is: Jesus is the head.

quote:

---

Ephesians 5:23
...as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body

---

Jesus mandates what we say and do, not the pope, not a bishop, not a priest, not a pastor, not a sunday school leader, and not a friend. They can only suggest what He may mean, but the real, true teachings are found in the Bible. The reason there is a need for them is that we can not all know what the whole Bible is saying. We need people to go through, and figure out what some of the teachings are, what some of the passages mean to us. They are good teachers. They need our prayers, but we need them about as much as they need us.

Sangreal~ I may have answered somethings earlier in this post about the absolute necessety of a church. But here are the main reasons:
-It is a place where a body of believers congregate (he he) in His name under one roof (or outside) to worship, praise, and learn about him.
-It is a place of fellowship, where Christians can come together to give each other help, comfort one another, and share in burdens.
-It is a place for unbelievers with questions to go to fulfill their hunger for answers
-It is a place where God's divine Grace is shown in the openmany, many times.
-It is a place to pray with others, and ask for them to pray for you and yours

You see Sangreal, these are only a few reasons that I could come up with off the top of my head why a church is so important. If you can do all of these things alone in your closet, I commend you. But to me, the closet is for you to pour your heart out to Jesus, and to make your greatest praises and hardest confessions. In the closet (or where ever you pray by yourself) is necessary to a healthy relationship with God.

Jesus said that He was talking about how the pharisees went out in the middle of people and used their "piousness" as a way to gain favor in the eyes of men. If that is why you pray in Church, then that is what you will get. But if you pray in secret, then your Father in Heaven will reward you openly (I believe that is the rest of the verse). That means that if you pray to men, you get thier rewards. If you pray to God, no matter who is watching you, and just to pray to Him, then your prayers will be answered and you will be rewarded.

One last thing:

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

Believe in Jesus as the Savior, truly repent for the wrongs you do others, be
kind to those around you and you will gain Salvation.

---

You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

jade, i think one of the problems people have, or at least that i have, is that you don't answer questions you ask. you made a comment about what scripture says about wealth and i asked what you felt that was, you then turned the question on me and asked what i thought. i gave examples from scripture and a real life example and you never responded. why should i bother to try to discuss this intelligently if i can't actually discuss it with you? people around here are quite intelligent, and while opinionated will certainly listen to what you have to say if you say it logically and listen to what they say as well,

whatever the case...

quote:

---

For Catholics, its a mortal sin to have an abortion or to remarry if you have divorced your wife and she is still living.

---

if the catholic church annuls a marriage doesnt that make it "ok" to remarry? i'm not positive but that was always my understanding.

quote:

---

Is it up to the people within to change the teachings of the church or the heirarchy? For submissive believers its the hierarchy. Christianity is not a democracy to be voted on. So that should be respected from the outside looking in. And when we believe this way we are following scripture. In matters of doctrine of the church there is never any room for debate.

---

i'll be honest, this sort of thinking scares me. i agree that christianity is not a democracy to be voted on, but a singular church or denomination is not christianity. i greatly respect the pastor of my church but he is human and can make mistakes, i don't know of any major "mistakes" he's made in his personal life but i've certainly seen things happen to other pastors (and we've certainly seen it in priests as well), in some cases destroying entire churches/congregations. on a less destructive note, he or other pastors who i've seen may occasionally say things that i don't necessarily agree with, nothing that's going to make me leave a church but there's certainly difference in interpretation on some issues; if anything it'll make go back and research scripture to see how accurate i feel their interpretation is. people are people no matter what their position, we all make mistakes and interpret things differently. the only thing constant (and i know some will debate this, but for the sake of argument) is the bible and that's what i base my faith on, not a church or a pastor. blindly following anything is, to be blunt, stupid imo. we're designed to think for a reason, we're supposed to be exploring and growing in our faith. simply taking things at pure face value and "right" because they're what a certain person or church says isnt what God intended (and that is scriptural, as someone else quoted we're not to have any mediator between us and Christ).

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Gideon -
I will have to disagree with you regarding Athiesm being a religion. A single belief does not a religion make. Religon is a system of practices surrounding a belief. Athiesm is not the opposite of religion and the abscence of religion does not make "anti-religion".

quote:

---

Gideon: You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

---

I think I'll have to disagree with you a little there too. I think the two go hand in hand. And if it's all the same, it doesn't really interest me to know whether or not certain interpretations are your pet-peeves or not.

quote:

---

jade: I wish you well in your endeavor to understand Christianity.

---

Thank you. Believe it or not, that means a lot. I'm sorry I didn't say it sooner.

And in other news:

Ron Jeremy denounces premarital sex.

:::11oh1:::

(Edited by krets on 10-10-2004 15:17)

quote:

---

Hey Moon Dancer, if tntcheats doesn't assert that Atheism is a religion, then I will. Athiesm - the belief that there is no God or gods - is the definition of a religion that is the opposite of Godly religion, or the anti-religion. But, anti-religion is still religion, is it not?

---

That's like saying that since I don't like butter on my toast....the 'nothing' that is on my toast is really anti-butter, and is therefore butter all the same.

How can you possibly dare to call someone on the "outside" blind, when you have blinded yourself through your submission to a fallable human institution

Your right DL, Bad choice of words.
Sorry MD. Know you are not blind, but on a quest for understanding the Christian way. Sorry again.

It is I who am blind. Who see only the way, truth and light of Jesus by my choice. I must come down to earth and touch ground.

Found this bible scripture in reference to blindness.

Isaiah 2918
On that day the (1) deaf will hear (2) words of a book, And out of their gloom and darkness the (3) eyes of the blind will see.

John 9
35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

John 9
7 and said to him, "Go, wash in (1) the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and (2) washed, and (3) came back seeing.
(Referring to the washing away of sins and coming to the Lord in sight.


Luke 4:18-19

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim
freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.

Do I take my faith too seriously?

You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

Gideon, I don't agree with this. Check out this passage in scripture:

Letter of James: 2: 1-17

What good is it my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks food and one of us say to them"Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill" & yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith, by itself , if it has no works, is dead.

quote:

---

You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

Gideon, I don't agree with this. Check out this passage in scripture:

Letter of James: 2: 1-17

What good is it my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks food and one of us say to them"Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill" & yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith, by itself , if it has no works, is dead.

---

yay, more misquoted scripture sorry, i just see people use this all the time taken totally out of context. i actually taught on this several months ago so i happen to know it fairly well, lets look at the rest of this passage (from the new american standard as i can look that up online with strong's numbers):

quote:

---

18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

---

ok, we see "wasn't abraham justified by works". ooh, see, he was justified by his works, saved by works. err, let's think about that a second. if i ask you to justify your actions on something, what am i asking for? not for you to do anything regarding that action, you've already done it. i'm looking for an explanation, a reason you did it. justify isnt really quite an accurate term here anyway, the greek term used here is "dikaioo" and means "to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous". we've confused the term justification here, abraham's actions many years before and his faith in God are why he's saved. he is now demonstrating his righteousness by his actions, his salvation has resulted in this. because of what God has done in him he feels a call to righteousness on his life and demonstrates it thru his actions. he's not saved because of what he's doing.

i'll let a fellow by the name of john wesley sum this up as he knew his bible a bit better than i do:

on 2:14

quote:

---

From 1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to those who neglect this, under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught that "a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (James 2:21,23,25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, Romans 4:3, Hebrews 11:17,31, refutes not the doctrine of St. Paul, but theerror of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. On another occasion St. James himself pleaded the cause of faith, Acts 15:13- 21; and St. Paul himself strenuously pleads for works, particularly in his latter epistles. This verse is a summary of what follows. What profiteth it? is enlarged on,
James 2:15- 17; though a man say,
James 2:18,19 can that faith save him?
James 2:20.
It is not, though he have faith; but, though he say he have faith. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant: but in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead, imaginary faith. He does not, therefore, teach that true faith can, but that it cannot, subsist without works: nor does he oppose faith to works; but that empty name of faith, to real faith working by love. Can that faith "which is without works" save him? No more than it can profit his neighbour.

---

and 2:21

quote:

---

Was not Abraham justified by works - St. Paul says he was justified by faith, Romans 4:2, yet St. James does not contradict him; for he does not speak of the same justification. St. Paul speaks of that which Abraham received many years before Isaac was born, Genesis 15:6. St. James, of that which he did not receive till he had offered up Isaac on the altar. He was justified, therefore, in St. Paul's sense, (that is, accounted righteous,) by faith, antecedent to his works. He was justified in St. James's sense, (that is, made righteous,) by works, consequent to his faith. So that St. James's justification by works is the fruit of St Paul's justification by faith.

---

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fig

I am not convinced or I just don't see it your way.
I am sure Mother Theresa's works helped her a great deal in her faith. She was a living example of faith. Besides, if we are suppose to imitate Christ, who would be considered a great worker of miracles who spread his teaching thru good works in feeding thousands, that should speak for itself. Who is the greater Christian? One who goes out and visits the sick in the hospital, people in prision, gives food to the homeless and visits the lonely elderly in the nursing homes, assist the dying or the one who just stays home and reads scripture? I feel we are judged by our actions.
Per the ministry of Jesus Christ, we are encouraged to to die to self and live for others . Yes, Christ died for our sins and his redempitve work is complete, but the merits of his redemption must still be applied to each person in order for him to be saved. So a person must repent (Mt4:17), believe in Jesus (Acts 16:31), and live a life of charity (1 Corth 13:1,3) as scripture plainly teaches. A Christian who performs good works in Christ isn't denying the completed work of Christ's redemption; he is depending on it. Also in Romans 11:22 Christians are warned that they will be cut off if they don't perserve in the kindness of the Lord. So how would you define kindness here and to who? Doesn't the act of kindness require work and to other persons? And in the famous words of Saint Paul 2:12 "work out your salvation with fear and trembling " I drive my body to train it for fear that after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified." 1 Corth 9:27. Scripture is very clear. Christians can loose their salvation. So, yes God completed his redemptive work but we must continue his work(s). If a kind person who sincerely performs acts of charity and mercy by works but doesn't know scripture through no fault of his own because it has never be available to him, does he have the opportunity to gain heaven like Chrisitans? I think he does. Because when you do these things you are following Gods greatest commandements in showing love to him by serving others. If your sincere in these works then your fulfilling the will of God.

(Edited by jade on 10-12-2004 13:02)

(Edited by jade on 10-12-2004 13:05)

I'm coming in late and I see this has become a faith versus works discussion.

I think faith is more than just belief. If belief was the only criteria then the devils would be saved.

I believe it is faith alone that saves an individual but just as James points out a person cannot have faith without works. A fruit tree that bears no fruit is worthless and I think that applies to us as well.

So practically it comes down to this for me. Faith alone saves and it is that salvation that frees us up to do all good works. Faith and works are inseparable as far as I can tell from scripture.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Well said and to the point Bugs.

Faith involves good works. I don't think you can separate them. In that context faith saves.

Thanks, jade. I don't for a second think that this resolves the centuries long theological debate about faith versus works, but at some point we have to take a practical view of things and get down to living out our beliefs for Christ. As you know, I love a good discussion on these topics

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

jade, i'm not sure what you're arguing. do i believe that in being a christian we're called to do good works? absolutely, never said we were weren't, faith and the following maturation in christ gives us a desire to. however, your statement to gideon was:

quote:

---

You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

Gideon, I don't agree with this.

---

and you then quoted the passage in james. i agree as bugs said that simply believing something isnt enough, maybe we should add to the idea of having faith in something that you also trust in something. those works should follow, but because you're at a certain point where they have or haven't doesn't affect your salvation.

if someone comes to faith in christ and starts to truly change their life, cleaning up areas they've had problems with, but are suddenly killed before they've begun to reach out to others, do they get to the pearly gates and told "sorry, you didnt quite get all the requirements needed for admission"? i don't think so...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fig - just to clarify: Jade was quoting Gideon in the bold text she posted there.

She was saying essentially what you are saying, and used that quote to make the same point you are making

thanks DL, but unless i'm misreading i think i'm arguing what i'm trying to argue

gideon's comment was: "You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)" which i believe to be true, and jade disagreed. i totally agree that faith and works are linked as i discussed, but you cannot attain salvation through your works. based on the last few comments i'm trying to figure out exactly what people's opinions are here, bugs' viewpoint is very similar to mine but that would contradict jade's comment to gideon. if that makes sense

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

if someone comes to faith in christ and starts to truly change their life, cleaning up areas they've had problems with, but are suddenly killed before they've begun to reach out to others, do they get to the pearly gates and told "sorry, you didnt quite get all the requirements needed for admission"? i don't think so...

---

I agree with this. When it comes down to it, only Jesus can offer mercy. And I believe that if you have as many sins as the blades of grass in this world, but intend to do the will of God through a conversion,for example like a death row inmate who is truly sorry, then Jesus will offer u a place in his kingdom.

Heh - now I'm confused Fig. But that's ok - since you know my stance on the 'faith' issue anyway

Here's how i see it: Faith alone saves one person ( the faithful) acts saves thousands. used CORRECTLY it will save a thousand and one.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

On a subjective level, i really can't get to do definintions properly. But "catholics" and "non-catholics" don't really seem like definitions, do they?
That was to take me apart from the two party formation on this subject.

Now that we have that cleared here is a simple thought on this:

look you daft bastards, none of you is older than 100, so there isn't much on wisdom and experience you can give to the big brothers of this worlds organizations. Specially those who have gotten over the thousands years old mark.
I think and trust that after that much maturing they are, as an entity, in a good position to make any decision.

They are rich because they are old. It's a trend, you'll get used to it.

(Edited by Arthemis on 10-13-2004 15:46)

Ahhh...and Buddhism? Hinduism? I mean...they are old, right?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

But the thing is: if they donate so much money and have no worldly posessions of their own and are so dedicated to helping the homeless and the starving where is this surplus of money coming from?

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

quote:

---

But the thing is: if they donate so much money and have no worldly posessions of their own and are so dedicated to helping the homeless and the starving where is this surplus of money coming from?

---

I think they go with this ideology "God will provide"
And does.

Just because an organization is old does not mean that it cannot also have flaws.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Just because an organization is old does not mean that it cannot also have flaws

---

\

What is your definition of flaws used here?


I think your referring to humans here. But in the respect to the ideology of which this 2000 year old organization stands, it is not flawed.
But if you do believe this organization is flawed in respect to what its ideology represents, could it be since your faith is a spin off from which this organization stems from there is a possiblity your beliefs are flawed also? Being that your fairly young compared to how old this institution has been around and will be long after your gone. How could you be able to judge it for what it means to the world?

First off Arthemis i am confused by what you said, nobody is claiming wisdom or that they are over 100. And nobody is 1000 years old. Life expectancy for MY generation is only around 75.

quote:

---

I think they go with the ideology that God provides. And does.

---

so if God has provided the Pope and/or The Vatican with all these riches why is it that the POOR (who don't have money in the first place) get rid of their riches (which they don't have). Now I can guess that you are going to retort with a previous arguement made that it is not fitting for the 'earthly ruler' or whatever title you want to give the Pope to go around dressed like a commoner. But before you do I would like to say this, Does a man's riches and wealth define how holy he is? Would you think less of him if you knew he was just as wealthy as any other everyday Joe Schmoe?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

jade, that comment wasn't actually meant to single out your church, but since you took it that way I will address the point directly.

Christ didn't seem to have a problem with going around dressed like a commoner. Therefore I think the idea that the Pope needs all his extravagance to be fitting as an earthly ruler is extremely flawed. So, jade, that is one example of why I think the institution is flawed.

That being said, it is important to recognize that God's people must reach the rich and powerful as well as the poor and destitute. That means that attire and wealth will vary throughout God's kingdom. These things are tools used to reach all peoples.

quote:

---

...could it be since your faith is a spin off from which this organization stems from there is a possiblity your beliefs are flawed also?

---

Firstly, we are all susceptible to flaws.

Secondly, I belong to an organization that predated your church by about 300 years. I do not accept the view that the Roman Catholic church began from day one. Your church came into being roughly around the time of Constantine.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

jade - your understanding of history is most certainly one of the things that is very flawed.

The protestant reformation was hardly a "spin-off" of roman catholicism. It was taking away the pomp, corruption, arrogance, and bloated uselessness of what had been for centuries a primarily political organization (with limited individual exception).

It took christianity back to what it was before the christians became so full of themselves and so empty of humility.

And, as bugimus alluded to, the idea that the catholic church began at day 1 is purely imaginary.

quote:

---

Secondly, I belong to an organization that predated your church by about 300 years. I do not accept the view that the Roman Catholic church began from day one. Your church came into being roughly around the time of Constantine.

: And, as bugimus alluded to, the idea that the catholic church began at day 1 is purely imaginary

---

.

OK, Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
But secular historians and encylopedias will disagree with you.

And Bugs would your church happen to have any flaws? I want to know where you get your view that your church is the true church that God refers to in scripture and if you could show me where in scripture it validates it? And if there exist a governing body of believers who along with your members helps and guides your sect?

This is a joke, right?

Seriously, there must be records documenting the establishment of the Catholic Church as an entity. How is it possible, that this is not a fact?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

The catholic church was not something that was just one day established, but neither did it exist right from the start.

Like any other major organization, it was an evolutionary process. One full of twists, turns, and all the rest.

To say that it didn't exist until the time of Constantine is not really accurate. But it is absolutely true that it did not come into being as we know it until around that time, and was not centered in Rome until around that time.

The direction that it took after that time is very different from the path it had followed before hand. It is more accurate to say that catholicism is a spin off of the basis of christianity than it is to say that any other version of christianity is a spin-off of catholicism.

That might not jive with popular catholic view, but that's ok with me....I prefer to look at things objectively.... =)

quote:

---

...catholicism is a spin off of the basis of christianity...

---

This is precisely my view. I believe that it is important for followers of Christ to stay as true to "basic Christianity" as possible.

Jade, our congregation does not claim to be the only Christians, but rather that we be Christians only. We strive as much as we can to emulate the structure of the earliest churches that can be plainly seen in the New Testament. It's really that simple.

It would be absolute foolishness to claim that the church I attend was without flaws because there is not an organization in existence, nor was there ever, that was.

I most certainly can provide scripture references for why we do the things the way we do. But I suspect you already know what those are. The *key* difference in our views will come down to this, I accept scripture alone as my authority while you accept scripture *and* the leadership of Rome as yours. If you want to discuss more specifics you know that I am always open to that.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Being that your fairly young compared to how old this institution has been around and will be long after your gone. How could you be able to judge it for what it means to the world?

---

How can you?

And I love to have not-butter on my toast.
I believe that not-butter is something that you can have on your toast, isn't it logical?
It's like another way of saying no butter.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

Jade- Roman Catholicism was not the first religion nor was it here since day 1. First off THERE WASN"T ANY FORM OF CHRISTianity ON DAY 1. CHRIST WASN"T HERE ON DAY 1! Therefore since christian means follower of Christ" you Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, United Methodistism, Baptist....and so on and so forth through any form of Christianity can't have existed on day 1. And before you call this an oppinion heres an exert from a 'secular' (or not particularly religious) encyclopedia on the founding of Roman Catholicism:
"World Book Encyclopedia Volume 16"
The Early Church
'The first christians were jews who believed that Jesus was the messiah, the savior expected for the jews.' (wouldn't this mean they had the first church?) 'The early church gradually divorced itself from Judaism, the religion of the Jews.' (In otherwords Catholicism branched off Judaism therefore making Judaism the FIRST religion that ever had anything to do with christ.) 'However, the church accepted the Jewish scriptures, both as the recordof God's dealings with His chosen people and as a guide leading to Jesuse Christ' (So at this point we still don't have Roman Catholicism merely and offshoot form of Judaism) {From there it gives a few sentences about Paul and how he carried the word to Gentiles. Then goes on to say that Rome would enter hold a religous state called Gnosticism. Still not Roman Catholicism yet. Then in it says
"In 313, Constantine the and Licinius, granted freedom of religion and equal rights to all religious groups. And brought christianity to Rome. (NOW WE HAVE ROMAN CATHOLICISM, an interesting, and good religion that speaks the word through tradition YAY!)

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

The entire Bible predates the institution in question, does it not? I should think that would be a good place to start. There is also centuries of history for all of us to read and make judgements about. Does that answer the question, tntcheats?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Sangreal, "day one" refers to the birth of the church which occurred on the Day of Pentecost shortly after Christ's resurrection. That is the day the church of Christ was born.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Catholic churches all over the world celebrate the anniversary of the start of the church every year on the same day. We call it "Pentecost Sunday." The church is decorated in red and the priest wear red garments. The red symbolizes "when Christ breathed his Spirit" into the church when the apostles congregated with followers and the mother of christ were present. This is in scripture. We memorialize this and it sort of is a renewal of the spirit for us that we are not suppose to take for granted. This is what Cathoilics firmly believe, but everyone one is entitled to an opinion on when they think the actual Catholic Church started. I know most protestants believe Constantine started the Chruch, but it simply isn't true. He strongly helped it and protected it and stopped its persecusion. There is no historical evidence or basis for the belief that he indeed started the church. ITs true to say the Church has evolved from its beginning and it continues to evolve into what will become a perfect church because Christ said so in his teachings as he alone knows. And this refers to the physical and the human church, meaning the human person. We cannot separate them because they are one along with Christ per scripture.

Jade - the fact that it is "celebrated" means what exactly.....?

And you are once again missing the point entirely.

What existed in the beginning was not the "catholic" church. The 'church' began at that time.

The 'roman catholic' church did not exist. It can trace it's origins back to those times, yes......in such a manner that you could refer to it as a 'spin-off' even

I can trace my ancestry back hundreds of years. Does this mean that my family, as it exists today has been around for that length of time? Of course not.

tracing origins through a series of evolutions does not mean that the entity existed at first stage....

quote:

---

continues to evolve into what will become a perfect church

---

In that case, we don't need to worry about the end of the world any time soon.....that's going to be a *very* long road at this rate

(Edited by DL-44 on 10-17-2004 02:25)

Wow DL, you took the words right out of my mouth. Yes, the way I see it, The Church started at Pentecost and The Church, refered many times in the NT not as just a building or one faction of people but the entire amount of believers as a whole, was instituted at that moment. The specific denominations came later, but not much later because in many of Paul's letters he speaks about separations. So, there were separations in The Church even when he was still preaching. It is no wonder that there are so many factions now.

Jade- I am not a Catholic. You are. I love Jesus. You love Jesus. - I think that constitutes that we are of the same faith, just with different veiws of that faith. Don't you? All of these different veiws aren't going to easily change. And they shouldn't. I only disagree with some of the major ones that I think may be stumbling blocks to your faith, not to your traditions. Traditions are good, don't get me wrong; they help you remember where you came from. It is just that some of them might actually hinder more than they help. That is all that I am saying. I agree that I may have some traditions (or lack thereof) that are stumbling blocks, so I am trying to figure those out every chance I get. Many of your posts have made me look inside of myself and change something before I was able to move on. I thank you for that. But the point I am trying to make is that we are not really different. We are both a part of The Chuch of Jesus Christ. We love Him and each other, and that is why many of these people are giving you these ideas, not to hurt you, but to help you look inside yourself and ponder what your faith is really about.

And Sangreal, if I haven't said it before I will say it again:
I really like your 10-13 post.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon,

I can assure you I am never hurt or offended. Comments posted I do not take seriously. Please forgive me if I ever gave or give the wrong impression I am combatant in a negative way. I appreciate your post in regard to my feelings. Thanks.

True to say, I love my faith and all that it embodies with the deepest passion. I feel my God will never abandon me in my quest to know him, to love him and serve him in this world, so I will know how to do it in the next. I would say my whole life and family life revolves around faith and extends to friendships. I seem blind to most posters on this asylum, but I am ok with that. I believe all CHristans are at different levels of knowlege and faith and know God constantly feeds us to make us stronger and closer to the deepest love.

In my faith we go thru sacraments as sort of convenants. One is the sacrament of Confrimation I made when I was small. In this sacrament one receives seven gifts of the spirit, maybe not all at one time, but when God allows. With these gifts, the church christians us "soldiers of Christ" and we vow to confirm we will live according to Christ teachings. Sort of like the early crusaders of the early chruch is how I best describe it. But in the evolution of the church since its infancy we do it in a peaceful way compared to the early church methods. I know God is in all Churches, because where there two or more present in its name, God is there and everywhere. But I also beleive God left us a world wide church to guide us to know what we should or shouldn't follow.
How can an independent church guide itself and authorize itself? Are the each and individual thousands of churches out there doing the true will of God?

jade, the head of any church should be only one person and that is Jesus Christ Himself. His word can be found in the Bible. An "independent" church as you say has access to the Bible and therefore the ability to know God's will for His people. I believe the Holy Spirit guides our church just as the scriptures promise.

Now are all churches doing a good job? Of course not. Just look at the history of your church to see how bad things can get. It is every bit as bad in many other churches, going astray is not limited to the Roman Catholics and it is always a danger. That is why it is so critical that people study the scriptures, pray, and submit themselves to God's will constantly to guard against apostacy.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs. Although it is very clear in Scripture and early Church history that Christ left only one Church, today we have over 30,000 Christian denominatins. Does it matter which of these you join? It most certainly does. IF Christ founded only one church then all then all the other churches were founded by men. Although they believe much of what is true and have many members who are sincere Christians, we simply cannot choose any of them over the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Any objective history book will show that only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ. No Protestant demonination found today existed before I think the 1500s. The Bible and sacred tradition are very clear that Christ left a church that would be governed by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters and deacons with the successor of St Peter as a governing hierarchy that can trace its authority in an unbroken succession back to the Apoostolic authority established by Christ himself. The bible firmly validates this. The word "Catholic" first appears in a letter of St Ignatius of Antioch to distinguish Christ's church from heretical groups in the 100s I think. The word " Christian" also originated about that same time. So in this early period the church was already Catholic in name. Not when Constantine supposedly started it. But you are entitled to have your own opinion.

Would you agree that Christ intended us to follow the teachings of the early church and do you think it pleases Christ Jesus that his church is so splintered with different teachings of interpretations of his scriptures? Did Christ mean for this to happen? Since we are both Christians and we know by scripture that Christ is in control of the church by his Holy Spirit if we do firmly believe the words of scripture, how can the spirit be so divided. Isn't the spirit one with God. Per my bible and yours, isn't the church referred to as the bride of christ as in a holy union of the marriage of two people. Christ is always referred to as the spouse as in a strong head of a family in a marriage. The bible relates the relationship between the church and Christ as a spiritual union, a spiritual committed communion. Just like in a committed marriage when two persons totally give each other themselves, so does God want us to totally give him ourselves. When you want to separate from the body of Christ, he feels it, just like if your wife were to leave you for another man, you would feel it. And it would feel just heartbroken terrible. Wouldn't it? For us Catholics, that is why divorce is very serious. It would be like separating or divorcing our spouse Jesus if we left temporarily or permanetly the Church.
This teaching was taught in the early church way before Constantine came along by the early church fathers. This is still taught today by the Catholic churches understanding of scripture that is over 1600 years plus old. I know I don't have all the answers, but one thing I do know is that the church Christ intended to establish is more than just a building, a body of believers, and a way of teaching, its a great mystery too in its power in heaven and on earth.

(Edited by jade on 10-17-2004 17:58)

Jade - while I will certainly not challenge your knowledge of scripture, or of catholic beliefe, your knowldege of history I must.

You speak of "opinions" that we are free to ahve, but you ignore *fact*.

Jesus no more founded the roman catholic church than he did Rome itself.

That romans took that role they felt they deserved as romans in the case of christianity, just as they did with so many other things throughout history.

The dogma of the catholic church is purely a human construct. The heirarchy is purely a human construct. The constant flip-flopping on issues, the politicizing, the whole 'burning heretics at the stake' thing (yes I realize that *technically* that was done by the secular side of things...when the church would hand over the heretics to them....small point of semantics at best...), these are all very human and very obviously fallable.

How you can say with a straight face (I'm assuming here ) that Jesus founded the Catholic church, but all other churches are wrong ebcause they're founded by man is absolutely dumbfounding...



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-17-2004 17:56)

DL

Please give me some facts that state proof that Christ did not start the Roman Catholic church and that other demonimations did not take just about all of or most of its teachings from it?

Can we agree the Bible is a catholic book authored by the Roman Catholic church fathers and popes that protestants have made changes to but still use as a source for their beliefs & churches. They even renamed it a King James version. What does that mean to you? Where do other christian denomination churches base their religions on? Why didn't they start their own bible? Isn't it a Catholic book. Why is it that they agree with the truth in what the contents contain but dont believe in hierarchy who decided what it should contained as inspired.


I am not professing anything new. All catholics will say the Catholic church is the one true church Christ came to establish.
That doesn't mean I am saying Christ doesn't live in all churches or people. I don't believe he came to establish the Morman Church or David Koresh sect even though they profess Christianity.

quote:

---

Please give me some facts

---

There are many up above. I can't very well give a full blown history lesson though - visit your local library.

quote:

---

Can we agree the Bible is a catholic book authored by the Roman Catholic church fathers and popes

---

Nope.

The bible in its curretn form was put together by the church heirarchy....not written by them.

quote:

---

I am not professing anything new. All catholics will say the Catholic church is the one true church Christ came to establish.

---

Of course they will. Does that make it true? Of course not.

Christianity began around the time of christ. It branched out in many directions, and there were splits in thought right from start. The roman catholic church became pretty much the largest sect, and the most powerful. They certainly weren't the only ones...

You seem to equate non-catholic christianity with the protestent reformation.....when in fact non-catholic christianity existed all along. There are records throughout the history of catholicism of the 'heretical' sects spreding christianity to places before Rome could get there...

quote:

---

You seem to equate non-catholic christianity with the protestent reformation.....when in fact non-catholic christianity existed all along. There are records throughout the history of catholicism of the 'heretical' sects spreding christianity to places before Rome could get there...

---

DL

This is true. But none of these sects stood long enough to be remembered or make an impact and have continuity as the Roman church has till this present day. They fell. Protestant sects that are operating today in all probabilty will fall also. In throughout all the Roman Catholic history in schisms and wars against it or around it even in occupied Italy by the Nazis it survived. So I tend to believe Christ 's Holy Spirit is with it. On Simon Peter Christ promised to build his Church. Peter could not have been the head of conflicting churches. And after Christ ressurection Christ confirmed Peter"s authority over the Church in scripture saying to to him "Feed my lambs, feed my Sheep in the Gospel of John. (Forgot exactly what verse) And he asked him three times referring to the three times Peter denied Christ. In giving his apostles authority he summoned and gave them power to sanctify, cleanse unholy spirits, cure illnesss and gave them the power to forgive sins. And to go out an evangelize and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. We are not given the same power.

Per Christ own teaching:
Gospel of John 10:16 " There shall be one fold and one shepherd"
" If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." Since Christ intended his church to be one, its members must be united in doctrine, worship and in government." This is in the physical and spiritual world. And in Luke 10:16 "He who hears you, hears me." In Eph: 2:20 St Paul himself refers to the Church as "built upon the foundations of the Apostles, not St Paul himself.
And in Matt 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me"

Getting back to the debate in the wealth of the pope, vatican, etc.; you know for all its art and being the most beautiful grandest church of treasures on earth its most important revered treasure is the remains of St. Peter, which is buried directly under Pope John's Paul's altar. The pope is the last monarch on earth who supremely rules his tiny state with full authority. I know Ive posted this before, but the Vatican is like a kingdom for us where the chosen sheperd is guiding the flock while the King is away. So the revernce and respect we pay to the holy city and the holy father is because the heavenly king will retun one day to take rule of his kingdom. So until the King returns, symbolically its like a view of a mansion in our heavenly kingom because there is no other place like it on earth. So for me the grandure and beauty in art and possessions is part of the Kingdom of God. We know by scripture, Christ refers to the term "a kingdom" to refer to his church implying organized authority. Can we agree the Pope is one of the most powerful men in the political world also? What other head of a religious sect has that much worldwide impactive power? I don't post the comment to boast, just to see the power of Christ in his protection of his church. Even in the corruption and persecution, in spite of the forces of evil, the church has continued to live and carry out its mission as its founder has promised. The indestructibility of the Church has been proved by history is alone enough to mark it as divine. Only God alone could have perserved it so long. It has seen the rise and fall of every government on earth for 2000 years and attacks against it, but it still stands and rises as the bride of christ and will continue to do so hundreds of years long after we are dead.

That's gotta be one hard wall...

quote:

---

Please give me some facts that state proof that Christ did not start the Roman Catholic church and that other demonimations did not take just about all of or most of its teachings from it?

---

I think the burden of proof is on you, jade. I've read the New Testament *and* I've read most of the writings of the Apostolic fathers. In both of those bodies of writings, one does not see anything resembling the Roman Catholic church. In the New Testament you will find autonomous churches planted in every city with none acting as supreme headquarters. Read it and see.

And what I find even more interesting is that when you begin to read the works of the early church fathers, you see that same setup described by Clement (I know your church claims him as a very early Pope). But when you read his writings, you see sister churches admonishing others to stay the course and no edicts as would be customary of a Pope today. When you get a bit further on in time, you do begin to see bishops such as Ignatius. But this only confirms in my mind the gradual evolution of the church structure from basic Christianity to what we find in the church once Constantine made it a state religion.

Christ built His church upon Peter's confession and not upon Peter himself. The reason the gates of hell will never prevail against the church is because it far more glorious and far more indestructible than anything made by human hands. I find your view that the physical grandure of the Roman church in part proves how Godly it is to be repulsive. Christ told the woman at the well that one day His followers would not need a building to worship in but would worship in spirit and in truth. *This* is the church Christ spoke of, the fact that you and I both live according to God's will by the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling each of our hearts. Now that's what I call bullet proof and that is what indicates divine action, not because Vatican City exists. I dare say that if the Vatican were, God forbid, destroyed tomorrow that you and all of Christ's church would march on.

quote:

---

Can we agree the Bible is a catholic book authored by the Roman Catholic church fathers and popes that protestants have made changes to but still use as a source for their beliefs & churches.

---

Absolutely not. As DL pointed out, the early church preserved these writings and correctly so. I have never said that everything done by God's people in the past is wrong, quite the contrary. And there haven't been any significant changes made to the texts anyway. The biggest difference between the Catholic bible and the Protestant one is the Apocrypha. But those are OT books and really don't represent significant theological differences between Catholics and Protestants.

You are fond of saying that the Reformers left the Church when in fact Luther sought to clean up its act. He did not want a Great Schism. He, just like I, can read the very same scriptures claimed to be divinely inspired by Christ and see the differences between what is found between those pages and what the Roman Catholic church had, and has, become.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

An important point in your last paragraph, Bugs - Martin Luther had absolutely no desire to leave the catholic church, or to fight against it.

He uphold his moral duty to stand up against the outrageous corruption of the papacy at the time. He strove to make the church live up to its duty. He failed against the vast and powerful political machine that was more interested in money to build a fancier building than it was in godly duties.

Luther's issue was very singular.

The catholic church has a very big history of expelling anyone who tries to point out errors.

WS - your certainly not the first to say that

quote:

---

In giving his apostles authority he summoned and gave them power to sanctify, cleanse unholy spirits, cure illnesss and gave them the power to forgive sins. And to go out an evangelize and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. We are not given the same power.

---

i'm running out for the evening and don't have time to post in depth at the moment, but i STRONGLY disagree with this statement and think its a huge misinterpretation of scripture. i imagine bugs would agree, feel free to respond or i will try to late this evening.

also, just fyi, all those "independent" churches are also often large organizations that do in fact have hierarchies guiding their decisions, curricula, etc. its not as if every church other than the catholic church is a building on a dusty road with no telephones

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 10-18-2004 02:19)

quote:

---

a building on a dusty road with no telephones

---

sounds like my kind of church


"We are not given the same power."

i respect that some might take this view,
but, that's just a stupid thing to say, for anyone who's read the bible
with any understanding. when you witness the power given by the Holy Spirit first-hand, make no mistake;
the only thing left to doubt is your own sanity!

Fig, I have no problem leaving that one to you. All I'll add is that I believe the HS and His handiwork are alive and well

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-18-2004 04:54)

[

quote:

---

quote]Christianity to what we find in the church once Constantine made it a state religion

---

This is simply not true. Where in the historical fact for this. This is very erroneous.

quote:

---

Christ built His church upon Peter's confession and not upon Peter himself

---

What was the confession Bugs? What do you think Christ special purpose was in changing Peters name which meant rock. Why? Why didn't he change the other apostles names too. DO you think Christ might of had a special reason for changing Simon's name to Peter. Christ told him : your are rock and on this rock I will build my church" And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. To me it was not actually on Peter he was building his church but on the faith Peter. In ancient times Keys were a symbol of authority. He who lawfully carries the key to a building has the right himself of entering and of admitting or excluding others.

Also what is your interpretation of Christ asking God to feed his lamb twice and sheep once? What is the symbolism here between lamb and sheep? In my readings I saw that the lambsthe weak and tender portion of the flock and the sheep are those that nourish the lambs referrring to the pastors, bishops and priest.

In Luke 22:31-32 Christ said to Simon, " I have prayed for thee that thy faith my not fail; and do thou when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren"
Isn't Christ here giving Peter leadership duties?

Did Peter exercise his primacy? Yes he did. And the other apostles recgonized his authority. Did anybody else claim to be the head or authority of Christ church at that time? No. Since no one person claimed to be the supreme authority over the whole church, either the bishop of Rome is the successor or St Peter has no successor and the promise of Christ has failed.

We know these fact about Peter per scipture:

St Matt calls Peter the first Apostle even though he wasn't chosen first. His brother Andrew was called first.
So he must of had authority and honor.
It was Peter that preached the frist sermon at Pentecost.

It was obedience to Peter that proposed the election of another to take Judas place.

It was Peter that admitted the first converts, did the first miracle and issued the first punishment.

Peter made the first visitations to the churhes and in the first council in Jerusalem Peter settled the first dispute

After Paul's conversion he presented himself to Peter.

Of the early churhes established by the apostles, the Church of Rome was the highest in rank. It was the see of Peter and all other churchs for a time recgonized

It was St Ignatius appointed by Saint Peter, who first used the Greek word " Katholicos, meaning universal when referring to the church founded by Christ to distinguish it from heretical churches that had arisen.

quote:

---

I dare say that if the Vatican were, God forbid, destroyed tomorrow that you and all of Christ's church would march on.

---

I am suprised at this coming from you Bugs. I don't think the family of the catholic church is full of shallow hypocrites who are greedy and dependent upon the puported riches of Rome. It goes beyond that. Yes. If the Vatican blew up tomorrow and the Pope died too, we would still have a church. Were not all the early popes murdered and the church still survived? Your prejudice is showing.

Where ever you go in the world, be it in Europe, America, Africa, Asis or Austraila, Mexico, Canada you will find established Catholic churches in every city that are taught the same doctrines as the USA. Everywhere it is ruled by the same head, Pope John Paul II. It ministers to all races and all peoples, all classes, rich, poor wise, ignorant, saint and sinner. Its a church for everyman.

Non-catholic denominations will always claim they didn't break away just reformed the old one, but on what authority?. Was it from Christ himself? But I ask, Did the True Church exist at a time for them before the founding of their new churches?

quote:

---

The biggest difference between the Catholic bible and the Protestant one is the Apocrypha. But those are OT books and really don't represent significant theological differences between Catholics and Protestants

---

This is simply not true. Martin Luther took out 7 books and rewrote, revise and added text to the bible. He added alone in we are saved by scripture alone. And this is historical fact from secular bible scholars. After his excommunication he had great hatred for the papacy. The OT is considered as reference to NT teachings. There is much beautiful theology untapped by Protestant scholars in its typology betweent the Old and New Testaments.

quote:

---

You are fond of saying that the Reformers left the Church when in fact Luther sought to clean up its act. He did not want a Great Schism. He, just like I, can read the very same scriptures claimed to be divinely inspired by Christ and see the differences between what is found between those pages and what the Roman Catholic church had, and has, become

---

.

Per Luther's biography he died regretting leaving the Catholic church which he truly loved. Again, he just hated the papacy. He was on a crusade against the papacy and lost.

quote:

---

He failed against the vast and powerful political machine that was more interested in money to build a fancier building than it was in godly duties

---

Well, I guess the Holy Spirit was not with him if he failed. Plus his reformers also disagreed with his visions for a church and splintered off again into the many thousands of sects we have today.

Did you know the great reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary and veneration to her. Also Luther himself did too and the real presence in the Eucharist he believed in. So, how come protestants changed their view in these beliefs over time?


You know I am not trying to change any persons beliefs, just to give you the right percepiton of what the RC is and teaches. There is so much false teaching on what the Catholic Church teaches coming from non-catholics or used to be catholics who never got it right that I try to give correct information on her. On the outside looking in seems like she is so powerful rich in authority and overwhelming but in her deep theology of treasures she is quite beauitful.

(Edited by jade on 10-18-2004 05:13)

i want to ask a question because i want to make sure i'm understanding what your comment was intended to mean jade.

quote:

---

In giving his apostles authority he summoned and gave them power to sanctify, cleanse unholy spirits, cure illnesss and gave them the power to forgive sins. And to go out an evangelize and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. We are not given the same power.

---

what exactly are you meaning in that we're not given the same power? same power to cleanse spirits, cure illness, forgive sins, or that we're not called to evangelize?

i also just found an interesting link as to when certain traditions and customs were introduced into the catholic church, i don't know much of its accuracy but found it interesting:
http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/timeline.php

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 10-18-2004 05:50)

Okay, jade. Everyone.

Catholic Encylopedia: "Catholicism"

Catholic Encylopedia: "Roman Catholicism"

Catholic Encylopedia: "Ultramontanism" (aka. The Pope Thing)

...and to top that off with the "Word of God"...

The Official Vatican Homepage

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Fig

Your posting an anti-catholic propaganda used to misguide people. Did you know its created by protestants.

Metahuman

Excellent site, which I use quite often. You will understand Catholicism from a Catholic site. Thanks.

^ I guess THAT says everything.

no, i'm posting something i ran across that seemed interesting and asking about its accuracy, i'm very intrigued by several things in there but can't vouch for any of it. if its inaccurate then i'd be very interested to know why.

and does it being created by someone who's not catholic really matter? its either correct or not i would think.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

jade: Per Christ own teaching:
Gospel of John 10:16 " There shall be one fold and one shepherd"

---

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think I'm too far off base in thinking that the "shepherd" is Jesus, and the "fold" is his followers. It is my understanding that the "church" the New Testament refers to is the followers of Jesus- not an institution. Just my $0.02, but then, what do I know?

So Jade: the holy spirit was not with him, since he failed.

Was the holy spirit with the pope when he decided to start selling 'indulgences' to finance the new church he wanted? Was the holy spirit with the catholic church when they decided to have Joan of Arc burnt at the stake? Was it with them when they asked the secular leaders of Europe to attack the muslims and kill the jews?

If that's what having the 'holy spirit' with you means....then no thank you.

And once again, your twisted view of history is disconcerting.

Martin Luther was *not* on any sort of crusade against the papacy. He was standing up agaisnt the outright corruption of the church that he loved. He did not 'at the end of his life regret leaving the catholic chruch' - he had no desire to leave it in the first place. He was forced to by corrupt leadership.

It seems to me that the last thing Jesus would want is for someone to sit and watch immoral things happen in his church, and let them happen simply because the heirarchy says so. If I recall correctly, Jesus was very fond of breaking rules and throwing off the bonds of corrupt leadership


Also, for the record: I have never said anything in regard to what the catholic church claims to "teach", or what the official views of the catholic church are.

My commentary ha always been about the actions of the catholic church. The actions are far more important to me than the words...


Now, as to Fig's posted article - what specifically do you disagree with? I can't vouch for many of those things, but some of them are most certainly true.

Are you actually trying to say that everything the catholic church beleives today, has been doctrine right from the start?

Are you trying to say that the church has not borrowed many aspects of its observances from pagan origins?

Please clarify what specifically you have an issue with in regard to that list.





(Edited by DL-44 on 10-18-2004 18:25)

MD. Copied this is for u. No doubt there will be rebuttals. But check the New Advent site MH referenced also.

Am working on a difficult case today, so I will get back with a reply to Fig/DLs post as soon as I can.


"There Shall Be One Fold - One Shepherd"
THE MARK OF ONENESS
Unity is one of the marks or signs that Jesus Christ gave His Church so as to enable men at all times and places to be able to identify it.
By the oneness of the Church is meant that, by the will of Jesus Christ, all the members of His Church are united in one and the same belief; have the same Sacraments; the same Sacrifice; and are united under one and the same visible head - namely, the Pope. As St. Paul says, "For just as in one body we have many members, yet all the members have not the same function, so we the many, are one body in Christ, but severely members of one another" (Rom. 12:4-5). And again, "one body and one spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all." (Eph. 4:4-6).


CHRIST POINTS IT OUT
Jesus Christ always spoke of His Church as one: "And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (Jn 10, 16).
The Nicene Creed, composed at the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (about 1200 years before the birth of protestantism) reads in part, "...we believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."
DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH
The mark or sign of unity is incorporated into the very definition of the Church founded by Jesus Christ: "The Church is the congregation of all baptized person, united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, and the bishops in communion with him."
THE DESIRE OF JESUS CHRIST
Jesus earnestly desired and prayed for unity in His Church. "I pray... that all may be one" (Jn 17:20-21).
Only the Catholic Church has this mark of unity. There are other Christian sects but which are separated from the unity of Christ by their rejection of the authority of the Pope which was bestowed by Christ on Peter and his lawful successors.
IT'S TIME TO COME BACK
Bishop Brent (protestant) saddened by the scandal of Church disunity so contrary to the mind, will, and prayer of Jesus Christ, stated quite firmly that the solution to the present Christian chaos was a "return to Rome" of all the separated Churches.

uh.....

and again - please relate the relevance on the issues at hand of any of these quotes?

quote:

---

jade said:

You will understand Catholicism from a Catholic site. Thanks.

---

To an extent I agree with this deduction. The same is true about atheism and science; unfortunately, often those directly involved in something require *objective* third-party opinions. If one restricts their empathy to those whom believe (or think) as they do, one becomes a bigot and their voice drowned out by the beating of drums. Learning from one source does not preclude learning from another.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-18-2004 21:33)

jade - This is where things get frustrating for me... the quotes you provided are helpful - and when I get home and have some more time I will peruse the links that MH provided - but to me they serve to confuse the issue. I read the scripture provided and then I read the interpretation of that scripture and what I understand and their interpretation are two completely different things.

The "Mark of Oneness" I read as: The mark of unity is faith in Jesus as Savior. Not an earthy institution with all the related symbology.

"Christ points it out" I read as: He is the shepherd, the people of earth are his flock. Some have heard this message others have not. "Them also I must bring..." Jesus must bring - not the Pope or any other. As for the Nicene creed - honestly, what do they know? It was 300 years after the fact. The Supreme Court justices have a difficult enough time trying to interpret the US Constitution that was written a little over 200 years ago. Truly, how did they know theirs was the right path?

"Definition of Church; Desire of Christ": See Mark of Oneness ^^^

"It's time to come back" That is one man's opinion. Just as this is my own opinion. I think that the only solution to the "present Christian chaos" is to quit bickering about dogma and focus on the central theme of the Religion: believe in Jesus and be good to others, which I think many followers do quite well, despite the name of their denomination.

Of course this is all outside of the enlightened Christian view. I?m sure that you and others will find scripture to contradict my opinions, and that?s just fine. That?s what learning is all about?

Wikipedia: List of ecumenical councils

Wikipedia: The Nicene Creed

Apparently there's more to the story...

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

The roman catholics weren't the first christians, the bible wasn't written by catholics and the scripture can be debated.....bottom line is that none of this really matters. the only people keeping score of that junk is mortals. Does it really matter what sect of christianity you are as long as you live your life by the bible? In a scout troop whether or not you are a good scout doesn't depend on what patrol you are in it's whether or not you follow the code and law. In the Army, Navy, and Air Force what battalion you are in doesn't determine what rank you are or your proffeciency as a professional bullet catcher it only matters that you get the job done. Doesn't the bible also say that christians are god's army and we are his soldiers? Isn't that the point of the hymn called "Onward Christian Soldiers"?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

quote:

---

Truly, how did they know theirs was the right path

---

Well, how do we know that Jesus was savior from documents written over 1700 years ago in the holy scriptures. Its requires faith. We take it on authority of the men who provided scripture that they gave truth or its all a big lie.

When you really think about it, why would there be no system of governing the flock? It is necessary as any institution requires to have rule to keep a system or entity in check. Its common sense to leave a governing magisterium. Consider how the US government & laws and the court system keep us from anarchy. Why would Christ not provide the same in his church to keep it united and strong against its dark enemies.

(Edited by jade on 10-18-2004 23:01)

So you beleive that the very spotty history of the catholic church, with its many political leaders, and its many mistakes (things like condemning some to death for heresy...only to saint them later....) deserve the same level of faith in their decisions as does Jesus himself?

Don't forget that Jesus was a political-religious leader too!

quote:

---

Sangreal said:

In a scout troop whether or not you are a good scout doesn't depend on what patrol you are in it's whether or not you follow the code and law.

---

That logic is flawed. Faith in religious ideas and faith in gods are not requirements for living ethically. Shouldn't you be more concerned with the definition of "good" and whether you're a good human rather than a good whatever you're called by the organization in which you enrolled?

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Just a bit of an addendum -

I also find the Catholic Encyclopedia quite useful - in fact I visit often.

It is noteworthy that the definition of 'Catholic' found there is rather supportive of the view of the origins of the "Catholic" church that I have presented.

Why do you guys continue to reply to Jade? It just seems like a terrible waste of time.

I don't think it's a waste of time at all. I like jade very much and I am glad she's here. Call me an optimist, but I have this belief that dialogue on these kinds of topics can be very helpful to the participants as well as an untold number of lurkers.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

^^^I agree, Bugimus.

quote:

---

Why do you guys continue to reply to Jade? It just seems like a terrible waste of time

---

.


Why Jetsah? Do you want to give up on me?
Don't you want to save me from the dark evil empire too?

Believe it or not in matters of faith I may seem like a stubborn mule, but I am quite friendly and likeable, and pretty much open minded in many other issues. Its just that in matters of faith I have very strong convicitons which I cannot waiver on. Can you respect that?
I respect how everyone wants to worship and have a great respect for the human person no matter what kind of person they are because I know God lives in all humanity.

As you can see, DL needles me alot and is very anti-papacy, as many others are, but I still like him and everyone else that is negative towards Catholicism.

In my history of post regarding religious beliefs, I pretty much have stood alone. And it has not been about me vs anyone. Just me giving a true view of what my faith is as opposed to the misconception of what everyone thinks its teachings are. For me I am only following the truth of what I see just like every other non-catholic or non-christian sees his view.

Fig, I am speaking of the special powers he gave to the apostles which has been handed down thru history. I don't have the power to forgive sins in a confessional. I don't have power to give the last rites. I don't have power to perform the marriage rites of communion between to couples. I don't have power to change the bread to the body and blood of christ. I don't have the power of Exorcism.
I am talking of priestly duties that the priest obtains power from when the takes the sacrament of "Holy Orders" so that he may act in "Persona Christi"..(In the place of Christ). THis is historical and traditional teachings from the RC that we observe and believe in.
I can forgive someone who offends me to make them feel better and they may want to go to confession if they are bothered about what they did to me. I can pray and hope someone will get well. I can evangelize to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, but in a different role the priest performs certain rites that he alone can do. I myself can baptize in case of an emergency, since baptism is really a parental commitment to bring the child up in the body of christ family.
Here the child makes no proclamation of faith as a believer, just that he is promised to the chruch by his parents to bring him up Catholic. Later on when the child is a teen he makes his confirmation into the faith. I cannot give a teen a rite of confirmation. Only a priest can administer it in Persona Christi.

To get a better definition of "In Persona Christi" check the New Advent site if you want.

The list I will not respond too. There is much dogma and doctrine and some are traditions that can be changed. Specifiy which one you really want to understand.

You know DL, you really are repeating yourself over and over in your snipes at me. Can you think of something different to use against the RC instead of its riches?

For all the bad stuff said about the church by many of you, can't any of you ever find anything nice to say of it? It seems from this forum it shows more evil than good comes from it.

(Edited by jade on 10-19-2004 19:22)

where to start...well, as far as saying positive things about the catholic church, i have to be totally honest and say that my experiences as a whole in the church did little for me. and this isn't a "i went to church for two months and didn't like it", i grew up in the catholic church for over 20 years, got baptized, had first communion, got confirmed, etc., and while there was certainly a sense of community there that was about it. all i ever got from all the sermons, classes, and everything else i attended was "follow the rules and you'll go to heaven". i never understood why i did all the things i did, and no one ever bothered to really explain why. i never saw God really move and change people, anyone i met or that came to the church was already catholic. that personal relationship aspect of christianity was barely even touched on. at a point later on, outside the catholic church, God really worked in me and changed some things, and i've seen Him radically change other people firsthand. i wish i could say that my experience was isolated but i've heard very similar stories from a lot of other people.

the idea of "in persona christi" makes no sense to me according to other scripture. why do i need someone else acting in place of christ? the bible clearly states that we're to have no one between us and God except christ. also, i'm curious how baptism is a parental choice when all throughout the bible we see believers being baptized after they profess their faith.

on the list of changes in catholic tradition, there's a few i found really odd. one actually isnt on there, and that's the idea that peter wasn't recoginized as the pope until the 3rd century and that at that time there was a lot of controversy over it. the original greek in the text where christ is talking to peter is interesting too, the word used in calling peter "rock" and christ's reference to the "rock" on which he builds the church are actually two different words.

the thing that interested me the most off that list was the date the doctrine of purgatory was introduced, seems like it came a lot later that it should have if it was among the original beliefs of the early church.

and jade, like some others here i do find a lot of value in these discussions and from your opinions, i learn a lot just from reading and researching this and from hearing other's thoughts. hopefully others who are lurking are finding some value here too.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

DL needles me alot and is very anti-papacy

---

No, I certainly don't. I ask very valid questions - questions I wish you would actually answer once in a while. Questions you seem to wish to brush off as 'snipes'.

yes, I am very anti-papacy.

Have you ever considered that maybe people don't say the things they say just because they are 'anti-catholic'?

Maybe, just *maybe*, people become anti-catholic because of the facts such as those I have stated many times over?

As for which questions I have asked, that I would like to hear your thoughts on -

quote:

---

Now, as to Fig's posted article - what specifically do you disagree with? I can't vouch for many of those things, but some of them are most certainly true.

Are you actually trying to say that everything the catholic church beleives today, has been doctrine right from the start?

Are you trying to say that the church has not borrowed many aspects of its observances from pagan origins?

Please clarify what specifically you have an issue with in regard to that list.

---

quote:

---

Was the holy spirit with the pope when he decided to start selling 'indulgences' to finance the new church he wanted? Was the holy spirit with the catholic church when they decided to have Joan of Arc burnt at the stake? Was it with them when they asked the secular leaders of Europe to attack the muslims and kill the jews?

---

quote:

---

So you beleive that the very spotty history of the catholic church, with its many political leaders, and its many mistakes (things like condemning some to death for heresy...only to saint them later....) deserve the same level of faith in their decisions as does Jesus himself?

---

These are not sarcastic retorts. These are very important issues, and I simply cannot fathom how someone can just ignore them.

Faith is faith....but corruption is corruption, and historic fact is historic fact.

quote:

---

Faith is faith....but corruption is corruption, and historic fact is historic fact.

---

I will address some issues but not all, because its a rehash and no doubt you are posting to give lurkers and forum devotees anti-catholic view tme. But nothing I post will satisfy you. I state this from experience, but it will have to be when I get home, my lunch hour is over.

But I might add. There has been corruption in the USA system of government since its inception, but don't we still believe in the system and take pride in our country for what it represents? And we usually say if you don't like it then just move to another country. There are corrupt government humans, but that doesn't mean the system of USA government is corrupt. There are men fighting right now for the very ideals that this corrput goverment human push. So as long as systems are run by imperfect humans, it will have faults, but that doesn't mean the system is not working. Same analogy with the system of hierarchy of the Roman Church, they are all inperfect humans trying to run a perfect system. And when they fall, its percieved that the whole church falls.

(Edited by jade on 10-19-2004 21:37)

quote:

---

But I might add. There has been corruption in the USA system of government since its inception, but don't we still believe in the system and take pride in our country for what it represents? And we usually say if you don't like it then just move to another country.

---

You always bring this correlation up, but it simply does not apply.

The people in government are elected by the populace. They are there for a limited amount of time. They (are supposed to) vote for issues based on the views of the people they represnt. They are accountable for their actions (at least to an extent). They are people, and they are flawed, and we all know it.

The church heirarchy, on the other hand, is supposedly there by some divine mandate, with the 'holy spirit working through them' and other such nonsense. They are looked at as infallible, as better than the rest of us, etc.

And, most importantly, you are trusing them with your 'immortal soul'.

We don't put that kind of trust in our political leaders. The comparison simply does not hold up.

That said, I will certainly agree that there are people who do have that same blindness in regard to patriotism as they have about religion, and the 'love it or leave it' jackasses who can't tolerate any sort of criticism of the system. That still doesn't make it a positive comparison

quote:

---

no doubt you are posting to give lurkers and forum devotees anti-catholic view tme.

---

Anti-catholic view time???

It may surprise you, but I have better things to do than crusade against the catholic church. My views are very clear: I think it is a very bad organization. But I am not out to topple it! I enjoy education, especially in matters of history. You cannot understand the history of Europe without learning a good deal about the history of the church and its role in society.

If only you could stop seeing questions about the issues being discussed here as 'attacks' or 'snipes' or an effort to overthrow the catholic empire, I think you'd get a great deal more from these discussions.

Most importantly, you must understand that I am not here as a 'prtestant'. I am not christian whatsoever (nor do I practice any other religion), and so I have no agenda in hand when asking such questions.

There are undoubtedly very good things that have been done both in the name of and at the hand of christianity. IMO, most of that good was really a side effect - primarily the renewed interest in education, in literature, in reading/writing/reproducing books; in developments in art and architecture. There are a lot of great individuals in christian history, both catholic and otherwise.

But that does not negate any of the other things that I have said.

Now, how on earth asking you questions, to get your point of view as a catholic, can be seen as giving the 'lurkers' some anti-catholic view time © is quite beyond me.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-19-2004 23:34)

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

(sorry, Jestah if I stepped on your toes...)

---

Jestah wears steel-toe boots. No need to apologize! ;p

EDIT: Talk about a late reply. I must have been on another page... *sigh* What a downer...
_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-19-2004 23:04)

quote:

---

Most importantly, you must understand that I am not here as a 'prtestant'. I am not christian whatsoever (nor do I practice any other religion), and so I have no agenda in hand when asking such questions.

---

Somehow, I am not convinced. I think you are keenly interested in Christianity for a reason. For a athiest, you sure are immersed in religious topic threads as other athiest or agnostics, etc. just comment here and there. So, I wonder about you. I think you have a certain mysterious agenda about this bad wayward instutition that you so evidently despise. What did they do to you in the past? How have they affected your life that you are so verbal against it? Why not against Hinduism or Islam?

Don't get me wrong, I like you where I am at.
Just that I feel there is more to your personal story.
You seem very much like your a cover for a baptist fundamentalist poster person in you anti-papacy stand. Are you? Come on just get out of that closet and come clean. I will not hold it against you.

(Edited by jade on 10-20-2004 15:37)

jade,

I am familiar with many of the "anti-catholic" arguments and positions. There is a great deal of anti-catholicism that is hateful and off base in the Proetestant world. Much of it is even based on lies and half truths about the RC church. Speaking as a Xian, I do not support that and I point it out if it came up. Trust me, you have not run into that here.

As for me, you accused me of prejudice earlier. Do you consider all non-catholic christians to be prejudiced? I am simply explaining to you why I think your church has strayed from the original teachings of the apostles. Does that makes me prejudiced in your view?

DL-44,

I have been through this with three Cathloic friends of mine about 10 years ago. We argued through much of what has been discussed here and I learned a great deal about the RC church as a result. In fact, I have found that I am more familiar with much of the teachings of the RC church than several catholics I've encountered since then.

You asked:

quote:

---

The church heirarchy, on the other hand, is supposedly there by some divine mandate, with the 'holy spirit working through them' and other such nonsense. They are looked at as infallible, as better than the rest of us, etc.

---

The answer I always got back on this one was that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals only. So when I pointed out murderous Popes in the past, it meant that they were still there by God's will and being led by the Holy Spirit when they spoke for the church on theological pronouncements but they were still human and could do all those terrible things.

That's the answer. I don't like it, and I never did like it. jade has asked me repeatedly in this thread how a church like mine remains guided by God yet it seems to me that the leadership of the RC church is every bit as vulnerable to sin as the rest of us.


jade, I'm going to point out once again why I see the evidence the way I do. If you pick up your New Testament, you will not find infant baptism, sprinkling or pouring, the priesthood, a Pope, confessionals, Mary's assumption, her assumption into heaven, her perpetual virginity, etc. When do we see these doctrines in history? Much later than the first century, some of them MUCH later. I think the burden of proof falls far more to you to justify why the church was meant to become all that as opposed to the view that we were to stick closely to the teaching of the apostles and Christ Himself through them. That is what this discussion should be focused upon, IMNTBHO.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-20-2004 17:21)

Jade - all I can say is......


wow.

You really are something.

I am actually somewhat speechless that you can be so paranoid, and so deliberately ignorant of many facts regarding the history of the catholic church as to have the *need* to view someone like me as a 'protestant in disguise' out to badmouth the catholic church.

As I said, many many times, it comes down to very simple observation of both past and present actions of the organization.

Something you should try....

Now, if we could actually get to some of these questions -

You spoke in very broad and strong terms about how the list Fig posted was 'anti-catholic propaganda'.

Could you please explain, and adress the items on the list with which you disagree, so we can see where you're coming form?

Or are you going to simply ignore the issues again so that you don't have to deal with what might be true/false?




(Edited by DL-44 on 10-20-2004 17:44)

Who are you really? Fig's sidekick?

No. I am not going through each one just because you want me to. Thats alot of work. Just propose which one?

It IS a lot of work, but YOU brought it up. You made the accusation that the site is "anti-catholic propaganda used to misguide people". If you make accusations, you must be able to *do the work* to back up the accusations. Without the work, your accusations (or anybody's accusations) are a pile of worthless gibberish.

Paranoid thoughts of "anti-catholic propoganda" and closet protestants on a witch hunt will get you nowhere.

You'll see the people with whom you are disagreeing (DL, Fig, Bugs, etc) are providing some reason behind their arguements. They are reasonably well researched, well though out, well communicated statements.

When you enter into a civil debate, there is an implicit agreement by both parties to conduct themselves appropriately -- discuss with reason the topic at hand. You are not living up to your side of this agreement.

I can't believe, that this is continuing. In any regards, I'm out.

jade, i did mention a few items earlier when you asked. while you want to paint me as broadly anti-catholic i'm really not, tho i'm not going to hide my negative experiences either. i'll openly admit that my church, as well as the one bugs attends and any others out there, isn't perfect, and i'd wager that we're all pretty far off what the original church was like despite our best intentions.

who knows, maybe i've missed the boat and didn't "get" something when i was in church, but it doesn't seem that way to me. and in retrospect, understanding the bible and theology a lot more know than i did when i was younger, a lot of things don't seem to line up. i'd like to understand the reasoning behind some of those things, whether i'll agree or not is an entirely different matter but i think we all learn something from these discussions.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Paranoid thoughts of "anti-catholic propoganda" and closet protestants on a witch hunt will get you nowhere.

---

Morbul,
Have you joined the bandwagon too?

Please. Please. Tell me it isn't true.

quote:

---

You'll see the people with whom you are disagreeing (DL, Fig, Bugs, etc) are providing some reason behind their arguements. They are reasonably well researched, well though out, well communicated statements.

---

Well researched??? Where is it? Since you ask, where is your research?

Whatever, jade.

That's about the limit of my patience vs. interest.

Not unusual - you usually put up that brick wall when we get to any subject in which you might have to actually provide back-up for your accusations.

Enjoy your self-imposed ignorance...

=)

OK. Call me ignorant then. If it makes you feel better.

That list has tons of dogma and doctrine associated. Even if I were to just comment on each one without research of which I can do, I would be posting to the wind.

Come on kissing of the Pope's foot. Give me a break?

jade, I'm very sorry to say this but you are becoming very insulting. I am very disappointed to see you take this path.

Asking you questions and challenging your views does not mean that people here don't like you. If you can't discuss differing opinions on these topics without taking it personally then this really isn't a good idea to continue. I'm very sorry it has come to this point.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Ok, Bugs. Since you set the rules for this asylum. I will graciously leave.

If you were actually to leave at this point, it could not be characterized as gracious.

...and since I do set all the rules and everyone here must obey my every command... hmm... I'll have to get back to you on that one.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

No, jade you wouldn't be "posting to the wind". I know that I for one was very interested in what you had to bring to the table. I don't think anyone was proposing that you write a novel on each point on that list. Both Fig and Bugimus brought up very valid questions as non-catholic Christians that were completely separate from the list that Fig posted.

A discussion is the exchange of ideas - of information. We're not asking you to spend hours of your time researching things you may not have answers for. If you don't have the answer, just say so. The important thing is that we are looking for your perspective as a Roman Catholic. We are not looking for the perspective of the Pope or the Catholic website.

Are these questions easy? Absolutely not. No one is telling you to leave. There is no anti-jade, anti-catholic "bandwagon" here.

I'm only making this attempt jade, to keep this conversation going because I am interested in everybody's views on this topic, including yours. As I said, if you don't know the answer to a direct question, then just say so - no one will fault you for that. If it is a matter of the Church telling you this is the way things are and you accept that without question, then I guess there is no further point of discussion as these are issues that can only be pondered if you question the RC organization.

quote:

---

If it makes you feel better.

---

No, it doesn't. But when you behave the way you are, it's the only conclusion I'm left with.

I do not insult anyone on purpose and shouldn't be accused of doing so. If anyone has been insulted more on this asylum it has been me. Do I ever complain? No.
Has anyone come to my defense? No. Has anyone who has insulted me been accused of insulting me? No. Lets not blind ourselves to the real issue here. Iam not going away mad, just going away. If I seem insulting then I not doing the will of God. Maybe I am tired.

I never waiver from a question or a battle of words in faith. But to be asked to explain a list for me to defend on terms that say if you don't want to debate or explain or argue it your evading or hiding or don't know the answers to me is unfair.

Yes, I do speak for the Roman Church in matters of faith and doctrine. So what else is new? I have been doing that since day one. What I speak is what it speaks. Not any made up facts and views I cater to believe.

So if I come across robotted for Rome, I must be boring most. I see myself as a submissive slave trying to do the will of Jesus Christ.

But, I leave you to learn Christianity from my brothers in Christ, Bugs, Gideon, Fig etc. May you learn much from them to do the will of God.

Me, I am going on vacation.

May the love of Christ be in and with all of u.

(Edited by jade on 10-20-2004 23:11)

Conflicting Perceptual Orientations by yours truly.

Many people, like jade, never completely comprehend that belief in gods and faith in a religion are learned behaviors. All humans are born as atheists and I prefer to stay that way. So please, don't wish the "love of Christ" upon everyone and strike such broad strokes with your ridiculously egocentric belief that "everyone wants to come to God." No, not everyone wants to be you.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-20-2004 23:13)

quote:

---

All humans are born as atheists...

---

I couldn't disagree more. What are you basing that on, meta? I was under the impression that anthropological studies show humanity has overwhelmingly gravitated toward a belief in God/god/gods.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

This is the first time, I have ever held the same point of view as metahuman. I'm not really sure, of what to make of that. Although I don't coin the beliefs of others as

quote:

---

ridiculously egocentric

---

Bugs, anthropological studies do show that humanity has overwhelmingly gravitated toward a belief in a higher power. However, meta makes the point of saying

quote:

---

All humans are born as atheists

---

, and this is a true statement. Babies are not born with any belief at all, and studies done on humans that have grown up in total isolation from others and their belief systems have no concept of a higher power whatsoever.

In fact, I believe that your religion, if I am not in error, makes an exception for infants, right?

I at this point it is critical we agree on the definition of atheism being used by metahuman. What definition are you using, meta?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

^ Hmmm...good point. I see it here as not having a belief in a higher power.

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-21-2004 02:01)

And I was assuming he meant the belief that there is no higher power. We must wait for clarification.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Ah, I see the difference. My view of it, includes unawareness of the concept of a higher being. Your view of it, is a belief that a higher being doesn't exist, or at least awareness of the concept of a higher being.

How would you then classify my view of it? If someone is unaware of the concept of a higher being, what is that classified as? Ignorant? Innocent?

Bugimus: Atheism is the lack of theism. That's the only valid definition of atheism. There's nothing more to it than that. Sure, there are categories like "weak atheism/agnostic atheism" and "strong atheism" but atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods for whatever reason. Some Buddhists, for instance, are atheists. The subject you brought up, Bugimus, is called the God Module. Research it. The subject is interesting but it does not indicate that we are born Christian, Catholic, etc. We are born without belief in gods--without theism. Theistic behavior is completely learned.

Also, read On Beliefs and Belief Systems by the late Bob Eddy of the Institute of General Semantics.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Even with a complete absence of specific knowledge of God's word, your conscience would inform you of right and wrong. For example, centuries ago Gentiles that were completely isolated from the religion of the Jews still had systems of ethics, and that is because all humans are created in God's image and therefore possess knowledge of right and wrong.

So if I am understanding your question properly, there is no way that you, WS, could fall into the category of "innocent" like an infant would. And there is no way you could be classified as "ignorant", because through God's creation his Law has been written on your heart.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

My view of it, includes unawareness of the concept of a higher being. Your view of it, is a belief that a higher being doesn't exist, or at least awareness of the concept of a higher being.

---

There are two types of atheism which are often confused by atheists and religionists.

• Atheism, sometimes called 'weak atheism' or 'agnostic atheism', is the lack of belief in gods for whatever reason.
  
  
• Positive atheism, also called 'strong atheism', is the belief in the lack of gods.

See the difference? Lack of belief in gods is not equivalent to belief in the non-existence of gods. Compare these statements:

• Agnostic atheist: "I do not believe in gods nor do I believe they do not exist; however, I am open to the possibility of both the existence and nonexistence of gods."
  
  
• Strong atheist: "Gods do not exist! I have proof."

The weak atheist reserves judgment while the strong atheist declares war on theism.

Keep in mind that the adjective does not redefine the noun. It creates a new instance of the noun and adds to the new instance's definition. The definition of "atheism" remains static, generally applicable, and plain.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-21-2004 03:08)

The fact that you even have to explain it at all demonstrates why it was so important that we agree on the definition we're using for the purposes of this discussion. Regardless of how much one would like our language to remain static, it is far from it. I stopped insisting that words retain their definitions over time, and now I just make sure definitions are stipulated for individual discussions.

Anyways, I have not gotten a chance to look into the "God Module" you referenced yet. I will get back to this once I have done so.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

...and that is because all humans are created in God's image and therefore possess knowledge of right and wrong.

---

Bugs, now that was pretty naive...

Thanks man

But seriously, what exactly is naive about it?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

aww cmon do I really have to point you out hehehe

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

. . . . and that is because all humans are created in God's image and therefore possess knowledge of right and wrong.

But seriously, what exactly is naive about it?

---

First you assume your god exists. Then you assume that everyone knows your definition of "god." Then you assume humans were created. Then you assume humans were created by your god. Then you assume your concepts of "right" and "wrong" are correct. Then you assume knowledge of right and wrong is derived from your god's knowledge. Then you assume... "and so on." If any of that were true, 9/11 would not have occurred. That's why your statement is naive. Your statement ignores sociological and psychological issues and assumes a black-and-whiteness to the world. By the way, the claim that "Man was created in God's image" contradicts the supposed existence of your god.

quote:

---

The fact that you even have to explain it at all demonstrates why it was so important that we agree on the definition we're using for the purposes of this discussion. Regardless of how much one would like our language to remain static, it is far from it. I stopped insisting that words retain their definitions over time, and now I just make sure definitions are stipulated for individual discussions.

---

I agree that key terms must be defined prior to discussion in order for discussion to be meaningful. The problem with the idea that the definition of "atheism" isn't static is that it is static. The alternate and invalid definitions of "atheism" (and of all terms) are either ignorantly developed and/or developed with intent to misguide.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-21-2004 06:42)

Every thinking human being must base their view of life on something. You are correct about me basing mine, and therefore assuming, on the existence of God. Descartes famously began with "I think therefore I am". I suspect you begin yours with a scientific convention having to do with memetics (which I really haven't read up on so please forgive my lack of understaning of it).

About me assuming everyone knows about my God... umm... don't you think after 4 years of expressing who my God is in this very forum that I might just possibly think some people would know what I was referring to? Have you been gone so long that you have forgotten where I stand? Cut me a little slack here!

All of the other assumptions you list stem from my basic world view which answers many of the difficult questions relating to sociological and psychological issues and I assure you that you are incorrect in saying I have ignored them. The fact that you probably disagree with the answers does not mean they're naive at all. In fact, the charge of naivete bothers me a great deal specifically because the answers Christianity provides match extremely well with observed realities in human behavior and psychology. By all means, express disagreement and provide alternative answers but naive? I don't think it's an accurate charge.

Your reference to 9/11 is intriguing beyond words and I would love to explore that more with you. I think you are assuming a great deal about my views from what you said. This may leave you with incorrect conclusions, which are never a good thing.

And for someone who just criticized black-and-whiteness, I find it amusing that you are so inflexible about definitions of words in the English language. The point is that there is nothing you can do about the evolution of language. It has and it will continue. But it's your prerogative to fight that fight. I hope you're not one of those people who insist that being gay can only mean one is happy! That one always kills me.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugimus: Read carefully.

• 1. I never stated you ignored sociological and psychological issues.
  
  
• 2. Religiosity is a byproduct of naivete. Religiosity often provides delusions. which create problems, instead of solutions.
  
  
• 3. The literal definition of "atheism" has remained the same since the term was coined. The Greek prefix a- means without and the Greek-derived theism means belief in gods. While languages as systems of communication do evolve, basic words in every language do not. Maintaining a system of standardized language for the production of efficient communication is not a matter of black-and-whiteness or inflexibility. Naive misperceptions do not make for reasonable redefinitions. Godlessness is not equivalent to immorality for an atheist lacks theism and therefore lacks your belief in what your god (or gods) represents.
  
  
• 4. Assuming you think 9/11 shouldn't have happened, if all humans were created in your god's image and if all humans were of your morality, 9/11 would not have occurred because the terrorists, who are also humans created in your god's image, would have knowledge of your morality. I haven't stated any conclusions regarding your naive statement except that your statement "all humans are created in God's image and therefore possess knowledge of right and wrong" is naive. You're a bit too quick in removing content from context and in pointing fingers for assumption where none exists. I suggest you learn and practice General Semantics. (I've still a lot of practicing to do before I can even think of myself as a General Semanticist.) Try the tutorials and exercises.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Bugs

quote:

---

Even with a complete absence of specific knowledge of God's word, your conscience would inform you of right and wrong.

---

This is definitely not true. I'm somewhat taken aback, that you ignore direct evidence that disputes this.

Take for instance, the two children that were raised, totally isolated from all others, by their parents (the children didn't have contact with their parents, either. If you remember correctly, these parents were charged with crimes and convicted of neglect ). However immoral and cruel, these tests conducted by these two misfit parents, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your statement is false. The two children had no knowledge whatsoever of "right" and "wrong". There was only "I want", and can "I take".

Also, "right" and "wrong" are largely socially and culturally defined. Meaning that these values change accordingly. I personally do not believe in these values, as you well know, being of natural origin. Such experiments, as the above example, does provide support for what I believe.

Developmental Psychology: Moral Development

Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology: Moral Development

*sigh* I should have majored in psychology, not marketing... This too is a fascinating subject.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

I don't wish to derail whichever topic we're on at the moment, but this needs addressing -

quote:

---

Atheism is the lack of theism. That's the only valid definition of atheism.

---

But,

quote:

---

The noun "atheism" has 2 senses in WordNet.

1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

---

Now, the word 'doctrine' becomes very important -

quote:

---

The noun "doctrine" has 1 sense in WordNet.

1. doctrine, philosophy, philosophical system, school of thought, ism -- (a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school)

---

While I have always been a proponent of the fact that atheism is absolutely the very simple non-belief in God or gods, and has nohting to do with any doctrine, the very source you use to define your 'objective terms' says otherwise.

Now, I only bring this up to help illustrate that even such a basic word as atheism carries more than the simple meaning it was intended to have, even from a source such as Princeton's WordNet.

As I mentioned, atheism most certainly has nothing to do with any particular doctirne, and is in and of itself he lack of belief in any gods. Unfortunately many doctrines do all too often becoms associated with atheism,

It is definately important to be specific when using strong terms that you feel have only one valid definition - especially when your recommended source of definition has contradictory information.

Initially, I disagreed with the term "doctrine" in the definition of "atheism," which means I also disagreed with many dictionaries, particularly American Heritage as it is the worst of them all; however, using WordNet to further define terms one can conclude, despite the esoteric definition of belief, that doctrine/belief is accurate within the definition of "atheism." The first sense is strong atheism whereas the second, suggested by me, is weak atheism, or general atheism. The first sense is also a common religionistic view of atheism as well as an accurate definition of strong atheism in atheistic organizations like the American Atheists, Secular Humanism, Brianism, etc.

doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

belief: any cognitive content held as true

system: a complex of methods or rules governing behavior

"Theism" is also defined as "the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods."

I've contributed much to the Wikipedia article on atheism. Have fun. ;p

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

The first sense is strong atheism whereas the second, suggested by me, is weak atheism, or general atheism. The first sense is also a common religionistic view of atheism as well as an accurate definition of strong atheism in atheistic organizations like the American Atheists, Secular Humanism, Brianism, etc.

---

As long as you realize that what you are saying is a very subjective method of reasoning things, I'm ok with that

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As long as you realize that what you are saying is a very subjective method of reasoning things, I'm ok with that

---

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Naive misperceptions do not make for reasonable redefinitions. You probably don't understand if you think the definition of "atheism" is biased.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-22-2004 00:53)

I understand perfectly well.

You seem to have quite a flaw in your reasoning though...

Would you explain or do you prefer ambiguity?

You seem to have a major problem with clarity, word usage, and logic.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

metahuman said:

You seem to have a major problem with clarity, word usage, and logic.

---

See why that doesn't mean anything? There's no context, which is precisely why the following doesn't mean anything either.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As long as you realize that what you are saying is a very subjective method of reasoning things, I'm ok with that

---

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I understand perfectly well.

You seem to have quite a flaw in your reasoning though...

---

Unless you provide context--evidence to support your claims--then my best option is to ignore your remarks henceforth.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-22-2004 10:02)

I don't have time for a full explanation/discussion of this at the moment. My first post on the subject said all that needed to be said really -

1) you off, in your sig, a place to find the meaning of the words that you use.

2) you offer what you call the only valid definition of a word.

3) your own source of definitions contradicts what you say.

4) you then try to reason around the issue in a rather subjective way, still trying to claim objectivity.

It is very flawed.

You're still not providing context. Your claims remain meaningless.

1) Princeton University's WordNet 2.0

2) It is the only valid definition of "atheism."

3) No, there exists no contradiction. There are two senses: one for strong atheism, the other for general atheism. Provision of multiple senses is the way lexical reference systems work.

4) Definition of terms is not "subjective.".

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-22-2004 15:22)

Meta, you say

quote:

---

You're still not providing context. Your claims remain meaningless.

---

However,

quote:

---

Bugimus: Atheism is the lack of theism. That's the only valid definition of atheism. There's nothing more to it than that. Sure, there are categories like "weak atheism/agnostic atheism" and "strong atheism" but atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods for whatever reason.

---

quote:

---

There are two types of atheism which are often confused by atheists and religionists.

* Atheism, sometimes called 'weak atheism' or 'agnostic atheism', is the lack of belief in gods for whatever reason.

* Positive atheism, also called 'strong atheism', is the belief in the lack of gods.

See the difference? Lack of belief in gods is not equivalent to belief in the non-existence of gods. Compare these statements:

* Agnostic atheist: "I do not believe in gods nor do I believe they do not exist; however, I am open to the possibility of both the existence and nonexistence of gods."

* Strong atheist: "Gods do not exist! I have proof."

The weak atheist reserves judgment while the strong atheist declares war on theism.

---

quote:

---

I agree that key terms must be defined prior to discussion in order for discussion to be meaningful. The problem with the idea that the definition of "atheism" isn't static is that it is static. The alternate and invalid definitions of "atheism" (and of all terms) are either ignorantly developed and/or developed with intent to misguide.

---

quote:

---

3. The literal definition of "atheism" has remained the same since the term was coined. The Greek prefix a- means without and the Greek-derived theism means belief in gods. While languages as systems of communication do evolve, basic words in every language do not. Maintaining a system of standardized language for the production of efficient communication is not a matter of black-and-whiteness or inflexibility. Naive misperceptions do not make for reasonable redefinitions. Godlessness is not equivalent to immorality for an atheist lacks theism and therefore lacks your belief in what your god (or gods) represents.

---

And therefore

quote:

---

I don't wish to derail whichever topic we're on at the moment, but this needs addressing -

quote:Atheism is the lack of theism. That's the only valid definition of atheism.



But,

quote:The noun "atheism" has 2 senses in WordNet.

1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

---

I'm afraid he caught you with your pants down Meta. Time to admit you made a mistake. If you can. DL's claims are not only not meaningless, but easy to understand, whereas your logic train breaks down, and is not.

Of course, you are probably the only one who will not see this...

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-22-2004 16:01)

i need to get coffee and then sit down and reread all this again to see who meant what

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

What context am I failing to provide?

The context is here, now, your words.

There are two senses of the word atheism listed at Wordnet.

You use the subjective system of assigning your idea of values to 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' in an effort to qualify your statement that there is only one valid definition of the word.

There's nothing wrong with that, of course.

But if you can't even admit that you are being subjective in your explanation of the variations of atheism, and that the 'sense' of atheism defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" opens up the door for a whole host of subjective interpretations (and, of course, despite your hardest efforts to see it otherwise definitions of terms *is* all about interpretation - that's how language works. Words only mean what they mean because we use them that way), then you probably just don't understand.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-22-2004 18:01)

Sad.

You two seem to lack the brainpower required for comprehension of this subject.

There are two senses of "atheism"

1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

"Senses" regard the common usage of a term. In this case, there are two common usages of "atheism" which refer to two different, yet similar, categories of atheism.

The first sense is a specific definition. It is applicable to both strong atheism and organizational atheism.

The second sense is a general definition. It is applicable to both strong atheism, weak atheism, and even anatheism.

The applicability of which sense to a particular context is important for understanding what is meant in which context. When a Christian argues against the fact that humans are not born as atheists, their interpretation (their sense) of the term is most likely, and incorrectly, the first sense. The reason why their interpretation is incorrect is because they use an inappropriate sense to form an argument. When atheists maintain that humans are born without theism and are therefore atheists, they are using the general definition. We understand that general atheism--the LACK of theistic beliefs--is a passive condition whereas strong atheism is an active disbelief.

DL-44: You said, "Words only mean what they mean because we use them that way." That is a half-truth for it ignores context. CONTEXT. COONNNNNNTEXXXT. Words (symbols) are assigned a meaning when coined and used with that meaning henceforth. In the case of "atheism," the etymology regards "atheism" as "the lack of theistic beliefs."

quote:

---

The term atheism (French athéisme, from athée, meaning atheist, from Greek 'Αθεος, atheos, meaning godless : a-, without; + Θεός, theos, meaning god; it has Indo-European Roots) is formed of the Greek prefix α- (a-), meaning "without" or "not," and the Greek-derived theism (from Θεϊσμός, theismos), meaning a belief in a god. The literal meaning of the term is therefore "lack of belief in a god."

---

The word "atheism" has been used polemically to describe the position of someone who does not believe in one particular deity, even if they do believe in another. An example would be its use as an accusation of the pagan Romans against the early Christians, and vice versa. It was also used against Socrates. Polemical usages of this term are a pejorative sense, which are not covered by the WordNet's lexical reference system.

If you still do not understand, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Having extensively researched atheism for the past ten years, I am not wrong about this subject. Get over it and admit defeat.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-22-2004 23:00)

quote:

---

Get over it and admit defeat.

---

youobviously enjoy this mental masturbation far more than any meaningful dialogue...so once again - please feel free to continue without me.

If the day ever comes when you get over yourself, let us know.

Should you happen to be at all interested, you'll notice that I never anywhere said you were wrong about the word atheism. I understand very well what an atheist is, and I understand its etymology very well (without your input).

What I said was that, despite your assertions that you are always so logical and objective, and use your 'objectively defined terms', you use a very subjective loop of reasoning to come to your conclusions.

If you can't deal with that fact, that's your problem.

And as DL so eloquently pointed out, no-one was saying you, meta were wrong about the word atheism. You apparently still do not understand. You type up a lot of stuff to support something that no-one is disagreeing with.

And I think DL put it very well, indeed, a few times.

quote:

---

despite your assertions that you are always so logical and objective, and use your 'objectively defined terms', you use a very subjective loop of reasoning to come to your conclusions.

---

I mentioned it

quote:

---

DL's claims are not only not meaningless, but easy to understand, whereas your logic train breaks down, and is not.

---

quote:

---

Of course, you are probably the only one who will not see this...

---

Sad.

I shall graciously bow out, at this point as well. Unless Bugs wishes to go a bit deeper into the subject at hand, that is.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

[insert a slew of meaningless taunts]

What I said was that, despite your assertions that you are always so logical and objective, and use your 'objectively defined terms', you use a very subjective loop of reasoning to come to your conclusions.

---

Then what exactly is "subjective" about the so-called "loop of reasoning" (which isn't a loop at all and in fact is the mere defining of words in a statement)? If you can't define it, WebShaman's and your accusation is meaningless being based on nothing but subjectivity. As we say on Wikipedia, that's your point-of-view.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And I think DL put it very well, indeed, a few times.

---

Fools think alike.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-23-2004 02:35)

Meta, next time, just use the edit button...it is that little thing up there, next to the posted date, in case you don't know. I mean...your posts are only seperated by...what 2 minutes at the most? Directly after one another?

And you still don't get it...

Amazing.

My connection to OzoneAsylum.com is too slow for me to care about editing. I only edit when I notice I posted a poor phrasing of some statement.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And you still don't get it...

---

Right. I don't understand because neither of you have explained. You conceal your claims in ambiguous terms and somehow expect another to interpret you correctly. You leave me guessing. I'm not going to play your game anymore. If you're not going to provide an explanation to support your accusations then you leave me no choice but to ignore both of you henceforth.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-23-2004 04:15)

quote:

---

You conceal your claims in ambiguous terms and somehow expect another to interpret you correctly. You leave me guessing. I'm not going to play your game anymore. If you're not going to provide an explanation to support your accusations then you leave me no choice but to ignore both of you henceforth.

---

Consider the feeling mutual.

If your feeling of supremacy is too important to you to acknowldedge when you have erred, then so be it.

But I have no interest in playing that kind of game....so I certainly feel no offense or loss by your declining to continue.

out of context

"that kind of game....so I certainly feel"

quote:

---

ART, n.
This word has no definition. Its origin is related as follows by the ingenious Father Gassalasca Jape, S.J.

One day a wag -- what would the wretch be at? --
Shifted a letter of the cipher RAT,
And said it was a god's name! Straight arose
Fantastic priests and postulants (with shows,
And mysteries, and mummeries, and hymns,
And disputations dire that lamed their limbs)
To serve his temple and maintain the fires,
Expound the law, manipulate the wires.
Amazed, the populace that rites attend,
Believe whate'er they cannot comprehend,
And, inly edified to learn that two
Half-hairs joined so and so (as Art can do)
Have sweeter values and a grace more fit
Than Nature's hairs that never have been split,
Bring cates and wines for sacrificial feasts,
And sell their garments to support the priests.

The Devil"s Dictionary

---