First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Christianity
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/13/12

DomFortress wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


DeusExMachine wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


DeusExMachina wrote:

What always bothered me about Christianity/Christians is their ability to disown anyone who carries their label and isn't perfect. Isn't the only requirement of being a Christian that you believe that Jesus Christ was the divine son of God and died for your sins?


well, you have to follow the instruction of Jesus if you truly believe. I may say I love my parents but if i don't obey them, i think it is fair that to say that i don't love them all.


Classic case of words being put into another's mouth.

Concerning your parents, it is your own choice if you decide to honor them or not, as there is available to anyone who desires it; self-government.


to who's mouth and what words?

about the parents, yes it is my will but (again people always focus on the single analogy) my point is still the same. If you want to follow Jesus, you have to adjust your life according to his teaching. That makes a person Christian.
That claim you wrote which I marked in red were your own words forced upon his, when you didn't clarify why obedience was a necessary requirement for unconditional love.

Moreover, your own devotion and obedience towards your religious faith doesn't make you a freethinker. But rather you're enslaved by religious superstitions and dogmas.

Finally, I've a personal mantra/truism regarding the subject of obedience: "only those who lack discipline will demand obedience from others, either verbally, physically, or both". So if you're still a freethinker, feel free to meditate upon that truth for yourself at your own leisure. And then find out for yourself just what exactly have you been conformed and indoctrinated into, and why I'm so against it: death denial caused by both the unrealistic anxiety for social death, and the impossible quest for immortality.


OMG. English is not my first language but pretty much (I read it again and again) I DIDN'T PUT ANY WORD FROM SOMEBODY'S MOUTH (capitalization for emphasis and not for sceaming). Or did they just update the English language without me knowing it.

And you always keep on giving me the "slave of faith so you are not a freethinker BS", dude, it was me who adjusted my life so I can be I Christian. It was me who wanted to join the religion and not the other way around. That is the result of me "freely thinking". With my own will, I joined Christianity. What would an insignificant being like me matters to a great God (for the sake of arguement, consider that God is real)? He already had a million followers. He doesn't need to chase me around and force me some ancient belief from the middle east.

And how does my religion limits me from thinking freely? Am I not a nurse whose practice is based on science? Am I not a degree holder coming from a college- a place of science, arts, literature and stuff related to "thinking"? Or you just think that all of us-religious people- are some red necks, who are uneducated because they are too afraid to learn from academic institutions? Not because you saw some thinking atheist means ONLY the atheist thinks.

and what if my way of life is restricted because of my "religious superstitions and dogmas" (as you call it)? Is it wrong not to hate? (that is the teaching for us) Is it wrong if I obey my parents? Is it wrong if I am pro-life and against abortion? Tell me, sadiq, what is wrong in living a life guided by the moral codes of my religion? Please tell me. For the love of God, please tell me.

And about obedience and discipline- I told you. If you want to follow a certain faith or discipline or code or any way of life, you HAVE TO adjust yourself to it. I want to become a Christian hence I have to obey what it commands. If I want to be a Christian and doesn't want to obey it's command-that is screwed up. They'll kick me out. Just like college. Some colleges have a strict rule about grades lower than B-. If you want to stay in college, do your due diligence to get the right grade so you won't be kick out.

and what is this BS about social death and death denial? Dude, if given the chance, I want to be 6ft under now. i do not want immortality. Why would I like to live a life where I hunger, fear, get cold, feel pain? you, sir, are the one who is putting words in my mouth.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/13/12

DeusExMachine wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


to who's mouth and what words?

about the parents, yes it is my will but (again people always focus on the single analogy) my point is still the same. If you want to follow Jesus, you have to adjust your life according to his teaching. That makes a person Christian.


Yet, there have been Christians chiefly following the Word of God, and really, Jesus just "repeated" it. It seems like many believe that Jesus is God, but traditionally, Jesus has always been the Son of God and a messenger. Funny how we named Christianity after Christ, yet he is not the most supreme being of the faith. I can see it from the perspective of a prophet forging a path that became named after himself, just as it might be for any inventor of a religion.


well, the center or worship in Christianity is God alone. Jesus came bringing the word of God.



and yes. Many believe that Jesus is God. Well, that is a deep theology and hard to discuss. Me, personally, I believe Jesus and God are separate beings. through the revelation of God to Peter, people with same belief like me based the description of Christ as the Son of the Living God, the lamb of God.



Well, Christianity is about believing in the Christ, which all the other religion doens't believe. Hence the name. It's like naming a theory to a certain scientist in a certain field. He is not the absolute authority/institution in that field but they we name the theory from his/her name. Example, "Copenhagen interpretation". well, you get my what i mean.

and yeah, it applies to most people who started something
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/13/12 , edited 1/13/12

alupihan45 wrote:

1. I believe, in this number, your concern is the interpretation. Interpretation-wise, not all has the authority to do so. This is a mere estimate and probably will happen- ask 10 person to read the Bible and each will have their own interpretation. As I told it to my other friends, it would not be a surprise that in the future, each man has their own one-man-christian-sect. So it all comes down, who has the real authority in interpreting the scriptures? The answer would be from the people mandated, anointed and commissioned by Jesus Christ to spread the word. Actually, the Bible is not a big book of riddles or secret code. Everything is there plain and simple when it concerns to Christian living. What causes conflicts among sects most of the time is the theology part (i bet you heard about the debates concerning the deity of Jesus, the saints and stuff).

2. inshaaallah no problem here anymore. just to add information and in line with point 2- Christianity existed before the bible. the real christian religion is not based from a book. The book (the new testament) is based from the Christian religion. As you can see, most of the sect were founded based on their interpretation of the book where the apostolic churches were founded by the teaching and traditions handed to them by Jesus.

3. The emperor didn't appointed the bishops and pope. I think you saw on TV how they choose a pope (an ancient Catholic tradition)

4 (&5). The ten commandment is applicable to all.



about women minister, well, the apostolic churches have no women minister. About homosexuals, the apostolic churches are still against them and not because they are against it, they will kill them. And the Jews killing Jesus-i don't find the relevance (but for the sake of answering even if it is off topic- yes. Jews killed Jesus. That is the prophecy.)

about the Pillars of Christianity-what are these pillars? we should know first what are you talking about because i have this feeling you have a wrong idea about modification in christian living for modern times.



1. Yes, who does have the authority to interpret the Bible? Those mandated by Christ Jesus? And who are these mandated? Certainly not you or me, I presume. And certainly not the other ministers. Only those mandated by the True Church can interpret the Bible, expound theology, and all that. Do you want to know why that is complete rubbish? Because we take the Church's word for it that they are mandated by Christ, the Evangelicals of America claim that they are mandated, and that the Pope is the anti-Christ, the Calvinist ministers claim this same mandate, every preacher out there claims this mandate, and that the other is false. We can only take their word for it that they have a mandate to each us unlearned ones. But, you may argue, these are all false, because Jesus pass his teaching to the apostolic succession, which, I may add, is divided in itself, the East differs theologically from the West, and, given that, we have to take their word that they can trace their lineage back to Christ- the foundation of the Church of Rome by St. Peter is not founded on any truth, but on myths. So all of that is complete rubbish.

3. My point just flew over your head, didn't it? My point was that the people who put together the bible were already Romanised. The Emperor's mother was a Christian, Christianity ceased being Jewish, and became one of the many Roman Mystery religions, a powerful one, and an outlawed one, but still one of them, and it attracted Romans, and with this influx of Romans, it has been Romanized to suit their taste. Reread everything, adn then we may have a discussion on that point.

4 and 5. No, no it doesn't. God gave the Jewish people 613 Mitzvoh, the only Mitzvoh binding upon Gentiles are the Noahic Commandment. If my reading of the Bible is correct, God delievered the Jews out of Egypt, and gave them the Ten Commandment, more accurately, the Aseret ha-Dibrot.
http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm
It was only for the Jews, and not for the Gentiles, who already bound by the Seven Laws of Noah.

Then you list your agreement with the idea that the Jews killed Jesus (even if it was the Romans who did it, but nevermind, Christ's blood is upon them), and you express your antagonism to homosexuality- okay- but you are reluctance to actively hunt them down like animals, as Paul tells us to. If you reject that, for whatever reason, you are tearing down one of your pillars- the Laws and Beliefs of your religion- for the sake of your own convience, because it 'isn't modern', meaning it is inconvient for you to live as prescribed by your own religion. Is that so? Is your religion such that you do all to please your God, so long as it isn't inconvient for you?

As I am running out of time, I will reply to everything else at a latter time.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/13/12

aluphihan45 said:
well then, if that is the case, Christians can't say they are superior to others because we cannot compare ourselves to other school of thoughts or belief system. Ergo, my point that Christians don't feel superior is true and me stating that one believe that their belief or thought is superior than the other is wrong.


You do not any sort of grasp of Logic do you? One branch of science cannot be superior to another branch because it still belongs to the same tree. Each branch is a valid search for truth within its field, thus a Physicist is searching for truth within his field, the Biologist within his, and all are true so long as they do not contradict, because they belong to the same tree- the tree of Science, the search for truth. If a theory in Biology contradicts a theory in Chemistry, it stands that both cannot be true- none may be true, one may be true, but never both, because it is still part of the same tree of Science. Having cleared that, let us see how that does not apply in religion- Religion says that it already have truth, and Christianity claims that it has the truth, that is that we are saved by Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, who came in the flesh and died for our sin and all that, and we either go to heaven or hell. Given that, the Hindoo and Buddhist belief in the cycle of reincarnation have no place in this system, and the Greek belief that we are ruled by the Gods of Olympus cannot be true, etc. etc. Science says that all its subset are equally valid, and, even, codependent, however, the same cannot be said for Religion, as all claim to be true, and all the other invalid. So, if you are part of a religion, you must accept that your religion is the one in truth, and your faith is superior to the all other faiths, making you, by extension, superior to the believers of other faiths. There is no 'Ergo' here, it is false use of the language of Logic to create a ridiculous proposition.


aluphihan48wrote:
a most common mistake made by men is to limit the "concept of a deity" into "human limitation". God is so unfathomable or hard to understand that men did anthromorphism (ask DomFortress what is that) just to have a slight idea of God (as evidence by the books of Moses)

I myself with all my pursuit of theological studies cannot put a finger on a complete idea about God. Just when I thought I was close when I realize i'm still far away. If you want a detail about God read the Bible. And why must God separate from us and how does him being infinite (as a perfect God-he must be finite and infinite. another topic and a topic i don't understand) has relevance to men "making a new relationship with God"? well, i don't know if you are thinking the physical connection but when I said to reconnect to God. I meant, "making a new relationship" sense.

philosophy-wise- three can be anything. I can hold a pen and call it three. The essence of the pen is still the same but the name is different. however, essence-wise, granted that God created it, God can modify it. Imagine the world as a book and God as the author. Is it possible that God can rewrite the book and the book will retain it's name as "our world"? (we are going way off topic but please, sir, i know you know what I mean when I mentioned the equations of the world written and guided by an intelligent designer)

to criticize is another. to "tell us what is neccessary" is different. please do not confuse those two things.

and no one can explain faith completely. an explained faith is not faith at all.


Your argument here is that we cannot understand God, that he is beyond logic. This is an attempt to get out of justifying God and put it totally upon faith, which is condemned by the Catholic Church:

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.


And by Paul:

Romans 1:20 wrote:
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.


From this, it can be inferred that God can be deduced from Human reason. It does not seek to reason, it lazily suppose that God is, and we should give up further. Thus, even if we are Atheists, or Heathens, I suppose we are, by your own doctrines, better Christians than you are, we actually try to understand God.

But that aside, you make another argument, that God can change the essence of something, yet, the essence is what makes that something what it is, to change the essence of that something is to change it completely, and it is no longer that something. Thus, if God can change the essence of anything, he is making that something into something else, and it is no longer that something. To use a turn of phrase from you, ergo, if God does have that property, he contridicts himself, and therefore does not exists.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/13/12

aluphihan
before I became a Christian, i'm an believer or voodoo, witchcraft or sorcery and anything we call Black Art. I pray to dead spirits before for guidance and help. And with a strong Chinese culture with me, i believe in a lot of charms, feng shui and many stuff. ask me when something good happened to me when I did this?

in OT, it is evident how God showed his wrath to mankind for being evil. If we wasn't so loving he would flood the world again but he made a promise that He will not do it again. About the evil people who goes unpunished, that is were afterlife comes in (according to Christian doctrines). These people may have gained the world but they have lose their soul. (i have these feeling the next arguement will be off topic which will be about afterlife).

about william paley's watch, i'm not talking about perfection. I am talking about the sophistication of the watch. and my point is, a sophisticated watch cannot just create itself alone or naturally by natural means.

about the Vetigial Organs, LOL. that is an evolutionist myth. Tell me a specific part of the body that has no function.

All the parts of the body has a function. Sure some can be removed and the human can still survive; however their would be a decrease in function. Not because a man can survive without a certain part means that part has no function. and improved health? I'm a man from medical science and this really sounds funny. (no offense. I just find this amusing)


You have no fucking understanding of fucking Voodoo do you? You have no understanding of Fengshui either. Voodoo is not praying to dead spirits. If you want to lie, at least do research before you lie through your teeth. Let me explain Voodoo- rather, as I can't do that, let me explain her sister, Santaria. Santaria tells us that there is one God, he is the creator of Everything. But he is unreachable, and is manisfested in lesser 'gods', called Orishas, who connect to human affairs. Through the worship of these Orishas, you are worshipping the One God, and to seek aid from an Orisha is to seek aid from the One God, in the form of that Orisha. It is not the worship of the dead, it is none of that. Likewise, Fengshui does not require belief, it is simply something that occurs, regardless of beliefs. Fengshui does not require belief, it is a neutral force, it applies still even if you don't believe it. I am not saying they are true, just that you have no understanding of them what-so-ever.

Then you cite the Old Testament as an example of the wrath of God upon us puny humans- I can cite many myths to support the idea that the Wrath of the Olympian Gods is powerful, and it is only their humours that we are even alive, or of any other Gods from any other faith. You use your own faith to justify your own God to a disbelieving audience. Truth is, you have never made sense, you want to show that God is real because he punished the Heathens in the temporal world and made their faith disappear and destroyed their altar (not true, there is more than Christianity in the world), but, when the Heathens have triumphed over your Churches, burnt it, and looted it, you comfort yourself with the idea that they are in hell right now, even if they died as the Rich propietor of a large estate, with hundreds of Christian slaves. Why could it not be the other way, that the heathen Gods have punished the Christians for their destruction of their altar, divided them, and set them to kill each other. Or that the Gods do not care because it is the fate decreed by the all powerful Norns? All these argument are rubbish.

About the Watches, you are still missing the point- there were less sophisticated watches before that lead up to the more sophisticated watch you have, and there shall be more improvements upon the watch that would make your watch obsolete, which will lead to the production of the more sophisticated one, until that becomes obsolete. The first watches were, in truth, not very sophisticated, sophistication devoloped. You once again prove that there is no bottom to that well of Stupidity.

And, about your medical credentials, I highly doubt that. Many people go about removing some vestigial structure for their own benefit, some vestigial Organ has other develop other properties as its original functions become useless. In fact, you should read this before we continue, mainly because there is only a limited amount of ignorance I can tolerate before I ignore it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges


aliphihan48wrote:
Dude, just look at the greatness of the Christian nations. that's all i can say. Have your reason- i don't care (i'm saying it in the most pleasant and friendly manner i can). I can't do anything else for a "determined skeptic". Skeptics were mentioned in the Bible. We can't just do anything with them.
John 12:37-40

37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”[h]

39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”


Sorry to cut you through in what I expect to be so brilliant that I would head to the nearest Church and convert immediately, but no, I see many religion, and every one of them claims some sort of Greatness. There are few Christian Nation, none of them Great- Japan certainly isn't Christian, China isn't Christian, France and most of Europe is Secular, having obtained national greatness by defeating Christianity's influence, Ireland was held back by Christianity, we seperated Church and State. But do continue...


aliphihan48
about napoleon, see how the french revolution attacked the Catholics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

and the islam, i guess you haven't read the quran nor had you read about it's history of Jihad. Did you know that islam saw us as impure races?

And about the imperialist, these people (my country was one of this conquered natives) came to expand and find new resources. They didn't forced religion to the native. There is no need for them to give us a religion. They only wanted wealth and power. They destroyed villages in my country. Religion was spread only because there were missionaries with them and these missionaries' only intention was to spread the faith. In conlusion- the imperialist didn't came for the sake of conversion. religion spread because of the good missionaries who dedicated their life in spreading the good news.


The Decristianisation happened before Napoloen, you cretin. Get you history right. Napoleon created the Code Napoleon, which stated that there should be tolerance between all faiths, and he listed Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism as the official religion of France.

Then you try to rubbish Islam, nevermind that Islam actually was more multi-ethnic than Christianity, spreading from the Arabs to the Persians to the South and South East Asians to the Africans to the Chinese. That doesn't seem like a racist religion, if anything, Christianity, during most of its existence, was mainly concentrated in Europe, amongst white people. So consider that. But nevermind, as I have said, when Christianity was hunting Jews with torches and pitchforks, Jewish thought florished in the more tolerant Islamic countries.

And then you try to defend the imperialists- as I have said, they came in, conquered, and oppressed the people, and forced them into Christianity, your people were forced by the Spaniards into Catholicism with similar methods as they have done unto the Mexicans and the Native Americans, many of my people, the Chinese, have been forced into the position where they converted because the 'White Devils' treated them slightly better if they were Christians.


dude, you contained the crusades in the middle east and europe only. You said that China was not in danger from the Jihadist muslim all this is thanks to our european friends. Let's say the Islam succeeded, they have purged the infidels. Where do you think this warmonger will go next after europe?

i'm not saying they are strong enough to conquer China but they will attack Chine if given the chance and who knows if the ancient Chinese can really stand strong. Middle East was converted and this converts added to the ranks of the Jihadist. They may apply same tactics in China. well, that's just me saying.

About the Byzantine against the islam, that is not yet the crusade.

and the islam more tolerant? LOL. Have you read the quran?

and christianity not in danger? did you know how many Christians were killed by islam even up to now?

And how did you know what the Pope was thinking? And the Crusaders came to loot?

OMG, and you have the guts to laugh about my knowledge of the church history? LOL(no offense)


Stop it with the 'dude', it implies familiarity, which we do not have. No, China was not in danger of Islam, in fact, we have a Hui Population who pretty much integrated into China and its culture. We were never in danger, and it certainly wasn't because some backwater Europeans wanted to destroy Islam. Secondly, Christianity was not in danger either. The Moslems weren't murdering Christians, their Jihad were composed partly of Jihad of the Sword and Jihad of Words, believe it or not, some people converted out of their own will, because they are convinced of Islam. Given that, Islam still did tolerate Christianity and Judaism within its own borders. But you speak of Islam as a single, monolithic race of evil bearded men, acting as an ant colony, with one mind. The truth is, Islam was no longer a single religious and political force, it split into the Shias and Sunnis, into multiple kingdoms, each fighting each other and the Byzantine Empire. Christianity was, as I said, never in Danger.

You ask several rethorical questions

1. No, I have several Historical references, which generally tells more truth than a religious book, but, even if the Koran is violent, it isn't so much as the Bible.

2. No, but I would imagine not as much as the amount of Moslem Christians killed.

3. Yes, yes I do and yes they did. Refer to any history book.

4. I do laugh at you lack of knowledge in all fields, not limited to Church history.
Canute 
29260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/13/12

longfenglim wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:

1. I believe, in this number, your concern is the interpretation. Interpretation-wise, not all has the authority to do so. This is a mere estimate and probably will happen- ask 10 person to read the Bible and each will have their own interpretation. As I told it to my other friends, it would not be a surprise that in the future, each man has their own one-man-christian-sect. So it all comes down, who has the real authority in interpreting the scriptures? The answer would be from the people mandated, anointed and commissioned by Jesus Christ to spread the word. Actually, the Bible is not a big book of riddles or secret code. Everything is there plain and simple when it concerns to Christian living. What causes conflicts among sects most of the time is the theology part (i bet you heard about the debates concerning the deity of Jesus, the saints and stuff).

2. inshaaallah no problem here anymore. just to add information and in line with point 2- Christianity existed before the bible. the real christian religion is not based from a book. The book (the new testament) is based from the Christian religion. As you can see, most of the sect were founded based on their interpretation of the book where the apostolic churches were founded by the teaching and traditions handed to them by Jesus.

3. The emperor didn't appointed the bishops and pope. I think you saw on TV how they choose a pope (an ancient Catholic tradition)

4 (&5). The ten commandment is applicable to all.



about women minister, well, the apostolic churches have no women minister. About homosexuals, the apostolic churches are still against them and not because they are against it, they will kill them. And the Jews killing Jesus-i don't find the relevance (but for the sake of answering even if it is off topic- yes. Jews killed Jesus. That is the prophecy.)

about the Pillars of Christianity-what are these pillars? we should know first what are you talking about because i have this feeling you have a wrong idea about modification in christian living for modern times.



1. Yes, who does have the authority to interpret the Bible? Those mandated by Christ Jesus? And who are these mandated? Certainly not you or me, I presume. And certainly not the other ministers. Only those mandated by the True Church can interpret the Bible, expound theology, and all that. Do you want to know why that is complete rubbish? Because we take the Church's word for it that they are mandated by Christ, the Evangelicals of America claim that they are mandated, and that the Pope is the anti-Christ, the Calvinist ministers claim this same mandate, every preacher out there claims this mandate, and that the other is false. We can only take their word for it that they have a mandate to each us unlearned ones. But, you may argue, these are all false, because Jesus pass his teaching to the apostolic succession, which, I may add, is divided in itself, the East differs theologically from the West, and, given that, we have to take their word that they can trace their lineage back to Christ- the foundation of the Church of Rome by St. Peter is not founded on any truth, but on myths. So all of that is complete rubbish.

3. My point just flew over your head, didn't it? My point was that the people who put together the bible were already Romanised. The Emperor's mother was a Christian, Christianity ceased being Jewish, and became one of the many Roman Mystery religions, a powerful one, and an outlawed one, but still one of them, and it attracted Romans, and with this influx of Romans, it has been Romanized to suit their taste. Reread everything, adn then we may have a discussion on that point.

4 and 5. No, no it doesn't. God gave the Jewish people 613 Mitzvoh, the only Mitzvoh binding upon Gentiles are the Noahic Commandment. If my reading of the Bible is correct, God delievered the Jews out of Egypt, and gave them the Ten Commandment, more accurately, the Aseret ha-Dibrot.
http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm
It was only for the Jews, and not for the Gentiles, who already bound by the Seven Laws of Noah.

Then you list your agreement with the idea that the Jews killed Jesus (even if it was the Romans who did it, but nevermind, Christ's blood is upon them), and you express your antagonism to homosexuality- okay- but you are reluctance to actively hunt them down like animals, as Paul tells us to. If you reject that, for whatever reason, you are tearing down one of your pillars- the Laws and Beliefs of your religion- for the sake of your own convience, because it 'isn't modern', meaning it is inconvient for you to live as prescribed by your own religion. Is that so? Is your religion such that you do all to please your God, so long as it isn't inconvient for you?

As I am running out of time, I will reply to everything else at a latter time.


Hi, Longfenglim! You've probably missed that I was also commenting on your arguments on page three. My fault entirely for not quoting them with your name attached. The first post of mine concerned the topics which most interested me in this thread until that point, the second was responding to DomFortress, the third to you specifically, and the fourth to DeusExMachine. If you have the time, I should be delighted to hear your thoughts on them, especially the third.

1. Well, we can be certain that St. Peter was martyred in Rome after being held prisoner. We can also be certain that he was the leader of the apostles from scripture because Christ made him to rock upon which He built his Church. We know from the Acts of the Apostles 1:15-26 that the early Church thought that it was necessary to elect a successor in the event one of the apostles died. However, the only person of the apostles for which we have an unbroken line of succession is St. Peter, which was given by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in 190 AD. According to wikipedia, St. Peter died around 67 AD, which makes it only about 120 years from that point that St. Irenaeus wrote his list. Do we consider things which only happened 120 years ago mythic? Might as well claim that George Washington was not the first U.S. president since he was elected 214 years ago--obviously a myth! Of course, you might claim that we had a better system for documenting this kind of information than they did. However, don't forget that the Roman Empire was a highly literate civilization. We have writings preserved from before Christ's birth, so a record of the succession of the popes could easily survive the 120 years necessary for St. Irenaeus to get his hands on it. More about the popes: http://users.binary.net/polycarp/popes.html.

You make a valid point: what makes any Church's claim to have correct doctrine more believable than another's? I suppose a Protestant might say that the doctrine preached by the apostles was infallible, but their successors went wrong after some time. How long did that take? Certain Protestants deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but we have evidence that St. Ignatius of Antioch believed in the real presence: "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ...and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God...They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh that suffered for our sins and that the Father in his goodness, raised up again." (Letter to the Romans c. 110 AD) Was someone who was taught by St. John the Evangelist and suffered martyrdom for the Faith a heretic? Someone whom the Church honors with the title of Saint? So, I would like to argue that only the Catholic Church holds the same doctrine which the early Church Fathers, i.e. those who were closest to the apostles, believed. This should strongly indicate that Protestant churches are the ones who have most likely deviated from the Truth.

3. See my third post, page three for a historical refutation.

4 & 5. The Romans crucified Jesus, but only at the behest of the Jews. I wrote about the responsibility of all mankind in Christ's crucifixion on page three, my third post. Paul did not advise that we kill homosexuals, but that homosexuality was a sin: "For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." (Romans 1:26-32) Saying that someone is worthy of death is not the same as hunting them down. The Church is particularly lenient in the case of sins of the flesh. Remember that the Church is instructed with saving sinners, not killing them. Remember that ecclesiastical courts in Medieval Europe never had the right to punish someone with the death penalty. Even in the case of the Inquisition, ecclesiastics handed over certain serious offenders over to the civil authorities, because they could do nothing more serious than prescribe a penance.
Posted 1/13/12 , edited 1/13/12

alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



OMG. English is not my first language but pretty much (I read it again and again) I DIDN'T PUT ANY WORD FROM SOMEBODY'S MOUTH (capitalization for emphasis and not for sceaming). Or did they just update the English language without me knowing it.

And you always keep on giving me the "slave of faith so you are not a freethinker BS", dude, it was me who adjusted my life so I can be I Christian. It was me who wanted to join the religion and not the other way around. That is the result of me "freely thinking". With my own will, I joined Christianity. What would an insignificant being like me matters to a great God (for the sake of arguement, consider that God is real)? He already had a million followers. He doesn't need to chase me around and force me some ancient belief from the middle east.

And how does my religion limits me from thinking freely? Am I not a nurse whose practice is based on science? Am I not a degree holder coming from a college- a place of science, arts, literature and stuff related to "thinking"? Or you just think that all of us-religious people- are some red necks, who are uneducated because they are too afraid to learn from academic institutions? Not because you saw some thinking atheist means ONLY the atheist thinks.

and what if my way of life is restricted because of my "religious superstitions and dogmas" (as you call it)? Is it wrong not to hate? (that is the teaching for us) Is it wrong if I obey my parents? Is it wrong if I am pro-life and against abortion? Tell me, sadiq, what is wrong in living a life guided by the moral codes of my religion? Please tell me. For the love of God, please tell me.

And about obedience and discipline- I told you. If you want to follow a certain faith or discipline or code or any way of life, you HAVE TO adjust yourself to it. I want to become a Christian hence I have to obey what it commands. If I want to be a Christian and doesn't want to obey it's command-that is screwed up. They'll kick me out. Just like college. Some colleges have a strict rule about grades lower than B-. If you want to stay in college, do your due diligence to get the right grade so you won't be kick out.

and what is this BS about social death and death denial? Dude, if given the chance, I want to be 6ft under now. i do not want immortality. Why would I like to live a life where I hunger, fear, get cold, feel pain? you, sir, are the one who is putting words in my mouth.
So what, I never spoke a word of English until I turned 11. Therefore your excuse of your own English deficiency doesn't change the fact that you forced obedience as a necessary requirement for unconditional love.

Were you born into a Christian family? That situation alone can determine your lack of alternative for your indoctrination into a religion, for your refusal to conform means excommunication by your very support group; your immediate family.

Your lack of critical thinking skill has nothing to do with your ability to understand science, but it has everything to do with your inability to question and even challenge your own faith-based moral codes, hence your blind obedience and lack of logic.

I don't stop learning even when I'm out of collage, so what's your excuse? Beside you can only do whatever that you were told, otherwise you would just rather die, according to your own words as a slave.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/13/12

Canute wrote:

1. Concerning that words are just scribbles unless someone interprets them, that is true to a certain extent. If someone showed me a page of Russian, they'd just be scribbles to me. If Chinese, I'd only be able to pick out symbols here and there. If Japanese, I could read it with some skill, but am liable to err. If Latin or English, I could read it with perfect fluency. From which you may infer that I have no business telling someone else what a Russian or Chinese sentence means, should defer to the opinion of someone more experienced in Japanese, and that people should listen to me when I tell them what an English or Latin sentence means. It's just the same with interpreting Scripture with the difference that the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit is needed in addition to book knowledge to teach it accurately, and the grace bestowed by the sacrament of Holy Orders on the bishops and the Pope to teach it authoritatively.


You are right, in so far as you wish to ascertain the literal meaning of a piece rather than its essence. I would refer to a Latinist to translate a passage from Horace or Juvenal or Cicero, and provide the literal meaning of it, however, I would not trust them to give me an exegesis of that passage. For example, take the phrase ‘Probitas laudatur et alget’ (Juv. Sat. I.74), it can be literally translated as ‘Honesty is praised, and shivers’, the translator may translate it that way, or another way, much to the same effect, but if he were to tell me to interpret it this way or that way, some way beyond how we normally would interpret such passage, as a condemnation of the human tendency to vocally praise the virtue of honesty, while punishing the honest with starvation and poverty, then I probably shouldn’t trust their interpretation unless there is a good reason for it. Unless I properly consider all arguments on this topic, then I would not be making an informed choice, and take with blind faith the first that comes up. And, say, I agree with a man on one aspect, say this line, because I agree with his reasoning, but I disagree with him on another aspect because I find his argument hardly convincing, should I defer my own opinion and stick with this man’s judgment completely because I agree with him on one point? Certainly not. So is it with Biblical Exegesis, why should I limit myself to one authority, when his argument ceases to make sense, and not turn to another. You may argue that the Church has mandate, but, considering that, almost everyone else claims that same mandate to preach God’s word. They could have, at some point, perverted the teaching of Christ Jesus, like the game of grade-schoolers, who, in passing down a message, pervert it until it cease being recognisable. But, you may say, the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and to prevent its message and its interpretation from perversion, keeps it so that it does not pervert down the age, preserving the Traditions of God, and rightly Interprets the Scriptures. Yet, that depends on a primary acceptance of the Church’s teaching on that subject, and from where does it draws that teaching? It draws form itself, that its doctrine cannot be perverted by the age, and it is preserved from error in interpretation by the Holy Spirit, lest True Christians everywhere are misled, so when it makes that same claim, it draws from that claim.


Canute wrote:

How I wish that you could accept the idea of grace! With grace, even the simplest people are able to teach the most learned about Scripture. For example, St. Joseph of Cupertino had very little secular knowledge, but could solve the most difficult problems for the most erudite theologians of his day. St. Benedict the Black, though unable to read or write, was similarly able to solve theological problems for the learned. But, I wish to use an obvious example of Protestants distorting Scripture for their own ends (Matthew 16 13:20):

13And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

14But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.


The two most popular ways for Protestants to put a spin on this passage are 1) to say that it is rather Peter's declaration than Peter himself whom Christ refers to as the rock; or 2) referring to the Greek, Petros means a small stone, so there is no way Christ would delegate such authority to a small stone! But they ignore the play betweeen Petros and petra in both cases. Though petros (which is only found in Greek poetry to refer to a small stone. The bible uses lithos for this purpose.) does refer to a small stone, Christ is naming a Man, so it only makes sense that his name be masculine rather than the feminine petra! And don't forget that rock in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, is the masculine cephas, which is the exact name Peter received, Cephas. So that makes the wordplay and that fact that it is Peter who is the rock even more obvious. And you'll find that Protestants stretch other passages in similar manners.

For Catholics, this doctrine has not changed. Note well, that all ecumenical councils from the very beginning needed papal approval to be considered valid. Even if no western bishop was present during the council, as was the case in the Second Ecumenical council at Ephesus, the Greek bishops still submitted the council's judgements to the pope. Let me reiterate that doctrine has not changed in the Catholic Church, but it has in Protestant Churches.



Jesus first asks his disciples who they think the Son of Man is, and they answered multitudinously, but Jesus then asks them who they think he is, and, in the midst of them, and for them, Peter said to Jesus, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ At this expression of faith, Jesus said, ‘And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ It is not here that Christ names Peter, but, rather, he affirms the validity of the name by which Christ called Simon bar Jona into apostleship- viz. ‘And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.’ Yet, it does not mean that St. Peter had primacy over the other Apostles, though he have been shown special favours, along with James and John, such as being present in the Transfiguration. Yet, despite his superiority in this respect, St. Peter was, in some ways, inferior to the other apostles- he was called Satan, or adversary, by Lord Jesus himself, and denied Christ three times. Indeed, there is nowhere in scripture where Peter assumes, covet, or was given such position, except, in the false Romish teaching, here. Christ Jesus, himself, disclaim all form of pride amongst his apostles, telling them that they should be made ‘unto like this Child’ (for he has brought a child in the midst of them), for, only then, can they enter the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:1-5) the rock upon which the Church is built is not Peter, but upon Peter’s confession of faith, spoken to Christ for all the Apostles. For Peter was hardly steadfast in his faith, having already been shown inferior, in certain respects, to the other apostles, how then can Christ call him the rock upon which his Church is built. In same manner, we must not take the Popish doctrine on the Key of Heaven being solely given to Peter, for, while the Popish Church do not err in interpreting this Key as the Key to open and interpret scripture, it is not solely Peter’s alone. For while Peter was the first to use the Key to preach to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, that is as far as his distinction goes, for the key was given to all the Apostles for the sake of spreading the word of Christ, and his message.


Canute wrote:

3. The Roman Emperors were helpful to the Church, Emperor Constantine in particular, because they allowed them to practice the faith. If you read more about Constantine's relationship to the church, you'll see that he wasn't theologically astute and instead relied on the judgment of the bishops. For example, the council called under his authority, the First Council of Nicaea, was over a dispute about the nature of Christ. He allowed both sides to debate their positions peacefully. Indeed, when St. Nicolas of Smyrna (the same person little children believe now distributes gifts at Christmas) smacked Arius in the face for denying that Jesus Christ was truly God and truly Man, Constantine had him imprisoned. However, after the judgment of the council that Arius and his followers held a heretical position, he released St. Nicolas.

But that did not quell Arianism! The Arians came out with a new position saying that Jesus was as filled with grace as a human being can be, but still not God. As a matter of fact, Emperor Constantine's own son, Constantius II, tried to force Arianism down the throats of Catholic churches! But even though the Emperor was now an Arian and even though the Army and the ruling class of the Roman Empire were solidly in the grasp of Arianism, Catholic bishops refused to budge on the divinity of Christ. The Catholic church faced persecution by this emperor and later on by Julian the Apostate and Valens. It wasn't until 381 that the conflict over Arianism officially ended in the Roman Empire with the Second Council of Constantinople under Emperor Theodosius. All this goes to show that the Catholic church did not rely on the Emperor's favor, but it was helpful at times.


Doesn’t address my point. Rome is not the Emperor solely, nor the army and the ruling class, but the culture of Rome. It already shifted to suit Roman taste, why should this trend not continue?


Canute wrote:

4. & 5. Those things which can change in the Catholic church are those related to practice, not doctrine. Please note that growing out one's beard in Judaism only concerned those who took the Nazirite vow. It did not concern all Jews, though you do often see more conservative groups of Jews growing beards. As for not stoning adulterers, Christ himself ended that when he told whoever was without sin to cast the first stone (John 8:7). Then concerning dietary laws, all food is declared clean in both the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles; otherwise, Christians would still have to observe those laws. But, I will say that many of the laws in the Old Testament, such as the one on divorce, were created because of the hardness of men's hearts. Now that Christ has caused the advent of the Kingdom of His Mercy, we are called to be merciful where people in the past meted out justice: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Concerning woman ministers, the Church has never received the authority to ordain women as priests. Priests symbolize Christ, who was a man, so all priests must be men. Also, all the apostles, the first priests, were men. If Christ wished that women should be ordained too, he would have ordained one! But he did not even ordain his own mother, who was conceived without sin and whose holiness surpasses all the angels and saints.

To use the example of Theseus's ship concerning the difference between doctrine and practice, if the Apostles' Creed were a golden mast, it would remain a golden mast. If the pope were a silver steering wheel, so it would remain. If the seven sacraments were olive planks, these too would remain until the end of time. On the other hand, the priest facing the back of the Church, the celibacy of the priesthood, and women wearing scarves on their head are ordinary wood which can changed at the will of the Magisterium.


Practice and Doctrine are intertwine, to change practices is to change certain doctrines which has brought forth such practices. For example, if the Church were to allow the ordination of Woman priest, that would need a revision of their doctrine on that matter, if they wanted to change the order of Mass, they would have to change their doctrine on that. Practice and Doctrine are connected, and to change one is usually to change the other, or reinterpret the other in such a way that it would conform to new practices. Having established that, if our hypothetical ship were to be torn apart, and replaced with different material, more suited to our convenience and our modern sentiments, to change practice, and, by such, change doctrine, on which practice depends, and which must be changed to accommodate the loss of a practice it once prescribed, we are no longer left with any semblance of the old ship, but a few things here and there, the mast, the steering wheel, a few planks on the board, but a new ship, with only a few things from the old ship, under the same name. We may have expanded the ship’s size, added more planks, replace the rudder, add a figurehead to the prow of the ship, we may, in like turn, shrink it, excise a few unnecessary planks, take out the rudder, take out all that makes it a ship, and leave behind a raft, with a mast, a sail, and a steering wheel. All to suit human wants, rather than God’s.

As I am wanting in time, I will address your other points latter.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/14/12

Canute wrote:

In God, we live, move and have our being. We are separate from him as regards to that which He gave us and sustains: our mind, soul, will, and body. But at the same time, He completely permeates them so that each movement of our souls and bodies are known to Him. He also gives us permission to use them according to our will. If this were not so, we would neither be able to move nor to think because we are completely immersed in God. The fact that he gave us a soul and a body which we can use as we please does not mean that he is not present in them.


And there is a contradiction in this- he allows us will so that we may act as we please, yet, by doing that, it means that there exist a place that he does not exist, meaning, even if it is by his own volition, he is still not infinite. If he does not have absolute sovereignty over our will, there is then a limit to his infinite nature, but, if he does, we would be but mere puppets, thoughtless creatures. But let us continue with another line of thought, if he could contract himself, and allow us room to freely act on our will, this will, then, exist outside of God, not because he allows it, but because it must come from somewhere and still not be part of God. God may create it, but if he did create it, he must create either create it from himself, making it part of himself, and therefore, it is not truly free, but a part of God, or he must create it outré, meaning that there must exist something outside himself, making him already not infinite. You contend that it is free, but that can’t be the case if it is merely a part of God, so it must come outré God, and that would imply that there are things that exist outré God, which contradicts his infinite nature. Of course, you would have to say that God is part of our will, and there is no free will.


Canute wrote:
Using mathematics to show how God orders the universe was a bad choice on alupihan45's part to illustrate how God orders the universe. Mathematical concepts are completely objective and non-contingent. As Longfenglim said, 1 + 1 always equals 2 as long as one signifies what we all mean to be one. One rather has to look at the structure of the universe. Let's use the example of Earth. It is perfectly positioned in our solar system for life to exist here. We have an ozone layer protecting us from harmful forms of radiation. (Isn't it a bit of a wonder that there is enough oxygen on this planet to support both an ozone layer and living things?) And we have planets like Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus to absorb most of the meteors that come our way. Then, there is the presence of reason both in the structure of the world and in human beings. Here's a few questions for you to solve: if Reason did not act in the creation of the universe and its laws, how can there be reason in a creature, who is so much less than the universe? Reason is not necessary for other creatures to survive, why should any creature have it? Even more surprising, how can life come from a dead, material universe unless there is one ultimate, creative Source of life?



It is by mere cosmic accident that we are lucky to live upon this planet, and it is entirely possible that there exist another planet which can support life, and other planets that does support life. Such accident, which shall not mean as it commonly means, but shall mean ‘chance and random occurrence’ which we may take to result from the natural, objective, and scientific laws that governs the universe, may occur elsewhere, may occur in another galaxy beyond our reach, may result in an equally vile and odious race of disgusting creeping things and vermins, satisfied in that they live in somewhere inhabitable, and unsatisfied in that it is inhabitable, and doing all to rectify that. Such accident of placement, Scientist have found, exist commonly in our wide universe, and such happy accident may produce life, and, if we are lucky, life to match us in intellectual abilities. But such speculations are still speculations, and I am not qualified to make any speculations upon such things in which I am unlearned. But, then, you ask of reason’s existence. I think reason’s existence is obvious, it gives us the advantage in our hunting, we are more intelligent than the other beast, we are better able to organise and kill them and perpetuate our survival. Although the world seems mechanistic, Man need not be so, and why should he?



Canute wrote:

As you say, the survival of Christianity during some of these periods of tribulation seems unremarkable compared to how other religions have survived. What is remarkable, however, is how it not only survived, but even grew while facing persecutions from the Jews and the Roman Empire. Is it not remarkable that what began on Pentecost with 12 people increased to hundreds of thousands under such conditions?


I do not find it anymore remarkable than the fact that Socialism and Communism was able to spread despite Government suppression, and was able to become a might that make the world tremble. I do not find it any more remarkable than the Paris Commune was able to throw off the useless French Government and establish their own government, the most democratic heretofore. It spread, but it spread underground, and that does not make it more valid. In China, the government suppresses religion, yet, the more suppressed the religion is, the faster it grows, the Falun Gong- mad as they are- the Christians in the illiterate Country-side, Buddhism amongst everyone, that traditional Chinese blend of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, and it shows right after the Communist Party reallows faith, that it grows rapidly. It is hardly unique nor amazing.


Canute wrote:
As for Islam, don't forget that its founder was the leader of a group of bandits, and they used the sword to a much greater extent than they used words.


Which is completely untrue, Mahomet was actually a merchant before he turned to founding a religion. And all his friends were more like business partners whom he convinced to go along with the ride.


Canute wrote:
Perhaps China was never in danger of being overrun by Mahometans, but Europe certainly was! Just look at their domination of Spain, the Balkans, and even half of Italy at one point! What would have happened had not Charles Martel defeated them at the Battle of Tours in 732?


Spain is the exact reason why the Mahometans would never have conquered Europe- not only did they settle down after the Battle of Tours, they spent most of that time splitting amongst themselves and killing each other over two inches of Spanish sand, they sometimes even allied themselves with Christian Spaniard Kings for the sake of killing enemy Mahometan lords. If they had settled down in Europe, I suspect that it would eventually come to that, splitting up amongst themselves and killing each other to add another pebble to their domain.


Canute wrote:
What it the Ottoman Empire had not been broken by the heroism of King Jan III Sobieski of Poland during the Battle of Vienna on September 11, 1683?


Well, I have to agree with that, not on principles, but because I hate Turk, those savage Armenian murderers.


Canute wrote:

If the pope had not convinced Catholics to send aid to the Emperor of Constantinople during the Crusades, the Muslims would have marched into Europe at a much faster pace. For that reason, the Crusades were more of a defensive war than a war of conquest. Though the Fourth Crusade was a disgrace, one cannot say that religious authorities approved of the Sack of Constantinople, because the Pope excommunicated all those involved. They were supposed to help the Byzantines, not sack their capital!



At that time, the Mahometans were split fighting amongst themselves, and, while some have attempted to attack the Byzantine Empire, they were, on the whole, more busy trying to kill each other, the Sunnis killing the Shias, this Kingdom trying to conquer that Kingdom, if anything, the Crusade hasten the death of Byzantium, not only did they manage to unite the Mahometan in their hatred of the Latins, but they also managed to sake Constantinople, a regrettable affair, and weaken it by having it support the influx of Latin troops with food and other necessities.


Canute wrote:

Yes, Europe has had a history of Anti-Semitism ever since some Vikings responded at the end of Passion narrative that they should "destroy that people which had killed so great and honorable a man!" But, this is not the understanding of the Church. And the treatment of the Jews tended to vary by country. For example, England was always very just in its treatment of Jews save during the hysteria of the Black Plague.


England also expelled the Jews during Edward the First, and only welcomed them back much latter, in Sixteen Fifty Six, about several Centuries, which is probably why they were ‘tolerant’, they had no Jews, at least no Public Jews, to persecute. They were chased about Germany, and eventually settled in Poland, which, for that time, was tolerant. Priest perpetuate the myth that all Jews were the murderers of Christ, and that his blood is ‘upon them’, which have been continually used to justify pogroms. Spain forced them to convert, or leave- failing in either of those two option, they would murder them. It wasn’t limited to the Northmen, France, for example, and Italy, German, and all these nations, while they have had a portion of their land inhabited by Northmen, Normandy comes to mind, most of their land were not conquered by the Vikings. It is not limited to Vikings, it is a European pandemic.


Canute wrote:

It was not the Jews who killed Christ, but I who killed Christ, and so has every man born under original sin. That is the understanding of the Church. As far as it knows, only St. Mary is exempt from this charge. Indeed, Christ could have redeemed us all with a word, but he chose instead to propitiate God's justice by the shedding of His blood. How much more valuable is it for us to see the very evil of sin by seeing what it cost the innocent, all-Holy Son of God! Don't forget that the fact that He would become a victim for our sins was foreshadowed in the Old Testament by all those spotless lambs offered up as holocausts. His Sacred Passion and Death was the most edifying way he could atone for our sins, because it showed us the greatness of His Love, actually cost Him something, and motivates us to avoid sin and follow His commandments.


http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/jesus-death.html
Canute 
29260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/16/12

longfenglim wrote:


Canute wrote:

1. Concerning that words are just scribbles unless someone interprets them, that is true to a certain extent. If someone showed me a page of Russian, they'd just be scribbles to me. If Chinese, I'd only be able to pick out symbols here and there. If Japanese, I could read it with some skill, but am liable to err. If Latin or English, I could read it with perfect fluency. From which you may infer that I have no business telling someone else what a Russian or Chinese sentence means, should defer to the opinion of someone more experienced in Japanese, and that people should listen to me when I tell them what an English or Latin sentence means. It's just the same with interpreting Scripture with the difference that the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit is needed in addition to book knowledge to teach it accurately, and the grace bestowed by the sacrament of Holy Orders on the bishops and the Pope to teach it authoritatively.


You are right, in so far as you wish to ascertain the literal meaning of a piece rather than its essence. I would refer to a Latinist to translate a passage from Horace or Juvenal or Cicero, and provide the literal meaning of it, however, I would not trust them to give me an exegesis of that passage. For example, take the phrase ‘Probitas laudatur et alget’ (Juv. Sat. I.74), it can be literally translated as ‘Honesty is praised, and shivers’, the translator may translate it that way, or another way, much to the same effect, but if he were to tell me to interpret it this way or that way, some way beyond how we normally would interpret such passage, as a condemnation of the human tendency to vocally praise the virtue of honesty, while punishing the honest with starvation and poverty, then I probably shouldn’t trust their interpretation unless there is a good reason for it. Unless I properly consider all arguments on this topic, then I would not be making an informed choice, and take with blind faith the first that comes up. And, say, I agree with a man on one aspect, say this line, because I agree with his reasoning, but I disagree with him on another aspect because I find his argument hardly convincing, should I defer my own opinion and stick with this man’s judgment completely because I agree with him on one point? Certainly not. So is it with Biblical Exegesis, why should I limit myself to one authority, when his argument ceases to make sense, and not turn to another. You may argue that the Church has mandate, but, considering that, almost everyone else claims that same mandate to preach God’s word. They could have, at some point, perverted the teaching of Christ Jesus, like the game of grade-schoolers, who, in passing down a message, pervert it until it cease being recognisable. But, you may say, the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and to prevent its message and its interpretation from perversion, keeps it so that it does not pervert down the age, preserving the Traditions of God, and rightly Interprets the Scriptures. Yet, that depends on a primary acceptance of the Church’s teaching on that subject, and from where does it draws that teaching? It draws form itself, that its doctrine cannot be perverted by the age, and it is preserved from error in interpretation by the Holy Spirit, lest True Christians everywhere are misled, so when it makes that same claim, it draws from that claim.


First, I thank you for the occasion to open up my volume of Juvenal's Satires: Book I. Just to get a technical detail out of the way, the most literal definition of alget is "it is cold." My copy of Casull's references the passage and translates alget as "is neglected" in order to give the sense of the word. I've seen that one translator tries to get the sense of neglect and original meaning of alget together by writing "is left out in the cold." But "shivers" (how the commentator, Susanna Morton Braund translates it) mirrors the active voice in the original Latin verb and is more exciting to boot. I also saw online that certain a certain translator has alget as "starves." For those of you who have such a translation, you should probably deep six that one and buy a new one.

You're right to say that there is a tendency to pervert the teachings of the Jesus Christ, which is shown by the history of councils and the heresies they combated. It is also true that every church proclaims that it authoritatively teaches the correct doctrine, and it is insufficient merely to claim to those outside the Church that the Holy Spirit keeps the Holy Catholic Church from error. But I would argue that the Catholic Church can be shown to have the most authority because it agrees with the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers and because the the majority decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are in line with Catholic doctrine. This shows that the Catholic Church has a greater connection to the early Church than Protestants can claim to have. So, Protestants claim to more exactly interpret the Bible, but Catholics claim that they interpret Scripture and Doctrine in the same way that the people whom the Apostles themselves taught did. We have three Apostolic Fathers whom were personal friends and acquaintances of the apostles: St. Ignatius of Antioch (knew St. John), St. Clement of Rome (Sts. Peter and Paul), and St. Polycarp (St. John).

Some Christians don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Here's what St. Ignatius wrote in his Epistle to the Romans: "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ...and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God...They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh that suffered for our sins and that the Father in his goodness, raised up again." (c. 110 AD)

The Unitarians deny the doctrine of the Trinity. St.Ignatius again shows that the early Church believed in the Trinity: "For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God [the Father], conceived in the womb of Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit." (Letter to the Ephesians, 110 AD)

Protestants exclude certain books found in the Catholic canon as apocrypha. Yet, we have Pope St. Clement I quoting the Book of Wisdom in his Letter to the Corinthians (70 AD) and St. Polycarp quoting Tobit in his Letter to the Phillipians (135 AD).

Protestants don't believe in apostolic succession. Here's St. Clement on the matter: "And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe...Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."

So, Protestantism is in so many regards not at all like the original Church, which causes their claim to be "reforming" the Church back to its foundation to be rather dubious.


Canute wrote:

How I wish that you could accept the idea of grace! With grace, even the simplest people are able to teach the most learned about Scripture. For example, St. Joseph of Cupertino had very little secular knowledge, but could solve the most difficult problems for the most erudite theologians of his day. St. Benedict the Black, though unable to read or write, was similarly able to solve theological problems for the learned. But, I wish to use an obvious example of Protestants distorting Scripture for their own ends (Matthew 16 13:20):

13And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

14But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.


The two most popular ways for Protestants to put a spin on this passage are 1) to say that it is rather Peter's declaration than Peter himself whom Christ refers to as the rock; or 2) referring to the Greek, Petros means a small stone, so there is no way Christ would delegate such authority to a small stone! But they ignore the play betweeen Petros and petra in both cases. Though petros (which is only found in Greek poetry to refer to a small stone. The bible uses lithos for this purpose.) does refer to a small stone, Christ is naming a Man, so it only makes sense that his name be masculine rather than the feminine petra! And don't forget that rock in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, is the masculine cephas, which is the exact name Peter received, Cephas. So that makes the wordplay and that fact that it is Peter who is the rock even more obvious. And you'll find that Protestants stretch other passages in similar manners.

For Catholics, this doctrine has not changed. Note well, that all ecumenical councils from the very beginning needed papal approval to be considered valid. Even if no western bishop was present during the council, as was the case in the Second Ecumenical council at Ephesus, the Greek bishops still submitted the council's judgements to the pope. Let me reiterate that doctrine has not changed in the Catholic Church, but it has in Protestant Churches.




longfenglimJesus first asks his disciples who they think the Son of Man is, and they answered multitudinously, but Jesus then asks them who they think he is, and, in the midst of them, and for them, Peter said to Jesus, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ At this expression of faith, Jesus said, ‘And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ It is not here that Christ names Peter, but, rather, he affirms the validity of the name by which Christ called Simon bar Jona into apostleship- viz. ‘And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.’ Yet, it does not mean that St. Peter had primacy over the other Apostles, though he have been shown special favours, along with James and John, such as being present in the Transfiguration. Yet, despite his superiority in this respect, St. Peter was, in some ways, inferior to the other apostles- he was called Satan, or adversary, by Lord Jesus himself, and denied Christ three times. Indeed, there is nowhere in scripture where Peter assumes, covet, or was given such position, except, in the false Romish teaching, here. Christ Jesus, himself, disclaim all form of pride amongst his apostles, telling them that they should be made ‘unto like this Child’ (for he has brought a child in the midst of them), for, only then, can they enter the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:1-5) the rock upon which the Church is built is not Peter, but upon Peter’s confession of faith, spoken to Christ for all the Apostles. For Peter was hardly steadfast in his faith, having already been shown inferior, in certain respects, to the other apostles, how then can Christ call him the rock upon which his Church is built. In same manner, we must not take the Popish doctrine on the Key of Heaven being solely given to Peter, for, while the Popish Church do not err in interpreting this Key as the Key to open and interpret scripture, it is not solely Peter’s alone. For while Peter was the first to use the Key to preach to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, that is as far as his distinction goes, for the key was given to all the Apostles for the sake of spreading the word of Christ, and his message.


Here is St. Cyprian of Carthage writing about the Primacy of the Pope in The Unity of the Catholic Church (251 AD): "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I give the keys of the kingdom..." On him, he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, others were also what Peter was, but primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is only one Church and one chair...If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?"

Then, we have the fact that St. Peter is mentioned more times in Scripture than all the other apostles put together, Jesus prays specifically for Peter to strengthen the apostles (Luke 22:31-32), Peter is the the first one who proclaims Jesus' resurrection at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-35), and he definitively pronounces at the Council of Jerusalem that the Gentiles need not practice the Mosaic Law (Acts 15: 6-12). (Especially note that Peter makes his pronouncement "after much debate had taken place" and at the end of it, "the whole assembly fell silent.") All this shows the special regard Jesus Christ had for St. Peter and that He singled him out to be the leader. Though Peter often falls, God chooses the weakest people to manifest that a work is His. So, perhaps Jesus Christ chose the weakest of the apostles to be the leader in order to show the power of His grace and that His grace would uphold the Pope.

Also, the beginning of your post above seems to imply that there's no reason for Christ to rename Simon Bar-Jonah Peter. It is almost as if Jesus were just giving him a nickname. But, Jesus never does anything in the Gospels without a purpose. So, there must be a reason why Jesus is changing Simon Bar-Jonah's name. And the reason is that he is the head and symbol of unity in the Church.


Canute wrote:
3. The Roman Emperors were helpful to the Church, Emperor Constantine in particular, because they allowed them to practice the faith. If you read more about Constantine's relationship to the church, you'll see that he wasn't theologically astute and instead relied on the judgment of the bishops. For example, the council called under his authority, the First Council of Nicaea, was over a dispute about the nature of Christ. He allowed both sides to debate their positions peacefully. Indeed, when St. Nicolas of Smyrna (the same person little children believe now distributes gifts at Christmas) smacked Arius in the face for denying that Jesus Christ was truly God and truly Man, Constantine had him imprisoned. However, after the judgment of the council that Arius and his followers held a heretical position, he released St. Nicolas.

But that did not quell Arianism! The Arians came out with a new position saying that Jesus was as filled with grace as a human being can be, but still not God. As a matter of fact, Emperor Constantine's own son, Constantius II, tried to force Arianism down the throats of Catholic churches! But even though the Emperor was now an Arian and even though the Army and the ruling class of the Roman Empire were solidly in the grasp of Arianism, Catholic bishops refused to budge on the divinity of Christ. The Catholic church faced persecution by this emperor and later on by Julian the Apostate and Valens. It wasn't until 381 that the conflict over Arianism officially ended in the Roman Empire with the Second Council of Constantinople under Emperor Theodosius. All this goes to show that the Catholic church did not rely on the Emperor's favor, but it was helpful at times.



longfenglimDoesn’t address my point. Rome is not the Emperor solely, nor the army and the ruling class, but the culture of Rome. It already shifted to suit Roman taste, why should this trend not continue?


Sorry, I misunderstood you. I got the impression that you meant to say that the Church was under the Roman emperor's thumb and he dictated what the Church should believe. Rather, you mean that the Church was culturally Roman. But in the same way, the Church in Italy's Italian, in America American, in France French, etc. So, cultures tend to look at religious dogma through the lens of their culture and philosophy. But, I would like to note that the Church was not only culturally Roman at the time, but culturally Greek on the eastern side of the empire. Nevertheless, they came together on doctrine, and it was not until 1054 in the Great Schism when they finally split because the Patriarch of Constantinople's insistence on being equal to the Pope. Also, all the councils until this point were held in the East and certain of them were attended only by Greek bishops and a few papal legates. In those cases, the Greek bishops would argue over what doctrine was with some input from the legates, and then the pope would give his approval to the council's canons. The doctrines of the Catholic Church were approved worldwide without cultural and philosophical lenses distorting the truth of the Faith, much the same as it is today.


Canute wrote:

4. & 5. Those things which can change in the Catholic church are those related to practice, not doctrine. Please note that growing out one's beard in Judaism only concerned those who took the Nazirite vow. It did not concern all Jews, though you do often see more conservative groups of Jews growing beards. As for not stoning adulterers, Christ himself ended that when he told whoever was without sin to cast the first stone (John 8:7). Then concerning dietary laws, all food is declared clean in both the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles; otherwise, Christians would still have to observe those laws. But, I will say that many of the laws in the Old Testament, such as the one on divorce, were created because of the hardness of men's hearts. Now that Christ has caused the advent of the Kingdom of His Mercy, we are called to be merciful where people in the past meted out justice: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Concerning woman ministers, the Church has never received the authority to ordain women as priests. Priests symbolize Christ, who was a man, so all priests must be men. Also, all the apostles, the first priests, were men. If Christ wished that women should be ordained too, he would have ordained one! But he did not even ordain his own mother, who was conceived without sin and whose holiness surpasses all the angels and saints.

To use the example of Theseus's ship concerning the difference between doctrine and practice, if the Apostles' Creed were a golden mast, it would remain a golden mast. If the pope were a silver steering wheel, so it would remain. If the seven sacraments were olive planks, these too would remain until the end of time. On the other hand, the priest facing the back of the Church, the celibacy of the priesthood, and women wearing scarves on their head are ordinary wood which can changed at the will of the Magisterium.



longfenglimPractice and Doctrine are intertwine, to change practices is to change certain doctrines which has brought forth such practices. For example, if the Church were to allow the ordination of Woman priest, that would need a revision of their doctrine on that matter, if they wanted to change the order of Mass, they would have to change their doctrine on that. Practice and Doctrine are connected, and to change one is usually to change the other, or reinterpret the other in such a way that it would conform to new practices. Having established that, if our hypothetical ship were to be torn apart, and replaced with different material, more suited to our convenience and our modern sentiments, to change practice, and, by such, change doctrine, on which practice depends, and which must be changed to accommodate the loss of a practice it once prescribed, we are no longer left with any semblance of the old ship, but a few things here and there, the mast, the steering wheel, a few planks on the board, but a new ship, with only a few things from the old ship, under the same name. We may have expanded the ship’s size, added more planks, replace the rudder, add a figurehead to the prow of the ship, we may, in like turn, shrink it, excise a few unnecessary planks, take out the rudder, take out all that makes it a ship, and leave behind a raft, with a mast, a sail, and a steering wheel. All to suit human wants, rather than God’s.

As I am wanting in time, I will address your other points latter.


The difference between practice and doctrine can be seen in the presence of rites in the Catholic Church: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm. Notice how all these churches profess the same doctrine as the Catholic Church even though they use a different form of the mass and some allow married clergy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_communion. There even used to be a Gallican Rite in the Catholic Church until European bishops decided of their own accord to use the Roman rite. If doctrine and practice were so united that changing practices would change doctrines, there is no way that all these Churches would come together to form the Catholic Church. I suppose the best analogy would really be human beings and clothing. People wear all kinds of clothing, but they still belong to the species homo sapiens. Changing the clothing they wear does not change that fact. So, Catholics all believe in the Apostles' Creed, Primacy of the Pope, the Seven Sacraments, and the proclamations of the ecumenical councils. But none of them will allow women to become priests, because doctrinally a priest must be a man for the reasons I gave above. None of them will say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit differ in essence. Please show me one way that practices have caused a change in doctrine.

Now, I've run out of time. I'll comment on your the next post later.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/17/12

DomFortress wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:

OMG. English is not my first language but pretty much (I read it again and again) I DIDN'T PUT ANY WORD FROM SOMEBODY'S MOUTH (capitalization for emphasis and not for sceaming). Or did they just update the English language without me knowing it.

And you always keep on giving me the "slave of faith so you are not a freethinker BS", dude, it was me who adjusted my life so I can be I Christian. It was me who wanted to join the religion and not the other way around. That is the result of me "freely thinking". With my own will, I joined Christianity. What would an insignificant being like me matters to a great God (for the sake of arguement, consider that God is real)? He already had a million followers. He doesn't need to chase me around and force me some ancient belief from the middle east.

And how does my religion limits me from thinking freely? Am I not a nurse whose practice is based on science? Am I not a degree holder coming from a college- a place of science, arts, literature and stuff related to "thinking"? Or you just think that all of us-religious people- are some red necks, who are uneducated because they are too afraid to learn from academic institutions? Not because you saw some thinking atheist means ONLY the atheist thinks.

and what if my way of life is restricted because of my "religious superstitions and dogmas" (as you call it)? Is it wrong not to hate? (that is the teaching for us) Is it wrong if I obey my parents? Is it wrong if I am pro-life and against abortion? Tell me, sadiq, what is wrong in living a life guided by the moral codes of my religion? Please tell me. For the love of God, please tell me.

And about obedience and discipline- I told you. If you want to follow a certain faith or discipline or code or any way of life, you HAVE TO adjust yourself to it. I want to become a Christian hence I have to obey what it commands. If I want to be a Christian and doesn't want to obey it's command-that is screwed up. They'll kick me out. Just like college. Some colleges have a strict rule about grades lower than B-. If you want to stay in college, do your due diligence to get the right grade so you won't be kick out.

and what is this BS about social death and death denial? Dude, if given the chance, I want to be 6ft under now. i do not want immortality. Why would I like to live a life where I hunger, fear, get cold, feel pain? you, sir, are the one who is putting words in my mouth.


So what, I never spoke a word of English until I turned 11. Therefore your excuse of your own English deficiency doesn't change the fact that you forced obedience as a necessary requirement for unconditional love.

Were you born into a Christian family? That situation alone can determine your lack of alternative for your indoctrination into a religion, for your refusal to conform means excommunication by your very support group; your immediate family.

Your lack of critical thinking skill has nothing to do with your ability to understand science, but it has everything to do with your inability to question and even challenge your own faith-based moral codes, hence your blind obedience and lack of logic.

I don't stop learning even when I'm out of collage, so what's your excuse? Beside you can only do whatever that you were told, otherwise you would just rather die, according to your own words as a slave.


*big slap on my forehead* *imitates Chris Tucker, speaking really really slow* DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT IS COMING FROM MY MOUTH? (my composition in this case)

I don't care if you learned English until you're 11. My point is, I didn't put words on somebody's mouth. For the love of what is holy, comprehend!

Yes I am born in a Christian Family but we have no excommunication (that means there is no threat from the church for me) and my mother wanted me to become Islam before or Taoist but I refused. And what alternative indoctrination are you referring?

My lack of what? oh my gosh. All you do is troll, bash and speak rubbish. If I don't understand science, how did I finished Bachelor of SCIENCE in Nursing, you stereotyping-prick? And you said I don't challenge my FAITH-based moral code hence I have lack of logic? WTF, is that? faith=logic? You aspire to become a Sociologist but you cannot comprehend the difference between logic and faith? And if, I didn't question my faith-based moral code (and what on earth is wrong in our Christian moral codes) how come I returned to the Catholic faith from being a protestant?

and who said I stopped learning after college? die as a what? Can ONLY do what? you, as people in CR said, loves to twist and cherry pick our words. Did you really finished college?

2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/17/12

longfenglim wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:

1. I believe, in this number, your concern is the interpretation. Interpretation-wise, not all has the authority to do so. This is a mere estimate and probably will happen- ask 10 person to read the Bible and each will have their own interpretation. As I told it to my other friends, it would not be a surprise that in the future, each man has their own one-man-christian-sect. So it all comes down, who has the real authority in interpreting the scriptures? The answer would be from the people mandated, anointed and commissioned by Jesus Christ to spread the word. Actually, the Bible is not a big book of riddles or secret code. Everything is there plain and simple when it concerns to Christian living. What causes conflicts among sects most of the time is the theology part (i bet you heard about the debates concerning the deity of Jesus, the saints and stuff).

2. inshaaallah no problem here anymore. just to add information and in line with point 2- Christianity existed before the bible. the real christian religion is not based from a book. The book (the new testament) is based from the Christian religion. As you can see, most of the sect were founded based on their interpretation of the book where the apostolic churches were founded by the teaching and traditions handed to them by Jesus.

3. The emperor didn't appointed the bishops and pope. I think you saw on TV how they choose a pope (an ancient Catholic tradition)

4 (&5). The ten commandment is applicable to all.



about women minister, well, the apostolic churches have no women minister. About homosexuals, the apostolic churches are still against them and not because they are against it, they will kill them. And the Jews killing Jesus-i don't find the relevance (but for the sake of answering even if it is off topic- yes. Jews killed Jesus. That is the prophecy.)

about the Pillars of Christianity-what are these pillars? we should know first what are you talking about because i have this feeling you have a wrong idea about modification in christian living for modern times.



1. Yes, who does have the authority to interpret the Bible? Those mandated by Christ Jesus? And who are these mandated? Certainly not you or me, I presume. And certainly not the other ministers. Only those mandated by the True Church can interpret the Bible, expound theology, and all that. Do you want to know why that is complete rubbish? Because we take the Church's word for it that they are mandated by Christ, the Evangelicals of America claim that they are mandated, and that the Pope is the anti-Christ, the Calvinist ministers claim this same mandate, every preacher out there claims this mandate, and that the other is false. We can only take their word for it that they have a mandate to each us unlearned ones. But, you may argue, these are all false, because Jesus pass his teaching to the apostolic succession, which, I may add, is divided in itself, the East differs theologically from the West, and, given that, we have to take their word that they can trace their lineage back to Christ- the foundation of the Church of Rome by St. Peter is not founded on any truth, but on myths. So all of that is complete rubbish.

3. My point just flew over your head, didn't it? My point was that the people who put together the bible were already Romanised. The Emperor's mother was a Christian, Christianity ceased being Jewish, and became one of the many Roman Mystery religions, a powerful one, and an outlawed one, but still one of them, and it attracted Romans, and with this influx of Romans, it has been Romanized to suit their taste. Reread everything, adn then we may have a discussion on that point.

4 and 5. No, no it doesn't. God gave the Jewish people 613 Mitzvoh, the only Mitzvoh binding upon Gentiles are the Noahic Commandment. If my reading of the Bible is correct, God delievered the Jews out of Egypt, and gave them the Ten Commandment, more accurately, the Aseret ha-Dibrot.
http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm
It was only for the Jews, and not for the Gentiles, who already bound by the Seven Laws of Noah.

Then you list your agreement with the idea that the Jews killed Jesus (even if it was the Romans who did it, but nevermind, Christ's blood is upon them), and you express your antagonism to homosexuality- okay- but you are reluctance to actively hunt them down like animals, as Paul tells us to. If you reject that, for whatever reason, you are tearing down one of your pillars- the Laws and Beliefs of your religion- for the sake of your own convience, because it 'isn't modern', meaning it is inconvient for you to live as prescribed by your own religion. Is that so? Is your religion such that you do all to please your God, so long as it isn't inconvient for you?

As I am running out of time, I will reply to everything else at a latter time.


1. on your reply here, all your accusations has no basis. You as a logical person would understand very well that the Christian teaching cannot be taught by people with no authority. It's like in college. If you are a Math teacher, you should not teach English. And we cannot take their words alone. Luckily, the Church recorded their lineage properly back to Jesus himself.

True that the apostle are many hence divided. However, all recognize each other as from Apostolic Churches and their theology are the same. They differ in rites and ceremonies but still, their theology and moral code is still the same. I am-to be clear, not claiming that their is only one church. What I claim is is the authority of the Apostolic Churches.

3. Maybe but I'm pretty sure you are stressing out that the church was already romanized before the put the Bible together. That cannot be avoided for it was in Roman territory that Roman Catholicism flourished. If Roman Catholicism flourished in China, then Roman Catholicism there would be China-ized. Understand my point now, that despite the heavy influence of Rome in the ancient Roman Catholicism, know that the Church is for unification of the churches and to battle heresy. If the Romans wanted to use religion as a device for power, how come the Roman Catholic didn't collapsed after the fall of Rome and on the contrary, non-Roman nations managed to spread it in all corners of the world? Did this non-Roman nations wanted to spread the power or Rome?

4-5. This is a poor summary but here goes, the abrahamic religion was supposed to be for the Jews as you have said. However, the moment the Jews refused Jesus, the religion was given to the Gentiles. It was in the prophecy and you can read it in the new testament.

If you read the Bible, it was the Jews who plotted to kill Jesus. At Jesus's hearing, the Roman Pontious Pilate said he find Jesus innocent of all the charges against him but still the Jews are willing to crucify him. Then the Roman Governor propose something (since it is the time where he releases one prisoner free). He will free one prisoner and he let them choose, Barnabas the thief or Jesus. The Jews chose Barnabas and when the Roman governor heard this, he asked them, what do you want me to do with this man? the shouted "Crucify him".
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/17/12

longfenglim wrote:


You have no fucking understanding of fucking Voodoo do you? You have no understanding of Fengshui either. Voodoo is not praying to dead spirits. If you want to lie, at least do research before you lie through your teeth. Let me explain Voodoo- rather, as I can't do that, let me explain her sister, Santaria. Santaria tells us that there is one God, he is the creator of Everything. But he is unreachable, and is manisfested in lesser 'gods', called Orishas, who connect to human affairs. Through the worship of these Orishas, you are worshipping the One God, and to seek aid from an Orisha is to seek aid from the One God, in the form of that Orisha. It is not the worship of the dead, it is none of that. Likewise, Fengshui does not require belief, it is simply something that occurs, regardless of beliefs. Fengshui does not require belief, it is a neutral force, it applies still even if you don't believe it. I am not saying they are true, just that you have no understanding of them what-so-ever.


first, i didn't said that all of this are the same. I didn't said that voodoo is about praying to the dead. And I am not saying that feng shui requires a belief. So i guess you didn't freakin' understand or you just cherry picked my post.


longfenglim

Then you cite the Old Testament as an example of the wrath of God upon us puny humans- I can cite many myths to support the idea that the Wrath of the Olympian Gods is powerful, and it is only their humours that we are even alive, or of any other Gods from any other faith. You use your own faith to justify your own God to a disbelieving audience. Truth is, you have never made sense, you want to show that God is real because he punished the Heathens in the temporal world and made their faith disappear and destroyed their altar (not true, there is more than Christianity in the world), but, when the Heathens have triumphed over your Churches, burnt it, and looted it, you comfort yourself with the idea that they are in hell right now, even if they died as the Rich propietor of a large estate, with hundreds of Christian slaves. Why could it not be the other way, that the heathen Gods have punished the Christians for their destruction of their altar, divided them, and set them to kill each other. Or that the Gods do not care because it is the fate decreed by the all powerful Norns? All these argument are rubbish.


very well, cite this Olympian God's wrath. I am not even convincing anyone here the existence of God. All i did in this thread is to explain the Christian side of faith. And those who triumph against us, let me ask you, where are they now? It is not my defense-machanism to comfort myself with such things. As a matter of fact, I would leave my religion but everytime I look in the current events, I see us, Christians everywhere. Where is the people who truimph against us?


longfenglim
About the Watches, you are still missing the point- there were less sophisticated watches before that lead up to the more sophisticated watch you have, and there shall be more improvements upon the watch that would make your watch obsolete, which will lead to the production of the more sophisticated one, until that becomes obsolete. The first watches were, in truth, not very sophisticated, sophistication devoloped. You once again prove that there is no bottom to that well of Stupidity.


and for crying out loud, by this nth time of repitition, you should have known that it is not about the watch. It is about a thing-created not by natural means and not about how sophisticated the watch it. MY GOSH!

longfenglim
And, about your medical credentials, I highly doubt that. Many people go about removing some vestigial structure for their own benefit, some vestigial Organ has other develop other properties as its original functions become useless. In fact, you should read this before we continue, mainly because there is only a limited amount of ignorance I can tolerate before I ignore it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges
That is why to settle this, name me the parts with no use and i'll prove you wrong. You just keep on avoiding my challenge.

and for your information, I can remove one of my eye and still live. I can remove one of my finger and still function well.





longfenglim

Sorry to cut you through in what I expect to be so brilliant that I would head to the nearest Church and convert immediately, but no, I see many religion, and every one of them claims some sort of Greatness. There are few Christian Nation, none of them Great- Japan certainly isn't Christian, China isn't Christian, France and most of Europe is Secular, having obtained national greatness by defeating Christianity's influence, Ireland was held back by Christianity, we seperated Church and State. But do continue...


hah, you thought I was here to convert people?

only in arab countries where they practice state religion! Japan was defeated terribly by the USA and in the present they are still America's b***h. China was asking America to not help Philippines on their stuggle in the Spratly's (why is that? scared) Why is China's communism starting to collapse. They can't obliterate religion in your country. About France and Europe, again, all the nations in the world are already secular.

longfenglim

out of time, i'll reply to you later.
Posted 1/17/12 , edited 1/17/12

alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



*big slap on my forehead* *imitates Chris Tucker, speaking really really slow* DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT IS COMING FROM MY MOUTH? (my composition in this case)

I don't care if you learned English until you're 11. My point is, I didn't put words on somebody's mouth. For the love of what is holy, comprehend!

Yes I am born in a Christian Family but we have no excommunication (that means there is no threat from the church for me) and my mother wanted me to become Islam before or Taoist but I refused. And what alternative indoctrination are you referring?

My lack of what? oh my gosh. All you do is troll, bash and speak rubbish. If I don't understand science, how did I finished Bachelor of SCIENCE in Nursing, you stereotyping-prick? And you said I don't challenge my FAITH-based moral code hence I have lack of logic? WTF, is that? faith=logic? You aspire to become a Sociologist but you cannot comprehend the difference between logic and faith? And if, I didn't question my faith-based moral code (and what on earth is wrong in our Christian moral codes) how come I returned to the Catholic faith from being a protestant?

and who said I stopped learning after college? die as a what? Can ONLY do what? you, as people in CR said, loves to twist and cherry pick our words. Did you really finished college?
You claimed that you "didn't put words on somebody's mouth", and yet there you were, accusing me being "troll, bash and speak rubbish". While you "twist and cherry pick" my words to the point of making myself sounding incoherent from your "composition".

At least I've got your own behavior as proofs of my observation about you as a christian, whereas you OTOH only managed to throw another temper tantrum. Just like how you claimed here that you "if given the chance, I want to be 6ft under now. i do not want immortality". I mean just because you don't want immortality, that doesn't automatically means you're suicidal. That's one proof of your illogical overgeneralizing.

Islam and Taoism, those are precisely the "alternative indoctrination" that's unavailable to you when you were raised in a "Christian Family". Furthermore, when rationally studying theology, we can understand that one of the main reasons that the protestant split from the catholic church is because some begone to question the faith-based Christian moral codes. Therefore since you don't question nor challenge the faith-based Christian moral codes, the preexisting catholic indoctrination process has no problem to assimilate you into its collective identity.

Finally, our formal educations and career choice has nothing to do with your own religious indoctrination process and the topic of this thread. Nor is your temper tantrum and blind accusation towards my person the appropriate behaviors during a logical debate. Otherwise you're the one who's trolling, and that's not what I'm here for as a sociologist. Because you have no idea how I was socialized to become what I'm today, hence your blind accusations regarding my person means nothing when you don't know my history.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/17/12

alupihan45 wrote:

1. on your reply here, all your accusations has no basis. You as a logical person would understand very well that the Christian teaching cannot be taught by people with no authority. It's like in college. If you are a Math teacher, you should not teach English. And we cannot take their words alone. Luckily, the Church recorded their lineage properly back to Jesus himself.

True that the apostle are many hence divided. However, all recognize each other as from Apostolic Churches and their theology are the same. They differ in rites and ceremonies but still, their theology and moral code is still the same. I am-to be clear, not claiming that their is only one church. What I claim is is the authority of the Apostolic Churches.

3. Maybe but I'm pretty sure you are stressing out that the church was already romanized before the put the Bible together. That cannot be avoided for it was in Roman territory that Roman Catholicism flourished. If Roman Catholicism flourished in China, then Roman Catholicism there would be China-ized. Understand my point now, that despite the heavy influence of Rome in the ancient Roman Catholicism, know that the Church is for unification of the churches and to battle heresy. If the Romans wanted to use religion as a device for power, how come the Roman Catholic didn't collapsed after the fall of Rome and on the contrary, non-Roman nations managed to spread it in all corners of the world? Did this non-Roman nations wanted to spread the power or Rome?

4-5. This is a poor summary but here goes, the abrahamic religion was supposed to be for the Jews as you have said. However, the moment the Jews refused Jesus, the religion was given to the Gentiles. It was in the prophecy and you can read it in the new testament.

If you read the Bible, it was the Jews who plotted to kill Jesus. At Jesus's hearing, the Roman Pontious Pilate said he find Jesus innocent of all the charges against him but still the Jews are willing to crucify him. Then the Roman Governor propose something (since it is the time where he releases one prisoner free). He will free one prisoner and he let them choose, Barnabas the thief or Jesus. The Jews chose Barnabas and when the Roman governor heard this, he asked them, what do you want me to do with this man? the shouted "Crucify him".


1. Bullshit. First off, you analogy does not hold, because there are more than one Math professors and English Professors, and if they are both at PhD level, and they argue over a point, you would choose the one that made the most sense, not the oldest one, because of his senoirity. Even if this older professor was taught by an eminent Professor of English, but the Younger professor read his work throughly as well, without being taught by him, it still wouldn't matter, so long as his logic makes less sense than the younger one, he shouldn't be regarded as right. Now, the younger professor in this analogy is a Protestant, say, a Calvinist, and this older professor, say, is one of you Apostolic Church. When the protestant shows, by the Word of the Bible itself, that Romish teaching is false, should we not accept that it is false? We depend upon them to tell us all this, that they have the mandate, that they are taught by Christ and his apostles, and they are preserved, but that rest on an initial belief in them, which is illogical no matter how you cut it.

3. The Romanisation of the Church forced the early Church Leaders to make changes to the text so that it fits much better with Roman sentiment, and change their belief and all that. Take circumcision, the Romans are exempt from that, as said by Paul. The Text you cite (latter, I know, but it is relevent now), made Jews the killer of Christ, and they specifically ask for his blood upon them while Pontius Pilate killed Christ reluctantly, could we not say this is a Gentile Interpolation to shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews? After all, it would be hard to convert someone to a religion if it basically said, 'You killed our God, you evil bastards, but join us anyways.'

4&5. No, God made a convenant with Moses on Sanai,

Ex 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

He certainly didn't bring Gentiles out of Egypt. This is meant that God gave 613 Mizvot, which are categorised within the Ten Commandment.

The Aseret ha-Dibrot identify the following ten categories of mitzvot. Other religions divide this passage differently. Please remember that these are categories of the 613 mitzvot, which according to Jewish tradition are binding only upon Jews. The only mitzvot binding upon gentiles are the seven Noahic commandments.

1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."

2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.

3. Prohibition of Oaths
This category is derived from Ex. 20:7, beginning, "You shall not take the name of the L-rd your G-d in vain..." This includes prohibitions against perjury, breaking or delaying the performance of vows or promises, and speaking G-d's name or swearing unnecessarily.

4. Observance of Sacred Times
This category is derived from Ex. 20:8-11, beginning, "Remember the Sabbath day..." It encompasses all mitzvot related to Shabbat, holidays, or other sacred time.

5. Respect for Parents and Teachers
This category is derived from Ex. 20:12, beginning, "Honor your father and mother..."

6. Prohibition of Physically Harming a Person
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not murder."

7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."

8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices. It also includes kidnapping, which is essentially "stealing" a person.

9. Prohibition of Harming a Person through Speech
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." It includes all forms of lashon ha-ra (sins relating to speech).

10. Prohibition of Coveting
This category is derived from Ex. 20:14, beginning, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."


They were never binding on gentiles, and, indeed, they aren't even commandments, they are categories of Commandments (Mizvot). If it were put on Gentiles, they would have violated number two (idols- that is what a cross is, after all), one (I am the L-rd, your G-d,..., which, if taken with the Shema Yisrael- hear Oh Israel, I am the Lord your God, the Lord is One. means that Christianity already violated it, not only by accepting Three Gods- the three in one thing, but also by saying that Satan is a powerful enough spirit to rule outre God, and to be able to create evil), 4 (When was the last time you kept Shabbos), 6 (Didn't stop the inquisition did it?), 9 (Basically saying that Jews plotted to Kill Jesus in their own holy book, when no other record can attest to it http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/04/did_the_jews_kill_jesus.html). So, basically, all of them. How does that feel, to want something that you would repeatedly violate anyways?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.