# crazy catholic priests at it again



## dzalphakilo

Funny, any time I come across one of these articles, I now think of Bob.


*Boston priest accused of stalking, harassing Conan O'Brien*

Email|Print| Text size *–* *+* By Samantha Gross 
Associated Press Writer / November 7, 2007 


NEW YORK --A priest has been arrested on charges of stalking late-night talk show host Conan O'Brien by writing him threatening notes on parish letterhead, contacting his parents and showing up at his studio, prosecutors said Wednesday.
"I want a public confession before I ever consider giving you absolution -- or a spot on your couch," wrote the Rev. David Ajemian, who signed the notes "Padre," said Barbara Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney's office.

Ajemian, from the Archdiocese of Boston, was arrested last week while trying to enter a taping session of NBC's "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, near where other NBC shows are taped and the famous Christmas tree is put up, Thompson said.

Court papers say Ajemian referred to himself as "your priest stalker" in one note and complained of not being allowed in to see an earlier taping of the O'Brien show.

"Is this the way you treat your most dangerous fans?" the note said.
The letters and e-mails, which started coming in September 2006, continued even after Ajemian was asked to stop and were "intended to cause annoyance and alarm," Thompson said. The priest could face up to a year in prison if convicted on charges of aggravated harassment and stalking.

Ajemian also has been in contact with O'Brien's parents, Thompson said.
The priest and the late-night host may have attended Harvard University at the same time. O'Brien graduated in 1985, and Ajemian graduated from high school in 1979 before attending the Ivy League school, according to an alumni magazine published by his high school.

The Archdiocese of Boston said in a statement that Ajemian had been placed on leave and was no longer allowed to minister publicly. O'Brien, a native of the Boston suburb of Brookline, Mass., has participated in fundraising activities for the archdiocese.

An NBC spokesman said O'Brien was not commenting on the incident.
A telephone message left Wednesday night at St. Mary-St. Catherine of Siena Church in Boston's Charlestown neighborhood, which Ajemian gave as his address, was not immediately returned.


----------



## Sir Knight

_... "I want a public confession before I ever consider giving you absolution" ..._

The priest was definitely off his rocker. A Catholic priest take vows that he will NEVER reveal what is told him during a confession *even to save his own life*.

Additionally, absolution is NEVER to be CONDITIONAL. The priest is definitely off his rocker.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> _... "I want a public confession before I ever consider giving you absolution" ..._
> 
> The priest was definitely off his rocker. A Catholic priest take vows that he will NEVER reveal what is told him during a confession *even to save his own life*.
> 
> Additionally, absolution is NEVER to be CONDITIONAL. The priest is definitely off his rocker.


 
WTF is all the confession stuff about?  This is one of the things that turns me against organized religion. It is part of the "guilt trap" that all religions have in order to maintain control of their congregations. 

I'm sorry if that upsets some people but religion and its collective rituals make absolutely no sense and works to turn people against each other. And you wonder why Catholic priests plook alter boys? Because it is not natural for human beings to take a vow of celibacy, that's why...it's not natural, and when you go against nature, you get perversion. The world has enough perverts as it is without organized religion creating more. Damnit!

Ahem...I fell much better now, thank you.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Cityboy said:


> WTF is all the confession stuff about?  This is one of the things that turns me against organized religion. It is part of the "guilt trap" that all religions have in order to maintain control of their congregations.
> 
> I'm sorry if that upsets some people but religion and its collective rituals make absolutely no sense and works to turn people against each other. And you wonder why Catholic priests plook alter boys? Because it is not natural for human beings to take a vow of celibacy, that's why...it's not natural, and when you go against nature, you get perversion. The world has enough perverts as it is without organized religion creating more. Damnit!
> 
> Ahem...I fell much better now, thank you.


 
To some extent I agree with you CB, however a very good friend of mine is now a catholic priest. I respect him. Deans list GPA undergrad, then later, degree at Oxford in England. Smart guy.

Reason why I respect him so much is we used to do some BAD things together when we both used to drink hard when we were younger. He gave up drinking before me.

He (my buddy) first started working with the homeless people, then got into the catholic church. VERY down to earth guy. 

We've had some very down to earth discussions on religion and faith, and I can pretty much assure you that he is not "perverted" in anyway (well, can we say that, and know that for certain about ANYONE?).

I really do respect his opinion, and if I lived in downtown Philly, I'd be going to his chuch just to deal with him.  For myself, for right or wrong, I find the preist/pastor/minister makes the church, not the religion.

He is one reason why I have hope for the Catholic church (not that any Catholics would give a rats butt what I think of their religion).


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> WTF is all the confession stuff about?  This is one of the things that turns me against organized religion. It is part of the "guilt trap" that all religions have in order to maintain control of their congregations.


In John 20:21 before Jesus grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, _"as the Father sent me, so I send you."_ As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.

Then in John 20:22 the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

Finally in John 20:23 Jesus says, _"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained."_ In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear. 




Cityboy said:


> I'm sorry if that upsets some people but religion and its collective rituals make absolutely no sense and works to turn people against each other. And you wonder why Catholic priests plook alter boys? Because it is not natural for human beings to take a vow of celibacy, that's why...it's not natural, and when you go against nature, you get perversion. The world has enough perverts as it is without organized religion creating more. Damnit!


 In Matt. 19:11-12 Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever *can* bear it SHOULD bear it. Jesus praises and *recommends* celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.


----------



## Melensdad

I was talking with a Greek Orthodox follower today and she was actually asking about confession.  Not that she opposed it, but was looking for some insight into the origins of it.  Sir Knight handled that part.  But there is another part of the sacrament of confession/reconciliation that is actually a very comforting thing.  Those folks who do something bad, and feel guilty about it, be it a small or a large thing, can go to confession and speak openly about it to a priest.  Many people find it to be a very uplifting experience.  So rather than a "guilt thing" it is often considered to be a guilt reliever, something that takes a burden off your mind and helps you set yourself onto the right path again.  

I think many folks are confused about confession.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> In Matt. 19:11-12 Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever *can* bear it SHOULD bear it. Jesus praises and *recommends* celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.


 
I missed the scripture in the Bible where it mentions that the Catholic kingpin himself, the pope, can have girlfriends on the side for some late night booty calls


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> I missed the scripture in the Bible where it mentions that the Catholic kingpin himself, the pope, can have girlfriends on the side for some late night booty calls


Any man can be corrupted.  I find it interesting that some people condemn an entire religion because of the actions of some of members or temporary leaders.  Sort like the old saying_ "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." _The reality is there are problems and abuses of power, the reality also is that for every 1 individual who is corrupted, there are hundreds who set great examples for others.  I think this can be said about religions, companies and governments.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> In John 20:21 before Jesus grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, _"as the Father sent me, so I send you."_ As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
> 
> Then in John 20:22 the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
> 
> Finally in John 20:23 Jesus says, _"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained."_ In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
> 
> 
> In Matt. 19:11-12 Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever *can* bear it SHOULD bear it. Jesus praises and *recommends* celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.


 
Sir Knight,

I grew up with a bible quoting mother, so I've seen this before. Muslims can also point you to what they consider their "divine" scripture. Sorry, but it is completely illogical, and could have been written by anyone in order to attempt to control peoples behavior. You may choose to believe this scripture, and it is your right to believe it. However, you prove nothing by quoting it, and the fact is that you do not know if it is true, or a fairy tale. *Believing is not knowing*, and none of us knows what will happen to us when we die, which is the fear organized religion uses to control those who choose to believe it.


----------



## Doc

Cityboy said:


> Sir Knight,
> 
> I grew up with a bible quoting mother, so I've seen this before. Muslims can also point you to what they consider their "divine" scripture. Sorry, but it is completely illogical, and could have been written by anyone in order to attempt to control peoples behavior. You may choose to believe this scripture, and it is your right to believe it. However, you prove nothing by quoting it, and the fact is that you do not know if it is true, or a fairy tale. *Believing is not knowing*, and none of us knows what will happen to us when we die, which is the fear organized religion uses to control those who choose to believe it.




It's all about 'Faith' CB.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> Any man can be corrupted. I find it interesting that some people condemn an entire religion because of the actions of some of members or temporary leaders.


 
It's not the man who commits the sin, but the religious leaders who tolerates it, hides it, or ignores it.

With todays news sources and reporting, it's getting harder and harder to to hide.


----------



## Cityboy

Doc said:


> It's all about 'Faith' CB.


 
I understand that Doc, but....you still don't KNOW.  

Faith works in other areas of life beside religion. From Dictionary.com: 

_–noun _1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: _faith in another's ability. _2.*belief that is not based on proof*: _He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. _


----------



## Cityboy

dzalphakilo said:


> It's not the man who commits the sin, but the religious leaders who tolerates it, hides it, or ignores it.
> 
> With todays news sources and reporting, it's getting harder and harder to to hide.


 
 That would have gotten you rep points, but the system said I have to spread the wealth. Good one, DZ.  

Geeze...We're agreeing way too much these days.


----------



## Deadly Sushi

> Then in John 20:22 the Lord "breathes" on the apostles,


 
 

Dont question His love of garlic!


----------



## Cityboy

That was funny! Rep points for Sushi!


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> With todays news sources and reporting, it's getting harder and harder to to hide.


I think it was just as easy to get caught with your hand in the cookie jar 500 years ago as it is today.  The difference is that with today's technology the NEWS of the bad act is spread instantly.  So Monica under Bill Clinton's desk is no different than Henry VIII's dalliances, but the 'peasants' today own computers and the internet transmits the DNA evidence at virtually the speed of light, while in good old Henry's day a town crier rode a horse from village to shire and it could take many months to disseminate the news.


			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> I understand that Doc, but....you still don't KNOW.


 It might be hard to convey to others, but with faith you do KNOW.  The fact that your knowledge cannot be measured by science does not make it less of a truth.  We accept as truths that there are 'black holes' that there is 'evolution' and that there is 'negative energy' but none of those truths have ever been proven either.  Science accepts many truths that have never been proven, logically there is no reason to dismiss faith unless we also dismiss science.



Deadly Sushi said:


> Dont question His love of garlic!


Hell even I'll give you rep points for that.  It is funny!


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> It might be hard to convey to others, but with faith you do KNOW. The fact that your knowledge cannot be measured by science does not make it less of a truth. *We accept as truths that there are 'black holes'* that there is 'evolution' and that there is 'negative energy' but none of those truths have ever been proven either. *Science accepts many truths that have never been proven, logically *there is no reason to dismiss faith unless we also dismiss science.


 
Not exactly. We accept theory as "plausible", not as fact. A scientist will readily admit that his "theory" is not fact. 

I understand that you "think" you "know" because you have "fauth". I was taught the same thing in church and by my mother. But you do not know. The preacher I most respect admitted to me in a private conversation, that indeed, he did not KNOW what would actually happen when he died; now that is HONESTY. It is FEAR that makes people say they KNOW because they have "faith".

I'm not trying to shake anyones faith, but folks, you just don't know. What you call faith is simply "hope" for a desired outcome. The more I learn about life, human beings and organized religions of all kinds, the more I question it all. I think everyone should question their "faith". If you are afraid to question your own faith, then deep down you are really afraid to face the truth that you just do not know.


----------



## Melensdad

Cityboy said:


> Not exactly. We accept theory as "plausible", not as fact. A scientist will readily admit that his "theory" is not fact.
> . . .


Yes, they do admit them to be "theory" but they build upon them with additional theories that depend upon the initial theory being fact.  So in practice, the theories are treated as facts.  If they were not treated as facts, then the additional building theories could not be developed with any level of certainty.  Such is also the case with faith.  Consequently if both are held to similar standards, both can be treated as fact or both can be dismissed.


----------



## Deadly Sushi

> Hell even I'll give you rep points for that. It is funny!


 
 SEE! You mention the Word and youre blessed!


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> It's not the man who commits the sin, but the religious leaders who tolerates it, hides it, or ignores it.
> 
> With todays news sources and reporting, it's getting harder and harder to to hide.







Cityboy said:


> That would have gotten you rep points, but the system said I have to spread the wealth. Good one, DZ.
> 
> Geeze...We're agreeing way too much these days.






dzalphakilo said:


> I missed the scripture in the Bible where it mentions that the Catholic kingpin himself, the pope, can have girlfriends on the side for some late night booty calls



I guess you also missed Matt. 23:2-3 where the Pharisees, who Jesus said were steeped in sin and even called them hypocrites and a brood of viper; still commanded the people to obey their teachings because despite their sins, their authority was valid and was to be obeyed showing that a person's own personal sinfulness does not minimize their teaching authority.

And I guess you also missed the passage that only those of us without sin, should cast the first stone.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> Sir Knight,
> 
> I grew up with a bible quoting mother, so I've seen this before. Muslims can also point you to what they consider their "divine" scripture. Sorry, but it is completely illogical, and could have been written by anyone in order to attempt to control peoples behavior. You may choose to believe this scripture, and it is your right to believe it. However, you prove nothing by quoting it, and the fact is that you do not know if it is true, or a fairy tale. *Believing is not knowing*, and none of us knows what will happen to us when we die, which is the fear organized religion uses to control those who choose to believe it.


 "_Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have NOT seen and YET have believed._" - John 20:29


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> And I guess you also missed the passage that only those of us without sin, should cast the first stone.


 
Yep, and I also missed the part where Jesus thought you should arm yourself with a gun (and again, my Catholic priest buddy would disagree with you, not me).

I arm myself because of the evil of men, and the Jesus I know would rather have me be in the kingdom of his father than to take another life to save my own. Not because of some Catholic or bible reading horse crap to justify your actions.

Radical Muslims do the same thing. 

Off subject a little, however my point is the Bible is what you believe it to be, and you just proved my point Sir Knight.


----------



## Deadly Sushi

Armour of God huh? Good for you. Hope it works out for you. Better than I at least. I was born again. You would now call me on da back slide. 
God doesnt give you shit. You have to GET it. Pray? No. Do. Go out and DO. In the last 37 years of my life if He is my friend I dont want em. 
Only wish you can live 1/100th of my live brother. 
Now you will regard this as an attack of the enemy. A pet is always great when it loves you. But when the pet tears your couch up you still going to love it? Yea. I would. Not after 50 times. Then you start to think.


----------



## Deadly Sushi

> I know would rather have me be in the kingdom of his father than to take another life to save my own.


 
No man. You SHOOT the asshole.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Yep, and I also missed the part where Jesus thought you should arm yourself with a gun (and again, my Catholic priest buddy would disagree with you, not me).
> 
> I arm myself because of the evil of men, and the Jesus I know would rather have me be in the kingdom of his father than to take another life to save my own. Not because of some Catholic or bible reading horse crap to justify your actions.


Have your priest friend refresh his training by reading the Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (_specifically Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2264-2265_) with regards to not only our right but GRAVE duty to defend ourselves and other innocent individuals from death & serious bodily injury.

I also suggest that you both read Luke 22:36-38 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27) where you will see that Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword -- here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

And, finally, if there is still doubt, from the Vatican's Web site ...

_ ... In a world marked by evil, *the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS* ... _​





dzalphakilo said:


> Radical Muslims do the same thing.


They follow the teachings of the bible? That's a new one on me. 




dzalphakilo said:


> Off subject a little, however my point is the Bible is what you believe it to be, and you just proved my point Sir Knight.


The bible is what it is. There may be many interpretations of it but only one correct one.


----------



## Sir Knight

Deadly Sushi said:


> Armour of God huh? Good for you. Hope it works out for you. Better than I at least. I was born again. You would now call me on da back slide.
> God doesnt give you shit. You have to GET it. Pray? No. Do. Go out and DO. In the last 37 years of my life if He is my friend I dont want em.
> Only wish you can live 1/100th of my live brother.
> Now you will regard this as an attack of the enemy. A pet is always great when it loves you. But when the pet tears your couch up you still going to love it? Yea. I would. Not after 50 times. Then you start to think.


 I can not comment one way or the other because I have no clue as to what you just said.


----------



## Deadly Sushi

ahhhhhh.... read it again. SLOW-LY. 



> The bible is what it is. There may be many interpretations of it but only one correct one.


 
I know. Its yours that is correct. They ALL say its correct. Prove it man!irate:


----------



## dzalphakilo

Yes, Sir Knight, I'm sure you know more about the Catholic church than my friend, the Catholic priest, I'll give you that.

No matter what I say, in your own belief, I am wrong or a lost soul of some sort or whatever. Honestly, when were both six feet under, we shall see where we both end up.

I'm very certain many men who knew the Bible "inside and out" ended up in hell.

The Catholics remind me a lot like the Baptists down here.

By the way, the Muslims read the Koran. It's how they interpret the Koran and convince others that war is the only way.

What do you know, the Christains have done the same thing.

Too bad the Catholics throughout history did not have your fine upstanding beliefs in the Bible.  Throughout their (Catholics) abuse of religion for their own power, so many other religions wouldn't of come into being.  What a shame.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Deadly Sushi said:


> No man. You SHOOT the asshole.


 
No crap butthole

My point being that although I realize I may run the risk of going to hell as I know it for taking a life, I will do so to protect mine (life) or my loved ones agaisnt those evil men who would want to do me or my loved ones harm.

Honestly, fact is I think I'm going to hell anyway for what I've done in my past, so what the fu*K.

My only saving thoughts are those men in the Bible who had done numerous wrongs only to find the way of the Lord.

Personally I find the "holier than though" Bible quoting "because my religion is right" like Sir Knight, like those same men of religious beliefs than Jesus had to confront.

Only my opinion of course.


----------



## Sir Knight

Deadly Sushi said:


> I know. Its yours that is correct. They ALL say its correct. Prove it man!irate:


Scripture has it that the CHURCH is the pillar of faith and the fountain of truth. If "truth" springs forth from it, then it can not contain false teaching. If my interpretation is in union with the church, then it is correct.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Hey, guess it's getting a little heated, so we moved it to the D&D section!

The end is near, save your souls, CB and myself are in agreement.

More than once to boot.  

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Yes, Sir Knight, I'm sure you know more about the Catholic church than my friend, the Catholic priest, I'll give you that.


If that is true, then there is something wrong. Did he sleep through his 8 years of training?




dzalphakilo said:


> No matter what I say, in your own belief, I am wrong or a lost soul of some sort or whatever. Honestly, when were both six feet under, we shall see where we both end up.


I never said that you were a lost soul. God's mercy is upon all those that seek it with a sincere heart and God's desire is for all to be saved. That's also in the bible 




dzalphakilo said:


> I'm very certain many men who knew the Bible "inside and out" ended up in hell.


_"The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Popes & Bishops!"_ -- St. John Chrysostom




dzalphakilo said:


> The Catholics remind me a lot like the Baptists down here.


 Okay?




dzalphakilo said:


> By the way, the Muslims read the Koran. It's how they interpret the Koran and convince others that war is the only way.
> 
> What do you know, the Christains have done the same thing.


If you say so.




dzalphakilo said:


> Too bad the Catholics throughout history did not have your fine upstanding beliefs in the Bible.  Throughout their (Catholics) abuse of religion for their own power, so many other religions wouldn't of come into being.  What a shame.


 In Matt. 13:24-30 we see that scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God's mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time. And according to Matt. 16:18, no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, Jesus promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Hey, guess it's getting a little heated, so we moved it to the D&D section!


Heated? Not at all. Just some good discussion.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> No crap butthole
> 
> My point being that although I realize I may run the risk of going to hell as I know it for taking a life, I will do so to protect mine (life) or my loved ones agaisnt those evil men who would want to do me or my loved ones harm.


I guess you haven't been reading, or believing, what I've been posting -- both the bible and Catholic Church OFFICIAL teaching SUPPORT a person's right AND duty of self defense.




dzalphakilo said:


> Honestly, fact is I think I'm going to hell anyway for what I've done in my past, so what the fu*K.


Is there some sin that Christ did not die for? My understanding is that He died for all of our sins and His mercy is upon those that love & fear Him.




dzalphakilo said:


> My only saving thoughts are those men in the Bible who had done numerous wrongs only to find the way of the Lord.


That's exactly what I've been saying. The Lord will turn no one away who seeks Him with a sincere heart.




dzalphakilo said:


> Personally I find the "holier than though" Bible quoting "because my religion is right" like Sir Knight, like those same men of religious beliefs than Jesus had to confront.


Where did I say that I was "holier than though"? I go to confession at least weekly, if not more, because I recognize that I am indeed a sinner and am in need of being saved because I can not do it alone.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> Personally I find the "holier than though" Bible quoting "because my religion is right" like Sir Knight, like those same men of religious beliefs than Jesus had to confront.


Strikes me that some of us will defend our faith when it is questioned, that is not holier than thou.  In fact I think many folks of faith, be they Catholic or any other, have great senses of humor about their beliefs and are willing to take a good natured jab or poke in the ribs. Still, defending the faith is a reasonable thing to expect people to do, and that defense should not be confused with being/acting holier than thou.


----------



## daedong

dzalphakilo said:


> It's not the man who commits the sin, but the religious leaders who tolerates it, hides it, or ignores it.



Exactly.  Well said better written than my attempts


----------



## daedong

An interesting thread, 

Sir knight, A little off topic but can you answer this question. 
Only about 15% of the worlds population are Christian does that mean 85% of the population will burn in hell?


----------



## Snowcat Operations

No.  God knows your heart.  But thats not to say you can earn your salvation by doing good deeds because you cant.


----------



## Snowcat Operations

DEADONG  Why are you calling yourself an asshole??????


----------



## daedong

Snowcat Operations said:


> DEADONG  Why are you calling yourself an asshole??????



Hi everyone. My name is Kate, and I am Vin's (Daedong) daughter. He just showed me this post and I thought that I would reply on his behalf. I think that is definitely one situation of cultural difference. And, one that I commonly found when meeting Americans while travelling overseas. Despite my trying to explain this, no-one (other than the other aussies) got it.

As with all Australian's (including my Dad) I often mock myself, and it means nothing. Within the Australia culture it is normal and expected that you can mock both yourself and others, in a non-harmul way. His signature does not imply that he thinks poorly of himself or others! It's all in good humour! Even the icon implies 'I'm f&^$ing around'

Have a good one, 
Kate


----------



## daedong

daedong said:


> An interesting thread,
> 
> Sir knight, A little off topic but can you answer this question.
> Only about 15% of the worlds population are Christian does that mean 85% of the population will burn in hell?



And what about all those born before Christs time?


----------



## Sir Knight

Jesus, Himself, tells us in scripture, that MANY will go on to 'destruction' but FEW will go on to 'life' ...

13 _Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and MANY there are who go in thereat._ 14 _How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and FEW there are that find it! _-- Matthew 7:13-14​


----------



## daedong

Bugger!


----------



## daedong

Sir Knight said:


> Jesus, Himself, tells us in scripture, that MANY will go on to 'destruction' but FEW will go on to 'life' ...
> 
> 13 _Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and MANY there are who go in thereat._ 14 _How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and FEW there are that find it! _-- Matthew 7:13-14​



This quote indicates God knows the future so why then do we spend time on earth as he would already know who is going to heaven and who is going to hell?


----------



## dzalphakilo

Interesting, I just posted the topic out of fun.  Somewhat sorry that it got into a religion debate, not my intention.

I knew the priest was off his rocker to beging with.

A question for Catholics.

If you are not of the Catholic faith, can you still get into heaven?

Sir Knight, although we may have a difference of opinion on religion, the fact is I do admire you for knowing and understanding your religion so well.  That said, I respect you even more for being in an organization that trys to help those less fortunate than yourself.


----------



## Sir Knight

daedong said:


> This quote indicates God knows the future so why then do we spend time on earth as he would already know who is going to heaven and who is going to hell?


Don't confuse God's knowledge of what we are going to do with our freedom to do it. For example, God knows whether or not I will raise my hand in one minute. Just because He knows what I am going to do don't mean that I don't have the freedom to do it or not to do it. The same is true with every thought, action, word & deed. Just because God knows then before we did them does not mean that we don't have a choice in doing them.

You may want to google "predestination" & "free will" ... there are others much more qualified to comment on this topic than I am.


----------



## dzalphakilo

daedong said:


> Hi everyone. My name is Kate


 
I know this is a longshot, but no chance you're a school teacher and took a "walk about" in the early 90's and got to know an American pretty well up in Alaska?

Kate was her name and her father had a farm in your neck of the woods.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Interesting, I just posted the topic out of fun.  Somewhat sorry that it got into a religion debate, not my intention.


I like these type of debates and see nothing wrong with them as long as people remain respectful of opposing points of view as has been the case so far.




dzalphakilo said:


> I knew the priest was off his rocker to beging with.


Yep, his collar was on too tight 




dzalphakilo said:


> A question for Catholics.
> 
> If you are not of the Catholic faith, can you still get into heaven?


Of course. The best way to explain it is that Catholics has been given a complete roadmap and the best resources to reach heaven. Other Christian do not have as many resources and may be missing parts of the map. Just because Catholics have the most resources does not mean that they will properly utilize all of those resource and just because they have a complete map, does not mean that they will follow that map. Temptations of the world may lead them astray.

Here's official church teaching on the matter ... 

 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too *may* achieve eternal salvation.​ 



dzalphakilo said:


> Sir Knight, although we may have a difference of opinion on religion, the fact is I do admire you for knowing and understanding your religion so well.  That said, I respect you even more for being in an organization that trys to help those less fortunate than yourself.


Thank you.


----------



## Cityboy

daedong said:


> An interesting thread,
> 
> Sir knight, A little off topic but can you answer this question.
> Only about 15% of the worlds population are Christian does that mean 85% of the population will burn in hell?


 
 This is the very question I asked myself, my mother, and every other scripture quoting Christian when I decided to seek the truth. The scripture quoters simply keep quoting scripture in response because they do not have the answer. Every religion thinks that only THEY have the right answer. The Baptists think all Catholics are going to hell because they do not fully submerge during baptism, and because Cathlolics depict Christ as not yet risen and because they believe in purgatory.....on and on and on.......

Stop and think about this. All you know about your religion is what you were told by someone who was already a believer within your religion. How reliable could that possibly be? When your, or any religion is questioned, the defenders, or believers simply quote more scripture. The Christians quote the bible, the Muslims quote the Koran, and neither side can provide one shred of evidence to substantiate their belief. 

Spend some time alone with your thoughts, those of you who are "believers". Do you REALLY know?


----------



## Melensdad

Cityboy said:


> Spend some time alone with your thoughts, those of you who are "believers". Do you REALLY know?



YES.



			
				daedong said:
			
		

> Only about 15% of the worlds population are Christian does that mean 85% of the population will burn in hell?



NO.  Catholics don't even believe that non-Catholics will necessarily "burn in hell."

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once wrote that there are not more than 100 people in the US who hate the Catholic Church but there are millions in the US who hate what they have been misled to believe what they think is the faith of the Catholic Church.


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> YES.


 
Prove it.


----------



## Melensdad

Cityboy said:


> Prove it.


I don't have to prove what I know to be true.  That is the beauty of faith.  I also know my dog loves me, but it is not something I have to prove.  Nor are either scientifically provable.  On a similar vein, I know that black holes exist but I can't prove the presence of black holes.  Can you?  Obviously not.  Black holes are not scientifically provable.


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> I don't have to prove what I know to be true. That is the beauty of faith. I also know my dog loves me, but it is not something I have to prove. Nor are either scientifically provable. On a similar vein, I know that black holes exist but I can't prove the presence of black holes. Can you? Obviously not. Black holes are not scientifically provable.


 
This is the classic response I expected. It is simply circular logic and proves that while you choose to believe, you still do not KNOW. 

Your belief is something that *you* have decided is true, when in fact it may not be true at all - it is simply your opinion.


----------



## Dargo

Okay CB, classic question; do you believe in something that you've never seen before?

Will you give me the short pithy canned response, or will you give me a thoughtful and honest response?


----------



## Doc

Cityboy said:


> This is the classic response I expected. It is simply circular logic and proves that while you choose to believe, you still do not KNOW.
> 
> Your belief is something that *you* have decided is true, when in fact it may not be true at all - it is simply your opinion.



CB, it all comes back to Faith.  You posted the definition.  No one has argued that.  So you know that having faith means you believe in something you can't prove or know for sure.  That is what faith is all about.

I attended 12 years of Catholic school.  At no time was it said that you have to be Catholic to go to heaven.  I firmly believe that leading a good life (ie: obeying the commandments) and having faith and you will go to heaven.  Wrong your fellow man, lie, kill, cheat, steal and you will not go to heaven.

But, it is all based on faith, that is what makes it interesting.  What if the ten commandments were printed in the sky and when anyone  disobeyed one God would immediately strike them with a bolt of lightning.  Sure would change things.  But God has given us a choice.  Believe or not (Failth).  Live life as you see fit.  Take your best shot.  No guarantees ...we'll all see how it plays out after we die.


----------



## Snowcat Operations

CityBoy,
Thats what FAITH is all about.  Believing in something you have no definate proof in.  If God wanted us all to worship him with out free will then we would be no better than robots doing there masters bidding or programming.  That would make praise from his creations meaning less.  God gave you the most powerful gift he has ever given and thats free will.  BUT I can say once you have accepted the Lord then you do know he exists.  You can feel the Holy Ghost enter into you.  In church and other places I can feel his presence.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> Stop and think about this. All you know about your religion is what you were told by someone who was already a believer within your religion. How reliable could that possibly be? When your, or any religion is questioned, the defenders, or believers simply quote more scripture. The Christians quote the bible, the Muslims quote the Koran, and neither side can provide one shred of evidence to substantiate their belief.
> 
> Spend some time alone with your thoughts, those of you who are "believers". Do you REALLY know?


Think about this ..... if the church is wrong and you don't believe, you do not gain or loose anything. And, conversely, if you believe and the church is wrong, you still do not gain or loose anything.

But, if the church is correct and you do believe, you stand to gain everything for all eternity and if the church is correct and you do not believe, you stand to loose everything for all eternity.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> This is the very question I asked myself, my mother, and every other scripture quoting Christian when I decided to seek the truth. The scripture quoters simply keep quoting scripture in response because they do not have the answer.


 We quote scripture to SHOW what the infallible Word of God has to say about the matter.




Cityboy said:


> Every religion thinks that only THEY have the right answer.


I'm willing to debate any Christian religion on matters of faith. I am not interested in debating non-Christians because in order to have a disagreement, there needs to be some common ground and with non-Christians, I do not have enough common ground to have a disagreement.




Cityboy said:


> The Baptists think all Catholics are going to hell because they do not fully submerge during baptism,


 Well, I guess that would include the Apostles since there are examples in scripture where they did not do full submerge during baptism and since they are the ones who wrote the NT, what does that tell you?




Cityboy said:


> and because Cathlolics depict Christ as not yet risen and because they believe in purgatory


 You are obviously very ignorant of Catholic teaching if you think that we do not recognize that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The bible, which, by the way, was put together by the Catholic church and approved by a Catholic Pope; clearly states that Jesus rose from the dead. And purgatory has nothing to do with Jesus rising or not rising from the dead. It is a place of purification -- a place made reference to in the bible.




Cityboy said:


> .....on and on and on.......


I'm interested in hearing more of these other so on's and on's


----------



## Cityboy

Dargo said:


> Okay CB, classic question; do you believe in something that you've never seen before?
> 
> _*Will you give me the short pithy canned response, or will you give me a thoughtful and honest response*_?


 
Now why would you say something silly like this in the midst of this debate? I'm being completely honest here, and have been from day one.

Do I believe in something I have never seen before? Sure - electricity, for one. The internet. Heat. Heat absorption and heat transfer. 

Belief is not in question here, but I'm not sure what you are attempting to prove with your question. I can prove the existence of electricty and heat transfer. What is your point?


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> We quote scripture to SHOW what the infallible Word of God has to say about the matter.


 
How do you know what you are quoting is actually the "word of God", and not, say...the word of King George?




Sir Knight said:


> I'm willing to debate any Christian religion on matters of faith. *I am not interested in debating non-Christians* because in order to have a disagreement, there needs to be some common ground and with non-Christians, *I do not have enough common ground to have a disagreement*.


 
In other words, you are ignorant of other religions.




Sir Knight said:


> Well, I guess that would include the Apostles since there are examples in scripture where they did not do full submerge during baptism and since they are the ones who wrote the NT, what does that tell you?


 
Any Baptist, or many other Protestant demination's ministers could argue that point with you. My point here was that even the numerous Christian sects cannot agree what is actually the truth. They call "truth" their interpretation of scripture.




Sir Knight said:


> You are obviously very ignorant of Catholic teaching if you think that we do not recognize that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The bible, which, by the way, was put together by the Catholic church and approved by a Catholic Pope; clearly states that Jesus rose from the dead. And purgatory has nothing to do with Jesus rising or not rising from the dead. It is a place of purification -- a place made reference to in the bible.


 
Perhaps I am somewhat ignorant of Catholic teachings, just as you are ignorant of any religion outside of your sect of Christianity. Protestants, at least the churches I have attended over the years, do not believe purgatory exists.




Sir Knight said:


> I'm interested in hearing more of these other so on's and on's


 
Then I'd suggest you attend protestant services and begin learning. All sects have their reasons why they are right and the other sects are wrong. What makes you certain your sect is right?

Just look around your community. What is the population of your community? How many different churches are there in your community? Divide the population of your community by the number of churches and examine the result. What does that tell you?


----------



## Dargo

Cityboy said:


> Now why would you say something silly like this in the midst of this debate? I'm being completely honest here, and have been from day one.
> 
> Do I believe in something I have never seen before? Sure - electricity, for one. The internet. Heat. Heat absorption and heat transfer.
> 
> Belief is not in question here, but I'm not sure what you are attempting to prove with your question. I can prove the existence of electricty and heat transfer. What is your point?



Point proven.  If you don't see it, that's part of the issue you seem to have. Thank you.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> Think about this ..... if the church is wrong and you don't believe, you do not gain or loose anything. And, conversely, if you believe and the church is wrong, you still do not gain or loose anything.
> 
> But, if the church is correct and you do believe, you stand to gain everything for all eternity and if the church is correct and you do not believe, you stand to loose everything for all eternity.


 
This, to me, is your own admission that you truly do not know, and that you are hoping that you will not burn in hell for eternity.


----------



## Cityboy

Dargo said:


> Point proven. If you don't see it, that's part of the issue you seem to have. Thank you.


 
Now that's just butt-assed ignorant Dargo. I thought you were going to participate in this discussion, yet you went and did the exact thing you suggested I was going to do. 

So, you are saying that you are so far above me intellectually that I have no possibility of understanding what you just said, right? 

OK, so run along now.


----------



## Cityboy

Doc said:


> CB, it all comes back to Faith. You posted the definition. No one has argued that. So you know that having faith means you believe in something you can't prove or know for sure. That is what faith is all about.
> 
> I attended 12 years of Catholic school. At no time was it said that you have to be Catholic to go to heaven. I firmly believe that leading a good life (ie: obeying the commandments) and having faith and you will go to heaven. Wrong your fellow man, lie, kill, cheat, steal and you will not go to heaven.
> 
> But, it is all based on faith, that is what makes it interesting. What if the ten commandments were printed in the sky and when anyone disobeyed one God would immediately strike them with a bolt of lightning. Sure would change things. But God has given us a choice. Believe or not (Failth). Live life as you see fit. Take your best shot. No guarantees ...we'll all see how it plays out after we die.


 
We are not disagreeing here for all intents and purposes. I fully understand the concept of faith. One does not have to be religious to have faith in whatever one chooses to have faith in. You, nor I knows if heaven or hell actually exists. Not one of us knows what will happen to us when we die. Where does the energy go that was within a human being when that human beings body no longer functions and begins to decompose? 

I do believe there is some form of infinite intelligence out there, I just do not know what it is, how it works, or what happens to the energy that powers our bodies when we die. And neither do any of you participating in this discussion. Many of you are going to be quite surprised what happens when you die, just as those Muslims who fervently believe they will awaken in the afterlife to 72 virgins will be. Those Muslims believe just as passionately in their faith as you do. How do you know they are completely wrong, and you are completely right?

Sometimes, you just have to look at life as it actually is. Some things we know, such as day follows night, spring follows winter, and each and every one of us WILL eventually die. These are natural laws and have been occurring as far back as we are aware of. What we do not know is what happens after death. You can choose to believe anything you wish to believe about the afterlife, but the fact is, you just don't know.


----------



## daedong

Doc said:


> I attended 12 years of Catholic school.  At no time was it said that you have to be Catholic to go to heaven.  I firmly believe that leading a good life (ie: obeying the commandments) *and having faith *and you will go to heaven.  Wrong your fellow man, lie, kill, cheat, steal and you will not go to heaven.


This is what I was taught too, 
So that means at least 85% of the population will go to hell not to mention all those that preceded Christ.

How do you Know you have the right God, You may just be making him madder and madder because you have the wrong one?

Do you think that had you been born in India you would be a Christian?


----------



## dzalphakilo

Cityboy said:


> Many of you are going to be quite surprised what happens when you die, just as those Muslims who fervently believe they will awaken in the afterlife to 72 virgins will be. Those Muslims believe just as passionately in their faith as you do. How do you know they are completely wrong, and you are completely right?


 
Scary, we're agreeing more and more.  I was going to post on the topic of faith and other religious beliefs, but you beat me to it.

I however cannot believe that you actually asked how if we as Christains know for a fact that those who follow the Islamic faith could be completely wrong.  I don't disagree with with your question, just surprised that you asked it.

My point is that it was man who wrote the Bible, yes, perhaps with a divine guidance, but nevertheless, man.

Sometimes men have alterior (sp?) motives, just like those leading large religious sects.

Kind of puts seperation of church and state into perspective.


----------



## Melensdad

daedong said:


> This is what I was taught,
> So that means at least 85% of the population will go to hell not to mention all those that preceded Christ.


Vin, some religions teach that salvation is only attained through THEIR RELIGION.  However, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, you do not have to be Catholic to get into heaven.  I believe that both Sir Knight and I  mentioned this point already.  The same is true for those who lived prior to the Christian era.  If you are intellectually curious about the faith, there is a good book that has a silly name that explains many facets of the religion:  Catholicism for Dummies is the title.  Like I said, silly name, but don't let that fool you, it does cover many issues and does so within the context of Catholic teaching.  There is another book, the Idiots Guide to Catholicism, and I would NOT recommend it, it seems to be far less accurate.

With regard to Islam and the Jewish beliefs, realize all 3 are branches of the same basic understanding of God.


----------



## Dargo

Cityboy said:


> So, you are saying that you are so far above me intellectually that I have no possibility of understanding what you just said, right?
> 
> OK, so run along now.



Okay, we were fine until now.  It is clear for all to see what you can understand and what you cannot understand.

Just in case something is not clear for you to see, let me make something perfectly clear for you; you will *never* tell me when it is time for me to run along.  Are we clear on that issue pal?


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> I don't have to prove what I know to be true. That is the beauty of faith. I also know my dog loves me, but it is not something I have to prove. Nor are either scientifically provable.


 
Bob, your dog is a animal with social traits. The trait that you are refering to is not love, but loyalty. Like most people, you associate the animal's behavior with human emotions which is wrong. Your dog is loyal to you, but it does not love you.

However, I do love my dogs like they were family.

Working with animals however, particularly those that need homes, I've found an interesting corrolation (sp?) at least for myself on an better understanding of how God works with humans (yeah, way out there, but an insight nevertheless, added to the fact that I don't do drugs anymore).

I'm also surprised that one of the first things that apparently you didn't learn in any of your college science classes is that science proves nothing.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> Your dog is loyal to you, but it does not love you.


Fine, I'll accept the word substitution.  The point is the same using either word. 



dzalphakilo said:


> I'm also surprised that one of the first things that apparently you didn't learn in any of your college science classes is that science proves nothing.


Actually I believed I illustrated THAT very point.  

Science asks us to believe its theories.  We are expected to have faith in science, but they simply don't call it faith.  Seems pretty ironic that we can believe in scientific theories and atheists consider that to be normal behavior but if we believe in a God then those same people consider it irrational behavior.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> Science asks us to believe its theories. We are expected to have faith in science, but they simply don't call it faith. Seems pretty ironic that we can believe in scientific theories and atheists consider that to be normal behavior but if we believe in a God then those same people consider it irrational behavior.


 
FACT is you cannot prove or disprove a God.  Don't even try to "mix" science with religion, personally, I think that is part of the issue, particularly in the past.  

I realize this is why it comes down to faith.

That damn woman had to eat from that tree of smarts.

If this is not the case (from my first sentence on this post), what is your scientiffic hypothesis on the God that you believe in?

Heck, everyone could just go back to the basics and run around nude.

Reminds me of a joke.  What's the first thing Adam said to Eve?  

Stand back, I don't know how big this thing gets!


----------



## daedong

B_Skurka said:


> Fine, I'll accept the word substitution.  The point is the same using either word.
> 
> Actually I believed I illustrated THAT very point.
> 
> Science asks us to believe its theories.  We are expected to have faith in science, but they simply don't call it faith.  Seems pretty ironic that we can believe in scientific theories and atheists consider that to be normal behavior but if we believe in a God then those same people consider it irrational behavior.



Sorry Bob but science uses logic and accepts/or takes nothing for granted until proven.
A theory is nothing more than a theory  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


----------



## Melensdad

daedong said:


> Sorry Bob but science uses logic and accepts/or takes nothing for granted until proven.
> A theory is nothing more than a theory  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


People accept the theory of evolution as fact, but it is not proven.
People accept the theory of black holes as fact, but it is not proven.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Speaking of Catholics and gun control, since I don't follow whats going on in the Catholic church, what ever became of this story from two years ago?


Washington, Aug. 12, 2005 (CWNews.com) - An American expert on gun laws has sharply criticized the Vatican's representative at the UN, saying that by endorsing an international gun-control scheme. Archbishop Celestino Migliore cooperated in "a direct attack on the God-given right of law-abiding citizens to self-defense." 

John Michael Snyder, a veteran gun lobbyist, took issue with Archbishop Migliore for his statements in support of the proposed UN Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. That program, he noted, would entail worldwide gun control under UN auspices, denying private citizens the right to own firearms without explicit government approval. The program, Snyder observed, would violate the rights of American citizens to bear firearms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. 

Snyder argued that petty criminals and powerful tyrants alike prey on individuals who cannot defend themselves. “When push comes to shove,” he said, “the ability of an individual to defend life from terrorist and other violent criminal action depends on whether or not that individual can get and use guns." 
A practicing Catholic, Snyder is the author of _Gun Saint_, a biography of St. Gabriel Possenti, the Catholic seminarian who used his proficiency with handguns to rescue Italian villagers from a gang of bandits in 1860.


----------



## daedong

dzalphakilo said:


> FACT is you cannot prove or disprove a God.  Don't even try to "mix" science with religion, personally, I think that is part of the issue, particularly in the past.
> 
> I realize this is why it comes down to faith.
> 
> That damn woman had to eat from that tree of smarts.
> 
> If this is not the case (from my first sentence on this post), what is your scientiffic hypothesis on the God that you believe in?
> 
> Heck, everyone could just go back to the basics and run around nude.
> 
> Reminds me of a joke.  What's the first thing Adam said to Eve?
> 
> Stand back, I don't know how big this thing gets!



This is another good point. 
If god is so damn powerful and superior why did he bother with Adam and Eve when she ate that apple? He should have just killed them and started again.

One other question, if this so called God is so almighty why would he care if  we worship him or not? Is he on some sort of power/ego trip?


----------



## Cityboy

Dargo said:


> Okay, we were fine until now. It is clear for all to see what you can understand and what you cannot understand.
> 
> Just in case something is not clear for you to see, let me make something perfectly clear for you; you will *never* tell me when it is time for me to run along. Are we clear on that issue pal?


 
Dargo, just get over yourself, pal. You are not as big a bad ass as you think you are and you do not intimidate me in the least. Don't be a smart ass and then cry and make threats when someone turns it back on you.  

So, run along now, little boy.


----------



## daedong

B_Skurka said:


> People accept the theory of evolution as fact, but it is not proven.
> People accept the theory of black holes as fact, but it is not proven.



No they don't, its a theory, with lots of strong  evidence to support it. Faith has nothing.


----------



## Dargo

Cityboy said:


> Dargo, just get over yourself, pal. You are not as big a bad ass as you think you are and you do not intimidate me in the least. Don't be a smart ass and then cry and make threats when someone turns it back on you.
> 
> So, run along now, little boy.




You're showing your complete and total ignorance.  When I asked you if you believed in something you haven't seen, your reply was something I'd expect from an 8 year old.  I can show you what you listed.  Use your mind man!  I'm not going to help you any further than that because you have shown a tendency to be a complete smart ass who thinks they are far more intelligent than they are.

As far as your childish "run along now" comments, get back with me when you own your own site and I'm stupid enough to join said site.  Otherwise go get a bucket of sand, a spoon and a hammer.  Do I need to send instructions along with what you are to do with those items?

I've ignored most of your childish and smart ass comments to most people here and just passed them off as you being insecure and immature.  It seems that you are showing your ass more than usual now.  Having issues with your allowance?


----------



## Melensdad

All, I would like to suggest that there are a few posts here that are bordering on uncivil.  We should be able to stick to the topic without getting into person conflicts outside of the topic.  We are in the debate & discussion area, which is generally given much wider quarter but it is not immune to moderation by the moderators.

Let's stick to the heart of the discussion and stay away from the personal conflicts.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> How do you know what you are quoting is actually the "word of God", and not, say...the word of King George?


Because the bible was compiled by the church which was given the authority to do so by the Son of God. Independent historical accounts from different sources bear this out.





Cityboy said:


> In other words, you are ignorant of other religions.


That is correct.





Cityboy said:


> Any Baptist, or many other Protestant demination's ministers could argue that point with you. My point here was that even the numerous Christian sects cannot agree what is actually the truth. They call "truth" their interpretation of scripture.


And my point is that using scripture, historical events and logical deductions drawn from scripture and historical events, I can support the truth of the Catholic Church.





Cityboy said:


> Perhaps I am somewhat ignorant of Catholic teachings, just as you are ignorant of any religion outside of your sect of Christianity. Protestants, at least the churches I have attended over the years, do not believe purgatory exists.


Just because they do not believe in something does not make it so. I refer you to the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man as found in Luke 16:19-31. We see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God's graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

Additionally, note that in 1 Cor. 15:29-30 Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.

Again, those in hell are forever lost and no amount of prayers can atone for their sins and those in heaven are free of sin and do not need to have their sins atoned for. Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.





Cityboy said:


> Then I'd suggest you attend protestant services and begin learning. All sects have their reasons why they are right and the other sects are wrong. What makes you certain your sect is right?
> 
> Just look around your community. What is the population of your community? How many different churches are there in your community? Divide the population of your community by the number of churches and examine the result. What does that tell you?


There are about 2 billions Christians in this world. One billion of them are Catholic and one billion of them are non-Catholic.

In John 17:21 Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father. 

The bible tells us that a kingdom divided against itself will not stand. That is why the Catholic Church has remained united for 2,000 years, and the Protestant sects, in less than a quarter of that time, has continue to splinter by the hundreds each year.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> This, to me, is your own admission that you truly do not know, and that you are hoping that you will not burn in hell for eternity.


None of us can ever be certain of our salvation. Even St. Paul, who was obviously filled with the Holy Spirit and wrote many parts of the infallible Word of God, still feared for his salvation.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Speaking of Catholics and gun control, since I don't follow whats going on in the Catholic church, what ever became of this story from two years ago?
> 
> 
> Washington, Aug. 12, 2005 (CWNews.com) - An American expert on gun laws has sharply criticized the Vatican's representative at the UN, saying that by endorsing an international gun-control scheme. Archbishop Celestino Migliore cooperated in "a direct attack on the God-given right of law-abiding citizens to self-defense."
> 
> John Michael Snyder, a veteran gun lobbyist, took issue with Archbishop Migliore for his statements in support of the proposed UN Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. That program, he noted, would entail worldwide gun control under UN auspices, denying private citizens the right to own firearms without explicit government approval. The program, Snyder observed, would violate the rights of American citizens to bear firearms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution.
> 
> Snyder argued that petty criminals and powerful tyrants alike prey on individuals who cannot defend themselves. “When push comes to shove,” he said, “the ability of an individual to defend life from terrorist and other violent criminal action depends on whether or not that individual can get and use guns."
> A practicing Catholic, Snyder is the author of _Gun Saint_, a biography of St. Gabriel Possenti, the Catholic seminarian who used his proficiency with handguns to rescue Italian villagers from a gang of bandits in 1860.


I don't understand what this is making reference to since the Vatican is PRO-gun -- from the Vatican's Web site ...

_ ... In a world marked by evil, *the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS* ... _​


----------



## Melensdad

Sir Knight said:


> The bible tells us that a kingdom divided against itself will not stand. That is why the Catholic Church has remained united for 2,000 years, and the Protestant sects, in less than a quarter of that time, has continue to splinter by the hundreds each year.


Interestingly some of the Protestants are coming back to the Catholic Church, and coming back en mass.  The Traditional Anglican Church, by unanimous vote of its Bishops, has sent a letter and emissaries to the Pope asking to be allowed back into the Catholic Church.  The entire T.A.C., then has asked to return to where it started.  Similarly, shortly after the petition from the T.A.C., the Traditional Church of Ireland also asked to rejoin the Catholic Church.  Action on this is all pending.

But, going back to the Reformation I've always thought it was interesting that in letters written by Martin Luther, founder of the Lutheran Church, essentially admitted he was wrong.


----------



## daedong

I have asked fairly basic questions in post 65 and 75, no one has responded, am I right in thinking no one has the answers?


----------



## Sir Knight

Post #75 ... 





daedong said:


> This is another good point.
> If god is so damn powerful and superior why did he bother with Adam and Eve when she ate that apple? He should have just killed them and started again.


Because He is a merciful God. What parent would kill his own children when they disobeyed him?




daedong said:


> One other question, if this so called God is so almighty why would he care if  we worship him or not? Is he on some sort of power/ego trip?


God didn't create us for His sake but for our sake.


----------



## Sir Knight

Post #65 ... 





daedong said:


> This is what I was taught too,
> So that means at least 85% of the population will go to hell not to mention all those that preceded Christ.
> 
> How do you Know you have the right God, You may just be making him madder and madder because you have the wrong one?
> 
> Do you think that had you been born in India you would be a Christian?


 ... It all comes down to faith --

"_Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have NOT seen and YET have believed._" - John 20:29​


----------



## daedong

Sir Knight said:


> Post #75 ... Because He is a merciful God. What parent would kill his own children when they disobeyed him?
> 
> 
> God didn't create us for His sake but for our sake.


1ST 
So instead he chose to allow humans to be evil so they could kill one another in Gods name,  so the lesson from this would be it is alright for parents to allow their kids to kill one another. Logic would tell me any fair peace loving thing would take 2 lives (Adam and Eve) to save millions.

In other words, God would not kill to rid sinners but allows his creation to kill in his name.

2ND
So we could suffer, kill each other and destroy the planet.


You have not made any attempt to answer this question.
"Do you think that had you been born in India you would be a Christian?"


----------



## Cityboy

Dargo said:


> You're showing your complete and total ignorance. When I asked you if you believed in something you haven't seen, your reply was something I'd expect from an 8 year old. I can show you what you listed. Use your mind man! I'm not going to help you any further than that because you have shown a tendency to be a complete smart ass who thinks they are far more intelligent than they are.
> 
> As far as your childish "run along now" comments, get back with me when you own your own site and I'm stupid enough to join said site. Otherwise go get a bucket of sand, a spoon and a hammer. Do I need to send instructions along with what you are to do with those items?
> 
> I've ignored most of your childish and smart ass comments to most people here and just passed them off as you being insecure and immature. It seems that you are showing your ass more than usual now. Having issues with your allowance?


 
So, I take it you do not wish to engage in a civil debate?   You're setting a fine Christian example.

Have a blessed day!   

Now run along and play nice with the other children.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> None of us can ever be certain of our salvation. Even St. Paul, who was obviously filled with the Holy Spirit and wrote many parts of the infallible Word of God, still feared for his salvation.


 
Protestants preach "Once saved, always saved." It would really suck to have all this faith and belief and still get toasted.   

You see, here is yet another conflict of Christianity. What good is salvation if it can be taken away?


----------



## daedong

Sir Knight said:


> None of us can ever be certain of our salvation. Even St. Paul, who was obviously filled with the Holy Spirit and wrote many parts of the infallible Word of God, still feared for his salvation.





Sir Knight said:


> God didn't create us for His sake but for our sake.



Isn't this a contradiction?


----------



## pirate_girl

Geez, I've been sitting here with my fingertips hovering on a couple of occasions wanting to add my two cents.
My feeling is that we are all loved by the same maker, we all have a chance at eternal life.
Not so sure I believe in salvation NOW like a lot of Protestants do.
I think that's what happens when you set foot in heaven, then you are saved from this world and have achieved a place in blissful eternity.
On the other hand, living a life serving God and doing all things in accordance with his will is I guess a little glimpse of Heaven.
I was raised Catholic in the strictest way.
Catholic school, mass, the rosary... it was pounded into my head.
Now I consider myself a lapsed Catholic, but I do attend when the mood strikes me.
I have an Aunt who is a Christian Scientist (you wanna talk about controversy) lol
The Father's house has many mansions. To me that's always meant many WAYS to get "there".
I once heard a Baptist minister say: "I think we're going to be in for a surprise, those of us who make it to heaven. We'll see some and wonder how the heck they got in here, but we'll also wonder where so and so is"
Hmmmmm food for thought.


----------



## Melensdad

daedong said:


> Faith has nothing.


Or it has everything.


			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> Protestants preach "Once saved, always saved." It would really suck to have all this faith and belief and still get toasted.
> 
> You see, here is yet another conflict of Christianity. What good is salvation if it can be taken away?


Protestant churches were founded 1500 years after Christ, most were founded because the leaders chose to break away and believe what they wanted to believe.  Because of their splintering beliefs there are many 'conflicts' between the new Protestant churches and the Catholic Church.  For that matter there are many 'conflicts' between the various Protestant churches.

But as to your final point, why should salvation be guaranteed?  Put another way, a car salesman must perform every week to keep his job.  Just because he sold 100 cars last year is no guarantee that 5 years into the future he will sell even 1 car.  His skill as a salesman must be proved each and every week if he wants to keep his job.  So why would we presume that a "saved" person would remain saved if he did not continue to lead a good life of faith?  Why should we not have to constantly earn our salvation?  If life is not easy, then why would we presume that salvation would be easy?



pirate_girl said:


> I once heard a Baptist minister say: "I think we're going to be in for a surprise, *those of us who* make it to heaven.


He presumes a lot doesn't he?


----------



## Cityboy

daedong said:


> Isn't this a contradiction?


 
Isn't all religion a contradiction? 

I have often heard it said the etymology of religion lies with the Latin word _religare_, which means “to tie, to bind.” 

Does that make the phrase "Religous Freedom" an oxymoron?


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> Or it has everything.
> Protestant churches were founded 1500 years after Christ, most were founded because the leaders chose to break away and believe what they wanted to believe. Because of their splintering beliefs there are many 'conflicts' between the new Protestant churches and the Catholic Church. For that matter there are many 'conflicts' between the various Protestant churches.


 
Was Jesus a Catholic? I don't think so. There were various sects before the Catholic church emerged as the dominant sect, so how can one assume that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity?



B_Skurka said:


> But as to your final point, why should salvation be guaranteed? Put another way, a car salesman must perform every week to keep his job. Just because he sold 100 cars last year is no guarantee that 5 years into the future he will sell even 1 car. His skill as a salesman must be proved each and every week if he wants to keep his job. So why would we presume that a "saved" person would remain saved if he did not continue to lead a good life of faith? Why should we not have to constantly earn our salvation? If life is not easy, then why would we presume that salvation would be easy?


 
OK, there is logic to that argument, however you are comparing the secular to the divine, aren't you? Why would one want to have faith that will ultimately fail due to the sinful nature of human beings? Seems like a raw deal to me; might as well take one's chances elsewhere since you are likely to go to hell anyway.


----------



## pirate_girl

No one should _presume _they are one day going to be in heaven.
It's a matter of just being a GOOD PERSON that I think gives anyone half a chance.
I recall Sister Regina in 4th grade.
Always being the inquisitive type, I asked her if there really was a purgatory.
She said: you better hope there is!
Aside from that, I seriously do think that any decent human being will be sitting at The Father's table.
I know God must have a sense of humor, I think he forgives more than we can ever imagine.
At this stage of the game, I don't buy the purgatory thing, I don't buy a lot of what's taught regarding Catholicism.
If I did, I'd be broke, still married to husband number 1 and the mother of 16 children.


----------



## Sir Knight

daedong said:


> 1ST
> So instead he chose to allow humans to be evil so they could kill one another in Gods name,  so the lesson from this would be it is alright for parents to allow their kids to kill one another. Logic would tell me any fair peace loving thing would take 2 lives (Adam and Eve) to save millions.
> 
> In other words, God would not kill to rid sinners but allows his creation to kill in his name.
> 
> 2ND
> So we could suffer, kill each other and destroy the planet.


As I said earlier, this is a question that falls outside of what Christians commonly accept and I have already mentioned, I am not qualified to comment on that.




daedong said:


> You have not made any attempt to answer this question.
> "Do you think that had you been born in India you would be a Christian?"


And how would I know if I would be exposed to Christian beliefs if I was born in another culture?


----------



## pirate_girl

Who said only Christians get into Heaven?


----------



## Melensdad

pirate_girl said:


> Who said only Christians get into Heaven?


Protestants


----------



## Cityboy

Snowcat Operations said:


> CityBoy,
> Thats what FAITH is all about. Believing in something you have no definate proof in. If God wanted us all to worship him with out free will then we would be no better than robots doing there masters bidding or programming. That would make praise from his creations meaning less. God gave you the most powerful gift he has ever given and thats free will. BUT I can say once you have accepted the Lord then you do know he exists. You can feel the Holy Ghost enter into you. In church and other places I can feel his presence.


 
Snowcat, I have no doubt you believe this to be true. I also think that what you felt and feel when you enter a church was and is purely emotional. Could I be wrong? Sure, but so could you. 

People want to believe in the God of their choosing. People want answers to questions they do not understand and religion provides a haven from the storm of unanswered and frightening questions about life and what happens after life. While religion provides this emotional shelter, it provides no actual evidence to answer the great questions of life.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> Protestants preach "Once saved, always saved." It would really suck to have all this faith and belief and still get toasted.


The Protestants are wrong about "Once saved, always saved." Just look at Ezekiel 3:20 ... 

_If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die._​
... Does that sound like the Protestant belief of "Once saved, always saved." or more like the Catholic belief that one CAN lose their salvation?




Cityboy said:


> You see, here is yet another conflict of Christianity. What good is salvation if it can be taken away?


Ask those who has perservered until the end or have been saved in the final moments just before their end.


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> Protestants


 
Catholics too.


----------



## pirate_girl

B_Skurka said:


> Protestants


Bahh!!
I beg to differ!!
Anyway.. I think I'll back out of this thread for now.
I love a good discussion, but I think I might cuss before long, and being the good Catholic girl I am, I don't wanna do that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Peace baby!! >>>


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> The Protestants are wrong about "Once saved, always saved." Just look at Ezekiel 3:20 ...
> 
> _If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die._​
> ... Does that sound like the Protestant belief of "Once saved, always saved." or more like the Catholic belief that one CAN lose their salvation?


 
Ezekiel is from the Old Testament. According to the New Testament, the old covenants no longer apply. That is the reason the bible says Jesus was sent here to be crucified to save us from our sins and an eternity in hell. 

Yet another conflict of Christianity. 




Sir Knight said:


> Ask those who has perservered until the end or have been saved in the final moments just before their end.


 
Perhaps one, or both of us will have that opportunity. But then again, you might get shot by a jealous husband while making a booty call and have to check into Motel Hell at the last minute.


----------



## Melensdad

Cityboy said:


> Catholics too.


Not the Catholic Church.  But if any members or clergy of the Catholic Church say that then they have misunderstood the words of our Pope.



pirate_girl said:


> Bahh!!
> I beg to differ!!


How so?  Many of the protestant religions proclaim their's is the ONLY path to salvation.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> Was Jesus a Catholic? I don't think so. There were various sects before the Catholic church emerged as the dominant sect, so how can one assume that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity?


In Matt. 16:18 we see that Jesus established His Church -- not churches. And in the next verse (Matt. 16:19) Jesus gives His church the authority to bind & loosen. Binding & loosening are visible & official acts and have to be performed by a visible & official church.

Then in Eph. 3:21 we are told that Christ's church will exist for all generations. Only the Catholic Church can trace it origins back to the time of Christ. Since the oldest of the Protestant churches is only about 500 years old.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> Ezekiel is from the Old Testament. According to the New Testament, the old covenants no longer apply. That is the reason the bible says Jesus was sent here to be crucified to save us from our sins and an eternity in hell.
> 
> Yet another conflict of Christianity.


There is no contradiction. Jesus clearly said that He did not come to condemn the old law but to fulfill it. Nowhere did Jesus tell the people that they were now free not to follow the ten commandments. Instead, He praised those that obeyed them.


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> Not the Catholic Church. But if any members or clergy of the Catholic Church say that then they have misunderstood the words of our Pope.
> 
> How so? Many of the protestant religions proclaim their's is the ONLY path to salvation.


 
That's been my experience as well, however, what does the Catholic church actually say about it?

Can Muslims enter heaven according to the pope? What about Bhuddists? Hindu's? Native American people who practice their tribal religions?


----------



## pirate_girl

B_Skurka said:


> Not the Catholic Church. But if any members or clergy of the Catholic Church say that then they have misunderstood the words of our Pope.
> 
> How so? Many of the protestant religions proclaim their's is the ONLY path to salvation.


Now see what you did Mr Skurka, you made me come back into this thread lol
When I die, I intend to die a Catholic, lapsed or not.
It's the religion that gives me comfort.
I don't like to disagree with other's religions because I simply do not think that there is an exact way.
There is no one answer or path that assures anything 100%.
All religions are screwy in one way or another.
It's up to the individual to stick up for his or her own little corner and live the way they best see fit serving their God.
Can ya dig it?


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> That's been my experience as well, however, what does the Catholic church actually say about it?
> 
> Can Muslims enter heaven according to the pope? What about Bhuddists? Hindu's? Native American people who practice their tribal religions?


I answered that question in post #48 ...

 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too *may* achieve eternal salvation.​
... Appears that somebody wasn't paying attention.


----------



## daedong

God took 6 days to create the universe and rested on the 7TH, this does not sound like some all powerful thing to me.


----------



## Melensdad

Cityboy said:


> That's been my experience as well, however, what does the Catholic church actually say about it?
> 
> Can Muslims enter heaven according to the pope? What about Bhuddists? Hindu's? Native American people who practice their tribal religions?


Well I don't consider myself a scholar on the topic, but I believe that the Pope suggest that Christians, Jews & Muslims can enter heaven.  Not sure about those who believe in Bhudda or the Hindus either.  I would guess the modern pagans would be a no-go, but that is just my guess.  My understanding of the Hindu religion is they believe in many different minor gods and if I understand the Bhuddists correctly they believe in a holiness that is centered in the individual.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> In Matt. 16:18 we see that Jesus established His Church -- not churches. And in the next verse (Matt. 16:19) Jesus gives His church the authority to bind & loosen. Binding & loosening are visible & official acts and have to be performed by a visible & official church.
> 
> Then in Eph. 3:21 we are told that Christ's church will exist for all generations. Only the Catholic Church can trace it origins back to the time of Christ. Since the oldest of the Protestant churches is only about 500 years old.


 
How can you prove the Catholic church is actually the church referenced in the scripture you quote? You cannot, because you do not know.

How can you prove the scripture was not written by some individual who was simply brilliant and knew the best way to control people was through instilling fear of what might happen in the afterlife?

Could the bible have been concieved and written by someone like Joseph Smith, founder and creator of the Morman religion? How many thousands of believers are there in the Church of Latter Day Saints? The Mormans fervently believe their faith just as you do. Who is right?

What about Muhammed? Who is to say the Koran is not a divine work? 

There are more questions than answers, because there are no answers. People of various faiths THINK they know, but the truth is that there is only opinion being offered, not factual, provable knowledge.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> How can you prove the Catholic church is actually the church referenced in the scripture you quote? You cannot, because you do not know.


Process of elimination. There is no other church that can trace it's origins all the way back to the time of the Apostles. So either the Catholic Church is the church that Christ established or the bible is wrong about the church being around for all generations. If it is wrong about that point, then it could be wrong about other points placing all of Christianity into question. Since no Christian is will to concede that point, the only answer is that the Catholic Church HAS TO BE the church that Christ established because there are no other ones that qualify.




Cityboy said:


> How can you prove the scripture was not written by some individual who was simply brilliant and knew the best way to control people was through instilling fear of what might happen in the afterlife?
> 
> Could the bible have been concieved and written by someone like Joseph Smith, founder and creator of the Morman religion? How many thousands of believers are there in the Church of Latter Day Saints? The Mormans fervently believe their faith just as you do. Who is right?
> 
> What about Muhammed? Who is to say the Koran is not a divine work?
> 
> There are more questions than answers, because there are no answers. People of various faiths THINK they know, but the truth is that there is only opinion being offered, not factual, provable knowledge.


As I said before, if you do not accept the bible as the infallible Word of God, then we do not have enough common ground to have a disagreement -- in any disagreement, people must agree on some basic elements otherwise further discussion is useless.


----------



## daedong

I am simply here to tempt you


----------



## pirate_girl

** sprinkling holy water**
it's the devil from down under!!!


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> Process of elimination. There is no other church that can trace it's origins all the way back to the time of the Apostles. So either the Catholic Church is the church that Christ established or the bible is wrong about the church being around for all generations. If it is wrong about that point, then it could be wrong about other points placing all of Christianity into question. Since no Christian is will to concede that point, the only answer is that the Catholic Church HAS TO BE the church that Christ established because there are no other ones that qualify.


 
I have listened to Protestant arguments as convincing, and perhaps even more so than yours. I do not accept their argument as fact either.




Sir Knight said:


> As I said before, if you do not accept the bible as the infallible Word of God, then we do not have enough common ground to have a disagreement -- in any disagreement, people must agree on some basic elements otherwise further discussion is useless.


 
As you wish. However, neither side has convinced the other, and this has largely been a civil discussion and has been quite interesting. There is much to think about for those with minds that are receptive to differing thoughts. It's past my bedtime, so I'll see you ladies and gentlemen tomorrow.


----------



## pirate_girl

Good night Cityboy!
Sweet dreams


----------



## Sir Knight

daedong said:


> God took 6 days to create the universe and rested on the 7TH, this does not sound like some all powerful thing to me.



Scripture uses numbers to convey meaning. Seven is a sign of fullness and perfection. It also means covenant. In Hebrew the word covenant literally means "to seven yourself." The number six is a number of sin and evil and is thus associated with the beast in the book of Revelation where it speaks of 666. God created the world over the course of days. On the sixth day he created the beasts/animals. Man is meant for the covenant relationship with God. Man is meant for the seventh day in which God rested. Man is meant to enter that rest.

If we remain on the sixth day we are living in the flesh like the animals. If we live in the Spirit we have entered God's rest which is the seventh day. It is the day of the covenant.

The seven days of creation also show us that God created man for himself. In the first creation account in Genesis it indicates that man was created first. This tells us that man is primary. Likewise, in the second creation account in Genesis God created man last as the pinnacle of His creation. This is an example of where we get the meanings in Genesis as opposed to scientific analysis.

God is all powerful and it makes little difference how he decided to create the universe, the world and mankind. He could have done it in a microsecond or over millions of years as we know them. God is outside of time and his wisdom is not our wisdom. The fact that he created everything should make you comfortable in his almighty power.


----------



## Sir Knight

daedong said:


> I am simply here to tempt you


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> I have listened to Protestant arguments as convincing, and perhaps even more so than yours. I do not accept their argument as fact either.


I seriously doubt it*.*


----------



## daedong

Sir Knight said:


> God didn't create us for His sake but for our sake.





Sir Knight said:


> The seven days of creation also show us that God created man for himself.



Now which one was it?


----------



## Sir Knight

Take your pick


----------



## daedong

Sir Knight said:


> Take your pick



Good one mate, lots of conviction in that 

BTW I only have a shovel


----------



## richfolkes

Sir Knight said:
			
		

> In Matt. 19:11-12 Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it SHOULD bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.



It is true that celibacy is a gift from God.  By the same token, one should read I Timothy 3:1-12 which states:

3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he
desireth a good work.
3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but
patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity;
3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he
take care of the church of God?)
3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the
condemnation of the devil.
495
3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without;
lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given
to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a
deacon, being found blameless.
3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in
all things.
3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children
and their own houses well.
3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to
themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in
Christ Jesus.

A bishop in this context is the minister of a church.  Though, in pentecostal Christianity, the term "bishop" has been discarded in place of "pastor".  And the term "deacon" is mainly applied to those who carry out the secular aspects of maintaining the church, such as handyman work, catering, cleaning, security, managing the church's finances and so on.

Celibacy is a gift from God which in several cases is bestowed upon a minister who travels a great deal to bring the Gospel to people in remote areas in which married life only serves as a burden.  Enforced celibacy (1 Timothy 4:1-3), on the other hand, is widely regarded by many to be one of the root cause of various deviances among priests.



			
				Sir Knight said:
			
		

> In John 20:21 before Jesus grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
> 
> Then in John 20:22 the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
> 
> Finally in John 20:23 Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.



Jesus in actual fact breathed on His disciples, as opposed to the Apostles (John 20:20).  In regards to the forgiveness of sins, I will quote from one of the works of the late Rev. Dr.  Oswald J. Smith (1899-1986), who held a doctorate of divinity, "The Roman Catholic Bible has the Answer" Chapter 6:



> *The Roman Catholic Bible has the Answer* by Oswald J. Smith DD
> "Every believer (or disciple) is a priest according to this Roman Catholic Bible (Apocalypse 1:6), and as such has the power (authority) to say, "Your sins are forgiven you in the name of Jesus Christ, if you receive Him as your Saviour." By the same token every believer (or disciple) has the power (authority) to say "your sins are retained (not forgiven) if you do not  receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour."





			
				Sir Knight said:
			
		

> And I guess you also missed the passage that only those of us without sin, should cast the first stone.



According to Catholic doctrine that apart from Our Lord, there is only one who is without sin: Mary, the mother of Jesus.  According to the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) Mary, like all of us needed a savior (Luke 1:47).  For if Our Lady were without sin, would she have needed a savior?  We know also that Our Lord was conceived by the Holy Spirit as affirmed in the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed.  Thus, being conceived by the Holy Spirit instead of knowledge by the husband, the cycle of original sin is broken.  Thereby making it possible to live on Earth as one of us without sin and die on the cross at Calvary for our sins.

However, I am skewing away for the point of this thread here.  It is about deviant priests.



			
				Sir Knight said:
			
		

> The priest was definitely off his rocker. A Catholic priest take vows that he will NEVER reveal what is told him during a confession even to save his own life.



I have heard of confessions from soldiers to Catholic chaplains in the military being passed onto the CO and ending up on the penitent soldiers' military records.  This is something which I hope is not true.

Anyway, you and I have had a bit of a falling out on FFF along with other members of that forum, and I have seriously considered the idea of making donation to FFF to make amends to those I have offended (to the point that I got banned) for the tomfoolerated posts and replies to other posts, particularly in the legal and political forum.  And to those members of FFF, I sincerely apologize for my behavior.  And in this post, I considered it only fair to avoid altogether Jack T. Chick's works and anything else from Chick Publications.


----------



## Sir Knight

richfolkes said:


> It is true that celibacy is a gift from God.  By the same token, one should read I Timothy 3:1-12 which states:
> 
> 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he
> desireth a good work.
> 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
> sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
> 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but
> patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
> 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
> subjection with all gravity;
> 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he
> take care of the church of God?)
> 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the
> condemnation of the devil.
> 495
> 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without;
> lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
> 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given
> to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
> 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
> 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a
> deacon, being found blameless.
> 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in
> all things.
> 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children
> and their own houses well.
> 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to
> themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in
> Christ Jesus.
> 
> A bishop in this context is the minister of a church.  Though, in pentecostal Christianity, the term "bishop" has been discarded in place of "pastor".  And the term "deacon" is mainly applied to those who carry out the secular aspects of maintaining the church, such as handyman work, catering, cleaning, security, managing the church's finances and so on.
> 
> Celibacy is a gift from God which in several cases is bestowed upon a minister who travels a great deal to bring the Gospel to people in remote areas in which married life only serves as a burden.  Enforced celibacy (1 Timothy 4:1-3), on the other hand, is widely regarded by many to be one of the root cause of various deviances among priests.


 You are using this passage this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God). This undersanding is supported by 1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 where Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”




richfolkes said:


> Jesus in actual fact breathed on His disciples, as opposed to the Apostles (John 20:20).  In regards to the forgiveness of sins, I will quote from one of the works of the late Rev. Dr.  Oswald J. Smith (1899-1986), who held a doctorate of divinity, "The Roman Catholic Bible has the Answer" Chapter 6:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oswald J. Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Roman Catholic Bible has the Answer by Oswald J. Smith DD
> "Every believer (or disciple) is a priest according to this Roman Catholic Bible (Apocalypse 1:6), and as such has the power (authority) to say, "Your sins are forgiven you in the name of Jesus Christ, if you receive Him as your Saviour." By the same token every believer (or disciple) has the power (authority) to say "your sins are retained (not forgiven) if you do not receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour."
Click to expand...

The misguided doctor is expressing his opinion and his opinion is incorrect. We see in Acts 5:13 that the people acknowledged the apostles' special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves as the doctor implies. Further more, in Acts 1 the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is ordain Matthias with full apostolic authority. If all of us have this authority, there would have been no need for Peter to do this. We see in scripture over and over again (Acts 6:6, Acts 13:3, etc.) that apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.




richfolkes said:


> I have heard of confessions from soldiers to Catholic chaplains in the military being passed onto the CO and ending up on the penitent soldiers' military records.  This is something which I hope is not true.


If it is true, those priest should be reported to their Bishop. Once a person leaves the confessional, the priest is forbidden from using any information gained in any way from that confession even to save his own life.




richfolkes said:


> Anyway, you and I have had a bit of a falling out on FFF


I actually enjoyed most of our discussions. 




richfolkes said:


> along with other members of that forum, and I have seriously considered the idea of making donation to FFF


 We presently don't accept donations but thanks for offering.




richfolkes said:


> to make amends to those I have offended (to the point that I got banned) for the tomfoolerated posts and replies to other posts, particularly in the legal and political forum.  And to those members of FFF, I sincerely apologize for my behavior.


If I recall correctly, you got into a p!ssing match with another staff member who punched your ticket.




richfolkes said:


> And in this post, I considered it only fair to avoid altogether Jack T. Chick's works and anything else from Chick Publications.


I found a website which refutes many of his claims. I think it best for both of us to avoid too many cutting and pasting.


----------



## Cityboy

Everybody - 

I just wanted to say that this has been a great thread that has stayed civil overall and I have thoroughly enjoyed it! Sir Knight and Bob Skurka - you guys defended your beliefs in a very positive way, and I respect your positions while I still disagree.  

This thread shows we CAN discuss religion and remain friends, or at the least, friendly to each other. 

I also think I learned where DZ is coming from when we debat Islam vs. the West. Took a while, but I think I'm beginning to understand.  

I had a lot of fun and learned some new things. Thanks guys!!


----------



## dzalphakilo

Cityboy said:


> I also think I learned where DZ is coming from when we debat Islam vs. the West. Took a while, but I think I'm beginning to understand.


 
I sincerely think you did as well from some of your comments.

On this thread, I happen to agree with you per man's need for reasoning of his existance and trying to explain what he cannot.

I realize that this is where faith comes in, however does asking questions and having doubt mean that you have no faith?

Ironic that a lot of people have been in killed in the name of religion (or perhaps it was actually men with alterior motives who used religion for their own agenda).

I actually liked Socrate's idea of death being like a dreamless sleep, and that a night of dreamless sleep is better than most days and nights living. Reminds me of the term "eternal rest".

I also find the concept of nature itself being God interesting.

I do have a question for those of you who have children and have unwaivering faith in your religion.

How do you explain evolution to your children, do you ignore it? is it incorrect?

How do you explain dinosaurs?

I do find it interesting that on these two subjects, men at the time when the Bible was being written had no insight at all to these two subjects.

How do you explain heaven to your children as well?

Can only men or woman enter the kingdom of God, or can animals be included as well (how about all living things that die)?

As far as questions pertaining to heaven, do you eat in heaven? can you speak? will you see loved ones? do you have the ability to reason? do you have emotion?


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> I do have a question for those of you who have children and have unwaivering faith in your religion.
> 
> How do you explain evolution to your children, do you ignore it? is it incorrect?
> 
> How do you explain dinosaurs?
> . . .
> How do you explain heaven to your children as well?
> 
> Can only men or woman enter the kingdom of God, or can animals be included as well (how about all living things that die)?
> 
> As far as questions pertaining to heaven, do you eat in heaven? can you speak? will you see loved ones? do you have the ability to reason? do you have emotion?


I see no reason why EVOLUTION and FAITH are mutually exclusive.  The Catholic Church has adopted evolution as a scientific theory that is probably true.  It is taught in our Catholic schools.  Then again, the Catholic belief is not a literal belief in the creation story.  Some Christians take the creation story as a literal truth.  Catholic do not.  Therefore dinosaurs and Darwin are good with us Catholics.  But, as I said, some of the Protestants are strong believers in things that are not held by the Catholic Church and evolution vs creationism is a hot topic among some of the younger evangelical churches.  

As for your other questions, I honestly don't know the answers to animals being in heaven, some say yes, some say no.  Not sure what canon is on that, if it is even part of our canon.  I doubt they eat in heaven, the body we have now is not the same type of body we would have in heaven. . .


----------



## Cityboy

dzalphakilo said:


> I sincerely think you did as well from some of your comments.


 
You know, DZ, I have had those thoughts for quite a few years now. Too bad we didn't figure this out about two years ago when we started posting here. 

Live and learn.


----------



## daedong

It is a difficult subject to debate as neither side has any facts
I enjoyed it though. thanks fellas


----------



## Sir Knight

B_Skurka said:


> The Catholic Church has adopted evolution as a scientific theory that is probably true.


I personally do not think that evolution is a true scientific theory because there is not enough evidence to support it.

If we evolved from apes, then there should be evidence of this in-between creature. As a matter of fact, there should be numerous stages of this in-between creature so there should be a LOT of evidence but science hasn't been able this missing link yet. That goes against the laws of average and places doubt on this theory.

Additionally, why is evolution not happening now? Apes should continue to be evolving into humans and we should be seeing various stages of these  in-between creatures running around. There are none.

Both these issues need to be addressed before we can accept evolution as true.


----------



## Melensdad

Sir Knight said:


> I personally do not think that evolution is a true scientific theory because there is not enough evidence to support it.
> 
> *If we evolved from apes,* . . .


Well there is plenty of scientific evidence to show that some evolution has occurred in some species, but there is very little to suggest that man evolved from ape.  The Catholic Church does not suggest that we evolved from apes, nor does it suggest that birds evolved from dinosaurs.  The Church simply suggests that there is some strong evidence to suggest that evolution has occurred and is accepted as a generalized concept.  It is not specific in species with the statements that I have seen.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> If we evolved from apes, then there should be evidence of this in-between creature. As a matter of fact, there should be numerous stages of this in-between creature so there should be a LOT of evidence but science hasn't been able this missing link yet. That goes against the laws of average and places doubt on this theory.
> 
> Additionally, why is evolution not happening now? Apes should continue to be evolving into humans and we should be seeing various stages of these in-between creatures running around. There are none.


 
Hum...and how long has man been on this earth?

Problem with humans is that they cannot comprehend the short amount of time that we've been on this planet compared to how old the planet actually is.

Sir Knight, a hundred dollar bet that you were not a Geo Science major


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Hum...and how long has man been on this earth?
> 
> Problem with humans is that they cannot comprehend the short amount of time that we've been on this planet compared to how old the planet actually is.


So the evolution of man was fairly recent compared to dinosaurs. Thus, evidence of man's evolution should be more easy to find than that of dinosaurs. Yet, we found none.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> So the evolution of man was fairly recent compared to dinosaurs. Thus, evidence of man's evolution should be more easy to find than that of dinosaurs. Yet, we found none.


 
Look up Lois Leakey and anthropology for starters.

Although the evolution of man has been fairly recent in comparison of the history of our earth, we're still talking about more years than you could probably comprehend.

Problem is we were not there, and in time, we still won't as a society as we have come to know.

That was my point about the Bible. Men had no comprehension of the subject during their time, thus could not address it in the Bible (just a thought).


----------



## richfolkes

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> Well there is plenty of scientific evidence to show that some evolution has occurred in some species, but there is very little to suggest that man evolved from ape. The Catholic Church does not suggest that we evolved from apes, nor does it suggest that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The Church simply suggests that there is some strong evidence to suggest that evolution has occurred and is accepted as a generalized concept. It is not specific in species with the statements that I have seen.



Evolution only exists in the works of our hands.  And is in our control.  If we design something, such as a computer; we evolve (upgrade) the machine every now and then.  Cars are also a prime example of evolution.  Take the 1976 range of Cadillacs and compare it with the all new 2008 range.  Also, the government is another example.  Take the Grover Cleveland Administration and compare it with the Bush Administration of today.

The Bible clearly says each being comes after its own kind (Genesis 1).  What comes after a Velociraptor? Another Velociraptor.  Same as a woolly mammoth comes after a woolly mammoth likewise an African elephant comes after an African elephant.


----------



## dzalphakilo

richfolkes said:


> Evolution only exists in the works of our hands. And is in our control. If we design something, such as a computer; we evolve (upgrade) the machine every now and then. Cars are also a prime example of evolution. Take the 1976 range of Cadillacs and compare it with the all new 2008 range. Also, the government is another example. Take the Grover Cleveland Administration and compare it with the Bush Administration of today.


 


On a side note, thinking about it, per my comments about men not knowing things when the bible was written, seems that many men of intellect who brought science to light, were then silenced by the church in the past.

Interesting how the church can't get away with that today.

Oh, in the last couple hundred of years, physical attributes of 
Homo sapiens have changed. Of course, VERY SLOW.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Look up Lois Leakey and anthropology for starters.
> 
> Although the evolution of man has been fairly recent in comparison of the history of our earth, we're still talking about more years than you could probably comprehend.
> 
> Problem is we were not there, and in time, we still won't as a society as we have come to know.
> 
> That was my point about the Bible. Men had no comprehension of the subject during their time, thus could not address it in the Bible (just a thought).


We're getting into areas that my feeble mind can not comprehend


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> We're getting into areas that my feeble mind can not comprehend


 
I don't think you have a feeble mind. Perhaps you just don't want to?

I've learned to have faith does not mean that I can't accept something contradictory to what I believe in.


----------



## Sir Knight

Has nothing to do with the faith aspect. I'm losing you with regards to your comments about evolution. The way that I see it is that if we have been able to find physical evidence of dinosaurs which are 30+ TIMES older than what the physical evidence of evolving humans, we should more easily find physical evidence of these in-between creatures between man and ape and since this mostlikely did not happen in one step but numerous steps, we should be finding numerous evidence of such creatures. My understanding is that we haven't found any.

I'm not saying that we do not evolve but we evolve into the same creature not into another creature as the theory of evolution suggests. That's all that I am saying.

Sort of like the Mormons who claim that some Jews migrated to America. There supposed was a huge battle which left 100,000+ men dead on the field with no one to bury them. Why haven't we found this battlefield with all of these dead soldiers and their swords & spears & shields, etc.?

The Vikings spent one winter in America and we've been able to find physical evidence that they were here but we can't find a trace of this Jewish community anywhere. That just doesn't add up for me.


----------



## Doc

Makes sense to me Sir Knight.  I understand what you are saying and agree with your logic.  



			
				richfolkes said:
			
		

> The Bible clearly says each being comes after its own kind (Genesis 1). What comes after a Velociraptor? Another Velociraptor. Same as a woolly mammoth comes after a woolly mammoth likewise an African elephant comes after an African elephant.



Richfolkes, I had never heard that before.  Very Interesting.


----------



## Melensdad

richfolkes said:


> Evolution only exists in the works of our hands.  And is in our control.  If we design something, such as a computer; we evolve (upgrade) the machine every now and then.  Cars are also a prime example of evolution.  Take the 1976 range of Cadillacs and compare it with the all new 2008 range.  Also, the government is another example.  Take the Grover Cleveland Administration and compare it with the Bush Administration of today.
> 
> *The Bible clearly says each being comes after its own kind (Genesis 1).  *What comes after a Velociraptor? Another Velociraptor.  Same as a woolly mammoth comes after a woolly mammoth likewise an African elephant comes after an African elephant.


I looked at Genesis 1 in two different versions of the Bible and did not see any clear indication of this message.  I didn't even see it as an implied message.  The versions I looked at were the New American Bible and the English Standard Version.  So then I dug up the King James Version and that Bible uses the exact term you used.  However, I don't necessarily see "of their own kind" as being words that are necessarily excluding the concept of evolutionary theory.

For a review on this, please see this article related to the "kinds" in Genesis.  It shows yet another theory, and there is no reason to exclude this from the other theories or claim it is mutually exclusive to Genesis.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html 
(by the way, this is from a non-Catholic Christian [Protestant] website)


.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> I looked at Genesis 1 in two different versions of the Bible and did not see any clear indication of this message. I didn't even see it as an implied message.http://


 
Guess that's where it comes down to interpretation and what you're looking for in the Bible.

When Sir Knight mentioned how the bible mentions that Jesus told his followers that it was permitted to arm yourself (with a handgun in todays times) for self defense, just for kicks, I asked numerous people (inlcuding three Catholic priests) about where in the bible it mentions that as a Christian, it's permitted to carry a handgun.  Interesting enough, not one person mentioned Sir Knight's passage.

Looking to carry a handgun for protection, I guess you need justification from the Bible to tell you it's ok?

Who is to say who's interpretation of the Bible is right?

Let me guess, the Catholic church?

As a Catholic, are you allowed to have a different interpretation of the Bible for yourself?


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> Guess that's where it comes down to interpretation and what you're looking for in the Bible.
> 
> When Sir Knight mentioned how the bible mentions that Jesus told his followers that it was permitted to arm yourself (with a handgun in todays times) for self defense, just for kicks, I asked numerous people (inlcuding three Catholic priests) about where in the bible it mentions that as a Christian, it's permitted to carry a handgun.  Interesting enough, not one person mentioned Sir Knight's passage.
> 
> Looking to carry a handgun for protection, I guess you need justification from the Bible to tell you it's ok?
> 
> Who is to say who's interpretation of the Bible is right?
> 
> Let me guess, the Catholic church?
> 
> As a Catholic, are you allowed to have a different interpretation of the Bible for yourself?


The Bible never says it is OK to carry a handgun, but there are passages in the Bible where we are called to defend others, to pick up a sword, defend ourselves, etc.  There are passages where the innocent are protected and were the sinful are persecuted.

As a Catholic, we look to our Catechism for our interpretation of the Bible.  The fact of the matter is that the Bible is a collection of stories and was written in more than one original language.  Some Greek, some Hebrew, some Arameic (sp?), etc.  So we then got a Latin version of it that was a compiled version, which is referred to as the Vulgate and was compiled in the early years of the 5th century by St Jerome.  All of the newer Bibles are then interpretations of St Jerome's Vulgate, typically they are versions that are made up every few decades to conform to fluid changes of the various languages.  As words today have certain meanings, the same word may have had a different meaning 50 years ago, and another meaning 500 years ago, etc.  

So Catholics use the Bible, and then we turn to the Catechism as our explanation of the Bible.  In the case of Protestants, each is able to interpret the Bible as he or she sees fit.  So Baptists generally interpret passages in one way, but Lutherans may interpret it slightly differently, and in one part of the Bible they may completely agree with the Catholic view, while in another part they may have a slightly different view.  Please realize that most of these differences are very minor.  But in the case of the Catholics, all our laymen, priests, bishops, etc refer to the same document so we all have a consistent understanding of our faith.  Realize also that there are some who don't accept some parts of the teaching of the church and there are others who are very orthodox in their followings, but we are all supposed to follow the same documents.  Many of us don't meet up to even our own standards.


----------



## Sir Knight

Obviously, you won't find scripture telling you to arm yourself with a firearm because firearms didn't exist when the bible was written. Neither will you find the bible telling you that it is okay to use a computer or a cell phone. Because those things didn't exist. And just as you won't find the bible telling you that it is okay to use those things, you also will not find anywhere in the bible that you can not use those things. Again, because those things didn't exist at the time that the bible was written.

However, as I said earlier, we do see Jesus commanding us to purchase a sword if we do not have one even if we have to sell our outer garments in order to buy it -- here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

If your three priest friends doubt this interpretation of scripture, then I would be interested in their comments on what is found on the Vatican's Web site ...

_ ... In a world marked by evil, *the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS* ...

_​


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> If your three priest friends doubt this interpretation of scripture, then I would be interested in their comments on what is found on the Vatican's Web site ...
> 
> _... In a world marked by evil, *the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS* ..._​


 
The Catholic priest that I talked to were not my friends, actually had no clue to who they were. I'm not afraid to ask questions and seek people that I would like those answers from. That time that I had talked to them was when we were in a discussion on abortion and when it would be acceptable to have an abortion in the "Catholic view", and I happen to ask about the issue of gun control (and those responses were in agreement with my friends view, who is a catholic priest).

Honestly, I really don't care about the Catholic view but was interested in the response I would get. The responses satisfied my curiosity.

Hum, anything else that you could produce from the Vatican a little more recent?


----------



## Sir Knight

A few points ... 
 Only OFFICIAL teachings of the church and things that the Pope declares to be infallible ARE infallible. Anything else may not be. Which means that priests CAN be wrong. Bishops CAN be wrong and even the Pope CAN be wrong unless he SPECIFICALLY states that he is declaring an infallible teaching. 


 Once something is declared to be an infallible teaching, no future Pope can ever change it. For that reason, very few things are declared to be infallible. Of course, over it's 2,000 year history, the church has accumulated a number of infallible teachings but very few of them have been declared so recently and no infallible teaching has ever be contradicted because it can't be.


 For example, the current Pope has changed the Catholic position on Limbo. However, he did not declare it as an infallible teaching. Thus, a future Pope can change it again as has been the case in the past.

Another example is with women priests ... the previous Pope declared that the church has no authority to have women priests and declared it an infallible teaching. In this case, no future Pope can EVER change it.

That's a very important point!


With regards to firearms ... there is no infallible teaching on the matter but the OFFICIAL position of the church is that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others from death and serious injury -- that is an official teaching THAT CAN NOT BE CHANGED.

The way that I see it, a GRAVE duty has to be accomplished by the BEST means possible otherwise it can not be considered a "grave" duty and in most cases, the BEST means of defense is with a firearm.

Thus, if the church OFFICIAL came out with a teaching against firearms, they would be in conflict with one of their official teachings about having a GRAVE duty to defend oneself and they can NOT be in conflict with that.
 Does that clear things up a bit?


----------



## Melensdad

While I agree with Sir Knight that it is a GRAVE duty to protect yourself & family within the teachings of the Catholic Church, and while I also agree that with the status of grave duty we are to use the best means available, it does not automatically mean that the Church will support an unfettered right to our 2nd Amendment rights.  It means that within the framework of the laws of the land we should use the best means possible.  It also can be taken to mean that "sensible restrictions or regulations"_ (whatever the heck those are)_ can be applied by the proper authorities.

Regarding OFFICIAL TEACHINGS of our Church, I think it is important that people understand, and I think Sir Knight did a good job of pointing it out, but there can be a difference between the opinions of our church leaders and the official teachings of our church on some matters.  Not every word uttered is considered an infallible word.  Not even every priest has the same beliefs about many things like the "social justice" teachings of our Church.  So there is a wide range of things that are "negotiable within an examination of good conscience" and then there are things that the Church considers non-negotiable and absolute.


----------



## Doc

dzalphakilo said:


> Can the same be said for the pope?
> 
> Does the pope "have the last word"?



Yes.

Not with God.  

The catholic church has Echonomical (sp) Counsils to work out Exactly where the church stands and sometimes to reconsider old interpretations and to discuss current matters such as the birth control pill.  Interpretations can be modified with time, and a council.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> Only OFFICIAL teachings of the church and things that the Pope declares to be infallible ARE infallible. Anything else may not be. Which means that priests CAN be wrong. Bishops CAN be wrong and even the Pope CAN be wrong unless he SPECIFICALLY states that he is declaring an infallible teaching.


 
Curious, what was the last infallible teaching declared by a pope?

I find it hard to believe that thoughout the history of the Catholic church, through time, someone didn't say, "damn, we can't take it back now and we really look like idiots".


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Curious, what was the last infallible teaching declared by a pope?


I believe (_and don't quote me on this because I'm not an expert on this nor do I claim to be_) that it was John-Paul II declaring that women could not be priests -- the wording he used (_and again, this is not the EXACT words but the meaning is ABOUT the same_) was that the declaration that he was making was to be "binding on all of the faithful for all time" (_again, not the exact words but as close as I can recall with the same meaning_).




dzalphakilo said:


> I find it hard to believe that thoughout the history of the Catholic church, through time, someone didn't say, "damn, we can't take it back now and we really look like idiots".


Well, look at it this way. If the position of Pope is infallible and a future Pope changes what a previous Pope officially declared as infallible, that would mean that the past Pope was not infallible which means that the current Pope is also not infallible resulting in people not knowing who to believe.

_Was the past Pope right? He said that he was infallible in this teaching. But the current Pope says that it was wrong and he is saying that that is infallible but if the past Pope was wrong then this Pope could also be proven wrong._

Kind of confusing with regards to what to believe, who to believe, etc.; and scripture tells us that our God is not the God of confusion.

Jesus told the apostles that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven. This does not mean that they have power over heaven because Jesus also told them that His Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth and not to worry about what to say because, again, His Holy Spirit would fill them with wisdom and speak through them.

If this is indeed true, as Catholics believe, then it clearly explains the infallibility of the Pope and the Church. If it is not true, then we need to ask why Jesus made such promises?


----------



## dzalphakilo

Yes, it can get confusing.

_"But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a __right__ to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive __intention__, whether of a council or of the __pope__, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a __conciliar__ or __papal__ pronouncement, in which some __doctrine__ is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy __Bull__ of __Pius IX__ defining the __Immaculate Conception__ the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a __sentence__ or two; and the same is __true__ in many cases in regard to __conciliar__ decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."_

So, there will never be a woman priest in the catholic church,  EVER?


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> Well, look at it this way. If the position of Pope is infallible and a future Pope changes what a previous Pope officially declared as infallible, that would mean that the past Pope was not infallible which means that the current Pope is also not infallible resulting in people not knowing who to believe


 
Only my opinion, the pope is a man. Man is fallible. The popes in the past have showed that they have sinned and are fallible just as the common people they control.


----------



## Cityboy

dzalphakilo said:


> Only my opinion, the pope is a man. Man is fallible. The popes in the past have showed that they have sinned and are fallible just as the common people they control.


 
Pope/Monarch/Dictator. What's the difference?


----------



## Melensdad

Cityboy said:


> Pope/Monarch/Dictator. What's the difference?


You are a subject under a Monarch/Dictator and they proclaim themselves to be the rightful leaders.  In the case of a Monarch they claim that they have a divine right to their power.  Man is not free to choose these leaders, man is bound by their power which can be absolute.

Under the Pope we are free to choose him as our spiritual guide, he is still bound by the orthodoxy of our church and does not reign supreme power, in fact we elected him.  Man's free will is always allowed under the Pope.



dzalphakilo said:


> Only my opinion, the pope is a man. Man is fallible. The popes in the past have showed that they have sinned and are fallible just as the common people they control.


This is true and Catholics also believe this.  There are only very rare and special circumstances where a Pope's statements are considered infallible.  There have probably been several Popes who have never claimed to utter even one infallible phrase.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> Pope/Monarch/Dictator. What's the difference?


Pope = Vicar of Christ ... one appointed to shepard Jesus's flock (see John 21:15-17) until His return

Monarch/Dictator = NOT a representative of Christ.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Only my opinion, the pope is a man. Man is fallible.


It's true that the Pope is only a man but didn't Christ assure His Apostles in Luke 10:16 that  whoever hears them, hears Jesus? And in Acts 15:27-28 we see that the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit of God who protects the Church from deception.




dzalphakilo said:


> The popes in the past have showed that they have sinned and are fallible just as the common people they control.


You are confusing Infallibility (teaching without error) with Impeccability (living without error or living without sinning). No one has ever claimed that the Pope is Impeccable (free of sin or not able to sin).

Look at the Apostles. They were all unfaithful by abandoning Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they authored the NT which Christians consider to be the INFALLIBLE Word of God showing that a person's personal sinfulness does not minimize his teaching authority. If they can teach without error even though they are sinners, then so can their successors to whom they passed on their authority.

This concept is clearly illustrated by Christ Himself in Matt. 23:2-3. Jesus says that the Pharisees are steeped in sin and calls them hypocrites and a brood of vipers but AT THE SAME TIME commands the people to OBEY their teaching because their authority is VALID. Think about that for a second or two ... the Son of God is telling the people to obey these Pharisees even though they are clearly sinners -- showing that a person's own sinfulness has no bearing on their lawful authority.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Yes, it can get confusing.
> 
> _"But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a __right__ to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive __intention__, whether of a council or of the __pope__, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a __conciliar__ or __papal__ pronouncement, in which some __doctrine__ is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy __Bull__ of __Pius IX__ defining the __Immaculate Conception__ the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a __sentence__ or two; and the same is __true__ in many cases in regard to __conciliar__ decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."_
> 
> So, there will never be a woman priest in the catholic church,  EVER?


As I said, only the things declared to be infallible are to be considered to be infallible. Priests can error. Bishops can error. Even the Pope can error unless he specifically says that he is speaking infallibly.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> As I said, *only the things declared to be infallible are to be considered to be infallible*. Priests can error. Bishops can error. *Even the Pope can error unless he specifically says that he is speaking infallibly*.


 
Holy shit!  Can you not see the problem with this!!??

What you just said is "the pope can error unless he says he didn't error". 

OMFG!!   You gotta be kidding me, right??

This is infallible bullshit.

I apologize in advance if this appears disrespectful, but you just killed me with this statement. I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee or I'd have covered the monitor and keyboard. 

Don't you see how outrageous this sounds to any reasonable person??


----------



## Melensdad

Issues of infallibility are not taken lightly.  They are long considered and based on the scriptures and teachings of the church.  They are considered timeless truths.  

For example Catholics consider homosexual unions to be wrong because the point of a union of two people is produce children.  Homosexuals are not capable of producing children, therefore we do not support homosexual acts, relationships or marriage.  We accept homosexuals into our church and are glad to have them, we ask that they follow the teachings of the church with regard to chaste.  We also know that we heterosexuals are rarely chaste and we sin as do they.  So we are not hypocritical about it, we must confess our sins just as they do.  Still, it is a basic truth that homosexual acts are considered to be unfruitful and therefore we accept the infallible teaching of the church that homosexual unions are wrong.  Many people misunderstand this teaching to say that we don't accept homosexuals into the church and they are wrong on that count.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Cityboy said:


> Don't you see how outrageous this sounds to any reasonable person??


 
What?  There are reasonable people?  I think that statement is as hard to believe as Sir Knights.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> For example Catholics consider homosexual unions to be wrong because the point of a union of two people is produce children.


 
Bottom line, marriage is the social acceptence of two people having children. Bottom line, it's not about love, but what's accepted in society.

Playing devils advocate, how about a union based on two people's love for each other? 

I guess if you have children, then you must stay together as a couple that have been married?

Hmmm, I guess perhaps in the 50's the church might tell the woman to stay in the marriage if she was getting beat up by her husband because it was for the sake of the marriage?

They just had the national Baptist convention here in Greensboro. Made the papers because they kicked out a church in Charlotte who accpeted gay people into their church.

Then again, if some people say the homosexuality is a "disease", why can't God forgive those people (who are homosexuals) if they truly believe in Jesus Christ?

LOVE those annullments (sp?) in the Catholic church by the way. Seemed for some time if you had the money, you could buy it from the church.

Wait a minute, what was that term that the Catholic church used and told people in the past so they could litterally buy their way into heaven? EDIT ah yes, the start of the Protestant Reformation. Funny, if the oldest and dearest church to God wouldn't of been so corupt, perhaps all Christians would of remained Catholic. Then again, all other religions suffer from the same fate, starts off with Godly intentions and then MAN gets involved.

CB, you don't get it. It's when the Pope has the holy spirit come into his body when he (the pope) is infallible. This is when he can do no wrong. Only problem is if he isn't the pope, he may get thrown in the looney bin.


----------



## Av8r3400

dzalphakilo said:


> Wait a minute, what was that term that the Catholic church used and told  people in the past so they could litterally buy their way into heaven?



Carbon offsets, from Al Gore, Inc.  


(Weren't the Catholic "buy your way out of hell credits" called indulgences?)


----------



## Cityboy

dzalphakilo said:


> CB, you don't get it. It's when the Pope has the holy spirit come into his body when he (the pope) is infallible. This is when he can do no wrong. Only problem is if he isn't the pope, he may get thrown in the looney bin.


 
Oh...I get it alright.  :spacecraft: 

Or are you talking about these kind of spirits? >>>>>


----------



## dzalphakilo

Something that I found amazing thinking about this thread.

Mankind, being around for 10,000 years or so, probably has had more advances in the last 100 years, compared to the remaining 9,000 years or so.  Think about what now is possible that wasn't even fifty years ago.

Amazing as well that no matter how far we succeed via science, death will always be a mystery, and man has no "concrete" evidence on what happens to our soul.

Something else to think about.  Out of that 10,000 years or so that "we've" been here, you have to go back millions upon millions of years ago to be around the dinasaur period.

The first question that comes to mind thinking of this is if the earth has been here for billions of years, why did it take God so long to put man on earth, and why so long after other forms of life?


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Bottom line, marriage is the social acceptence of two people having children. Bottom line, it's not about love, but what's accepted in society.
> 
> Playing devils advocate, how about a union based on two people's love for each other?
> 
> I guess if you have children, then you must stay together as a couple that have been married?
> 
> Hmmm, I guess perhaps in the 50's the church might tell the woman to stay in the marriage if she was getting beat up by her husband because it was for the sake of the marriage?


Yeah, let's ignore the teachings of the Son of God who is recorded in Mark 10:9 & Matthew 19:6 to say ... _"What therefore God hath joined together, let no one put asunder"_




dzalphakilo said:


> They just had the national Baptist convention here in Greensboro. Made the papers because they kicked out a church in Charlotte who accpeted gay people into their church.


 Yeah, let's tell them that their behavior is perfectly alright even though scripture clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that _"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor *homosexual* offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."_

Would you like a church like that? That failed to tell you that you were doing wrong and on the pathway to hell? Yeah, let's lie to people so that they can feel good in this life and then spend all of eternity in punishment. 




dzalphakilo said:


> LOVE those annullments (sp?) in the Catholic church by the way. Seemed for some time if you had the money, you could buy it from the church.


An annullment declares that the marriage was not valid to begin with and it doesn't cost anything.




dzalphakilo said:


> Wait a minute, what was that term that the Catholic church used and told people in the past so they could litterally buy their way into heaven?


I guess you have a problem with the concept of being able to buy your way into heaven even though the Son of God tells us this very thing in Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21 & Mark 9:40 ... whoever gives to the poor and for Christ's sake, shall accumulate riches in heaven.




dzalphakilo said:


> EDIT ah yes, the start of the Protestant Reformation. Funny, if the oldest and dearest church to God wouldn't of been so corupt, perhaps all Christians would of remained Catholic.


Funny how in Matt 23:2-3 when Jesus saw how corrupt the Pharisees were, He still commanded the people to OBEY their teaching and did not tell them to break off and start their own church.




dzalphakilo said:


> Then again, all other religions suffer from the same fate, starts off with Godly intentions and then MAN gets involved.


 We see in Matt. 13:24-30 that scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God's mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time. St. Paul acknowledges in 1 Tim. 5:19 that Church elders might be unfaithful but but goes on to tell us in Rom. 3:3-4 that unfaithful members do not nullify the faithfulness of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church because Jesus promised us in Matt. 16:18 that no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> The first question that comes to mind thinking of this is if the earth has been here for billions of years, why did it take God so long to put man on earth, and why so long after other forms of life?


Because God exists outside of time. For God, there is no yesterday or tomorrow. Everything is right now!

Go to a football game and sit on the 50-yard line and look onto the field. You can look at one end of the field or the other end or something in between or look out onto the entire field. That is how God sees time. He sees your birth, your death, the birth of Christ, man landing on the moon, etc. -- all at once.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> We see in Matt. 13:24-30 that scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church.


 
I haven't lost hope in the Church, actually found a nice one in town near by. Great people, kind of liberal for the hard core baptist around my area, however they do wonderful work with those in need. We just had a free dental clinic for those who have no money and the dentists worked on over 100 people at no charge (I mentioned it because I donated 10 hours of my time that day and I felt like I was a part of it, which is a great feeling). I'm also glad to know that the majority of money I give goes to those less fortunate than myself. Nothing but a warm feeling when a school kid gets school supplies that the family couldn't afford and you see that childs face lite up when she gets pens and a backpack.

To me, that's what a chuch should be, giving to those in need.

One reason why I do respect my friend who is the Catholic priest. He worked with the homeless for years before he became a priest, giving up a high paying job to do work for those less fortunate than himself at little or no pay, doing it for the sake of doing it.

As far as gay people? Well, I had a couple of friends who were gay (didn't know they were gay when I first met them, then when I found out they were gay, thought they were great people and I thought I was a better man than to let my prejudice and ignorance get the best of me). They knew the rules with me. I can crack a joke about sucking a cock with the best of them. Don't consider myself a homo phobe, to each his own I guess. Do I think gay people are going to hell? Nah. Probably more fuc*&ed up straight laced people who are going to hell and don't even know it. 

FACT IS ONLY GOD KNOWS.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Do I think gay people are going to hell? Nah.


So you are saying that God is a liar? If 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is a lie, why believe anything else found in the bible? Any verse, any belief, any chapter, any concept COULD be a lie.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> So you are saying that God is a liar? If 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is a lie, why believe anything else found in the bible? Any verse, any belief, any chapter, any concept COULD be a lie.


 
No, I'm not calling God a liar.

Funny, the first man into the kingdom of heaven with Jesus was a thief who was crucified as well for his own actions.

Bottom line, I am not the judge, God is. It is not my place to judge others. However, I will do unto thee what you will do unto me


----------



## Sir Knight

PBinWA said:


> think that statement is as hard to believe as Sir Knights.


Which ones?


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> No, I'm not calling God a liar.


Then what are you saying when you state that you don't think gays are not going to hell when God's Holy Word says that they will?




dzalphakilo said:


> Funny, the first man into the kingdom of heaven with Jesus was a thief who was crucified as well for his own actions.


Thus illustrating the Catholic concept of indulgences.




dzalphakilo said:


> Bottom line, I am not the judge, God is. It is not my place to judge others.


Aren't we commanded by God in Ezekiel 3:18-21 to warn others of their sinful actions and if we fail to do so, we will be held accountable for their sins?


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> So you are saying that God is a liar? If 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is a lie, why believe anything else found in the bible? *Any verse, any belief, any chapter, any concept COULD be a lie*.


 
Bingo! We have a winner!! 

YES! YES! YES! and YES! Any verse, any chapter, any belief any concept could be *WRONG*! That is the crux of this whole thread and precisely the point I was making, and the point I think DZ is making as well. You don't know who actually wrote the scripture or if it was a divine inspiration or a human conspiracy or a novel.

Could it be an intentional lie? Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. You should question your own beliefs with an open mind, seeking only the truth, not seeking to prove or disprove your own belief, and then be honest with yourself.


----------



## Sir Knight

So you are not a Christian because Christians accept by faith that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and as I said earlier, in order to have a disagreement with someone, there must be some common area of agreement. For me, that "common area" is acceptance of the bible as being the infallible Word of God. Without that common ground, we do not have enough of an agreement to have a disagreement over.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> So you are not a Christian (*Muslim)* because Christians *(Muslims)* accept by faith that the Bible (*Koran)* is the infallible Word of God *(Allah)* and as I said earlier, in order to have a disagreement with someone, there must be some common area of agreement. For me, that "common area" is acceptance of the bible *(Koran)* as being the infallible Word of God *(Allah)*. Without that common ground, we do not have enough of an agreement to have a disagreement over.


 
Come on Sir Knight! If I believed as you do we would not be having this discussion, would we? 

Every once in a while people need to question their own beliefs to see if those beliefs are universal truths. I think you are afraid to question your own beliefs because deep down, you fear you might discover some uncomfortable, and disturbing truths. Just read your quote above aloud to yourself and substitute your words for the *bold blue words *I edited in and maybe you will begin to understand other points of view on the subject of religion vs. truth. 

As Stephan Covey says: Seek first to understand -Then to be understood.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> Then what are you saying when you state that you don't think gays are not going to hell when God's Holy Word says that they will?


 
What I'm saying is I don't know who is going to heaven or hell, that is not for me to judge.

Seems like I hit a nerve.  No chances deep down inside you actually like guys is there?  Perhaps something repressed deep down inside that you really feel like getting off your chest?


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

dzalphakilo said:


> Seems like I hit a nerve. No chances deep down inside you actually like guys is there? Perhaps something repressed deep down inside that you really feel like getting off your chest?


 
Super lame debating technique there DZ!


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Sir Knight said:


> Which ones?


 
Just the one that CB was countering:



> _As I said, *only the things declared to be infallible are to be considered to be infallible*. Priests can error. Bishops can error. *Even the Pope can error unless he specifically says that he is speaking infallibly*._


----------



## dzalphakilo

PBinWA said:


> Super lame debating technique there DZ!


 
Just an observation, nothing more.  

Wouldn't be the first time it's happened in the Catholic church.


----------



## Sir Knight

A Muslim is not a Christian. A Christian is not a Muslim. Christians do not accept the Koran as the Infallible Word of God. Muslims do not accept the bible as the infallible Word of God.





Cityboy said:


> Come on Sir Knight! If I believed as you do we would not be having this discussion, would we?
> 
> Every once in a while people need to question their own beliefs to see if those beliefs are universal truths. I think you are afraid to question your own beliefs because deep down, you fear you might discover some uncomfortable, and disturbing truths. Just read your quote above aloud to yourself and substitute your words for the *bold blue words *I edited in and maybe you will begin to understand other points of view on the subject of religion vs. truth.
> 
> As Stephan Covey says: Seek first to understand -Then to be understood.


All religious beliefs are accepted by faith and, as I said before, in order to have a disagreement, you need to agree on some common areas. Otherwise, disagreement is not possible.  Here, I'll show you ...

ME: The bible is the infallible Word of God.

YOU: No it's not.

ME: I disagree.

... Okay, where do we go from there? I disagree with you. You disagree with me. What is there to further discuss? We need a common area of agreement in order to have a disagreement.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> What I'm saying is I don't know who is going to heaven or hell, that is not for me to judge.


No we are not to judge who goes to heaven or hell but we are to correct people when we see them doing wrong otherwise God will hold us accountable for failing to do so (Ezekiel 3:18-21).

God tells us in His Holy Word (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) that homosexual offenders will not go to heaven. You say that you don't believe that. Why don't you believe that if God says so?




dzalphakilo said:


> Seems like I hit a nerve.  No chances deep down inside you actually like guys is there?  Perhaps something repressed deep down inside that you really feel like getting off your chest?


You're the one who brought homosexuals into this discussion. Not I. Do you have a hidden agenda? Seems like I hit a nerve with you.


----------



## Sir Knight

PBinWA said:


> Just the one that CB was countering:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _As I said, *only the things declared to be infallible are to be considered to be infallible*. Priests can error. Bishops can error. *Even the Pope can error unless he specifically says that he is speaking infallibly*._
Click to expand...

Maybe this will clear things up ... 

*Dogma - *teachings left to us by the Apostles. Dogmas includes both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is infallible, and it cannot be altered, changed, added to, or subtracted from.


*Doctrine - *This is a formally defined teaching which has been promulgated by an ecumenical council (like Nicaea or Trent) or declared an infallible teaching by a reigning Pontiff. Doctrine is also infallible, and also cannot be changed---but it likewise cannot contradict Scripture, Tradition, any _previous_ infallible statement, or another doctrine. Examples include the Immaculate Conception and the Holy Trinity.


*Discipline - *This is an explanation of some aspect of the Faith. It is not infallible, and can be changed, evolved, condemned, or abandoned. Examples of this are limbo and Mary as Co-Redemptrix.


*Practice - *This is a rule established by the Church to help the believer walk the straight and narrow path; examples include clerical celibacy, not eating meat on Fridays during Lent, and fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.


*Devotion - *The lowest level of Catholic belief; devotions are usually more or less up to the individual believer to practice or not. This category includes such things as the Rosary, First Friday devotions, first Saturday devotions, etc.


----------



## Melensdad

Sir Knight said:


> You're the one who brought homosexuals into this discussion. Not I. Do you have a hidden agenda? Seems like I hit a nerve with you.


Umm, no.  Actually I started it.  I brought it up as a simple example of something that is misunderstood about Catholics and infallible teaching.  Many people think that Catholics forbid homosexuals from joining the church.  That is clearly untrue.  However we do believe that the act of homosexual unions are sinful and forbid those as a practice within our belief.  Just as we forbid adultery and many other things.  We also believe that we are sinners ourselves and so we are not hypocritical in our teachings about these sins.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> Holy shit!  Can you not see the problem with this!!??
> 
> What you just said is "the pope can error unless he says he didn't error".
> 
> OMFG!!   You gotta be kidding me, right??
> 
> This is infallible bullshit.
> 
> I apologize in advance if this appears disrespectful, but you just killed me with this statement. I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee or I'd have covered the monitor and keyboard.
> 
> Don't you see how outrageous this sounds to any reasonable person??






Cityboy said:


> Oh...I get it alright.  :spacecraft:
> 
> Or are you talking about these kind of spirits? >>>>>



The Catholic Church does not claim a direct access to the omniscience of God. Quite the opposite. Infallibility is a negative protection. Infallibility doesn't mean that we have all the correct answers. It means that we don't have any incorrect answers. That's not the same thing.

If I were infallible in math, I could still quite easily flunk math. I would just be unable to write down any answers on the test if I couldn't do them. The questions that I answered would be correct but the questions that I didn't have the answers for would be left blank and marked wrong.

Neither Pope, nor council, nor catechism claims to have all the answers, just the fullness of what HAS been revealed to us -- meaning that the answers that we DO have, are the correct ones.

Your objection implies the expectation that God should be entirely understandable to your intellect. What a puny God THAT would be. The mysteries inherent to catholicism are evidence that it is NOT man-made


----------



## Sir Knight

Av8r3400 said:


> (Weren't the Catholic "buy your way out of hell credits" called indulgences?)






dzalphakilo said:


> Funny, the first man into the kingdom of heaven with Jesus was a thief who was crucified as well for his own actions.



As I said earlier, the concept of indulgences is biblical in nature.


----------



## richfolkes

Sir Knight said:
			
		

> #  Only OFFICIAL teachings of the church and things that the Pope declares to be infallible ARE infallible. Anything else may not be. Which means that priests CAN be wrong. Bishops CAN be wrong and even the Pope CAN be wrong unless he SPECIFICALLY states that he is declaring an infallible teaching.
> 
> # Once something is declared to be an infallible teaching, no future Pope can ever change it. For that reason, very few things are declared to be infallible. Of course, over it's 2,000 year history, the church has accumulated a number of infallible teachings but very few of them have been declared so recently and no infallible teaching has ever be contradicted because it can't be.



In respect to Papal infallibility, there has been a belief that the Pope is actually God.  For example, according to the Bulla Unam Sanctum, the Pope (Boniface VIII) makes such claim.  As this excerpt will show:




> ”The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature necessary for salvation ... I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do.”



This belief is echoed in a 1981 issue of Time Magazine which deals with the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.



> *"It's like shooting God."*


*

The Bible, on the other hand, issues a dire warning against anyone who proclaims himself as God.  As shown in II Thess 2:4




			Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God.  II Thess 2:4
		
Click to expand...


I have to go now.  Expecting someone.  Talk later.*


----------



## dzalphakilo

Here's a thought.

A young boy gets molested by a Catholic priest.  The young boy gets screwed up in the head and becomes a child molester as well, or worse, he becomes a homosexual.

Well, since he's gay, he must go to hell.  However, what if he did not become a homosexual of his own choosing?

Yeah, people just get up one morning and say you know what, todays a good day to become a homosexual.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> Yeah, let's tell them that their behavior is perfectly alright even though scripture clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that _"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor *homosexual* offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."_


 
Again, interesting that it was a THIEF that entered into the kingdom of heaven with Jesus on the day of his death.

Can you explain that? (by the way, I'm sure you can).


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Again, interesting that it was a THIEF that entered into the kingdom of heaven with Jesus on the day of his death.
> 
> Can you explain that? (by the way, I'm sure you can).


Because every sin is forgivable if one seeks forgiveness. That is the key -- to repent ... to honestly turn away from sin.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Sir Knight said:


> You're the one who brought homosexuals into this discussion. Not I. Do you have a hidden agenda? Seems like I hit a nerve with you.


 
You did hit a nerve with me.  You're prejudging (sp?) others.

Knowing some people who are homosexuals, I can assure you, it wasn't like they had a choice to make.  I also happen to think that they have good character and by all accounts, productive people in society (added to the fact that they had to overcome social issues and what people think of their lifestyle).  That said, my only negative opinion on homosexuals is that they should not serve in the military.

People that have blind faith scare me, and no offense, it seems that you have unquestioning blind faith.

The same can be said for Islamic militants who believe they are killing in the name of their God.

Apolgies, having issues with the forum of late as far as following all of the post.  Seems that I can't view all the post in order, thus I can't repsond in order.


----------



## richfolkes

dzalphakilo said:
			
		

> Again, interesting that it was a THIEF that entered into the kingdom of heaven with Jesus on the day of his death.



Thief the man was.  But because he _repented_ he was declared 'not guilty' by his sins being washed away by the precious blood of Christ and thus was not a thief when he entered God's kingdom.  And this passage of the Bible will explain:



> *For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
> 
> Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in
> Christ Jesus:
> 
> Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
> blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
> past, through the forbearance of God;
> 
> To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be
> just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
> 
> Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works?
> Nay: but by the law of faith.* (Romans 3:23-27)



So, because of his faith, he was saved and thus no longer a thief in the eyes of the Lord.

It is by faith, Man is justified and declared righteous.  And the good works follow as the result of the man's faith.


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> Here's a thought.
> 
> A young boy gets molested by a Catholic priest.  The young boy gets screwed up in the head and becomes a child molester as well, or worse, he becomes a homosexual.
> 
> Well, since he's gay, he must go to hell.  However, what if he did not become a homosexual of his own choosing?
> 
> Yeah, people just get up one morning and say you know what, todays a good day to become a homosexual.


Your argument is not with me but with the infallible Word of God. Scripture does not clarify how one falls into a particular sin. The CCC does but not being Catholic, I'm sure that you are not interested in hearing it.


----------



## Sir Knight

richfolkes said:


> Thief the man was.  But because he _repented_ he was declared 'not guilty' by his sins being washed away by the precious blood of Christ and thus was not a thief when he entered God's kingdom.  And this passage of the Bible will explain:
> 
> 
> 
> So, because of his faith, he was saved and thus no longer a thief in the eyes of the Lord.
> 
> It is by faith, Man is justified and declared righteous.  And the good works follow as the result of the man's faith.


Wonder of wonders   we're finally in agreement with each other on something


----------



## Sir Knight

dzalphakilo said:


> You did hit a nerve with me.  You're prejudging (sp?) others.


We are not prejudging someone for the purpose comparing them to ourselves and thinking that we are better or for the purpose of condemning them for that is God's job who sees all and knows all even the most secretive of thoughts and actions. Instead we are judging people for the purpose of correcting them. Does not scripture tell us that we have a duty to warn someone when we see them sinning? According to Ezekiel 3:18-21, it does. And according to that same passage, if we fail to correct someone when we see them sin, then we will be held accountable for failing to warn them.




dzalphakilo said:


> Knowing some people who are homosexuals, I can assure you, it wasn't like they had a choice to make.  I also happen to think that they have good character and by all accounts, productive people in society (added to the fact that they had to overcome social issues and what people think of their lifestyle).


That's all very well and good but scripture tells us that if the rightous man sins, he will die (_be lost to hell_) and if the sinner turns from his sinful ways, he will live (_be saved_).




dzalphakilo said:


> That said, my only negative opinion on homosexuals is that they should not serve in the military.
> 
> People that have blind faith scare me, and no offense, it seems that you have unquestioning blind faith.


Isn't that what Jesus expects of His followers? To place our trust in Him? Test the faith to ensure that one piece is consistent with the rest but place our trust in what He has revealed to us.

Do you believe that the bible is the infallible Word of God? If so, why do you doubt what the God of the Universe has to say? If you do not accept the bible as the infallible Word of God, then as I said to another member, we do not have enough common ground to have a disagreement.

Doesn't mean that I won't talk to you except that we'll have very little to say on the subjects that we don't have enought to agree upon.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> Knowing some people who are homosexuals, I can assure you, it wasn't like they had a choice to make.  I also happen to think that they have good character and by all accounts, productive people in society (added to the fact that they had to overcome social issues and what people think of their lifestyle).  That said, my only negative opinion on homosexuals is that they should not serve in the military.


I'm sorry but I don't understand the point.

Please understand that Catholics allow people of all sexual orientations to join the church.  We just happen to believe that some acts are sinful.  I fail to see how a homosexual banker or lawyer or plumber or shoemaker would not be allowed into our Church.  We would welcome them.  We also have some rule we ask them to abide by while they are members, they are the same rules we ask heterosexuals to abide by.  We tend to thing that adultery is a sin (sex outside of your marriage).  So if you want to be in our church and you commit adultery, you are expected to go to confession and make a sincere attempt at contrition before you can be in a state of grace to take the Holy Communion.  This same standard is applied to all members of our Church and applies to all sins.  

Now if you want to be a flaming homosexual, pushing a radical homosexual agenda, flaunting a lifestyle of interchangeable sexual partners, etc, then I think it would be fair to say that those actions would not be compatible with the Catholic faith in any way.

I think Archbishop Fulton Sheen said it best when he said "_there are not 100 people in America who hate the Catholic Church but there are millions who hate what they think is the Catholic Church._"  Respectfully, I think you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church and the comments you make about homosexuals shows that misunderstanding to me.



dzalphakilo said:


> People that have blind faith scare me, and no offense, it seems that you have unquestioning blind faith.


I know this was not directed at me, but I'd have to suggest that Sir Knight has well reasoned faith that he studied for a very long time and made a discernment about, it seems anything but blind to me.  Don't confuse faith with ignorance.


----------



## Melensdad

richfolkes said:


> In respect to Papal infallibility, there has been a belief that the Pope is actually God.  For example, according to the Bulla Unam Sanctum, the Pope (Boniface VIII) makes such claim.  As this excerpt will show:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ”*The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one*. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature necessary for salvation ... *I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do.*”
Click to expand...

The Pope is not God.  Those who say so completely misunderstand the Catholic religion.  The fact that Time magazine quoted someone in a crowd who was shocked by the fact that Pope John Paul II was shot does not add any credibility to a statement that is false.

Also, with regard to the passage/translation you quoted above, I'd have to say that your translation is wrong.  I'd also say that the translation was bastardized by someone who has attempted to *change the intent* of the document by taking a small mistranslated excerpt out of context!

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says:





> "The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for the attainment of eternal salvation, the position of the Pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the Pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. - *in the writings of non-Catholic authors against the definition of Papal Infallibility, the Bull ... was used against Boniface VIII as well as against the papal primacy in a manner not justified by its content.* The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Europe.* 'Unam' is frequently quoted, and misquoted, by anti-Catholics trying to prove that Boniface VIII, and Popes in general, are arrogant and evil men*, intent on extending their own power."



Here is the actual translated text as provided by : http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html  It seems clear that the passage quoted by richfolks is not actually in the real document below, but it also seems clear that someone might have translated it incorrectly to advance their own anti-Catholic purposes.  The last line of the real document contains some variant of the words quoted by richfolks but clearly the context of their use is not written below as it is written above. 



> UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
> 
> Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
> 
> We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
> 
> However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
> 
> For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> I'm sorry but I don't understand the point.


 
My point being that with people who are homosexual, for the most part, they are just like heterosexual people, same good qualities and faults just like the rest of us.

Sir Knight believes what he wants to believe, and in his own mind, he thinks he is right, or following his God as he thinks his God instructs him.  The same could be said for all people who have faith.  However, some who have faith seem to think that their faith is the ONLY faith there is, or perhaps the only "right" faith to follow.

Just like Jesus telling people to carry a sword, which means we should have to arm ourselves.  Sir Knight interprets the Bible how he wants to interpret the Bible.  Amazing, the Bible written by men, over ages upon ages.  Just like school children who wisper the same sentence over to each other "down a line", get to the twentyseventh person, and the original sentence no longer has the same content because people can seem to change what they actually hear.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> Your objection implies the expectation that God should be entirely understandable to your intellect. What a puny God THAT would be. The *mysteries inherent to catholicism* are evidence that it is NOT man-made


 
If you could just open your own mind and step outside your own defense of your own religion and read what you are posting as others see it, then maybe you could see how utterly ridiculous it sounds. 

Now you are saying that the mysteries are actually evidence? 

And that only a "puny god" would be understandable to my intellect? 

Are we not created in God's own image according to Christianity? So you are saying that your god created a bunch of dumbasses too stupid to understand your self-proclaimed "official religion of god": - Catholicism. And on top of that, these said dumbasses can lose their salvation for failure to do any number of silly-assed rituals and hail maries or whatever the pope defines as sin? Well, pardon me for choosing to not be a part of your cult.  Why would a divine being create such a convoluted, confusing and esoteric philosophy??

Good gawd, man! Your own attempts at justifying your religion should be enough to turn yourself or any logical soul into a pagan.


----------



## Sir Knight

You are twisting what I am saying in an attempt to make it seem foolish.

I did *not* claim that God is irrational and entirely non-understandable. I said He cannot be TOTALLY understood. Big difference! 

We are indeed created in His image and likeness, but not as clones! We are not mini gods. An image does NOT contain ALL of what it is an image of. God grants us enough revelation that a 5 year old schoolboy can understand the basics and a wise and learned old man will never plumb His depths. This does not mean we cannot know anything, just that there will always be more out there to learn -- which means we must always remember that there is much we DON'T know.

If you're looking for a religion to sort the world into a tidy package that you can understand and will be easy, you're not going to find it -- although beware the many that PROMISE such a thing!


----------



## dzalphakilo

Well, come to think of it, would God have breasts?

Does God get lonely for companionship?  Why the heck do we even need women?

Apologies, starting to sound like a George Carlin set.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> You are twisting what I am saying in an attempt to make it seem foolish.


 
No, actually I'm just showing you what you sound like to others who read your posts. Think about it.



Sir Knight said:


> ...there will always be more out there to learn -- which means we must always remember that there is much we DON'T know.


 
 Exactly. You hold certian beliefs, but do you really know?



Sir Knight said:


> If you're looking for a religion to sort the world into a tidy package that you can understand and will be easy, you're not going to find it -- although beware the many that PROMISE such a thing!


 
I am not looking for ANY religion. I'm seeking the truth, and I suggest you do the same.


----------



## pirate_girl

I'm Catholic..but I don't think Jesus is the only way to salvation. I believe you can get there through Buddha, Muhammad, or Yahweh. All religions are a relationship, and Christianity deserves no higher pedastal than any other.

Religion is but a path to God. Which one we follow is our choice. God is interpreted differently by different cultures, but that does not make them wrong. To my mind, I doubt any religion has gotten even close to a 'correct' understanding of God and God's message, if such is even possible.

We are but mortal... 
Such flawed beings as us cannot comprehend God, let alone 'correctly' interpret God's message. The similarities between religions, however, reveal a greater truth to my mind.

The first commandment of the bible is that there is only one God, and the Koran proclaims that there is no God but God, and Muhammed is his prophet. Similar lines appear everywhere. The old Jewish word for pilgrimage is "Hagg", whereas Muslims today call it "Hajj". Forgive any spelling errors there. We are all equal in the eyes of God.

We all walk the same path... 
I will never believe that because we look at God differently from others, that we somehow have a monopoly on 'truth'. 

To find God, I believe we must question-... not blindly follow the dictums of man-made dogma.


----------



## Melensdad

pirate_girl said:


> I'm Catholic..but I don't think Jesus is the only way to salvation. I believe you can get there through Buddha, Muhammad, or Yahweh. All religions are a relationship, and Christianity deserves no higher pedastal than any other.


For whatever it is worth, Jews (Yahweh), Muslims (Muhammad) and Christians (Christ) all worship to the same ultimate God and all religions are intertwined in their faiths.  

Buddhism (1000 BC) is an offshoot of of the Hindu (4000 BC) religion and is a multi theist religion that centralizes belief not in one God but in some form of humanistic relationship with many.  I'd not put Buddhism, or even the far older Hindi religion that spawned the offshoot Buddhist belief set, in the same category as the former three religions.  Think of the Buddhists in the same terms you'd think of the Lutherans, they didn't like their original religion so they split off from it and started their own belief set.  In the end, Martin Luther actually admitted he was wrong but did not ask to rejoin the Catholic faith that he split apart from, not sure what ever happened to Buddha or his belief set.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> Exactly. You hold certian beliefs, but do you really know?


Yes, I know. I know because eye witnesses observed these events and were so convinced by them that they were willing to die for these beliefs in great numbers. Recall the Christians being feed to the lions. Their great faith has sparked faith in others.




Cityboy said:


> I am not looking for ANY religion. I'm seeking the truth, and I suggest you do the same.


Let me ask you this ... do you believe in a supreme being? And if so, what do you base that belief on?


----------



## Sir Knight

pirate_girl said:


> I'm Catholic..but I don't think Jesus is the only way to salvation.


 So you are saying that Jesus is a liar for He clearly said in John 14:6 ... _"No one comes to the Father except through me."_

If Christ is a liar, how can you trust anything else that He taught or promised? If Jesus lied about one thing, He could have lied about other things and there is no way for us to know what those other lies might be. Every teaching, every promise COULD be a lie. This impacts not only Catholics but all Christians.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> Yes, I know. I know because eye witnesses observed these events and were so convinced by them that they were willing to die for these beliefs in great numbers. Recall the Christians being feed to the lions. Their great faith has sparked faith in others.


 
You can say you KNOW all you want, but the fact is you DO NOT KNOW. 




Sir Knight said:


> Let me ask you this ... do you believe in a supreme being? And if so, what do you base that belief on?


 
I believe in an "Infinite Intelligence" and I am not so arrogant as to state that I KNOW anything for a fact. The Earth and it's ecological order could not have been set into motion by a "Big Bang" any more than an explosion at a library resulted in Websters Dictionary. Or did it?  

Who knows? But I do know that most of the worlds problems comes from poor thinking and the failure of people to manage their thoughts. Every action is preceeded by a thought, and if your thoughts are such that you believe your beliefs to be right, and everyone elses are wrong, then you have a problem. Then, it is only a matter of time until you spread your problem to the rest of the world like the Muslims are trying to do with Islam, and that Christianity attempted to do before that, and that many secular dictators are still trying to do, AND, some Christians today would like to do. 

Challenge and question your own beliefs; it's only a sin to do so in your own mind, of your own creation by your own thoughts.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> You can say you KNOW all you want, but the fact is you DO NOT KNOW.


And how do you KNOW what I "know" or don't "know"? Just because one person don't KNOW something, doesn't mean that somebody else can not KNOW it.





Cityboy said:


> I believe in an "Infinite Intelligence" and I am not so arrogant as to state that I KNOW anything for a fact. The Earth and it's ecological order could not have been set into motion by a "Big Bang" any more than an explosion at a library resulted in Websters Dictionary. Or did it?
> 
> Who knows? But I do know that most of the worlds problems comes from poor thinking and the failure of people to manage their thoughts. Every action is preceeded by a thought, and if your thoughts are such that you believe your beliefs to be right, and everyone elses are wrong, then you have a problem.


If my beliefs are correct, then all other beliefs that do not agree with those beliefs HAVE TO BE wrong. If you believe that the color of something is blue, you can not accept the the beliefs of somebody who says that it is red. If you do, then you have no faith in your own belief that it is blue.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> And how do you KNOW what I "know" or don't "know"? Just because one person don't KNOW something, doesn't mean that somebody else can not KNOW it..


 
How do YOU know?





Sir Knight said:


> If my beliefs are correct, then all other beliefs that do not agree with those beliefs HAVE TO BE wrong.


 
Here we go again.  Circular logic.  

Sir Knight, look me up in the afterlife and we'll discuss it further then, when we both KNOW.


----------



## pirate_girl

Sir Knight said:


> So you are saying that Jesus is a liar for He clearly said in John 14:6 ... _"No one comes to the Father except through me."_
> 
> If Christ is a liar, how can you trust anything else that He taught or promised? If Jesus lied about one thing, He could have lied about other things and there is no way for us to know what those other lies might be. Every teaching, every promise COULD be a lie. This impacts not only Catholics but all Christians.


 
Of course I wouldn't say Jesus is lying when he says no one comes to the Father except through Him.
Then again, how do we know actually that Christ really uttered those words? How do we know there wasn't a spin put on what He said by the authors of the Good Book?
How do we believe anything?
It's called FAITH.
Believing in that which we have no concrete proof of.
Just because some of us call ourselves Christian, doesn't mean we should be so snobbish as to say that those who adhere to other religions don't have a shot at eternity with the Father.
There are many paths that lead there.
I know my chosen path and know I'll see many up there from all walks of life, of all races and creed.
Christ is the answer for Christians.
Doesn't mean everyone else who loves the Father will be turned away.
That would mean that a God who we believe loves us unconditionally, actually puts conditions on that love.
He doesn't.
Not in my mind anyway.
Pax


----------



## dzalphakilo

pirate_girl said:


> Of course I wouldn't say Jesus is lying when he says no one comes to the Father except through Him.
> Then again, how do we know actually that Christ really uttered those words? How do we know there wasn't a spin put on what He said by the authors of the Good Book?
> How do we believe anything?
> It's called FAITH.
> Believing in that which we have no concrete proof of.
> Just because some of us call ourselves Christian, doesn't mean we should be so snobbish as to say that those who adhere to other religions don't have a shot at eternity with the Father.
> There are many paths that lead there.
> I know my chosen path and know I'll see many up there from all walks of life, of all races and creed.
> Christ is the answer for Christians.
> Doesn't mean everyone else who loves the Father will be turned away.
> That would mean that a God who we believe loves us unconditionally, actually puts conditions on that love.
> He doesn't.
> Not in my mind anyway.
> Pax


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> How do YOU know?


By the same means that you claim to know.







Cityboy said:


> Here we go again.  Circular logic.


It isn't circular logic. If you believe your beliefs to be true, you can not accept another belief as as true. Otherwise, you have no faith in your belief. As I said before, if you believe that the color of something is blue, you can not accept the the beliefs of somebody who says that it is red. If you do, then you have no faith in your own belief that it is blue.


----------



## thcri RIP

dzalphakilo said:


>



If one does not believe in the Bible, then how can you believe in the Holy Trinity, Heaven or Hell?  You can not believe in one without the others.

All scripture is inspired by God.  You can not believe in one with the other as all are within the same book.


murph


----------



## Sir Knight

pirate_girl said:


> Of course I wouldn't say Jesus is lying when he says no one comes to the Father except through Him.
> Then again, how do we know actually that Christ really uttered those words? How do we know there wasn't a spin put on what He said by the authors of the Good Book?


If you take that belief, then how do you know that other things in the Good Book isn't a spin on what He said. Any belief that you hold MIGHT be a spin on what was really said.




pirate_girl said:


> How do we believe anything?
> It's called FAITH.
> Believing in that which we have no concrete proof of.
> Just because some of us call ourselves Christian, doesn't mean we should be so snobbish as to say that those who adhere to other religions don't have a shot at eternity with the Father.
> There are many paths that lead there.


Again, that disagrees with what is written in the Bible -- only one road lead to heaven and FEW find it.




pirate_girl said:


> I know my chosen path and know I'll see many up there from all walks of life, of all races and creed.
> Christ is the answer for Christians.
> Doesn't mean everyone else who loves the Father will be turned away.
> That would mean that a God who we believe loves us unconditionally, actually puts conditions on that love.
> He doesn't.
> Not in my mind anyway.
> Pax


And that is your OPINION which you are entitled to. Do you have biblical references to support that opinion? Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so.


----------



## Sir Knight

thcri said:


> If one does not believe in the Bible, then how can you believe in the Holy Trinity, Heaven or Hell?  You can not believe in one without the others.
> 
> All scripture is inspired by God.  You can not believe in one with the other as all are within the same book.
> 
> 
> murph


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> By the same means that you claim to know.


 
I never said I knew. If you would take a breath and stop blindly defending Catholicism and read the posts, you could see that.




Sir Knight said:


> If you believe your beliefs to be true, you can not accept another belief as as true.


 
People used to believe the Earth was flat. They were wrong. Your religion was formed when people believed the Earth was flat. Following your own circle of logic, one could conclude that you are wrong too. 

The Greek Orthodox church might argue that they are the foundation of the "True" church. Can you prove otherwise?

Historians would argue that the Apostolic church was the first Christian church. Can you prove otherwise?

Still others would say that the since the Catholic church claims "unique legitimacy" that they then must be the true church. That's what you believe, but cannot prove.

The Protestant Reformation took place because many Christians were troubled by what they saw as false doctrines and malpractices within the Church, particularly involving the teaching and sale of indulgences. Another major contention was the practice of buying and selling church positions and the tremendous corruption found at the time within the Church's hierarchy. This is well documented history, so the Protestants believe they are the True church. Can you prove otherwise?

Then you have the Muslims who became "enlightened" in the 7th century, and then the Mormans who appeared on the scene in the 19th century.

But what about Buhddism, dating back to 566 BC?

And then there is the discovery by archeologists of the Neolithic Era religions. More history that leaves us with more questions than answers.

All of these groups have or had what they believe to be a very convincing argument that theirs is the "Truth". 

The fact is you only know what you have been told by so-called church "elders" which has been passed down through the centuries. There is a very strong possibility that something got lost in the translation along the way. Can you prove otherwise?

You can quote scripture day and night, from now until you die, but the fact is, you are just passing along a story told by other human beings and you have CHOSEN to accept it.

That, Sir Knight, does not make it true, no matter how much you believe.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> I never said I knew. If you would take a breath and stop blindly defending Catholicism and read the posts, you could see that.


I'm not only defending the Catholic Church but Christianity because the comments that have been made apply to all of Christianity. 




Cityboy said:


> People used to believe the Earth was flat. They were wrong. Your religion was formed when people believed the Earth was flat. Following your own circle of logic, one could conclude that you are wrong too.


Believing that the earth was flat had NOTHING to do with Christianity. Slavery was legal when the US Constitution was written. Because slavery was outlawed, should the same thing be done to the Constitution? According to your "logic", it should. 




Cityboy said:


> The Greek Orthodox church might argue that they are the foundation of the "True" church. Can you prove otherwise?


Yes I can.




Cityboy said:


> Historians would argue that the Apostolic church was the first Christian church. Can you prove otherwise?


Yes I can.





Cityboy said:


> Still others would say that the since the Catholic church claims "unique legitimacy" that they then must be the true church. That's what you believe, but cannot prove.


Sure it can.





Cityboy said:


> The Protestant Reformation took place because many Christians were troubled by what they saw as false doctrines and malpractices within the Church, particularly involving the teaching and sale of indulgences. Another major contention was the practice of buying and selling church positions and the tremendous corruption found at the time within the Church's hierarchy. This is well documented history, so the Protestants believe they are the True church. Can you prove otherwise?


Yes, I can.




Cityboy said:


> Then you have the Muslims who became "enlightened" in the 7th century, and then the Mormans who appeared on the scene in the 19th century.


I can disprove the Mormons. I can not address the Muslims -- as I said earlier ... not enough common area of agreement to have a disagreement.




Cityboy said:


> But what about Buhddism, dating back to 566 BC?


Again, not enough common area of agreement to have a disagreement.




Cityboy said:


> And then there is the discovery by archeologists of the Neolithic Era religions. More history that leaves us with more questions than answers.
> 
> All of these groups have or had what they believe to be a very convincing argument that theirs is the "Truth".
> 
> The fact is you only know what you have been told by so-called church "elders" which has been passed down through the centuries. There is a very strong possibility that something got lost in the translation along the way. Can you prove otherwise?


As I said earlier, I can defend the Catholic faith WITHIN Christianity -- not against other religions outside of Christianity ... I am NOT qualified to do that. There are others who might be able to but I am not one of them. Never claimed to be.




Cityboy said:


> You can quote scripture day and night, from now until you die, but the fact is, you are just passing along a story told by other human beings and you have CHOSEN to accept it.


And _against folks who accept those scriptures as true_, I *can* prove that I am correct.




Cityboy said:


> That, Sir Knight, does not make it true, no matter how much you believe.


And it doesn't make it false either because you disbelieve it.


----------



## dzalphakilo

thcri said:


> If one does not believe in the Bible, then how can you believe in the Holy Trinity, Heaven or Hell? You can not believe in one without the others.
> 
> All scripture is inspired by God. You can not believe in one with the other as all are within the same book.
> 
> 
> murph


 
What about those people in the past that had never heard about the Bible or Jesus Christ?

Were they doomed to hell because of their ignorance due to never knowing the Bible existed?

Ever read history on how some Christains converted people?  VERY Jesus like


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> What about those people in the past that had never heard about the Bible or Jesus Christ?
> 
> Were they doomed to hell because of their ignorance due to never knowing the Bible existed?


According to Catholic teaching those who, through no fault of their own, were ignorant of Jesus and his teachings, if they were good people showing generosity and fellowship toward others can be saved.  This would include those born before Jesus, or those who, through lack of ministry were exposed to the word of Christ.



dzalphakilo said:


> Ever read history on how some Christains converted people?  VERY Jesus like


There is no question that the church is a perfect institution run by imperfect men.  There are many abuses that have occurred within the Catholic church, and also in the name of Christianity inside and outside of the Catholic faith.  Abuses by men do not eliminate the truth of God.


----------



## pirate_girl

Sir Knight said:


> If you take that belief, then how do you know that other things in the Good Book isn't a spin on what He said. Any belief that you hold MIGHT be a spin on what was really said.
> 
> 
> Again, that disagrees with what is written in the Bible -- only one road lead to heaven and FEW find it.
> 
> 
> And that is your OPINION which you are entitled to. Do you have biblical references to support that opinion? Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so.


 
I am a Catholic remember?.. we don't KNOW the Bible inside and out. 
We're spoon fed Old/New Testament readings and a Gospel reading during the celebration of the Mass.
Hopefully after the end of a "church year", we've been sufficiently fed enough of the teachings that we stand hope to enter Heaven should we drop dead in our boots.
(Sorry, I am being a smarty pants)

No, I don't know if other things said by Christ don't have an added spin.
The entire Bible could be nothing more than an account of half truths, or someone else's interpretation.
There are those who say it is chock full of contradiction between the Old and New Testaments.

If only one road leads to Heaven and few find it, that's a pretty broad statement on the part of the author of said statement wouldn't you agree?
How many is "few?"
It's said that God speaks in His terms and not ours.
Few is a relative term compared to what is actually meant.

All I know is, I believe in ONE GOD who is actually 3 persons.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I believe Mary is my heavenly Mother.
I know the angels and saints watch over me.
I believe my friends who have religious beliefs other than mine have the same chance, love the same God as I do.
They are; Jewish, Christian Scientist, Baptist.
We have deep discussions, but we always agree that there is ONE road.
That road will eventually lead to eternal love if we but believe and put others before ourselves and serve something other than our own selfishness.

I really like debating this Sir Knight.. but man.. you are making me wear myself out!


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> Yes I can.
> 
> 
> Yes I can.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it can.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I *can* prove that I am correct.
> 
> 
> And it doesn't make it false either because you disbelieve it.


 
We are all waiting for your proof with pregnant anticipation.  

And to think that you are going through all this defense and you could still wind up going to Hell. >>>>>Sir Knight <<<<<<<Sir Knights god. Bummer!


----------



## Melensdad

pirate_girl said:


> I am a Catholic remember?.. we don't KNOW the Bible inside and out.
> . . .
> The entire Bible could be nothing more than an account of half truths, or someone else's interpretation.
> There are those who say it is chock full of contradiction between the Old and New Testaments.


As Catholics we are taught to not take the Bible literal fact, but as stories.  We are also taught that it was written with divine revelation, where the words of God were transcribed by man.



pirate_girl said:


> If only one road leads to Heaven and few find it, that's a pretty broad statement on the part of the author of said statement wouldn't you agree?
> How many is "few?"


We are free to choose the path that leads us to Christ or to follow another path.  One of the beauties of faith is that it is not forced upon us and we have free will.  Consider just the people in your city, how many do you know actually love Christ and live a life that is filled with charity and goodness and acts of kindness?  I'd wager that relatively "few" would qualify.  But the path is open to everyone.



pirate_girl said:


> All I know is, I believe in ONE GOD who is actually 3 persons.
> Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
> I believe Mary is my heavenly Mother.
> I know the angels and saints watch over me.
> I believe my friends who have religious beliefs other than mine have the same chance, love the same God as I do.
> They are; Jewish, Christian Scientist, Baptist.
> We have deep discussions, but we always agree that there is ONE road.
> That road will eventually lead to eternal love if we but believe and put others before ourselves and serve something other than our own selfishness.


And for the most part, the Catholic Church teachings support that, with some qualifications.  For example, the Catholic Church accepts as 'baptized' those people who were baptized under another Christian faith, but few other Christian churches accept as 'baptized' people from outside their own denomination.  It one of many examples that show that the Catholics are, in fact, a universal Church and open to all who choose it.



pirate_girl said:


> I really like debating this Sir Knight.. but man.. you are making me wear myself out!


I like his points too.  He makes me reread a lot of things because his biblical knowledge far surpasses mine.  I don't know the scriptures very well but I try to know the themes and overall contents concepts.  Still, he brings up points that I knew could have done.


----------



## thcri RIP

pirate_girl said:


> I am a Catholic remember?.. we don't KNOW the Bible inside and out.
> 
> 
> There are those who say it is chock full of contradiction between the Old and New Testaments.
> 
> All I know is, I believe in ONE GOD who is actually 3 persons.
> Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
> * I believe Mary is my heavenly Mother.*




Explain then the Commandment,  "Though Shall Not Have Any Strange Gods Before Me"

There is a lot of people in this world, that believe worshiping Mary is wrong.


----------



## thcri RIP

B_Skurka said:


> As Catholics we are taught to not take the Bible literal fact, but as stories.  We are also taught that it was written with divine revelation, where the words of God were transcribed by man.




I grew up in a Catholic Home.  We had a large Bible but we were not allowed to read it.  It sat on the bookshelf hidden with all the other books.  Mom would not allow us to look at it because only a high priest could read it.  I asked mom why do we have it then.  She told me she didn't know why other than there is to be one in every house. I believe all words in the bible are inspired by God.  I was also an Alter Boy.  The bible on the alter was not to be looked at by us.  Only the priests could open and close it??

I just never could understand why as Catholic we were not suppose to look in the Bible?


----------



## Melensdad

thcri said:


> Explain then the Commandment,  "Though Shall Not Have Any Strange Gods Before Me"
> 
> There is a lot of people in this world, that believe *worshiping Mary is wrong*.


Catholics venerate Mary as the Mother of God made man; they do *not* worship her but do show a devotion to her.  Prayers about/to Mary ask for her to pray to God on our behalf, not for her to do miracles for us.  She is not considered God, or even a God.  This is a huge misunderstanding that many of the Protestants have about the Catholic Church.  Do you not show devotion to your own mother?  Did your father not show devotion to his mother?  There is a big difference between devotion to and worship of someone.

Devotion to Our Blessed Lady in its ultimate analysis must be regarded as a practical application of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Seeing that this doctrine is not contained, at least explicitly in the earlier forms of the Apostles' Creed, there is perhaps no ground for surprise if we do not meet with any clear traces of the cultus of the Blessed Virgin in the first Christian centuries. The earliest unmistakable examples of the "worship" -- we use the word of course in the relative sense -- of the saints is connected with the veneration paid to the martyrs who gave their lives for the Faith. From the first century onwards, martyrdom was regarded as the surest sign of election. The martyrs, it was held, passed immediately into the presence of God. Over their tombs the Holy Sacrifice was offered _(a practice which may possibly be alluded to in Revelation 6:9)_ while in the contemporary narrative of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp (c. 151) we have already mention of the "birthday", i.e. the annual commemoration, which the Christians might be expected to keep in his honour. This attitude of mind becomes still more explicit in Tertullian and St. Cyprian, and the stress laid upon the "satisfactory" character of the sufferings of the martyrs, emphasizing the view that by their death they could obtain graces and blessings for others, naturally and immediately led to their direct invocation.

A further reinforcement, of the same idea, was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking, and while on the one hand the faith of Christians no doubt took shape from above downwards_ (i.e. the Apostles and teachers of the Church delivered a message which the laity accepted from them)_ still indications are not lacking that in matters of sentiment and devotion the reverse process sometimes obtained. Hence, it is not impossible that the practice of invoking the aid of the Mother of Christ had become more familiar to the more simple faithful some time before we discover any plain expression of it in the writings of the Fathers. Some such hypothesis would help to explain the fact that the evidence afforded by the catatcombs and by the apocryphal literature of the early centuries seems chronologically in advance of that which is preserved in the contemporaneous writings of those who were the authoritative mouthpieces of Christian tradition.

Be this however as it may, the firm theological basis, upon which was afterwards reared the edifice of Marian devotion, began to be laid in the first century of our era. It is not without significance that we are told of the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ, that "all these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren" (Acts 1:14). Also attention has rightly been called to the fact that St. Mark, though he tells us nothing of our Christ's childhood, nevertheless describes Him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), a circumstance which, in view of certain known peculiarities of the Second Evangelist, greatly emphasises his belief in the Virgin Birth.


----------



## Melensdad

thcri said:


> I grew up in a Catholic Home.  We had a large Bible but we were not allowed to read it.


Why?  


thcri said:


> It sat on the bookshelf hidden with all the other books.  Mom would not allow us to look at it because only a high priest could read it.


Clearly your mom was very wrong and misunderstood. 





thcri said:


> I asked mom why do we have it then.  She told me she didn't know why other than there is to be one in every house.


 I'm guessing that your mom didn't know the Catholic Church teachings very well.  She may have been devoted to what she believed to be the Church, as many are, but I suspect that she was following some blind belief because she did not give you correct answers. 





thcri said:


> I believe all words in the bible are inspired by God.


Good, you should and are in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church on this issue. 





thcri said:


> I was also an Alter Boy.  The bible on the alter was not to be looked at by us.  Only the priests could open and close it??


That is ceremony and tradition of the mass.  That is, however, simply a Bible just like you and I have in our homes _(actually it is more complete than the edited Protestant Bible you may have, as Catholic Bibles contain several more 'books' than the Protestant bibles)._  But it is just a fancy Bible.  Within the celebration of the mass we follow traditions.  My daughter is also an Alter Server _(they don't call them Alter Girls or Alter Boys anymore because it is not PC)_ and she is also not allowed to mess with the Bible on the alter.  



thcri said:


> I just never could understand why as Catholic we were not suppose to look in the Bible?


You and I are roughly of the same generation.  I was never taught that.  In fact I was taught the opposite.  Unfortunately I did not read the bible in my youth any more than I was made to read it.  I regret that now.  Seems now, at least in the 2 Catholic parishes where I frequent, quite the opposite is true and Bible reading is encouraged. Sadly very few do. I also know of a couple Catholic broadcasts where they do daily bible readings that you can follow along in your own Bible.

My daughter is in Catholic school_ (actually the 2nd Catholic school she has attended)_ and has NEVER been taught not to read the bible.

Also, just a couple weeks ago, during our Sunday mass, our priest handed out Bibles to the entire 7th grade class and encouraged them to read the Bibles. There is absolutely NO basis for understanding that Catholics should not read the bible.  There is a lot of misunderstanding and there are many lazy Catholics.


----------



## pirate_girl

Thank you B for saying all that ^ lol
You saved me some typing.
We too had Bibles in the house when I was a kid.
We didn't read them much, but we did open them and didn't feel like it was something not allowed- that only a priest could do.
As for Marian devotion, that's just it.
It's a DEVOTION, not worship.
What did Jesus say to John and his Mother as he was hanging on the cross?
"Woman this is your Son,Son this is your Mother"
yes.. yes..yes.. I know even that is subject to translation. lol


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> We are all waiting for your proof with pregnant anticipation.


I'm not a speed typist (_I use the hunt & peck method_) and my online time is limited (_for example, after today, while not definite, chances are that I will not get on here again until early next week_) so I will give them to you as time permits. Which one do you want first?




Cityboy said:


> And to think that you are going through all this defense and you could still wind up going to Hell. >>>>>Sir Knight <<<<<<<Sir Knights god. Bummer!


This is true. According to Ezekiel 3:20, it all depends on the state that our soul is in at the time of death ...

_If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sin, and his virtuous deeds shall not be remembered_​
... Look at the Apostle Judas -- he spent almost every waking moment of the final three years of his life with the Jesus who loved him with a Godly love and all of that was for naught because in the final hours, he stumbled and lost his chance for salvation.

Think about it, if he would have just went to our Lord as Jesus was dying on the cross and asked for forgiveness, today we would have had great churches built to honor St. Judas the Repentant.


----------



## Sir Knight

pirate_girl said:


> I am a Catholic remember?..



So am I 







pirate_girl said:


> we don't KNOW the Bible inside and out.



Neither do I but give me a copy of the bible and about half an hour and I can pretty much find and verse that I want. Sometimes it takes several passages to make a point, so it might take me a few hours to find all of the scripture that I need.







pirate_girl said:


> We're spoon fed Old/New Testament readings and a Gospel reading during the celebration of the Mass.
> Hopefully after the end of a "church year", we've been sufficiently fed enough of the teachings that we stand hope to enter Heaven should we drop dead in our boots.
> (Sorry, I am being a smarty pants)
> 
> No, I don't know if other things said by Christ don't have an added spin.
> The entire Bible could be nothing more than an account of half truths, or someone else's interpretation.



If that is true, then according to St. Paul, we are the most pitiful of creatures (_wanna take a crack at finding that passage for me in the bible _).







pirate_girl said:


> There are those who say it is chock full of contradiction between the Old and New Testaments.
> 
> If only one road leads to Heaven and few find it, that's a pretty broad statement on the part of the author of said statement wouldn't you agree?
> How many is "few?"
> It's said that God speaks in His terms and not ours.
> Few is a relative term compared to what is actually meant.



Maybe this sermon by St. Leonard of Port Maurice will help explain what is meant by "few" ... 





> Saint Leonard of Port Maurice was a most holy Franciscan friar who lived at the monastery of Saint Bonaventure in Rome. He was one of the greatest missioners in the history of the Church. He used to preach to thousands in the open square of every city and town where the churches could not hold his listeners. So brilliant and holy was his eloquence that once when he gave a two weeks' mission in Rome, the Pope and College of Cardinals came to hear him.
> 
> The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the veneration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus were his crusades. He was in no small way responsible for the definition of the Immaculate Conception made a little more than a hundred years after his death. He also gave us the Divine Praises, which are said at the end of Benediction. But Saint Leonard's most famous work was his devotion to the Stations of the Cross. He died a most holy death in his seventy-fifth year, after twenty-four years of uninterrupted preaching.
> 
> One of Saint Leonard of Port Maurice's most famous sermons was "The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved." It was the one he relied on for the conversion of great sinners. This sermon, like his other writings, was submitted to canonical examination during the process of canonization. In it he reviews the various states of life of Christians and concludes with the little number of those who are saved, in relation to the totality of men.
> 
> The reader who meditates on this remarkable text will grasp the soundness of its argumentation, which has earned it the approbation of the Church. Here is the great missionary's vibrant and moving sermon.
> 
> Introduction
> 
> Thanks be to God, the number of the Redeemer's disciples is not so small that the wickedness of the Scribes and Pharisees is able to triumph over them. Although they strove to calumniate innocence and to deceive the crowd with their treacherous sophistries by discrediting the doctrine and character of Our Lord, finding spots even in the sun, many still recognized Him as the true Messiah, and, unafraid of either chastisements or threats, openly joined His cause. Did all those who followed Christ follow Him even unto glory?
> 
> Oh, this is where I revere the profound mystery and silently adore the abysses of the divine decrees, rather than rashly deciding on such a great point! The subject I will be treating today is a very grave one; it has caused even the pillars of the Church to tremble, filled the greatest Saints with terror and populated the deserts with anchorites. The point of this instruction is to decide whether the number of Christians who are saved is greater or less than the number of Christians who are damned; it will, I hope, produce in you a salutary fear of the judgments of God.
> 
> Brothers, because of the love I have for you, I wish I were able to reassure you with the prospect of eternal happiness by saying to each of you: You are certain to go to paradise; the greater number of Christians is saved, so you also will be saved. But how can I give you this sweet assurance if you revolt against God's decrees as though you were your own worst enemies? I observe in God a sincere desire to save you, but I find in you a decided inclination to be damned. So what will I be doing today if I speak clearly? I will be displeasing to you. But if I do not speak, I will be displeasing to God.
> 
> Therefore, I will divide this subject into two points. In the first one, to fill you with dread, I will let the theologians and Fathers of the Church decide on the matter and declare that the greater number of Christian adults are damned; and, in silent adoration of that terrible mystery, I will keep my own sentiments to myself. In the second point I will attempt to defend the goodness of God versus the godless, by proving to you that those who are damned are damned by their own malice, because they wanted to be damned. So then, here are two very important truths. If the first truth frightens you, do not hold it against me, as though I wanted to make the road of heaven narrower for you, for I want to be neutral in this matter; rather, hold it against the theologians and Fathers of the Church who will engrave this truth in your heart by the force of reason. If you are disillusioned by the second truth, give thanks to God over it, for He wants only one thing: that you give your hearts totally to Him. Finally, if you oblige me to tell you clearly what I think, I will do so for your consolation.
> 
> The Teaching of the Fathers of the Church
> 
> It is not vain curiosity but salutary precaution to proclaim from the height of the pulpit certain truths which serve wonderfully to contain the indolence of libertines, who are always talking about the mercy of God and about how easy it is to convert, who live plunged in all sorts of sins and are soundly sleeping on the road to hell. To disillusion them and waken them from their torpor, today let us examine this great question: Is the number of Christians who are saved greater than the number of Christians who are damned?
> 
> Pious souls, you may leave; this sermon is not for you. Its sole purpose is to contain the pride of libertines who cast the holy fear of God out of their heart and join forces with the devil who, according to the sentiment of Eusebius, damns souls by reassuring them. To resolve this doubt, let us put the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, on one side; on the other, the most learned theologians and erudite historians; and let us put the Bible in the middle for all to see. Now listen not to what I will say to you – for I have already told you that I do not want to speak for myself or decide on the matter – but listen to what these great minds have to tell you, they who are beacons in the Church of God to give light to others so that they will not miss the road to heaven. In this manner, guided by the triple light of faith, authority and reason, we will be able to resolve this grave matter with certainty.
> 
> Note well that there is no question here of the human race taken as a whole, nor of all Catholics taken without distinction, but only of Catholic adults, who have free choice and are thus capable of cooperating in the great matter of their salvation. First let us consult the theologians recognized as examining things most carefully and as not exaggerating in their teaching: let us listen to two learned cardinals, Cajetan and Bellarmine. They teach that the greater number of Christian adults are damned, and if I had the time to point out the reasons upon which they base themselves, you would be convinced of it yourselves. But I will limit myself here to quoting Suarez. After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he wrote, "The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians, there are more damned souls than predestined souls."
> 
> Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, and Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone. Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned." The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence."
> 
> The Words of Holy Scripture
> 
> But why seek out the opinions of the Fathers and theologians, when Holy Scripture settles the question so clearly? Look in to the Old and New Testaments, and you will find a multitude of figures, symbols and words that clearly point out this truth: very few are saved. In the time of Noah, the entire human race was submerged by the Deluge, and only eight people were saved in the Ark. Saint Peter says, "This ark was the figure of the Church," while Saint Augustine adds, "And these eight people who were saved signify that very few Christians are saved, because there are very few who sincerely renounce the world, and those who renounce it only in words do not belong to the mystery represented by that ark." The Bible also tells us that only two Hebrews out of two million entered the Promised Land after going out of Egypt, and that only four escaped the fire of Sodom and the other burning cities that perished with it. All of this means that the number of the damned who will be cast into fire like straw is far greater than that of the saved, whom the heavenly Father will one day gather into His barns like precious wheat.
> 
> I would not finish if I had to point out all the figures by which Holy Scripture confirms this truth; let us content ourselves with listening to the living oracle of Incarnate Wisdom. What did Our Lord answer the curious man in the Gospel who asked Him, "Lord, is it only a few to be saved?" Did He keep silence? Did He answer haltingly? Did He conceal His thought for fear of frightening the crowd? No. Questioned by only one, He addresses all of those present. He says to them: "You ask Me if there are only few who are saved?" Here is My answer: "Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able." Who is speaking here? It is the Son of God, Eternal Truth, who on another occasion says even more clearly, "Many are called, but few are chosen." He does not say that all are called and that out of all men, few are chosen, but that many are called; which means, as Saint Gregory explains, that out of all men, many are called to the True Faith, but out of them few are saved. Brothers, these are the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Are they clear? They are true. Tell me now if it is possible for you to have faith in your heart and not tremble.
> 
> Salvation in the Various States of Life
> 
> But oh, I see that by speaking in this manner of all in general, I am missing my point. So let us apply this truth to various states, and you will understand that you must either throw away reason, experience and the common sense of the faithful, or confess that the greater number of Catholics is damned. Is there any state in the world more favorable to innocence in which salvation seems easier and of which people have a higher idea than that of priests, the lieutenants of God? At first glance, who would not think that most of them are not only good but even perfect; yet I am horror-struck when I hear Saint Jerome declaring that although the world is full of priests, barely one in a hundred is living in a manner in conformity with state; when I hear a servant of God attesting that he has learned by revelation that the number of priests who fall into hell each day is so great that it seemed impossible to him that there be any left on earth; when I hear Saint Chrysostom exclaiming with tears in his eyes, "I do not believe that many priests are saved; I believe the contrary, that the number of those who are damned is greater."
> 
> Look higher still, and see the prelates of the Holy Church, pastors who have the charge of souls. Is the number of those who are saved among them greater than the number of those who are damned? Listen to Cantimpre; he will relate an event to you, and you may draw the conclusions. There was a synod being held in Paris, and a great number of prelates and pastors who had the charge of souls were in attendance; the king and princes also came to add luster to that assembly by their presence. A famous preacher was invited to preach. While he was preparing his sermon, a horrible demon appeared to him and said, "Lay your books aside. If you want to give a sermon that will be useful to these princes and prelates, content yourself with telling them on our part, 'We the princes of darkness thank you, princes, prelates, and pastors of souls, that due to your negligence, the greater number of the faithful are damned; also, we are saving a reward for you for this favor, when you shall be with us in Hell.'"
> 
> Woe to you who command others! If so many are damned by your fault, what will happen to you? If few out of those who are first in the Church of God are saved, what will happen to you? Take all states, both sexes, every condition: husbands, wives, widows, young women, young men, soldiers, merchants, craftsmen, rich and poor, noble and plebian. What are we to say about all these people who are living so badly? The following narrative from Saint Vincent Ferrer will show you what you may think about it. He relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, "Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell."
> 
> Our chronicles relate an even more dreadful happening. One of our brothers, well-known for his doctrine and holiness, was preaching in Germany. He represented the ugliness of the sin of impurity so forceful that a woman fell dead of sorrow in front of everyone. Then, coming back to life, she said, "When I was presented before the Tribunal of God, sixty thousand people arrived at the same time from all parts of the world; out of that number, three were saved by going to Purgatory, and all the rest were damned."
> 
> O abyss of the judgments of God! Out of thirty thousand, only five were saved! And out of sixty thousand, only three went to heaven! You sinners who are listening to me, in what category will you be numbered?... What do you say?... What do you think?...
> 
> I see almost all of you lowering your heads, filled with astonishment and horror. But let us lay our stupor aside, and instead of flattering ourselves, let us try to draw some profit from our fear. Is it not true that there are two roads which lead to heaven: innocence and repentance? Now, if I show you that very few take either one of these two roads, as rational people you will conclude that very few are saved. And to mention proofs: in what age, employment or condition will you find that the number of the wicked is not a hundred times greater than that of the good, and about which one might say, "The good are so rare and the wicked are so great in number"? We could say of our times what Salvianus said of his: it is easier to find a countless multitude of sinners immersed in all sorts of iniquities than a few innocent men.
> 
> How many servants are totally honest and faithful in their duties? How many merchants are fair and equitable in their commerce; how many craftsmen exact and truthful; how many salesmen disinterested and sincere? How many men of law do not forsake equity? How many soldiers do not tread upon innocence; how many masters do not unjustly withhold the salary of those who serve them, or do not seek to dominate their inferiors?
> 
> Everywhere, the good are rare and the wicked great in number. Who does not know that today there is so much libertinage among mature men, liberty among young girls, vanity among women, licentiousness in the nobility, corruption in the middle class, dissolution in the people, impudence among the poor, that one could say what David said of his times: "All alike have gone astray... there is not even one who does good, not even one."
> 
> Go into street and square, into palace and house, into city and countryside, into tribunal and court of law, and even into the temple of God. Where will you find virtue? "Alas!" cries Salvianus, "except for a very little number who flee evil, what is the assembly of Christians if not a sink of vice?" All that we can find everywhere is selfishness, ambition, gluttony, and luxury. Is not the greater portion of men defiled by the vice of impurity, and is not Saint John right in saying, "The whole world – if something so foul may be called – "is seated in wickedness?" I am not the one who is telling you; reason obliges you to believe that out of those who are living so badly, very few are saved.
> 
> But you will say: Can penance not profitably repair the loss of innocence? That is true, I admit. But I also know that penance is so difficult in practice, we have lost the habit so completely, and it is so badly abused by sinners, that this alone should suffice to convince you that very few are saved by that path. Oh, how steep, narrow, thorny, horrible to behold and hard to climb it is! Everywhere we look, we see traces of blood and things that recall sad memories. Many weaken at the very sight of it. Many retreat at the very start. Many fall from weariness in the middle, and many give up wretchedly at the end. And how few are they who persevere in it till death! Saint Ambrose says it is easier to find men who have kept their innocence than to find any who have done fitting penance.
> 
> If you consider the sacrament of penance, there are so many distorted confessions, so many studied excuses, so many deceitful repentances, so many false promises, so many ineffective resolutions, so many invalid absolutions! Would you regard as valid the confession of someone who accuses himself of sins of impurity and still holds to the occasion of them, or someone who accuses himself of obvious injustices with no intention of making any reparation whatsoever for them? Or someone who falls again into the same iniquities right after going to confession? Oh, horrible abuses of such a great sacrament! One confesses to avoid excommunication, another to make a reputation as a penitent. One rids himself of his sins to calm his remorse, another conceals them out of shame. One accuses them imperfectly out of malice, another discloses them out of habit. One does not have the true end of the sacrament in mind, another is lacking the necessary sorrow, and still another firm purpose.
> 
> Poor confessors, what efforts you make to bring the greater number of penitents to these resolutions and acts, without which confession is a sacrilege, absolution a condemnation and penance an illusion?
> 
> Where are they now, those who believe that the number of the saved among Christians is greater than that of the damned and who, to authorize their opinion, reason thus: the greater portion of Catholic adults die in their beds armed with the sacraments of the Church, therefore most adult Catholics are saved? Oh, what fine reasoning! You must say exactly the opposite. Most Catholic adults confess badly at death, therefore most of them are damned. I say "all the more certain," because a dying person who has not confessed well when he was in good health will have an even harder time doing so when he is in bed with a heavy heart, an unsteady head, a muddled mind; when he is opposed in many ways by still-living objects, by still-fresh occasions, by adopted habits, and above all by devils who are seeking every means to cast him into hell.
> 
> Now, if you add to all these false penitents all the other sinners who die unexpectedly in sin, due to the doctors' ignorance or by their relatives' fault, who die from poisoning or from being buried in earthquakes, or from a stroke, or from a fall, or on the battlefield, in a fight, caught in a trap, struck by lightning, burned or drowned, are you not obliged to conclude that most Christian adults are damned? That is the reasoning of Saint Chrysostom. This Saint says that most Christians are walking on the road to hell throughout their life. Why, then, are you so surprised that the greater number goes to hell? To come to a door, you must take the road that leads there. What have you to answer such a powerful reason?
> 
> The answer, you will tell me, is that the mercy of God is great. Yes, for those who fear Him, says the Prophet; but great is His justice for the one who does not fear Him, and it condemns all obstinate sinners.
> 
> So you will say to me: Well then, who is Paradise for, if not for Christians? It is for Christians, of course, but for those who do not dishonor their character and who live as Christians. Moreover, if to the number of Christian adults who die in the grace of God, you add the countless host of children who die after baptism and before reaching the age of reason, you will not be surprised that Saint John the Apostle, speaking of those who are saved, says, "I saw a great multitude which no man could number."
> 
> And this is what deceives those who pretend that the number of the saved among Catholics is greater than that of the damned... If to that number, you add the adults who have kept the robe of innocence, or who after having defiled it, have washed it in the tears of penance, it is certain that the greater number is saved; and that explains the words of Saint John, "I saw a great multitude," and these other words of Our Lord, "Many will come from the east and from the west, and will feast with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven," and the other figures usually cited in favor of that opinion. But if you are talking about Christian adults, experience, reason, authority, propriety and Scripture all agree in proving that the greater number is damned. Do not believe that because of this, paradise is empty; on the contrary, it is a very populous kingdom. And if the damned are "as numerous as the sand in the sea," the saved are "as numerous at the stars of heaven," that is, both the one and the other are countless, although in very different proportions.
> 
> One day Saint John Chrysostom, preaching in the cathedral in Constantinople and considering these proportions, could not help but shudder in horror and ask, "Out of this great number of people, how many do you think will be saved?" And, not waiting for an answer, he added, "Among so many thousands of people, we would not find a hundred who are saved, and I even doubt for the one hundred." What a dreadful thing! The great Saint believed that out of so many people, barely one hundred would be saved; and even then, he was not sure of that number. What will happen to you who are listening to me? Great God, I cannot think of it without shuddering! Brothers, the problem of salvation is a very difficult thing; for according to the maxims of the theologians, when an end demands great efforts, few only attain it.
> 
> That is why Saint Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, after weighing all the reasons pro and con in his immense erudition, finally concludes that the greater number of Catholic adults are damned. He says, "Because eternal beatitude surpasses the natural state, especially since it has been deprived of original grace, it is the little number that are saved."
> 
> So then, remove the blindfold from your eyes that is blinding you with self-love, that is keeping you from believing such an obvious truth by giving you very false ideas concerning the justice of God, "Just Father, the world has not known Thee," said Our Lord Jesus Christ. He does not say "Almighty Father, most good and merciful Father." He says "just Father," so we may understand that out of all the attributes of God, none is less known than His justice, because men refuse to believe what they are afraid to undergo. Therefore, remove the blindfold that is covering your eyes and say tearfully: Alas! The greater number of Catholics, the greater number of those who live here, perhaps even those who are in this assembly, will be damned! What subject could be more deserving of your tears?
> 
> King Xerxes, standing on a hill looking at his army of one hundred thousand soldiers in battle array, and considering that out of all of them there would be not one man alive in a hundred years, was unable to hold back his tears. Have we not more reason to weep upon thinking that out of so many Catholics, the greater number will be damned? Should this thought not make our eyes pour forth rivers of tears, or at least produce in our heart the sentiment of compassion felt by an Augustinian Brother, Ven. Marcellus of St. Dominic? One day as he was meditating on the eternal pains, the Lord showed him how many souls were going to hell at that moment and had him see a very broad road on which twenty-two thousand reprobates were running toward the abyss, colliding into one another. The servant of God was stupefied at the sight and exclaimed, "Oh, what a number! What a number! And still more are coming. O Jesus! O Jesus! What madness!" Let me repeat with Jeremiah, "Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes? And I will weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people."
> 
> Poor souls! How can you run so hastily toward hell? For mercy's sake, stop and listen to me for a moment! Either you understand what it means to be saved and to be damned for all eternity, or you do not. If you understand and in spite of that, you do not decide to change your life today, make a good confession and trample upon the world, in a word, make your every effort to be counted among the littler number of those who are saved, I say that you do not have the faith. You are more excusable if you do not understand it, for then one must say that you are out of your mind. To be saved for all eternity, to be damned for all eternity, and to not make your every effort to avoid the one and make sure of the other, is something inconceivable.
> 
> The Goodness of God
> 
> Perhaps you do not yet believe the terrible truths I have just taught you. But it is the most highly-considered theologians, the most illustrious Fathers who have spoken to you through me. So then, how can you resist reasons supported by so many examples and words of Scripture? If you still hesitate in spite of that, and if your mind is inclined to the opposite opinion, does that very consideration not suffice to make you tremble? Oh, it shows that you do not care very much for your salvation! In this important matter, a sensible man is struck more strongly by the slightest doubt of the risk he runs than by the evidence of total ruin in other affairs in which the soul is not involved. One of our brothers, Blessed Giles, was in the habit of saying that if only one man were going to be damned, he would do all he could to make sure he was not that man.
> 
> So what must we do, we who know that the greater number is going to be damned, and not only out of all Catholics? What must we do? Take the resolution to belong to the little number of those who are saved. You say: If Christ wanted to damn me, then why did He create me? Silence, rash tongue! God did not create anyone to damn him; but whoever is damned, is damned because he wants to be. Therefore, I will now strive to defend the goodness of my God and acquit it of all blame: that will be the subject of the second point.
> 
> Before going on, let us gather on one side all the books and all the heresies of Luther and Calvin, and on the other side the books and heresies of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, and let us burn them. Some destroy grace, others freedom, and all are filled with errors; so let us cast them into the fire. All the damned bear upon their brow the oracle of the Prophet Osee, "Thy damnation comes from thee," so that they may understand that whoever is damned, is damned by his own malice and because he wants to be damned.
> 
> First let us take these two undeniable truths as a basis: "God wants all men to be saved," "All are in need of the grace of God." Now, if I show you that God wants to save all men, and that for this purpose He gives all of them His grace and all the other necessary means of obtaining that sublime end, you will be obliged to agree that whoever is damned must impute it to his own malice, and that if the greater number of Christians are damned, it is because they want to be. "Thy damnation comes from thee; thy help is only in Me."
> 
> God Desires All Men to be Saved
> 
> In a hundred places in Holy Scripture, God tells us that it is truly His desire to save all men. "Is it My will that a sinner should die, and not that he should be converted from his ways and live?... I live, saith the Lord God. I desire not the death of the sinner. Be converted and live." When someone wants something very much, it is said that he is dying with desire; it is a hyperbole. But God has wanted and still wants our salvation so much that He died of desire, and He suffered death to give us life. This will to save all men is therefore not an affected, superficial and apparent will in God; it is a real, effective, and beneficial will; for He provides us with all the means most proper for us to be saved. He does not give them to us so they will not obtain it; He gives them to us with a sincere will, with the intention that they may obtain their effect. And if they do not obtain it, He shows Himself afflicted and offended over it. He commands even the damned to use them in order to be saved; He exhorts them to it; He obliges them to it; and if they do not do it, they sin. Therefore, they may do it and thus be saved.
> 
> Far more, because God sees that we could not even make use of His grace without His help, He gives us other aids; and if they sometimes remain ineffective, it is our fault; for with these same aids, one may abuse them and be damned with them, and another may do right and be saved; he might even be saved with less powerful aids. Yes, it can happen that we abuse a greater grace and are damned, whereas another cooperates with a lesser grace and is saved.
> 
> Saint Augustine exclaims, "If, therefore, someone turns aside from justice, he is carried by his free will, led by his concupiscence, deceived by his own persuasion." But for those who do not understand theology, here is what I have to say to them: God is so good that when He sees a sinner running to his ruin, He runs after him, calls him, entreats and accompanies him even to the gates of hell; what will He not do to convert him? He sends him good inspirations and holy thoughts, and if he does not profit from them, He becomes angry and indignant, He pursues him. Will He strike him? No. He beats at the air and forgives him. But the sinner is not converted yet. God sends him a mortal illness. It is certainly all over for him. No, brothers, God heals him; the sinner becomes obstinate in evil, and God in His mercy looks for another way; He gives him another year, and when that year is over, He grants him yet another.
> 
> But if the sinner still wants to cast himself into hell in spite of all that, what does God do? Does He abandon him? No. He takes him by the hand; and while he has one foot in hell and the other outside, He still preaches to him, He implored him not to abuse His graces. Now I ask you, if that man is damned, is it not true that he is damned against the Will of God and because he wants to be damned? Come and ask me now: If God wanted to damn me, then why did He create me?
> 
> Ungrateful sinner, learn today that if you are damned, it is not God who is to blame, but you and your self-will. To persuade yourself of this, go down even to the depths of the abyss, and there I will bring you one of those wretched damned souls burning in hell, so that he may explain this truth to you. Here is one now: "Tell me, who are you?" "I am a poor idolater, born in an unknown land; I never heard of heaven or hell, nor of what I am suffering now." "Poor wretch! Go away, you are not the one I am looking for." Another one is coming; there he is. "Who are you?" "I am a schismatic from the ends of Tartary; I always lived in an uncivilized state, barely knowing that there is a God." "You are not the one I want; return to hell." Here is another. "And who are you?" "I am a poor heretic from the North. I was born under the Pole and never saw either the light of the sun or the light of faith." "It is not you that I am looking for either, return to Hell." Brothers, my heart is broken upon seeing these wretches who never even knew the True Faith among the damned. Even so, know that the sentence of condemnation was pronounced against them and they were told, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They were damned because they wanted to be. They received so many aids from God to be saved! We do not know what they were, but they know them well, and now they cry out, "O Lord, Thou art just... and Thy judgments are equitable."
> 
> Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid. So it is their conscience that accused them at the Tribunal of God, and it tells them constantly in hell, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They do not know what to answer and are obliged to confess that they are deserving of their fate. Now if these infidels have no excuse, will there be any for a Catholic who had so many sacraments, so many sermons, so many aids at his disposal? How will he dare to say, "If God was going to damn me, then why did He create me?" How will he dare to speak in this manner, when God gives him so many aids to be saved? So let us finish confounding him.
> 
> You who are suffering in the abyss, answer me! Are there any Catholics among you? "There certainly are!" How many? Let one of them come here! "That is impossible, they are too far down, and to have them come up would turn all of hell upside down; it would be easier to stop one of them as he is falling in." So then, I am speaking to you who live in the habit of mortal sin, in hatred, in the mire of the vice of impurity, and who are getting closer to hell each day. Stop, and turn around; it is Jesus who calls you and who, with His wounds, as with so many eloquent voices, cries to you, "My son, if you are damned, you have only yourself to blame: 'Thy damnation comes from thee.' Lift up your eyes and see all the graces with which I have enriched you to insure your eternal salvation. I could have had you born in a forest in Barbary; that is what I did to many others, but I had you born in the Catholic Faith; I had you raised by such a good father, such an excellent mother, with the purest instructions and teachings. If you are damned in spite of that, whose fault will it be? Your own, My son, your own: 'Thy damnation comes from thee.'
> 
> "I could have cast you into hell after the first mortal sin you committed, without waiting for the second: I did it to so many others, but I was patient with you, I waited for you for many long years. I am still waiting for you today in penance. If you are damned in spite of all that, whose fault is it? Your own, My son, your own: "Thy damnation comes from thee." You know how many have died before your very eyes and were damned: that was a warning for you. You know how many others I set back on the right path to give you the good example. Do you remember what that excellent confessor told you? I am the one who had him say it. Did he not enjoin you to change your life, to make a good confession? I am the One who inspired him. Remember that sermon that touched your heart? I am the One who led you there. And what has happened between you and Me in the secret of your heart, ...that you can never forget.
> 
> "Those interior inspirations, that clear knowledge, that constant remorse of conscience, would you dare to deny them? All of these were so many aids of My grace, because I wanted to save you. I refused to give them to many others, and I gave them to you because I loved you tenderly. My son, My son, if I spoke to them as tenderly as I am speaking to you today, how many others souls return to the right path! And you... you turn your back on Me. Listen to what I am going to tell you, for these are My last words: You have cost Me My blood; if you want to be damned in spite of the blood I shed for you, do not blame Me, you have only yourself to accuse; and throughout all eternity, do not forget that if you are damned in spite of Me, you are damned because you want to be damned: 'Thy damnation comes from thee.' "
> 
> O my good Jesus, the very stones would split on hearing such sweet words, such tender expressions. Is there anyone here who wants to be damned, with so many graces and aids? If there is one, let him listen to me, and then let him resist if he can.
> 
> Baronius relates that after Julian the Apostate's infamous apostasy, he conceived such great hatred against Holy Baptism that day and night, he sought a way in which he might erase his own. To that purpose he had a bath of goat's blood prepared and placed himself in it, wanting this impure blood of a victim consecrated to Venus to erase the sacred character of Baptism from his soul. Such behavior seems abominable to you, but if Julian's plan had been able to succeed, it is certain that he would be suffering much less in hell.
> 
> Sinners, the advice I want to give you will no doubt seem strange to you; but if you understand it well, it is, on the contrary, inspired by tender compassion toward you. I implore you on my knees, by the blood of Christ and by the Heart of Mary, change your life, come back to the road that leads to heaven, and do all you can to belong to the little number of those who are saved. If, instead of this, you want to continue walking on the road that leads to hell, at least find a way to erase your baptism. Woe to you if you take the Holy Name of Jesus Christ and the sacred character of the Christian engraved upon your soul into hell! Your chastisement will be all the greater. So do what I advise you to do: if you do not want to convert, go this very day and ask your pastor to erase your name from the baptismal register, so that there may not remain any remembrance of your ever having been a Christian; implore your Guardian Angel to erase from his book of graces the inspirations and aids he has given you on orders from God, for woe to you if he recalls them! Tell Our Lord to take back His faith, His baptism, His sacraments.
> 
> You are horror-struck at such a thought? Well then, cast yourself at the feet of Jesus Christ and say to Him, with tearful eyes and contrite heart: "Lord, I confess that up till now I have not lived as a Christian. I am not worthy to be numbered among Your elect. I recognize that I deserve to be damned; but Your mercy is great and, full of confidence in Your grace, I say to You that I want to save my soul, even if I have to sacrifice my fortune, my honor, my very life, as long as I am saved. If I have been unfaithful up to now, I repent, I deplore, I detest my infidelity, I ask You humbly to forgive me for it. Forgive me, good Jesus, and strengthen me also, that I may be saved. I ask You not for wealth, honor or prosperity; I ask you for one thing only, to save my soul."
> 
> And You, O Jesus! What do You say? O Good Shepherd, see the stray sheep who returns to You; embrace this repentant sinner, bless his sighs and tears, or rather bless these people who are so well disposed and who want nothing but their salvation. Brothers, at the feet of Our Lord, let us protest that we want to save our soul, cost what it may. Let us all say to Him with tearful eyes, "Good Jesus, I want to save my soul," O blessed tears, O blessed sighs!
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> Brothers, I want to send all of you away comforted today. So if you ask me my sentiment on the number of those who are saved, here it is: Whether there are many or few that are saved, I say that whoever wants to be saved, will be saved; and that no one can be damned if he does not want to be. And if it is true that few are saved, it is because there are few who live well. As for the rest, compare these two opinions: the first one states that the greater number of Catholics are condemned; the second one, on the contrary, pretends that the greater number of Catholics are saved. Imagine an Angel sent by God to confirm the first opinion, coming to tell you that not only are most Catholics damned, but that of all this assembly present here, one alone will be saved. If you obey the Commandments of God, if you detest the corruption of this world, if you embrace the Cross of Jesus Christ in a spirit of penance, you will be that one alone who is saved.
> 
> Now imagine the same Angel returning to you and confirming the second opinion. He tells you that not only are the greater portion of Catholics saved, but that out of all this gathering, one alone will be damned and all the others saved. If after that, you continue your usuries, your vengeances, your criminal deeds, your impurities, then you will be that one alone who is damned.
> 
> What is the use of knowing whether few or many are saved? Saint Peter says to us, "Strive by good works to make your election sure." When Saint Thomas Aquinas's sister asked him what she must do to go to heaven, he said, "You will be saved if you want to be." I say the same thing to you, and here is proof of my declaration. No one is damned unless he commits mortal sin: that is of faith. And no one commits mortal sin unless he wants to: that is an undeniable theological proposition. Therefore, no one goes to hell unless he wants to; the consequence is obvious. Does that not suffice to comfort you? Weep over past sins, make a good confession, sin no more in the future, and you will all be saved. Why torment yourself so? For it is certain that you have to commit mortal sin to go to hell, and that to commit mortal sin you must want to, and that consequently no one goes to hell unless he wants to. That is not just an opinion, it is an undeniable and very comforting truth; may God give you to understand it, and may He bless you. Amen.
> 
> In the first Rules on the discernment of spirits, Saint Ignatius shows that it is typical of the evil spirit to tranquilize sinners. Therefore, we must constantly preach and give rise to confidence and the duty of hope in the Lord's infinite pardon and mercy, for conversion is easy and His grace is all-powerful. But we must also recall that "God is not mocked," and that someone who is living habitually in the state of mortal sin is on the road to eternal damnation.
> 
> There are last-minute miracles, but unless we contend that miracles are the general run of things, we are obliged to agree that for the majority of people living in the state of mortal sin, final impenitence is the most probable eventuality.


 ... Source.​




pirate_girl said:


> All I know is, I believe in ONE GOD who is actually 3 persons.
> Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
> I believe Mary is my heavenly Mother.
> I know the angels and saints watch over me.
> I believe my friends who have religious beliefs other than mine have the same chance, love the same God as I do.
> They are; Jewish, Christian Scientist, Baptist.
> We have deep discussions, but we always agree that there is ONE road.
> That road will eventually lead to eternal love if we but believe and put others before ourselves and serve something other than our own selfishness.
> 
> I really like debating this Sir Knight.. but man.. you are making me wear myself out!



Yeah, I like debating with you as well.


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> *As Catholics we are taught to not take the Bible literal fact*, but as stories. We are also taught that it was written with divine revelation, where the words of God were transcribed by man.


 
 So...is it "Divine Fiction??   

You guys are killing me.


----------



## Sir Knight

Some parts are true history and have been proven to be true via other sources which confirm those events while other parts are written in symbolism to illustrate a particular teaching.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> You guys are killing me.


You're not Christian, are you?


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> Some parts are true history and have been proven to be true via other sources which confirm those events while other parts are written in symbolism to illustrate a particular teaching.


 
You keep speaking of this "proof" but you have shown none. 

But you guys are doing an admirable job at attempting to show proof by quoting words that cannot be proven and then quoting more words that cannot be proven and then quoting even more words that cannot be proven................and then we circle back around to where we started.  

You do not have to admit to me that you simply do not know, but to yourselves, when you are alone, you can question your beliefs without fearing an eternity in hell.....or can you.


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> You're not Christian, are you?


 
Let's just say I don't drink the Kool-Aide. But I'm probably more educated in Christianity than you would believe.


----------



## Melensdad

Cityboy said:


> . . . doing an admirable job at attempting to show proof by quoting words that cannot be proven and then quoting more words that cannot be proven and then quoting even more words that cannot be proven. . .


Nor can you prove a black hole.  I guess we are at a stalemate.  However there are other texts from the same time periods as the Bible chapters that do confirm many of the events in the Bible.  There is no such corroberation that show proof of black holes, negative energy, etc.


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> Nor can you prove a black hole. I guess we are at a stalemate. However there are other texts from the same time periods as the Bible chapters that do confirm many of the events in the Bible. There is no such corroberation that show proof of black holes, negative energy, etc.


 
My whole point is that we have been discussing beliefs and it is a fact that even strongly held beliefs can turn out to be incorrect. We all understand this at some level, but when one's religous faith is questioned, people tend to ignore the standards of proof that are applied to all other beliefs. All religion is simply theory, just like the black hole you referred to. There is something out there that scientists have chosen to call a "black hole", but is it really a hole at all? Could it be a parallel universe? Could it be another dimension of time and existence? Some day we may actually find out exactly what it is, and it might be totally different than the original theory or belief. The same is true of religious theory and beliefs.


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> You keep speaking of this "proof" but you have shown none.
> 
> But you guys are doing an admirable job at attempting to show proof by quoting words that cannot be proven and then quoting more words that cannot be proven and then quoting even more words that cannot be proven................and then we circle back around to where we started.


Let's start with the writings of Dr. Solbrekken (_who isn't even Catholic_) ... 





> *THE             BIBLE** PROOF             OF SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN OF
> THE             HOLY BIBLE
> *by:             Pastor Max Solbrekken, D.D.​ *[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
> [/FONT]* *THE                                 HOLY BIBLE IS TRUE - PROOF THAT THE HOLY BIBLE                                 COMES FROM SUPERNATURAL ORIGINS*
> Can                                 we trust the Bible? Is The Holy Bible really the                                 Word of God, as theologians and preachers say?                                  Or is The Bible a compilation of wise, witty and                                 intellectual sayings, recorded by scribes and                                 holy men down through the centuries?
> 
> 
> *IS                                 THE HOLY BIBLE INFALLIBLE - DOES GOD REALLY                                 EXIST?*
> Is                                 the Bible inerrant, authoritative and                                 infallible? And what about God; does He really                                 exist? Is God all wise, is God all knowing and                                 is God everywhere present and eternal?
> 
> *YES                                 - I BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE & THE                                 WORD OF GOD AND YES - I BELIEVE GOD DOES EXIST                                 AND I CAN PROVE IT*
> I                                 believe the answer to both these questions is                                 Yes, and that I can prove it!The                                 Greek philosopher, Plato,                                 said there are three valid sources of knowledge:
> 1).                                 The five senses - sight, sound, smell, touch and                                 taste.
> 2). Reason - which sets men apart from the lower                                 animals.
> 3). Something he called "divine                                 madness" - referring to the spiritual world                                 of supernatural communication.
> 
> *ONLY                                 TWO SOURCES OF SUPERNATURAL WISDOM EXIST GOD AND                                 SATAN*
> *The                                 Bible is the divine rule book*
> There                                 are only two sources of supernatural                                 wisdom - God and Satan...Therefore, we need a                                 divinely formulated rule book as a guide or                                 measuring stick. *The Bible is that rule book!*
> Jesus                                 Christ endorsed the Holy Scriptures. He said, _"Heaven                                 and earth shall pass away, but not one jot or                                 tittle shall pass from the law until all be                                 fulfilled"._
> Multitudes                                 are looking for a reliable voice of authority.                                 They know they cannot trust treaties between                                 world leaders, statements by philosophers,                                 scientists and even church leaders.
> But                                 the Bible, God's Word, is the only real                                 authority we have. Proven trustworthy throughout                                 the centuries, the Holy Bible sheds light on                                 human nature, world problems and human                                 sufferings. Beyond that, it clearly reveals the                                 way to God!
> 
> *WHO                                 WROTE THE BIBLE?  WHERE DOES THE BIBLE                                 ORIGINATE FROM?*
> Who                                 wrote the Bible? Where did it originate and why                                 is it so important?   Biblical                                 scholar, Dr. Moshe Katz, and computer expert,                                 Dr. Menachen Wiener, of 'The                                 Technion',                                 Israel's Institute of Technology have concluded                                 that God is its author.
> The                                 conclusion that God is the author of the Bible                                 was reached by Biblical scholars based on the notion that                                 significant words are concealed in the Hebrew                                 text of the first five books of the Bible,                                 spelled by letter, separated at fixed intervals;                                 a system alluded to in Rabbinical literature                                 used much later.
> Dr.                                 Katz said the researchers' evidence contradicts                                 the belief that the Pentateuch                                 is a collection of documents written and edited                                 by different persons at different times.
> The                                 patterns of letters repeated throughout all the                                 text dismiss this theory, because the                                 statistical probabilities of the pattern are                                 information appearing at set intervals. By                                 chance, it is extremely low - sometimes one to                                 three million!
> Katz                                 pointed to the repetition of the Hebrew word                                 "Torah"                                 (law), which appears in the book of Genesis                                 repeatedly every fifty characters, and the word                                 "Elohim"                                 (God), which appears in the same book, then                                 skipping twenty six letters.
> The                                 numbers 50 and 26 have great significance in                                 Jewish tradition.   The burial site of                                 Adam and Eve is never mentioned in the text in                                 the Bible, but by the letter skipping method the                                 names, "Adam & Eve" appear in the                                 text where the burial place of Abraham and                                 Sarah, the patriarch's tomb, is described.
> 
> 
> *OLD                                 TESTAMENT                                 NOT WRITTEN BY HUMAN HAND*​ Another                                 extraordinary aspect to emerge from the research                                 is the prophetic nature of many words revealed                                 in the text, which gives ammunition to Dr. Katz'                                 conviction that the Old Testament was not                                 written by a human hand.
> In                                 the book of Esther                                 which is read during the Jewish holiday of Purim,                                 the story of Haman's                                 treachery and execution was graphically told.                                 Haman's ten sons were hanged and their names are                                 listed in the same book.
> After                                 the hangings, Queen Esther was asked by the king                                 what more could be done for her and her people,                                 the Jews.  Her reply was that she wanted                                 "Haman's ten sons hanged upon the                                 gallows".  This puzzled scholars for                                 centuries, since they had already been hanged.
> A                                 major hint explaining this mystery, said Katz,                                 is the appearance of three letters. These three                                 letters are "tas, shin and zayin" in                                 the list of Haman's ten hanged sons (written                                 smaller than the other letters). "TAS,                                 SHIN, ZAYIN" spell out the number in the                                 Jewish calendar for the year 1946 on the                                 Gregorian calendar.
> On                                 October 16th, 1946 explained Dr. Katz, ten Nazis                                 were hanged following their conviction and                                 sentencing at the Nuremberg Trials. (Eleven had                                 been convicted but Herman Goering committed                                 suicide, by poisoning an hour before the                                 execution.)
> Julius                                 Steicher, one of the ten hanged, seconds before                                 the noose tightened cried out, "Purim Fest,                                 1946"!
> Additionally                                 said Katz, "In 1946 according to the Jewish                                 calendar, October 16th fell exactly on the                                 annual Jewish holiday, "Hoshana Raba",                                 which is considered the last day of judgment in                                 a chain of high holidays, including  Hoshana,                                 Raba and  Yom                                 Kippur, a period of judgment.
> "Such                                 a phenomenon cannot be explained                                 rationally", commented computer expert, Dr.                                 Weiner.  "So we need a non-rational!                                 And ours is that the Bible was written by God,                                 through the hands of Moses."
> The                                 Bible certainly can be trusted, for it is the                                 living Word of God!
> 
> 
> *CAN                                 THE BIBLE BE TRUSTED?*​ Over                                 the centuries, a number of very sincere doubters                                 have set out to prove the Bible to be incorrect.
> One                                 of these was  Sir William                                 Ramsay, who determined                                 to use historical events - especially the 'Book                                 of Acts' - to disprove the validity of the                                 Sacred Writings!Sir                                 William Ramsay's strategy was to travel to every place and do all                                 the things - recorded by Dr. Luke - which St.                                 Paul and his party experienced.
> Using                                 similar modes of transportation and                                 reconstructing the great Apostle's missionary                                 journeys, Sir William Ramsay discovered Luke's accounts so                                 accurate and convincing that he received Jesus                                 Christ as his personal Saviour!
> At                                 the conclusion of his study, Sir William Ramsay                                 concluded: "Luke is an historian of the                                 first rank; not merely are his statements of                                 fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true                                 historical sense, he fixed his mind on the idea                                 and plan that rules in the evolution of history,                                 and proportions the scale of his treatment to                                 the importance of each incident...In short, this                                 author should be placed along with the very                                 greatest of historians".
> 
> 
> 
> *THE                                 HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE OVERWHELMED SIR                                 WILLIAM RAMSAY*
> Another                                 'notable' to be converted to Christ by the                                 outcome of his own research is mathematician,                                  Dr. Ivan Panin. Immigrating to the USA more than                                 a hundred years ago from his native Russia, the                                 famous atheist was challenged by friends to                                 prove the Bible erroneous, using mathematics.
> The                                 results of Dr. Panin's scientific research                                 convinced him that the Bible is indeed a                                 'mathematical marvel'!He                                 discovered a miraculous numeric pattern and                                 consistency, which ran like a thread throughout                                 the entire Bible - Old and New Testaments! Using                                 the same scientific approach to Greek classics,                                 the Apochrapha and books of literature, Dr.                                 Panin found no such divine design!
> Falling                                 upon his face he cried out for mercy and                                 received Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and                                 Saviour! And he devoted the rest of his life                                 speaking publicly at universities across the                                 USA, proving that the Bible is inerrant,                                 infallible and divine!
> 
> 
> *THE                                 BIBLE                                 STILL WORLD'S BEST SELLER BOOK*​ It                                 is small wonder then that the Holy Bible is                                 still the world's best seller. The American                                 Bible Society reported in 1982, that the Bible                                 had been translated into 1739 languages and                                 dialects which are spoken by 97 per cent of the                                 world's population!What                                 does the Bible say about this?
> "Day                                 unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night                                 sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor                                 language, where their voice is not heard. Their                                 line is gone out through all the earth, and                                 their words to the end of the world." (Ps.                                 19:2-4)
> And                                 what of the noise made by 'Johnny-Come-Lately's'                                 like the humanistic theologians who call                                 themselves 'The Jesus Seminar'?
> LIKE                                 THE PROVERBIAL STORY OF THE DOGS WHICH RUN AFTER                                 THE CARAVAN...THE DOGS BARK, BUT THE CARAVAN                                 MOVES ON!
> 
> 
> *THE                                 BIBLE IS MORE SCIENTIFIC THAN MODERN SCIENCE*​  Dr.                                 T.A. Pierson says, “There is a danger in                                 pressing the words in the Bible into a positive                                 announcement of scientific fact, so marvelous                                 are some of these correspondences.
> But it is                                 certainly a curious fact that Solomon should use                                 language entirely consistent with discoveries as                                 EVAPORATION and STORM CURRENTS (1:6,7).
> Some                                 have boldly said that Redfield’s theory of                                 storms is here explicitly stated. Without taking                                 such ground, we ask, who taught Solomon to use                                 terms that readily accommodate facts that the                                 MOVEMENT OF THE WINDS which seem to be so                                 lawless and uncertain, ARE RULED BY LAWS AS                                 POSITIVE AS THOSE WHICH RULE THE GROWTH OF THE                                 PLANT: and that by EVAPORATION, the waters that                                 fall on the earth are continually rising again,                                 so that the sea never overflows!
> “Ecclesiastes                                 12:6 IS A POETIC DESCRIPTION OF DEATH. How the                                 ‘SILVER CORD’ describes the spinal marrow,                                 the ‘GOLDEN BOWL’ the basin which holds the                                 brain, the ‘PITCHER’ the lungs, and the                                 ‘WHEEL’ the heart. Without claiming that                                 Solomon was inspired to foretell the CIRCULATION                                 OF THE BLOOD, 26 centuries before Harvey                                 announced it, is it not remarkable that the                                 language he uses exactly suits the facts - A                                 WHEEL PUMPING UP THROUGH ONE PIPE TO DISCHARGE                                 THROUGH ANOTHER.”​


... Source.​ 



Cityboy said:


> You do not have to admit to me that you simply do not know, but to yourselves, when you are alone, you can question your beliefs without fearing an eternity in hell.....or can you.


_"And the apostles said unto the Lord,  Increase our faith."​_-- Luke 17:5​
Ephesians 2:8 tells us that belief is a GIFT from God.


----------



## pirate_girl

Well I won't quote the long rambling message posted by Sir Knight according to the writings of St Leonard.

I have read the entire works on the lives of the saints.
Ever heard of The City Of God by St. Augustine?

I have a ton of moth eaten books that smack both of truth and fanaticism for the times.
A lot of the saints were cool people seems to me, but mostly it was like they were over emotional wanna be writers.

I prefer to stick with the basic beliefs I hold, and not get all caught up in what the church teaches now as opposed to what it taught THEN.
Vatican ll screwed a lot of things up as far as I am concerned.

If you haven't guessed, I am a Catholic pining for a more conservative setting within the church I was raised, yet I am _with the times_ when it comes to my growth in knowing that ALL people are worthy and loved by the Father.
*If you are good person, you WILL go to Heaven after you die.*


----------



## Sir Knight

Cityboy said:


> My whole point is that we have been discussing beliefs and it is a fact that even strongly held beliefs can turn out to be incorrect. We all understand this at some level, but when one's religous faith is questioned, people tend to ignore the standards of proof that are applied to all other beliefs. All religion is simply theory, just like the black hole you referred to. There is something out there that scientists have chosen to call a "black hole", but is it really a hole at all? Could it be a parallel universe? Could it be another dimension of time and existence? Some day we may actually find out exactly what it is, and it might be totally different than the original theory or belief. The same is true of religious theory and beliefs.


Religion could be just a theory or it could be a superior intelligence, a supreme intelligence imparting some of His knowledge to us.


----------



## pirate_girl

Miss Jones lived until the age of 90.
Miss Jones never sat foot inside a church, much less cracked open a Bible.
Miss Jones lived her life serving others with deep humility and respect, she was a nice person.
She volunteered in her community, fed the poor-took in the homeless, had a ton of people who called her friend.
She was one of those rare souls who would never hurt or offend another human being.
She put others above herself always.
When she died the entire town showed up for her funeral and remembered what a sweet caring lady she'd been for all those years.
Miss Jones wasn't a Christian, yet she led a life unbeknownst to her, that was very _"Christ-like".._
She was created by God like every human being is.
Do I think Miss Jones went to Heaven at the time of death?
*YOU BET YOUR SWEET ASS I DO.*
This is the point I have been trying to make all along.
You don't have to have any religious affliliation (My opinion)
You don't have to be "saved" (my opinion)
If you happen to take the ride of life and find God, it's better for most I suppose, because the ride may hold a purpose.
Religious conviction makes people good people if they adhere to it.
So does simply being a wonderful, decent person.


----------



## Sir Knight

pirate_girl said:


> Well I won't quote the long rambling message posted by Sir Knight according to the writings of St Leonard.
> 
> I have read the entire works on the lives of the saints.
> Ever heard of The City Of God by St. Augustine?
> 
> I have a ton of moth eaten books that smack both of truth and fanaticism for the times.
> A lot of the saints were cool people seems to me, but mostly it was like they were over emotional wanna be writers.
> 
> I prefer to stick with the basic beliefs I hold, and not get all caught up in what the church teaches now as opposed to what it taught THEN.
> Vatican ll screwed a lot of things up as far as I am concerned.
> 
> If you haven't guessed, I am a Catholic pining for a more conservative setting within the church I was raised, yet I am _with the times_ when it comes to my growth in knowing that ALL people are worthy and loved by the Father.
> *If you are good person, you WILL go to Heaven after you die.*


And where do you get this opinion from? Is it based on scripture?


Matthew 7:21-23: _Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me._
People who expelled demons in Christ's name HAD TO BE "good" people, otherwise God would never have granted them the power to cast out demons in Jesus's name and yet, what will happen to some of them on judgement day according to the passage above?


Matthew 7:13-14: _Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it._
According to the Son of God Himself -- "many" will be lost and "few" will be saved. What I'm saying is that this should be a wake-up call for all of us (_myself included_).


----------



## Sir Knight

pirate_girl said:


> Miss Jones lived until the age of 90.
> Miss Jones never sat foot inside a church, much less cracked open a Bible.
> Miss Jones lived her life serving others with deep humility and respect, she was a nice person.
> She volunteered in her community, fed the poor-took in the homeless, had a ton of people who called her friend.
> She was one of those rare souls who would never hurt or offend another human being.
> She put others above herself always.
> When she died the entire town showed up for her funeral and remembered what a sweet caring lady she'd been for all those years.
> Miss Jones wasn't a Christian, yet she led a life unbeknownst to her, that was very _"Christ-like".._
> She was created by God like every human being is.
> Do I think Miss Jones went to Heaven at the time of death?
> *YOU BET YOUR SWEET ASS I DO.*
> This is the point I have been trying to make all along.
> You don't have to have any religious affliliation (My opinion)
> You don't have to be "saved" (my opinion)
> If you happen to take the ride of life and find God, it's better for most I suppose, because the ride may hold a purpose.
> Religious conviction makes people good people if they adhere to it.
> So does simply being a wonderful, decent person.


It is not for us to JUDGE the state of another person's soul. We are to correct them when we see them doing something wrong because scripture tells us that if we fail to do so, WE will be held accountable but the judging is left up to God alone. Did you know that the church has no OFFICIAL teaching on what happened to Judas after he hung himself? Many assume that he ended up in hell and that is mostlikely what did happen but the church makes no official stand on the matter because none of us know what might have happened in the final seconds just before he died and he may have turned to God for forgiveness and may have received that forgiveness. We just don't know and it is not our place to know.


----------



## pirate_girl

Sir Knight said:


> And where do you get this opinion from? Is it based on scripture?
> 
> *Matthew 7:21-23: *_*Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.* Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me._
> People who expelled demons in Christ's name HAD TO BE "good" people, otherwise God would never have granted them the power to cast out demons in Jesus's name and yet, what will happen to some of them on judgement day according to the passage above?
> 
> Matthew 7:13-14: _Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it._
> According to the Son of God Himself -- "many" will be lost and "few" will be saved. What I'm saying is that this should be a wake-up call for all of us (_myself included_).


 

Which is the point I have been trying to make all along.


----------



## Sir Knight

Huh?


----------



## pirate_girl

Sir Knight said:


> Huh?


Say what??


----------



## pirate_girl

Sir Knight said:


> Huh?


*Matthew 7:21-23: *_*Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.* _
Did you miss it?
I have been saying that I don't believe that you have to be Christian, you don't have to be ANYTHING but a good and decent person really in order to have a place at Heaven's table.
Admittedly, it's a lot more pleasant for most if they do have a religion to turn to, but I don't think it's what Jesus himself (if he were still walking in our midst) would demand of us.
He'd just dig the good people who do good things.
Lots of people follow him everyday.. they just don't know it.
Those people are the ones who will show up in Heaven and get the biggest surprise.


----------



## Sir Knight

pirate_girl said:


> *Matthew 7:21-23: *_*Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.* _
> Did you miss it?
> I have been saying that I don't believe that you have to be Christian


I sort of remember us having this discussion a couple of days ago ... _"No one comes to the Father except through me." -- _John 14:6

And let's not forget Mark 16:16 ... _"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."_


----------



## Cityboy

Sir Knight said:


> Religion could be just a theory or it could be a superior intelligence, a supreme intelligence imparting some of His knowledge to us.


 
This is the most thoughtful, and logical statement you have made during this entire discussion.  

This has the potential for common ground. Indeed, there may well be a form of "Infinite Intelligence" in our universe. 

The key words here being "could be" and "may be".


----------



## richfolkes

Pirate_Girl said:
			
		

> I'm Catholic..but I don't think Jesus is the only way to salvation. I believe you can get there through Buddha, Muhammad, or Yahweh. All religions are a relationship, and Christianity deserves no higher pedastal than any other.



There is a vast array of people who say exactly that.  There are many others who say that God will weigh their good deeds against their bad.  But the fact is that both these statements are untrue.  The fact of the matter is that firstly, there is only one way to salvation.  Secondly, Christianity is not a religion.

To enlarge:  The only way to salvation is through Jesus.  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6). The Bible, as Sir Knight has pointed out is the Word of God, and a most trustworthy item that to everyone, a copy in the home is a must.  And to this day, as it has been for almost 400 years, the King James version of the Bible is still the world's best selling book.

As for God weighing good deeds against bad, you hit the nail right on the head when you quoted Matthew 7:21-23.  There are plenty of people who claim to be Christian but they are pretending to be something they're not.  This is not just ordinary people I'm talking about and the 'crazy priests' that are the basic subject of this thread..  This category include some very high profile people we know as *televangelists* as well as various other high profile religious folks in Catholicism and Protestantism alike.  In order to recognize the real deal, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:16).

And the second point.  Christianity is NOT a religion.  It is a way of life.  A way of life that we live, breathe and follow each and every day.  Religion is something one is born into or converts to.  A person can be born a Catholic, Episcopalian, Calvinist, Lutheran, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.  But no one is born a Christian.  Becoming a Christian is a decision one deliberately makes.  It entails becoming 'born again' (John 3:3-7).  It is a commitment to God that one follows to the end of one's days.  Becoming a Christian is a life changing experience.

And what Christianity does is that it makes friends out of enemies, honest people out of thieves, liars and cheats (believe me, I was one such person.  And 25 years ago, you wouldn't have wanted to know me).  Christianity turns a$$h01es into cool dudes.  It turns criminals into law abiding citizens.  It turns alcoholics, drug addicts and bums into decent, respectable folks.  It turns satanists and 'metal maniacs' into God fearing people.  It makes decent, hard working people out of the lazy.

Ever watched the movie "Walk the Line" (Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon)?  This movie is about the late Johnny Cash.  See what happened to the central character after he gave his life to Jesus.  He went out and performed in the jails after answering the fan mail he received from prison inmates across the US.

That's exactly what the real Johnny Cash did.  He gave his life to Jesus and changed from a complete drunkard and druggie to a legend.  He was in love with June Carter, who wouldn't touch him with a bargepole as a proud, arrogant idiot.  But when he became a Christian, he changed for the better,  which turned him into someone worthy of June's hand in marriage.

And unlike her previous marriages, June's marriage to Johnny Cash lasted to the end.  It was Christianity, not religion that made it all happen.

And trust me, there is no religion that can do all that.  There is no religion that changes personalities for the better.  Religion is the slavery.  Christianity is the liberty.

Christianity turned a captain of a slave ship with 20 years of experience into an abolitionist.  This man was John Newton, who wrote the hymn "Amazing Grace".  And what is it that makes God's grace amazing?  It's the fact that we don't deserve His favor; yet we receive it anyway.  And the fact that what we truly deserve, we don't get because of His grace!  That is what makes God's grace Amazing!!

So, you see, Christianity is not a religion.  And no religion on earth can do anything Christianity can to for man.  And it was Jesus who made it all happen by dying on the cross.

Which brings me to another question many ask.  If God is all powerful, all seeing and all knowing.  If he loves us so much, why do bad things happen on earth?  Why are there so many tragedies, so many disasters, so many problems, heartaches, disappointments and so on?

The fact is; the innocent must suffer for the guilty.  When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit, God destroyed an innocent creature to make clothes for them.  The lambs who were killed to mark the stiles and transoms of the doorways with blood during the Passover did no wrong by the Israelites.  The turtle doves that Mary brought to the temple (Luke 2:24) did no wrong.  And above all, Jesus was innocent of everything.  Yet He died a terrible death to save us all.  He was innocent and He suffered for the guilty.  And His blood washed us clean.  And without the shedding of blood, we cannot be saved.  "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Hebrews 9:22).

The fact is, it is because Jesus was condemned that it is possible to avoid condemnation.  And God rose him from the dead.  And here is the key to salvation:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:9).

There is only one way to salvation Pirate_Girl.  And that way is Jesus.


----------



## pirate_girl

Thank you for that post, rich.


----------

