View Poll Results: What do you believe the future will bring in the long run? A world...

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • where truth and justice prevail.

    4 14.29%
  • that is better, but still no permanent world peace.

    6 21.43%
  • that is essentially the same.

    6 21.43%
  • that is worse than ever.

    12 42.86%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 363

Thread: World Peace--Is It Possible?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MAZ View Post
    You are kidding right? Its easy to make prophecies come true when the books are written many years after the fact. Daniel was said to have lived in the 6th century BC during the time of the Babylonian exile and the Persian kingdom. Scholars are unified in thinking however, that the book was not produced until much later. For one thing the book was written in Aramaic and in a late form of Hebrew, suggesting a much later date. More importantly the book's symbolism is directed, in no small part, against Antiochus Epiphanes and his repressive measures against the jews. And so the book is normally dated to the mid 2nd century BC, almost 400 years later. It is clearly easier to have visions of prophecy and apocalypse come true no matter what the interpretation when it is written after the fact. As a matter of fact all the prophecies of the bible are written in such a way. Revelation may be slightly different, but it is highly misunderstood by most casual readers whats going on there anyway. One thing I will tell you is, it was written about the times of the author, not about some future hundreds or even thousands of years later. It wasn't until the prophecies did not come true that they amended it to mean distant future.
    If written after the events they prophecied, there is not much chance they would not come true--you can't have it both ways. But if you are saying, in the case of Revelations only, that they were written about future events, then you cannot surmise that they were false because they didn't happen early as many people thought they would, but only that they may be false or they may have yet to be fulfilled.

    I don't place much credence in the use of Revelations to predict actual future events. Not being a Bible literalist, I see the millenium as the age we are currently in, the Christian age, whereas my Protestant brothers largely see it as an age yet to come. To me the New Jerusalem is the Christian Church, to others it is a city yet to come. To take a Hal Linday approach and try to map out the entire future of the world seems foolhardy to me to say the least unless you insert caveat after caveat stating that every detail is only a guess.

    If you want something more substantial to hang your hat on, how about the prediction of the final conversion of the Jews:
    For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Romans 11

    If and when that comes, it will be a clear sign of the relaibility of the scriptures, since there can be no doubt as to the language in which it was written, not apocalyptic, not cryptic, but perfectly straightforward talk.


    And while we're talking about predictions, what about the tons of "prefigurements" in the Old Testament that predict, attest to, confirm, the life and death of Jesus Christ. In their sheer volume, they are hard to ignore.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MAZ View Post
    You are kidding right? Its easy to make prophecies come true when the books are written many years after the fact. Daniel was said to have lived in the 6th century BC during the time of the Babylonian exile and the Persian kingdom. Scholars are unified in thinking however, that the book was not produced until much later. For one thing the book was written in Aramaic and in a late form of Hebrew, suggesting a much later date. More importantly the book's symbolism is directed, in no small part, against Antiochus Epiphanes and his repressive measures against the jews. And so the book is normally dated to the mid 2nd century BC, almost 400 years later. It is clearly easier to have visions of prophecy and apocalypse come true no matter what the interpretation when it is written after the fact. As a matter of fact all the prophecies of the bible are written in such a way. Revelation may be slightly different, but it is highly misunderstood by most casual readers whats going on there anyway. One thing I will tell you is, it was written about the times of the author, not about some future hundreds or even thousands of years later. It wasn't until the prophecies did not come true that they amended it to mean distant future.
    If you're interested in discussing the dating of the book of Daniel, that would certainly be a possibility. We have hard copies of Daniel from before the second century. And its in the Septuagint, which is before the time you allege it to have been written.

    Perhaps a separate thread would be appropriate?

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    If written after the events they prophecied, there is not much chance they would not come true--you can't have it both ways. But if you are saying, in the case of Revelations only, that they were written about future events, then you cannot surmise that they were false because they didn't happen early as many people thought they would, but only that they may be false or they may have yet to be fulfilled.

    I don't place much credence in the use of Revelations to predict actual future events. Not being a Bible literalist, I see the millenium as the age we are currently in, the Christian age, whereas my Protestant brothers largely see it as an age yet to come. To me the New Jerusalem is the Christian Church, to others it is a city yet to come. To take a Hal Linday approach and try to map out the entire future of the world seems foolhardy to me to say the least unless you insert caveat after caveat stating that every detail is only a guess.

    If you want something more substantial to hang your hat on, how about the prediction of the final conversion of the Jews:
    For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Romans 11

    If and when that comes, it will be a clear sign of the relaibility of the scriptures, since there can be no doubt as to the language in which it was written, not apocalyptic, not cryptic, but perfectly straightforward talk.


    And while we're talking about predictions, what about the tons of "prefigurements" in the Old Testament that predict, attest to, confirm, the life and death of Jesus Christ. In their sheer volume, they are hard to ignore.
    Daniel was written around sixth cenury, during the time of Babylon, and predicts the rise of the Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires, as well as the breakup of Alexander the Great's Empire into 4 parts.

    So to Daniel it was the future, but to us it is the past. I would argue that these prophecies are an important verification of the reliability of God's word.

    The Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah that would fulfilled in Christ are another important example. These were one of the main reasons I decided to become a Christian.

    What other religious text predicts the future centuries in advance?

  4. #94

    Default

    [QUOTE=moo321;115507] These were one of the main reasons I decided to become a Christian.[QUOTE]


    Just of of curisouity what religion were you before. You can come up with some strange ideas and comments that are out in left field very strange sometimes. Maybe your old beliefs are still deep seated in you. What do you say ?

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default Futuristic

    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    Daniel was written around sixth cenury, during the time of Babylon, and predicts the rise of the Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires, as well as the breakup of Alexander the Great's Empire into 4 parts.

    So to Daniel it was the future, but to us it is the past. I would argue that these prophecies are an important verification of the reliability of God's word.

    The Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah that would fulfilled in Christ are another important example. These were one of the main reasons I decided to become a Christian.

    What other religious text predicts the future centuries in advance?
    Here is one that almost did that: Handwritten sign on fabric, hanging on US warship in Iraq waters that GWB was visiting a few years back:
    "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."
    Dogma schmogma

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katweezel View Post
    Here is one that almost did that: Handwritten sign on fabric, hanging on US warship in Iraq waters that GWB was visiting a few years back:
    "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."
    To add a different perspective, that only gets so much play because the media deliberately pushed a wrong interpretation on it and all you sheep picked up on it. All that was meant was that the deposing of Sadaam had been accomplished, The insurgency that followed was only in part by remnants of the Sadaam regime, and it was kept alive by foreign funding, manpower and supplies. And even though the war is won, all that was gained could eaily be lost with a premature withdrawal by Obama, resulting in more bloodshed than what ensued after the "Mission Accomplished" sign. Think about it.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default Weird rules

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    To add a different perspective, that only gets so much play because the media deliberately pushed a wrong interpretation on it and all you sheep picked up on it. All that was meant was that the deposing of Sadaam had been accomplished, The insurgency that followed was only in part by remnants of the Sadaam regime, and it was kept alive by foreign funding, manpower and supplies. And even though the war is won, all that was gained could eaily be lost with a premature withdrawal by Obama, resulting in more bloodshed than what ensued after the "Mission Accomplished" sign. Think about it.
    Aslan, I was very intrigued by Maz's promise to you that if you read certain books he mentioned, then he would reveal to you a pro hole-carding secret - and a casino to use it in - if you did so. I am sure you realize each of us here is always in a state of evolution in our AP play, (or at least we should be!) and uninvited, here is Maz offering you a glimpse of part of the Holy Grail
    itself. I do hope that reason, temptation, greed and seduction were each considered and that you came to the conclusion that you would survive a brief dance with the devil, so to speak, all for the purpose of a greater good. (Your personal AP evolution.)

    Now, have you made any progress in said reading as yet? And one more question: I realize casinos have their own weird rules about many things but do you personally, consider hole-card peeking a form of cheating?
    Dogma schmogma

  8. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    To add a different perspective, that only gets so much play because the media deliberately pushed a wrong interpretation on it and all you sheep picked up on it. All that was meant was that the deposing of Sadaam had been accomplished, The insurgency that followed was only in part by remnants of the Sadaam regime, and it was kept alive by foreign funding, manpower and supplies. And even though the war is won, all that was gained could eaily be lost with a premature withdrawal by Obama, resulting in more bloodshed than what ensued after the "Mission Accomplished" sign. Think about it.
    The mission (or was that just the lie to get us there?) was to rid Iraq of WMD and stop terrorism ... then all of a sunnen it was to rid the place of an evil dictator.

    Wrong country, wrong mission, but not the only time GW rewrote history. Maybe he got the idea from the bible since you guys are saying there was so much predicition after events happened. Also like the bible, there's been lots of vague expressions in GW's talk .... "rid the world of evil" "smoke out terrorists".

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katweezel View Post
    Aslan, I was very intrigued by Maz's promise to you that if you read certain books he mentioned, then he would reveal to you a pro hole-carding secret - and a casino to use it in - if you did so. I am sure you realize each of us here is always in a state of evolution in our AP play, (or at least we should be!) and uninvited, here is Maz offering you a glimpse of part of the Holy Grail
    itself. I do hope that reason, temptation, greed and seduction were each considered and that you came to the conclusion that you would survive a brief dance with the devil, so to speak, all for the purpose of a greater good. (Your personal AP evolution.)

    Now, have you made any progress in said reading as yet? And one more question: I realize casinos have their own weird rules about many things but do you personally, consider hole-card peeking a form of cheating?
    I plan to read the books as I find time, but that may not be soon, since I have been having trouble getting the simplest thinks done since I retired 5 years ago.

    In general, in cards it is up to each player including the dealer to protect their cards from view. The same applies to blackjack. If the dealer is foolish enough to show the hole-card, it is all part of the game, so long as no device is used to assist in the peeking of the cards and so long as you are not colluding with the dealer. That is also the casino's position regarding hole-cards.

    It would be scrupulous and even foolish to cringe away from looking at hole-card flashes in full view of your seat. You be the judge whether slinking down in your chair constitutes cheating. lol

    Some gimmicks may or may not constitute cheating, you be the judge, for example, zg's wheelchair gaff, whereby a wheelchair is used by a non-crippled player, to position himself low at the table to facilitate peeking; but that is not near as bad as Aslan's use of Asians, jockeys, midgets and short women, since the latter requires also that a signal be sent.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    131

    Default

    [QUOTE=aslan;114994]Catholicism is the most honest form of Christianity precisely because it is NOT based strictly on Bible scripture. To ignore the tradition of the church passed down through the centuries is to close one eye and try to see clearly. Protestants did that in their departure from the Church, but for the first 1,600 years it was a combination of scripture and tradition. Now there are more Christian doctrines floating around than you can shake a stick at.

    Hey Aslan I'm curious what you think of this bit of info concerning the Catholic church. It seems a little man made to me. Not that I care too much as I don't believe in it anyway. But if I was a christian, I'm damn sure not going to follow the religion that contradicts gods wishes and kind of just makes it up as they go along. Following the tradition of the church seems a bit of a weak argument against blaspheming the word of God. By the way, the following are not my words but something I copied. I'm curious as to what you think Aslan.



    Before we get to specific problems with Catholic doctrine, let's review how this bloodthirsty organization treated a man who simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people. In the late 1300s John Wycilf translated the scriptures from the Latin Vulgate. Some 40 odd years after his death, the Catholic religion dug up his bones and burned them calling him an arch-heretick. In the 1500's William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, English. He could not gain approval from the Catholic religon so he worked as an outlaw on the run in Europe, translating the Bible. He was eventually captured, condemned and executed in 1536. It is because of people like these men, Tyndale and Wycliffe, that we have the scriptures today. If the Catholic religion had its way, we'd still be in ignorance about the Bible and enslaved to the pope. Time fails me here to tell of other marytrs like John Hus, John Rogers, etc. who were killed by popish persons.

    I'll list the catholic tradition first and then what the Bible has to say about the matter.


    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS -

    Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS -

    1) It is devilish to forbid God's people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving.
    1 Timothy
    4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
    4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
    4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

    2) Peter was married (remember the pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter).

    Matthew
    8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

    Mark
    1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

    Luke
    4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

    3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to.

    1 Corinthians
    9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. A perpetual virgin.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary and Joseph indeed had children. They were the Lord's half brothers and sisters for their father was Joseph and mother was Mary.

    Matthew
    13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
    13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
    Mark
    6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the queen of heaven.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Worshipping the queen of heaven (which is not the Mary of the Bible) is worshipping another god and it provokes the Lord to anger.

    Jeremiah
    7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
    7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
    7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the mother of God.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning.

    Isaiah
    43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [If Mary gave birth to God, she'd be God.]
    Psalm
    93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

    Micah
    5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

    Philippians
    2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
    2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Pope called Holy Father.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God's name

    John
    17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Purgatory, nuns, popes.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible.

    Proverbs
    30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
    The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above).

    One does not need the pope to determine what God's will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close.

    NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins--even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.... When a person dies their eternal home is sealed--heaven or hell--no in between. Hebrews 9:27 ...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them.

    Exodus
    20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
    20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God...
    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh.

    Hebrews
    10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
    10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
    10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
    10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
    10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
    10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
    10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
    John
    19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

    1 Corinthians
    11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
    11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
    11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).

    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Saved, in part, by good works.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don't make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that.

    I John
    1:7b ...the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
    Acts 16:31b
    ...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

    Romans
    3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
    3:25 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;
    3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
    3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
    3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

    What about James 2:20 "faith without works is dead"?

    The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won't follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac.


    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - The church is founded on Peter.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, "Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship.

    1 Corinthians
    3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
    Matthew
    21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

    * * * *
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone.

    I John
    1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
    Matthew
    6:9, 12 After this manner...pray ye: Our Father... forgive us....

    1 Timothy
    2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];

    I John 2:1, ...And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

    * * * *
    There are many other scriptures that could have been used here to testify against the doctrines of the catholic religion. There are also many other doctrines of the catholic religion which could have been refuted (e.g. the sacraments, receiving the Holy Ghost, salvation through the catholic religion, penance, rosary, etc.).

    * * * *
    The Catholic religion has a history of taking the money of poor widows in order to say masses for the dead (which do no good) and collecting the material possessions of nuns. In Italy, the heart of Roman Catholicism, there is an often used saying that goes, "Without money, they don't sing the mass." That is really pitiful on several fronts--1) mass is blasphemous and people who trust in it are hell-bound 2) there's no such thing as purgatory and 3) the gift of God is without price.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Hey maz, let's tone down the massive cut-and-pastes, eh?

  12. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    Hey maz, let's tone down the massive cut-and-pastes, eh?
    It takes a lot of cut-paste to expose the Catholic Church as the
    Whore of Babylon - especially with Brother Aslan in the forum. zg
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  13. #103
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    It takes a lot of cut-paste to expose the Catholic Church as the
    Whore of Babylon - especially with Brother Aslan in the forum. zg
    Meh, they might be the whore of Babylon. There are certainly a lot of errors in Catholic doctrine, and a decent amount of idolatry.

    But, as a Christian I'm not supposed to be a dickhead to anyone, especially not others who profess to follow Christ.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MAZ View Post
    CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry.

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS -

    1) It is devilish to forbid God's people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving.
    1 Timothy
    4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
    4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
    4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

    2) Peter was married (remember the pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter).

    Matthew
    8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

    Mark
    1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

    Luke
    4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

    3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to.

    1 Corinthians
    9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
    It's easy to copy things and paste them in here. If you had your way I would be wasting my time responding to endless questions while you sat back laughing and cutting and pasting. If you are really interested in finding the answers to these questions there are ample resources here on the web that can answer them far better than I. If you were earnest in your questions you would have at least researched the Catholic answers to the questions you pose, but you are not really interested in finding answers, but only stumping Aslan, and you have no intention of paying any attention to anything that I have to say, whether or not it is the truth, but only try to ridicule what you do not understand.

    Let me take one of your questions without a grain of research on my part.

    Priest are not allowed to marry

    St. Paul wrote: To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (I Corinthians 7:8-9).

    First of all, Catholic tradition does not say that priest cannot marry. I don't know, and I don't intend to research it for you, when the Catholic Church decided it would be better for priest not to marry, but it was not from the beginning. A rule or policy of the church is not tradition. Tradition covers the entire gamut of church history, part of which permitted priest to marry and part of which forbade priests to marry.

    Now, the church does not forbid marriage. That would be against God. It does however make celibacy a condition of the priesthood. As you know, the priesthood is voluntary. No one is being made to do anything; it is a person's free choice who enters into the priesthood. As you might recall, Jesus was celibate, although some few do not think so, the preponderance of Biblical evidence points to a celibate Jesus. Also, John the Baptist was celibate. I am just pointing out to you the fact that the Bible, while it does not forbid marriage, neither does it forbid celibacy.

    A priest can be released from his solemn vows, and many have, to leave the priesthood and pursue a single or married life.

    Celibacy is a current church policy, but there are exceptions to the rule. Did you know that the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that are under the Vatican, do permit marriage. Yes, you can be a priest under the Eastern rites, and still be married. Also, did you know that a minister who converts from another denomination and becomes a Catholic priest, may remain married? Also, I believe it is possible for a person already married to become a priest under certain circumstances.

    Now, my personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that the priesthood would be better served with married priests where that was the desire of the particular person. The church may change its policy at any time. It is not a teaching, merely a policy.

    The thought behind it is that a priest who is married is torn between two duties, his duty to his priesthood, and his duty to his wife. The priest who remains unmarried is singleminded in his allegiance, and not burdened by the raising of a family and pleasing his wife. He can be 100% concerned with God's business.

    Tradition is important because by understanding what the people of the church have always believed is important to an understanding of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The apostles and other eyewitnesses to Jesus's life lived among the early Christian communities. They taught by word and by example and by writings. They set up the first Christian communities. They set up the first rites and ceremonies and church meetings and prayers. All that they did and all that was done by the early church communities was carried down through the ages within the Catholic communities. All of this is tradition and helps later Christians to understand scriptures by comparing it to what the understanding of Christians had traditionally been. After all, the early Christians were closer to Christ in an historical sense than we are. They were more apt in my opinion to get the inflections right and the various twists of meaning than later day Christians looking back centuries. Tradition is indispensible to understanding the Christian faith.

    Along came the Protestants, and because they had left the Church, were forced to elevate the scriptures to a place of prominence it never had for 1,600 years before. They were forced to claim that the Bible was the only source for learning about Jesus and His teachings. They had to scrap tradition because they no longer had access to it.

    The early Church were the sole keepers of the scriptures because until the invention of the printing press the scriptures were in scarce supply and because the masses were uneduacted and unable to discern the meanings of Biblical passages on their own. To a large extent that is even true today with educated people, because so much requires years of study to understand properly. The Church was merely trying to safeguard the scriptures from error by its policy of keeping the scriptures among the clergy. To what extent only the clergy had bibles, I don't know. My guess is that the rich probably had them as well, but I don't know.

    Anyway, as time went on, the church loosened up on its policy, and now it even encourages the faithful to read the Bible. But it does caution the faithful to consult with a priest or other expert where there is any doubt or confusion, and cautions that scriptures do not speak for themselves as some believe, but require an understanding of the culture, mores, language and history of the people who wrote various passages.

    Every Catholic Mass throughout the year has readings from both the Old and New Testaments, a practice that is probably as old as the church itself, but I don't know that either; it's been that way for my lifetime. The point is, policies change. And the church was right in thinking that everyone reading and discerning on their own would lead to problems. There are more false ideas about the meaning of scriptures than ever before. THat is why their is not just one Protestant denomination, but many--the Baptists, the Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, the Mormons (are they Christian?), the Pentacostalists, the Anglicans, the Amish, the Quakers, the list goes on. They all have differing doctrines--so much for personal interpretation of the Bible.

    These kinds of charges that you pasted here are the charges of people who hate the Catholic Church and wish to destroy it. There aim is to destroy, not to discuss or seek answers.

    PA--By the way. did you know, the Pope is not even required to be a priest? So even under present day policy, we could have a married Pope.
    Last edited by aslan; January 12th, 2009 at 03:03 AM.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    Meh, they might be the whore of Babylon. There are certainly a lot of errors in Catholic doctrine, and a decent amount of idolatry.

    But, as a Christian I'm not supposed to be a dickhead to anyone, especially not others who profess to follow Christ.
    I guess by a lot of idolatry you mean that we worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But that's the only three that I worship, or is it one? Take my word for it, we don't worship anyone or anything else no matter what you're been told by your new keepers since you left the Catholic Church. Just kidding. I know where you're coming from, but it's all a misunderstanding.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Nobel peace prize awarded to Barack Obama
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: September 28th, 2012, 09:01 PM
  2. Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 1st, 2010, 04:20 AM
  3. Israel threatens to quit peace talks over UN war crimes vote
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: November 1st, 2009, 01:56 AM
  4. Adi Da: Not-Two IS Peace
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: December 7th, 2007, 07:15 PM
  5. Global Orgasm for Peace
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 24th, 2006, 12:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts