God

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Kirk
The "Holy" Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition to be specific.

Please read Paul's posts on this. This has already been discussed. Paul has explained and provided extensive proof to rebutt.

And on a broader scale, the religions (i'll finger point and say
Southern Baptists, Mormons, and Jehova's Witnesses) that say
"to earn passage to heaven you must go forth and witness".
Translation: Go get more people to join us, so they can pay their
tithings on Sunday.

Granted, the Jehova's is a cult and should be treated as such. But what makes you think your translation is correct? Please elaborate.

I can't speak for other denominations or religions, but tilthing is not a Catholic practice. I have never heard of being asked to tilth. It is free choice donation.

BTW, have you checked out what evangelism means?

Where I live, in South Texas, and ALL of Mexico was occupied by
Spain, by order of the Pope to convert the "heathens" to
Catholicism. Mexico was RIPE with gold.

Human factor. I don't know what has to do with the teaching of Christianity. Jesus said you should accumulate treasure in heavan, not on earth. If the gold was accumulated and used to decorate the churches, what seems to be the problem?

Jesus hung with THEM was the point I was trying to make. But
since you asked, no he didn't tell them that (as if you didn't know.
your patronizing attitude is just being ignored). But he also did
NOT tell them "you must go to church and put your money in the
plate, and turn your nose up to those that wear jeans in church,
or the man that's not freshly shaved, or the man that has a bit
of b.o. ", and so on.

Good. Then why do you reject Jesus's teaching because somebody else said something wrong? So you agree that Jesus did not teach all the evil things and mistakes and what not?

 

[fist of fury]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm

Oh really.... Did he just tell people to keep on going on their merry way and all would be cool at the end just because they hung with Him? Please do tell.

Yes he did actually do that because the religious leaders and people felt they were too good to hang out with them. No I doubt he told them to go on thier merry way but, he probably ministered to them with kindness and understanding. Unlike most "christians" today who are to busy condeming the evil sinners forgetting that in God's eyes that sin is sin an nobody is above reproach or better than anybody else. You'll notice the only time he lost his temper and yelled was against the "religious" people turning the church into a marketplace.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by fist of fury ....What I always find funny is that most do follow the 10 commandments. You know there are actually 613 commandments ment to be followed. But the western church only focuses on the 10 of them LOLOL

You are confusing Christianity with Judaism.

 

[Kirk]

I was born and raised catholic, was an altar boy for about 8
years, and was a lay eucharistic minister. I was also a military
brat, so I've been in my share of various catholic churches, as
a parish member. MANY a priest would give the old "tis easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man
to get into heaven" bit, before the plate was passed
for "voluntary" donations. MANY a priest quoted the bible's verse
of how you should give 10 % of your earnings to God (a.k.a. the
church) before passing the plate. I don't buy voluntary one bit.

Note to you, look up "condescending" in the dictionary, and then
stop it.

 

[fist of fury]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
You are confusing Christianity with Judaism.

No actualy I'm not. Let me ask this In your opinion what is the purpose of the commandments?

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by fist of fury
Yes he did actually do that because the religious leaders and people felt they were too good to hang out with them. No I doubt he told them to go on thier merry way but, he probably ministered to them with kindness and understanding. Unlike most "christians" today who are to busy condeming the evil sinners forgetting that in God's eyes that sin is sin an nobody is above reproach or better than anybody else. You'll notice the only time he lost his temper and yelled was against the "religious" people turning the church into a marketplace.

There are a lot of christians who are in name only. Kind of like McDojo blackbelts.

I would invite you to explore what else Jesus had done and taught those people. That is if you care too. I am not evangelising here.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Kirk
I was born and raised catholic, was an altar boy for about 8
years, and was a lay eucharistic minister. I was also a military
brat, so I've been in my share of various catholic churches, as
a parish member. MANY a priest would give the old "tis easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man
to get into heaven" bit, before the plate was passed
for "voluntary" donations. MANY a priest quoted the bible's verse
of how you should give 10 % of your earnings to God (a.k.a. the
church) before passing the plate. I don't buy voluntary one bit.

Note to you, look up "condescending" in the dictionary, and then
stop it.

Would you care to answer the questions I have posted earlier?

What you buy or don't buy is irelevent. No one has asked any one I know to tilth. That is a fact.

If I appear to be condescending, that is because you have been stating the same thing that Paul has already addressed with extensive posts. Why don't you read those?

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by fist of fury
No actualy I'm not. Let me ask this In your opinion what is the purpose of the commandments?

The 10 commandments?

Good lord. What kind of question is this? Sunday school?

 

[Nightingale]

Tithing is absolutely a catholic practice. they call it "sacrificial giving" now. I remember sitting in church and hearing the deacon or person reading the announcements ask people to donate twenty percent of their income to the church. I've heard it at several different catholic parishes.

and to answer someone else's question:

I rejected christianity because every denomination of christianity puts a priest or minister up on a stage preaching, telling me what to do and how to do it as if he has some kind of direct telephone to heaven that I don't have. These people are just as clueless as I am.

I rejected christianity because it is based on something that is scientifically impossible: rising from the dead. you just flat out can't do that...and since god created the laws of science and physics and chemistry, it doesn't make any sense to me that he would wave a magic wand and make an exception just this once.

my theories are:
1. he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.

2. reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.

The problem is in the burden of proof. Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please). This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels.

The bible is an interesting book, and it has many good lessons. However, I have doubts of its historical accuracy...with regards to the old testament: you had thousands of years of oral tradition before anything was written down...ever played a game of telephone? and the new testament: the gospels weren't written as chronicles as things happened...they were written many years after the death of Jesus. All our memories get a little fuzzy when we look back on something that happened more than ten years ago... and the story of the birth of Jesus and the conception and all that (in one of the gospels, don't remember which one)...this was written by one of the apostles, but according to the story itself, the writer wasn't there. He must have heard it from someone else (not denying the possiblilty that it could be accurate, just bringing up the possibility that it may not be).

The points I see for christianity:

when taken as it is meant to be, it has a good moral code, and many of the followers mean well.

history says Jesus existed.

The points I see against christianity:

Rising from the dead defies science.
There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.
The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.


My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth. The bible says it is the word of god. however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do. I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity.

Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it correct...remember, lots of people believed the world was flat.

 

[Kirk]

The gold didn't go just to decorate the church. Just like
confession wasn't ONLY to absolve sins.

I never rejected Jesus' teachings. I reject organized religion, and
the human law that church is a requirement to get into heaven.
I believe the human factor you quote is also in the bible. I try
to live my life as Jesus did, with the most direct laws being, "the
only way into the kingdom of heaven is through me" and "do
unto others". The rest is up to interpretation.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
Rising from the dead defies science.
There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.
The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.

If it didn't defy science, then it wouldn't be a miracle, which was
proof of God's power.

Originally posted by nightingale8472
There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.

There's boat loads of proof. Most sources are found in spiritual
book stores and what not. Some even put science into it, they're
pretty interesting, even if you're not a christian. The put logical
sense into various odd miracles, not just Jesus'. You can't now,
prove healing the sick, or parting the clouds and hearing God's
voice, or feeding the masses, etc.

Originally posted by nightingale8472
The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.

Amen to that! Which is the main reason I believe the "human
factor" is in the Bible's writings.

Originally posted by nightingale8472
My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth. The bible says it is the word of god. however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do. I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity.

Well let me ask you this. If I took all the writings of George
Washington, and writings about him (during his time) and put
it into one book, would that make you doubt his existance and
work?

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Kirk

I never rejected Jesus' teachings. I reject organized religion, and
the human law that church is a requirement to get into heaven.
I believe the human factor you quote is also in the bible. I try
to live my life as Jesus did, with the most direct laws being, "the
only way into the kingdom of heaven is through me" and "do
unto others". The rest is up to interpretation.

I can respect that. I don't believe church is a reguirement to get into heavan. I don't even believe you have to be a Christian to get into heavan. There is no way the ever loving Father is that petty as to reject His children who have lived a decent and honorable life. What kind of God would that be? Besides, heavan is the end effect of a life on earth. The objective is to live a life to,".... in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness...." and to be" his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children...." Ezekiel 25:17 A life of service. (I begin to sound like Sean Connery in First Knight )

It is like in martial art. You practice NOT b/c of aiming to attaining mastery at the end. The journay is the reward. Everything else is icing on the cake.

 

[Rich Parsons]

When is Now?

Now is the moment you are living in and it extends through you and through out the universe.


McDojo comparison.

The comparison of being a follower of non sustenance is like belonging to a McDojo. Now on here has a problem with issue of the McDojo's being laughed at or being talked about, but everyone get upset when people talk about religion. If it is a McDojo 'thing' then join us in the laugh and say I concede that point for this issues, yet I would like to state that I and others do not act like this, . . . ,.

As for the separation of Church and person and Instructor and Art. If I as an American go over-seas and kill some one I am a representative of the my country. And even if my country admits I am wrong, they still have to deal with the negative backlash of my actions. If the US Government send troops in and 'Collateral Damage' occurs and innocent people are killed, is not the US Government and the troops at hand held accountable for their actions. Yet is was sad, and yes it was wrong, yet we are required to accept our failures and to not deny them and blame them on the individual. So, why should the Church, any church or any religion not be held accountable for their actions. I am held accountable for my actions by laws of man. By the laws of my nation. Why are not the religions held accountable? Oh everyone will stand up and say they are not a part of us and that they are not welcome among us, yet many of the people of the crowd associate with these radicals on a daily basis. This is approval even if it is the form of doing nothing.

As for the Human Factor or the Age of a person being an issue, we all have to deal with the Human factor and the age of people. So, why excuse an 80 year old pope, when my grandfather at 80 was mentally acute and could walk without a cane. Oh this is just one case. Well as Paul pointed out, it is the one in a billion that should be praised for their accomplishments. Almost like everyone should strive for this. And if the 80 year was not all with it, he should have not been given the job. Oh it was the politics or human factor the made him the Pope because of compromise amongst the Cardinals of vote. Hmmm sounds like the whole issue is full of human influence and failures. I see no way to ever remove them, therefore either accept the issue and accept that there will be failings and let us all realize that is will be there. So, it is not just the individual it is also the organization it self.

I agree in general the bases of most religions are nice and support the general welfare of people.

I hope to hear more

 

[TLH3rdDan]

ok back to this religion is ok its the people running it that are bad... granted people are no perfect... how does one get put in charge of an organized religion?

since anyone can go out and start a church to preach a doctrine from a paticular religion with out any need of regulation or formal training. what makes these people qualified to do this?

another thing that i noticed everyone seemed to skip right over without even a mention was a post about the satanic commandments... what are your thoughts on them?

 

[Cruentus]

Rich:

This will hopefully answer some of your questions.

Galileo: I read a little about his situation. Although modern contemporaries know Galileo for his works in astronomy, he had actually made more contributions to the field of mechanics and other sciences. In his day, he most noted for the discovery of the telescope. That is just a side note, however on top of being a genius, what a lot of people don’t know about him (and that I didn’t know either until I checked a few sources) was that he was a fierce controversialist. He would often unsparingly ridicule those who had different views then he; and many of these views where the widely excepted ones of his time period. He wouldn’t just ridicule verbally either, he did so in writing, and often without demonstrating logical proof to his arguments (even if he had the logical proof available). Basically, although Galileo was a genius, he had a habit of pissing everyone off; his peers, the government, etc., not just church authority. If Galileo was on MartialTalk today, from what I read it sounds as if he would have been banned by the moderators.

Most of his astronomical discoveries where very basic, and came along with the discovery of the telescope (for instance, discovering that the moon had texture, and wasn’t a perfectly round and smooth sphere as was thought previously back then). He was noted for abandoning the old Ptolemaic astronomy for the Copernican, but it is important to note that in 1597 he confessed in a letter to Kepler that he refrained from making himself an advocate for Copernican astronomy because “ lest Copernicus himself should be overwhelmed with ridicule.” Galileo, although genius, was also very ego driven in that regard. Yet, His astronomical discoveries are virtually summed up with his telescopic discoveries. Although these are brilliant and important, he did little in terms of scientific proofs. He didn’t give much regards to his contemporary Kepler, who had discovered his famous scientific laws. More importantly his proofs in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus against the geocentric system of Ptolemy were far from conclusive. Galileo failed to convince such men as Tycho Brahe`, Lord Bacon, and Milton of his discoveries. Galileo’s proof of the phenomenon of tides and earth rotation is also known today as being completely false; yet Galileo treated Keplers suggestions with scorn, the same suggestions that led to Newton’s establishment of the true scientific doctrine. Galileo also scorned Tycho’s theory on comets, which had in hindsight had turned out to be more correct then his. Galileo was a genius and a great scientist, but he was also arrogant and angered his contemporaries. This greatly contributed to the cause of his troubles later in life.

Another important point to mention is that although the Catholic Church of the middle ages is currently viewed as having a hatred towards science to keep the minds of the people ignorant, there are many important facts that point to this not being the case. The Church, before Galileo, had been not only a great advocate for science, but the only advocate for it. What is not widely known is that Nicolaus Copernicus' entire family had belonged to the “3rd order of St. Dominic,” and his sister was a nun. Copernicus had furthered his education in astronomy at the University of Bologna which was a Church sponsored university. In his day Copernicus had given lectures to many church Bishops, clergy, and other figures, and even served as temporary administrator of his Diocese when his Bishop unexpectedly died. I can list many other examples, but for a long time the church was in fact the only advocate for science, medicine, and universities, and many scientests (such as Copernicus in this example) had a good relationship with the church. Back then, there was no government funding for education. There were no difficulty on the Catholic side to Copernicus’s work (neither Paul III nor any of the nine Popes after him raised alarm), but his work was in fact condemned by other Denomination figures such as Luther and Melanchthon.

In letters when Galileo had spoke of his risks of advocating some of his ideas, he mentioned "ridicule" by his peers, not persecution. In 1611, Galileo received triumph by clerigy in his visit to Rome, and Cardinal Bandim had others had flocked to look through the telescope that he had set up in the Quirinal Garden.

His trouble occurred 4 years later when he began forcefully advocating his views, many of which he had failed to prove. More trouble insued when his partner, Foscarini, who was a Carmilite Friar, began spreading false doctrine based on Galileo’s Theories. Galileo and Foscarini received great support from groups in Italy which saught to overthrow the church. Both of these men found themselves in front of the Inquisition due to this. Without proof or support from the rest of the scientific community of whom Galileo ridiculed, and a refusal to stop spreading faulty religious doctrine, they were both deemed heretics. From this controversy, some of the ecclesiastical authority did try to later ban the ideas of Copernicus. Galileo did make the compelling point that “The Bible is intended to teach men how to get to heaven, not where the heavens go,” but due to his lack of willingness to compromise he failed to make the point that his astronomy is not meant to go against or refute scripture. He still had many friends in the church, however. Men like Cardinal Bellermine and Cardinal Barberini, who had urged Galileo to make the argument that his science is not intended to refute scripture. Nevertheless, Galileo was still alowed to return home after being deemed a heretic, and was able to continue his studies. Despite the controversy, Galileo returned to Rome in 1624 and received a generous reception by Pope Urban VIII (former Cardinal Barberini, one of Galileo’s supporters). Pope Urban III was disappointed to find that Galileo had come to demand a pension from the church for his pursuit of science. He was sent home, of course, empty handed.

Galileo revised all of his former animosities towards the church, and published them in 1632. Roman authorities saw this as a direct challenge, so they brought him in for another Inquisition. Galileo once again failed to display the logic behind his opinions. It is important to note here that at this point the man was 68 years old, broke, and in need of a pension. The Inquisition decided that it would be in the best interest of everyone to sentence him to imprisonment. Here are some of the details of his imprisonment, according to his PROTESTANT biographer, Von Geblar:

“One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether 22 days in the buildings of the Holy Office, and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition. For the rest, he was allowed to use as his place of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and luxurious.”

The torture of Galileo, or blinding by persecutors is historically untrue (although he did lose his eyesight through natural means 5 years before his death). He was even allowed to be buried on consecrated ground within the church of Santa Croce, and was given blessing by Pope Urban VIII, although a monument was erected over his tomb. His famous “E pur si muove,” which he supposedly uttered after persecution renouncing the motion of the earth, is acknowledged as fiction, for no mentioning of it occurs until a century later. As for being slipped a hemlock in a jail cell, sorry, no jail cell. As for the Hemlock, I do not know, but none of the encyclopedias I checked even mention it. The fact remains, the man died in 1642, at 78 years of age.

This is a little brief history of Galileo, and his experience with the Church of his day. He wasn’t this “great and humble scientest who was persecuted for his beliefs.” The situation just wasn’t that black in white, and Galileo’s case wasn’t even one of persecution. Now, do other cases of persecution by church authority exist, yes they do. I have said before that no one is perfect; there are cases where yes, just like Jesus, people where martyred with the help of Church authority. Did the entire Church as an institution advocate this, or did the doctrine ever facilitate this? No, it never did.

Church and Science: The church is in search of truth, plain and simple. The church doesn’t try to explain what science tries to, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church recognizes that science is trying to explain “how” while the church is trying to explain “why.” When Science tries to explain the “Why’s,” the church doesn’t agree, because it is not the job of Science to try to explain “why” in terms of morality, God, etc. Nor is it the Churches job to try to explain “how” the universe works. I will say that if there is something in science that changes the way we think about religion, the church takes careful measures on how to except the theory, and how it “fits” with Christianity. We have never had a case where it has changed Catholic Church doctrine. One thing that is for sure, though, and this stands today as strong as it has in the past, is that the Church won’t blindly accept a scientific hypothesis without proof. In Galileo’s case, many of the proof’s that he presented where insuficient; not just by the churches standards, but by the standards of other contemporary scientists.

Rich Wrote: “As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?”

Yes, yes, and yes. There are truths everywhere, and truth is truth. If we believe that murder is a sin in Christianity, and the Buddhists believe the same, then we would say that the Buddhists are teaching a truth. As a Catholic, I realize that the Holy Spirit works in many ways. This is why I say that people have their own journey. In my belief there are many who will be allowed to enter heaven, not just the ones with the Christian label. There are also many who won’t be allowed, and some of these may also have the Christian label. It is not up to me to judge, I just need to constantly search for the truth myself. I wouldn’t say that all these other ways of thought are WRONG, but I would say that in my opinion, Catholicism is the MOST CORRECT. I fully acknowledge, though, that I don’t have all the answers, and I believe that I will find out at my death which points I have missed.

I do want to stress, however, that I am not being wishy washy on the matter of truth. Truth is truth, no matter what religion or thought it comes from. But, I can’t placidly sit here and say “all religions are correct” in completeness, even though they contain some or many universal ideas and truths. If one person believes in reincarnation, and the other doesn’t, one will be correct and one won’t. It is just important that we are constantly finding the truth for ourselves.

Rich also said: “So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place.”

Amen, Rich, I totally agree.

In reference to the celibacy vow, I don’t agree. People have been taking Celibacy vows since before Jesus with records of Jewish Desert Hermits. It is Believed that Jesus was celibate (I don’t want anyone to even TRY to tell me that he had a thing with Mary Magdiline when there is no evidence out there to support that theory). Many of the apostles, in theory, took a vow of celibacy when they chose to follow Jesus. There are historical references to people of Christianianity (of religious order as well as lay people) taking this vow also well before the 800’s or so. St. Augustine writes explicitly about his excursions with many women, which he gave up to do God’s work. It is just that it wasn’t made official cannon law until later. The law was man-made, but had been around since Jesus, and was a result (from a Catholic view-point) from his teachings. This doesn't mean that we believe that sex is evil, or something silly like that, but we do respect what sex is for, the morality behind it, and we do respect the dicipline of taking a vow such as celibacy.

Well, this is the way I see it, anyways.

In another post….I’ll address Indulgances! (yay!)
:boing2:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

@ ric

You are still missing the point. In the McDojo comparison, you don't reject the martial art. Are you laughing at Karate there? I don't think so. See my point?

If you go oversea and commit a crime, the US consular will give you a list of the local lawyer and that is it!! Don't expect anything more. Seriously!! Unless you are in the military or some capacity that represent the US government.

If you are wrongly imprisoned by a rogue regime, that is a different story. Ordinary running foul of the local penal codes, your American citizenship is worth a xeroxed list of the local attorneys.

 

[Cruentus]

Nightengale:

You wrote:

“I was raised catholic. A close family member of mine was a catholic priest for ten years. He told me many things that went on behind closed doors of the rectory, and these things weren't just happening with a few priests, but the majority (and he was a world lecturer and traveled quite a bit, so he did see a large portion of the catholic church, not just in the USA, but rome and south america and europe and asia as well). I find it hard to sit and listen to a priest giving "moral guidence" when I'm wondering if he's touching the altar boys or f-ing the pastor. To be a moral leader, you must first have morals yourself, and that doesn't seem to be a criteria for a lot of churches, and its very difficult to tell the bad from the good until its too late, so I've decided to muddle through on my own with the help of a few good friends and my own conscience.”

I can respect your decision to not want to be a Catholic, but don’t take expect everyone here to take 3rd hand information from you about some obscure x-priest who apparently told you all the secrets about the Catholic Churches behind-the-scenes homo-erotica as gospel. Your post makes the Catholic Church sound like a gay porn film festival once the families leave the pews. Your assessment isn’t fair, and is very narrow in my opinion. I know countless parishioners, priests, nuns, and ex-priests who do not relay the same experiences. And guess what…..I’ve accomplished the unthinkable, I’ve been in a room with a priest alone before….and guess what? He didn’t try to have sex with me! Hmmmm, imagine that? I must not be very attractive.

You also wrote….

“my theories are:
1. he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.

2. reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.

The problem is in the burden of proof. Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please). This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels.”

O.K….this post was a bit more fair. Thank you for presenting your beliefs. There is a book, if you desire to do some reading, called “The Book of Christian Apoligetics” by Peter Kreeft and some other guy. Try your Christian or Catholic bookstore, but if you can’t find it and need help let me know.

Basically the book successfully refutes the conjectures and theories you posted. Given the time and limits of a talk forum, I am not going to do that here. My only intention on this thread is to clarify Catholic misconceptions and express my beliefs; I have no intention of refuting others beliefs unless I feel that they are hostile towards mine.

A note on the Gospels: 1. There were other plenty historical refrences and writings of a “Jesus” in scrolls and Roman records outside of a Bible. 2. The gospels where not intended to be put into a Bible to be read as “God’s Word” when the writers first wrote them. They where in fact written down and intended as historical references as the authors “saw it.”

If you don’t want to believe in Jesus raising from the dead, that is your perogative, and I respect your belief. There a ton of very references written by accomplished and logical scholars (such as the book I mentioned) that explain differently, and expresses logical and historical points.


:asian:

Kiath: Don't worry.....I'm getting to the Indulgances! Whew

 

[Cruentus]

Indulgances:

What they aren’t:

“It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.”

- New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

Now I’ll explain in brief what they are….all they are is certain good works that the church has defined as extra-sacremental remishion of a punishment from a sin. It stems from the notion that in life every action is either for good or for bad, to a certain degree. An Indulgence is just one of those “good” things, specifically defined, and may help balance some of the “bad” things that you may have done. It has been abused in the past, but the Church has always condemned it’s abuses.

In terms of paying for an indulgence, in most cases this occurred when a donation was asked after or before the granting of an indulgance. The donation was “asked,” but anything beyond that would have been an abuse.

I personally don't pay much attention to indulgances. Most Catholics, through my experience, really don't. This is evident in that most lay-people can't really explain them, when really the concept is pretty simple. I just try to live everyday to the fullest, and I try to make my good actions outweigh the bad.

 

[fist of fury]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
The 10 commandments?

Good lord. What kind of question is this? Sunday school?

No it was a simple and straight forward question I didn't ask for a doctrinal thesis smart ***. I just was curious as to what you thought the 10 commandments purpose was.

 

[fist of fury]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
Tithing is absolutely a catholic practice. they call it "sacrificial giving" now. I remember sitting in church and hearing the deacon or person reading the announcements ask people to donate twenty percent of their income to the church. I've heard it at several different catholic parishes.

and to answer someone else's question:

I rejected christianity because every denomination of christianity puts a priest or minister up on a stage preaching, telling me what to do and how to do it as if he has some kind of direct telephone to heaven that I don't have. These people are just as clueless as I am.

agreed and the goverment does the same thing. They might not use God as thier reason.

I rejected christianity because it is based on something that is scientifically impossible: rising from the dead. you just flat out can't do that...and since god created the laws of science and physics and chemistry, it doesn't make any sense to me that he would wave a magic wand and make an exception just this once.

No religion is scientific nearly all belief systems are based on faith. If a god/goddess can be quantified by science than are they really a god worth worshipping? Science also used to tell use that blood letting was good so science can be wrong they just have a hard time admitting it.

my theories are:
1. he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.

Have you ever actually studied the crucifixion proccess? The whipping he would've bleed to death before the 3 days were up.

2. reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.

The problem is in the burden of proof. Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please). This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels.

Read the book of josepheus(sp?) written by a jew who lived at those times and wasn't a christian.

The points I see against christianity:

Rising from the dead defies science.
Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it correct...remember, lots of people believed the world was flat.

And again science isn't always correct just because something hasn't been proven by science yet doesn't make it impossible. Science can be slow.