A Vatican official has listed drugs, pollution and genetic manipulations as well as social and economic injustices as new areas of sinful behavior.
Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti said in an interview published on Sunday by the Vatican's daily newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, that known sins increasingly manifest themselves as behavior that damages society as a whole.
Girotti, who heads the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican body that issues decisions on matters of conscience and grants absolutions told the paper that whilst sin used to concern the individual mostly, today it had a mainly a social resonance, due to the phenomenon of globalization.
Catholic teaching distinguishes between lesser, so-called venial sins, and mortal sins.
When asked to list the new areas of sinful behavior, Girotti denounced "certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulations."
He also mentioned drugs, which weaken the mind and obscure intelligence; pollution; as well as the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor that "cause an unbearable social injustice."
Girotti said the Catholic Church continued to be concerned by other sinful acts, including abortion and pedophilia.
He said Church authorities had reacted with rigorous measures to child abuse scandals within the clergy, but he also claimed that the issue had been excessively emphasized by the media.
His comments came at the end of a week-long Vatican conference on confession.
A recent survey said that 60 percent of Italian Catholics do not go to confession.
Traditionally the Catholic church has had a list of seven deadly sins, that of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride established by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century.
The terms entered the popular vocabulary after the publication of Dante's "Divine Comedy."
The deadly sins are in contrast with venial sins - relatively minor sins that can be forgiven.
A person that commits a mortal sin risks burning in hell unless absolved through confession and penitence.
Now the Vatican says it is time to modernize the list to fit a global world.
On hearing the Girotti's suggestion, some priests thought it was a good idea.
Father Antonio Pelayo, a Spanish priest and Vatican expert noted that it is time for both sinners and confessors to get over their obsession with sex and think about other ways humans hurt each other in the world in which they live.
"There are many other sins that are perhaps much more grave that don't have anything to do with sex - that have to do with life, that have to do with the environment, that have to do with justice," he told AP Television.
Father Greg Apparcel, a local priest said that the Pope may have been talking About this aspect of sin as a response to the recent "Italian confession" survey.
Apparcel also hinted that the announcement may have a wider agenda ahead of the Holy Father's trip to the United States and his speech to the United Nations.
"There is some sound going around that perhaps he is going to speak about ecology and environment, and if he does, this is kind of preparation for that," he said
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
RSS
Let me expound on my comment "TLIML,
God has healed many Protestants too. What's your point? And He didnt have to use an apparition. "
I guess it all comes down to faith. The Catholic faith is based on physical icons (idols) and visual appearances. My faith is based on God's Word, His Spirit, and His promises. Mine just happens to be a more mature faith than others.
tliml,
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved - Acts 4:12.
correction:
"given to us by Jesus Christ"
tliml,
I will continue to follow Jesus' example of using the scriptures to declare "truth." Churches (body of believers) can only declare the salvation already give to us by Jesus Christ; no church can save you, no priest or pastor can enter your heart and sanctify it. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. I have and will continue to pray for you.
TLIML,
God has healed many Protestants too. What's your point? And He didnt have to use an apparition.
TLIML,
For the millionth time...yes I do keep the sabbath. You certainly do love beating that dead horse, dont you.
As far as the KKK thing, that's a no brainer. Now, I know what you're doing. Erroneously comparing the KKK with Protestants. Just because someone claims to be a Christian, doesn't make them one. Does their fruit prove they are a Christian? Nope. So, then they are not a Christian. Your continuation of saying that the KKK are Christians simply shows your lack of understanding of the scriptures, and your immaturity.
Laudamuste, I say to you. The Holy Mother recently appeared yesterday to a child and everyone in the room of the hospital that he was in. He had terminal cancer. Then... he didn't. Sure was a demon doing that! Ave Maria! Hail Heaven's Queen! O lux caelestia thou giver of all gladness o plena gracia! :D You know who else appeared yesterday? Three KKK men appeared at an african american woman's house and lynched her. Hmmm... which is better... curing... lynching... curing... lynching... Who sounds like the demon to YOU?
Thou shalt keep holy the sabbath. Do Protesants do THAT? :(
Online-
I do NOT assume that. However we are NOT talking about individual Protestatants. We are talking about WHICH church has the means of salvation. Before you told me that you would pray that I would see the truth. I am merely saying that the "truth" about the Protestant church is one that I would rather do without.
correction:
“according to men in the flesh,”
continued:
1Peter 4:6 –
Peter did not imply that the gospel was then preached to the souls of the dead, as some teach. He said the gospel “was preached” to those who “are [now] dead.” The preaching was done while they were still alive, and they will be judged on the basis of how they lived “according to men I the flesh,” or while they were still alive. Peter is undoubtedly talking about the Christian dead, because he refers to their living again “according to God [as God lives] in the spirit.” In other words, they will receive immortality in the resurrection and will have a life that measures with the life of God.
Luke 16:22-23 –
1.The beggar died and was taken by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. No one believes that Abraham’s literal bosom is the abode of the righteous dead. It is a figurative or parabolic expression - 2. Heaven and hell were separated by a gulf, and yet the persons in each could converse with each other. There are probably few individuals in the world who believe that this will be literally true of the saved and the lost - And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away – Revelation 21:4 – 3. The rich man was in hell with a body? I know of no one who teaches that the “bodies” of the wicked go into hell as soon as they die – 4. How much relief would a finger dipped in water provide? This could not possibly hint at the “communion of saints.” The whole story is unrealistic and parabolic.
Look forward to your reply; God bless.
St,
It appears that I responded a little late; your last post answered some of my questions, thanks. It is important to note that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever mentioned purgatory; this doctrine was introduced in 593 by the papacy. This is also significant.
1Corinthians 3:13-15 – these passages are speaking of a man’s “work or foundation” on which he builds; how can you equate a man’s “work” with his soul? In essence, these passage are describing a man building upon the foundation (Christ Jesus – 1Cor. 3:11) and saying if any one build gold, silver, costly stones - Three sorts of materials which will bear the fire; true and solid doctrines. The wood, hay, and stubble which will not bear the fire; such are all doctrines, ceremonies, and forms of human invention; all but the substantial, vital truths of Christianity. Again, all three verses (13-15) speak of his work that is being built upon the foundation.
Sheol refers to the grave; in numerous passages, Sheol is found in parallelism with the Hebrew word bor, which denotes “a pit” such as a grave. For example, the Psalmist writes: “For my soul is full of troubles and my life draws near to Sheol. I am reckoned among those who go down to the pit [bor]” Ps. 88:3-4. Sheol is also characterized as “the land of darkness and deep darkness” (Job 10:21, where the dead never see light again (Ps. 49:20; 88:13). It is also “the land of silence” (Ps. 94:17; 115:17) and the land of no return: “As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more.” – Job 7:9-10.
The Greek word hades came into Biblical use when the translators of the Septuagint chose it to render the Hebrew Sheol. The problem is that hades was used in the Greek world in a vastly different way than Sheol. The translation of hades as “hell” is inaccurate and misleading, because, with the exception of Luke 16:23, the term refers to the grave, not a place of punishment. The term Gehenna, is rightly translated “hell”. So, hades is used in the New Testament as the standing equivalent of Sheol, the grave.
Tliml,
I agree that abortion is a man made thing; however, you presumably claim that all Protestants support this shameful practice – you are wrong. What is this rambling about killing blacks, Catholics, KKK, churches being burned, and aborting babies? Have you had too much caffeine this evening?
Online-
Abortion was a man-made thing, but most Protestant churches do not see any problem with it. Kill the blacks, kill the catholics, kill the babies, right? Hm, while you guys are at it, endorsing abortion and the day after pill and what not, why not endorse the WEEK after pill? Ya know, the baby is born and after a week and you don't like it you can give it a pill and kill it! Sounds good right? You know a black man was hung from an elementary school flagpole in Georgia last month. The flag was switched with a KKK flag. I am soooo feeling the whole "truth" thing. I see truth in men being lynched. I see truth in Catholic churches being BURNED. I see truth in killing babies. Yes I see the truth about Protestantism. I wonder when you will...
Prophet-
When you say "Hmmm... I am going to kick Tim today" that is your body, flesh, blood, mind, AND soul SINNING. Jesus did not forgive EVERY SINGLE SIN that you WOULD do. He made it POSSIBLE to gain access to heaven, he opened the gates! It was a gift to allow us to be able to TRY to get into heaven, the gift was not straightaway access. And I have another bible reference for Petran supremecy. Peter and... oh jeese... John I believe it was... were preaching of Jesus when the temple guards captured them and brought them before the priests. When the priests questioned them, the bible says "Peter answered, because HE was filled by the Holy Spirit" it didn't mention the other apostle, it said PETER answered because PETER was filled.
continued:
1.David’s punishment did not contribute or merit any grace before God; his punishment (loss of his child) did not bring back Uriah from the dead nor erase his guilt adultery.
2.Moses also did not merit any grace for his disobedience or suffering.
3.Jesus is talking about the importance of settling any grievances among one another; this says nothing of meriting any grace for ones possible imprisonment or suffering.
4.The analogy of a broken window cannot accurately describe the “reparation” that you are suggesting – punishment or purging beyond the grave.
5.James 5:20 - By the conversion of another: that other’s sins are covered before God, namely, with Christ’s atonement. He is in effect making the convert partaker in the Christian covenant for the remission of all sins. This is highlighting the benefits that the convert can experience through Christ.
6.1Peter 4:8 – the admonition is to love one another; for they who love one another easily forgive one another their offences. It (love) preserves and maintains peace and harmony amongst one another.
It seems that we have been discussing “reparation” in regard to “purgatory” with the assumption that it exits; however, I have not been given any scriptural support for this actual “place.” Where is this place mentioned?
St,
“However, sufficient for what?”
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world – 1John 2:2.
Reparation - the making of amends for wrong or injury done: reparation for an injustice.
There is no reparation that man can give to God for his sins; that is why Christ is the propitiation for our sins. You said, “We say . . . that Jesus suffering and death does not pay for the reparation of sins committed. Individuals pay that.”
It seems that you believe that suffering along with works is meritorious, however, the scriptures say otherwise. Jesus says in Luke 17:10 -
“So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”
Unprofitable means unprofitable in regard to that which was our duty to do; sinners are intrinsically incapable of making any reparation for sin. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” – Jeremiah 17:9. Surely, there are consequences for our sins that we commit but these sufferings do not contribute to our salvation not can they make reparations before a Holy God. Christ’s atoning sacrifice has already done this -
“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,” - Revelation 1:5 & “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” – Romans 5:9.
Prophet,
Please do not think that I’m speaking of a literal fire when it comes to purgatory. You could be absolutely right in that the fire could be that of the Holy Spirit, or as some say, “the burning love of God”. That’s seems perfectly plausible to me. The Scriptures don’t seem to say one way or another. If I’m not mistaken, it appears that we agree on a few key points, first, the consumption of things in our soul that are not of God, and second, that all that reach this point are saved, regardless of how much gets burned up. Sound right?
I'll probably get back to this on Sunday. God bless.
Online,
Thanks for your comments on 1Cor 3:11-15. Several things:
My point is that the Trinity is not explicit. It took hundreds of years to iron it out, and many heresies to fight against biblically-based objections. Please also note that heresies in the Church were very well documented. There were many for the Trinity. However, not a single objection to the doctrine of purgatory is recorded until Martin Luther. I think that’s significant.
I’m using the word “place” loosely. My apologies for not being as precise as I should be. Purgatory can be likened to a place for convenience, since we think that way. However, it is a condition or state of being. However, my point remains in that a purging takes place after death for the elect who die with wood, hay and stubble as part of what they’ve built.
You are correct, it speaks of building on a foundation. However, the text clearly speaks of a testing or proving fire for that which was built. “If anyone’s work is burned up …” refers to a fire purifying that which was built. These passages are talking about the purification of the structure. The structure is our soul.
You are incorrect in your assertion that Scripture does not speak of a third “place” aside from heaven and hell. The OT belief was that souls that died went to a place called Sheol (or Hades, or the realm of the dead). 1Pet 3:19 speaks of Jesus, “in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison”. If the prison is hell, preaching does not help them. If it is heaven, preaching is not necessary. It is someplace else. Jesus gives us a picture in Lk 16:19-31. The righteous man goes to “Abraham’s bosom”, while the selfish man is in torment. Remember, heaven has not been opened yet, since Jesus has not yet accomplished his work of Redemption. The righteous man is therefore not in heaven, nor is he in hell either. He is in a temporary holding place, where the righteous are comforted, until heaven is opened. Likewise, the unrighteous are in torment. Is this the same as the prison of 1Pet 3:19 – I think so, but I’m not 100% sure. In any case, heaven and hell only? I don’t think so.
Lastly, we are individually judged immediately after death, and we know then where we’ll spend eternity – “once to die, then to judgment”. Immediately after death, souls are judged and go either to heaven, hell or purgatory. Therefore, purgatory exists now, and ceases to exist after the last person on earth dies, and right before the general judgment.
(Side Note on Luke 16: 19-31 – notice the “intercession” of the selfish man on behalf of his brothers. Not only is he interceding on their behalf, but he is very aware of their state of being, and is very worried about them. Also, Abraham knows their state as well, and also knows that sending someone back from the dead won’t help them. Could this possibly be hinting at the “communion of saints”?)
Online,
I would like to agree with you on a key point. We both agree that Jesus suffering and death was 100% sufficient. Nothing more is needed by anybody anywhere. However, sufficient for what? We agree that Jesus’ suffering and death is 100% sufficient for the forgiveness of sins – Matt 26: 28 – “for this is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. We agree that Jesus suffering and death is 100% sufficient for our Redemption (don’t have a chapter/verse offhand, but it’s really not a point of debate). Our difference is in the reparation required for sin. We say that Jesus suffering and death does not pay for the reparation of sins committed. Individuals pay that.
First, the Bible does not say that Jesus suffered so that we don’t have to suffer at all for our sins. If I am incorrect, please provide a verse that says this. It does say that Jesus suffered so that we could be forgiven and saved.
Second, the Old and new Testaments both teach the necessity of personal reparation for sins:
1. OT: As I mentioned in a previous post, King David’s punishment. I agree, his punishment was earthly, but was punishment nonetheless. Also, all punishments in the OT were earthly. Punishments in the NT are spiritual. For example, the punishment for disobeying the Church in the OT was physical death (Deut 17: 8-13). The punishment for disobeying the Church in the NT is spiritual death (“being to you as a Gentile or tax collector” Mt 18:17).
2. OT: Another example of reparation for sin is Moses. He committed a sin, and his punishment was that he could not enter the Promised Land. He was forgiven & redeemed, but had to pay a penalty.
3. NT: Matt 5:25-26, Lk 12:58-59 & Matt 18: 23-35 – In all cases, a sinner is thrown into jail. He is to remain there until he has paid the last penny for his sin. Is he forgiven? – yes. Is he still saved? – yes. Must he pay personal reparation? – yes.
Third, reparation is reasonable, and necessary for justice to be served. Again, I use the example of a broken window. If I break your window, it’s not enough for me to ask forgiveness and to receive it, then expect you to bear the cost of repair. For justice to be served, I must pay for the damage.
Fourth, if Jesus suffering was sufficient for everything in regards to sin, then the following verses make no sense:
Jas 5:20 – “Let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins”
1Pet 4:8 – “Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins”.
If Jesus did everything for the expiation of sin, how can anything we do “cover a multitude of sins”?
ST,
“Nor do they speak explicitly about the Trinity, abortion, polygamy, and many other things that you and/or I hold as essential beliefs.”
Though the “word” Trinity is not found in scripture, there are passages that “clearly” speak of the Godhead – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not the case for the doctrine of purgatory; to say that 1Corinthians 3:11-15 is speaking of purgatory is a very loose translation, not to mention a disingenuous reading of the text itself. This passage is speaking of a man’s work or foundation on which he builds; it says nothing of a “place” where he is purged by flames. The scriptures only speak of two places beyond the grave; heaven and hell. They are mentioned by name numerous times throughout the Word of God but there is absolutely no mention of an intermediate “place” which you refer to as purgatory. This text, then, is so far from establishing purgatory, that it utterly overthrows it. For the fire here mentioned does not exist till the Day of Judgment: therefore, if this be the fire of purgatory, it follows that purgatory does not exist before the Day of Judgment.
Polygamy was a man centered custom and practice in ancient times; this was and is not the will of God.
Assisi,
That scriptures is saying that once we die, all our works will be judged by the fire of the Holy Spirit. Anything that is not of God will be consumed. And if all our works are consumed, then we will still be saved, even as though we escaped through the fire...i.e. saved, but with no reward. That is what that scripture is saying.
Online4Him,
The Scriptures do not explicitly speak of “purgatory”. Nor do they speak explicitly about the Trinity, abortion, polygamy, and many other things that you and/or I hold as essential beliefs. But, be that as it may, I disagree that the Scriptures do not speak of a purging after death. I will refer you back to 1Cor3:11-15. I also disagree with your interpretation that verse 15 is referring to an escape from flames, as opposed to a cleansing.
1Cor 3:11-15 Paul lays the foundation (v. 10), and the foundation is Christ (v. 11). Each one of us builds upon the foundation (v. 10). During our life as Christians, we as individuals build on the foundation gold, silver and precious stones, very pure materials. However, we also build wood, hay and stubble, which are impure and highly combustible. On “the Day” (v. 13), presumably our judgment day, which is after death, our work will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done (v. 13).
Now, can you enter heaven with your wood, hay and stubble? No – because nothing unclean shall enter heaven (Rev 21:27). Now, would you need to remain outside of heaven due to the wood, hay and stubble, and not receive a reward based on your gold, silver and precious stones? No, this would be unjust, because you’ve built on the foundation which is Christ. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the impure, combustible materials. The fire consumes what we ourselves have built, wood, and hay and stubble. The fire destroys the wood of our self-love, sins where we lacked true contrition, and other impurities, and then returns to us the reward, which is heaven. The fire makes us perfect, and able to join the other “spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb 12:23) in heaven. You suffer loss, but are still saved, but only as through fire (v. 15).
I believe that this demonstrates a perfectly Biblical “purging” after death.
I have much more to say, but I've run out of time and energy! Will continue another time.
Just out of curiosity, do you consider polygamy a sin? The other night, I caught a glimpse of Law and Order, and there was a Christian woman defending her polygamous marriage, of which she was one of multiple wives, and she was using the Bible in her defense.
TLIML
Ephesians 2:8-9 says “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
TLIML,
"It is still a gift, but you still have to work to earn that gift."
Then...it is not a gift.
I am pure. From the moment I got saved, I have become pure. But the problem I see here is that you associate with your flesh, which is sinful and degenrate. I know who I am. I am a spirit. And my spirit (me) is purified from the moment I was saved. Now, the object is, is to allow God's righteousness within me to be made manifested in my soul and carnal body.
St,
Sounds good; until Thursday evening, have a good one and God bless.
Tliml,
Sorry, we do not earn the "gift" of salvation, the scriptures are very clear on this. We perform good works out of gratitude for the salvation that has been freely given to us.
Have a good one.
Online4Him,
Just wanted to let you know that I was too busy to respond today. I'll probably have a chance to compose a response thursday evening. Thanks for your patience, and God bless.
Sorry, work is a KILLER!
Prophet-
Nothing impure may enter heaven. Yes, jesus DID sacrifice himself for us, but no doubt you have sinned since then? And talk about context, HA! Protestants have NO room to talk about context. Jesus says "This is my body" and "This is my blood" and Protestants say that supposedly when "taken into context" it means something entirely different, so you had better drop your pathetic "taken in context" argument.
Online4Him-
It is still a gift, but you still have to work to earn that gift.
St,
Good morning; these passages say nothing of an intermediate state in which one needs to be “purged or cleansed” from sin. Where do the scriptures explicitly speak of such a place? King David losing his child was punishment for his sin, in this world; that is clearly evident, however, saying that there is a place where people go to be “purged” after this life is simply unbiblical.
Mat 5:25 - Agree with thine adversary - With any against whom thou hast thus offended: while thou art in the way - Instantly, on the spot; before you part. Lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge - Lest he commit his cause to God – Luke 12:58.
Mat 12:32 - Whosoever speaketh against the Son of man - In any other respects: It shall be forgiven him - Upon his true repentance: But whosoever speaketh thus against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come - This was a proverbial expression among the Jews, for a thing that would never be done. It here means farther, He shall not escape the punishment of it, either in this world, or in the world to come. The judgment of God shall overtake him, both here and hereafter.
1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the believer “escaping through the flames,” not “being cleansed by the flames.”
Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins (Romans 5:8). Isaiah 53:5 declares, “but He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.” Jesus suffered for our sins so that we could be delivered from suffering. To say that we must also suffer for our sins is to say that Jesus’ suffering was insufficient. To say that we must atone for our sins by cleansing in Purgatory is to deny the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (1 John 2:2). The idea that we have to suffer for our sins after death is contrary to everything the Bible says about salvation.
The very idea of Purgatory, and the doctrines that are often attached to it (prayer for the dead, indulgences, meritorious works on behalf of the dead, etc.) all fail to recognize that Jesus’ death was sufficient to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins. Jesus, who was God incarnate (John 1:1,14), paid an infinite price for our sin. Jesus died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2). To limit Jesus’ sacrifice to atoning for original sin, or sins committed before salvation, is an attack on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. If we must in any sense pay for, atone for, or suffer because of our sins – that indicates Jesus’ death was not a perfect, complete, and sufficient sacrifice.
Prophet and Online4Him,
One more comment on purgatory. In case there is any doubt as to the teaching of the RCC, here is exactly what the Catechism says:
First, from the Definitions section: "Purgatory: A state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God's friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven"
Second, from the body of the Catechism:
The Final Purification, or Purgatory
Paragraph 1030: All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
Beginning of Paragraph 1031: "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned".
Now, if a Catholic tells you that purgatory is a second chance, you can correct them!
If you want to read more about this or any other subject, you can view the Catechism at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM.
Have a blessed day.
Prophet and Online4Him,
One more text to consider - Matthew 12:32. "but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come". This text seems to imply that some sins are not forgiven until after we die, meaning that not all is done here on earth. Looking forward to your comments.
Prophet and Online4Him,
Please consider Matthew 5:25-26 for a hint at purgatory. Another way of looking at purgatory is that it is where we "pay the last penny". Yes, salvation is a gift of God, but we are expected to make reparation for our sins, even after forgiveness. Look at David, for example. Presumably, he was saved. Then he committed murder and adultery, confessed his sin and was forgiven. Everything cool, right? No. God then takes the life of David's child as a punishment - even after forgiveness. David still had to pay a price, even though he was forgiven.
Please also take a look at Luke 18: 34-35 for additional insight. The man is forgiven of his debt (saved), but then after he sins (he doesn't forgive someone), he is delivered to the jailers till he pay all his debt. He goes from a situation from being free from debt, to owing a debt because of sin. We call it reparation. It's like if you break someone's window, you ask forgiveness and get it. But the damage is still there, and you're expected to pay to fix the window. You still have the gift of forgiveness, but there is a price to pay. You are released once you have paid the debt.
I'm interested in your comments.
Prophet,
I agree, the scriptures clearly teach - "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" - Hebrews 9:27.
It simply does not exist.
Online4Him,
I think the official stand of the RCC on purgatory is that those in purgatory are already going to heaven. They just have to be "properly prepared." Although the Bible states that we are to do that while alive here on earth. After we die, that's it.
If a soul has to go to purgatory to suffer and be purified, how can salvation then be called a gift? Do you give gifts to your children and make them suffer in order to receive that gift? The Lord would surely have used another word instead of gift, wouldn’t He? Five times the phrase “gift of God” is found in the New Testament. I find it interesting that it is found five times because the number five symbolizes the grace of God. It is by God’s grace that we are saved. The definition of grace is unmerited favor! How can we be purged in purgatory and still say that we have obtained unmerited favor from God through the gift of His Son? Three times these verses refer to Christ being the gift of salvation to us from His Father.
(Joh 4:10) Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Eph 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
I've read of God speaking through a donkey, but I don't see the donkey claiming to be the final authority on scripture.
I have heard both stories of purgatory from differing catholics.
Regardless, the scripture that the Catholics take to "prove" purgatory, is taken out of context by the Catholic Church. Besides, if you're going to heaven, why do you need to be "purified"? That happens here on earth. Once you die, that's it. End of story. Heaven or hell. No rest stops in between. What you do on earth is all the chance you get to make an impression on the hereafter. And those who do nothing (according to the scripture) with their lives other than get saved, will have their works burned away and they will be saved, as though coming through a fire...singed, burnt a little, but still saved. And their reward will be next to nothing.
Where in the Bible does it say that those who put the books together make the rules?
Prophet, whoa, wait a minute!! I am startled by your understanding of purgatory. There's a serious problem here. Who teaches that purgatory is another chance? Certainly not the Catholic Church. Please show me where the Catholic Church teaches such a silly doctrine. As I explained before, some of the saved go there simply to be purified, as by fire, prior to entry into heaven. Notice I said that only the SAVED go there. Those who die unsaved go to hell - period. When you die, that's it. No second chance. Not sure what Church you're talking about.
"Yes, God used men to put His Holy Scriptures together. That's it." Well, since you're sure that this distinction exists, plese show me where it says that in the Bible.
Yes, God used men to put His Holy Scriptures together. That's it. All those other things you listed are man's interpretation of those scriptures. That is where the differences lie. You claim the Holy Spirit told them that Mary was the new Eve, about purgatory, etc, etc. I claim the Holy Spirit says otherwise. Even using scripture it's easy to refute the man-made traditions of the Catholic church. Just because God told some people to put the Bible together, it doesn't mean their interpretation is correct. God just told them which books to put it in. John, the Revelator, for example. He wrote the book of Revelations. He probably had no idea whatsoever what most of that stuff meant. He was merely writing what he saw, and what God told him to. I bet if he was asked to intepret it, he would probably come up with something that neither of us agree with. Then where would that leave him?
The scriptures that the "Church" put together says "It is appoint to man once to die, and then the judgement." Where's purgatory in there? It doesn't say "It is appointed to man once to die, and then they have another chance in the afterlife to make a change, and then the judgement."
John 8:21 Jesus says "Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come."
Sounds to me that if you die a sinner, you don't go to where Jesus is.....ever.
The history of the doctrine of Roman infallibility is a record of gradual development, even of inconsistency and contradiction. Rome herself seems to have forgotten that her own Council of Florence made the following declaration in 1438: "As lawful successor of St. Peter, the Pope has the same gift and power of infallibility that St. Peter had from Christ."
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) decreed that "no one, relying on his own skill […] shall presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church - whose prerogative it is to judge the sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures - hath held and doth hold, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
Finally, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) called the already mentioned Vatican Council, in which the issue was to be debated. Strong opposition was raised by certain prominent bishops, who pointed out the history of errors by earlier Popes. Among those most strongly opposed to declaring the Pope infallible was Bishop Stossmayer. He was a champion against the infallibility of the Pope. You can read his famous speech at the Vatican Council of 1870 in F. Paul Peterson's book The Rise and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church (1959). Stossmayer traced the history of past Popes; he pointed out how the decrees of many of these so-called infallible Popes had been rescinded, reversed or set aside by other Popes; and he recounted the dark and sordid history of murder, incest, adultery and avarice associated with many of them.
Prophet,
What you're describing is almost exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. It appears to me that our disagreement on infallibility may be just a matter of semantics. Let me try to explain. Infallibility simply means that the Holy Spirit prevents sinful men, at certain times, from making a mistake. It means that teachings on matters of faith and morals are guaranteed to be error-free, just as if Jesus was teaching it - “He who hears you hears me”. It does not mean the people are without sin. It does not guarantee that the decisions will be complete, made at the right time, or made at all. It does not guarantee that someone is right all the time in all matters of life, nor does it guarantee that their theological opinions are correct. When the early Church decided what books belong in the Bible, it was sinful men acting infallibly, that is, error-free, at that instance under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I believe WE AGREE COMPLETELY ON THIS POINT, we’re just using different language. And, like you, we believe that all the credit goes to God – Amen!
Infallibility simply means they are guaranteed to not err - as in the selection of books in the Bible. And you are admitting that that is exactly what happened when it comes to the books in the Bible (you’re getting dangerously close to Catholic doctrine here!!) But who says it stops with the Bible? Does the Bible address this? Yes, again Jesus says “He who hears you hears me”. He didn’t limit this to Bible book selection. He also describes the method for handling disagreements in Mt 18. “… take it to the Church”. Well, the Bible was disputed for 300 years. They took it to the Church, and they made an error-free decision. “The Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth” (I’ve paraphrased), not to just some of the truth, like the selection of books. The very same Church that made the final decisions on the Bible in 382 AD, also gave us Mary as the New Eve, purgatory, the primacy of the Peter, and other basic Christian stuff, all before the canon was decided upon. Is it possible that this corrupt Church, as you put it, could put forth such heresies in the early years, and yet get it right in 382 AD with the Bible? Do you trust that corrupt Church to give you a Bible? And when they decided, they bound all Christianity to it, just like the other doctrines that came earlier. Again, where did the authority come from to bind all Christianity to anything? And where is that authority today?
Lastly, if the Church was putting forth such heresies early on, what was the vehicle for salvation for people before Martin Luther? They couldn’t go to the Bible because most people couldn’t read, and if they could read, they couldn’t afford hand-printed Bibles. Bible alone is a real bad idea when 95% of the people can’t read. Did Jesus abandon mankind for a thousand years or more?
Scripture indicates that the church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Of course, once a foundation is built, no further foundation is needed. And because no further foundation is needed, there is no need for apostolic successors. The Bible clearly teaches that the apostles and prophets were foundational gifts, and there is not a shred of biblical proof that there were to be successors to the apostles. The apostles were unique in their calling and function within the first century church. The church merely “recognized” that the NT writings were intrinsically inspired by God. The first century church determined that these NT writings were inspired because it had the stamp of the apostles, which could be supported by living eye witnesses, and because of their early dating. The apostle Paul wrote his epistles in the 50’s AD and it describes the first century “biblical creed” in 1Corinthians 15:3-5 –
Second, the Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27).
Third, the same Holy Spirit who moved upon men to pen down the inspiration of God’s Word was the same agent who caused the Church to discern and recognize which books were inspired and accepted. The general consensus had already been made by the divine content of the books themselves – again the church recognized the inspiration of the God’s Words. The contents of the apocryphal and many Gnostic gospels were never widely accepted by the Jews or early Christians because they “discerned” the lack of inspiration that these books required in order to be included with the rest of Scripture. The Old Testament scriptures were already accepted by the early church and most of the NT writers quoted from its pages.
There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the Roman Catholic Church. The scriptures were circulating long before the RCC received its standing from Constantine.
If you claim that the Bible is a work of man, and put together of man, it is no longer the Word of God. It is just another religious book. It is powerless.
Jesus, many times, refered to the scriptures (which we now hold as the Old Testament). Over and over He quoted writings of inspired men. Were those men and women fallible? Most definitely! Then why did Jesus feel the need to quote them? Because, though they were fallible, they were inspired by an infallible God. The same is true when it comes to how the books were decided on. Fallible men, led by an infallible God. But I can see where this is going.
You said "Did Jesus, Paul, James, John, Peter or any New Testament writer ever even hint that there was a book coming that would act as the sole rule of faith for the Christian?" Just because Jesus never hinted at the fact that there were to be more written, He is God, and He knows all. He inspired the writers of the books of the New Testament to write what they did. He inspired those who chose the books to be placed in the Bible. The Bible came from God, and God alone. The church came from God, and Him alone. You take too much credit, and will be judged for stealing God's glory.
Isaiah 48:11 "11For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another."
Isaiah 42:8 " I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images"
So, be careful of taking credit from God. You, and those who wrote the Bible, and those who chose which books to put in it, are nothing more than instruments. To God be all glory and honor and power.
Prophet,
I agree with you completely. The Bible doesn’t tell us what belongs in the Bible. That being the case, we must conclude that men made those decisions. These men were either fallible or infallible. If they were fallible men who can make mistakes, then how do we know that they selected the right books? How do we know that any NT books for that matter are inspired? Are we not basing our salvation on the decisions of error-prone men? There were hundreds of writings at the time that had to be decided upon. Most were rejected. How do we know for sure that some of the rejected writings were not in fact inspired? For 300 years, the Shepherd of Hermas was considered inspired - why was it ultimately axed when decision time came? How do we know for sure that Romans, Ephesians, etc are inspired, and not in the Bible by mistake? There are only 2 logical positions we can take – either the men who decided on the Bible were infallible, in which case we can accept the Bible for what we believe it to be because they said so – or that the men who decided on the Bible were fallible, in which case we have no reason to accept it at all. If the Bible doesn’t tell us what books belong, and if fallible men decided, then the Bible itself is reduced to a tradition of man (which, by the way, is precisely the teaching of the Jesus Seminar, and I don’t think that either one of us wants to be associated with them). The only other option is that somehow fallible men made these decisions infallibly, which I’m sure you’ll agree is impossible. You cannot squeeze infallible Bible juice from a fallible orange. Which position do you take?
On a related topic, why do we believe that a New Testament was coming anyway? Did Jesus write any of the books? Did Jesus ever command his disciples to write? Did Jesus, Paul, James, John, Peter or any New Testament writer ever even hint that there was a book coming that would act as the sole rule of faith for the Christian? I don’t believe there is, which makes the whole notion of the Bible Alone unscriptural and therefore a tradition of man. The fact is that the Church came first, on Pentecost, and the Bible came from the Church. That Church had the authority to select the books and to definitively say that they were the very Word of God. That Church wrote and assembled the Bible, even though Jesus did not tell them to, because they had the authority to do so. So it is only logical, and Biblical, to accept what that Church says. “He who hears you hears me” sounds like the language of men teaching infallibly. And, that church still exists – “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (my church)”. We should not be building Churches based on the Bible. We should be looking for the Church who gave us the Bible. That Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1Tim 3:15), and we accept the Bible from it as truth. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find that Church.
If I were to say the people who put the Bible together were infallible, I would be lying. No one (including the pope) is infallible...even in the interpretation of the scriptures.
Show you scriptures that state which letters and books are to be included? Like there's a place in the scriptures that says "Thus saith the Lord, First John shall be included in the Bible". Really, I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that.
I wonder why a God so loving and forgiving would allow his children to retain sins. That's not very forgiving. Yes, we (the children of God) have the power to forgive sins. And we also have the power to not forgive (thus retaining the sin). But the cool thing about it, is that God Himself doesn't do that. He does not hold unforgiveness towards us, if we confess and ask Him for forgiveness.
I've heard Catholics brag that there is on Catholic Church, and numerous Protestant churches. Unless you want to claim that either the Catholic Church, or the Protestant churches, are not Christian, then the RCC is just another one of the many different factions in the Christian religion.
The Catholic church, as it is known today, is nothing like what it was when it first began. It's been defiled and corrupted over the centuries. If Peter were alive today, he would be embarassed to the point of not wanting to be associated with the RCC.
Prophet,
I'd like to respond to several items. I'll get to the other items at another time.
Why do you believe that there are 66 inspired books? Who determined that, and where did they get the authority to bind you and me to that? Were these people infallible? Who closed the canon, and where did they get the authority to do that? Does that authority still exist somewhere today? Please provide scripture references.
Are you infallible in your scriptural interpretations, or can your interpretations be wrong?
Regarding forgiveness, John 20:21-23, Jesus is speaking with his disciples. He breathes on them and says "Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins ye retain, they are retained”. Your interpretation of this passage is that Jesus is telling his disciples that they must forgive others, just as stated in the Lord's prayer. Well, this passage simply does not say that. Jesus is specifically addressing the forgiveness of sins, not the forgiveness of people who wrong us. Again, "whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven them". I don’t know how you can read it any other way. Not only is Jesus giving his disciples his authority to forgive sins, but he's also giving them the authority to retain them as well, that is, to not forgive them, at their discretion. One other note - the Catholic Church does not teach that only priests can forgive sins - God is the only one who ultimately forgives sins - but he chooses to use his earthly ministers to act in his place. The priest is a servant of God’s forgiveness, not it’s master.
Regarding the church – you are correct – the word Catholic does not appear in the Bible. It was not necessary, since there was only one church with one doctrine (The word catholic, which means universal, appeared on the scene in the first half of the second century as it continued to spread around the known world). Now there are thousands of Churches, with thousands of different combinations of doctrines, all claiming to follow the Bible and all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Please show me in the Bible where it talks about denominations. Please also show me in the Bible where it says that it is OK to have multiple churches with conflicting doctrines.
Rms 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
1Tim 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine …
1Tim 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
The fire that is being spoken of in First Corinthians 3 is not a literal fire. It is the fire of tribulation (not THE Tribulation, but trials and tests). We are refined here on earth through our trials. At each trial we either move one step closer to perfection, or one step away. John the Baptist speaks of this fire when he said "I baptize you in water, but there comes one after me who will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." (paraphrased from Matthew 3)
"My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. "
James 1
There is no purgatory. It is a fallacy created to appease the families of those who have died in their sins. To give them a false hope that after they die, there is still a chance.
Once you die....game's over.
St,
James 2:14-26 does not teach that works contribute to our salvation; this entire chapter is comparing someone who “claims” that they have "faith" with someone who genuinely has it. The first individual has a presumptuous faith which does nothing and the latter individual demonstrates his faith by his works. Saving faith is not an intellectual assent to truth but a faith that is surrendered to the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit then transforms and compels one to demonstrate their faith by works. Works do not earn us any merit before the Lord; they only give evidence to the faith which we already have.
Salvation is a gift; you cannot earn a gift!!!
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: - Ephesians 2:8.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord – Romans 6:23.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure – Philippians 2:13.
Since it is God which works in us; he alone that gets all the glory!!!
We believe in our salvation by our faith. We prove our salvation by our works.
St,
I've read those same 66 books and found non-Catholic church referenced throughout it as well. But, it may have escaped my attention, but the word "Catholic" is not even mentioned once. Even in the Catholic Bible. The word "church" and "body" are used over and over, both of which I (and millions of non-Catholics) are a part of. So, other than the opinion of a fallible, mortal man (the pope), the RCC is not the only way to heaven. It is a belief system, not a way. Jesus is the only way to heaven.
And the scripture from Hebrews is talking to live people. Once you are dead, it's too late. Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"
And as far as the scripture on forgiveness, that is correct. We are to forgive one another of their sins they have committed against us. That is reinforced by the "Lord's Prayer". But the teaching that only priests can forgive certain sins in anti-scriptural and steeped in humanistic traditions.
Prophet,
Well said; Genesis through Revelation will definitely cover all of my beliefs. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times - Psalms 12:6.
Tliml,
As Prophet so well stated, Genesis through Revelation covers what you call Oline4Himism; so which of the 66 books would you like to discuss?
TLIML
I hope I speak for Online4Him when I say this.
We would like to state all the beliefs that our church holds, but it would take a long time. Because it contains 66 books ranging from one called Genesis to the last book called Revelation. In it we find God's directive on how to live, and we follow it as closely as possible. If you wish to find out more about it, you can find it in any Bible book store. The title of this book is callled "The Bible". Feel free to study it, and then you will understand what we believe.
And as far as your comment on the statement Jesus made to the 12 disciples...I agree with you. It's the structure of the body of Chirst, of which I, and Online4Him, are a part of.
I'm like you, I've memorized a lot of scriptures but can't always remember where it's located. But I take the time to find out where it is so I can give you the location. I do that so that you can study it, which will help us both in our discussion.
Online4Him-
How about this, let's make up Online4Himism. State all of your beliefs in church form so I can refer back to THEM whenever you say something and go "Ah, ah, your religion says otherwise"
Online4Him-
Oh you're right, thank you, hell for you. Hell hell hell... Look, I do not necessarily agree with that, Pope John Paul didn't either. I assume that Ratzy, who was Pope John Paul's advisor, feels the same way. However without the gift of the Eucharist it does make it alot more difficult to get into heaven.
Prophet-
That is JUST IT. For him to be with them all days it wouldn't just target a people, it would be targetting a structure, a structure that would last ALL DAYS. The reason I do not reference them is because I like to make you irritated. Just kidding. I have memorized alot of the bible, however I haven't memorized where it IS... Yea... and the only bible I have, ironically, is a HEATHAN bible. Certainly won't be using that... I would become possessed or something...
Tliml,
You said, "And please allow me to clarify: Just because they are wrong does NOT mean I am condemning them to Hell."
Your religion says otherwise -
The Council of Trent
The Thirteenth Session
ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
Canon 1-11 reiterates the same anathemas.
And, according to John 6, Jesus asked ALL 12 disciples, not just Peter, when He asked if they would also go away. Peter is the only one who answered, and he answered for the rest of the 12. So, try not to read into that scripture what is not there.
And when you use scripture, could you please reference where it is found, so that they can be found easily and studied? Or is there a reason why you did not reference those scriptures?
TLIML,
The correct quote from the Catholic Bible is " am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."...not "the realm". Although, that really has nothing to do with your point. The point is that Jesus was talking to His disciples. No one else. How can He be with them to the end of the world, when they've died....and the end has not yet come?
And please allow me to clarify: Just because they are wrong does NOT mean I am condemning them to Hell. They are just wrong and that is what I believe. Prophet, don't go getting on my case about it because I know that YOU believe that I am wrong. Don't even bother posting to the contrary, I know, you know and God knows.
Pope John Paul said "Better ignorance and fault than knowledge and fault." That is so true.
Chris-
Righto, that was... Pope Leo...? Maybe... However it was not JUST on that one part, it was also in "I give to you the keys of heaven" and Paul saying "I say, men, hold onto your tradition" and when the crowds left Jesus after he had told them that they must eat the son of God he turned to Peter (Not the other apostles, just Peter) and asked him "Will you stay with me?" and Peter said "Always." Even thought Peter denied Jesus, he was still with Him. And since Jesus addressed ONLY Peter... he must have been special. Hold onto your tradition men... thess.
Jesus also said "He who does not eat the son of God has no life" as the crowds walked away he did not tell them he was being metaphorical. And then when he turned to Peter and asked him if he would stay, it was OBVIOUS that it was literal because if it had been metaphorical, not only would he have explained it to the crowds, Peter would have no reason to leave in the first place.
Chris, Jesus said "I am with you all days, from NOW unto the consummation of the realm." from NOW until... That means whoever was right... had to be around THEN. There are only TWO groups that can claim that, CATHOLICS and JEWS. Also, Pope John Paul was right, there is NO gray area, black or white, right or wrong. Evangelicals are wrong for not having faith in the Eucharist. Period. And Chris, they will not go to hell, Paul said so. Don't worry.
TLIML
You know what I find really funny about the Catholic faith? They teach and teach and teach on salvation by works. But then they teach that if you die a sinner, you go to purgatory where you can be prayed into heaven....without doing works.
Purgatory is non-scriptural. And non-existant.
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" Hebrews 9:27.
tliml,
Unlike yourself, I have and can demonstrate my beliefs from the Word of God which cannot be broken (See - John 10:35). Why not follow Jesus' example by using the "It is written" approach?
One side note: I do not necessarily believe that all who have not heard of Jesus will go to hell, I reserve the right to pronounce such things for God alone (anyone else is just guessing). Rather I take this position, I hope and pray that God will have mercy on them and accept them into heaven, but I believe that they will go to hell, thus I strive to tell them of Christ as I know it is the only way.
TLIML,
Interesting points. I would first say that Online4Him probably takes the stance of non-denominational to avoid confusion. In essence all Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura. This is basically saying that if it is not in Scriptures or at least implied by Scriptures then we do not believe in it. This being said, I will try to give satisfactory answers for your questions.
1)Regarding Papal Infallibility: This doctrine is a rather late development, even within the RCC. The entire argument (from Scriptures) for it rests in the account of Jesus telling Peter that upon this Rock He would build His Church. The only problem is that it is not clear that Jesus was referring literallly to Peter (as opposed to Peter's faith) and it is certainly not clear that Jesus meant that there would be an everlasting apostolic succession represented only in the Bishop of Rome. (This by the way, is a major reason why the Orthodox Church disagrees with the RCC). Thus we turn to tradition (already we have left the realm of Sola Scriptura) and we see that though the Bishop of Rome had a large impact, he was not regarded as infallible as we know it for some time.
2)The Eucharist: Here the Scriptural argument is based upon the fact that Jesus said, "This is my Body... This is my Blood" However there is no reason why this must be literally so. Indeed there is the problem of, well if it was Jesus' Body and Blood even at the last supper, then how was it so even before the Sacrifice had been made? Also Jesus often said similar statements, referring to clearly symbolic things as real. It could very well have been symbolic. Again we have to leave Scripture and look at tradition, where we do find some support for the RCC/EO position, even amongst early Church Fathers, but we also see some absurdities on their parts as well.
3)Can a person be blamed for what he does not know?: No, the Scriptures are clear, however the Scriptures are also clear that "all" have rejected God and the signs in their own life, who do not accept Jesus Christ as Savior. The question can be logically and coherently worked out and therefore presents no insurmountable objection. Tradition also seems to be completely opposed to the new teaching of the RCC and it has always been held that apart from Christ/the Church, there was no Salvation.
Thelordismylight, this does not necessarily mean that the RCC is wrong, I believe there are other reasons for rejecting the RCC. However this also does not mean that the Evangelical position is wrong either.
Prophet-
EXACTLY! That is why there is Purgatory.
Alright, you guys have spent the past YEAR attacking my faith and I have defended it. Let us, if at least for a day, turn the tables. I could point out MANY MANY flaws in your religion. Not believing in the Pope when there is evidence FOR the Pope and none AGAINST. Not believing in the Eucharist when there is evidence FOR it and no clear evidence against. Adding the Dead Sea Scrolls without proper examination. (examination would have shown that if they really WERE as old as they said that the paper, being woven from fibres, would have WORN AWAY IN ABOUT ONE-HUNDRED YEARS) Something is DEFINITELY wrong there. Also, the High Episcopalean Sect, the Evangelical sect, the Methodist sect, and many others automatically CONDEMN anyone who BY NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN does not know of Christ. Paul, in one of his letters, SAYS SPECIFICALLY "If ye not know of the Truth by no fault of your own, thou hath not sinned" Of course it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get any of you to defend these things because you will run away with the answer "Oh I do not necessarily agree with that" or "That is not my faith" Protestants do this ALL THE TIME. In debates, in seminars, in trials, and in TALK SHOWS for Christ's sake. Pretend you DO agree with it. I want to see if there is ANY scriptural evidence for what YOU believe. Show me EXACTLY what denies Jesus' being in the Eucharist, show me EXACTLY what denies papal infallibility, show me EXACTLY what denies other people salvation because of their ignorance. You have been pressing me SO hard for scriptural evidence, that I think it is time for you to cough up some defending YOUR beliefs. Online4Him, I understand that you OH SO CONVENIENTLY partake in no denomination, so if you cannot responsibly and maturely attempt to support the ideals of your brethren as I have done then you can exclude yourself from this argument for a while. I do not think it is fair that you people get to constantly attack our beliefs and then find ways to dodge ours. I do not care if they are your beliefs, they are the beliefs of your brethren, are they not? I would like to see them defended.
tliml,
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast - Ephesians 2:8, 9.
Do you have to pay back or work for a gift?
TLIML,
Not to be rude, but are you serious with that last post?
Salvation is not, as most Catholics believe, dependent upon works. Even including what Jesus did. If that were the case, we'd all be in trouble. Jesus healed the sick, and told us too as well. Using your argument, no one would go to heaven. Because, not only did He heal people, and was baptized through immersion, but He was also sinnless. So, we must be perfect in order to get into heaven, right? Is that what you're sayiing?
Because it's not what I'm saying. I will repeat what I posted earlier. I am not sure if baptism has anything to do with salvation, other than throughout the new testament baptism came after salvation, not before, and not with infants. Baptism of babies is not mentioned even once.
I don't believe that baptizing babies will keep you, or them, out of heaven. I also don't believe that baptizing babies will secure their place in heaven.
Online4Him-
I never said you mentioned baptism, however Prophet DID stress that it made a difference because JESUS DID IT. If it makes a difference because JESUS DID IT then shouldn't service be required to get into heaven because JESUS DID IT? If baptism by sprinkling is an incorrect teaching then certainly "you do not have to do service" is incorrect as well?
tliml,
It seems that you are at it again; bring up my name and using it to prove your point. We have never spoken of baptism, so how is it that you claim that I said such and such. Where is the post of this supposed conversation?
TLIML,
You said "I was saying that if baptism by immersion was necessary to get into heaven just because Jesus did it, then service should be too."
You alone are the only one who makes that claim. I have made no such statement that baptism by immersion will get you to heaven. Just as confession to a priest won't keep you out of heaven, nor will it secure your place in heaven. It is merely an incorrect, unscriptural teaching.
Prophet-
I was saying that if baptism by immersion was necessary to get into heaven just because Jesus did it, then service should be too. Online4Him, Star2 and Jester deny this fact. It is ok to disagree with them... after all... you ARE Protestants...
TLIML,
You said "but seem not to give a rat's tail about ANY service, even though that was Jesus' message", but you forget that you are talking to someone who is deeply involved in works of service. So, apparently you comment was not pointed at me. And what position are you trying to pin me in? The position of not being involved in works of service? Because if that is so, then (as I just pointed out) you have failed.
I do not know for sure if baptism has any affect on salvation. But I do know that througout the Bible it talks about people who are saved, and then they are baptized. All I read about babies is that they are to be dedicated. I am going by what is IN the Bible, not what is NOT in the Bible.
Prophet-
What I am trying to ask is this: Why are you making SUCH a big fuss about baptism just because we did not do it the way Christ did? Christ OBVIOUSLY did works of service, they were a MUCH bigger part of his life than Baptism was. How come the Protestant religions SOOOOO stress baptism by immersion, but seem not to give a rat's tail about ANY service, even though that was Jesus' message. The reason I phrased it the way I did is because I was attempting to pin you in that position. The Protestant religion basically IS pinned in that position, nevertheless...
Oh... so then to get into heaven we don't have to do ANYTHING Jesus did right?
TLIML,
No, I'm not saying that. And I'm not saying that just because Jesus loved the sinner, that I should too.
Of course, I'm being facetious. But I like the way you said it..."just because Jesus did it"...doesn't mean we have to right?
But, with the absence of ANY scriptural support of sprinking being the way that baptisms should be done (and the same is true with baptizing babies), even the few "vague" references to baptism by immersion seems to point out that its the way to be the way it's done.
Prophet-
Are you saying that JUST because Jesus was baptized by submersion, we do too?
scitsonga,
The age of accountability would be different and dependent on each person. We cannot say how God will judge a person, we can only say how a person can be saved from judgement. We do know that God is just and He will only give a just answer.
I would consider it the point in a person's life when they are able to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, and able to critically think about issues such as truth and faith. Perhaps the point where one is able to criticize and laugh at another's faith?
Ok
proph "you weren't curious. You were looking for a debate. You do not desire to learn. If I had answered you, you would have argued right back."
No, I am curious as to what you believe on the question. Are you unable to provide as answer? Unable to defend your "age of accountability"?
citsonga,
You weren't curious. You were looking for a debate. You do not desire to learn. If I had answered you, you would have argued right back.
prophet
"Citsonga,
I do have an answer. But I didn't realize I was under obligation to give it to you."
whatever proph, if you dont want to explain your views, thats fine. I was just curious though when you thought the eternal torture thing might kick in.
Citsonga,
I do have an answer. But I didn't realize I was under obligation to give it to you.
prophet "I would like to discuss the age of accountability with you, but you are carnally minded. Things of the spirit are foreign to you. And I'm not going to waste my time with someone who can't (actually "won't" is more appropriate) understand."
I see you dont really have an answer for when your god would commit one to an eternal torture experience.
TLIML,
Could you please repost your last message? I'm sorry. I accidentally flagged you instead of me. I had a typo and ended up flagging you instead. I'm sorry.
TLIML,
"Jesus did acts of service, but you don't believe in that do you?"
Did I ever say that? No. You're lying again. Actually, I recall a post where I explained that my wife and I are our CARE team ministers for our church. We coordinate all sorts of helps for people of our church and those in our neighborhood. Not only coordinate, we involve ourselves in most of the things we coordinate. Mowing yards, raking leaves, and shovelling snow for the elderly and those who can't do it. Painting over unsightly graffitti. Helping people with food and other necessities. And the list goes on and on.
You've got to have both! You've got to meet the needs of the people, like Jesus did with feeding the multitudes. But you also have to witness and share the Gospel. And I don't do that as much as I should. Just today, as a matter of fact, I joined with a Christian brother of mine to do some street evangelizing. It's a passion that God has put into my heart.
That's one thing I've been praying for a lot lately. I want to be as much like Jesus as I can. To not be so caught up in acts of service that I forget why I'm doing it. And to not be so focused on witnessing that the needs of the people are ignored. There's a balance. And that is what I want in my life.
Prophet-
Jesus did acts of service, but you don't believe in that do you?
citsonga,
True, the government does a good enough job going to war with everyone, without the help of the religious groups. But hey, as you said, Catholics and Protestants are debating instead of warring. Maybe we should be involved in the government afterall.
I would like to discuss the age of accountability with you, but you are carnally minded. Things of the spirit are foreign to you. And I'm not going to waste my time with someone who can't (actually "won't" is more appropriate) understand.
Interesting, very interesting to see centuries old debates among Catholics and Protestants as to who holds the correct interpretation of christianity. I guess they are making progress though, now they are debates rather than war. Thats why its important to keep religion out of govenment - to prevent religious wars in America.
prophet "Babies cannot comprehend the concept of sin and salvation. God's grace covers them until the age of accountability."
So at what age would that accountability be, before being sent to eternal torture? would it be 5, perhaps 9, no that can be, could it be 13 just as they turn into teenagers. Oh oh I know it would be 21, then they are officially adults, then it would be OK to send the "unbelievers" to an eternal torture.........some loving God.........LOL.............such nonsense. Cant believe parents actually tell their kids they are going to be tortured for an eternity if they dont "believe" the right stuff.......sick and very twisted indeed. Seems like physiological child abuse.
flagged myself for typo
TAJ,
I have my conviction about how Catholics depict Jesus on the cross. Does that exclude any Protestant church that does the same? No.
As I've said before, I am not Catholic. And that, sadly, is all that is required for many Catholics to label me as Protestant. I am led by what the God's Word says, not by what some men's tenets say is traditional. I seek the Truth of God, not the truth of man. God is eternal and perfect, man is not.
I've seen crucifixed WITH corpi in Lutheran churches. Some protestant churches have, some don't have. As for the Catholics, it is because we focus on the Passion of the Christ. Hmm...sounds like an interesting difference. I hope a Catholic comes along and makes a movie around it. I've got an idea for a good title - The Passion of the Christ. I'm sure if some one made a Catholic movie based around that and incorporated the rosary that it would make billions and many protestant churches would get behind it. If only, if only :)
And, true, I (as well as everyone) have some sort of idol in my life. I'm trying to uproot my idols and destroy them. Are you? No, you cling to them for comfort like a security blanket.
And Jesus on the cross leaves the work half done. Jesus on the cross is not a risen Savior. But, my Jesus completed the work. That's why the cross is empty. There is still a cross, mind you, to remind me of His sacrifice. And everytime I think of the cross, I am pierced by my own unworthiness. But I also note that the cross is empty, because He has risen, and is now on the right hand of the Father.
You also said " but you seem to hug your bible so closely that I believe you are thinking more of the bible and less of God and His nature..." I know about His nature. His spirit burns within my heart the desire to be holy and to preach truth to His children. He convicts me of my sins. His spirit drives me to my knees in wonder of His power, holiness, and mercy. So, I know His nature.
Although I didn't understand the comment "So... you have not sinned once? Jesus' death forgives not only your original sin but all future sins? So ANYONE, whether they believe in God or not can enter heaven? If what you say is true then that is the case."
Yes, Jesus' death forgives all sins. But only when we ask for forgiveness. And I cannot ask for forgiveness of a sin that I have not yet commited. But when I do, then I will ask for forgiveness. And He alone will forgive me. If I have sinned against another person, I am obligated to ask forgiveness of them. But even if they withold forgiveness, God has forgiven me, and I am without condemnation.
The souls of the dead are with Christ. The souls of the living are here. Can the souls of the dead lay hands on me?
Christ was addressing his apostles? Oh. So priests can't forgive sins then, since Jesus was addressing only his apostles.
My mother was the mother of my body only. God is the only creator of my spirit. He put my spirit in me, not my mom. And so the RCC does not believe that God is eternal? Jesus said He was the beginning and the end....doesn't a mother come before her son? A mother has to be in existence before she can have a son. So Mary is actually the one that has no beginning, right?
Have I said the words "Our Father"? Or are you asking if I've prayed the "Lord's prayer"? If you're talking about the latter, no. I pray according to the spirit, not according to tradition. The "Lord's prayer" is a guidline, not for rote.
Pagan chants...religious chants...all the same. Meaningless and dead.
My merriam-webster dictionary says "1.Baptism by complete submersion of the person in water" "2> absorbing involvement <immersion in politics> " "3. instruction based on extensive exposure to surroundings or conditions that are native or pertinent to the object of study;" Nothng about "exposure". Jesus was immersed. I would rather follow what He did, then what man does.
When a person comes of age, then they are responsible for their decision for their salvation. Not before. Water baptism comes after salvation. Not before.
Yes, I know that what you've posted is fact. What I've posted is Truth. I follow Truth.
Prophet-
The sould of the dead is no different than that of the living.
Christ was addressing the apostles, his ministers, not random people.
I will look into Mary.
Jesus is still God, and Mary was still is mother, you cannot win this one. My mother was mother of both my spirit and my body.
First off, Have you said the Our Father more than once in your life? Of course you have. The rosary helps to meditate and think, and it gives you time alone with God. And vain repetitions means pagan chants. Not prayers...
Jesus said "forgive in my name" this means the priests/apostles represent/ed Him.
Idols, concentrating on Jesus' or another saint's suffering can help us think about what Christ and other saints suffered, and why they suffered. If you do not want to pray with meditation like that, then that is fine... but you seem to hug your bible so closely that I believe you are thinking more of the bible and less of God and His nature... And I am sure you yourself have a good deal of idolatry. Money. Cars. Women. All these are idols. And by the way, an empty cross didn't save us :D
So... you have not sinned once? Jesus' death forgives not only your original sin but all future sins? So ANYONE, whether they believe in God or not can enter heaven? If what you say is true then that is the case.
Baptism by sprinkling. Merriam Webster's definition of immersion: (1) The exposure to a liquid or feeling. EXPOSURE. So technically immersion does not have to mean dunked.
Prophet, I thought even if it wasn't their fault that they didn't know about Christ they were still going to Hell? This is what Star2 and many Protestant churches profess. And the baptized CAN choose to annul their baptism at Confirmation, when they CAN understand it. They can say yes or no.
I hope that you did not find anything rash or unkind in this statement. I don't want anyone to give it a thumbs down, I already know you all disagree with it and are too cowardly to post why because you know that everything I have posted was fact. I tried to keep it down. Although when I read your insulting comments i did want to spew some hateful things at you.
TAJ,
Are you talking about the books of the Bible, and the order that they are in?
Even the scriptures were put in a certain order based on tradition. Oh, I'm sorry the bible fell from the sky during the protestant reformation...sorry I forgot about that one
Psalms 2:1 "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? "
I know how you feel though. There have been times when God has convicted me of subscribing to some man-made tradition that has nothing to do with Him or His scriptures. It hurts. It made me angry. But it's a part of growing spiritually. Maturity hurts. It's tough. But it's worth it.
Prophet-
I was so angered by your ignorant responses that I know I will say rash and hurtful things. So I have written them down and I will answer them later.
You are confusing dead people with live people.
Okay, so I have the power to forgive, just like the priests. So I don't need to go to a priest, I can go to any Christian.
Did it say Mary was "assumed"? No. There are apostles who's "death" is unknown....maybe they were assumed too.
Jesus=fully God, fully man. Mary=gave birth the the man, Jesus Christ. Mary=mother of Jesus. God is a spirit. Mary didn't give birth to a spirit. God has no beginning. So Mary cannot be God's mother. She is Jesus' mother.
rosary....lose count of what? Repeating the same vain prayer over and over? Matthew 6:7 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do..."
Penitence..there's nothing wrong with being repentant, but only God will discipline us as He wills, and if He wills. It's not man's place to do so.
Idols..."They help with meditation and prayer." I guess I'm more spiritually mature than most Catholics. I only need God's spirit to help with meditation and prayer. Carnal things for carnal people I guess (reference "rosary"...same thing)
Purgatory...Our spirits are saved and holy when Christ enters into our life. Our spirits (which are holy) enter straight into heaven. We cannot "pray" anyone into heaven.
baptism by sprinkling...this one, i'm not too worried about. although the Bible speaks of immersion, and I like to stick with the Bible..not the false teaching of an organization.
baptism of babies. Baptism is for after you're saved. it is a conscious decision by someone who understands about salvation and baptism. Show me in the Bible where anyone baptized a baby? We are to dedicate babies. Big difference. If a baby dies, he goes to heaven. Babies cannot comprehend the concept of sin and salvation. God's grace covers them until the age of accountability.
Prophet-
In order:
It is nice to know that you have someone praying for you? What about asking your parish whatever to pray for you? (what is it now? Ummm reverand? Or something?) That is the SAME EXACT THING. What about saying aloud at mass "Please pray for the Gershwin Family, their son may die" Do you look down on that? I didn't think so. Asking a friend to pray for you? No...
Jesus said "Go and forgive in my name and those you forgive, my father shall forgive."
Mary's ASSUMPTION, what do you have to deny it? Hmm? Did it EVER say Mary died? Nope.
Jesus=God Mary=Mother of Jesus Mary=Mother of God. Pretty simple...
Rosary-
Just an organized way of praying so you don't lose count. Seriously.
Penitance- ??? What are you talking about? What is wrong with THAT?
Idols- We do NOT worship statues. They help with meditation and prayer.
Purgatory- Nothing impure may enter heaven. Duh.
Baptism by sprinkling: Wow... that is just pathetic... that you would object to a special form of baptism just because a phrase in the bible says by submersion. Really... pathetic... The bible did not stop to deal with frivoloties like saying "and/or sprinkling" submersion covered it, or so they thought. Little did they know protty nitpickers would turn words they didn't bother to think for 24 hours on into the enemy of the church.
Baptism of Babies... What? WHAT?! Don't YOU baptize babies? If you do not I am sorry... we baptize babies so that they are pure as long as possible and as soon as possible because... what if they die? I mean limbo doesn't exist... we got rid o' that... but REALLY? You think baptism is for ADULTS ALONE? Oh my gosh... what is the world coming to... 20 years ago I could relate to protestants... 40 years ago when I was a wee 'un they were PRACTICALLY THE SAME! You people accuse us of compromising and drifting... Pot? Kettle. Kettle? Pot...
TLIML,
How about the game "Which Religion Will Go To Heaven". And the winner is......NONE! (including RCC).
TLIML
Dead people praying for us. (Like God's not big enough to hear us....or maybe TOO big to hear us)
Priests being the only one who can absolve us of certain sins (like Christ's work on the cross is insufficient for ALL sins)
Mary's "ascension" (or whatever it's called) into heaven.
Her title as "Mother of God".
Rosary.
Penitence.
Idols.
Purgatory.
Baptism by sprinkling.
Baptism of babies.
thelordismylight,
Did you see the clip I posted? I love how the Simpson's showed the difference between Catholic and Protestant heaven
Oh, and I have been keeping up with my "Which Religion Can Survive Longest" contest... Let's see... since it began the Catholic Church has had... No divisions. And the Protestant church(s) have had... another fourteen... It seems the Catholic Church is in the lead :(
Let's see... are the Jehovah's Witnesses Catholic or Protty? PROTESTANT! Are their teachings less false than ours? I think it is sufficient to pin protestantism with the Jehovahs. Let's see... Jesus burned at the stake? Wow... very very accurate. Oh wait wait wait... is Unitarianism... oh my gosh... IT IS! WHO has false teachings? Catholic vs. Protestant. I think I know the outcome here...
Prophet-
What false teachings? Name some... I have already cleared up the pope... the Immaculate Conception... and the Eucharist? What false teachings? Like the teaching that we DO have to keep holy the sabbath. Sorry for staying true to the Ten Commandments.
http://www.jibjab.com/view/174267
Happy St. Patrick's Day!!!!
Does anyone know how the Vatican makes these decisions? Is it only Italian and European concerns that they take into context, or is it worldwide? I mean, I've done some exit polls, which I assume is how the news politics makes their predictions... but how can the Vatican be so sure?
"Now the Vatican says it is time to modernize the list to fit a global world." - good point.
But what I have said about catholics is that they are very misled, and promote false teachings.
Truth,
I've never said that Catholics weren't Christians because they're Catholics. I've said that there are many Catholics who are Christians because they have not been born again. The same is true for Protestants.
And I have my very sincere doubts about thelordismylight being a Christian since he doesn't believe in preaching the Gospel to all the world. He thinks we should all just keep our mouths shut. Even though almost every apostle gave their life doing that very thing....preaching the Gospel to everyone. Including those who didn't want to hear it.
oh, and the author noted that someone was a catholic. i guess that makes it a catholic aritcle.
taj,
oh. yeah. right. the word "catholic" came up once. obscurely.
Jester,
Catholicism wasn't mentioned in that article? perhaps you need to start sounding out the words again.
Chris, that isn't my point. My point is that this article is 100% about a Catholic priest expressing a Catholic doctrine to a Catholic newspaper aimed at Catholics. What I was saying is that it is interesting that non Catholics are so interested in it. I think any Church statements should be on CNN etc. I think it helps people who are searching find out more about the Church. Did you read the link to how the Orthodox Churches have recognized the Primacy of the Pope?
For the record I don't dislike my protestant brothers or sisters. Was it a Catholic president who established formal diplomatic relations with the Vatican? Was it a Catholic President who gave a Consulate to the Vatican? Was it a Catholic President who appointed now a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court? Was it a Catholic President who helped with legislation to help the growth of Catholic hospitals, schools, etc.? .... No, there were good Protestant leaders who wanted to help their Catholic brothers and sisters grow. It saddens me that when you type a Billy Graham, or a lot of protestant leaders and Catholic you see a lot of hurtful things. There are a lot of very good protestant leaders and as Catholics we owe a lot of thanks to the work we have done together and continue to do together. I have a deep respect for the CP because it refers to Catholics as Christians which some protestants are still confused about, so great work CP for educating others. There is a lot of work to do, but as the statistics reveal the US is a much different place from when JFK had to explain/justify his Catholic faith to the American people....Amen to that!
Hey Jester,
How are you doing? It is good to see you stopping by for a moment or two.
a good example is the article http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080306/31445_Switching_Denominations%2C_Shopping_for_Religion.htm
it has nothing to do with Catholics, but tliml feels the need to put his two cents in on it. and he doesn't even like protestants!!
you know what's funny? tliml and his compatriots always complain that us "protties" like to come on Catholic articles and bash them. They act like they're above such childish behavior. And then I see them on an article talking about Baptists or something protestant and they're touting their beloved church, and demeaning anything that is not RCC.
does anyone else find that odd?
Also,
I find it highly disingenuous that you state that you are here because you are Catholic and you have no idea why we are here. CP is a Christian Post not Catholic, and it embraces all Christian Traditions and even allows atheists. I don't see you going to CNN (who ran a similar article) and saying, "Hey, what are you guys doing here, if you aren't Catholic then get out, this is my page because it is Catholic, see it says Vatican in the title!"
thelordismylight,
You are forgetting that YOU attacked Protestantism first, I was merely responding! You tried to twist what I had said about how the majority of Protestant Christians in America do not act like Christians. Well it goes both ways buddy, and I am sorry if you do not agree with surveys, statistics, personal testimonies, and any other objective evidence, and only accept blindly that the Church must be perfect. I mean, why did Pope John Paul the Second call for Churchwide repentance? The simple way out is to say, "Look Chris, it is true that there are many in the Catholic Church who are just wrong and are not following the standards of the RCC. This doesn't mean the Church is not the one true Church, only that some individuals are corrupt" Just say that, and I will say, "Look tliml, it is true that there are many in the Protestant Church who are just wrong and are not following the standards that Christ set for them. This doesn't mean the Church is not the Body that Christ actually established, only that some individuals are corrupt."
I get that way sometimes. There are a few here who push my buttons, but it's good practice for me to learn self-control. lol. And patience.
Yea... sorry about that... minwest kinda got me jazzed up and agry.
You're welcome. Sorry. I didnt mean to come across rude. It just took me by suprise, especially after the couple comments you posted before you left.
... Thanks?
Well, there's something I thought I'd never hear.
Flagged my own comment, I thought it was kind of mean...
Matthew 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
Acts1:8 "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
Acts 22:15 "For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard."
Acts 26:22 "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:"
Romans 10:13-15 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! "
I would like to say here that in The Bible, God says, that those who are in Christ, are neither, male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek, all God's people are The Body of Christ!
He also told us that flesh and blood is not our enemy, it is Satan and all this bashing on here how is any of this profiting anyone.
Is this glorifying our Lord.
I want to go on the record to apologize to my Catholic brethren, and I do mean that sincerely. I have prayed about this issue and The Lord has convicted me of making statements that I need to repent of.
When we come to Jesus in full repentence and seek God's forgiveness for our sins, the blood of Jesus Christ covers and cleanses my sin. This is what HE died for: "The Lamb of God who takes away the SIN of the world.
Man was born in sin (due to Adam and Eve and the fall) and JESUS death and resurrection restores man back to a right relationship with God.
It is a gift from GOD it is not works based not that any man should boast.
We have nothing to boast about anyone of us, including myself, my sin, the evil that I did was done to GOD ultimately and it is to HIM that I confess my sin and "HE is faithful and just to forgive us of all unrighteousness.
There is nothing left for me to do but BELIEVE in the FINISHED work of Jesus CHrist, it is why HE came!
The way that the world will know we are HIS disciples, is the love we have for one another.
I want to be part of spreading HIS love and not part of bashing anyone.
"Who ever calls upon the NAME of JESUS" will be saved, those are God's Words and no man can take that away from me or anyone else.
I know that however faulty I do it, I walk with Jesus Christ, HE is my hope, my all in all, everything in my life. I tried the ways of the world and they left me empty, HE fills my heart, soul and mind.
We are new creations in Christ, because of what Jesus did on The Cross. I give Him all the praise and glory due Him!
I pray that those I have offended here will forgive my offhand remarks, that was not Christ speaking that was my own flesh.
People, it's not about us, it is all about Jesus Christ, maybe if we get off our need to be "right" and The Body of Christ = The Church, it is people, called out by God, separated by GOD to walk in fellowship with Him. I am no longer going to be posting on any sites, I am going offline to work on my own relationship with the Lord. I pray that HE will give you peace in your own walk with Him. It's not about religion, it's about the love of God for all His creation - How truly great God is! Blessings and peace, In Jesus love, Annie
Besides, tliml, you're the one equating the KKK with Christians. And you refuse to answer my question?
Heck, tliml, I don't even classify you as a Christian (which you reinforce with your last post) Why would I classify the KKK as a Christian. You don't even believe in telling people about Jesus.
Sorry prophet, I need to go. I know you are going to pound your fists on the floor and throw an adorable li'l protty-fit. But I HAVE TO GO.
Why don't you ask them? Would you classify minwest as christian? Or above the age of... 10?
And you seriously believe that they are Christian?
Minwest-
6) "and what makes this so-called pope closer to god?" Ummm "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church." "Thou art Peter and I give to you the keys of heaven" Thess. "And I say, hold onto your tradition men"
Prophet-
Long ago? Well the prime KKK recruitment was in the 1920's... not long ago... and the KKK is still alive today. Or had you not heard of that blown up Catholic Church in Georgia?
Prophet-
So you want to be like the apostles by preaching, but you DON'T want to be like Jesus by doing service? If you don't have to adhere to JESUS' standards, why should I adhere to the apostle's?
tliml,
By the way. You can get off the KKK stuff. How long ago was that? I see you don't practice forgiveness or mercy either. And you call me intolerant and spiteful.....
minwest-
I enjoyed your completely erroneous statement. And I will tell it off bit by bit.
1) "Where do these pedophiles get off telling the world what sin is?" The churche's pedophile accusations have halved since the past year, where as Orthodox Christianity's (which, a year ago was ALREADY larger than the Catholic Churche's) is rising. Who are the pedophiles? That's right. You guys. Of course Catholicism just gets more media because... let's see... people CARE about us and also because a T.V. shows knows it can get more viewers than it could with "Some insignificant sect of a Protestant church violated a boy last night." Think about it. Big church = big scandal, little church = nobody cares.
(I couldn't understand your second sentence. Seriously, buddy take some anti-stupid lessons or something, but do you know what our authority is? The Eucharist.)
2) "I think these people need to be labeled as heretics and an cult" First of all, "an cult" it is an "a" before a consonant buddy. You are obviously a second grader or something. Listen kiddy, I want you to go to your daddy, pull on his shirt tail in the cutest way and ask "Daddy, are you in the KKK?" If he is southern protty he very well may be. Do you know what the KKK is? They kill Catholics. They kill black people. Do you know WHY? Becuase they are DIFFERENT. THEY are a cult. THEY are a Protestant cult. And I do not think that you can lable over one sixth of the world's population a cult. We outnumber all other christian sects put together. We do NOT tithe and we STILL have more money! We are all around better than you! And there is nothing cultish about us. We do not sacrifice, we do not kill people, as does the KKK, and we do not do anything CULTISH at all.
3) "They helped during slavery and apartheid" once again, wrong. The Protestants used the KJ bible to support slavery. Protestantism basically FOUNDED slavery, so I wouldn't go there if I were you because you are TOTALLY going to lose this one. The Catholic Churche's teachings were strictly AGAINST slavery and people were excommunicated for having slaves. So... you are just so so wrong. In fact what you blame US for YOU are actually guilty of.
4) "Now they look at genocides in Africa and do nothing" HAHAHA oh my GOSH! That is GREAT! Buddy... we do the MOST in africa the Catholic church has put about 57 billion dollars into Africa over the years! We helped give Kenya Democratic elections. Meanwhile... back in Prottyland... "Hmm looks like they are in trouble... maybe we should help?" "Are you kidding? They are black, we hate them, remember?" If we do NOTHING in Africa... explain how 50% of Africa is Catholic and only 4% is Protestant... interesting numbers...
tliml,
You sure don't adhere to the Bible do you? Paul was arrested many times for preaching the Gospel. He was stoned and left for dead. Gee, you think those people wanted to hear? Peter was imprisoned too. Most of the apostles died for preaching the truth. And you say that they are wrong for doing what they did. Tsk, tsk. It's the story of your life. Work, work, work, but forget about witnessing. Forget about love. You work to secure your place in heaven, and there's no love in it. God wants us doing His work, which is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc, etc. But what good does it do if they do not hear the Good News.
If you don't care about their spiritual health, meeting their physical needs will be in vain. They will be well fed sinners in hell. But hey! At least they got to eat while they were alive.
Pope Gregory the Great had established in the 6th century a list of seven deadly sins which are: Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. So let’s see what these sins do mean:
1- Lust or lechery involves obsessive or excessive thoughts or desires of sexual nature.
2- Gluttony is the over-consumption of anything to the point of waste, usually the excessive desire for food.
3-Greed is the selfish desire for or pursuit of money, power, wealth, food or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others
4- Sloth or laziness, indifference, unwillingness to care, the failure to utilize one’s talents and gifts.
5- Wrath is an ordinate and uncontrolled feelings oh hatred and anger.
6- Envy is characterized by an insatiable desire
7- Pride or vanity is a desire to be more important or attractive than others. It is an excessive love of self especially holding self out of proper position toward God.
If we look at these seven deadly sins we can see that all the “new” sins evocated by the Vatican are simply the sins of Lust, Greed, Sloth, Envy and Pride and also Gluttony…the only sin that is not there is the sin of Wrath…but I would like to see the Vatican commit that sin especially when the Christians are butchered in Irak, in Iran, in the Gaza strip, in Sudan in Algeria, in Egypt, in China, in the Philippines, in India, in Pakistan, in Indonesia and in so many places in the world.
under the sin of war comes the sin of using another country as a buffer zone to use as a battleground to fight ones enemies, instead of responsibly fighting them on your own soil.
the "word of god" is the covenant of christ, the spirit of christ, and christ who is god, whom god has put EVERYTHING UNDER HIS AUTHORITY.
Where do these Pedofiles get off telling the World what sin is? The Word of God as given to Moses alredy let's us know what sin, proper study of the Word tells us what sin is. I think these people need to be labeled as heretics, and an cult, and ignored by the Christian Worls. I mean these people are as much about God as demons are, they helped during slavery and apartheid, now they look at the genocides that are taking place in Africa, and say and do nothing. And what makes the so-called Pope closer too God than anyone else in the World.
SIN IS SIN, AND THE WAGES THEREOF IS DEATH!
Chris,
First of all these surveys are mostly a bunch of ****, so I'm not going to comment on what a survey says or anyone's personally knowing a Catholic who..... I only base my statements around facts: fact the Church teachings with regards to certain aspects of the faith, fact the Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church in the US and numbers continue to rise, fact the majority of members on the US Supreme Court are Catholics, so I'm interested in how they vote, fact, the United States has official diplomatic ties with the Vatican, so I'm interested in what documents or issues they are working on, I'm also interested in knowing about the work the Church is doing with its seat at the UN,... I could go and on but I am interested in knowing about the facts that surround the Church in the modern world as for surveys or I know a Catholic who, or I know a priest or religious Catholic who couldn't live up to the Church teachings, or my father was Catholic and blames the Church for.... these things don't really interest me. I came to this topic because it is about a Catholic priest discussing Catholic teachings...I know why I'm here and have no clue why other "Christians" are here.
thelordismylight,
I was not trying to attack the RCC, rather I was trying to say you can't blame Protestants as being majoritively bad, when in fact the RCC is in the same boat, in fact on another post on CP it talks about "Behaviors Americans find Sinful" and it turns out that Catholics view most issues that are sinful much less so than Protestants, and especially Evangelicals. And while it is true that the Protestant Church does not require its members to attend each Sunday, we are expected to live up to the standards God has called for us.
And I would like to point out that the Da Vinci Code and The Golden Compass were both targetted at Catholics because the Golden Compass was released on Dec. 8, date of the Immaculate Conception, and the Da Vinci Code was released on Celebration of The Eucharist.
EDIT* there is supposed to be Their and the first paragraph was addressed to Prophet.
Yes, I paid to adopt an african village and build a chapel there, train a priest there, and build them a well and send them aid. I sent them vitamins, blankets, food, chlorine tablets to put in the well, and tools. There village is already growing. Things have gotten better for them. Some of them have been able to go to school now, others have gotten jobs in the city.
Chris-
That is nice. You have "Catholic friends" Catholics are not required to go to confession, but they should go at least once a year. And you are NOT playing fair when you pin Catholics with not doing their sacraments seeing as your church requires you... to do... nothing. Wow... maybe I should be Protestant. It SURE is a lot less work. It is almost LAZY :(
Scitsonga-
I read that post AND agreed with it. Our faith should NOT be forced on others, however the Ten Commandments are a historic document of law that show the nation that our law was founded on ancient laws that date back to BC... They are not threatening anyone's rights by being up there. Tell me this. Was the Golden Compass being put in movies a hate crime? Of course it was. It used the word MAGISTERIUM as the EVIL PEOPLE! HOW BLATANT CAN YOU GET?! Was it taken back? No. Was anyone punished? Of course not. If the rights of Catholics and people that claim to be christians are violated EVERY DAY, then how in the WORLD can you complain about having HISTORIC LAW DOCUMENTS on government property? The Da Vinci Code. Obviously false. Even if it wasn't it was STILL a hate crime! Was ANYTHING done? NO of course it wasn't. We should not prance around forcing our faith on others, but we can still express it.
scitsonga, why do you delete numerous comments of mine on several article in TCP mission- do you support censorship?. I guess it must have hurt really bad to loose a debate like that ya? Next time, read a Holy Bible and Quran thoroughly before accusing somebody to be blinded by religion. -And try not to read the Agnostic 2-pages info on Middle East real estate conflict. Again I say, -you are lost and dead wrong on all your postings about the Jerusalem Yeshiva boys murder case. Shalom scitsonga.
scitsonga,
I have no reason to judge non-Christians, and in fact I cannot see how it could really help them. It makes little difference to me if Muslims tell me I am going to hell because I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, I cannot see how it would matter to an atheist/agnostic if a Christian tells them the same. Also, Christ and the Apostles were abundantly clear that we were not to judge those outside of our own community. This being said, if you were to ask me, "Do you believe sex outside of marriage is wrong?" I would say yes, regardless of whether you are an atheist or Christian, however it is nothing to me if the lost act like the lost, I care about their souls.
The list I gave was not supposed to reflect your position, it was to reflect legitimate alternatives to controling population within an atheist/agnostic worldview. You do not have to accept them or implement them, but there is nothing stopping you. It is just as morally right to use protection to prevent a birth as it is to murder a one year old you deem to be a burden on society in the athiest worldview. For Christians it is clearly wrong and evil, for atheists/agnostics it is at best societally disadvantageous, and it is at least morallly neutral.
Finally, I respect your decision to honor your marriage.
Well Annie etc.
I'm not 100% sure why you and others who find fault with the catholic Church would be attracted to a story titled: Vatican Releases New List of Sinful Acts? Why are you so interested in knowing what the Vatican released? I mean if you disagree with the Church teachings then why even read an article about them? or is just the Christian thing to do to come and attack another person's faith? I mean I could understand if it was a general topic or something that relates to other Christian faiths, but NO this article is all about a Catholic priest discussing a statement aimed at Catholics in a Catholic newspaper...now what interest would you and other non-Catholics have in that? unless of coarse we recognize the true Church's statements as having a deeper meaning :)
thelordismylight: Please read the post that Chris333 made: "As Christians, it is not necessary for our faith to be in the public square. We should be focused on becoming better Christians and living by the commands of Christ, not making sure that non-Christians live by the same standard."
Chris "I understand that you feel differently about sex and marriage due to your agnostic belief. That is fine, I do not want to judge non-Christians."
Yes our views appear to be different on sex and marriage, but I do respect your views on this. I appreciate your non-judgemental stance too. On being an agnostic, I'm not sure I would regard it as a belief though, is probably closer to non-belief.
" I would just add that there is other legitimate solutions (in the agnostic/atheist worldview) just get an abortion each time! Or practice polyandry. Or adopt a one-child only policy. Or conduct wars against countries with too high population or growth rate. Or sterilize men or women. Any of these are perfectly valid and morally neutral according to agnosticism/atheism, and all have been practiced under agnostic/atheistic pretenses (saving polyandry)."
well Chris I did not mean or imply any of that.
"The New Testament gives us clear instruction that marriage is to be between one man and one woman, and that sex is only permissible within that bond. Regardless of what the world defines marriage as, this definition stands for Christians."
"(A side note would be that monagamy is not explicitly taught in the NT, but it can be well deduced, and I believe the argument is fairly strong)"
Yes I see your point and I agree with your interpretation of the Christian view, I however am not encumbered by those limitations, although I am married and would not violate the marriage vows I have made with my wife, but that has nothing to do with religion for me."
Taj,
Sure many of the Christians in America act like Richard Dawkins, but many many many in the RCC do exactly the same. You have no room to talk if you want a body of Believers who are acting like saints. Most Catholics do not even go to confession, those that do go maybe once a year for the most part. Of all of my Catholic friends (I have had many) all of them looked about like MTV.
Prophet,
I agree that we should be out telling people about Christ and salvation! By no means was that what I was trying to imply in my post. However there is a big difference between telling someone they are a sinner and need to repent and accept Christ into their life, and saying, "Well whether you repent or not, and whether you believe in Christ or not, you are going to have to follow what I believe is right, and you are going to have to observe my articles of faith" I am fine with the separation of Church and State, I am not okay with the separation of Church and Christian though. If you are going to say you are a Christian, then you better take your faith seriously. Public schools ought to be free of religious influence (and atheist influence for that matter) and Christians should make sure that their kids either go to private schools, Christian schools, or homeschooling. Public schools are a terrible place for kids anyways. Keeping the 10 Commandments in the Court rooms means nothing for a Christian. We are to have the commandments written on our hearts. I would rather Christians act like Christians than have them act like atheists and agnostics but get to look at the 10 Commandments when they go to court. Jesus was not interested in changing public policy, He could have done anything He wanted to, but He chose to only focus on individuals. Yes the Great Commission is a very important and central part of Christianity, however that does not mean we act like the Muslims, we are Christians.
I flagged myself. Typo.
tliml,
And you believe the words of Paul? The very one who did what you say we shouldn't do? And you believe the words of Jesus? The very one who tells us to do what you say we shouldn't do?
With each of your posts, you further yourself from the truth and love that Christ commands us to. You have no love for the lost. You have no love for the Christian brothers and sisters. And you show no love for God or His Word. All you have love for is an organization. An organization that can't save anyone.
I speak the truth. Jesus commanded us to be witnesses. He didn't say, only if they want to hear. Speak the Good News. If they don't want to hear it, so be it. He didn't tell us to berate them and accost them. He merely said to spread His Word.
And I don't know why you accuse me of not doing anything. Have you told anyone lately of Christ's love and the Cross?
You also express magnificent christian faith when you say "I do believe, oh I do" and then... do nothing... You do not prove it... you show no love for others... you do nothing for God... you just... say... I do... Wow... and then you say that people that have good hearts ARE going to hell just because BY NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN they do not have access to the Word of God. Way to sit in the seat of judgement.
Prophet-
I take that back. You must show your faith every day that you mount that Klan hood of yours, sing your "oweeohh"s and hang some Catholics! RIGHT? Way to show your faith bucko.
Prophet-
Do not preach it if they do not want to hear it. God did not want us to FORCE our religion on anyone. Really. I bet you have never leapt out into the square screaming about the messiah. I would have LOVED to see them drag you away :D
First off, an empty cross didn't save anyone. Second of all, Annie... Jesus said "He who does not eat the son of god and drink his blood has no life" during the Last Supper he reinstated it by saying "This is my body" and "This is my blood" It does not matter how you (online4Him) try to twist it and turn it. He said it. He did not speak in code. He said EXACTLY what he meant and he did NOT say it metaphorically. Online4Him has YET to explain that, after Jesus said "Unless you eat the son of god..." and the crowds, thinking Jesus insane, began to disperse, Jesus did NOT call them back saying "Oh come on guys, it was only a joke." He let them go. In fact He turned to Peter and said "Will you stay with Me?" Peter said yes. This is also a magnificent sign of Petran supremecy, Jesus addressed PETER. Which must have meant that Peter would stick out of the bunch and come forward where as the others would fall short.
Chris,
You said "As Christians, it is not necessary for our faith to be in the public square." I disagree. Jesus' great commission to be witnesses to the world. We spend so much time introspecting ourselves that the rest of the world is going to hell. Christianity is not about philosophy. Christianity is not a spectator sport. It is an active "religion". Even Paul demonstrated this time and time again. Such as when he preached from Mars hill. The apostles had it right! Stand in the square and proclaim the news of the Cross! Preach the Gospel whenever the opportunity presents itself. In your workplace, in your neighborhood, in the streets.
"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel....." We are responsible for the souls of the lost! If that don't scare the willies out of you, then I pray for you. If your neighbor dies without hearing the good news from you, then God holds you responsible. A person whom God loves dearly is going to spend eternity in HELL because you didn't give them an opportunity. Does anyone care about that anymore? We spend our lives trying to be more "holy" ("religious and pious" are more what I would say). And that is commendable. But is that why we are really here? For ourselves?
Stand in the square and proclaim the news of Jesus Christ! Stand in the courtroom! Stand in the school! Stand in your workplace! Stand in the marketplace! Stand, and proclaim! And when all has been said, live the Christianity that you proclaim. Faith, without works, is dead.
May the Lord bless you Chris33 and Prophet, it is good to see brethren who stand on the Word and Truth of Jesus Christ!
As Christians we can lean on Jesus in these end times and see Prophecy being fulfilled in our lifetime.
It is astounding to me that I would be living in a world and a nation that is so on the brink of total annihilation and cannot see what is right in front of them! But I guess it goes back to whether we believe God or not.
Remember in the days of Noah how everyone kept on doing their own thing as Noah built the Ark and didn't believe in God's judgment; this the kind of days we are in now and it's only going to get worse; as the darkness is exposed by The Light of Christ getting stronger as The LORD gets ready to rend the Heavens and come down, In Jesus Name, Praises to The King!
God said, "There is one man between God and man, the man CHRIST JESUS." It is not the pope or any other man. It is only JESUS who is LORD!
truthandjustice1: Let me just say this, my dad growing up did not have a car, his parents did the best they could and there was no library in their town in those days. My dad is 73 years old now; what my father shared with me is that while in Catholic school and going to church, he was not taught that he could have a personal relationship with God; that is all I was pointing out.
Also, there are many catholics as well as protestants who are sinners, in fact; God's Word says, "All have fallen short of the glory of God" Jesus died for the sin of the world, He already paid that penalty, so what is left to discuss?
Jesus is The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! It is finished as He said on The Cross.
I believe in the finished work of my Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus own Words say that the world would know we are HIS disciples when we have love for one another.
I find no where in The Bible where the "Roman Catholic" church is mentioned as "The Body of Christ," exclusively. Now is it part of the body, only God knows the truth of that.
The Body of CHrist is made of many parts, not just one. This is also part of God's Word.
truthandjustice1: I was not making personal jabs at you, so why do you find it necessary to make them towards me, I do not know you and would never presume to judge your life or your heart, again, only God knows anyones heart.
If I offended you or anyone else on this site, I do apologize. I know that Jesus Christ saved my life, He paid a debt that I could never pay, and by HIS grace I am what I am. It is HIS righteousness accounted to me because of what HE already did on The Cross.
God's law doesn't have to be posted in the public square, HE's written them on our hearts and we can choose to obey them or rebel against them.
For the agnostics/atheists here, how can you comment on Scriptures you do not even believe in God or His Word. So, I pray for you that He will open your eyes, and hearts to the truth of who HE is, Almighty God and the truth of Jesus Christ, who sets the captives free!
It is all for God's glory not mans!
taj,
I'm proud to be in that other 25% with you. I'm in good company, no?
hahaha...I think it is funny that jester would post his comment after Chris 333 posted: 75% of Americans claim to be Christian, and how many act like Christians? It is a disgrace!
doesnt the Bible say "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Pope, Benedict; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." ?
thelordismylight,
Don't criticize someone so quickly. I am a Christian and I believe the same as you. I was being sarcastic and stating what was the agnostic/athiests case. What I wrote was supposed to be so ridiculous, and so horrible that you could not take it seriously, and yet it is exactly what the atheist/agnostic should have no problem implementing. I mean you do not really think that I support abortion and also wiping out whole populations of people as a means of birth control do you? No, I am the same as you, the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs is abstinence. Sex should be contained within marriage and only marriage between man and woman.
My comments about the Ten Commandments stand. I am not interested in imposing my beliefs on non-Christians. Christians should be more concerned with actually living according to the commands of Christ, rather than wasting time on keeping Christianity in the court rooms and public schools. 75% of Americans claim to be Christian, and how many act like Christians? It is a disgrace! When atheists and agnostics act like this it makes no difference, but Christians must be strong. We need to fix ourselves before we worry about others.
thelordismylight.
I never thought about that .... very good and interesting interpretation.
When Mary appeared to the three shepherd children she said "Russia will spread her evils" the children had no idea what it meant, but I think I do. Sure you could say it meant communism. I think she meant abortion.
Chris-
It makes a huge difference. The ACLU thinks so. They have invested about a billion dollars into getting it removed. Here is a solution to your overpopulation: DO NOT HAVE SEX IF YOU DO NOT WANT A CHILD. Wow took alot of effort to think of that. And yet you are sooooo quick to propose contraception and abortion. Abortion for pure birth control is WRONG WRONG WRONG. Life-saving (which had never ACTUALLY happened) and rape are a different story. Incest is not. Incest is NO reason to get an abortion. A child is a child even if they are special. A mentally challenge child is a gift. They are so innocent and loving. And yet you would as soon as abort a baby with Downs as you would make a peanut butter sandwich whn you are hungry. The day that abortion became legal in america... A day that will be mourned by heaven itself.
thelordismylight,
As Christians, it is not necessary for our faith to be in the public square. We should be focused on becoming better Christians and living by the commands of Christ, not making sure that non-Christians live by the same standard. It is fine that you want to have the 10 Commandments in the court houses, but I would not make to big a deal of it, it should make little difference to a Christian if the lost act like the lost.
Feet,
I don't think you read my post, I said the Government does not decide when a couple is married. Please comment on what I wrote and not what you imagined.
scitsonga,
I understand that you feel differently about sex and marriage due to your agnostic belief. That is fine, I do not want to judge non-Christians. However, I have noticed something you seem to have left out in your argument. You said that the sexual drive and what not has come from primordial beginnings, and that this is what is responsible for "over population" and unwanted pregnancies. Then you concluded that the only legitimate or possible solution to this was to introduce contraception. I would just add that there is other legitimate solutions (in the agnostic/atheist worldview) just get an abortion each time! Or practice polyandry. Or adopt a one-child only policy. Or conduct wars against countries with too high population or growth rate. Or sterilize men or women. Any of these are perfectly valid and morally neutral according to agnosticism/atheism, and all have been practiced under agnostic/atheistic pretenses (saving polyandry).
You have given a somewhat accurate portrayal of how marriage has developed in a secular sense as well. This however is of no consequence to the Christian idea of marriage. The New Testament gives us clear instruction that marriage is to be between one man and one woman, and that sex is only permissible within that bond. Regardless of what the world defines marriage as, this definition stands for Christians.
(A side note would be that monagamy is not explicitly taught in the NT, but it can be well deduced, and I believe the argument is fairly strong)
They are historical documents about LAW. LAW that many of our LAWS were founded upon. They are looked at as historic law documents.
thelordismywhatever " I mean getting the Ten Commandments removed from court houses? REALLY! Whose rights are they protecting?"
They are protecting my rights and those that do no subscribe to your beliefs, you can have your 10 commands at church and home, not the public square.
"Besides they are historic documents"
then put them in a museum
Scitsnawhatever-
Yea... that IS a good cover up for the ACLU. The only time when they defend religious rights is when they OBVIOUSLY have to. And thing is... I mean getting the Ten Commandments removed from court houses? REALLY! Whose rights are they protecting? The right to not have to look at them sometimes maybe if you do not want to look at the ground? SERIOUSLY! Besides they are historic documents.
thelordismylight, "The ACLU- Anti Christian League of Underminers"
No, not true. The ACLU is not anti-christian, but is against religious intrusion into goverment- to preserve separation of chruch and state. ACLU has no problem with religion, but not in government, courts nor public schools.
The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
That means we are entitled to practice our religions without intrusion from government, but also to keep it out of government. We are a democratic republic, not a theocracy.
Wait wait wait wait wait... it almost seems like you have been supporting the pope with your last couple of quotes... what is going on? Either that or "Juan" was an idea of a joke...
Jester-
Juan? What is Juan? And more importantly... Was that a quote SUPPORTING the pope???
thelordismylight "You open your legs you get what you get."
Indeed, One must always be on guard, sex is and always has been a rather risky proposition- sometimes you get disease and sometime childbirth gone bad with death of mother.
Juan 3:16:
"For the Pope so loved the world, that he gave is own life. That whosoever believes on him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
The ACLU- Anti Christian League of Underminers :D
Scitsonga-
No... just no... Anthropologists KNOW that the Jewish people were marrying in synagogues... honestly... The Jewish people would marry in their reilgion... Marriage DID start as a result of religion. Many atheist historians recognize this... my son's secular social studies textbook recognizes this... I went to a seminar about a case in which the ACLU fought to have that removed from textbooks and LOST because it was historically accurate...
Scitsonga-
You open your legs you get what you get.
Yes Jester, thank God for the Pope. Thank God for the Pope who tirelessly does nothing but good for this world. Who speaks only good words. Who does not use hateful speech. Who defends Christianity. Who studied the bible for thirty years. Who prays six hours a day. Who does not get paid AT ALL (the pope recieves no pay check from the church although his living needs are covered) Thank God for the pope... that puts his life at stake appearing in public, fully knowing that some KKK activist could shoot him in the heart. Here is a story. A story about Sam Walker. Sam Walker was an amazing marksman. He was also an amazing protestant, proclaiming the Word very fervently. He was also in the KKK. One day Sam was told by the KKK that the Pope would be appearing outside the Vatican and outside the protection of bullet-proof glass. The evil ones saw their chance (I will be referring to the KKK as the evil ones if you do not mind) They told Sam to shoot the pope. It was his solemn duty to complete it. It was sunny. There was no wind. There was very little security. The bullet was just right. And Sam was an excellent shot. Sam shot the pope that day. The bullet penetrated his body and was headed straight for the heart. Then it swirved around the heart. There is absolutely NO scientific way to explain it. There is also no scientific way to explain why the hospital was without a single other surgury patient and the entire surgury staff was there. Coincidence I suppose. Also coincidence that a note was left on the ground saying "Thou shalt not kill" Yes... all of these things can be dismissed purely as coincidence. The biggest coincidence is that Sam Walker shot the pope on December 8th. The Date of the Immaculate Conception. They picked the right man, the right gun, the right bullet, but they chose the wrong date. Coincidence... right?
Chris "Premarital sex is clearly a sin, it is clearly wrong, it is one of the most expansive sins that we face"
As an agnostic, I would have say that I dont see anything wrong with sex outside marriage among consenting adults. Sexual drive is primordial in orgin and of course is the driver for procreation among the animal kingdom, including the human animal. If not for strong sexual urges, there would not be over population and millions of unwanted babies. Its imparitive that people be given free access to birthcontrol to keep unwanted pregnacies to minimum. The sexual urge is so powerful, that few animals have the will to resist.
Here is a bit of history on marrage that i have summarized. Its orgins have little to do with religion. Marriage dates back several thousand years, emerging as a civil arrangement at the same time as the emergence of private property. Far from fulfilling any religious purpose to unite one man and one woman, anthropologists theorize that most primitive marriages were polygamous. Marriages were entered into in order to expand the land or material goods base of a clan, either through the receipt of a dowry or the merger of two clans' assets. Religious guidelines around marriage are not thought to have developed until the practice was several hundred years old, and were first used as a means of preventing different religious groups from losing wealthy followers by restricting them from marrying into other religions.
In Western Europe, it was not until the Middle Ages that marriage in churches began to occur. However, church marriages were not the norm until the 17th century, and then only for the nobility. Marriage was also used as a tool to unite different royal families' bloodlines, creating alliances that were instrumental in enabling the European monarchies to colonize the globe.
As I type this comment I look on my screen and see the face of Jim Caviezel and the living bible audio set, that I have to purchase, and recall what he stated to 1,400 young adults at the Fellowship of Catholic University students: "I want all of you to have the courage to go out into this pagan world and shamelessly express your Catholic faith in public!" I like to think that is what I'm doing on this site: shamelessly expressing my Catholic faith in public, so please go ahead and give me the thumbs down because I'm shamelessly expressing it!!
thank God for the pope. without him we wouldn't know what sin was.
feet,
Your post make no sense whatsoever. So, what you're saying is that I can do whatever sin I want and everything will be fine? I can sin as much as I want because I'm not under the law?
And if you believe that the prosperity preachers or anyone else that gets alot of media face-time is somehow representative of of true Christianity you are showing your naïveté.
Those Christians who are figuratively "in the trenches", shepherding their flocks, exhorting their brothers and sisters in Christ, being prayer warriors on their knees and in their closets, raising their families in the wisdom and admonition of the Lord are the TRUE face of Christians who aspire to be like their Lord.
They don't have multi-million dollar anythings - they don't have the media asking them for clever quips, they aren't representative of any particular denomination, including Catholic. They are simple Christians who have been convicted of their sin by the Holy Spirit, brought to repentance, believed on Christ and Him crucified and endeavor to walk in His light each day in the freedom of grace, while being salt to a dying world.
Enough with these vain arguments about so-called human ecclesiastical authorities of any type. Christ is our high priest and is forever making intercession for His saints. It is to God alone that we should direct our prayers and plead the blood of Jesus for our sins.
Hbr 6:1,2 "Therefore leaving the (first) principles of the doctrine of Christ, LET US GO ON unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. "
Why do you continue forever in the milk and never grow into the meat of the word?
As for what is and is not sin - the Bible is quite clear. You would be wise to stop torturing and twisting the words of scripture to make it mean to you what the carnal man wishes it would say.
The bottom line is this - the Catholic Church is the main Church that is seen as speaking out against sins in the world, even thought some of you might disagree with those sins etc. What are the big name protestant leaders talking about in the States? the prosperity gospel...what? ministers like Joel Olsteen (whatever his name is) when on Larry King and stated that he doesn't like to judge and wouldn't discuss sin, Hagee as evidenced by the youtube clip I put on here states openly that he isn't even sure if Jesus was the messiah. Now wonder Dobson and the rest are now coming out wondering where the leadership has gone...it just isn't there. As a Christian I'm not here to gloat about it because I think it is extremely sad that we aren't united about talking about sins. I'm so sick of this prosperity gospel stuff I hear coming from protestant brothers and sisters because they have entered into relativism and are ending up like that Joel guy who doesn't want to address the issue of sin. I'm very happy that the Church has reminded the world about sin and I'm 100% behind this statement even though it bothers others here who think certain things shouldn't be sins.
Annie,
Please spare me the stories about how your dad used to drive by a library everyday and didn't know that there were books inside and that he could have found a bible...if only the Catholic Church would have told him what the word library meant. As for knowing people who are Catholic and pro-choice...it isn't the teaching of the Catholic Church. It's sad that I have to point that out but then again I guess your dad must have told you that when he would drive by something called a library he would meet Catholics who said they were pro-choice...anything else you want to blame on the Church? oh year priests who who were also not following Church teachings ( I guess in your world this is limited to Catholics because your dad told you) and they did awful things. I thought this article was about the Church's teachings but I guess you know somebody who is a Catholic and are basing your opinions on them instead of Church teachings. I think I liked you better when you were supporting that candidate whose national campaign manager and most of his senior staff were Catholic what was his name again? oh yeah the Huckster.
if your legalism is that the state is guilty of giving license to sin. then your next legalism is that this a godless state because it is not a theocracy, because it doesn ot designate that only certain specific religions have the right to decide who is married. what about the buddhists, hindus,and islamics. what is your legalism for them.
chris
are you saying that the state that is given the authority to try and execute a man does not have the authority to decide who is marrried? then your legalism has to be that each year the state gives tens of milions license to live in sin.(common law, justice of the peace, judges,vegas marriages where there are even drive thru marriage ceremonies, any person from from any religion that the state recognizes including those whom can make you an ordained minister over the internet) you are going to need more legalisms.
prophet
your response is another legalism that colorado gives license to live in sin, and another state that has a time limit of three years but the state that makes it seven, doesnt.
of course youll need another legalism for couple that meets in a bar on one night, takes a bloodtest, and goes to the justice of the peace the next day or days. or you are going to adniit the state gives license for for tens of millions to sin.
and your witness is that all these legalisms are of the spirit of christ.
Feetxxxl,
It is NOT the “HOLY SPIRIT” that you continually refer to; it is another “spirit” which is not from God.
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; - 1Timothy 4:1.
truthandjustice1: There are many "protestant" and non-denominational churches that do not condone any of what you stated!
I know of many "Catholics" who also are pro-choice and believe in same-sex marriages.
There is no "perfect" church in this world. All sin and fall short of the glory of God. My father went to Catholic school and church most of his life and I ask him what he learned, "not much" and I have many friends who have left the "catholic" church because they never learned they could have a PERSONAL relationship with the LORD! That they do not have to go to a priest for
God to hear them, JESUS split the curtain blocking the HOLY OF HOLIES and we can go to GOD personally and seek HIM for help in our times of trouble!!!!
JESUS CHRIST is the only mediator between God and man, NOT THE CHURCH, the church is THE BODY OF CHRIST, HE is the HEAD!! Too often the "church" acts like it is the head!
JESUS is LORD, not the church, lets give HIM the Worship and Praise HE deserves and that is done when we LOVE HIM and one another!!
There is no separation with Jesus, no male, no female, no Greeks, no Jews, one body, one faith, one truth!! JESUS is that truth!!!! All glory to HIM not man!!!
Feet,
Give me a break... one night stands are never allowed in the Bible, you are clearly speaking from something other than the Spirit of God. Why persist in such foolishness? Is it even worth the time to refute what you have said?
You try to attack the definition of marriage, saying "Does the government get to decide marriage?" To that question I would answer no it does not, however whatever we define marriage as, it is quite clear that it is a lifelong bond between a man and a woman, that all sex outside of this marital covenant is sin and against God and must be repented of.
A Covenant Marriage is one that is consecrated by the blood of the husband and wife; this is why marriage is a "Holy Covenant" but in this modern world, there is very little of the sacred left.
I personally believe God's Word and His truth and I do not look to men to determine if the Bible is true, The Holy Spirit guides my study and teaching; and I do fellowship with other brothers and sisters who are mature in their faith and are allowing the LORD GOD to teach them.
Too many believe and accept what "men" teach, many of whom do not follow Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter if you go to church, I did that for many years, but I had no personal relationship with Jesus. I'm thankful for Him showing me where I was going astray!
We are living in the END TIMES, and all of this is Prophecy, for those who have hears to hear, HEAR what The Spirit of GOD is saying and showing us in these latter days!
God spoke so much of "sexual immorality" because this is a sin against your own body, "which is the temple of God". When you profess CHRIST, The Holy Spirit, The Son reside in you, "Christ in me, The Hope of Glory"!!
True followers of Jesus Christ walk in humility, gentleness, kindness, self-control (fruit of the Spirit) evidence that The Holy Spirit is working in your life and making changes.
"Christians" are not the Moral Police, that's The Holy Spirit's job to convict the World of SIN! which HE does, and hopefully many come to conviction and see the truth of themselves, which is totally sinful, without Christ and needing a Savior and when repentence happens, a person is "reborn" into God's Kingdom! This was all done so that we would be restored to a personal relationship with our FATHER!
Again, Lord God, thank you! In Jesus Name, I pray that God's people who are called by HIS Name will humble themselves and pray, repenting of the evil we have done in His sight and pray that HE will come and heal our land, Amen!
These sins are not new!! Jesus Christ died for the SIN of the WORLD, past, present and future. HIS blood paid the penalty for all sin and no "church" can continue to hold men's sins against them when GOD has pardoned!
When I receive and believe in what Jesus Christ did on the CROSS and that HE was resurrected, I am adopted into God's family and I am what I am by HIS grace, a gift to me, not of works lest anyone should boast!
JESUS came to redeem mankind from the penalty of SIN!!! This is like going back in time!
The Vatican needs to repent of its own sins of supressing the sin of its own church, while many many children were abused (and I believe that when Jesus spoke "anyone who causes one of these little ones to SIN, well it would be better for them to tie a milestone around their neck and to drown themselves!) Even this sin, Jesus paid for, HE said on the Cross, "IT IS FINISHED!!!"
Please let The Vatican know that!!!! Thank you, Lord Jesus for your gift on the Cross!
Well said Prophet, well said. And feet what are you talking about a witness?? The relationship we have with God is between us and him personally. There is no need for a witness for us to have the Holy Spirit dwell within us.
hmmmm perhaps it is good that the Catholic Church is one of the few churches addressing sins from the pulpit, it seems like a lot of people are confused about what is and isn't sin. I guess it gets confusing now that there are a lot of protestant churches condoning homosexuality...they left the Church along time ago with regards to contraception....they continue to slip down the slippery slope.
feet,
I hope that you didn't purposely leave out verse 19 in Galatians 5 which says "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness..." which contradicts all you just wrote.
Having sex outside the bond of marriage is sinful.
Oh yes, the infamous "common law" marriage bit. If a man and woman live with each other long enough, they're married. Really? Where's that in the Bible? So, if a person goes to church long enough, they are automatically Christian? The answer to both of those questions, in God's eyes, is no.
The Bible talks numerous times about marriage ceremonies. As I posted in another article, the marriage ceremony is to publicly, before God and man, make a lifelong commitment/contract/covenant with their spouse.
You said "god has been given the state the authority to determine marriage which is all dependent by the behavior of the couple."
You mean the same state that allows mass infantcide? Some that allow executions? That allow drunkeness? Idol worship? Witchcraft? You think I'm gonna take a man-made organization define what an institution of God is? I think not. I will let God and His word define marriage. If you are willing to allow the Godless government to define marriage, then be prepared to support them when they define marriage as a union between any two consenting adults (even siblings, and parent/offspring couples).
Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
Marriage between anyone but a non-related man and woman is a sin.
thank you for finally acknowledging the dichotomy of the law and the spirit.
i the life , truth ,and the way, the one thing that runs thru them all.........the spirit.
your challenge to me is whether my understandings are of that spirit. but you have yet to answer my questions about identifying the spirit and its fruits.
so far any attempts to answer these questions ended up not being about witness but were merely based on assumptions engendered by conditioned images.
gal5 the list of those things of the sin nature:.......20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness.
how do we know when a person is given over to these spirits, but by personnal witness?
im merely requiring the same witness to be used for identifying sexual debauchery, immorality,and impurity. im taking them out of the realm of legality and putting them in the same realm of witness.
he thing about marriage is ridiculous, the way marriages are performed in this country. consider common law marriages(colorado has no time spec. )in colorado, common law marriage is about whether a couple passes themselves off as being married .......................what does their behavior infer.
inother states its merely sharing the same space and being sexually intimate. october 12th one was living in sin but october 13 one is living in god's favor.
the state designates who is a minister who can marry. some ministrial licenses you can get over the internet.
god has been given the state the authority to determine marriage which is all dependent by the behavior of the couple.
so how can it be that behaviior is a sin. a behavior that led to state surmising that they were married andhaving obtained this informamtionby a court appearance is after fact. "gee .............mabel the court determined that we were married three years ago.
CONTINUED
this sex outside of marriage is a joke.
with every new challenge you have create new legalites to cover new situations.
or say merely say that state marriages are not marriages. if god has given the court the authority to try and execute a human being then surely, it legimately, has the authority to determine who is married.
are you saying that state marriages are not marriages. so the state is responsible for10's of millions of people living in sin. why have i never heard this from the pulpit? where is the moral outrage?
if division,rage etc require witness, why not the same for the spirit that motivates sex as well. why would sex be any different. would the spirit to engage in sex by a devoted marital couple, be the same as a couple who wanted a one night stand, and would that be the same as a cohabitating couple, who though unmarried are committed. if the married couples divorces and the cohabitating couple seperates, are we to say that the sex that was affirming for both, for one is a sin for the other.of god. what was difference of each couple's spirit and that spirits fruit .
then how is it that the sexual intimacy that affirms and enhances the devotion, respect and trust is a sin. and if it is the devotion ,respect,and trust that leads to eventual marriage. how is it that the thing that affirms and enhances it, is a sin until after vows..
what could be more illogical .and if it is illogical, how can there be an understanding of the spirit. all witness has to have some basis of logic.
reason is the basis of the epistles. god used paul's developed talent of reason to explain the connection between the old and new covenant and why we are no longeare led by the law.
and like paul said, the sin of the sin nature is obvious, and by their very nature are self explanatory.iwhat is so self evident about the nature of sexual intercourse that makes any sex outside of marriage a sin?
and if one says well that's why we have churches so one body can say this person is married and another can deny it. in some churches its a sacrament in other its not. what is the fruit of this .................. division.................a them and us mentality.................. between brothers in christ who all share the same inheritance.
so there is division caused by substantiated belief (belief without witness)
you are telling me this is of the spirit of christ.
Prophet,
The point is well taken about sex, however it should be stated that this not be taken to an extreme. For instance, if we say sex = marriage, then the sin of fornication or premarital sex will be nonexistent, indeed all sexual sins will be adultery. Premarital sex is clearly a sin, it is clearly wrong, it is one of the most expansive sins that we face, and it does demean the very value and holiness of marriage that God has given this institution, but we cannot say sex equals marriage.
feet,
they have not doged your references to Romans, they addressed it clearly, you just ignored it or didn't see it. Homosexuality, fornication, bestiality, incest, are all of the flesh. There is absolutely no argument. You cannot say, "Oh I love him/her/mom/dad/spot" Being of the Spirit means loving God, loving God means keeping His commandments, keeping His commandments means not doing these things, regardless of how you feel or anyone else. This is the whole story, there is no argument here.
The Vatican use to torture you if you went around suggesting the earth not the center of the universe. Soooo, who really cares what they think.
feet,
If sex is not a covenant, then why does Exodus 22:16 say "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife." Probably because a covenant has been made with her, and in God's eyes they are married.
irenaeus,
We're dealing with a person who has little conscience about sin. Instead of changing himself, he changes God's Word. It's much easier that way. At least until judgement day.
feet,
I answered your question about being led by the spirit. Please pay attention.
Feetxxxl,
This was our earlier discussion from the article "Pro-Gay Booklet's 'Facts' Draws Criticism"–
My first question to you -
Are you justifying premarital sex? The Word of God clearly denounces sexual intimacy apart from marriage.
Your response – i was merely having a dialogue about it, because in the 21st century the understanding that all premarital sex is a sin is being retested........thess 5:21 test everything, keep the good.
my interest now is if scripture says homosexuality is a sin. does a witness of the spirit show that homosexuality is a sin.
My response –
I think the confusion lies when we attempt to make a false dichotomy between what is written (the Word of God) and what the Holy Spirit says. The Holy Spirit will not give a contradictory message from what is written.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you – John 14:26.
Notice that the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, would be sent to teach you all things, and bring all things to your REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I (Christ) SAID UNTO YOU. Jesus never gave us such an ungodly allowance for a promiscuous lifestyle.
Feetxxxl - Be aware that it is NOT the “HOLY SPIRIT” that you continually refer to; it is another “spirit” which contradicts the Word of God.
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; - 1Timothy 4:1.
No one has dodged your questions/comments. It’s just difficult to converse with you because your reasoning follows no logic whatsoever. You claim that the fruit of the spirit somehow gives you the green light to accept as morally licit pretty much any sexual behavior, provided it takes place within the context of a loving, intimate relationship. In other words, you apparently accept (as indicated in other threads in which you've participated) as morally licit homosexual relationships, incestuous relationships, spouse swapping relationships, threesomes or orgies, and fornicating relationships, and now prostitution, provided that they are conducted in the context of loving intimate relationships.
online4him
both you and prophet have consistently either ignored or dodged my questions about being led by the spirit and no longer being under the law in romans and of what spirit is something and its fruit concerning christ's words of recognizing them from their fruits.
Feetxxxl,
Care to comment on this post; since you did not respond the first time it was posted?
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit – Galatians 5:16-25.
Lasciviousness is an inclination to lustfulness; wantonness; something lewd. This is the lust that is described in Romans chapter one. This chapter highlights those who are unwilling to repent and for this reason God gave them up to their own lusts –
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: - Romans 1:24.For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: - Romans 1:26.
It seems that you continue to promote this false dichotomy between the “written code” as you call it and the Spirit. Be careful my friend when you decide to neglect or twist the Word of God to justify any sin. The Holy Spirit is the one who moved upon these men to pen Scripture; so to separate the two is illogical.
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction – 2Peter 3:16.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost – 2Peter 1:21.
To add to the disscussion of sex being a bond/covenant Paul tells married couples not to withold sex from one another so by your statement, feet, that they are unmarried is flawed. Deciding not to have sex within a marriage only leads to problems of temptation outside of the marriage.
1 Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
feet,
Exactly! If your fruit are the ones listed in verses 19-21, then you are not of Christ.
gal 5: 16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
jesus says you will know them by their fruit..................meaning fruit of the spirit that they are given over to.
paul says in gal 5 that the sin of the sin nature is obvious, meaning it takes litlle explanation, it speaks for itself, by its very nature is self explanatory.
I'll be back later. I have an errand.
Romans says that "If you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ.....you will be saved."
So then, mutes cannot be saved?
Give me a break feet. Use a little of that common sense that God gave you.
fornication is sex outside of marriage...including protitution. Maybe that's why proverbs (a book of wisdom) speaks so negatively about it.
And sex is a bond. It's a covenant. If a couple could not under any circumstance perform sex, then God's grace is sufficient. But, since we are not talking abou that, it is a moot point.
the convenant expresses itself thru sex. are you saying that a couple who choses to obstain from sex is not married. or is one because of physical injury or disease is unable to have sex are they then unmarried?
the were no laws that forbade jewishmales to go with prostitutes, yetevery mention of prostitutes in proverbs is negative. there is no prohibition for sex with any female that was not another man's property, whether married or unmarried.
to take a term like "fornication" and say it is a sin because it violates standards. standards being set up thru inference. and then say it is prohibited by the written code is untrue. it is the inferred standard that says its a sin not the written code.
Sex is a bond. A covenant.
What does verse 24 say?
"24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
Have you crucified your flesh, and the lusts (including sex outside of marriage) of it?
A person who is lead by the spirit will not walk in the lusts of the flesh.
Galatians 5.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Isn't amazing that the first two mentioned are sexual sins? Must be pretty important.
the one flesh relationship was expressed thru sex not because of sex.
prophet
if it is a sin.......................what is the spirit that they are given over to that initiates the sex, and what are the fruits of being given over to that spirit.
if you use any explanation of the law ........................you are under the law............which romans says we are no longer under,and neitherare led by , but are instead led by the spirit?
This article says "Traditionally the Catholic church has had a list of seven deadly sins, that of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride established by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century.
The terms entered the popular vocabulary after the publication of Dante's "Divine Comedy."
The deadly sins are in contrast with venial sins - relatively minor sins that can be forgiven.
A person that commits a mortal sin risks burning in hell unless absolved through confession and penitence."
Gee. I wish the Bible supported their claim. Unfortunately, such beliefs are unscriptural and are there in an effort to "glorify" the priest's office. How much more veneration would a priest have if only he was able to absolve sin. Sounds almost antichrist to me.
Only One has the power to absolve us from sin. And He doesn't require penitence. He requires a truly repentant heart. It's not what a person does on the outward that changes an inward event. I could go to confession, do penitence, and have the priest absolve me, but still have an unrepentant heart. In the Catholic system, that doesn't matter. As long as you've confessed, and done your penitence, you're okay.
Umm Feet.....have you read the bible lately?? Premarital sex is definately a sin! It has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with your body being a place for the Holy Spirit! How can God be near you when you defile your body with sin? Sex brings us back to the days when Eve was taken from Adam. It signifies them as a whole like the once were. Therefore it is made soley for 1 man and 1 woman because of it's deep connection.
1 Corinthians 6:18-20
18 Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body. 19 Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself, 20 for God bought you with a high price. So you must honor God with your body.
aaaaand
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8 So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am. 9 But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.
feet,
WIth you being a carnally minded person, of course you wouldn't think of sex outside of marriage as sin. To people such as yourself, it's "love" or it's just wanting to feel good (or it's wanting to feel good, but because of guilt, they use "love" as a justification for their act).
Sex outside of marriage is a sin. It's pointed out numerous times throughout the Bible. Sex is more than an act. It is more than "love". It is a emotional and spiritual bond that is designed for marriage alone. It is designed to be a lifelong bond, not something you do with a guy or girl until you decide to break up, and then start all over with another. That cheapens the covenant. It makes it worthless. But that is to be expected of the worldly person.
Is the essence of premarital sex against the spirit of christ?
its complicated. being sexually active involves responsibiliy. it produces children. it can become an addiction, but so can tv, eating, work. yes more than one pardner a can be a health risk.
but so does the mingling in public places, ergo sars. and yes our sex drive is interwined in our psyche so that it can influence us to do those things that are sins, but so can our desire to create.
but no, premarital sex is not a sin. in fact i the taboos about sexuality have caused more damage and more suffering(guilt) than any sins that were commited in its commission.
yes there is a bonding that can take place in a the act of intercourse, but the same can happen in the way someone is kissed or touched.
the one flesh of relationship is about depth of intimate commitment, involving sex, but no not....... because of the sex.
as believers in christ we are not lead by the law,but instead the spirit.
what is the spirit that initiates sex, what are its fruits, is it the same for all
CONTINUED
it is interesting that nay sayers fall back on the law, and that those who reason, agree through the weighing of the spirit.
why is the majority of christendom living under the law when paul says we are not under it. why the continual judging by the law and not by the spirit.
it took 1800 years to get out from under the laws about slavery. and it was done thru the test of the spirit, not testing biblical law.
how can any reasoned mind continue to associate being in christ with being under the law.
i have found churches places of sexual repression, where people go to hide from and deny their own sexuality.
and why, because they are so hung up on obeying laws............. obeying laws of inference.
taking the word fornication and making it taboo against premarital sex thru interconnection with other inferences from other scriptures(it is better to marry so as not to sin)...............has absolutely nothing to do with being led by the spirit
canadianchristian, you may be going a little overboard but it is definately true that the Catholic church's doctrine strays away from scriptural doctrine. They add many things that are not needed. We already know that as long as we accept Christ we aersaved by grace so acknoledging sins looks a lot like what the pharisees did to me.
I mean if we believe that God was, is & will be then obviously he knew what sins the future would hold. To try and add to a list that for one we aren't even held to anymore is absurd.
The Vatican can release whatever documents they want and you can comment on those documents as much as you want.
"If you don't get noticed, you don't have anything. You just have to be noticed, but the art is in getting noticed naturally, without screaming or without tricks."
- Leo Burnett, quoted in Denis Higgins, The Art of Writing Advertising: Conversations with Masters of the Craft (1990), Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books, p. 26.
I don't mind discussing my faith and my Church...is it any wonder that the Catholic population in the US continues to rise? post away Canadianchristian
canadianchristian,
Your as accurate as this article. Thank you Scientia:
SEE
http://www.cwnews.com/index.cfm
FOR THE ARTICLE THAT ADDRESSES THE 'PERSPECTIVE' OF THE AP REPORT
:
Not "new sins" but an old media blind spot
Forum: When he finished his interview with L'Osservatore Romano, Archishop Gianfranco Girotti probably thought that his main message had been an appeal to Catholics to use the sacrament of ..
Y'ALL GOT HOODWINKED WITH A SLANTED AP STORY THAT DOES NOT SQUARE WITH THE FACTS....AND YOUR FURTHEREANCE OF IT CREATED MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
Truthand justice......A church is not a building or an institution, a church is a group of believers and followers of CHRIST who gather to worship and praise GOD, and to exhort and lift up other believers in fellowship and to bring honor to GOD. The catholic church is not a true church until they follow true doctrine, not made up religion to keep power over unaware sinners by guilt. Why do catholics worship mary like she is a god? Why do they stress works for salvation- and were would it end? Rituals and symbolism are idolatry, the "relevance" to non believers is the fact that they should not be drawn into deception and doomed to hell for eternity- I would think that is extremely relevant would'nt you? The catholic church is a man-made institution that strayed from the truth a long time ago, I pray for the many sincere catholics who are so close to the truth but being led astray by deception- I wish none of them to an eternity in hell and I pray THE HOLY SPIRIT will lead them to the savior, not the pope, or parish priest, or mary, etc.
The Catholic Church is relevant and will always be relevant beyond her flock. Yes, this proclamation is addressed to its followers, but obviously the implication go beyond Catholics because of the role of the Church in the world. I mean the priest was talking about Catholic teachings to the Catholic newspaper, so why is it relevant to non - Catholics? to understand this is to understand the role of the true Church in the world.
SCIENTIA,
The error and blatant false teaching of the catholic church is not "much ado about nothing" , it is grave scriptural error which I address, and I only seek to rebuke in love for those deceived and lost in the catholic faith which is not doctrinally sound. The vatican should get the facts of salvation taught correctly before they go on about sin's, I would not want to be in their shoes when they have to face CHRIST and answer for their deeds, and once again- no man can "grant absolutions(forgive sins)" only CHRIST can!!!
SEE
http://www.cwnews.com/index.cfm
FOR THE ARTICLE THAT ADDRESSES THE 'PERSPECTIVE' OF THE AP REPORT
:
Not "new sins" but an old media blind spot
Forum: When he finished his interview with L'Osservatore Romano, Archishop Gianfranco Girotti probably thought that his main message had been an appeal to Catholics to use the sacrament of ..
Y'ALL GOT HOODWINKED WITH A SLANTED AP STORY THAT DOES NOT SQUARE WITH THE FACTS....AND YOUR FURTHEREANCE OF IT CREATED MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
Sin is sin-period. No sin is more or less than another, as stated by GOD'S holy word. It does'nt matter what man declares to be sinful, GOD is already declared what is sin. What know with the catholic church with these "new" sins, does CHRIST have to be crucified over again? I suspect the vatican would like that as it can then hold that guilt over it's members. There is only one mediator between you and GOD and that is JESUS CHRIST, not the pope, not the local parish priest, not mary, not the saints, not anything created by man. I grieve for all the mislead catholics, search out GOD'S true word-not the bible that the catholic church uses, it is the wrong one- I suggest the KJV. Ask THE HOLY SPIRIT to lead you to the truth, pray unceasingly,good works should reflect the fruits of the spirit-works alone are not the way to salvation, only JESUS atoning death on the cross and the belief in HIM bearing your sin debt in full -past,present, and future and inviting HIM into your heart as MASTER and SAVIOR and being born-again into a new nature would be a good start, sorry for being so long winded- I don't wish any catholics to be lost- search out the truth with prayer and GOD won't let you down, I will pray for the LORD to bring you wisdom and discernment in these things, thank you in JESUS name.
"There are many other sins that are perhaps much more grave that don't have anything to do with sex - that have to do with life, that have to do with the environment, that have to do with justice," he told AP Television.
Well I guess all of the church leaders out there can rest easier now since sexual sins are less grave than other sins.
Good example to the rest of the flock.
"He said Church authorities had reacted with rigorous measures to child abuse scandals within the clergy, but he also claimed that the issue had been excessively emphasized by the media."
This is incredible nonsense on both counts! For decades the church swept the problem under the rug by reassigning predatory priests, then they did everything they could to make light of the problem. If anything, the press was their unwitting accomplice for years by refusing to print the stories of the few victims that were willing to talk. It wasn't until the public outcry was overwhelming that the media started reporting the story.
They won't release the "new" list of sins 'till papanazi has a chance to announce them during his trip to the US.
Got a question, though, I thought sins were god's province to declare. If religious dogma isn't supposed to change to accommodate scientific discoveries that negate it, how can "sins" change to recognize the "ethical pitfalls" of new technology? Sorry, folks, but you can't have it both ways.
"grants absolutions"
Apparently Martin Luther didn't get through.
i wished too that the sins were named, so that i can look forward to christians demanding that these sins become crimes. what organizied theism needs to go along with these soon to be crimes is an updated list of tortures to inflict on those who fail to live as the righteous require.
I wish this article actually listed the sins. Maybe there will be another forthcoming with the list.