Page 55 of 89 FirstFirst ... 545505152535455565758596065 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,100 of 1780
  1. #1081  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Here is where Revelation says Satan is now:
    Revelation 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
    No, that is what will happen at the end times, if you believe Revelations anyway. It describes the future, not the past.
  2. #1082  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    No, it's not, and that's my point.

    You are admitting that the church decides that somethings are important to the faith, and others aren't, so the church is allowing incorrect information about our faith to become part of our daily lives based on whether or not it is deemed relevant.

    If the church can decide that Jesus's birth day is irrelevant to my faith, what other facts have been dropped or changed because they either didn't matter or worse, they didn't say what the church wanted them to?

    If you don't care about the integrity of some of your data, no one should trust the rest of it no matter how you present it. Especially an organization like the catholic church that says it's all or nothing, you take the entire doctrine or it does you no good, in God's eyes at least, to only believe some of it.


    ^ Some have chosen to not celebrate certain holidays, based on that very understanding.
    Just call me Berd.
  3. #1083  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    No, that is what will happen at the end times, if you believe Revelations anyway. It describes the future, not the past.
    You're drawing a conclusion that isn't supported.

    Some of Revelation has already transpired.

    Most agree that Satan is no longer in Heaven.
    And scripture supports this.
    Just call me Berd.
  4.    #1084  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Not really. Just his comparisons. There are lots of things that have been applied to the story of Jesus, and especially to religious holidays, that were outright stolen from other religions and stories, and only 5 of his comparisons were shot down, others may be true. But here are some things that are unrelated but known to be true, just so you can see the point:

    Jesus was not born in December. He was born in late summer. There was no pine tree in the stable where he was born (and before someone says thats not a part of the religious observance but something separate, find me a single catholic church without evergreen boughs inside, at a minimum.) The evergreens, decorations, and timing were stolen from a pagan winter festival. The evergreens symbolize continuing life in the dead of winter.

    Easter is even worse. The timing is roughly the same, but the similarity ends there. Bunnies? Eggs? This is a pagan fertility festival, and though the church doesn't officially support the bunny/egg/chocolate thing in the celebration of mass, they don't push against it either like they do with the commercialization of Christmas or the whole X-Mas thing.
    Please show me where the Church teaches about pine trees and easter bunnies? (Those are customs of people, not teachings of the Church.)

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    And those are really the two biggest Christian holidays, so don't you think if anything was going to be sacred enough to keep true and accurate, it would be the birth, death, and resurrection of our savior? And if not, how can you trust any of the other things the church tells you to celebrate?
    Who says the Church ever said Christmas and Easter are not sacred? I'm beginning to see why the nuns gave you problems!

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Side note, but kind of related, back to something Sudoer said (I don't know if I 'll have time to do a point by point reply today, that thread was getting long...) but on belief you said that my definition allowed belief to change and the word of God must be true always...

    My belief, and your belief, and the belief of everyone in the church, must be allowed to change. Not a single one of you has ever heard the word of God directly from God. You are reading that word from a document, the bible, that has been repeatedly copied, translated, copied some more, translated some more, modified slightly by the kings and rulers that were commissioning all this copying and translating, parts of it have been destroyed or lost, etc.
    You seriously do not understand what the Church claims you are reading. If the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, then it does not need to be "changed" to meet new situations. Why do you claim that others "changing it" before was bad, but changing it in the future is good? The Church teaches that public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. I feel like a broken record repeating that the Bible is the best understood book in history. It's just like sequencing fragments of DNA. You can spot mutations by comparing with known references. It's close to impossible to "game" the Bible for any length of time. History will self-correct any such errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Some things in the bible, no matter how much the church wants to say it is a "Timeless Document" simply do not apply anymore, and for a really easy example, look up just about any passage about women's rights. Women are pretty much property like livestock in the bible. Does the church feel that way today?
    Which church? You certainly cannot be speaking of Catholic Church, which teaches that one woman was conceived without sin, and bore the son of God, and lived without sin afterward. Are you saying God was born of a cow? The Church gave us this model of a perfect person so that we can know, believe in, and accept whatever Grace God needs to give each of us.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  5. #1085  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    ^ Some have chosen to not celebrate certain holidays, based on that very understanding.
    But what if it's not limited to holidays? That's what worries me. What else about the entire doctrine has the church changed or discarded to meet their vision of what the faith should be?

    On the one hand, I'm not going all Davinci Code on you or anything, but on the other, the church has had some pretty horrible people in positions to make those kinds of changes at various times in the past. Just to barely scratch the surface, and only at the top position, do a google search for "bad popes" and take the ten bad popes link under that.

    And those are just the ones who were bad in an "evil" way. What about the ones that were bad as in incompetent? What about a pope with the best of intentions, who had the bible changed to help people understand something, or took out something that might be important today because it was irrelevant and distracting back then? How much of our faith is flat out wrong just because someone at sometime was in the right position to make a change and decided to do so?
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1086  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Are you saying that since your observations and logic could both be flawed in some way I should discard them and instead believe in things that can only be imagined, and not ever observed or explained in a logical way?
    No. Why does it have to be one or the other. Would you say that Thomas Aquinas was an unreasonable or unlearned man? Yet, his ability to reason lead him to the belief that God must exist. So, then, what is it that leads us today to think such a thing is illogical or unreasonable? If they are so outlandish why have so many spent so much time devising logical proofs against Aquinas' arguments? Further, why do some today believe Aquinas' arguments to be logically sound and others do not? Surely that much energy can't be expended to refute something that is, on its face, utterly illogical.

    Or, is it that we know more today than Aquinas or any of his contemporaries did? Because, if that's the case then we can't make any assumption about the matter at all because we don't have all the facts. We may, and probably will, know even more in the next five hundred years than we do now. How are we sure that we know all of the right things now to prove God does or does not exist or that the Christian religion is or is not true?

    For that matter, are you actually saying that observation and logic are more subjective than faith?
    No, I'm saying they work together. We exercise faith in our perceptions and our ability to reason in order to draw a conclusion about things that we believe we can trust.
  7.    #1087  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    No, that is what will happen at the end times, if you believe Revelations anyway. It describes the future, not the past.
    Revelation describes the present, future, and past. Each Mass you participate in is a participation in Revelation in the present. Christ's saving sacrifice on the Cross is re-presented during each Mass between believers both on Earth and in Heaven. Of course Christ died only once, but God is infinite and can transcend time, thus we are able to represent and participate daily in his sacrifice if we want. Masses are being continually offered in perpetuity during every hour of every day on Earth. I'd suggest you consider doing a good Catholic study on eschatology (not that I know much more than what I just said here).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  8.    #1088  
    @joshaccount,
    I believe in the Bible "faith" (or at least God's covenants due to faint) can cross generations. I also have a very conservative (non-tolerant, "give me the facts" sort of view) on what I "take on faith" too. I believe this is healthy (but those of us in these camps need to expend a lot more effort before deciding than a "normal" person would have to).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  9. #1089  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Please show me where the Church teaches about pine trees and easter bunnies? (Those are customs of people, not teachings of the Church.)
    I said as much. But Most churches that I've been to have a tree, if only in the lobby, and evergreen branches and such decorating the inside during the holiday season as well. I've seen some of the non-religious Easter things invading churches as well, and if you haven't, then you haven't been to many different churches. (I moved a lot when I was younger). The Church buys billboards ever year about keeping Christ in Christmas but makes no effort to fend off the Pagan parts of Easter. You know why? Because without it, you've got a guy on the cross getting up out of his grave three days later and as wonderful a sacrifice as it was, it's not terribly marketable and doesn't attract a lot of people to celebrate on it's own.

    I'm not saying it's not worth celebrating! I'm saying a lot of people, even a lot of Christian people, wouldn't bother if that's all it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Who says the Church ever said Christmas and Easter are not sacred? I'm beginning to see why the nuns gave you problems!
    I'm saying the Church isn't treating them in a sacred way if they allow, and sometimes silently encourage, all this outside influence on the two most important events that the Christian religions are all based on. You would think they would want to keep it all as original and fact based as possible if it were that sacred to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    You seriously do not understand what the Church claims you are reading. If the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, then it does not need to be "changed" to meet new situations. Why do you claim that others "changing it" before was bad, but changing it in the future is good? The Church teaches that public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. I feel like a broken record repeating that the Bible is the best understood book in history. It's just like sequencing fragments of DNA. You can spot mutations by comparing with known references. It's close to impossible to "game" the Bible for any length of time. History will self-correct any such errors.
    I didn't say the bible needed to be changed, though it probably has been at one time or another in different places, what I said was that our UNDERSTANDING of it has to be able to change. You might be wrong in the assumptions you made based on what you read. You may understand it better later after you have a certain experience, and then what you believe will have changed. You can not say that your beliefs are perfect and you can not change them because you, or the person who explained them to you, or the church as a whole might have misunderstood what you think you know. Which is entirely likely since we are talking about understanding the wisdom of the ultimate supreme being using just our very limited, non-supreme minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Which church? You certainly cannot be speaking of Catholic Church, which teaches that one woman was conceived without sin, and bore the son of God, and lived without sin afterward. Are you saying God was born of a cow? The Church gave us this model of a perfect person so that we can know, believe in, and accept whatever Grace God needs to give each of us.
    Just a few quick ones from a google search:

    Genesis 3:16
    "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Do you rule over someone who is your equal?

    Genesis 16:2
    Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.

    Genesis 19:8
    The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women.

    Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments:
    "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.

    I really could fill more than the fifty something pages this thread makes up with this kind of stuff alone, but I'll leave it to you do do some simple searches. The Bible might elevate a few women in certain passages, but for the most part treats women like anything else you can buy, sell, or throw away when you are tired of it.
  10. #1090  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Revelation describes the present, future, and past. Each Mass you participate in is a participation in Revelation in the present. Christ's saving sacrifice on the Cross is re-presented during each Mass between believers both on Earth and in Heaven. Of course Christ died only once, but God is infinite and can transcend time, thus we are able to represent and participate daily in his sacrifice if we want. Masses are being continually offered in perpetuity during every hour of every day on Earth. I'd suggest you consider doing a good Catholic study on eschatology (not that I know much more than what I just said here).
    But that particular passage does describe the end times, and it is obvious when you read all of Rev 12 and not just that single passage taken out of context.
  11. #1091  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    @joshaccount,
    I believe in the Bible "faith" (or at least God's covenants due to faint) can cross generations. I also have a very conservative (non-tolerant, "give me the facts" sort of view) on what I "take on faith" too. I believe this is healthy (but those of us in these camps need to expend a lot more effort before deciding than a "normal" person would have to).
    'Faith' that is built on a strong investigation of 'Truths' ('Logical' thinking) will be more apt to stand.
    Just call me Berd.
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1092  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    No, it's not, and that's my point.

    You are admitting that the church decides that somethings are important to the faith, and others aren't, so the church is allowing incorrect information about our faith to become part of our daily lives based on whether or not it is deemed relevant.
    Actually, I'm deciding which things are and are not important to the faith by which church I decide to join.

    If the church can decide that Jesus's birth day is irrelevant to my faith, what other facts have been dropped or changed because they either didn't matter or worse, they didn't say what the church wanted them to?
    That's largely a matter of historical record. The books that were being used by the early church were written and widely circulated in the first generation immediately following the Crucifixion. What we read now is pretty reliably what was read by the church then. They said nothing about the specific date of Jesus' birth hence that date is of no doctrinal consequence.

    If you don't care about the integrity of some of your data, no one should trust the rest of it no matter how you present it. Especially an organization like the catholic church that says it's all or nothing, you take the entire doctrine or it does you no good, in God's eyes at least, to only believe some of it.
    Eastern Catholics celebrate Christmas on a different day that the Romans so I doubt that Rome makes it an issue upon which rests the salvation of souls.
  13. #1093  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    But that particular passage does describe the end times, and it is obvious when you read all of Rev 12 and not just that single passage taken out of context.
    I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.

    Satan cast outta Heaven is Past. Satan isn't in Heaven. He wasn't cast to hell, but rather to earth. That's past. The future is to bind him for a thousand years.
    Then release for a short time. And then cast into the Lake of Fire.

    What don't you agree with?
    Just call me Berd.
  14. #1094  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    ^ Some have chosen to not celebrate certain holidays, based on that very understanding.
    For instance:

    Jehovah's Witnesses
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1095  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    For instance:

    Jehovah's Witnesses
    Puritans didn't celebrate Christmas. In fact, British Parliament outlawed it in 1644.
  16.    #1096  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Um, not even the same testament, much less book.

    Gen 3:1
    Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made.


    He was a creature, that God made. They may call the Devil a serpent at different spots too, but that doesn't mean all serpents are Satan.

    Gen 3:14-15
    The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
    I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."


    Now, whatever else you believe, if you are religious in the least you believe that when God says something he means it and it sticks. If the serpent was Satan, he would not be in hell, he would be on the ground, eating dirt, and trying to bruise my heel.
    I'm beginning to feel like there may be no hope in you ever understanding scripture (but this is my "personal" feeling, as a human). Did you have problems with understanding forshadowing and other such things in writing classes too? (I know I did!) Scripture offers a better prognosis for you than I can:

    for faith:
    Quote Originally Posted by Psalms 85:10-11
    10: Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other.
    11: Faithfulness will spring up from the ground, and righteousness will look down from the sky.
    Quote Originally Posted by Romans 1:17
    So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.
    for understanding:
    Quote Originally Posted by 1 John 5:20
    And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
    So I know it's possible for you to understand Scripture. (I'm just discouraged at the moment that this seems so hard.)
    Last edited by sudoer; 03/01/2010 at 04:11 PM.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  17. #1097  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.

    Satan cast outta Heaven is Past. Satan isn't in Heaven. He wasn't cast to hell, but rather to earth. That's past. The future is to bind him for a thousand years.
    Then release for a short time. And then cast into the Lake of Fire.

    What don't you agree with?
    This is one of those parts of the bible I don't like because it is clearly confusing.

    Rev 12:11
    They overcame him
    by the blood of the Lamb
    and by the word of their testimony;
    they did not love their lives so much
    as to shrink from death.


    So this clearly occurred after Jesus's resurrection, when our historical documents start to become pretty reliable. And you would think an event like Satan being cast down to earth would have caused more than a single writer and historian to take note. So either no one but the author of revelation took notice, or it hasn't happened yet. And if it hasn't happened yet, then he isn't in heaven, and he's not on earth, so wouldn't he be gathering his army in hell getting ready for that battle?

    What do you think?
  18.    #1098  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    But that particular passage does describe the end times, and it is obvious when you read all of Rev 12 and not just that single passage taken out of context.
    I have yet to study Revelation, but it's entirely possible for passages to have multiple meanings. I wasn't discounting a meaning of the end times. I was just saying to exclude additional meanings is probably wrong. Also, I think the meaning of the Mass is paralleled by that whole book (not just Chapter 12).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  19.    #1099  
    @jverity,
    Thanks for your last comments. They clarified what you were trying to say. You hadn't clarified between the what the Church teaches doctrinally and what the common customs of people in the church do/practice. I'm sure the Church would rather that Christmas not be as commercialized as it is. The tree is a nice thing. We always put an angel on the top of ours and many people top their trees with stars. The Church needs to work religious messages into the cultural practices of it's people. Christmas is more commercialized than Easter, and let's not even talk about Halloween! I agree that our understanding of the deposit of faith may need to change as science reveals more things to us. This is likely a major reason why the Church has not taken a hard stand on Evolution vs Creation yet. (We're currently free to believe what we want, and currently I have to fall heavily toward much of what we think we know in the theory of Evolution).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20. #1100  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    This is one of those parts of the bible I don't like because it is clearly confusing.

    Rev 12:11
    They overcame him
    by the blood of the Lamb
    and by the word of their testimony;
    they did not love their lives so much
    as to shrink from death.


    So this clearly occurred after Jesus's resurrection, when our historical documents start to become pretty reliable. And you would think an event like Satan being cast down to earth would have caused more than a single writer and historian to take note. So either no one but the author of revelation took notice, or it hasn't happened yet. And if it hasn't happened yet, then he isn't in heaven, and he's not on earth, so wouldn't he be gathering his army in hell getting ready for that battle?

    What do you think?
    Satan and his Demons are invisible (Spirit Creatures)
    I don't expect some historian to say Satan has been spotted at such and such place.

    I think you're starting to get a little off track.

    I would love to spend more time trying to help you understand Revelation.

    You really, really, really need to spend more time reading these things for yourself. I have already spent a great amount of time, backing with scripture, and you are still expressing that you don't understand.

    All you keep going back to is 'you have a problem with this'.
    There's not much more I can do about that.

    I like using the illustration of putting a puzzle of a scenery together.
    If we start putting parts of it together and it doesn't represent the entire scene, we can either say to ourselves 'this puzzle can't be completed' or we need to go back and make sure we haven't started putting some of the pieces in the wrong place.
    Just call me Berd.

Posting Permissions