To vox and any others- addressing the influx of topics all tidly in one thread

[DarkAce]

You can't prove god exists any more than you can prove he doesn't exist. This is due to man being man (human) and not able to adequately express reason that god exists or doesn't exist because we are not on the perception level of a divine being. God simply doesn't exist in human rationale conception --thus the irony is such that proof will never be achieved either way.

Although, that doesn't stop simple founded solid logic from being used to gather support for one side of the argument vs the other.

Immediately beforehand, Leviticus says that a man having sex with a man or an animal or close relation is "detestable". Later on, Leviticus says these things are punishable by death. It also says cursing ones parents is punishable by death and that eating the blood or fat of an animal should lead to banishment. Similarly, Mathew 5:22 says that calling one's brother a "fool" risks hellfire.

The point of these pronunciations is not to actually execute people who do these kinds of sins; it is to emphasize the seriousness of them. This is the understanding that Hebrews of the time through the present day had. I don't believe anybody was ever actually executed for these acts.

First of all, what exactly is Christianity? Many people, Christians and their opponents alike, will point out certain excerpts from the Old Testament Book of Leviticus which unceremoniously dictate the killing of homosexuals. Therefore, it is said, Christians are directed to kill homosexuals and homosexuals, as a matter of self-protection, must find Christians to be objects of anger and even hatred. That is as far as many on both sides care to venture. They have their particular confirmations and act accordingly.

However, the Old Testament, for Christians, is like an American History book is for Americans. They both detail historical origins and the talk of past battles and ideas and even ideals but they both describe what was in earlier times. Neither is a guide for current behavior. Even as the American Constitution once defined a black man as 3/5 of a person and allowed for the de facto slavery of indentured servitude, the Bible’s historical texts defined all non-Jews as non-persons in the sight of God and excluded from eternal salvation. According to the Old Testament, God made a promise to Abraham and only to him and his progeny.

If the words of the Old Testament held sway in today’s world, all Christians would burn in Hell.

Still, the Old Testament is Christian history. As a Jewish sect, Christianity is directly connected to the lives and times of the Hebrew religious sages, leaders and historians whose works and records make up the approximately 44 books of the Old Testament. I say approximately because different Christian Bibles differ in what they incorporate into the Holy Texts.

The actual tenets of Christianity are not written in the Old Testament. They are detailed in the books of the New Testament.

The letters of the Apostle Paul to the Roman church and to the Christians at Galatia make clear the departure that Christianity takes from the older Hebrew beliefs and traditions.


Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


Simply put, as verse 28, above, states, we are all the same in the view of Christian doctrine and it is faith in Jesus’ sacrifice that redeems us, not whether or not we are perfect adherers to the law, which Romans, chapter 3, verse 23, makes very clear, no one is.

So, is homosexuality a condemnation to eternal suffering? Not according to Christian doctrine. Is Homosexuality a sin? Yes it is, according to what Paul wrote in Romans. Can a person be a Christian and a homosexual? Yes, it is possible based on the tenets of Christianity but the question must be asked, why would one wish to be… either a Christian, if homosexual, or a homosexual, if Christian.

Why would any Christian wish to live in a perpetual state of sin by practicing homosexuality. Why would any Christian wish to inflict such an insult on his or her savior. On the other hand, why would anyone who sincerely believes that he or she is born to be homosexual wish to be part of a belief system that denigrates so openly what they feel so personally.

Christianity directs its subscribers to attempt to save the souls of non believers. It does not direct that they be put to death or even excluded from the community.

So long as those who hate Christianity continue to pervert its tenets and structures, the true social benevolence of the faith can never be had. So long as those who fear the repressive impulses of those fools who abandon the ideals of Christianity but cling to the label, unearned, society will be the one to suffer.

Christians, being human beings, come in all ideological manifestations but Christ and Christ through Paul, was very specific and that Christian doctrine, clearly spelled out in the New Testament, leaves no room for any who wish to consign others to Hell.


The long and short of it is, under Christian doctrine, no one has to end up in Hell. If one rejects the free gift of Christ, then Hell is the only option because Christ is the only provision for human sin, according to the New Testament. No Christian should pronounce FINAL judgment on someone, as that is the province of God. We can say what the Scriptures say on a particular subject and warn of future judgment, but final judgment is in God's hands. A Christian (a genuine one) is motivated by love to proclaim this message. We're all beggars, we just know where the bread is.

Yeah, but what if the Muslims are right? And what if the Hindus are right? And what if the Buddhists are right? And what if the Mormons are right? And what if some new-age kook who says that only vegans get into heaven is right?

You can't believe everything. No matter what path you choose, you're being condemned into some sad loser's "inferno". And frankly, the whole idea of "eternal damnation" is so antithetical to what I know of the loving God in my heart, that I don't really know what to say to you about it.

But I'll say this: the God I understand would never judge someone on the basis of how much worship that person accorded God, or whether or not that person even believed in God! The God I know is not a petty, needy, vain and egotistical tyrant who demands the fealty of all, on pain of eternal torment. (Frankly, that sounds like something your "Satan" would do...)

And, finally, we don't base the comings and goings of our hearts on the odds. We all believe and follow what we know to be true. I don't feel your (Christian) God in my world, so I don't worry about whether or not he intends to damn me to hell for not noticing him. I suppose I could pretend to believe, in order to "beat the odds", but it would be a lie. And I doubt the creature you describe (whose whole existence seems to revolve around giving presents to those who worship him and torturning those who don't) would be fooled...

-end quote

[dutchie]

Spoken like a true christian. No sarcasm intended. :respect:


Yes, it is possible based on the tenets of Christianity but the question must be asked, why would one wish to be… either a Christian, if homosexual, or a homosexual, if Christian.

Why would any Christian wish to live in a perpetual state of sin by practicing homosexuality. Why would any Christian wish to inflict such an insult on his or her savior. On the other hand, why would anyone who sincerely believes that he or she is born to be homosexual wish to be part of a belief system that denigrates so openly what they feel so personally.
While I do not share your beliefs, I strongly oppose to this part. Homosexuality is not a disease or a choice of mind - it is a state. People are BORN gay - why don't you people accept this?!? I know a gay christian, who - IMO - is a far BETTER christian than some hypocrites around him... He doesn't feel like he's living "in sin" - he has been wrestling with his fear to come out most of his childhood (I can promise you that it hasn't been easy for him...) and had to face a lot of opposition in his church when he finally admitted to be a homosexual. He's a great guy and very active in both the community as well as his church. It took him more than 15 (!!) years to be truly accepted by the christians in his church. Are you saying that Christ would condone this attitude from these people? Jesus taught love and forgiveness. Both are qualities VERY few christians are equipped with...

[voxpopulisuxx]

since for some reason you addressed this thread to me specifically, I will assume the right to refute your assumptions without fear of being called a stage hog.
First your entire bible exegesis is flawed in its entirety because you undermine its(the bible's) authority in the same thread you try to use it as the backbone of your position! When you wrote the following:The actual tenets of Christianity are not written in the Old Testament. They are detailed in the books of the New Testament.
Christ was asked by his disciples several times to explain to them the tenants of Gods Law
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.Mtt22:35-40
and where did Jesus Get this teaching...from the new testament? Obviously that couldn't be his source. again we read>>>>
And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.Mark 10:17-21
again to what commandment is Christ refereing? Christ taught the faithful adherence to the old testament commandments as necessary to inherit eternal life....
No, Mr Ace...
your thread suffers from the common fallacy that one can take the bible and pick and choose its verses...(with this method even satanists can find solace in a buffet style bible!)
Its well established here that I am Catholic and Catholics are taught that the Bible is Holy and a perfect seamless document from Genesis to the Apocolypse of John....that one Can only understand Who Christ really was,the dutys of a christian, and the doctrines and commandments of Christ when one accepts the entire Bible as authoritative. Catholics are taught that all verses must be harmonized with all the other verses...and to lift one text from the whole is to render it useless or severely insufficient. The pick and choose method simply begs critics to point out what appear to be contradictions in the text...and they would be right if one trys to "proof text" their positions...for instance if we lift the text we read the well known..."For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)
now this text "clearly" shows that all a person has to do is belive...and your saved right?...well maybe... except what about this text I could lift in response...
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment....."mtt 25:41-46
So I reject utterly all your Bible supports for your threads position....
which is a problem in a sense because Im not really sure what your point is your trying to make?
Is the Point that Christians are wrong because they don't listen to the Bible?
Is the point Christens are wrong because they appear to condemn when they teach from the bible>>>??
these are really just two wild guesses on my part...because your post while obviously very sincere is none the less fatally convoluted.

and to treat with your first sentence last...you state we cant prove God exists or not...ok fair enough Faith is the belief in that which is yet unseen to paraphrase St Paul....however I can prove the existence of evil....and I can prove it by the fact that all people religious or not recognise one or many things they see and experience as "bad". it matters not that one person calls homophobia evil while another calls sodomy evil...both parties recognise an objective standard of evil exists separate from both parties and they hence both try to appeal to the others sense of justice in the matter....SO ALL recognise THE GOODNESS OF JUSTICE in the matter of evil...what either party defines as evil in this context is irrelevant to the point.
so maybe in response you could bring the point of this thread in clearer focus?

also you know there will be no living with me now that I rated the naming of a thread after me.....(right dutchi, sky and nye! lol)

[dutchie]

When I was still in church, I was taught that Jesus was actually the fulfillment of the ancient, old-testamental laws for all humanity (including gay people :wink:). The laws of the old testament were intended to be a mirror, showing people that they all were in fact incapable of upholding all of them without breaking one of them.
By taking the punishment of all those sins on his shoulders, Jesus de facto ended the relevance of all old testamental laws. Regardless of sins, all people could enter the kingdom of heaven, just by believing Jesus died and took the punishment for their sins, thus rendering the old laws void (except maybe for some moral teaching). Why do we eat pork, while the old testament explicitedly prohibits this? Because we now have the "godgiven" freedom to do so, without punishment. Why don't we throw menstruating women out of the cities for a week, because they're "unclean"? No need anymore. Those are petty examples (a large part of the old-testamental laws were about "petty" things), but still.
IMO this is the very essence of the gospel and subsequently of the christian faith. The two laws Jesus mentioned in your quote were in fact the laws people shouldn't break, because they defined human and divine interaction. Both are about....

love.

Now you can drag in 50 quotes from "the experts", but to me this makes more sense than anything else. For the record: I jotted down the teachings handed to me in my youth, which does not mean I personally adhere to them.

[voxpopulisuxx]

just writing this so I can see my name in every single top slot on the message board
lol

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Well done, DarkAce. Very eloquent and to the point. No BS and no judgments.


But I'll say this: the God I understand would never judge someone on the basis of how much worship that person accorded God, or whether or not that person even believed in God! The God I know is not a petty, needy, vain and egotistical tyrant who demands the fealty of all, on pain of eternal torment.
Thank you! I've said before that I don't believe that there is a God, but I'm keeping an open mind, realizing that, because I'm a human being, I might be wrong. I've always thought that if God DOES exist, that he would look at my life and realize that I was a good person who helped many people and lived my life ethically and morally. Certainly, there are MANY other non-religious people in the world who feel the same and we all don't understand why God would punish people who lived their lives well. In fact, I know some Christians who live very questionable lifestyles (easy, guys, I said SOME, and I know that this constitutes a VERY small minority of Christians and that people living questionable lifestyles are not limited to just Christians -- they're EVERYWHERE) that make some of us non-religious folk look saintly. This is just something that, as a respected and upstanding citizen in my community, has always bothered me. Again, well written, DarkAce...

Edit -- Sorry for ruining the string of your name on the message boards, Vox!

[voxpopulisuxx]

he he he he feeling mischevious.............

[dutchie]

just writing this so I can see my name in every single top slot on the message board
lol
Why didn't you just answer my post?? Too hard this time?!?

[Keeblergiant]

Dutchie...do you know how many websites he would have to cut and paste (ie plagarize) from to answer all of your posts? Gosh!

[voxpopulisuxx]

Why didn't you just answer my post?? Too hard this time?!?
dutchi which one?
all these threads have me spinning?
Ive never shyed away from any question you know that....man one minute every body demands complete seriousness ,then you threaten to pull my threads if I dont lighten up...hey make up my mind will you.

[DarkAce]

The old testament defines around 613 or so laws/commandments that must be followed in accordance to God. Around 300 of those were voided after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus was and foremost a jew, even yet, a reformer. It isn't hard to reason why he would be influenced by the laws of the old and to keep what worked, and change what didn't. He even came up with his own commandments that people should follow, here's a few:

Do not swear oaths at all. Just say Yes or No. (Matthew 5:34, 37)

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged (Matthew 7:1)

When you pray, do not pray where others may see you; but go into your room, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is in secret. (Matthew 6:5-6)

Do not resist an evildoer; and if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other also. (Matthew 5:39)

Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:42)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who abuse you. (Luke 6:27)

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth. (Matthew 6:19)

Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, or what you will wear. (Matthew 6:25)

If you are rich, sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor. (Luke 18:22)

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; and if your eye causes you to sin, pull it out. It is better to go through life maimed, crippled, and one-eyed than to be whole and thrown into hell. (Mark 9:43)


Jesus's teachings and commandments often contradict what's taught in the Old Testament. If one's intelligent enough, they can too realize the difference between the portrayal of God in the OT compared to that of the NT by Jesus.
Again Jesus asked us:
Jn 15:10-12 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love. "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.



Jesus summed up quite nicely:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40).


My point is quite clear, that you, and many christians of all differing denominations abandon in regards to what Jesus actually taught. The "pick and choose" method of scripture to justify actions that completly contradict what Jesus had actually taught, is shameful and yet they still claim to be christians?

This entire post was in reference to your condemnation of "homosodites" or wth term you were using, among other things.
Being a christian means following the teachings of Jesus Christ. In other words, if it isn't laid down by Jesus, it's irrelevant.


Homosexuality is not a disease or a choice of mind - it is a state. People are BORN gay

I believe so also and in most regards, so does the church. But you jumped the gun, "perpetual state of sin by practicing homosexuality." Key word 'practicing'. The current Catholic Church's viewpoint on homosexuality is that it's an unfortunate burden that they carry and they are called to live a life of abstinence. So it's ok for them to be gay, they just can't have sex. (For the record you might be confused, I'm a strong advocator for gay rights, I was just referencing the Christian viewpoint in my initial post.)


Apologies in advance if this is all over the place, it's been a long weekend and it's late.

[dutchie]

dutchi which one?
all these threads have me spinning?
Ive never shyed away from any question you know that....man one minute every body demands complete seriousness ,then you threaten to pull my threads if I dont lighten up...hey make up my mind will you.
Post #4 in this thread. You immediately responded to that with a mock post.

Calm down, Vox. The only thing I want you to be is calm. You can have fun here without getting vicious. That's all I said. Now stop nagging about it.

[voxpopulisuxx]

Post #4 in this thread. You immediately responded to that with a mock post.

Calm down, Vox. The only thing I want you to be is calm. You can have fun here without getting vicious. That's all I said. Now stop nagging about it.
from post #4
"Now you can drag in 50 quotes from "the experts", but to me this makes more sense than anything else."
I didn't answer it because it seemed that this ending to the post told me your mind was made up no matter what I said....

Actually your question is quite easy...the problem is one of reflexes...
Most "non catholic" Christians whether they belong to a mainstream denomination, or just individuals with their own version of things, use the bible in a way not at all ascribed to By the Catholic...the Catholic does not belive the Bible is a self instructive book, by that I mean we do not belive it has some kind of mystical power to teach you how to understand it, without reference to any outside authority. This practice of self infallibility when reading the bible is not a Catholic reflex. Now of course there are many portions and even whole books that a readily understandable by any relatively educated person.But there are most assuredly verydifficult passages and books, even for some of the greatest Theologians of history. But the fact remains (against dark aces assertion in his post) no part of the bible contradicts another. Only men and their various personal interpritations contradict (thats why there are 20,000 differing protestant sects, each having the same bible) The Catholic is taught that The Church has the deposit of faith which is the Traditons and writings of the apostles and Christ. The Catholic Church has the authority to define scripture because She is the Institution that Canonised it, that has the Doctors and saints writings, That settles issue and disputes once and for all etc....Catholics find it a ridiculous to allow every man of every generation to reopen debates and disputes about issues that have already been settled in regard to Bible Truths(The bible is a book of faith, not a physics book)....but thats is what happens when every individual endows them self with the power to define the bible without error.(2nd peter 1)
now as to your second assertion vis/vis the old laws of Moses to the HEBREWS
It is fallicious to discuss the practical laws of historic Old testament hebrews, its admonitions, its strict prohibitions, as being on the same level as Gods Moral laws.
Matthew 19:16-19
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.These are the Moral laws of the OT STILL IN FORCE....the others are no longer in force because Gods Chosen people are no longer Just the Hebrew people but all people who accept Christ as Messiah....St. Paul himself taught this when He corrected St. Peter who had fallen into the practice of Judasizing...the old conscriptions on health, government, dress, even circumcision were no longer in force because Israel had been assumed into the Christian Church which was now for Jew and Gentile alike ISRAEL, Gentiles were not under these levitical laws....
So (as you and Dark Ace erroneously asserted) ...Jesus did not redefine...nor did he deligitimize the old laws of hebrew practice( in fact He commanded and practiced them himself and ajudicated these laws and the people even brought cases before him asserting the Laws of Moses)....He just over saw their dissolution...example:
An Acorn goes into the Ground...the laws of nature that applied to it in regard to its hard shell, unique shape and color, and its size, all change when its final stage as an oak tree is realized, the old shell is discarded not as false but as irrelevant.
you are attempting to compare an empty acorn shell, with a Mighty oak tree.
in closing to hold up the levitical laws that applyed only to the Hebrew people specifically as proof that Christians are not required to Hold Gods Universal Moral laws is a "straw man" set up to be easily knock down.

[voxpopulisuxx]

see my post to dutchi on this matter....

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Around 300 of those were voided after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
Forgive my ignorance, but is this the destruction of the temple that happened right when Jesus died on the cross? I watched "The Passion" too, you know! Good movie...


It isn't hard to reason why he would be influenced by the laws of the old and to keep what worked, and change what didn't.
I've got to say that I'm quite stunned by this statement. First of all, the way that I see it anyway, Jesus doesn't appear to be "honoring thy father" by changing the commandments set by his own father. Also, if it isn't hard to reason why Jesus would "keep what worked and change what didn't", then why can't some of the Biblical rules be changed NOW to allow for changes in society over the past several centuries? Why are some people so resistant to such changes when Jesus himself changed the rules that were established by GOD himself?


Being a christian means following the teachings of Jesus Christ. In other words, if it isn't laid down by Jesus, it's irrelevant.
Again, I'm surprised by this statement. Am I incorrect with my interpretation of this by saying that some of GOD's laws are irrelevant? This seems pretty huge to me...


Actually there is a punishment for eating pork..Its called heart disease and a host of other problems.
Ha ha! That's funny stuff. And it's true...


and pork is NOT the other white meat
What about "the other other white meat" as proposed by Fat Bastard from Austin Powers? Feel free to ignore me. Just goofing around...


Catholics find it a ridiculous to allow every man of every generation to reopen debates and disputes about issues that have already been settled in regard to Bible Truths(The bible is a book of faith, not a physics book)...
Maybe it SHOULD be. It might not be such a bad thing if the Bible had more flexibility to change as humanity changes, otherwise it runs the risk of eventually becoming irrelevant...

[Marajadex]

just writing this so I can see my name in every single top slot on the message board
It is attitudes like this that the Ignore feature was created. You may want to see your rhetoric but I have grown tired of it.

BTW, Dutchie... and DarkAce!!! Great posts! Thanks!

[voxpopulisuxx]

It is attitudes like this that the Ignore feature was created. You may want to see your rhetoric but I have grown tired of it.

BTW, Dutchie... Great posts! Thanks!
such sour pusses

[DarkAce]

Forgive my ignorance, but is this the destruction of the temple that happened right when Jesus died on the cross? I watched "The Passion" too, you know! Good movie...


No the destruction of the temple by the romans in around 70ad if I remember correctly.


Jesus doesn't appear to be "honoring thy father" by changing the commandments set by his own father.


How so? Jesus portrayed a loving compassionate God. The laws set fourth by the prophets in the name of God that did not reflect Jesus's version of God, he abolished. In other words, people were saying God commanded a whole bunch of things, Jesus was setting the record straight on these matters. Therefore one could justly say he was "honoring thy father".


then why can't some of the Biblical rules be changed NOW to allow for changes in society over the past several centuries?

What "biblical rules" do you have in mind? Because Christianity has seen much change and transition in society over the centuries.


Why are some people so resistant to such changes when Jesus himself changed the rules that were established by GOD himself?


Do you want to go into the psychological aspects of the question, or the easy answer?


Catholics find it a ridiculous to allow every man of every generation to reopen debates and disputes about issues that have already been settled in regard to Bible Truths(The bible is a book of faith, not a physics book)...


That's rather odd of you to say, considering Catholics have and still do just that.

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Hey, Marajadex! A fellow Star Wars fan! Have you seen the new trailer yet? May 19th cannot come soon enough...

[Marajadex]

Hey, Marajadex! A fellow Star Wars fan! Have you seen the new trailer yet? May 19th cannot come soon enough...
I ABSOLUTLY can't wait for the next movie! I have always been a Darth Vader fan. This next movie is the 0ne I have been waiting for ever since the very first movie came out in... ah... 1977!!!!

I love your signature!!!! How cool!!!!

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

No the destruction of the temple by the romans in around 70ad if I remember correctly.
Thanks for the clarification. I was just curious to know if this was the temple destruction that was portrayed in "The Passion". Again, forgive my ignorance, but some atheists rely on popular culture media such as movies to get some of our religious background.


What "biblical rules" do you have in mind? Because Christianity has seen much change and transition in society over the centuries.
I'm getting the feeling that this is probably too broad and too involved of a subject to tackle. I just remember Vox saying something along the lines of "God's law is eternal" which seems to contradict what you are saying. Probably best to leave this one alone...


Do you want to go into the psychological aspects of the question, or the easy answer?
LOL! The easy answer please!


That's rather odd of you to say, considering Catholics have and still do just that.
Sorry, my bad! That was actually Vox who said that quote. I should have labelled it. So you can see how this relates back to my previous two questions...

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

I ABSOLUTLY can't wait for the next movie! I have always been a Darth Vader fan. This next movie is the 0ne I have been waiting for ever since the very first movie came out in... ah... 1977!!!!
Aaahhhh... 1977. I was only 8 years old when I saw ANH. That was back in the days when there was only ONE screen per theater building and there were a billion seats in that theater << "memories" plays in the background >> and the lineup to get into the movie went right around the block. Those were the days! It's been 22 long years, but VADER IS BACK !!! Can't wait!


I love your signature!!!! How cool!!!!
Love yours too! Every time that I see something impressively large, I say your signature quote! Yeah, I'm a geek! And often I'll follow-up that quote with "Impressive. MOST impressive." Long live Vader...

[voxpopulisuxx]

That's rather odd of you to say, considering Catholics have and still do just that.
Catholics do not open the dogmas...in fact if anything its what were condemned on the fact that we belive in Dogmas....A dogma being a settled issue.....Dark ace would you consider reopening the debate about Jesus being the Christ?...That is a Dogma, how a bout the fact that there is one God.Dogma...how about the resurrection, did jesus actually resurrect bodily or was it a mere phantom, the Dogma of the resurrection is a settled issue according to Catholics....so its not at all odd...Catholics hold the Deposit of Faith...it cannot be changed no matter the fashion or fads of the time.....that is why our Faith is the Faith of Christ 2000 years old etc....
back to you friend

[voxpopulisuxx]

I was really disappointed in the Actor who plays soon to be vader...I mean Im sorry his acting sucks.....of course it will improve once hes sealed in the suit....will Jame earl Jones play his voice?

[voxpopulisuxx]

check this story out...to see what i mean

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/15/nbible15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/15/ixhome.html

[voxpopulisuxx]

http://www.atomfilms.com/af/content/gangsta_rap_se

hey nye check this star wars flashfilm out!

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

I was really disappointed in the Actor who plays soon to be vader...I mean Im sorry his acting sucks.....of course it will improve once hes sealed in the suit....will Jame earl Jones play his voice?
Hayden Christensen does have his moments though. Most Star Wars enthusiasts attribute his acting inconsistencies to George Lucas' inability to extract great performances out of his actors. Hopefully, Lucas listened to these criticisms and has paid more attention to eliciting quality performances out of the actors in Episode III. Hayden CAN be a great actor though. He received critical acclaim for his performance in "Life as a House" with Kevin Kline. Good movie...


hey nye check this star wars flashfilm out!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! That was AWESOME !!! Thanks for the link!

[Marajadex]

Every time that I see something impressively large, I say your signature quote! Yeah, I'm a geek! And often I'll follow-up that quote with "Impressive. MOST impressive." Long live Vader...

I have been known to qoute the Emperor a time or 2... usually it is
"You are mistaken about a great many things"... Well I think that is correct...

All this conversation about Star Wars seems like it would be off topic for this thread... However... there was alot of spiritualism in the way the universe of Star Wars looked at "The Force". It is almost a blending of Mysticism, Spirituality and Science... but that is just a week tie in here LOL!!!

[DarkAce]

Who said anything about changing dogma? Just because people discuss matters doesn't lead them to changing them. What do you think theologians do?

Do you even know what the deposits of faith were? I've gone over with this with you before. They aren't a clear cut instruction manual, but left to us to interpret to our best capability to do so. Hence why throught the millennia's we've had the best of theologians discuss matters pretaining to the nature of Jesus, etc, contributing towards the dogma that we have today. Dogma has been a changing matter, because we've always gained a better perspective/understanding of different things over time.
Of course by now matters such as Jesus died for our sins, etc, are clear cut and closed .

Btw...shouldn't I be taking you nerds lunch money?:p

[voxpopulisuxx]

try to take my lunch money and ill be serving you your lunch for free...lol

[voxpopulisuxx]

Who said anything about changing dogma? Just because people discuss matters doesn't lead them to changing them. What do you think theologians do?

Do you even know what the deposits of faith were? I've gone over with this with you before. They aren't a clear cut instruction manual, but left to us to interpret to our best capability to do so. Hence why throught the millennia's we've had the best of theologians discuss matters pretaining to the nature of Jesus, etc, contributing towards the dogma that we have today. Dogma has been a changing matter, because we've always gained a better perspective/understanding of different things over time.
Of course by now matters such as Jesus died for our sins, etc, are clear cut and closed .

Btw...shouldn't I be taking you nerds lunch money?:p
Changing Dogma is an oxymoron.
And I know very well what the Deposit(not deposits) of faith is, and I never said it was an instruction manual. Dogma(in christian Parlance) is an absolute truth about God and His will. It does not stand or fall on OUR understanding it...it stands alone.
The ocean does not change just the depths as we swim away from shore. By the way ace, by whos authority do you say that Jesus died for our sins? Both you and I agree that this is a settled issue.....the question I have for you is why do you belive it settled? Because the Bible said so? How do you know the Bible is true?
I know the Bible is true for the Same reason St. Augustine did..."I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so"
(Saint AugustineAncient Roman Christian theologian and bishop of Hippo from 396 to 430. One of the Latin Fathers of the Church. 354-430)
Why do you belive the Bible true....hence the Dogma of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins.? You see your on very slippery intellectual ground when you begin to say some truths are settled and others are not. The deposit of Faith is a monolith. It is not growing and expanding, or contracting and deminishing with time....It is what it is. Dogma.."is like a rough diamond, having been mined from the quarry and not yet very pretty, taken to the gem cutter who is going to chisel it into a thousand surfaces in order that one can view it from all its angles with thousands of reflections. But it is the same diamond! There is simply a development in the particulars-all the colors of the rainbow are going to be refracted but there is no development in substance. A gem cutter who might want to re-chisel it afterwards would fail. This is development in precision.There is also a development in explanation. There is a passing from the implicit to the explicit. That which one believed implicitly is going to be believed explicitly."http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/truetrad.htm

Jesus said "I am Truth"...he did not say "Im some of the truths with more to come so stick around after the commercials..."

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Btw...shouldn't I be taking you nerds lunch money?:p
It's in the mail, Sir.


I have been known to qoute the Emperor a time or 2... usually it is
"You are mistaken about a great many things"... Well I think that is correct...
All this conversation about Star Wars seems like it would be off topic for this thread... However... there was alot of spiritualism in the way the universe of Star Wars looked at "The Force". It is almost a blending of Mysticism, Spirituality and Science... but that is just a week tie in here LOL!!!
That quote sounds right. Good one! Palpatine has sooo many good quotes to use, including the infamous quote that will have the anti-gays in an uproar: "I have felt him." Hahahahahahah! Funny that you should mention "The Force" the way that you have. I've always thought that you could legitimately start a religion with "The Force" at the core of its beliefs. If we don't know the answer to something, then we just say something like "it is the way of the Force" or "the Force works in mysterious ways". It just might work! We should start our own thread that reads "The Force 101 - no questions too hard!" just as an interesting exercise to see if we can apply the Star Wars canon and the concept of the Force to answer the difficult questions about our world and the universe. No disrespect to the religious people here, but it might be an interesting exercise to perform just to see how difficult/easy it might be to establish our own religion, ideally without offending anyone. What do you think?

[DarkAce]

The imposing edifice of Catholic theology has been reared not by individual nations and men, but rather by the combined efforts of all nations and the theologians of every century. Nothing could be more at variance with the essential character of theology than an endeavour to set upon it the stamp of nationalism: like the Catholic Church itself, theology must ever be international. In the history of dogmatic theology, as in the history of the Church, three periods may be distinguished:

the patristic
the medieval
the modern
...


From "History of Dogmatic Theology":http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14588a.htm

Hm, perhaps you should lookup what the word oxymoron means and come back to me.

And how do you think issues were settled and became dogma?

The deposit(s) of faith (refering to both the oral and written handed down to us) like I said earlier were left to us to interpret.The Bible is (according to christians) the inerrant word of God, but it is not a systematic presentation of all that was in the Deposit of Faith. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, especially the understanding of how Christ united His divinity and humanity and who the Holy Spirit is were the subject of controversies and heresies necessitating the calling of Church Councils during the first 400 years of Church history (such as the Council of Jerusalem discussed in Acts 15 and the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D..) Why would God give the Church the Holy Spirit to inspire the writing of the New Testament, but not be give the same Holy Spirit to the Church for its interpretation in an infallible way? It was necessary that this be done because the Scriptures are not explicit in answering all theological and moral questions that arise. Scholars who have studied the Bible with zeal for 50 years or more often cannot agree on the basics, such as the meaning of baptism, how we are saved or what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body."
I don't believe Jesus died for us or any of that, I was presenting the view of the church.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, the deposits of faith cannot be changed, but our understanding of them can and has been throughout the centuries. As one person eloquently puts it:


Christ gave to His Church, in the person of its first officials, the apostles, a mass of truth concerning God and man; concerning the nature of God, His threefold personality, His attributes, His purpose in making man, the means by which His purpose was to be achieved. This teaching, given by Christ to the apostles, was by them passed on to others, who in their turn passed it on. The Church then, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case, she would have been a preserver of truth - but scarcely a teacher. In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught, she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too... This development in the Church's understanding of what has been committed to her is not like anything else in the world.

[voxpopulisuxx]

I can find little to disagree with in your last post...I am of the position that the ocean does not change but its depths do as we leave the shore.

[DarkAce]

Although your analogy is worded wrong and poor, I get what you're trying to convey. And surprise, surprise, it's what I've been saying throughout. Which is basically that our perception changes.

[voxpopulisuxx]

Not just perception but depth perception!
a dogmas newer deeper understanding could never override its previous meaning...only enhance it....bring it into clearer focus, but it would not refute or undermine its original or previous understanding...that is my point. For example more modern theology could never say that ...."well we used to believe in the dogma of Christs bodily resurrection, but now due to new and improved theology techniques we feel that Jesus was only a ghost or spirit who only "appeared" to the disciples to be actual flesh and blood....it was Holy Magic!
See this is my point ace...Dogma does not change...it developes...but never into something it wasn't before.

[DarkAce]

You say potato I say potatoe.

[voxpopulisuxx]

You say potato I say potatoe.
Ok so the Dogma that Mary was born without stain of original sin, and was assumed Bodily into heaven, and was a perpetual virgin, these have always been belived By Christianity and it wasnt questioned till luther et al.....so either it was dogma or it wasnt...

[DarkAce]

And when did these become dogma? Right.
They weren't in the deposit of faith to my best of remembrance.

[voxpopulisuxx]

And when did these become dogma? Right.
They weren't in the deposit of faith to my best of remembrance.
These have always been belived, since the Apostles themselves taught them to the early Church fathers. The Church pronounces a dogma, not to reveal a NEW truth, but to protect what has always been belived from being attacked or undermined, in the present or future. To pronounce something a dogma is to pronounce it a closed issue, not open to debate.

[DarkAce]

And how does it become dogma?

Like I said earlier "For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, especially the understanding of how Christ united His divinity and humanity and who the Holy Spirit is were the subject of controversies and heresies necessitating the calling of Church Councils during the first 400 years of Church history (such as the Council of Jerusalem discussed in Acts 15 and the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D..)"

Do you understand what that means? That means they had different stances on the subjects throughout the years. After many debates and discussions they eventually settled upon something thus then declaring it 'official' dogma. Whether the stance they eventually settled upon was "what was always there to begin with" or whatever crap you want to say is irrelevant. To simplify the much asserted point, they believed in certain things than their perception and understanding grew (due to whatever scholar usually) than they didn't believe quite those same things as before,but refined their assertions and believed in those new ones. Hence, change.

For small summaries of the dogmatic progression(aka CHANGE): History of Dogmatic Theology http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14588a.htm

You're confusing matters within yourself. First your definition of change for whatever reason seems to imply to you something negative in connotation. Further more you seem to be combining Dogma and the Deposit of Faith as one and the same. Which it isn't. Dogma is gathered from our interpretations from the Deposit of Faith, and if you knew your history like you claim to, you would see that their interpretations haven't always agreed with one another and often debated in heated discussions at the church councils, etc. Thus eventually them (The Church) eventually settling upon the issues and making it official dogma and what we have today.

[voxpopulisuxx]

Among the early Fathers the usage was prevalent of designating as dogmas the doctrines and moral precepts taught or promulgated by the Saviour or by the Apostles; and a distinction was sometimes made between Divine, Apostolical, and ecclesiastical dogmas, according as a doctrine was conceived as having been taught by Christ, by the Apostles, or as having been delivered to the faithful by the Church.

But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church. "source:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

in all cases..dogma is NOT NEW. It already exists, the church has not defined it for the Church yet(coming soon Mary Mediatrix of all graces)...so the dogmas of Mary already existed...from Christ, Apostles, or delivered(past tense, assuming something preexistant to deliver) to the faithful by the Church.
This is the definition of Dogma commonly held By Catholics, and the one to which I subscribe as a faithfull son of Christs Bride.

[voxpopulisuxx]

question, why do you accept the dogma of the trinity, but not the Dogma of the immaculate conception, or Papal infallability? All 3 were defined by the same body(Catholic Church), using the same methods?

[DarkAce]

I think you need to re-read what exactly you pasted and ponder on it, because I don't think you really understood what it meant.

I'm not sure how else I can explain this. It's proposed that what the dogmas have in them were always there to begin with, fine. That's more or less a technical point. Lets look at this from a puzzle angle, although I don't think it's adequate enough.

You have a puzzle. You have all the pieces (deposit of faith) scattered. You take some time(millennias) to assemble the puzzle. Along the way throughout that time you fit together some pieces that don't fit together, but you eventually find the 'right' pieces to go in place (history of dogmatic theology, progression, CHANGE.) Coincidentally enough you find that you don't have all the pieces, so you substitute what you thinks best to complete the 'puzzle'(doctrine of the trinity, etc.) You eventually 'finish' the puzzle and that's what we have today.

Clearer now? You're arguing moot points and really have no basis for continuing. Whether what's in the dogma now is actually what was always there, is irrelevant. The point is that they had different views/perspectives at one time than another. It's common for that to happen, it's called progression. To deny this fact is insanity. You're stance that dogma has never changed has been debunked for some time now yet you continue to post in vain and with moot points just for the sake of posting. It's ok to submit, I wouldn't think any less of you.
Well, not any less that I already do:Bott:

Technically I don't accept any of the dogmas since I do not consider myself catholic anymore.

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Meow......

[voxpopulisuxx]

Iguess then were stuck on the definition of change...when you say a dogma changes, do you mean an apple becomes an orange kind of chang, or do you mean an apple seed becomes and apple tree etc?
And to say the Mind of Christ was scattered, like a puzzle is quite a disturbing hypothesis......Jesus knew His mother was conceived immaculate, be cause He was the one who made her so....he also knew his Mother never had other Children....he also knew that she was assumed bodily into heaven because He escorted her Himself...
so you can try to dance and finesse the issue all you want....Jesus is the Church...His is the Mind and Memory of the Church....so theres nothing scattered about the Deposit of faith...

[DarkAce]

Well if that would make it clearer for you, it would be both.

Furthermore who claimed Christ's mind was scattered? In the creation of an religion, which Catholicism is, the deposit of faith is only one fraction of it (piece of the puzzle). All the rituals and traditions the Catholics made up (which subsequently led to corruption and the protestant split and reformation) are another part of the puzzle, etc.

He knew his mother didn't have any other children, what?...

I don't know why you keep making such broad and outlandish statements. Do you hope that you can spew BS and no one would notice? That's pretty much most of your posts that I've read. You try desperatly to form an rebuttal by making broad and general statements compiled with little to no truth, but make them with such certainity and assurance, that I guess people really fall for it. Fortunatly some can see through it. I'd call you on it more often, but it's rather pointless.

Your unrelenting passion to defend your beliefs are admirable, but I'm not sure what catholicism you subscribe to, because from what I've gathered from many of your posts certain things go against the roman catholic view and you slant towards the viewpoints of christian fundamentalist viewpoints more associated with the denominations of evangelicists than that of the roman catholics.

[voxpopulisuxx]

Well if that would make it clearer for you, it would be both.

Furthermore who claimed Christ's mind was scattered? In the creation of an religion, which Catholicism is, the deposit of faith is only one fraction of it (piece of the puzzle). All the rituals and traditions the Catholics made up (which subsequently led to corruption and the protestant split and reformation) are another part of the puzzle, etc.

He knew his mother didn't have any other children, what?...

I don't know why you keep making such broad and outlandish statements. Do you hope that you can spew BS and no one would notice? That's pretty much most of your posts that I've read. You try desperatly to form an rebuttal by making broad and general statements compiled with little to no truth, but make them with such certainity and assurance, that I guess people really fall for it. Fortunatly some can see through it. I'd call you on it more often, but it's rather pointless.

Your unrelenting passion to defend your beliefs are admirable, but I'm not sure what catholicism you subscribe to, because from what I've gathered from many of your posts certain things go against the roman catholic view and you slant towards the viewpoints of christian fundamentalist viewpoints more associated with the denominations of evangelicists than that of the roman catholics.
When did Catholicism get invented as you say, when did the Church stop being the Church Christ instituted (as if Christ doesnt know how to establish a church)...be aware your answer will have a baring on the Holy Scriptures themselves....secondly, when did I ever offer anything but Catholic Theology? on issues where catholicism was the issue or religion the issue? please give me an example something NOT catholic?
but to clear things up this is what I and All Catholics believe and have always belived:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy Catholic(def:greek kathilikos-universal;total) and Apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.