🚀 go-pugleaf

Again, sorry for the delay ...

The Astute Andrew wrote:
> 
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
>
> Phorse 5 wrote:
> 
> > The Astute Andrew wrote:
> >
> Christianity spread far beyond the immediate followers of
> Jesus very rapidly.  It seems odd that it would do so, and even continue
> to spread despite Roman persecution.

Lots of things spread despite the persecution of authorities. It all
comes down to marketing and audience targeting. Hardly proves something
to be worth following just because of a quick uptake. Further, the pace
did not hold, and confronted problems as it grew, and still does. Hence
the reasons why some things were modified or deleted, or why some things
were done. 

Easter and Christmas are 2 shining examples of bad behaviour by
christian leaders. Both are 'pagan' festivals (christmas:: Solstice
festival, Easter:: fertility festival. I can look up more details on
these two if you want). Incidentally the HQ of the Catholics is on land
that was holy long before jesus christ popped his head out a hairy
jewish fanny. The church leaders chose these dates because it was when
everyone was already celebrating, so they would be easier to bring in.
They would not miss out on any of the parties.

Pagan theology explains the bunnies and eggs better too. 

> Catholic theology has an answer to the question of Lazarus.  You see,
> Lazarus was not "resurrected," but "resessitated."  Lazarus died
> sometime again later in his life.  Jesus, on the other hand, did not and
> rose from the dead essentially of his own volition.  Furthermore, if
> Jesus didn't actually die or if He is not God, the whole point of
> Christianity becomes rather... well... pointless.

Did you mean resuscitated? (prick of a word, especially when you have
norwegian linguistics stuck in your head). I thought i heard that
someone worked out a way that he could have just woken up. People drop
into mini comas all the time. They did not check pulse (etc.) back then.
JC woke up a lady who was apparently dead, but may have simply been a
deep narcoleptic. There is also speculation as to whether or not he
might have help, or a stand in.

And then there are texts that refer to the earthly life of christ after
the crucifixion. I think they have a large cloud of doubt on them,
however. He existed? sure. A great teacher? A lot of non christians say
so (including muslims, for example). Son of god? A tad tricky to prove.
 
> > Doesn't that 'church' still exist in Iraq? I use 'church' in the
> > people, not the building, sense of the word. This does not prove that
> > christ established the catholic church.
> 
> Yes, that Church does still exist in Iraq.  The Chaldean Catholics, if I
> recall correctly, are found in Iraq.  It's a very old church.
> 
> The article uses the word "church" not only in the sense of "people" but
> in the sense of "an institution."

Yeah, it can be used like that. The building and institution are a
little moot without the people. I don't recall what the church was
called, so I will take your word for it. How closely do they align
themselves to your HQ?

> > § This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can
> > take the Church's word for it precisely because the Church is
> > infallible. §
> >
> > Um, this assertion is somewhat disproven by history... Or is this the
> >  part where the 'church' blames the 'people' who run it?
> 
> Yes and no.  It's actually a clarification of the definition
> infallibility.  The Church is infallible because Christ said so.  This
> means that the Church can issue decrees on faith that are without error
> due to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Nothing is infallible. Not even God. He went and made humans, didn't he?
Big mistake. Had a good thing going with this rock until he put humans
on it. Now, if Christ is not the son of God, that would make the church
fallible, right?
 
> It does not mean that pope won't hold things like the "dance of the
> walnut."  It just means that even if the heirarchy of the church has
> moral failings, it cannot teach in error concerning matters of faith.

But can in terms of interpretation....
 
> > § we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
> > From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. ... What
> > we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we
> > could never know whether the Bible is inspired. §
> >
> > Say wha??
> 
> We wouldn't know if Bible was inspired if Christ did not establish the
> Catholic Church and give it the authority to determine what is divinely
> inspired and what is not divinely inspired.  Let's face it, the books in
> the Bible weren't really agreed upon until the 4th Century AD at the
> Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome.  The final declaration of all the
> books in the Bible happens at the Council of Trent.

There are books missing from the bible. There have been bits removed.
Translations have had errors here n there (some are famous).  When was
trent?
 
> > I'm sure one could utilize similar arguments to prove the truth of
> > wiccan faith (I think it has been tried by some) or the infallibility
> > of the ancient Gods of the Incas, the Egyptians or the beliefs of the
> > Australian native peoples. Indeed, the fact that such a large land
> > mass (Australia) had a fairly similar belief system for a helluva
> > long time before european settlement, which is still alive, indicates
> > that maybe they have it right.
> 
> The length of a religion's existence does not establish any validity.
> Christians, and Catholics specifically, claim their validity on the
> basis that Christ was God and that he created the Church through his
> apostles and disciples.  If Christ is not God, then the argument falls
> apart.  You essentially have to accept that premise first, which is a
> matter of faith.

Hence the problem for non christians. If one does not accept Christ is
God, with little real proof, then the whole system is useless.
Christianity is not the only system with a GodHead who had/has an
earthly form. If one accepts Zeus is the God of Gods he claims to be,
then that means everything that associates itself with that is
righteous, from what your saying. Same goes for Aries (God Of War)
 
> I haven't
> run into very many (reads as: any) Catholics who say "Oh this rosary is
> a most holy object that I worship."  If that was a case, such a person
> would be in dire need of catechetical instruction.

Good. It should not matter what the physical focal point is, as the
point of the exercise is to connect with God.
 
> >>>> The sacrament of Confession comes largely out of the book of
> >>>> James and the Sacred Tradition.
> >>>
> >>> James as in the new testament?
> >>
> >> Yes, as in the Epistle of James.
> >
> > So he said 'confess your sins to some guy who says he is closer to
> > God than you'?
> 
> No.  Rather, he said something to the effect of confess your sins to
> another person.  As the Church developed, the sacrament of confession
> was placed with priests.

Why is that? Why can't I just confess to the Bus driver or barman, if
they'll listen? Why do I need to go to some guy who is quite possibly
going to get his rocks off or be horrified, or bored, and then tell me
to go and abuse myself in some way?
 
> > I thought the idea was to confess your sins to God, or Christ,
> > directly? Not that having a customer service centre in the form of
> > priests in private booths is a bad idea, just i don't recall it being
> > mentioned?
> 
> You can confess your sins directly to God.  But there is a certainty of
> forgiveness with the sacrament of confession according to Catholic
> doctrine.  There is no exact certainty without the sacrament.
> Furthermore, private booths was a nice innovation on the whole idea of
> confession.  You can do it face-to-face with a priest if you wish.

There is certainty of forgiveness with confessing to God. You know it in
your heart, or you're meant to. How can you be certain you have been
forgiven if for thirty years you rested that on the words of one man,
who turned out to be a crook of some sort? Pedophilia is not the only
issue of priesthood, I'm sure. Lots of things can get one booted out of
the mission.
 
> >>> What's wrong with praying to Christ?
> >>
> >> Absolutely nothing.  I'd encourage it.
> >
> > So why pray for others to pray on your behalf?
> 
> Why ask for others to pray on your behalf?  Community building, faith
> strengthening, and the various number of reasons Christians have prayer
> groups.

Doing stuff together is sufficient to build community. The prayer groups
are that, so are soup kitchens (and such). Won't make you a better
christian, but will make you a better person.
 
> > One interpretation of the afterlife, from the bible, is that all the
> > dead are in a sort of stasis field. Time has stopped for them at
> > death, and will restart after the apocalypse. This is one of the
> > arguments given when people say they see ghosts of the dead. 'They're
> > not the dead, since the dead are frozen in time. They're demons
> > trying to take you to hell. Ignore them and they'll go away' or
> > similar.
> 
> The Church disagrees with this interpretation.

The bible mentions limbo in several places. A number of mediterranean
faiths have a realm of the dead - so does the bible. Some of the others
mention things that happen in the realm, but IIRC, the bible does not.
It also says ghosts are not the dead, rather figments of the mind or
dæmons. In revelations, IIRC, it mentions the dead rising for a final
judgement. Now, if the dead are already risen in heaven, or a fiery
hell, how can they do that?

Faith in the God of Abraham (Jews, Christians, Muslims) is the key to
the gates of paradise after death, but nowhere does it says if that
happens right after you die, earth time, or right after you die, as far
as you know. Makes no difference to the individual, of course, but
still. The dead, according to Christianity, are not watching over us (or
looking up).
 
> > IIRC, the bible makes no mention of heaven and hell as places you go
> > after you die. Only as places you go after the final judgement.
> > Before then it's either a waiting room scenario, or a sort of pause
> > (e.g.. frozen in time). I think it also says a few really good people
> > might get into heaven, and some of the people who everyone thought
> > were good (e.g.. false prophets) will go to the eternal flames and
> > suffering in the lake of fire?
> 
> I think Sacred Tradition and Catholic theology has a distinction between
> something called "personal judgment" and "final judgment."  I'm not
> going to bore you with the difference, only just to say that the Church
> does not think souls become frozen in space-time.  We also have no real
> opinion on the rapture, and find the doctrine kinda silly.

The only judgement that matters, according to the bible, is that of God.
What humans say about humans is irrelevant, except in so far as we are
not meant to judge others (lest ye be judged). The rapture? as in the
thingie mentioned in Revelations? Where the good guys go to be with God
in Paradise (regardless of faith 'level' n such), and the baddies are
tossed into the eternal lake of fire (where their existence ends  - they
don't go on suffering)?
 
> >>> He said that none shall come to the father but through me, or
> >>> something along the lines of: Pray to me and no other, or you're
> >>> not getting into Heaven.
> >>
> >> He says that he is the only way to the Father.  That much I know.
> >> I do not ever recall him saying the latter part of that statement.
> >
> > I might have got a bad interpretation, or a bad recollection. Point
> > was he emphasized prayer to him (since he is part of the holy
> > trinity), not any other
> 
> I was always under the impression that Christ was emphasising his
> divinity in that passage.

That too.
 
> >> Hmm... I see we have a difference of opinion here.  But, now I must
> >> bring up a point I really like to bring up called the principle of
> >> Christian liberty.  If what I am doing is not prohibited according
> >> to the Christian faith, and can bring a positive outcome, why
> >> should I be prohibited from that certain action?  The only real
> >> objection you seem to have here is a discomfort with allowing other
> >> people to pray for you, and it does not appear to be based on
> >> sacred Scripture.
> >
> > An example within the catholic church i can recall is how it relates
> > to Voodoo magic. Apparently they were having a hard time converting
> > the locals in an area that practised Voodoo, so instead of fighting
> > it, they found a way to embrace it. In so far as saying it is ok, but
> > discouraging people from doing it. Since it meant less human
> > suffering, it was seen as ok.
> >
> > Another is the theft of pagan holidays (easter, christmas), the theft
> > of pagan holy land (the Vatican sits on Land that was holy long
> > before the Christians popped up, and it was taken by force,
> > apparently). And then there were the crusades... how that murderous
> > rampage and lie factory got past the veto squad I'll probably never
> > understand.
> 
> Firstly, we didn't steal Rome.  We simply out-bred the Romans. :)
> Secondly, the adaptation of certain cultural aspects of a society to
> local worship practices is not necessarily a bad thing.  Using
> traditional pagan holidays and turning them into Christian holidays with
> Christian meanings and teachings isn't something I would necessarily
> consider wrong.  Granted, adaptation of culture to Christianity can only
> occur so far.  Certain fundamental beliefs cannot be comprimised and are
> not comprimised.

I never said anyone stole Rome. Just that the land the vatican is on was
holy to other people first. Adapting the holy days of other belief
systems is disrespectful to them, and undermines the credibility of the
adapting party. It says they can't be original, for one.
 
> >>> I don't follow? How come one party can think it is divinely
> >>> inspired, and another cannot.
> >>
> >> Oh, it's not that.  I just don't understand Protestant reasoning
> >> behind the divine inspiration of Scripture.  I do, however,
> >> understand Catholic reasoning.  People can believe that lollipops
> >> rule the universe for all I care.  I just probably won't understand
> >> the reasoning behind that.
> >
> > Ah, I gotcha now. What's it matter what the line of reasoning is as
> > long as the belief it is inspired is there? For protestants and
> > catholics i mean? Both groups rely on the leaders saying the bible is
> > inspired, and the masses believing them without (much) question.
> 
> This is true, I suppose.  But if faith does not contradict reason, I
> find that is suddenly seems to be on much stronger ground than a belief
> contradicting logic.

Well, faith is meant to be something not needing proof. So proving it it
destroys it, or something. God vanished in a puff of logic in Hitchikers
guide to the galaxy. See that area (bable fish) for better wording.
 
> >>> As for prayer, it says in the old and new testaments repeatedly
> >>> to make any kind of idol to kneel before. Bow your head only to
> >>> God & the trinity, not any other thing or entity.
> >>
> >> Two things.  In Genesis, while the Israelites were wandering around
> >> in the desert and being generally horrid, God orders Moses to build
> >> an statue of a serpent that the Israelites are supposed to look at
> >> in order to be saved from being bitten by a bunch of snakes.
> >> Secondly, where in the Bible is the concept of the Trinity
> >> explained?
> >
> > I think I missed a word up there... 'repeatedly to NOT make' ... The
> > Jews were not worshipping the snake, just using it like a sign that
> > says "DANGER: Poisonous Snakes Ahead. Don't poke 'em" (although I
> > cannot recall the bit of scripture you refer to).
> 
> No, God specifically commands the Israelites to look at the bronze snake
> in order to be cured of snake bite.  Numbers 21:7-9 and the context is
> the situation.

So Idolatry is OK, so long as God makes/commissions the idol?
 
> > I'm not sure where the concept of the trinity is explained
> > specifically. I think it is more a cross referenced thingy. The Holy
> > spirit was with God and the Word at creation, and the word became his
> > son about 4000 years later, or something along those lines?
> 
> Yes, but that could be interpreted to mean three different Gods.  Or
> just different words for the same God.  The concept of the Trinity is
> explained outside of the Bible in Sacred Tradition.

Three Gods in one, three names for the same one. The father is the Son,
n such. Confusing. 'Godhead' works better, mostly.

> >>> The first priority of the congregation is to worship God.
> >>
> >> Worship and glorfying God.  God deserves the best.  As such, if it
> >> is at all possible to do so, his buildings should reflect this.
> >
> > At the expense of the welfare of the people? I don't think He would
> > approve. I'm all for capital investment to make more money to help
> > even more of the needy, but not when it means killing them with
> > neglect now.
> 
> I think you can do both, really.  Have really nice and expensive places
> of worship and help the needy.  Furthermore, our Churches are open to
> all people (in theory... some communities are rather insular... but the
> same can be said of some Protestant churches).

If you have something that you can sell to help those in need, then you
should, according to some of the stricter beliefs.... The catholic
church has a few odds n ends they don't need...
 
> >>> The next is to help the needy. (visit prisoners, clothe the
> >>> naked, feed the hungry, take care of the sick, etc. All that gear
> >>> JC said near the end). How can the congregation say it has done
> >>> all it can if it is spending money on appearances? JC put more
> >>> value in the peasants coin than the rich mans gold, IIRC, because
> >>> it was all she had, whereas the wealthy man could still give
> >>> more.
> >>
> >> See above.  Also recall the story when Jesus's feet were washed
> >> with expensive perfume by a woman, and how there were objections
> >> because the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the
> >> poor.  Remember how Jesus rebuked the objections.
> >
> > Remind me?
> 
> Sure.  The scene occurs in John 12:1-8.

Ok, I don't have a bible these days....
 
> >> He certainly preached in buildings.  Some of his most profound
> >> teachings occured indoors, such as the Last Supper.
> >
> > Suppers are often better had indoors. That region tends to get nasty
> > cold at night. Like I said above, no choice. Not sure of other
> > examples. I know he rambled a bit when he healed the woman, but was
> > that a sermon?
> 
> So are you suggesting that I can only use my Church during the winter?

Why use it in Summer when you can be out enjoying God's gifts?
 
> >> He did, however, preach outside a lot.  This is primarily for
> >> logistical purposes.  Massive crowds tend to have a difficult time
> >> fitting in small peasant buildings.  There does not appear to be
> >> any objections to buildings or a roof over your head in the Bible.
> >
> > Shelter? Yes, that is fine. Golden inlays and expensive art? Dodgy.
> > Glorify God with your attitudes in relation to others, Him, and
> > yourself. Not what you can make with your hands. Better to save a
> > lost soul than make a pretty thing, or something.
> 
> I am inclined to agree, but I am also inclined to say that the best
> should be reserved for God.  Anyhow, I'm going to go take a break.
> Maybe make dinner or something.

I'm more impressed by people going to help the needy or sick n dying
than by gilded marble statues. Given the former is about saving human
life, i think God might too. Didn't jesus say that whenever we helped
those in need, we helped him? Or something...
-- 
from: Mr. J D Cooper aka Phorse 5 [Force 5]
Remove the number(s) from the email address
for fastest reply. More sig here:
© http://phorse.netfirms.com/sig.html ©
Fireball Holdings © 2001 - 2004  
ABN: 23 939 806 835