The SimTropolis House of Worship

[RiverCocytus 0]

Well, the idea is, that each human soul is immortal; but the body is temporal. Some make the mistake to think this implies a dualism; I.E; the soul is 'real' or 'perfect' which is opposed by the body being 'false' or 'flawed' but the reality is, that belief is destructive. The whole point of the resurrection of the dead is that we need a body. Without a body we are not whole... this is how God has created us. Why this is may or may not ever be within the purview of human knowledge. About the soul; what I think (though I have not looked it up recently) from my reading is that each soul is a unique idea in the mind of immortal GOD, made real through creation. Well, that's kind of an imperfect explanation, but I'll work with it for now.

Ps. 139: "For I am fearfully and wonderfully made"

Also, I think ps. 22 speaks of God knowing all of his internal 'structure' before he was even born, or 'knitted together in the womb'.

I disagree about predestination still; from reading I can find no scriptural precedent for the idea that some people are predestined for heaven and others for hell; and nothing they do will change it. God gives us all choices (though he knows which ones we will make) because our choice of Him instead of the evil one glorifies Him.

An important part, a special difference between Christianity (the Way) and religion is that Christianity is a relationship between you and God, not a set of rituals or works or buildings or even ideas.

Do not misunderstand "I believe". We think, "I believe" in terms of, "I am completely certain of". This is correct, but there is more to it than matters of reason, or matters of intuition, or simply of assumption. When a Christian says "I believe" in reference to their Faith, they do not mean their complete certainty is based on intuition, assumption or reason. In fact, none of those things suffice. Moganite, you talk of 'proving' in a sense of reason, the existance of God. Were you to succeed you would be in no better a situation than any other human.

Imagine this: There's this critter called the Jackalope. As far as you are concerned, the Jackalope is imaginary at best, and really is unprovable. There are people who believe in him, and those who don't.

But then there are people who have met the Jackalope. However, to someone still wrestling with the question of whether the Jackalope's existance is even provable, the difference between "I am certain there is a Jackalope" and "I have met the Jackalope" is minor. But to those two groups, the difference is a yawning chasm. Once you have met Jesus, there is no doubt that God exists; for you have met him yourself. Obviously, this is not necessarily a physical meeting; though some people (such as Constatine, Paul, etc) did have a visual or very visceral meeting with Christ.

Just as a real relationship between man and woman is the becoming of 'one flesh' in this sense, the joining of man to Christ is the becoming of one; Christ is yours and you are Christ's.

I think John says (can't remember the verse) He who has the Son has life, he who does not have the Son does not have life.

So the meeting of Christ in your heart or perhaps even through a vision, a feeling, through reading the bible 11 times, or even through coming to understand goodness through life experience, is just the beginning of the relationship, and the joining of yourself to Christ.

He says it himself: "Come."

He's knocking... will you answer?

[thesonofgray 0]

ephorex: I just want to be clear on your position, but do you think these changes in the Catholic church were brought about internally or from external forces?

What you listed as damaging changes seemed to me to just be differences in how you practice your religion rather than the religion itself.  And is that really so terrible?

There are many more to list, but by this point, I'm sure you've already filled your notepad to the brim with all the evidence of nutty Catholics you need, so I'll stop.quote>

Haha.  My mom is enough evidence of nutty Catholics I need. 

And I have nothing against Catholics (like my mom and you) and what/how they choose to worship/believe in, as with anyone of any faith.  I only become agressive when someone's belief restricts or damages my personal freedoms and therefore, my livelihood.  (As anyone under attack would do)

---

frndofyaweh: So if we are the creation (spiritually) of God, wouldn't we have some sort of pre-existing connection to Chrisitanity and its beliefs?  From my understanding, Christianity isn't the oldest and most long-standing religion.  So if the Christian god creates us, why isn't He the oldest and only one?

---

RC:

the difference between "I am certain there is a Jackalope" and "I have met the Jackalope" is minor.quote>

I disagree.  When you are left with just those two statements and nothing else, then yes, you are correct.  But what if I was to ask the first person what his certainty was based off of?  If he (or she) was to reply "Well I have faith", I would react the same way as you do when you say you have faith in God.

If someone came to me and said "Yes, I have seen this Jackelope and met it personally and look, I have a picture right here, oh and it's also in the newspaper, and the World Biological Society (I made that up) is adding it to the known species list and they are examining it's DNA to see if it has any relation to the Cacapoopoo and ...", I would have a somewhat different reaction.

He's knocking... will you answer?quote>

Hm.  I didn't hear anything.  

But if He comes around again, I'll make sure to let Him in so we can have a little talk (and He better have a photo ID).

[koffee 0]

As is often the case, I'm posting something appropriate for the HoW, but probably not directly related to the immediate topic(s).

 

I've only just skimmed posts for the last week or so.  I'm in HoW because it is a sometimes interesting but quite often mature discussion.  Some questions I simply find to be moot.

 

Also, I've been without Internet for almost a week, and just finished 8 days straight of being a farm hand - this is aftter 15+ years of mostly desk-job work.  I am beat, but I have the next two days off, and then do 5 and 2.  This is, for me, actually a religious experience.  I won't try to explain that other than to say that sometimes religion is a personal thing.  Maybe this page will offer more insight.

 

Somebody (I think ephorex) posted a question about the Talmud.  I am not Jewish, and have no answer.  But, so far, we haven't seen an answer.  Are there no Jewish people in HoW?

 

There are a lot of religions that aren't represented here or, at best, minor voices in the crowds.  I am not sure how many voices we've heard from, major or minor, but I think it is fair to say that most voices have belief and faith.

 

So I have a simple question to all:

 

Are your current beliefs and faith something you were born into and learned in detail as you matured, or have they evolved or changed into what they are now.

 

Mine have evolved. (Well, they still are evolving.) I've already mentioned that I started out RC and am now a simple deist.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

frndofyaweh: So if we are the creation (spiritually) of God, wouldn't we have some sort of pre-existing connection to Chrisitanity and its beliefs?  From my understanding, Christianity isn't the oldest and most long-standing religion.  So if the Christian god creates us, why isn't He the oldest and only one?

Sonofthegray:

Christianity is still Judeaism. Jesus made the link to Father and path of it, less difficult. Yet both religions were means to the same destination and purpose. They are still one and the same.

Other beliefs and religions claim to be older than Judaeism, but that is based on physical evidence and ancient writings, etc.

Hebrew claims to be much older than its written text, as it is an orated Religion and was forbidden to write down, by all but the holiest, the high priests. yet never misleading in it's retellings and never changing.

The old testemant was memorized in exact details and each Hebrew had knowledge of specific books or chapters. These were related and memorized by others and passed through several families. Not just passed from parent to child, but within entire tribes of Hebrews.

No other belief dares to claim this, let alone attempt it, for fear of each re-telling, twisting the guide just a bit each time. This is why Jewish, even still today; are very careful to memorize the Holy text perfectly, even the sounds the letters make when spoken, must be made precisely. This actually preserves the Old Testament for eternity and it actually cannot decay, because it is not physical, but a part of you for life and then anothers life, and then another and another.... The Living Word parable. By the way, no other book on Earth can show consice parablitics, throughout itself. Only the Bible.

Judaeism is based in faith soley; no evidence terms, as icons or idols were sinful and only the holiest of Hebrew priests, were permitted to write with the third text of Hebrew. Judaeism began as a belief, based on relations and relating, with no physicals or temporals involved.

Thus, there is no physical evidence that backs up the Hebrew claim, of being the oldest faith, by word of mouth alone. 10,000 to 12,000 years in some circles. some say much more than that amount.

Koffee: Sounds very challenging and fulfilling, Koffee. Similar to the Amish experience here where I live, possibly.

[ephorex_77 0]

TSOG: Well, a lot of traditional Catholics, like myself, am of the opinion that the forces of satan had been planning the introduction of modernist and heretical influences into the Church. This may sound very much like one of those "Organisation X is planning world domination" kind of things, but honestly, there are many things in this world that are arranged by organisations and societies hidden behind the scenes. I am neither a naïve nor a ill-educated person TSOG, but I subscribe to that view very much indeed.

So to answer your question, yes, I think that external forces (many of them quite influential and whose mention will definitely cause controversy) infiltrated the Church hierarchy and infected the leadership of the Church. This meant that the humanist reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s (and earlier and later in time) were brought about by internal forces in the Church, which were originally introduced from external sources.

koffee: Yes, it's a little disappointing that we don't have Jews on this thread. I would have liked the opportunity to discuss the many racism and outrageous passages in the Talmud as well as the racist and unbelievable comments of many Jewish leaders and eminent rabbis. And yes, any level-minded personage who's read those passages would call them "outrageous" too.

FOY: Unfortunately, you are referring to an idea called "Dispensationalism", an idea which had been, until Vatican II, condemned by Popes for hundreds of years, perhaps even at the start of the Church at the time of St Peter. Unfortunately, the Church now seems to think that the Jews are fine and dandy outside the Church, which is a grave error in judgement (brought about by those who compromise and please incessantly).

"Dispensationalism", for those unfamiliar with the word, is the idea that God has one plan for the Jews (and their salvation), and another separate one for the Church. 

Honestly, in times past (and I'm sure you remember them FOY), I would have composed a huge post replete with passages, quotations and the like to support my point of view. However, I find that such endeavours really don't have much to show for them in the line of results, so I won't do so. 

But here's just a couple of pasted quotes. Study them at your leisure. 

Romans 11:16-21 

"...if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." 

Jeremiah 31:31-34

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:"

The Jews refused their salvation through Jesus, the promised for whom they had faithfully awaited for so long, the Messiah Himself. Instead, they had Him crucified and interestingly, declared that the responsibility for Christ's death be put on their heads, and that of their descendents. Obviously, they rejected Him. If that's not enough proof, in the Talmud, a book by holy men (and I say this only because they are referred to as such), it asserts that Jesus is in Hell boiling in semen, excrement, was a sexually perverse vagabond, worshipped a brick (among other things), was a liar, a deceiver and whose mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, was a harlot who indulged in the sensual pleasures with many men. 

So, the Jews reject Jesus; it's blindingly plain to see. You know of the Old Covenant, the Ark?? The New Covenant is the sacrifice of Christ for us men. Adam and Eve, by their disobedience, sealed men's fate forever. Christ, in accepting the heavy sins of man became the new Adam. The Blessed Mary's quiet obedience and willingness to submit to her God meant that Eve's actions were cancelled. By Christ's actions, the sins of Adam are destroyed and the Old Covenant is abrogated. The New Covenant (Christ) replaces that of the Old made to the Hebrews. The Old Covenant made to the Hebrew people is no longer in place, having been superceded by the New Covenant, CHRIST.

Also, the Hebrew people spoken of in the Bible are not the Jews of today. The Jews of today have a Pharisaic history, the same Pharisees that Jesus condemned in the Bible as being vipers and who were associated with the synagogue of satan. Yes, that is in the Bible. 

Just as a side note, it's interesting that some Jews are attempting to rebuild the Temple today. The last time it happened under the auspices of Julian the Apostate (who greatly supported the Jews and their attempts to destroy the Christian Church), a great earthquake struck before the laying of the first foundations of the new Temple. When people came far and wide to witness it, fire came down from the heavens and the ground and burnt up all the tools and materials assembled as well as many workmen. Despite that, the Jews still persisted. Then one night when the workmen were working, the cross of salvation was seen in the night sky and imprints of the same cross, only black, was imprinted onto the garments of the workmen, which proved impossible to wash out. This miraculous event was recorded by pagans and Christians alike.

P.S. Whoops, quite a long post indeed. Sorry.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Yes, have heard all about it Ephorex.  Not quite my total bag though.

Where have I been for a week?

well the best way to explain it would be read the red text. I am just having so much fun over at MySpace and as usual; I have this knack for drawing out VIP's.

By the way; in my book; Dirk is a VIP of the highest order. Kiss that rump Frendo.

Frendos Sound of the Day

Mushroomhead from Cleveland Ohio

Mixing melody with mayhem, never sounded so grand, as when you here your first, sizzling crunch, from Mushroomhead.

The drummer, only known to me as Skinny, sets an excellent speed for just about any sound, a bonified headbanger could imagine.

The rest of the guys have more than enough creative imagination themselves and put the steam in the engine, to top this out. Searing guitars and bass riffs! Ranging from Hardcore metal to melodic, with slick bridging harmonies.

Jeffry Nothing on lead vocals, can growl like a devil dog, or howl like a wolf and the mixed tracks are deviously arranged.

 Nothing else quite like it. Must be heard to appreciate them!

at MySpace:

http://www.myspace.com/mushroomhead

Official bands website:

http://www.mushroomhead.com

I am chatting with the band right now about some FREE content venues.

Believe it or not Simizens; These Bands Are coming to me now, asking me to promote and review them!

Heck fellas, I am just a big bull pucky artist, whatever could they want with me?

http://www.myspace.com/adonaigraphics

 

 

---

 
A person asked me this. Can anyone here help me with these questions: philosophy is concerned with knowledge, religion is founded in belief and faith, what can be “known” via belief and faith, other than knowing you “believe and have faith”? epistemology is concerned with intellectualism, but faith and belief operate in the spiritual sphere. What can be anaylitcally known about matters of the spirit? Is this the mystery of faith? I haven’t a clue?

Do we believe what is in the bible or do we have true knowledge of the contents therein??

---

The knowledge and wisdom that God gives via faith is substantial and uncomprehendable by those who do not believe it. If you accept what your quote above relates; you are missing a great wisdom like no other.

I have true wisdom and knowledge that God interacts in day to day life. I have understanding that unbelievers cannot concieve of.

Jesus spoke concerning those who accept Gods Word and those who do not believe.

Matthew 13:11,13 The disciples asked Jesus why they understood Him when He spoke in Parables, but those who did not believe in Jesus, did not understand at all. So Jesus says this back; “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, to the unbeliever it is not given. Therefore speak I unto them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. He goes on to explain that this special knowledge can only be understood, when you accept Jesus for who He is, with your heart. Not with your eyes and ears.

[simster6 0]

I consider myself a Protestant even though I have recently had my doubts...

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Yes, have heard all about it Ephorex.  Not quite my total bag though. quote>

What exactly do you mean by it not being quite your "total bag"?? 

Does that mean you disagree with what I've said?? With the passage which I've provided?? My reasoning??

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

That is strange?

Once you know Christ in a one on one relationship; it is extremely rare to ever have a doubt.

At least that is the claims I hear and the way I personally feel it.

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh That is strange?

Once you know Christ in a one on one relationship; it is extremely rare to ever have a doubt.

At least that is the claims I hear and the way I personally feel it.quote>

 

From what I hear, the watering down of strong positions (i.e. doctrine), the lack of visibility and respect afforded to clergy in general etc. are all reasons why church-goers are becoming increasingly disaffected.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

That is just it Ephorex: No matter how far the church degrades or the pulpit punchers commit hypocrisy; I still could NEVER turn from my best Love of all.

Really! I do not mean to offend anyone, but I cannot understand it. I really do kneel in awe of Gods greatness. I know His Son, I know His love. For me; Impossible to grow cold.

Yes, I have had visions of martyrdom and would not gladly, but yet willingly, give my life, before I deny my God and Messiah.

On despensationalism: I agree mostly. save for one thing; What plan is there for the Jewish, that is different from any other believers?

Hebrews are the chosen people of God and His favorite, in certain terms. God still loves all of us exactly the same, Hebrews and non-Hebrews alike.

I am not a gentile. Gentiles do not believe at all.

I am not Isreali nor Hebrew. They are still waiting for the Messiah.

I am Judaeo Christian, but not the way you all know that term to mean.

PLAINLY PUT: I may never accept any writings dating after the physical Death of Peter. Gods Church is a living church and was built upon Peter, while he was physically present, not after.

I accept all things in the Old and new Testaments, save for what Jesus'  Words and debt changed. Nothing else. whatever a Pope did or does, is not  allowed and is adding to what God said, we should never add to.

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh On despensationalism: I agree mostly. save for one thing; What plan is there for the Jewish, that is different from any other believers?

Hebrews are the chosen people of God and His favorite, in certain terms. God still loves all of us exactly the same, Hebrews and non-Hebrews alike.

I am not a gentile. Gentiles do not believe at all.

I am not Isreali nor Hebrew. They are still waiting for the Messiah.

I am Judaeo Christian, but not the way you all know that term to mean.

quote>

 

To answer your question, that is exactly what I'm trying to say: There is NO different plan for the Jews' salvation. They must come through Christ as with every adherent of other religions (ot lack thereof), including non-Catholic denominations. Being a Jew does not mean that you have access to a "second door of salvation" . All come through Christ, and more specifically, the Catholic Church, to be saved. There is no "other" way.

And yes, the Hebrews were God's chosen people in the Old Testament. But like I've said previously, the Old Covenant has been abrogated. The New Covenant where ALL people can be saved (by conversion) is in place now. There is no "favoured" people anymore and especially not the Jews, some of whom seem to have this "we are the oldest people of God and therefore we must be the most blessed/loved/privileged etc. people" mentality. All are equal before God.

 And what do you mean by "Judeo-Christian"?? That is seemingly a politically-correct term being bandied around a lot lately to avoid offending people . Christianity and Judaism are really NOT the same religions and are very much incompatible with each other. The latter religon HATES Jesus with a passion. The former religion takes Him to be their God. I'm sorry, but really, I can't see how you can be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. 

Unless of course, you take that word to mean sharing Christian and Jewish roots??

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ephorex_77 

 Christianity and Judaism are really NOT the same religions and are very much incompatible with each other. The latter religon HATES Jesus with a passion. 

quote>

 

This does not apply to the any of the Jewish people I know.  Be careful with generalizations.

[RiverCocytus 0]

Ephorex: I would be careful with Catholic teaching on these things. It has been known in the past to be both bigoted and destructive.

You are correct, Jesus says that no-one comes to salvation except through him (The Son of God, The Messiah)

I know many Jews who do not hate Jesus. Hating Jesus seems to be more common in cults (whether they are christian-ish ones or not) and among the more radical adherents to Islam. Its not uncommon to read them mocking the fact that we as Christians believe his words in saying that he is the path to salvation. In this way I want to point out that hating Jesus may have been something that (for instance) the Pharisaic variety of Judaism did, but, like Christianity there are many varieties (some good, some bad, some true, some false...) and among them there are diverse opinions on Jesus and his role. Messianic Jews for instance, are Jews who accept Jesus' words from the Gospels and New Testament writings. (They are Christians.)

Judaism is the only basis for Christianity. There is no other basis. Not greek philosophy, or philosophy of any kind; nor buddhism, rationalism, atheism, agnosticism, spiritism, and so and so forth.

The Jehovah of the Torah is the same Jehovah who is and was and will be Jesus Christ, the Triinity, One God in three persons.

While you are correct in noting they are not the same religion; as Judaism is in many ways a Religion and a result of the Old Covenant, (and not acknowledging of the New) All three persons of God (Elohim -- a plural representing the one God) were present in the old testament. God's forgiving nature can be seen in Isaiah and other of the prophets' writings-- and the Son appears in many of the visions and other biblical accounts of the supernatural. In fact, were a Jew to take full account of the writings of old testament, it is likely that he would conclude that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of the Messiah in Isaiah.

Naturally there are reasons to know all of these writings and yet reject Jesus. (many are selfish.)

Again, I want to reinforce that I agree with skigeek here, your generalization is rash. Be cautious of the writings of Church tradition; for they may constitute divine inspiration or may not, and leastaways are not doctrinal in nature. All writings display some amount of error, which is something we need to be aware of where it exists, but there is a difference between flawed and departing from the word. The Apocrypha, which the Catholics have included in their Bible (which has been corrupted by translating with the help of the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinacticus [er, sp is prolly wrong there.]), are an example of texts that were discarded not to the dust heap, but as doctrinal as it was agreed among believers during the times of the gathering of the Canon that they were not doctrinal. Consider them at the level you would consider The Purpose Driven Life, for instance. They are in fact derivative. (not to say they cannot be useful.)

Judeo-Christian is 100% correct; the Word itself is thus; first Jewish teaching, and then Christian teaching; the inspired, infallible word of God in a flawed but effective vessel. Some say the KJV is the closest to being unflawed, but even it has its problems.

'Judeo-Christian' however, is also a way of expressing solidarity with the Jews as we worship the same God, Jehovah.

To some it comes as an indication of solidarity with Israel, which they seem to have developed a hatred for. I don't believe that this is the case, BUT, it may in fact signal a healing and forgiveness growing between the Jews and Christians. This doesn't mean we accept each others' religions as truth, but that we forgive the crap we did to each other (though most of the big crap has come onto the Jews, no doubt.) and acknowledge each other as the creation of a single, Holy God.

Forgiveness is something that you keep doing until you forget, I think. Reminds you of what happened so you don't run into that problem again, but also puts you in right relationship with that other person, and in that way, with God.

Erg, well, I've finished backing up my Joomla! install, so I have to get back to work. I hope that you understand my point, Ephorex. It is my wish that you would see that the Pope, while being no doubt annointed of God, is not the infallible leader of the Church. By making himself infallible (or at least nominally) he puts himself in the position of Jesus. If in the function of pope whatever he says is infallible, then he is the ACTING WORD OF GOD. This is not scriptural by any stretch of the imagination; even with the wavering support of "On this rock I build my church."

I greet you in the Holy Spirit; be excellent to one another and do righteousness. (Sounds kind of like something out of Bill & Ted... )

Keep up the discussion!

[thesonofgray 0]

Are your current beliefs and faith something you were born into and learned in detail as you matured, or have they evolved or changed into what they are now.quote>

Definately the latter.

I went from boy who went to church but just counted the wood beams on the ceiling during the service (it was a beautiful church, like many are)...to a teenager who didn't think about it much but had the feeling that this whole God thing was a fabrication...to a young adult who now has an active interest in religion and has come to the careful conclusion (with many personal reasons) that a god does not exist - but also readily admits that I don't have any evidence, just the results of human contemplation on the subject.

I've been having super annoying computer troubles lately (which partially explains my absense from ST).  So will someone do two (2) favors for me?  (1) Buy me a new computer and (2) force Microsoft to make better software.  But this doesn't have much to do about religon, does it.

So in response to ephorex's reply to one of my questions:

So to answer your question, yes, I think that external forces (many of them quite influential and whose mention will definitely cause controversy) infiltrated the Church hierarchy and infected the leadership of the Church.quote>

This belief that you have - doesn't it just point out the possibility of great error in the Church that you follow so diligently?  If one Church doctrine is corrupt, doesn't that open the flood gates for the entire organization to be corrupt?  Just a thought.

frndofyaweh:

Hebrew claims to be much older than its written text, as it is an orated Religion and was forbidden to write down, by all but the holiest, the high priests. yet never misleading in it's retellings and never changing.quote>

Now how in the world would you know that it never changed.

And while Hebrew may very well be the oldest religion, how would you explain the countless other religions in the world that don't worship God?  And how does the Bible explain it?

Oh and I thought, according to the Bible, that the world was only 6000 years old?

simster6:

Do what you feel is right.  Don't  believe in something just because someone told you to - but don't do the opposite for the same reason either.  Sit down with yourself and find out what is best for you and your life.

Talk to ya'll later!  Hopefully my computer will get well soon...(maybe God is corrupting my hard disc for punishment?)

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: ephorex_77 

 Christianity and Judaism are really NOT the same religions and are very much incompatible with each other. The latter religon HATES Jesus with a passion. 

quote>

 

This does not apply to the any of the Jewish people I know.  Be careful with generalizations.quote>

 

Yes, I wouldn't have expected many Jews to know that their holy books teach that all non-Jews can be exploited, killed or generally abused without a second thought either.

BUT it's there in the Jewish Talmud. It's taught by Jewish leaders. Some of their comments seem to be (are) extremely racist and generally prejudiced. So if the Jews that you know don't seem to denounce or hate Christianity, then great; it's a wonderful thing. But the fact remains that that is what is in the Talmud and that many rabbis teach or expouse it, perhaps to varying degrees. 

RC: 

 Judaism is the only basis for Christianity. quote>

Judaism is not the only basis for Christianity. The Judaism of today is actually of the Pharisaic religion that Jesus condemned to no end in the Bible. I believe nests of vipers and synagogues of satan were some of the more colourful phrases Jesus used to condemn them. The Judaism of today is NOT the faith that the fathers of the Old Testament practised. 

As I've said in my posts above, if you've actually read them, the Old Testament made with the Hebrews of old was abrogated with the coming of Christ. Circumcision (and even then, it wasn't the invasive and mutilating procedure that we have today) replaced with baptism; sacrifices replaced with Christ's ultimate sacrifice at Calvary etc. The NEW Covenant is that of Jesus Christ. All who want to be saved, be they Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Daoists, Zen practitioners, atheists etc. must convert to the one true faith. There is no "other door" to Heaven. There is only ONE door ALONE that leads to Heaven. Jews (as some people have claimed) don't have this other door available for them because of their faith. Jews are not our older brothers in faith. The Hebrews who remained true to God's Word converted to Christianity while those who weren't continued on with a Pharisaic religion. God doesn't have a second plan for Jews. They convert or salvation is lost to them.

'Judeo-Christian' however, is also a way of expressing solidarity with the Jews as we worship the same God, Jehovah. quote>

Do you not profess that Jesus Christ is GOD Himself?? Do you not agree that cursing JESUS is cursing GOD the FATHER (Whom the Jews are meant to worship??)?? If you agree to both statements above, then it would be really, quite evident that Jews hate God-Jesus (at least unreservedly so in their holy books). How on earth can you twist words and ideas to this extent??

Fact 1: The Talmud describes Jesus as burning in liquid excrement and SEMEN in Hell

Fact 2: Jesus is GOD, part of the Holy Trinity which is God, three persons in one, consubstantial with each other.

Conclusion: The Talmud describes GOD (or at least the Christian God) in Hell in liquid excrement and SEMEN. 

So, how is it that you can say that Jews worship the "same" God?? They accept God as God the Father who spoke to the Hebrews in times gone by. We Christians (at least most of us) accept

GOD to be God the Father, God the Son (the same Jesus blasphemed in the Talmud) and God the Holy Ghost, three in one. So how can you insist that Jews today worship the same God?? The last time I checked, saying someone was in Hell burning in excrement and semen, worshipped bricks, lied, deceived, blasphemed etc. was NOT the same as worshipping them.

This doesn't mean we accept each others' religions as truth, but that we forgive the crap we did to each other (though most of the big crap has come onto the Jews, no doubt.) and acknowledge each other as the creation of a single, Holy God. quote>

Hmm...this seems to crop up a lot. From the way everyone harps on about the atrocities in WWII (and I know that they happened), it's as though the Jews have a monopoly on suffering. How about the Communists in Russia?? The millions Chinese dead as a result of Japanese atrocities?? Not many people in the west know about what happened in the east and it seems that every year, the Germans go down on their knees (50 years after this happened) and beg forgiveness collectively as a PEOPLE. 

I don't deny that the Jews suffered immensely. But so did millions of others. Isn't it about time that this stopped cropping up as a trump card whenever Israel is condemned?? Take the current events in Palestine for instance. The UN condemns Israel and predictably, certain organisations raise a hue and cry about it, alluding that the world still needs to remember the Holocaust and let Israel have its way with Palestine.

Yes, the Popes burned Talmuds by the thousands. Yes, Jews were expelled from dozens of countries over hundreds of years by many different rulers. Yes, people from Churchill to Jefferson (or some other prominent American founding father) condemned the Jews too. Guess why?? The Talmuds were burned as a result of the blasphemies in them; as a result of the passages allowing Jews to exploit, steal from and kill non-Jews without qualm. The rulers of Europe did the same to Jews for the same reason. I think dishonest financial dealings were mentioned, but I'm not too sure on this point. 

Forgiveness is something that you keep doing until you forget, I think. quote>

Yes, forgiveness is extremely important. But tell me then RC, what is the point of courts and gaols (jails) on earth?? Why have policemen or officers?? Why not make the prison system a revolving door (notwithstanding the fact that in most places, it is)?? A child could tell you a reality that most religions seem to have missed in the past few decades: life has punishment. 

Yes, God forgives us all, otherwise, we might as well take a one way ticket to Hell as soon as we're born as a result of Original Sin. However, God is the Supreme Judge. You kill that person and don't truly repent??? That person's blood cries out for vengeance. God will hear him. God will have vengeance. Remember, did Jesus (God) not say, He came to bring not peace, but the sword?? God's mercy is all-powerful, but that doesn't mean we say "Please, do as you wish. God forgives!!!". 

Blaspheming God, expousing racial prejudice and exploitative practices. The Talmud and those who practise and preach them will face God on Judgement Day. As God, we cannot say who is to have eternal life, but we can certainly show such people the errors of their ways. 

I also can take issue with other things in your post, for example, asserting the near-perfect validity of the KJV, but I'd prefer not to bother. Also just to let you know, the Pope is NOT impeccable (sinless) but is only infallible WHEN he speaks ex cathedra (search it up if you wish) OR if he confirms what the Universal Church has always taught firmly on morals and faith. You, like most Protestants, seems to think that Catholics regard Popes as God. It's a most erroneous and fallacious assumption indeed. Just ask the daughter of Pope Alexander VI...

TSOG: 

This belief that you have - doesn't it just point out the possibility of great error in the Church that you follow so diligently?  If one Church doctrine is corrupt, doesn't that open the flood gates for the entire organization to be corrupt?  Just a thought. quote>

Heh, yes, I can certainly see where you're coming from, and I've heard it before to try and disprove the Church. 

However, the Vatican II council NEVER declared anything in contrary to what the Church had taught throughout its history. Basically, it said, for example, that the Mass could be replaced with a better one. It NEVER replaced anything that the pre-Vatican II Church had said. So, there isn't a conflict at all. All Vatican II did was to confuse billions of Catholics and led them to laxer lives. The Vatican II Council was a pastoral council, as opposed to a dogmatic council; that is, the council was never one that was going to change dogma, but only offer "recommendations" (which proved disastrous) for the Church. 

As a budding traditional Catholic, I hold, along with many others, that the Church is still the Spouse of God on earth that will prevail until the end of time. Although I despair at the heresies and modernistic, humanist elements that have invaded the Church, I am still in communion with Rome and with the Pope, the successor of St Peter. 

ALL:

As a final note in general, it seems that questioning Jewish religion or their questionable actions/comments is tantamount to heresy today. RC's well-intentioned (presumably) defence of Jews and that of skigeek are but some examples, to me at least, of how Jewish leaders have, for want of a better word, "sold" their suffering to a sympathetic world again and again and again for their gain. NO ONE can explain away the Nazi death camps, there's no doubts there. 

HOWEVER, why on earth should the German people (or anyone remotely related to the Nazis) have to suffer every year because of events half a century ago?? How on earth can the Israel bring up this excuse whenever it decides to attack a country?? Why does the Benedict XVI (a German incidentally) have to play up the Church's sorrow in its "part" (which is an extremely thin case) in the Holocaust?? Why does the world have to scrape and cry and beg forgiveness over events that the vast majority of such people have no relation to??

We really need to get rid of this stigma as best we can.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Ephorex: I know of many scholarly Christians personally, who would differ on that. We can follow every law of Judaeism, but sacrifices. I know that Jesus is the new day and the new life, but the laws of Moses still hold true, the Jewish holidays should still hold true, the Jewish calender should still hold true. Gods word follows the Jewish years and the Greek.

I believe I may have stated this before:

If a man should steal his neighbors Bicycle; cut off the right hand of the offender.

If he should actually EVER think of attempting theft again; cut of the other hand.

TWO strikes and you are out for good. Honestly though; There would not be too many repeat offenders.

Gods law, is STILL Hebrew Law and mans law.

The Law is NOt changed.

If a neighbor should rape a neighbor, execute him. For he has changed anothers destiny forever, so he in return must have his destiny changed also.

How many would commit this horrible crime, if it's penalty were death?

Gods law, is STILL Hebrew Law and mans law.

God Himself says that the laws of man are not perfect, nor any law.

One thing we know for sure though; God would obviously remit the best case scenerio first and foremost. No better answer or solution, than the solutions that God gives.

Gods law, is STILL Hebrew Law and mans law.

Every fine detail of the laws given to Moses to give to the people, is still as strong as it ever was.

The Torah and the Old Testament prophets; all are still reliable.

Genesis is still a bigger Book than even some Christians realize.

Sonofthegray: No. the decay of Earth and loss of the Garden is 6,000 years old. The Earth according to Genesis; was occupied by the darkmen and the giants, outside the garden. No one could possibly know how long A&E were living in the Garden, or how long the Giants and darkmen lived on the outside of the garden. Time was not important during that era, because nothing was measured by time, except the passing of time itself. The passed was not important, nor the future. Only the moment had to matter, because death did not exist and was not understood, until....well.....you know the story.

The Dead sea scrolls are 2000 years old and have been proven to be so precisely accurate, that not a single word is in error, when compared to modern Hebrew writings. Isaiah is one very good example: being one of the longest Old Testament Books and nothing has been changed for 2000 years. We do have physical proof of this, in the form of copper tablets and scrolls.

Yet many religions modify or change meanings, usually intentionally done, because the religion must evolve with civilized thought and philosophy.

Bible has no need to change it's meaning or direction, because of it's claim to be timeless, or in otherwords; always has the correct answers, for all time.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh 

. . .

Yet many religions modify or change meanings, usually intentionally done, because the religion must evolve with civilized thought and philosophy.

. . .

quote>

 

And this is a good thing.  Personally, I think it's the planet's only hope for survival.  All of the major texts of the major religions were written in, and for, barbaric times.  If we continue to hold to the letter of these texts, we will continue to perpetrate the hatred and violence that existed in those barbaric times.

[Joesocwork 4]

^^ Actually the problem I have with that is that no matter how "civilized" mankind in society may appear, the  nature of man, including barbarism, does not change.  When it is at its best and not abused by leaders for personal gain, religion over the history has generally sought to supplant barbaristic tendencies with those within our higher nature.  That's universal and goes beyond history.  Religions that change often tend to do that as a result of merging with manmade institutions, tend to sacrifice spiritual for material, and they water down the sublimation process that holds individuals and society to higher standards.

[thesonofgray 0]

So would you allow your child to be stoned to death if they were disobedient, Joesocwork?

---

Ephorex, while your post was extremely interesting, all of what you said can basically be summed up with "My religion is right and yours is wrong", and what gets me the most is that much of what you said could be and has been used as reasoning for the suffering of a targeted group of humans.

This is a very big reason why I do not like religion in general.  Many people use religion for good, and that's great, but an equal number of people use it as an excuse to hate, discriminate, and even bring about the destruction of people - human beings no better and no worse than yourself.

Almost every major religion I can think of has, at some point in history, tried to destroy another religion through the annihilation of its followers.  Get over it people!  Your life is too short and unrepeatable to go around trying to ruin other's.

Ok, done with the "can't we all just get along" talk.  Now for some particulars.

GOD to be God the Father, God the Son (the same Jesus blasphemed in the Talmud) and God the Holy Ghost, three in one.quote>

Ok, so how many God's do we have?  I think it's odd to consider the son of God to be God.  I'm not my dad and you're not your dad.  So why would Jesus be God?  I know the repetative response to that (as I do with many of my questions), but I just thought I'd say it anyways.

And according to Jefferson's personal writings, he doubted the existance of God and thought the Christian religion to quite possibly a hoax.

To the response to my question:  You admitted yourself that you believe that Satan and other evil forces infiltrated the members of the Church.  Does it really matter if anything was declared contrary?  Doesn't the simple fact that (according to you) evil is within the organization and that casts a shadow of doubt over anything it does or says?

This is super crazy thinking here, but what if everything the Church has done was the work of Satan and evil but now the forces of good are trying to reverse some of the damage done?  Think about that.    (I'm in a weird mood right now so just humor me.)

---

frndofyaweh:  You still haven't explained, or how the Bible explains, the coutless other religions in the world today and in the past.

[Joesocwork 4]

So would you allow your child to be stoned to death if they were disobedient, Joesocwork? quote>

.... does a Jack Benny-like contemplative stare  (hmmmm .... .....  uh,   nooooooo... As tempting as that it is for all of a fraction of a second...   )   -J/K!!!

..... annnyway,.... seriously...

That's not a part of my belief system.  Christians aren't directed by Deity to stone disobedient children.

 

frndofyaweh:  You still haven't explained, or how the Bible explains, the coutless other religions in the world today and in the past. quote>

I'm sure he and others will give responses, but from an accountability point of view, the responsibility of explanation of the origins of something other than Judaism and Christianity should come fr  their own respective practitioners.  As a Christian I'm satisfied with what is expected of me and why from the Bible. 

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh 

. . .

Yet many religions modify or change meanings, usually intentionally done, because the religion must evolve with civilized thought and philosophy.

. . .

 

SkiGeek said;

And this is a good thing.  Personally, I think it's the planet's only hope for survival.  All of the major texts of the major religions were written in, and for, barbaric times.  If we continue to hold to the letter of these texts, we will continue to perpetrate the hatred and violence that existed in those barbaric times. quote>

but how good is it? how do we really measure what is barbaric and where is the line drawn?

Jesus' very methodology; is what established our nation and made democracy what it was for 200 years. This is also more perfect with a better legal system to back it.

God knew this and the Bible teaches us the  best alternative, as opposed to what may only be part success or total failure solutions.

Joesocwork said;

I'm sure he and others will give responses, but from an accountability point of view, the responsibility of explanation of the origins of something other than Judaism and Christianity should come fr  their own respective practitioners.  As a Christian I'm satisfied with what is expected of me and why from the Bible.  quote>

Good point. No need to expound on that from Frendos POV. Thanks bud.

[thesonofgray 0]

Good point. No need to expound on that from Frendos POV. Thanks bud.quote>

Hm.  So I guess the Bible isn't as big a tome as I thought it was.  With it explaining the geology of the Earth and predicting contellations, claiming to be the "handbook for life" and such, I would think it would at least mention other religions.

And I wasn't really asking for the origins of other religions - I was asking what and if the Bible addresses the countless of other belief systems out there which all claim to be the one and only truth.  (And all seem to address similar things, too.)

Really, I was just trying to get more out of the Christian faithful concerning different religions other than "mine is right and they are all wrong".  And that mission was born out of a conversation I had with a boss of mine at work.  Before I ramble on about the conversation, I just want to point out that he (my boss) was the one who somewhat initiated the conversation and it was a very interesting and respectable discussion (not debate - I would never debate with a boss) and we both walked away with a better sense of each other's beliefs.

So my boss and I started talking about religion and it was quickly understood that he was a practicing Christian and I did not adhere to any religion and doubted the existance of a god.  He was curious as to why I believed there was no god as I was curious as to why he believed there was.  Among other things I mentioned how many religions there are in the world and throughout history, so choosing the one that seems to "make the most sense" or "satisfies me" or the most popular one of the day wasn't enough reason for me to convert.  I also mentioned that the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude many religions have bothered me.

He understood what I was saying and said, while he thinks of himself as a Christian and believes the whole Jesus thing - yada yada - that he has a different view of the "what of other religions" question...

He believes that, in a sense, all religions are the same and that they all reach the same end - God.  My boss thinks that God has presented himself in different forms to cater to different cultures and times.  And, to him and his culture, Christianity appeals to him and connects with his life the greatest and so he is a Christian.

Mind you, my boss is no passive "follower" of the Christian faith.  He went on and on about how many people don't truely understand that they are accepting the blood of Christ when they go to communion and blah blah.  But I just thought it interesting to find (what I believe to be) a devout Chrisitian who has such an open view about other religions.

So that's that.  Sorry for the long and drawn out story.  It's a bad habit of mine.  I could have summed that up in like two sentences but I'd rather waste more of your time.

Any thoughts?  Questions?  Concerns?

_{thesonofgray [or any of its affiliates] does not condone or encourage discussing religion with anyone at the workplace, including superiors, inferiors, or equal status co-workers.}

[ephorex_77 0]

Just some food for thought:

(07/07/2006)

Jewish Law And Torture

Michael J. Broyde

The use of torture during wartime strikes us as conduct hard to accept and easy to condemn. The torture of prisoners denies their basic human dignity, encourages a downward ethical spiral among our own soldiers, and calls to mind our long history of vicious suffering as Jews. Yet, the truth is that wartime entails the general suspension of our ethical sensibilities. In war, each side seeks to kill the soldiers, military support staff, and political leadership of its enemy. And with the battlefield widened by the modern military-industrial complex, even civilian deaths have become a sad (but sometimes necessary) part of combat. Warfare entails conduct that is not morally ideal, and recognizing this is extremely vital. Furthermore, the current discussion about the morality of torture continues to be badly framed by the immoral conduct of U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq three years ago. There, prisoners were tortured for entertainment by U.S. troops, unrelated to any valid military objective. It is easy to denounce this form of torture, and it is proper to do so. However, this is very different from a serious conversation about torture in the Jewish tradition during wartime, which poses several harder and more complex questions: In what situations may torture be used in the course of war to extract vital information that cannot otherwise be obtained? Might brutality be a legitimate way to punish those who have engaged in warfare against the community, so as to persuade others to cease their actions? And most importantly, how much of Jewish law and ethics are suspended during wartime? Consider three challenging, real-world cases: During World War II when the Free French Forces of the Interior continued to fight German occupation forces in France, Germany refused to treat members of the French Army as combatants — even though they wore insignia, carried their arms openly, and were in touch with both the Allies and the French provisional government in Algeria. The Germans subjected French captives to summary execution despite formal protests by the provisional government in exile. The French threatened reprisals, and when the executions did not stop, they shot 80 German prisoners under their control, which they had “borrowed” from the British. Only then did the killings of French soldiers cease. The only other alternative would seem to have been the wholesale death of many French soldiers. So too, consider the problem in the Vietnam War of convincing captured North Vietnamese officers to share information with American intelligence. This was a difficult task, but American officers found that the single most effective way to get such captives to surrender information was to take five prisoners up in a helicopter and ask one of them a question. If he refused to answer, he was summarily pushed out of the helicopter and the next prisoner was questioned. This method, however brutal it seems to us civilians, produced the needed results. Finally, consider the case of the captured al Qaeda operative who might have vital information that he would not voluntarily relinquish. Is abusing the Koran in his presence permissible? What about interrogation by menstruating women soldiers? Moderate physical shaking? Hooding for extended periods of time? Even water torture in the hands of a team of skilled professionals who believe that this process will extract information of value and save the lives of others would seem permissible in a time of war. These are the hard questions torture poses. In a recent monograph published by the Center for Jewish Studies at Queens College as well as a forthcoming chapter in an Orthodox Forum volume, I have shown that torture is permissible and consistent with halacha in all situations where there is a proper, thoughtful military chain of command (the higher up a decision goes, the more thought tends to be put in) and no other reasonable alternative is available. The basic argument is that the wholesale suspension of the sanctity of life that occurs in wartime also entails the suspension of such secondary human rights issues as the notion of human dignity, the fear of the ethical decline of our soldiers, or even the historical fear of our ongoing victimhood. Furthermore, the protection of our own soldiers and civilians undoubtedly trumps the claims of human dignity by those who seek to do us evil. International law, which Jewish law generally expects its adherents to obey, is limited in its scope to those who pledge themselves to its obedience. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas nor al Qaeda are signatories to the Geneva Convention and do not conduct themselves in accordance with its provisions. They certainly do not treat prisoners they capture in accordance with its requirements (as shown by the recent murder of two captured American soldiers in Iraq). Thus we are not required as a matter of international law to treat their prisoners in accordance with the convention on the treatment of prisoners. In sum, according to Jewish law and ethics, torture in the context of war is no more problematic than death itself, and is permitted by the general license to wage war. There is no logical reason that halacha would categorically prohibit duly authorized wartime torture as a method for acquiring information otherwise not available, in order to save lives in the future. Of course, not all conduct permitted as a matter of Jewish law is wise or prudent; the consideration of which policies work in what settings is fundamentally not a question of Jewish law or ethics, but one for military and political leadership. We all pray for a time when the world will be a peace — but until that time arrives, Jewish law directs the Jewish state and the American nation to do what it takes (no more, but no less, either) to survive and prosper ethically in the crazy world in which we live. n Michael J. Broyde is a law professor at Emory University and rabbi of the Young Israel synagogue in Atlanta. He has authored, co-authored and edited numerous works in Jewish law and law and religion, including the forthcoming “The Bounds of Wartime Military Conduct in Jewish Law: An Expansive Conception” (City University of New York/Queens College).

I'll try and reply to FOY's post, as it's the most worrying one. TSOG, I think that your boss is a Catholic and is a devout one at that. Although, his ideas on "everyone can reach God through 'other' means" are not in line with the Catholic Church.

But yes, peruse at your leisure. Also note this:

"Jewish law directs the Jewish state and the American nation to do what it takes (no more, but no less, either) to survive and prosper ethically in the crazy world in which we live.".

I wonder what that means...are the Jews perhaps using the American nation?? Influencing the government in overt ways?? Perhaps??

[Joesocwork 4]

Originally posted by: thesonofgray

Good point. No need to expound on that from Frendos POV. Thanks bud.quote>

Hm.  So I guess the Bible isn't as big a tome as I thought it was.  With it explaining the geology of the Earth and predicting contellations, claiming to be the "handbook for life" and such, I would think it would at least mention other religions.

Any thoughts?  Questions?  Concerns?quote>

 

You're right, the Bible wasn't written to be a book about history, science, literature, anthropology, etc., though people do often go to it for those kinds of studies.  The Bible was written to discuss the relationship between man and God.  If something is not in there then I am comfortable that Deity didn't see it relevant to whatever was being said.

[RiverCocytus 0]

Ephorex: Judaism, as God intended is the only basis for Christianity. You get the various 'brands' of Judaism all confused, it seems... the Talmud is a different animal; it is discussions of rabbis. It is in a way what God warned the Jews against doing.

About the state of Israel 'using' the US; Duh, we use them to. Nations do that... alliances are made for the betterment of the state making it, not for the betterment of the state it is being made to. Nations and groups are not people, nor can they be under current or potentially future circumstances. Therefore, it is not wrong for a nation to pursue its own best interest. Nations will find that making their own best interest not conflict with those of other nations is helpful; but that nation's people must have a say in what the nation's interest is.

The Orthodox are not Protestants, Eph. They are the original Christians. Roman Catholic Christianity is something that grew out of Early Christianity but it is not the geniune article.

Note that James 5:16 reads "Confess your faults one to antoher and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availaeth much." The word used in greek for 'faults' is DIFFERENT than the word for 'sins'. I would encourage you to investigate this yourself. James is not calling us to confess our sins to a priest, though doing so is not anti-christian. Obviously, doing so falls under the pervue of what James is saying. However, no priest can forgive you of your sins; only the one sinned against can forgive. So while confessing faults to a priest is a very good thing, the priest does not need to tell you that you are forgiven, nor can he forgive you... as for saying hail marys and whatnot, it would avail you more to pray for your brothers and sisters faults, and ask the priest to pray for you. Also, it would do you well to pray for yourself.

Again, I'm going to say, Talmud != Torah... Not all jews accept the Talmud. I feel that it was correct earlier in pushing away the topic of Judaism, as you seem to harbor hatred for them.

Also 'Original Sin' is incorrect. Original Sin is not in the bible. What you are incorrectly referring to is The Fall of Man. Basically, man seeks knowledge over God. God never talks about 'because of original sin...' God never says it. Ever. He talks about generational curses, and how Israel became a backsliding nation (think of us, the Christians, as the new Israel.) Read carefully Genesis and you will understand the cause of the fall of man.

1. Satan looks for an opportunity

2. Eve is naive, and Satan denies God, and uses Eve's pride as a weapon against her:

Genesis 3:5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof (referring to the tree) then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

3. Eve questions God's motives and ultimately decides that she or the serpent knows better than God. (oops!)

4. Eve finds that the tree is good to eat.

5. Adam puts his wife ahead of God and eats also of the fruit that God said not to eat of.

So the fall of man is

1. state of innocence (lack of knowledge of good and evil)

2. led astray by self / demons / others

3. state of knowledge of good and evil, but the knowledge itself is not an antidote to being led astay

man obviously has, in coming into knowledge, been led astay. But note, the knowledge itself was not what led man or woman astray... but, perhaps, a lack of knowledge.

So now, innocence, because of the presence of Lucifer, cannot be a permenant state; so all men and women fall, and are brought out of innocence into knowledge. And through knowledge they must come to a relationship with Jesus, with God, for the knowledge of this is freely given and there should be no Shibboleth, no false idea that we are required to 'believe' in order to be accepted, nay; it is a relationship with God and not with men that counts us among God's people.

So innocence is itself a kind of paradox because of evil. Don't think for a moment you are cursed just because you ARE. Obviously in order to choose God we must come into the knowledge that we have a choice. God doesn't want us to fall, but knows that because of evil we will; for knowledge contains both an understanding of good and of evil. Lack of knowledge leaves one blameless, but also leaves one vulnerable to evil.

Remember, just because I criticize Catholicism (the Roman variety) does not mean I don't have criticisms of Protestants of all stripes, the Orthodox, the Jews of all sorts... however, as you are Catholic, I want to make known to you the places in which Catholic doctrine has added to or taken away from the word. Look in Revelation 22: 18-19

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

(the last from was added, and was not in the original greek.)

I have a reference to

Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32

Proverbs 30:6

and

Galations 1:6, 7

Which also state the same warning.

TSOG: The bible does speak of other religions. Its... complicated. When the Jews came into the promised land, they were told not to follow foreign gods (other religions) some of the nations there were utterly destroyed (may have harbored deadly disease or destructive memes) while others were merely driven out.

In truth TSOG, (not to sound condescending or prideful) we have done our duty unto you, since the knowledge of God is to be freely known we are to make it available to all as Christians. This knowledge clearly has been made available to you. I would encourage you to come to know Jesus, but I cannot make you. Do not feel that you must join a church to know Jesus; but if you do come to know him you will probably -want- to join a church. Like I said, there is no Shibboleth here. We don't require you to buy into a 'Fiction Absolute' to be 'one of us'. When it comes to church, I would advise against listening to Ephorex. Belief that the Roman Catholic church must be your authority (and not Jesus, who is the Word of God) is dangerous.

About 'all religions lead to God' there is some truth in it. For if God is indeed all powerful, then all mankind will have some awareness of his working. But since diversity is the nature of man, every man will walk his own way in trying to understand God. But as I have said, NOT EVERY WAY IS RIGHT. There are right and wrong ways, as some things are essential and others preferential. Some people will be led astray by demons claiming to be God and using signs to trick. Remember that even demons believe in God. Others will try to seek him in knowing a craft, or will use him as a tool to manipulate others. This is one reason why God hates foreign gods, idols; they are manipulations used by men or demons to lead others astray and to make false the Word.

Because there is one truth, one reality, we MUST note that religions in general have two issues:

1. They believe things that conflict internally

2. They believe things that conflict with other religions beliefs

Not all of these are substantive; there will be disagreement on 'rules' and 'regulations' and superficial things. They are, for the most part, beside the point. But if relgions disagree (and they do) on fundamentals, then someone has to be wrong.

In other words, if you accept that there is one reality, then some things are true and others false. (There are things which are neither, but they are not important in this, other than to note that there are things which fall into that category.)

So if you say ALL religions are correct then you are walking in the direction of not believing in one reality.

Note that even a pagan religion could say things that are true. This is why many people are drawn into these other religions. Whenever anyone says 'God is Good' -- he tells the truth! God IS good. But if that religion says, for instance, that there is more than ONE God, then what is said is false. Clearly, there is either ONLY ONE GOD or there is MANY GODS. Jehovah does not allow that there are other gods. So if you believe that all religions are correct (in fullness) then you deny the words of God (Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim... whichever of His names you wish to use.)

Still, like I said, if Zen tells us that it is important to be able to unlearn things, what it says is true, even if other things it has said are false.. There is a spiritual gift called 'The discernment of Spirits'. One of my issues with many Protestants is they reject knowledge that may aid them because they would have to discern spirits to find that truth and to divide the error from the correct. Often their response is 'X is evil, and wrong, and false!' EVEN if X has taught some truth. If we discern spirits, then we know which of the things that X is telling us is true and which is false.

How do we know the truth of something? "By their fruits shall ye know them." That's one way. If someone is spreading poison, and harm and hurt, then something that they believe is false. It is juvenile to immediately assume that EVERYTHING they believe is false. Each spirit needs be tested.

So, TSOG, I hope that helps you understand Jesus a little better. If you have a specific question please ask me or anyone else here, as you have been doing.

I greet you in God's love, be well.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: RiverCocytus 

. . .

Again, I'm going to say, Talmud != Torah... Not all jews accept the Talmud. I feel that it was correct earlier in pushing away the topic of Judaism, as you seem to harbor hatred for them.

. . .quote>

 

And hatred, for whatever reason, is not acceptable here.  This site may not be used as a platform to express hatred against any person or group of people.

[paperboy15 4]

thesonofgray

Why? One reason for me, despite being raised a preacher's kid, are the prophecies fulfilled. "Isaiah" is a great book of the bible to read about this...it is essentially a summary of the entire Holy Bible. Also, I think watching what is prophesied in "Revelations" take place would be incredibly cool. As far as cold-hard proof, there is none. That's why it is called faith (of course ).

I understand why you find religion incredibly unattractive. Even I find it unattractive. The key is to not go around judging others and don't let others judge you. That is God's job. And, uh, ignore those snobby old people who insist on the bean supper.

I'll post more laterz, Cheers

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: RiverCocytus 

. . .

Again, I'm going to say, Talmud != Torah... Not all jews accept the Talmud. I feel that it was correct earlier in pushing away the topic of Judaism, as you seem to harbor hatred for them.

. . .quote>

 

And hatred, for whatever reason, is not acceptable here.  This site may not be used as a platform to express hatred against any person or group of people.quote>

 

Well, it's wonderful that you havent seen fit to edit my posts ski. But on the topic of hatred, I think that it's more of an irrational dislike of something as opposed to just dislike. It's rational to point out the hate verses in the Talmud (which as RC tells me, is not used by ALL Jews - just a large percentage ) and to condemn them isn't it?? I can hardly be accused of harbouring hatred for the Jews. It's a stock accusation with little basis in rationality I'm afraid; the old "Look!! He actually dares to criticise a Jew!! Stone the anti-Semite!!" mentality. 

Anyway, let's leave the nuances of Jewish literature behind and engage in conversation a little closer to home shall we??

Firstly, allow me the privilege of asking you RC, how do YOU know your particular brand of "non-denominational" Christianity is the right one?? I'm only asking this because you have stated (and I heartily laud you for this) that there is only ONE truth and one way to God and also because it does help to support all my arguments because if you discovered that the Roman Catholic Church was the only true Church, you wouldn't be arguing against me. 

Now, you seem to have an issue with going to the Church for forgiveness. I want to ask you: did (do) you baptise yourself into the Church?? Or rather, did (do) you need someone in the church to baptise you?? I'm assuming of course, that your particular brand of "non-denominational" Christianity has baptism in the first place; some don't. 

As I see it, denying the validity of the sacrament of confession is just an extension of a denial of the entire Roman Catholic Church. So this argument will be about the authority of the Catholic Church. You and I can quote the Bible all day long until we're blue in the face, but until you accept that the Church was vested by God with power, it's useless and irrelevant as we'll interpret it in different ways.

It all comes down to pride. You deny the fact that the Church (and yes, the Roman Catholic Church and not some "all Christians are the Church" interpretation) had been vested with the authority from God Himself to forgive sins, drive out demons, safeguard and interpret the Bible, baptise, ordain etc. That is pride, the Original Sin working once again. If you accept that God had given such authority to the Church, then you wouldn't be arguing about confessing to a priest at all.

History has shown us what happens to people who wish to set up their own little mini-church just because they disagree with confessing their sins to a priest or with the interpretation of the Bible. Group A splits off from Group B, which split off earlier from Group C. Group C then decides to merge with Group A and then it splits into Groups D, E and F and so on. 34,000 Christian churches exist in the world and that statistic was taken 4 years ago. I'll let you in on a little secret RC:  God doesn't like disunity. When He spoke of ONE (singular) fold with ONE (singular) shepherd, He wasn't wasting His breath. 

Look at the fallacious sola scripura (which is an idea I'm quite sure you subscribe to). What if your dad pointed at a certain verse (say, a verse talking about salvation and not some insignificant one) and said, "Son, I believe this verse means X" and you said "Sorry dad, this verse means Y." Who's right then?? I know this analogy has been done to the death, but it hasn't been adequately addressed yet. 

"Non-denominational"-Christianity is a very interesting branch of Christianity. You don't acknowledge that God set up a visible and unified Church in this world; an institution against which the gates of Hell would never pevail until the end of time. You don't accept that Jesus made Peter the first head of the Church. Your branch of Christianity is arguably one of the youngest branches of the Christian faith. Never has there been a "Me and my Bible are the Church" kind of mentality. This "this is between me and God and no one else" mentality has never been seen. Even Luther and Calvin established some vestige of organisation within their respective religions. 

I'm going to appeal to logic here. You assert that there is ONE way. Christ's way to salvation has been constant; it doesn't change. Yet, you believe that your way of Christianity (which never existed until recently) is the right way. So in effect, for 2000 odd years, Jesus was laughing up His sleeve at the foolishness of mankind?? So for 2000 odd years, Jesus actually didn't establish anything on earth?? So for 2000 odd years Jesus allowed countless souls to slip into Hell?? So until recently, the world was living in error with regards to the right religion?? So it was only recently that Jesus "enlightened" the minds of man enough so that they threw off the shackles of tradition and the Holy Roman Catholic Church and frolicked freely with their Bibles (which weren't available anyway during the early Church's time), the way Jesus really wanted it all to happen 2000 odd years ago??

You're going to have to do some great persuading to convince me of that.

It all boils down to whether you submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church or whether you remain proud and contumacious and carry on interpreting, baptising, confessing etc. as you please and split into more splinter factions.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Also, as a side note my scholarly Greek friend, what does your (presumably KJV) Bible state in Ephesians 1:7??

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"

Well, in that verse, the word translated as sins comes from the Greek paraptoma 

Now, let's move on to another passage. In James 5:16, the KJV says:

"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

Well, in THAT verse, the word translated as faults comes from the Greek paraptoma 

SHOCK!!

I'll be frank; I'm no Greek scholar. However, I doubt you need to be one in order to deduce that something particularly fishy is going on with the KJV translations. It rather reminds me of Luther and his deliberate excising of books in the Bible that spoke of prayers for the dead, purgatory and indulgences among other things. 

Now, let's see what the Latin Vulgate; the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (which St Jerome compiled in 383 A.D. and is the only edition the Church commands her faithful to use) has to say about those verses:

Ephesians 1:7

"in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius remissionem peccatorum secundum divitias gratiae eius"

I'll be frank once more: I do not know much Latin apart from the Latin prayers that I'm memorised, but I can tell you that peccatorum means sins. Now let's check out James 5:16...

"confitemini ergo alterutrum peccata vestra et orate pro invicem ut salvemini multum enim valet deprecatio iusti adsidua"

Now as you can see, it's consistent with the Greek's rendering of the word paraptoma as sins.

Now, I know that the more suspicious among you may wonder whether I'm trying to fool all of you into believing that peccatorum and peccata are the same word. I can assure you that they mean the same thing, namely sins. My school teaches Latin (one of the last few who do in Melbourne), and I can inquire if anyone wishes as to the grammatical differences between peccatorum and peccata if so you wish. 

If you still doubt my word, check out the Douay-Rheims' (the Church-approved English translation of the Latin Vulgate) translation of James 5:16 and Ephesians 1:7. Both of them read sins, as opposed to "faults" and "sins".

So now you see, the Latin Vulgate's rendering of those two phrases is indubitably more accurate compared to the very flawed KJV. So, perhaps RC, you've come to see that priests can indeed forgive sins/peccata/paraptoma through the authority bestowed upon then by Christ Himself.

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh Ephorex: I know of many scholarly Christians personally, who would differ on that. We can follow every law of Judaeism, but sacrifices. I know that Jesus is the new day and the new life, but the laws of Moses still hold true, the Jewish holidays should still hold true, the Jewish calender should still hold true. Gods word follows the Jewish years and the Greek. quote>

EDIT: Sorry for the double post. I'd alread divided my post above into two sections, so it would have been confusing.

I think you may have ignored my post above about dispensationalism FOY or perhaps the point was lost on you. Alright then, as with the case with RC, let's forget all the quoting of Scripture (which I did anyway in a post above about the olive tree and which you seem to have ignored quite pointedly) and get to the actual substance of the argument. I find that it saves time if people don't quibble about interpretations.

Can you worship and curse God at the same time FOY?? Can you observe the Jewish Talmud's exhortations that Jesus was an adulterer, a liar, a scoundrel, a self-mutilator, a worshipper of bricks, someone who is in Hell in semen and excrement and YET, despite all that, adore God??

If you can say "yes" to my challenge above, then forgive me, but I really want nothing to do with that grotesque syncreticism and we can consider this exchange closed. 

If you agree that you can't worship God in Christianity and curse Him in Judaism, then I'm glad that you agree that Judaism and Christianity are NOT compatible and are NOT the same thing.

As a side note, I can also find a lot of learned scholars who don't believe that the Jews have a second door of salvation open to them because of their religion. The entire Roman Catholic Church believes (and please don't quote the heretical Nostrae Aetate) in exactly the opposite of what you do FOY. Learned theological scholars from hundreds of years ago, many if not all of whom were (no offence meant) much more learned than you or I, believed the exact opposite of what you do FOY. So forgive me if I discount your personally-known "scholarly Christians". I can find many more who didn't agree with you.