DanteMustDie wrote:I say we give up on him. Let him "suffer" (as he himself says he likes to). Some people just aren't open-minded enough to think for themselves in life and be free of guidelines that supposedly lead to salvation (BTW what is salvation and how could it possibly be better than our current life ?).
unholysavage wrote:No worries, Keeper - great post!
Just a couple things I wanna clarify.
Mathematics is considered by scientists to be the only PURE science. Math is free of individual bias, subjectivity, and it forms the basis upon which all other sciences formed. If mathematics proves that something is, it's almost impossible to argue it (numbers don't lie - all natural laws are based upon, and proven by, mathematics). Other sciences use interpretation, which inherently adds bias. That is why repeatability is required for the scientific community to accept something as Law.
The definition of 'truth' is "the quality of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth is a comprehensive term that in all of its nuances implies accuracy and honesty". Implicitly, for something to be true, it has to be proveable and real. Religion, ghosts etc are beliefs, which can never be shown to be real, or true. They can also not be proven false.
There are many 'truths' found through mathematics which have never been proven, including black holes, dark matter etc. Some day they will be proven, but until then they must remain in the realm of hypothetical.
As for duping the masses, the whole reason for publicating findings is to give the entire scientific community an opportunity to critique your work. Unlike catholicism for instance, science does not have 1 person who dictates (without debate) what is and what isn't. Science uses its entire collective to explore, and debate about, our surroundings. Your concern that "in some cases, the common scientific viewpoint is that anything that cannot be proven, well, doesn't exist (ghosts, for one)" isn't quite correct. Scientists are by their very nature curious about their surroundings and the forces that act on them, and will continue to investigate the existence of ghosts etc until absolute proof is obtained. There are literally thousands of unproven hypotheses that come out every year in scientific publications - some will eventually be proven and accepted by the scientific community, while others will be discarded (but never forgotten). Who knows if ghosts or gods exist? Maybe someday a brilliant scientist will come along and discover evidence that they do. There's also the possibility that someone might come along and prove that ghosts, gods etc do not exist. Humanity will just have to wait until that time, if ever it happens. Until that time the argument over the existence of 'gods' continues...
Anyway, the whole reason for posting these novels was to try and get people (particularly Chris) to try and think about other possibilities, and not think that their own narrow worldview can be forced upon others. It is very true that I very much hate religion as it exists today (I consider it a form of censorship on thinking, and seems to cause nothing but hatred and death (wars)), but my mind (if only very little) is still open to the possibility that something else is out there.
I have absolutely no idea why you, Chris, would take credit for getting anyone on this forum thinking. Your views may be even more narrowminded than the Vatican's (I'm still referring to your "if your not of god then you are satan" crap). It's no better than the Vatican's views on women's rights, gay rights,etc.). If anyone is to be credited with making anyone think, it should be Keeper. He has clearly shown that he's examined both sides of the argument, and was far more open-minded and objective than anyone else. Keeper, I tip my hat to you and look forward to reading your posts in other threads!
Chris Crossont wrote:I may not be the one to lead you guys to salvation but I at least I got you guys thinking. The seed has been planted.
Have a great weekend everyone! It has been great chit-chatting this week.
Chris Crossont wrote:DanteMustDie wrote:I say we give up on him. Let him "suffer" (as he himself says he likes to). Some people just aren't open-minded enough to think for themselves in life and be free of guidelines that supposedly lead to salvation (BTW what is salvation and how could it possibly be better than our current life ?).
Would you define open minded as believing in aliens, supporting and/or taking part in the murdering of babies, supporting and/or taking part in homosexuality, saying yes to every belief EXCEPT Christianity, going to work during the week and then partying on the weekends, thinking only of one's self, believing in scientists that prove each other wrong almost daily, watching TV, reading the newspaper, following Hollywood (or un-HOLY-wood as I call it) gossip, having pre-marital sex, leaving children at day-care, thinking of a way to afford the next bigger house, thinking of a way to afford the better car, taking expensive vacations, wearing fancy clothes, keeping up with the Jone's, getting a tattoo and/or piercings, etc., etc. etc.
I for one choose to be open-minded by my definition and close minded by your definition. How is that? If suffering is not taking part in what the world has to offer than I accept that freely and joyfully. The fact that you even think that it does not get any better than this makes me feel quite bad for you.
Hahahaha wrote:Chris Crossont wrote:DanteMustDie wrote:I say we give up on him. Let him "suffer" (as he himself says he likes to). Some people just aren't open-minded enough to think for themselves in life and be free of guidelines that supposedly lead to salvation (BTW what is salvation and how could it possibly be better than our current life ?).
Would you define open minded as believing in aliens, supporting and/or taking part in the murdering of babies, supporting and/or taking part in homosexuality, saying yes to every belief EXCEPT Christianity, going to work during the week and then partying on the weekends, thinking only of one's self, believing in scientists that prove each other wrong almost daily, watching TV, reading the newspaper, following Hollywood (or un-HOLY-wood as I call it) gossip, having pre-marital sex, leaving children at day-care, thinking of a way to afford the next bigger house, thinking of a way to afford the better car, taking expensive vacations, wearing fancy clothes, keeping up with the Jone's, getting a tattoo and/or piercings, etc., etc. etc.
I for one choose to be open-minded by my definition and close minded by your definition. How is that? If suffering is not taking part in what the world has to offer than I accept that freely and joyfully. The fact that you even think that it does not get any better than this makes me feel quite bad for you.
It's always about extremes with you isn't it? Watching TV too much or for the wrong content may be bad, but catching the news or some entertainment once in a while wouldn't be. There was no TV in the time of Christ, but I don't remember him warning people about going to the town square for news or catch a play at the local theatre. I don't think that God wants us to live in the dark.
Hollywood refers to the wood used by so called Mages for their wands. The name is quite appropriate as they "cast a spell" over their audience. Holly is held sacred in certain sects.
Don't forget that Christ turned water to while so that a couple would not be embarassed at their wedding feast. Does that sound like a guy who would frown on people having a good time once in a while.
God teaches moderation in life, not complete abstinance from all things fun. Ease up a bit, you might find more joy in life, which, I think, is what God really wants for us. If you look at the primary rules set out by God, they are to keep us from hurting each other, either physicly or emotionally. It seems to me that was to IMPROVE our quality of life, not to take from it. There is a reason the smiling takes less energy than frowning.
PAX
Quote:
That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).
By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words "bind" and "loose" are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.
ACTIVITY AND DEATH IN ROME; BURIAL PLACE
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
...
St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
...
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles--St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory".
...
The task of determining the year of St. Peter's death is attended with similar difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third, we find two different entries. In the "Chronicle" of Eusebius the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held. The year 67 is also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius and Jerome, that Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to Jerome, in 42), and by the above-mentioned tradition of the twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter (cf. Bartolini, "Sopra l'anno 67 se fosse quello del martirio dei gloriosi Apostoli", Rome, 1868) . A different statement is furnished by the "Chronograph of 354" (ed. Duchesne, "Liber Pontificalis", I, 1 sqq.). This refers St. Peter's arrival in Rome to the year 30, and his death and that of St. Paul to 55.
Duchesne has shown that the dates in the "Chronograph" were inserted in a list of the popes which contains only their names and the duration of their pontificates, and then, on the chronological supposition that the year of Christ's death was 29, the year 30 was inserted as the beginning of Peter's pontificate, and his death referred to 55, on the basis of the twenty-five years' pontificate (op. cit., introd., vi sqq.). This date has however been recently defended by Kellner ("Jesus von Nazareth u. seine Apostel im Rahmen der Zeitgeschichte", Ratisbon, 1908; "Tradition geschichtl. Bearbeitung u. Legende in der Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters", Bonn, 1909). Other historians have accepted the year 65 (e. g., Bianchini, in his edition of the "Liber Pontilicalis" in P. L.. CXXVII. 435 sqq.) or 66 (e. g. Foggini, "De romani b. Petri itinere et episcopatu", Florence, 1741; also Tillemont). Harnack endeavoured to establish the year 64 (i . e . the beginning of the Neronian persecution) as that of Peter's death ("Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. bis Eusebius", pt. II, "Die Chronologie", I, 240 sqq.). This date, which had been already supported by Cave, du Pin, and Wieseler, has been accepted by Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l'eglise, I, 64). Erbes refers St. Peter's death to 22 Feb., 63, St. Paul's to 64 ("Texte u. Untersuchungen", new series, IV, i, Leipzig, 1900, "Die Todestage der Apostel Petrus u. Paulus u. ihre rom. Denkmaeler"). The date of Peter's death is thus not yet decided; the period between July, 64 (outbreak of the Neronian persecution), and the beginning of 68 (on 9 July Nero fled from Rome and committed suicide) must be left open for the date of his death. The day of his martyrdom is also unknown; 29 June, the accepted day of his feast since the fourth century, cannot be proved to be the day of his death (see below).
Chris Crossont wrote:[quote=之Fallen Angel坐]Chris Crossont wrote:I may not be the one to lead you guys to salvation but I at least I got you guys thinking. The seed has been planted.
Have a great weekend everyone! It has been great chit-chatting this week.
Is there a particular reason you have avoided answering my questions?
Chris Crossont wrote:[quote=之Fallen Angel坐]OH here's another question Chris...
Why in the Bible is there no mention of Dinosaurs... or that there may be other "beings"...
I can't say there are "aleins"... but wouldn't it be naieve to think that we are the only form of live in the universe???
Hahahaha wrote:Hmm.. OK..
First off, the Bible mentions 7 "eastern" religions and does not condemn them, so I think that there is more than one path. I believe that because God loves all of his children, it is possible that other religions are just culturally modified way to gloify the creator. God in his wisdom allowed for this. It's kinda like "The best way to win a horse race is to own all the horses."
Gender is a necessity for us because we need to procreate in order to continue our existence. God has no needs what-so-ever and therefore would also have no need for gender. God encompases all things and is therefore both male and female, but neither. Clear as mud, I know.
Does that help?
PAX
Chris Crossont wrote:DanteMustDie wrote:I say we give up on him. Let him "suffer" (as he himself says he likes to). Some people just aren't open-minded enough to think for themselves in life and be free of guidelines that supposedly lead to salvation (BTW what is salvation and how could it possibly be better than our current life ?).
Would you define open minded as believing in aliens, supporting and/or taking part in the murdering of babies, supporting and/or taking part in homosexuality, saying yes to every belief EXCEPT Christianity, going to work during the week and then partying on the weekends, thinking only of one's self, believing in scientists that prove each other wrong almost daily, watching TV, reading the newspaper, following Hollywood (or un-HOLY-wood as I call it) gossip, having pre-marital sex, leaving children at day-care, thinking of a way to afford the next bigger house, thinking of a way to afford the better car, taking expensive vacations, wearing fancy clothes, keeping up with the Jone's, getting a tattoo and/or piercings, etc., etc. etc.
I for one choose to be open-minded by my definition and close minded by your definition. How is that? If suffering is not taking part in what the world has to offer than I accept that freely and joyfully. The fact that you even think that it does not get any better than this makes me feel quite bad for you.
Chris Crossont wrote:DanteMustDie wrote:I say we give up on him. Let him "suffer" (as he himself says he likes to). Some people just aren't open-minded enough to think for themselves in life and be free of guidelines that supposedly lead to salvation (BTW what is salvation and how could it possibly be better than our current life ?).
Would you define open minded as believing in aliens, supporting and/or taking part in the murdering of babies, supporting and/or taking part in homosexuality, saying yes to every belief EXCEPT Christianity, going to work during the week and then partying on the weekends, thinking only of one's self, believing in scientists that prove each other wrong almost daily, watching TV, reading the newspaper, following Hollywood (or un-HOLY-wood as I call it) gossip, having pre-marital sex, leaving children at day-care, thinking of a way to afford the next bigger house, thinking of a way to afford the better car, taking expensive vacations, wearing fancy clothes, keeping up with the Jone's, getting a tattoo and/or piercings, etc., etc. etc.
I for one choose to be open-minded by my definition and close minded by your definition. How is that? If suffering is not taking part in what the world has to offer than I accept that freely and joyfully. The fact that you even think that it does not get any better than this makes me feel quite bad for you.
unholysavage wrote:Chris Crossont wrote:DanteMustDie wrote:I say we give up on him. Let him "suffer" (as he himself says he likes to). Some people just aren't open-minded enough to think for themselves in life and be free of guidelines that supposedly lead to salvation (BTW what is salvation and how could it possibly be better than our current life ?).
Would you define open minded as believing in aliens, supporting and/or taking part in the murdering of babies, supporting and/or taking part in homosexuality, saying yes to every belief EXCEPT Christianity, going to work during the week and then partying on the weekends, thinking only of one's self, believing in scientists that prove each other wrong almost daily, watching TV, reading the newspaper, following Hollywood (or un-HOLY-wood as I call it) gossip, having pre-marital sex, leaving children at day-care, thinking of a way to afford the next bigger house, thinking of a way to afford the better car, taking expensive vacations, wearing fancy clothes, keeping up with the Jone's, getting a tattoo and/or piercings, etc., etc. etc.
I for one choose to be open-minded by my definition and close minded by your definition. How is that? If suffering is not taking part in what the world has to offer than I accept that freely and joyfully. The fact that you even think that it does not get any better than this makes me feel quite bad for you.
Don't let this blind idiot get to you Dante. The only thoughts that go through his head are the ones his priest tell him.
Chris, I find it very hard to believe that there are people alive on this planet who have ideas as profoundly archaic as yours.
As an answer to your questions, I would have to say ABSOLUTELY YES to pretty much all of them.
1) Believing in aliens - YES. We're NOT the centre of the universe (DEAL WITH IT!). There are literally trillions of other planets in the universe. You can't seriously be dumb enough to believe that the conditions suitable for life only exist on Earth, do you?
2) "Murduring of babies" - it's called abortion, and I see no reason why a woman can't have control of her own body. Others will disagree.
3) Homosexuality - Absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. I have a few homosexual friends, and they are EXTREMELY openminded, and very considerate and tolerant of other people's ideas and believe, which is the absolute OPPOSITE of you. Ask yourself how they are hurting you with them being gay? Pull your head out of your @ss.
4) Saying yes to everything but Christianity - How deep inside a cave did you grow up? Christianity isn't the be-all or end-all of anything. Being open-minded means believing in whatever you wish and using your mind, and not going through your entire life thinking that the only way to live is what some priest tells you.
5) Thinking of one's self - Please explain to me how you think you're not narrowminded when you seem to think that your religious views are the ONLY way for people to live, regardless of ethnic background, race, or religion. You don't even give people a choice - ie. you're with god, or you're of satan.
6) Believing in scientists who prove each other wrong - Sorry, Chris, but science is all about experimentation and learning from one's mistakes (it's called using your brain). Maybe your mother didn't tell you, but one of the best ways to learn is from one's mistakes. Proving that something is wrong in science doesn't result in a dead-end; proving something wrong is just as positive as finding out something is right, because it still helps you find answers. In that way, science is that exact opposite of a religion like Christianity. Your views are completely black and white. You view your beliefs as being "right", whereas every other view is wrong. With science, every wrong answer opens a new door and new questions. With you, every wrong answer is ignored and you are completely unable to accept something that counters your beliefs. Lastly, at least science uses tangible evidence to back up its claims.
7) Watching TV - too much is probably not good, but even narrowminded people like you could learn a thing or two if you stayed away from CNN and watched something more objective like the BBC.
8) Reading the newspaper - I'm beginning to see a trend. If you don't read newspapers or watch the news on TV, how do you learn anything about people who aren't like you?
9) Following hollywood gossip - how does this in any way cause people to be open or closed-minded? Some people find it entertaining, I suppose, but that's it.
10) Pre-marital sex - it's an individual's choice on whether or not to have sex, not yours or some religion to dictate. If you don't want to have pre-marital sex, all the power to you - that's your choice. I chose to enjoy life and all it has to offer, so yes - IMO pre-marital sex would indicate open-mindedness and the willingness to experiment and pursue different avenues of pleasure and happiness.
11) Leaving children at day-care - why does this have anything to do with being open or close-minded? Some families need both parents to work just to survive, and it's great that they're allowed to do so without throwing their kids into a box while they're away working.
12)Next bigger car/house - nothing to do with being open-minded. Buying a big house doesn't make anyone open-minded, nor does living in a small house.
13)Keeping up with the Jones' - related to envy, and again has nothing to do with being open-minded or closed-minded.
14) Tatooes and piercings - definitely open-minded. Getting a tatoo or piercing involves a conscious decision, and a willingness to deal with the abuse they will get from idiots like yourself. People who chose to get a tatoo or piercing do so to express themselves. They're no worse or better than anyone else, and to see that you discriminate against these people makes me pity you.
This sentence you wrote:
"I for one choose to be open-minded by my definition and close minded by your definition" is probably the best example of "closed-mindedness" I've ever come across. You literally admit that you consciously chose to ignore or reject all other aspects of humanity that don't perfectly parallel your own views.
It's hard to even pity somebody like you. You're narrow-mindedness is truly worse than that of the Vatican. Even the Vatican is willing to admit its mistakes and learn from them.
DanteMustDie wrote:Chris Crossont wrote:DanteMustDie wrote:I say we give up on him. Let him "suffer" (as he himself says he likes to). Some people just aren't open-minded enough to think for themselves in life and be free of guidelines that supposedly lead to salvation (BTW what is salvation and how could it possibly be better than our current life ?).
Would you define open minded as believing in aliens, supporting and/or taking part in the murdering of babies, supporting and/or taking part in homosexuality, saying yes to every belief EXCEPT Christianity, going to work during the week and then partying on the weekends, thinking only of one's self, believing in scientists that prove each other wrong almost daily, watching TV, reading the newspaper, following Hollywood (or un-HOLY-wood as I call it) gossip, having pre-marital sex, leaving children at day-care, thinking of a way to afford the next bigger house, thinking of a way to afford the better car, taking expensive vacations, wearing fancy clothes, keeping up with the Jone's, getting a tattoo and/or piercings, etc., etc. etc.
I for one choose to be open-minded by my definition and close minded by your definition. How is that? If suffering is not taking part in what the world has to offer than I accept that freely and joyfully. The fact that you even think that it does not get any better than this makes me feel quite bad for you.
you keep thinking that if I don't believe in god I believe in everyhting you just stated. That's what's makes you so narrow-minded. Someone such as yourself has no notion of thinking for yourself and making your own decisions. I pity people like you who will never enjoy life to its fullest. It's my turn to tell you that I hope one day you see the light.
Quote:
According to some writers the origin of beatification and canonization in the Catholic Church is to be traced back to the ancient pagan apotheosis. In his classic work on the subject (De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione) Benedict XIV examines and at the very outset refutes this view. He shows so well the substantial differences between them that no right-thinking person need henceforth confound the two institutions or derive one from the other. It is a matter of history who were elevated to the honour of apotheosis, on what grounds, and by whose authority; no less clear is the meaning that was attached to it. Often the decree was due to the statement of a single person (possibly bribed or enticed by promises, and with a view to fix the fraud more securely in the minds of an already superstitious people) that while the body of the new god was being burned, an eagle, in the case of the emperors, or a peacock (Juno's sacred bird), in the case of their consorts, was seen to carry heavenward the spirit of the departed (Livy, Hist. Rome, I, xvi; Herodian, Hist. Rome, IV, ii, iii). Apotheosis was awarded to most members of the imperial family, of which family it was the exclusive privilege. No regard was had to virtues or remarkable achievements. Recourse was frequently had to this form of deification to escape popular hatred by distracting attention from the cruelty of imperial rulers. It is said that Romulus was deified by the senators who slew him; Poppaea owed her apotheosis to her imperial paramour, Nero, after he had kicked her to death; Geta had the honour from his brother Caracalla, who had got rid of him through jealousy.
Canonization in the Catholic Church is quite another thing. The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII, x; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).
The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in the Catholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of the saints. As was taught by St. Augustine (Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94; Contra Faustum, lib. XX, xxi), Catholics, while giving to God alone adoration strictly so-called, honour the saints because of the Divine supernatural gifts which have earned them eternal life, and through which they reign with God in the heavenly fatherland as His chosen friends and faithful servants. In other words, Catholics honour God in His saints as the loving distributor of supernatural gifts. The worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of dulia (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church (Aug., Contra Faustum, XX, xxi, 21; cf. De Civit. Dei, XXII, x) erects her altars to God alone, though in honour and memory of the saints and martyrs. There is Scriptural warrant for such worship in the passages where we are bidden to venerate angels (Ex., xxiii, 20 sqq.; Jos., v, 13 sqq.; Dan., viii, 15 sqq.; x, 4 sqq.; Luke, ii, 9 sqq.; Acts, xii, 7 sqq.; Apoc., v, 11 sqq.; vii, 1 sqq.; Matt., xviii, 10; etc.), whom holy men are not unlike, as sharers of the friendship of God. And if St. Paul beseeches the brethren (Rom., xv, 30; II Cor., i, 11; Col., iv, 3; Ephes., vi, 18, 19) to help him by their prayers for him to God, we must with even greater reason maintain that we can be helped by the prayers of the saints, and ask their intercession with humility. If we may beseech those who still live on earth, why not those who live in heaven?
Hahahaha wrote:Funny that you call yourself a Saint, and referr to yourself as your "own Priest". Both terms are Catholic coming out of more anchient Pagan traditions. Well, OK, Preist could be considered a Hebrew term, but let's not forget the priesthoods of Egypt and before that Babylon. Then there's the issue of Sainthood, a brotherhood that you believe you belong to. Man, I'm telling you.. You have been fed lies that will distract you from the true light of God into confusion and chaos, honest. You can't trust someone else, you must do your own research so that you don't end up doing what you are doing now. Regurgitating lies that mislead and confuse. Please crack a book, the Bible and maybe just a bit of history. It will help you get back on the path from wherever you are now.
Sainthood is a pagan tradition that was borrowed and expounded upon by the Catholic Church during the Middle ages (it is not an anchient Christian tradition. That said, it isn't nesessarily wrong, but it sure doesn't jive with what you profess to be your beliefs. You reject those things you know to be Catholic, you reject things in Catholism that aren't even there, but you embrace things which most definately are from that tradision but you don't seem to know it.
The truth about Sainthood (Also know as Canonization or Beautification)
Quote:
According to some writers the origin of beatification and canonization in the Catholic Church is to be traced back to the ancient pagan apotheosis. In his classic work on the subject (De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione) Benedict XIV examines and at the very outset refutes this view. He shows so well the substantial differences between them that no right-thinking person need henceforth confound the two institutions or derive one from the other. It is a matter of history who were elevated to the honour of apotheosis, on what grounds, and by whose authority; no less clear is the meaning that was attached to it. Often the decree was due to the statement of a single person (possibly bribed or enticed by promises, and with a view to fix the fraud more securely in the minds of an already superstitious people) that while the body of the new god was being burned, an eagle, in the case of the emperors, or a peacock (Juno's sacred bird), in the case of their consorts, was seen to carry heavenward the spirit of the departed (Livy, Hist. Rome, I, xvi; Herodian, Hist. Rome, IV, ii, iii). Apotheosis was awarded to most members of the imperial family, of which family it was the exclusive privilege. No regard was had to virtues or remarkable achievements. Recourse was frequently had to this form of deification to escape popular hatred by distracting attention from the cruelty of imperial rulers. It is said that Romulus was deified by the senators who slew him; Poppaea owed her apotheosis to her imperial paramour, Nero, after he had kicked her to death; Geta had the honour from his brother Caracalla, who had got rid of him through jealousy.
Canonization in the Catholic Church is quite another thing. The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII, x; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).
The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in the Catholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of the saints. As was taught by St. Augustine (Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94; Contra Faustum, lib. XX, xxi), Catholics, while giving to God alone adoration strictly so-called, honour the saints because of the Divine supernatural gifts which have earned them eternal life, and through which they reign with God in the heavenly fatherland as His chosen friends and faithful servants. In other words, Catholics honour God in His saints as the loving distributor of supernatural gifts. The worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of dulia (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church (Aug., Contra Faustum, XX, xxi, 21; cf. De Civit. Dei, XXII, x) erects her altars to God alone, though in honour and memory of the saints and martyrs. There is Scriptural warrant for such worship in the passages where we are bidden to venerate angels (Ex., xxiii, 20 sqq.; Jos., v, 13 sqq.; Dan., viii, 15 sqq.; x, 4 sqq.; Luke, ii, 9 sqq.; Acts, xii, 7 sqq.; Apoc., v, 11 sqq.; vii, 1 sqq.; Matt., xviii, 10; etc.), whom holy men are not unlike, as sharers of the friendship of God. And if St. Paul beseeches the brethren (Rom., xv, 30; II Cor., i, 11; Col., iv, 3; Ephes., vi, 18, 19) to help him by their prayers for him to God, we must with even greater reason maintain that we can be helped by the prayers of the saints, and ask their intercession with humility. If we may beseech those who still live on earth, why not those who live in heaven?
PAX
Chris Crossont wrote:[quote=之Fallen Angel坐]Chris... I'm still waiting for my "answers" that you think I'm not ready for...
Hahahaha wrote:Get with the program Chris. I never suggested Jesus was wrong.. You tell me where he said all of the saved are saints. As far as the priesthood goes, no, you are not a priest as that is a pagan title borrowed by Christians that denotes someone who is SCHOLARLY regarding the religion in particular. You cannot make yourself a priest, for that matter you cannot make yourself a Judge, a Knight, or an airline pilot. It is a title, a position granted by others not yourself.
You can however be a minister. Someone spreading the word, or working "in Christ's ministries"
Regarding saints.. Did you not read the part I quoted above, it lists many references including the Bible. I would expect that you would at least pay heed to the Biblical references.
PAX
Chris Crossont wrote:[quote=之Fallen Angel坐]Chris... I'm still waiting for my "answers" that you think I'm not ready for...
Chris Crossont wrote:Hahahaha wrote:Get with the program Chris. I never suggested Jesus was wrong.. You tell me where he said all of the saved are saints. As far as the priesthood goes, no, you are not a priest as that is a pagan title borrowed by Christians that denotes someone who is SCHOLARLY regarding the religion in particular. You cannot make yourself a priest, for that matter you cannot make yourself a Judge, a Knight, or an airline pilot. It is a title, a position granted by others not yourself.
You can however be a minister. Someone spreading the word, or working "in Christ's ministries"
Regarding saints.. Did you not read the part I quoted above, it lists many references including the Bible. I would expect that you would at least pay heed to the Biblical references.
PAX
OK....in the world, you are right and I am wrong.
Hahahaha wrote:Chris Crossont wrote:Hahahaha wrote:Get with the program Chris. I never suggested Jesus was wrong.. You tell me where he said all of the saved are saints. As far as the priesthood goes, no, you are not a priest as that is a pagan title borrowed by Christians that denotes someone who is SCHOLARLY regarding the religion in particular. You cannot make yourself a priest, for that matter you cannot make yourself a Judge, a Knight, or an airline pilot. It is a title, a position granted by others not yourself.
You can however be a minister. Someone spreading the word, or working "in Christ's ministries"
Regarding saints.. Did you not read the part I quoted above, it lists many references including the Bible. I would expect that you would at least pay heed to the Biblical references.
PAX
OK....in the world, you are right and I am wrong.
No, no, you don't get off that easy. Where does anything say that Christ said that all of the saved are saints? You can't just make the claim without some kind of proof.. Where is it?
Don't you see that you have been fed a lie. A most dangerous lie? Don't you see that if you seek the truth, you need to seek the real truth, not something some evangelical minister of lies has told you. Going around spreading those lies is even worse.
All we know of God came to us through this world he created for us. All of the teachings of Christ came in short (about 3 year) time-span, and agin, the records of that time are that only things we know for sure. We should at least stick to those things we recorded and not some conjecture or guesses made by modern day clerics. Right in the world is the only kind of right there is as lonf as we still exist as fleshy creatures.
On another angle, this is a debate forum and no argument will be accepted as valid if it appears to nothing more than opinion.
If you truly are a follower of Christ (seems to me you are a follower, but it's not Christ that leads you) then you really should start paying attention to what he actually said. If you really do love as you profess, then show some respect, speak the truth only and stop repeating unfounded claims. Now, out with it, when, where, what book, where did you get your information? If you believe it to be true, then why not share it?
Right now you look a lot like the great deciever and it's time for you to prove that wrong. If you cannot, well, I'm sorry, but it is you who is in league with Lucifer by speading lies about God.
PAX