Sorry Romney

[Ddrak]

Yes, I believe they are (except Jews for reasons I explained before)

Where is this Dd? I'm pinched for time these days, but I'm very interested in this debate.
I'll admit I've been speed reading and skimming the thread, but I want to see that part and can't find it >.<.

Just where I said that the Old Testament meant you'd be a Jew, not a Christian.

Dd

[Trollbait]

Jecks -

You might want to bone up on Catholic tradition if you're going to be spouting off about it. Celibacy in the priesthood wasn't a part of the Church until a good few hundred years or so after the death of Christ.

Uhhh, yeah.....I know it did not happen right away but the Scripture I posted was what was used to justify it when it did happen. You can be an arrogant prick sometimes. Nothing I said in my previous posts indicated that I thought priests were always unmarried. That is the way it is NOW and Corinthians is the Scripture used to justify it. Canon Law was and is an evolving set of rules.

In 325 AD the Council of Nicea decreed that a priest could not marry after ordination but it was not until 1123 AD that during the First Lateran Council, Pope Calistus II decreed all marriages to clergy to be invalid. The First Lateran Council as well as the preceeding councils all cited Paul's first letter to Corinthians as justification for their decision.

The first seven ecumenical councils as well as the proceeding councils laid out Canon Law and were based heavily on the letters of the Apostle Paul.

Bone up on Catholic tradition? Maybe you should "bone up" on Canon Law and the history of the Roman Catholic Church. It has been a hobby of mine for 15 years. Celibate a few hundred years after the death of Christ? Wrong again. Up to 50% of the priesthood was said to have still been married 1500 years after the death of Christ and in fact Pope Felix V who died in 1449 AD was married and had one son.

In 1962 at the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII decreed that marriage is equal to virginity and in 1980 married Anglican pastors were ordained as Catholic priests here in the U.S.

Celibacy really had little to do with scripture, and more to do with land and property possession. The estate of a priest who died with no legitimate heirs ended up in the hands of the Church. High incentive for a policy of celibacy

That statement is right and wrong depending on a few things such as which Council's celibacy position are you talking about and which era of Church history. In any case Scripture was ALWAYS used as the justification. All decisions in the Councils had to be based in some kind of Scriptural foundation no matter how loosely or weak.

Any questions?

[Klast Brell]

In fact I would submit that many people like Klast, Garrdor, and Partha are turned off to Christianity BECAUSE of the dogma and legalisms. That and the fact that perversion of the Scriptures have been and are used to inflict all manner of evil on mankind.

OK here are my reasons for being "turned off". This is just what springs to mind right now, I'm sure that i could write more If i put the time in to it.

You were mentioning the whole "by grace alone" thing. That pretty much gives you permission to be a total bastard as long as you accept the "truth" and the "word". You can do any number of truly hurtful things as long as you have Jesus in your heart. For instance: Jesus never said you can't cut your employees benefits to maximize shareholder value.

The whole rapture thing bothers the piss out of me. You may have seen the bumper sticker that says "warning in case of rapture this car will be unoccupied" The belief that the world will end real soon now gives them an excuse to flush the future down the toilet. They can cut down every last tree and pollute every last river. They won't be around to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Hypocritical cherry picking their holy text to support their agenda. Sure you can use the bible to deny gay people the right to marry. But you conveniently forget what jesus had to say about extramarital sex, divorce, law suits or charging interest on loans.

[Klast Brell]

What made metaphysical thinking a trait that humanity passed on?

First can you define metaphysical thinking? I'm not sure what that means to you personally. When you get in to terms like this everyone has their own interpretation and I want to make sure I understand what you are asking before I run off at that mouth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphysics

Basically thinking outside ones own existence to try to grasp the unknowable.

I asked what it means to you personally, not for a link to a dictionary. So I'm going to ignore the definitions proffered in that link and stick to just what you wrote. Evolution tends to amplify those traits that are useful and attenuate those that are a hindrance. A desire to understand those things that you do not understand is a huge competitive advantage over those who lack that curiosity. The result is invention of technologies that make life better. And not just complex modern technologies. Sharp sticks and rocks were once (pun intended) cutting edge technology. And before people started banging rocks together to make sharp edges, the idea of creating your own sharp rock was outside of ones own existence. But the guys with the sharp sticks and rocks thrived compared to the guys with the dull sticks and rocks.

As to the unknowable. I do not believe in the unknowable. To me that is a religious concept. I believe that there is only that which we don't know yet.

[Trollbait]

You were mentioning the whole "by grace alone" thing. That pretty much gives you permission to be a total bastard as long as you accept the "truth" and the "word". You can do any number of truly hurtful things as long as you have Jesus in your heart. For instance: Jesus never said you can't cut your employees benefits to maximize shareholder value.

See but the caveat to that is that if a person really and truly has Jesus in their heart they will not do those kinds of things.

The whole rapture thing bothers the piss out of me. You may have seen the bumper sticker that says "warning in case of rapture this car will be unoccupied" The belief that the world will end real soon now gives them an excuse to flush the future down the toilet. They can cut down every last tree and pollute every last river. They won't be around to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Irregardless of any personal interpretations of the Rapture we are commanded to be good stewards. If the End of Days came tomorrow we should still be good stewards of what we have been given.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Jecks -

So what you're saying about celibacy is that it took over 1500 years for the Church to take Paul seriously. So much for the power of scripture, eh?

And I say this as a Catholic, who has issues with hypocrisy in the Church.

[Trollbait]

Jecks -

So what you're saying about celibacy is that it took over 1500 years for the Church to take Paul seriously. So much for the power of scripture, eh?

And I say this as a Catholic, who has issues with hypocrisy in the Church.

I already said in this thread that I would refrain from the usual jabs at the Catholic Church.

What I was expecting from you is an acknowledgement that you misunderstood my earlier comments.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Jecks -

The dialogue concerning the celibacy is just a red herring that detracts from the core issues of the debate. Is not the debate of celibacy/non-celibacy just one of those "LEGALISMS" you decried earlier? I'd like to focus on the concept Jesus as saviour, and how formal religions treat that concept, and I'd like to return to the point/question of what happens when a persone dies never having had the chance to be exposed to the word of God. Now, you can cry "LEGALISM!!! LEGALISM!!! LEGALISM!!!" all you want, but don't you find it odd that the question has never been officially addressed by any formalized Christian religion? It seems to me thats a pretty important concept, don't you?

The scripture is LOADED with citations and references that Christ died for the sake of ALL men. All men everywhere. Through time. Over and over and over again that message is hammered home in the New Testament. Yet, organized religion seems to want to ignore those people that just never get the chance to hear the word of god in this life. Why is that, you think?

Let me offer this... if a formal religion, and let's pick on the Catholics, since I'm one of them, says that baptism is the only way to remove the taint of original sin, which is a requisite to entering heaven, and no one whoo isn't baptized will head straight to the fiery punishment of hells perdition. Doesn't matter if it was an infant who died in childbirth. The infant burns in hell. Doesn't matter if it was a righteous American Indian that lived a just life, that heathen will burn in hell. (And this also begs the question of why God would want to deny the Word of Himself to American Indians for almost 1500 years...doesn't God care about those poor bastards?)

No formal religion wants to discuss the possibility there might be other ways into heaven, other than than by knowing Christ. They won't ever take a formal stance on it, only saying it might be "possible" that souls, upon death, are given the opportunity to know and choose. The Catholics engaged in some serious false constructs, going so far as to invent a mythical place called Limbo, where they placed all these souls. They have since reveresed themselves (again) a couple of years back. Before the concept of Limbo, however, the dirty little secret was that the Catholics held that unbaptized souls, regardless of innocence, suffered the torments of hell for eternity. Limbo was the Catholic answer to that nagging little problem. It bothered the conscience to think that God would throw an innocent into the fires of hell. So, even with NO biblical support, the biggest Christian religion fabricated the construct of Limbo. They would rather accept unsubstantiated delusion than admit souls might be able to get into heaven without the help of the Church.

And there, my friend, is why Christian religions maintain the path to heaven is through Christ (ostensibly through the direction of whatever flavor of religion a person belongs too). Admitting that God just might have figured out a way to get souls into heaven without actually having known Christ in this lifetime is tantamount to admitting there is little need for the Christian religions, becuase if God can do it for a heathen American Indian, why can't he do it for everyone?

[Trollbait]

and I'd like to return to the point/question of what happens when a persone dies never having had the chance to be exposed to the word of God.

You are some piece of work. You are chastising me for a "red herring" that "detracts from the debate" but you falsely challenged me on it in the first place. Then you go on about some long and wierd diatribe about an issue that quite frankly I am not concerned with. I am not an evangelical and I am not really concerned with some aliens on Seti Alpha 6 and their personal method of Salvation.

and let's pick on the Catholics, since I'm one of them, says that baptism is the only way to remove the taint of original sin, which is a requisite to entering heaven, and no one whoo isn't baptized will head straight to the fiery punishment of hells perdition. Doesn't matter if it was an infant who died in childbirth. The infant burns in hell.

Well.
I said I would not jab at Catholics but they are simply wrong on the issue of infants and children.

14Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." 15When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.-Mathew 19:14-15

Now I figure you will scoff at the following but it is the foundation of true faith.

If you reduce the possiblities of what can happen to people who have never heard the word of God in to two you get the following:

1) Salvation only comes through accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and those who have never heard of Him are lost (With the exception of innocent children which has already been addressed in Scripture)

or

2) That God in His omnipotence and benevolence has determined an alternate method for their Salvation that He in his omniscient existence has not told us.

If number 1 is true then it is good and proper because God is infallible. If number 2 is true then it is good and proper because God is infallible.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't think I've attacked you. I suggested you bone up on Church histroy, as you made some misleading statements about celibacy, and are trying to present yourself as an authority on the matter. That's not an attack. An attack is something like this: Don't get your panties in a wad over mispercieved criticism, asshole. It makes you look even more of a petulant bitch than you are, and drives people away from the message, since you obviously only accept Jesus' salvation in theory, and fail to follow his practice in life of love, forgiveness, gentleness of spirit and compassion.

That's an attack.

Now, back to the topic. Does it make sense to you that God require a choice, if he already knows what choice you were going to make?

[Arathena]

The past is exactly that, the past. It is our duty, as Catholics, to bring the Church into more perfect accord with the will of God, as we grow with Him as individuals, and as a society.

Directly from the Catechism:

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Yes, there was a wrong before. Yes, it has been corrected. So it will be.

Now, back to the topic. Does it make sense to you that God require a choice, if he already knows what choice you were going to make?

Regardless of the omniscience of God, yes, it makes sense. We are rational beings, and we can cleave to the Lord only so well as we know him. Should we know naught but the natural law, as written in us by grace through the Holy Spirit, that, should the Lord will it so, shall suffice. That is freedom of will, the freedom that He gave to Adam, to obey or disobey.

[Garrdor]

Here's a good random quote for y'all

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed

[Klast Brell]

I'd like to focus on the concept Jesus as saviour, and how formal religions treat that concept, and I'd like to return to the point/question of what happens when a persone dies never having had the chance to be exposed to the word of God. Now, you can cry "LEGALISM!!! LEGALISM!!! LEGALISM!!!" all you want, but don't you find it odd that the question has never been officially addressed by any formalized Christian religion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_B ... dox_Church

According to Sacred Tradition, John the Baptist appears at the time of death to those who have not heard the Gospel of Christ, and preaches the Good News to them, that all may have the opportunity to be saved.

[Trollbait]

as you made some misleading statements about celibacy

I have already proved that I mislead noone but someone who read more into the discussion than was evident.

The rest of your post is childish jabber and irrelevant musings.

[Klast Brell]

No formal religion wants to discuss the possibility there might be other ways into heaven, other than than by knowing Christ.

Tiny world you live in Embar. May I introduce you to the Jews the Muslims, Etc...

[Kulaf]

What made metaphysical thinking a trait that humanity passed on?

First can you define metaphysical thinking? I'm not sure what that means to you personally. When you get in to terms like this everyone has their own interpretation and I want to make sure I understand what you are asking before I run off at that mouth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphysics

Basically thinking outside ones own existence to try to grasp the unknowable.

I asked what it means to you personally, not for a link to a dictionary. So I'm going to ignore the definitions proffered in that link and stick to just what you wrote. Evolution tends to amplify those traits that are useful and attenuate those that are a hindrance. A desire to understand those things that you do not understand is a huge competitive advantage over those who lack that curiosity. The result is invention of technologies that make life better. And not just complex modern technologies. Sharp sticks and rocks were once (pun intended) cutting edge technology. And before people started banging rocks together to make sharp edges, the idea of creating your own sharp rock was outside of ones own existence. But the guys with the sharp sticks and rocks thrived compared to the guys with the dull sticks and rocks.

As to the unknowable. I do not believe in the unknowable. To me that is a religious concept. I believe that there is only that which we don't know yet.

What it means to me personally is the dictionary definition......as I am not in the habit of making up my own definitions for words.

Your reasoning is not logical. Curiosity......which you seem to be trying to hide behind some abstract definition......is present in "lower" forms of life. The desire to figure things out could have been a trait of logic.......rather than grasping for metaphysical definitions. When primitive man saw lightning and heard thunder why didn't he just embark on a mission to prove why it was happening instead of making an illogical assumption?

As for unknowable......well the day you can tell me what occured at the formation of the universe before time came into existance......I will admit that everything is "knowable".

[Embar Angylwrath]

No formal religion wants to discuss the possibility there might be other ways into heaven, other than than by knowing Christ.

Tiny world you live in Embar. May I introduce you to the Jews the Muslims, Etc...

Well.. I thought it was readily apparent we're speaking of Christian-based religions, since, ummm... we're talking about redemption through Christ. But in case you didn't get that over several pages of posts, there it is for ya.

All better now?

And as to your second post...
1) Its from Wikipedia...
2) It only concerns the Eastern Orthodox religion
3) I could be wrong, since I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but they seem to be misusing the term Sacred Tradition. Regardless, it appears to me that, if the wiki is correct, even teh Eastern Orthodox beleif is still just wishful thinking. Which is kinda what Sacred Tradition is. Its a stance that says "we think this is the way it is, and will believe its the way it is, until we're told otherwise". Essentially, its a malleable thought, and subject to reversal. It's not a dogma of the faith.

[Partha]

Of course, you may take Embar's third point, substitute various words, and arrive at the same conclusion for all faiths.

[JamiesanTGrauerwolf]

<tinfoilhat>I think Saul had it all planned out. He somehow had some kind of leverage on Annanias, and decided he was going to take over the Christian religion. So he talked with Annanias, and outlined this plan; First he was going to "Have a vision" in the desert, and be "struck blind". Then his followers would bring him to Annanias who would then "Heal him" and then Annanias would have a corroborating vision to help vault Saul to becoming Paul, where he could then take over the church and become the real power behind the religion.</tinfoilhat>

[Garrdor]

I think someone got a lil' too crazy 'on the blood of jesus' and had a 'talk with god'