Vatican convenes summit to fight the "threat" of alternative faiths!

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by EllisDTripp, Jun 17, 2004.

  1. Jozak

    Jozak Member

    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you racist?!!?!?! How would a black pope be indicative of the false prophet? Black people have a better chance of being the anti-christ, according to you? Besides that, it is commonly accepted by most that the anti-Christ will rise out of the middle east.

    The problem is the bible was not compiled unitl the 3rd century at the council of Hippo in 393 AD! So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written "Word of God" to follow his teachings? Well, naturally, they were taught through "oral" teachings by the Church, not by writings. Traditions existed prior to that, they had to, otherwise the Church would have died out. Christ NEVER said the bible was the ultimate authority, and in fact, said the church was. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Apostolic Tradition." This type of "tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture you are talking about are those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, those who don't follow apostolic traditions are chided pretty harshly in 2 Thessalonians 3:6.

    No, that is your interpretation of it, and I think it is wrong. This is a prayer to St. Joseph that dates back to 50 A.D. - long before the last Apostle had died and less than 20 years after the death of Christ. If the early Christians asked the "dead" foster father of Christ to intercede for them and it was "wrong," why is there no "documentation" from the Twelve Apostles "reprimanding" them for this? Surely, the Apostles would have corrected the early Church had It been in err?

    "O St. Joseph whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt before the Throne of God, I place in you all my interests and desires.O St. Joseph do assist me by your powerful intercession and obtain for me from your Divine Son all spiritual blessings through Jesus Christ, Our Lord; so that having engaged here below your Heavenly power I may offer my Thanksgiving and Homage to the most Loving of Fathers.O St. Joseph I never weary contemplating you and Jesus asleep in your arms. I dare not approach while He reposes near your heart. Press him in my name and kiss His fine Head for me, and ask Him to return the Kiss when I draw my dying breath.St. Joseph, Patron of departing souls, pray for us. Amen."

    Scripture states that angels are superior to men (Luke 20:36; Hebrews 2:7; 2 Peter 2:11) so why would a superior being (St. Gabriel) "hail" (salute, honor or praise) Mary (a "supposed" inferior being)? If this honor is given to Mary as Scripture states, then Mary must be greater than the angels. Are you seriously comparing your church member to the Mother of Christ? That is ridiculous. Mary does have powers, weather you choose to accept them or not. Why not ask the Virgin Mary or any other saint to "pray for you?" Just because they are no longer "of this world" does not mean they don't "talk" to God. The saints in heaven are not "separated" by death from the community of the Church (Romans 8:38-39) as we are ALL one Body in Christ (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12) and Christ "abolished death" (2 Timothy 1:10). Therefore, the saints in Heaven can pray for us just as anyone here on Earth can. In fact, better, as they are presently with God. The Virgin Mary asking God to help you should "carry more weight" so to speak than having your best friend on this earth praying for you. True or not? In fact, Christ's first public miracle was performed upon the "intercession" of His own mother (John 2:2-11).


    Again, my priests have talked about the anti-christ and such in their homolies. I cannot help that the churches you have attended didn't.



    Why would you change somthing that has been done since the early Christian times? None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it? Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." So by making an exception for infants, you are instantaneoulsy condeming all infants to hell.

    "For if the one party concede to the other that remission of sins takes place in all infants which are baptized, whilst the other concedes to their opponents that infants (as infant nature itself in its silence loudly proclaims) have as yet contracted no sin in their own living, then both sides must agree in conceding to us, that nothing remains but original sin, which can be remitted in baptism to infants." - St. Augustine of Hippo ("On The Merits And Forgiveness Of Sins, And The Baptism Of Infants" 4th century A.D.)
     
  2. Epiphany

    Epiphany Copacetic

    Messages:
    6,167
    Likes Received:
    6
    [QUOTE]Are you racist?!!?!?! [/QUOTE]

    No, I am certainly not racist! Black/dark as in ominous, not African American. *sigh*





    Peter, the Apostle, where are his tradition of tongues and baptism in the name of Jesus that the Catholic church does not follow? "As the church grew older, not only did false teachers rise up, but also many sincere individuals misunderstood the teachings of the Scripture. This setting produced many wrong ideas about baptism. When the coundil of Nicea met in 325 A.D., the Trinitarian formula for baptism was adopted. Since this time the trinity was embraced and the Trinitarian baptismal formula gained prominence. It was immediately after this council that the Catholic Church began to be influenced by Christian circles, and even the political word. The next 1200 year the Catholic church was without revival. Many of these groups still use Matthew 28:19, as a basis for baptism, however, this scripture instructs the baptism in the NAME (singular) of the Father (John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name"), the Son (Matthew 1:21 "And thou shalt call his name Jesus") and the Holy Ghost (John 14:26 "The holy ghost, whom the father will send in My name"). In all of these titles, we find but one name, the name of Jesus! - written by Pastor M.I. Otano - The Christian Revival Center (my Pentecostal church)







    I attend an Aposotlic church and I can tell you that my church's Apostolic teachings and the Apostolic teachings of the Catholic church do not match. I cannot speak for those before the time of Jesus, but the whole purpose of Jesus's birth and death was to SAVE God's people.






    I would read the statement on prayers of the dead by Alsharad three posts ago. He has scriptural references to back up his words.




    I'm sorry, but there is no record of Mary having any powers in the Bible. She bore Jesus Christ through the holy spirit. (Matthew 1:20 - "What is concieved in her is from the Holy Spirit") She never performed miracles or anything else of the like. She was a woman whom God looked upon with favor because she was a true follower. When Jesus spoke of his apostles, he said that in his name, they would drive out demons, speak with new tongues (as promised by the admission of the holy ghost) and heal others. Did mary possess that ability? Nope, if she did, there would be record of it! Just as he did Moses and Abraham, and countless others in the Bible, sincere followers were blessed. Actually, angels marvel at the sight of mankind. They long to look upon things that we posess that they don't (1 Peter 1:12). It makes sense that an angel would be in awe of Mary, due to the fact that angels did not give birth to Jesus, but mankind did. God promised his spirit in the form of the holy ghost to men, not to angels.







    There are examples in the Bible of how we are to live. Are there not? Show me ONE single scripture on baptism that says someone not repenting was baptized. John the Baptist preached this, Jesus preached it, and Peter preached it. If they were spreading this gospel, what right did the church have to change THEIR teaching? How can I change something that Jesus himself instructed? Jesus condemed church leaders for favoring their traditions over the law of God. As I have said before, children who die who do not understand the concept of the bible, don't go to hell. If you had a very young child that died, of course they would be in Heaven. They would not be condemned for never getting a chance to hear the gospel of Christ! But to say that a child can be baptized as an infant, never asking forgiveness of their sin when they are older, never being re-baptized after doing this, and their parents petitioning Christ for their child's salvation is ludacris. No one can impose salvation on another. You cannot save your children. You can pray for them, you can intercede for them, but when your child is old enough to understand the teaching of Christ, they must ask for forgiveness and be saved themselves! You cannot do it for them. Yeah, I was baptized as a baby. Merely sprinkled with a little water and prayed over. But when I came of age to understand the bible, did some sprinkled water on my head as an infant secure my salvation? Nope! because it was not MY choice to dedicate my life to Christ. It was my parent's choice. Say I had died, knowing of Christ as a teenager, but never repented myself. God would judge me saying, " You knew of my word, why did you not repent?" He wouldn't say, "Very good, my child, your parents repented for your sins when you were a baby". Salvation doesn't work that way. Salvation is between you and Jesus. If my baby cousin was die, of course he would be in Heaven. He is a year old. He does not understand the word, "no", let alone the Bible. But, when he is old enough to understand this and make his own decisions, his Catholic parents having him baptized does NOT mean he is saved. Salvation will ONLY come through repenting of sins and being baptized through JESUS's name (Acts 4:12 "For there is NO other name under Heaven given to men by which we MUST be saved") and being filled with the holy ghost, as the SCRIPTURE says. Honestly, we could sit and argue this for days and days, but it just comes down to Jesus's teaching verses the teaching of man. I am a believer, I think that I will take Jesus's own words over a man. If the bible tells us to repent and be baptized over and over again, who is anyone to debate it?
     
  3. queenannie

    queenannie Member

    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    0


    Matthew 3:13-17
    Mark 1:9-11
    Luke 3:21-22
    These apply only if you believe Jesus was without sin.

    But of course, there is an exception to every rule, and this is the exception that determines the rule. I'm not trying to tear down your argument, because I like your arguments. I am one, too, who would rather follow the words of Jesus than the words of men. If I were going to follow man's words, I'd follow my own! I just had to point out that little hole so that you could be sure and cover it next time.

    I'm cheering you on! :D
     
  4. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,693
    Likes Received:
    4,504
    there is little more pityable or pathetic then power
    save emotional attatchment to its vested arbitrary assumptions

    nor is catholicism or even the broader totality of christianity
    or the even broader then that totality of organized belief as a whole
    by any means unique in that reguard

    of course not even all of organized beliefs
    are neccessarily monotheistic, chauvansitic, nor inclined toward fanatacism

    this is so truely pathetic in its absurdity that they would even do that


    =^^=
    .../\...
     
  5. Jozak

    Jozak Member

    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Max, could you put that in a more simplistic manor? :p
     
  6. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    He's saying that those institutions are subject to the inherent fault of all institutions; power corrupts, and mainting vested interest rules.
     
  7. Jozak

    Jozak Member

    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, wasn't sure lol Thanks!
     
  8. Christian

    Christian Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why fight buddism and not satanism?
     
  9. EllisDTripp

    EllisDTripp Green Secessionist

    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    7
    Maybe because Buddhism has a FEW more adherents than "Satanism"? :)

    For the most part, "Satanism" is an invention of the media and the fundamentalist right-wing, used to describe a mishmash of occult practices and rituals, practiced mainly by disaffected teenagers looking for kicks or a "cool" way to rebel.

    The actual "Church of Satan", founded by Anton LaVey is more of a celebration of hedonism (and media stunt) than a serious worship of the Christian "anti-deity" named "Satan".

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/religions/satanism/cos/
     
  10. queenannie

    queenannie Member

    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn't that be like "biting the hand that feeds you"?
     
  11. xdianax

    xdianax Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am disappointed by this article. I cannot understand why the mindset of the church is to "attack"; as if other religions are the enemy.

    I myself am far from an expert in Catholicism/Christianity, seeing as my only education has been from a few church masses as a young child and CCD. Anyway, my CCD teacher told us many times that when she was a child they were always taught that they were "soldiers of Christ", but now the church no longer says that because they have moved away from that military-type of mentality. This article seems to show otherwise.

    :) Namaste,

    Diana
     
  12. Epiphany

    Epiphany Copacetic

    Messages:
    6,167
    Likes Received:
    6
    She was right about being soldiers of Christ... in a way....
    • "For tho we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. (II Corinthians 10:3-6)
    • "Put on the whole armour of God that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil (Ephesians 6:11)
    • "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)
    Christian warfare is spiritual, not physical
     
  13. xdianax

    xdianax Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    1
    Does that mean you think that Christianity is still in this military mindset? And what do you all think about this mindset?

    :) Namaste,

    Diana
     
  14. Epiphany

    Epiphany Copacetic

    Messages:
    6,167
    Likes Received:
    6
    In a sense... when it comes to satan and fighting off temptation, yes
     
  15. xdianax

    xdianax Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hmmm, well I don't have a problem with that, but I particularly don't like the military mindset when dealing with other religions. I remember once in CCD my teacher told us how in mass the Priest had mentioned Wicca. She told us he'd seen someone with a Wiccan ornament or bumpsticker or something on their c ar in the church parking lot, and used the mass to "pray" for that person and to hope that they would realize how "dangerous" Wicca was. So then my teacher went on the same type of rant, telling us that if we knew any kids who were getting involved with it, to intervene and stop them, because the religion deals with satanic things. I was shocked, and I really don't care for that kind of mentality; Religions shouldn't be competing.

    Instead of thinking of things in terms of "Us (Christianity) vs. Them ("New Age" religions)" I think the Vatican should stop thinking of how to convert people/"fight" against other religions, but rather try learning from them. An attitude of tolerance and learning toward other religions would be beneficial. The idea is not meant to be a one way street, other religions should try to learn more about Christianity and other religions as well. I think religion is not really about what is "right" or the "true" religion, but what religion works best for you. I don't try to convert a Christian I meet, because I know that their religion works best for the type of person they are, just as Buddhism works best for me.


    :) Namaste,

    Diana
     
  16. GanjaPrince

    GanjaPrince Banned

    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    oh let them dance that silly dance, i will dance mine and say, tsk tsk, your should talk about the unity of religions, yet they don't, the mind clouded by ignorance of the chirst heart buddha mind laughing at the cosmic joke in krishna's arm, praise allah! You see, we tried to name a reality that has no names... silly us.

    It's all god's play, lila, a dance of energy and light all unified, mass is energy, seperate is the illussion created by the rational mind, go deeper into the subtle levels you can listen to with a still mind, quieter your mind and look between the words, find that flowing glowing endless stream of energy that shines over all of the universe, it's in you. Find it, stay with it, learn from it, sink deeper into it's glory, then you will be with those that have no name, we are buddhists, we are christians, we are hindus, we are yogis, we are babas, we are saints, we are gurus, we are devotees, we are lovers, we are singers, we laugh, we play, we smile with the wonder and awe of a little child, some of us have no religion, others are in to mysticism, we come from all paths, all walks of life, some have no need to say it, others speak it all day long, does it matter? It is the vibe, we know it when we are there, and we play the game most of us, others refuse to, does it matter? It's about that love. Listen to your inner heart, it will lead you!
     
  17. Epiphany

    Epiphany Copacetic

    Messages:
    6,167
    Likes Received:
    6
    Well the Bible does say that either we're with God or against God. Wicca may seem peaceful and involving nature and that's fine. Except that God says we shall have no other Gods but him. The dangerous part is when worshipping other God's come into play. Nature is beautiful, but God created nature.



    Basically, God said to go out and spread the word to all nations. We as Christians want to see others saved. That is why we preach and witness. I will say that sometimes, others tend to possess more Christians qualities than some Christians themselves. That is what Christians can learn from other religions. But when it comes to Christianity, the Bible tells us that anything that is of the world and not of God, should be avoided. That is why we may seem so close minded.
     
  18. sweatininthesouth

    sweatininthesouth Member

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bravo gangaprince! You said it very well and I totally agree with your version of God and love, as I believe the same way. How refreshing to see a twenty-something young person who is following their inner heart, soul and mind, instead of following a book full of words, written by men. God is not an old man sitting in the clouds, dictating his words to people on earth so they can write them down in a big book -- oh ye of little faith, you have completely missed the concept of God......so sad.

    I hope to see you around here more often, prince. It's always refreshing to read enlightening words from others instead of closed-minded, programmed drivel.
     
  19. xdianax

    xdianax Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    1
    :D Once again, GanjaPrince's words were so inspiring. Thank you for that wonderful post.

    When you say "God said" you mean in the Bible right? Haha, sorry, I am not very knowledgable about Christianity. What exactly would you define/what do you mean when you say "anything that is of the world and not of God"? Isn't God all around us? As I understand it, in Christianity since God made us and this world he is really all around us. His creation can be seen in everything. So if you come across a Buddhist who tells you of the wonderful compassion he has for all sentient beings, there is no reason not to listen to what he has to say. You both, no matter what, have something in common: you're both human beings and you are both a result of God's creation. Because of this, I see no reason why religions shouldn't learn from each other and educate each other about their teachings. There are many great things we can accomplish if we learn to put aside differences and find commonalities between us.

    :) Namaste,

    Diana
     
  20. MattInVegas

    MattInVegas John Denver Mega-Fan

    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    16
    Well, HELL YEAH they are! It threatens the power they've held for so long over most of the planet! I mean, WHY can't Priests get married????? Didn't GOD tell us to "Be Fruitfull, and Multiply"??? How did he want us to DO that, if we couldn't be married in his eyes? Adultry? I don't THINK so!

    (I could blast THAT church all day! Not it's members, just the doctrine!)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice