Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → WTH do Catholics have to do with Babylonian rites?
OK let'er rip
lol...thanks.
I'll probably get back to you later this evening on this topic. 
o no you don't!
/grabs Newb by the ankle and drags him back
you wanted a separate thread, now fill it!
hehe..... Its ok, I will be back later to post.
/me runs for the "Options" page to change my forum name.
> TheYell wrote:
> o no you don't!
/grabs Newb by the ankle and drags him back
you wanted a separate thread, now fill it!
______________________________________
lol...i had to go home and eat. You pest!
- - -
quoting from elsewhere, after my confirming it's correct based on much of my own study:
Where Do The Differences Between Catholics
And Protestants Come From?
Many people tell me, "You Protestants interpret the Bible one way, and the Catholic church another!" The differences, however, are for the most part not really differences of interpretation, but of authority. For Biblical Protestants, the authority is the Word of God. A priest summed this up very well when he exclaimed to me with disgust, "You Protestants believe everything that book says!"
The Biblical emphasis which is the heritage of the Protestant churches is visible even in the architecture of its buildings. In the Catholic church the altar is central. There the sacrifice of Christ is believed to be renewed in the mass. In the Protestant churches the pulpit is the center of attention. It is essentially a stand to hold the Bible in a position where it is easy for the preacher to read because the reading and explanation of the word of God is central.
The Catholic church does officially accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God, but not as the final authority. Tradition, along with the pronouncements of Popes and Councils is considered equally authoritative. There are, however, many points in which the tradition of the Catholic church is not in agreement with the Bible. It is at these points that each one of us must decide which he will follow.
...
Some misinterpret a part of this Scripture and say that only the Roman Catholic church is capable of interpreting the Bible. The passage, however, speaks of God's guidance of those who wrote the Bible, and does not say that only certain ones can interpret it. The apostle Paul praised the believers of Berea for examining the Scriptures for themselves to see if what he was teaching them was really Scriptural: Its members were better disposed than those in Thessalonica, and welcomed the message with great enthusiasm. Each day they studied the Scriptures to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11). If they did well to test the teachings of the apostle Paul by comparing them with the Scriptures that they already had, how much more should we apply the same test to the traditions of the church today?
The New Testament speaks a great deal about tradition, and condemns it when it is contrary to the word of God. Jesus said: You disregard God's commandment and cling to what is human tradition
37 Roman Catholic Doctrines
that are contrary to the Bible,
that they put together from the writings of actual Christendom
...all they did was compile them and change the parts they disagreed with to replace with many times Babylonian teachings:
1 Salvation Through The Church
2 Salvation Through Good Works
3 The Church Forgives Sins
4 The One True Church
5 Baptism Saves
6 The Pope: Vicar of Christ
7 The Pope: Infallible
8 The Sacraments Save
9 The Sin of Presumption
10 Infant Baptism
11 Degrees of Sin
12 Transubstantiation
13 Eucharist: Preserves from Sin
14 Eucharist: Helps the Dead
15 Mary Saves
16 Mary: Saved from Birth
17 Mary: Perpetual Virgin
18 Mary: Source of Holiness
19 Mary: The Intercessor
20 Mary: Recipient of Prayers
21 Mary: Queen Over All Things
22 The Mass
23 Purgatory
24 Praying to Saints
25 Praying for the Dead
26 Statues
27 Confirmation
28 Confessing Sins to a Priest
29 Indulgences
30 Interpreting God' s Word
31 Catholic Prayer
32 Penance
33 Is Catholicism Christian?
34 Could 850 Million Catholics be Wrong?
35 Reconciliation
36 Celibacy
37 Last Rites
DO YOU WANT ME TO PROVIDE THE SCRIPTURES FROM THEIR OWN BIBLE TO PROVE ALL 37 STANCES AS WRONG?
DO YOU STILL WANT ME TO PROVIDE THE LINKS FOR MANY (not all) OF THEIR TEACHINGS (theirs, not their Bible's) TO THE BABYLONIAN RELIGION?
DO YOU KNOW THAT PEOPLE HERE WHO MAY ALREADY BE OFFENDED AT THIS, WILL BE MUCH MORE OFFENDED TO THE POINT WHERE YOU WILL BE HARASSED AND MAY BE ASKED AND/OR COMMANDED TO HARASS AND/OR BAR ME FROM POSTING ON THIS TOPIC IN ANY DETAIL AND/OR ANY THING ELSE SINCE THEY'LL BE SO OUTRAGED?
CAN WE HANDLE THE TRUTH, NO MATTER HOW PAINFUL?
(by the way, I've been raised by atheists, agnostics, backslidden pentecostal christians, backslidden charismatic christians, and the legalistic form of mennonitism...and have had catholic, mostly roman, friends through some of my different rearers...so please have no one accuse me of not willing to be open-minded)
Still want me to answer in more detail? 
And you do a good job of attacking Cathloicism which is on the decline in favor of non-denominationalism.
I like Catholics better. Protestant/non-denominational churches tend to lean more toward
1. God actively intervenes in the world
2. Prayer is the key to realizing your desired outcomes (healing and money)
3. Faith is necessary for feeling fulfilled
In other words, living an abundant life entirely depends on your faith and commitment to God, and they really push "credible" testimonies to prove this.
That is why you have nutty preachers attributing a cancer patient's recovery to God, God's plan is in motion and doomsday is coming, and Atheists are all evil and unhappy with their lives. In fact, this is all the crap I hear. That and pro-life and abstinence.
My summary conclusion of protestant churches is that they are a pyramid scheme - The top gains money, the lower loses money, and the services can be empirically illustrated to amount to false promises. That and a clearly cult-like organization.
Catholics tend to be more concerned about personal excellence. They talk about HOW to have a strong family etc, try to reconcile REASON with FAITH, and WHY you should follow the Christian script.
Poor nondenominationals then
Lay it on me. Much of that list has scriptural foundation.
Infant Baptism was long controversial, but was resolved on the side of compassion. "Amen Amen I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of Heaven without being born of water and the Spirit" John 3:5. How do you literalist Protestants interpret the repeated scriptural references to whole families being baptized?
My brother who is a pagan I think or New Age or something liked to ask me why the Bible had two different measurements for the columns of Solomon's temple. But Catholic exegesis says "big deal, that tells you there was a temple and there was a Solomon and it impressed the Jews, you can believ that much and get God's message". Noah's Flood rained forty days and nights, the Israelites wandered forty years in the desert, and Christ entered Jerusalem forty days before His cruxifixion, but to Catholics our faith is not shaken if the Jews wandered 39 years and 10 months-- the Bible telling shows their quasimystical appreciation of "forty" as a symbol of divinity, and in each case the period was one of trial and preparation for a fulfilled promise of God's salvation. God tests schmucks and then makes good in miraculous ways according to His plan.
I was wondering where you got the idea of babylonian influence, the usual church layout is pagan but its pagan Roman, it was familiar architecture and its a great way to distribute things to everybody in a big building. That's why billy graham uses the same basic layout, he wants all the people looking at him and free to walk up.
I think quite a few atheists would agree at least the Catholics have some sense of tradition and ritual. Instead of these fast-faith churches which readily traded in the important literature-wise King James bible for easy-reading versions and the sonorous, old devotional hymns for commercialised pop.
In other words they took perhaps the only meaningful (non-spiritual) parts of their religion and replaced them with cheap, tacky feel-good.
Just a small question, but what's the oldest most commonly translated version of the Bible?
It's just that we learned (in law) how much texts can evolve when they are copied during the medieval ages by priests who can't read (nor write actually) every 30 years, and who wish to implement (when they can read) their own vision on things etc.
Also, if you ever read medieval manuscripts, you will see that since the feather can't move to the left during writing, only right, every letter looks a lot like the other, and a small fault is easely made (especially if you can't read).
Just a side-note question though, do go on
> Einstein wrote:
> And you do a good job of attacking Cathloicism which is on the decline in favor of non-denominationalism.
________________________________
thank you
...no it is not on the decline.
> Justinian I wrote:
> I like Catholics better. Protestant/non-denominational churches tend to lean more toward
1. God actively intervenes in the world
2. Prayer is the key to realizing your desired outcomes (healing and money)
3. Faith is necessary for feeling fulfilled
In other words, living an abundant life entirely depends on your faith and commitment to God, and they really push "credible" testimonies to prove this.
That is why you have nutty preachers attributing a cancer patient's recovery to God, God's plan is in motion and doomsday is coming, and Atheists are all evil and unhappy with their lives. In fact, this is all the crap I hear. That and pro-life and abstinence.
My summary conclusion of protestant churches is that they are a pyramid scheme - The top gains money, the lower loses money, and the services can be empirically illustrated to amount to false promises. That and a clearly cult-like organization.
Catholics tend to be more concerned about personal excellence. They talk about HOW to have a strong family etc, try to reconcile REASON with FAITH, and WHY you should follow the Christian script.
__________________________________________
You're talking about the Protestant churches that, like Catholicism, ignore certain parts of the Bible.
I have an issue with financial manipulation of others too!
> TheYell wrote:
> Poor nondenominationals then
Lay it on me. Much of that list has scriptural foundation.
Infant Baptism was long controversial, but was resolved on the side of compassion. "Amen Amen I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of Heaven without being born of water and the Spirit" John 3:5. How do you literalist Protestants interpret the repeated scriptural references to whole families being baptized?
My brother who is a pagan I think or New Age or something liked to ask me why the Bible had two different measurements for the columns of Solomon's temple. But Catholic exegesis says "big deal, that tells you there was a temple and there was a Solomon and it impressed the Jews, you can believ that much and get God's message". Noah's Flood rained forty days and nights, the Israelites wandered forty years in the desert, and Christ entered Jerusalem forty days before His cruxifixion, but to Catholics our faith is not shaken if the Jews wandered 39 years and 10 months-- the Bible telling shows their quasimystical appreciation of "forty" as a symbol of divinity, and in each case the period was one of trial and preparation for a fulfilled promise of God's salvation. God tests schmucks and then makes good in miraculous ways according to His plan.
I was wondering where you got the idea of babylonian influence, the usual church layout is pagan but its pagan Roman, it was familiar architecture and its a great way to distribute things to everybody in a big building. That's why billy graham uses the same basic layout, he wants all the people looking at him and free to walk up.
_________________________________-
Q: How do you literalist Christians interpret the repeated scriptural references to whole families being baptized?
A: It says the whole family believed and were baptized.
Therefore, those families didn't have infants or toddlers too young to make any decisions on this.
Q: What's the Babylonian influence for Catholicism?
A: I'll get back to you on that.
I need to leave to do my life things today...
> Grushdeva wrote:
> Just a small question, but what's the oldest most commonly translated version of the Bible?
It's just that we learned (in law) how much texts can evolve when they are copied during the medieval ages by priests who can't read (nor write actually) every 30 years, and who wish to implement (when they can read) their own vision on things etc.
Also, if you ever read medieval manuscripts, you will see that since the feather can't move to the left during writing, only right, every letter looks a lot like the other, and a small fault is easely made (especially if you can't read).
Just a side-note question though, do go on
_______________________________________
Indirect answer:
This is why I don't trust the Bible translations that have Catholicism helping Christians (either Protestants or Catholics) to translate them.
> tavius wrote:
> I think quite a few atheists would agree at least the Catholics have some sense of tradition and ritual. Instead of these fast-faith churches which readily traded in the important literature-wise King James bible for easy-reading versions and the sonorous, old devotional hymns for commercialised pop.
In other words they took perhaps the only meaningful (non-spiritual) parts of their religion and replaced them with cheap, tacky feel-good.
________________________________________________
True.
But easy reading is fine IF it goes to the earliest ancient greek and aramaic and hebrew manuscripts WITHOUT INCLUDING any that came afterwards.
Justinian:
"
My summary conclusion of protestant churches is that they are a pyramid scheme - The top gains money, the lower loses money, and the services can be empirically illustrated to amount to false promises. That and a clearly cult-like organization."
lol, those are called Televangelists - we protestants don't like them either.
Whats wrong with praying for the dead?
They're already dead.
Now did you want Roman Catholic Bible scripture on that or only common sense?
I posted the common sense part.
You just said praying for the dead was wrong without giving any explanation at all.
I already gave an explanation.
Please reread it.
It's in my 18:26:46 post.
i think it s unfair newb can post in caps and i cant 
the times are relative to the viewer, silly
"They're already dead" well duh, I don't suppose you could pray for the dead who aren't dead yet. WHY can't you pray for the dead? Elijah and Moses were dead when the disciples saw Jesus with them on the mount of olives, right? Lazurus was dead, right?
And Jesus rebuked His disciples for praying to them.
> ..Nemeara.. wrote:
> i think it s unfair newb can post in cpas and i cant
_________________________
IT IS?
Imperial Forum → Politics → WTH do Catholics have to do with Babylonian rites?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.