I see a dead horse.... Must find big stick and beat it!!!
Contrary to popular opinion - Christianity has never been about Popularity or Tollerance.
For example - Jesus says that "I am the way, the truth and the life... <b>NO ONE</b> gets to the father but through me"
that means that for all those who follow buddah, or mohommed - sorry - Jesus says your out.
As for ministering to criminals - Jesus never forgave their sins and then let them be a criminal still... No - a key to christianity is "repentance" - turning away from sin and NOT DOING IT ANYMORE!!!
Now - since we are all so eager to - apply that to Homosexuality - it is very easy for Jesus to love a Homosexual, forgive his/her sin - while at the same time Hating Homosexuality and expect that person (who was just forgiven) to give up that immoral lifestyle. Conversely - if the person continued living a homosexual lifestyle - what good was the forgiveness?
Here is what I don't understand - why should a Church have to change its doctrine in order to be "tollerant" - it is the same doctrine it has always had. Like has been said before - if you don't like the doctrine - don't be a member.
@Illuminex - for a non-christian, you sure put up the best defence of christian doctrine I have seen in a while around these parts. I apreciate your knowledge in these areas - and even though you reject it, you respect it. That is rare to find.
Ok first off, everyone says the would have liked to see the Nigerian Cardinal become pope and that the new pope is too conservative. If I remember right the Nigerian pope was more conservative than the old pope. I could be wrong, Im going off the word of a trusted friend who has kept up on the whole situation.
Now to the wonder that is Sky's and Illum's "discussion", if it can be called that.
Its funny how someone can call a group of people an elitist, tell them that their beliefs are wrong, then go on and tell them how to fix it. Its even more humorous when someone preaches tolerance, then goes about catagorizing a whole group of people and says that they are bad.
Im not catholic, Im Lutheran..... and I hardly practice it at that. I will not presume to be an expert like everyone else here (just because you went to school in a privete school does not make you an expert, but it gives you a better grounding then me). All my knowledge comes from priests and a couple of "zealots"(excuse my sarcasm).
From my everyday experience, most priests and catholics I have meet have thought homosexuality is wrong, but believe the lord will forgive. God does not hate his children, nor does the pope. The pope believes homosexuality is wrong, but he loves homosexuals all the same.
To say that all catholics are intollerant and hate, is an insult to a lot of my friends. Much like Illum views it as an insult to his mother, and is ready to defend her to the end. Now I know you can go quoting the bible to hell, and if you feel so inclined you can do so. Just try and remember that the bible does not make the faith alone.
ChurchMeatshield grunt-fodder // Has pre-ordered NS2Join Date: 2002-12-31Member: 11646Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 20 2005, 08:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 20 2005, 08:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I see a dead horse.... Must find big stick and beat it!!!
Contrary to popular opinion - Christianity has never been about Popularity or Tollerance.
For example - Jesus says that "I am the way, the truth and the life... <b>NO ONE</b> gets to the father but through me"
that means that for all those who follow buddah, or mohommed - sorry - Jesus says your out.
As for ministering to criminals - Jesus never forgave their sins and then let them be a criminal still... No - a key to christianity is "repentance" - turning away from sin and NOT DOING IT ANYMORE!!!
Now - since we are all so eager to - apply that to Homosexuality - it is very easy for Jesus to love a Homosexual, forgive his/her sin - while at the same time Hating Homosexuality and expect that person (who was just forgiven) to give up that immoral lifestyle. Conversely - if the person continued living a homosexual lifestyle - what good was the forgiveness?
Here is what I don't understand - why should a Church have to change its doctrine in order to be "tollerant" - it is the same doctrine it has always had. Like has been said before - if you don't like the doctrine - don't be a member.
@Illuminex - for a non-christian, you sure put up the best defence of christian doctrine I have seen in a while around these parts. I apreciate your knowledge in these areas - and even though you reject it, you respect it. That is rare to find. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't mind so much except that the Catholic Church (i.e the Pope) has tremendous POWER in this mortal world, and while I respect their right to have their own beliefs and tenets and what not, it scares the crap out of me what the Pope, with hsi enormous power might do to cram his beliefs down our throats, possibly in very unpleasant ways.
Yesd, believe it or not, everything has to change with the times...even the church. Popes of past have called for holy wars...Crusades to wipe out infidels and take back a holy place. That was accepted practice back then. Would most Christians agree to the killing of people of other religioons in this day and age? I think not. And I think even the church would admit that the world is ROUND by now, certainly, however much they might've hated having to contradict a literal interperetation of their religion.
Why don't the rest of us like intolerance? Because it usually leads to bad things happening. the Crusades of the past is just one example. If you're being intolerant, but you're not doing anything to the rest of us, then go right ahead! Otherwise, people will be fearful of what you might do.
Admin's note: Good-bye to CWAG (<i>again</i>) and illuminex. This forum is not the place to flaunt your egos, nor to antagonize your oponents. There are severel other members close to a restriction in here. If you want to participate, do so in a tolerable manner.
Just to know, do any of you here who say im christian/ lutheran etc actually go to church every sunday? Im a RC and i only go a few times a year. My motto i Love thy neighbour as you love yourself, if you try follow that, i am sure things will be A OK. Wether that be you being a good human being, or that meaning youl go to heaven...
I still say we need to give Pope Benedict a few 100 days before we see how Hardline he is, and se how he deals with things before wee can rip & tear, or applaud him.
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 20 2005, 11:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 20 2005, 11:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just to know, do any of you here who say im christian/ lutheran etc actually go to church every sunday? Im a RC and i only go a few times a year. My motto i Love thy neighbour as you love yourself, if you try follow that, i am sure things will be A OK. Wether that be you being a good human being, or that meaning youl go to heaven...
I still say we need to give Pope Benedict a few 100 days before we see how Hardline he is, and se how he deals with things before wee can rip & tear, or applaud him. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> every sunday...
To all the people claiming that I want to change the Catholic church, let me repeat myself. I don't care what you believe in your private life. I have no intention to start a movement to change the RCC, or any other religion for that matter. I may disagree with the Church's policies, but I am not advocating that the Church as a whole renounce what they believe.
What I want, and what this topic is about, is a Church that either doesn't affect the politics of the world around it, or a Church willing to actually compromise when it comes to issues that affect the entire world (not just the people of the Church). If I may quote myself: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that 1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or 2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, this is why this pope is, in my opinion, a bad selection. He WILL attempt to change or influence the policies of other countries (especially the USA, with these suddenly religious Republicans in control), and he will NOT consider policies tolerant of viewpoints outside of standard Church doctrine. That is all, and it is a fact - when you look at his record - that that is exactly how Benedict will act. That is precisely the opposite direction the Catholic church needed to go after John Paul's death. The previous pope reached out to other religions and cultures; this new pope has already in his career excommunicated a priest for holding the sacraments with a Protestant priest. You simply can't defend that. Likewise, you can't defend the Church when they try to impose their morality on other people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just to know, do any of you here who say im christian/ lutheran etc actually go to church every sunday? Im a RC and i only go a few times a year. My motto i Love thy neighbour as you love yourself, if you try follow that, i am sure things will be A OK. Wether that be you being a good human being, or that meaning youl go to heaven...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Damn straight, except I go to Church considerably more often than a few times a year. We have a good priest at my church.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's difficult to express how angry I am at this. There were a few truly holy people in that chapel (and this comes from an agnostic-leaning Protestant). Instead of one of them, they opted for the former chief of the Inquisition.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Nem0, I certainly understand your point. Ratzinger has definately taken a quite radical position in recent years. However, I would not judge him too soon.
He was the head of an organisation that was installed to maintain the integrity of the church. This is a dificult task and he surely had to make unpleasant descisions for the sake of internal politics. It is known that he did not like this responsibility and has asked numerous times to be relieved of this position.
In his youth, he was a very liberal political active person, and many old friend from those days have hope that he now will regain some of those qualities. His choice of name tells much of his intentions. Many of the popes that took the name of Benedictus were cosidered "popes of peace".
I would not mark him as hardliner before he has had a chance to proof himself.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 20 2005, 12:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 20 2005, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To all the people claiming that I want to change the Catholic church, let me repeat myself. I don't care what you believe in your private life. I have no intention to start a movement to change the RCC, or any other religion for that matter. I may disagree with the Church's policies, but I am not advocating that the Church as a whole renounce what they believe.
What I want, and what this topic is about, is a Church that either doesn't affect the politics of the world around it, or a Church willing to actually compromise when it comes to issues that affect the entire world (not just the people of the Church). If I may quote myself: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that 1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or 2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, this is why this pope is, in my opinion, a bad selection. He WILL attempt to change or influence the policies of other countries (especially the USA, with these suddenly religious Republicans in control), and he will NOT consider policies tolerant of viewpoints outside of standard Church doctrine. That is all, and it is a fact - when you look at his record - that that is exactly how Benedict will act. That is precisely the opposite direction the Catholic church needed to go after John Paul's death. The previous pope reached out to other religions and cultures; this new pope has already in his career excommunicated a priest for holding the sacraments with a Protestant priest. You simply can't defend that. Likewise, you can't defend the Church when they try to impose their morality on other people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just to know, do any of you here who say im christian/ lutheran etc actually go to church every sunday? Im a RC and i only go a few times a year. My motto i Love thy neighbour as you love yourself, if you try follow that, i am sure things will be A OK. Wether that be you being a good human being, or that meaning youl go to heaven...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Damn straight, except I go to Church considerably more often than a few times a year. We have a good priest at my church. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that 1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or 2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that doing those things is precicely the function of a pope! The pope is literally the vicar of Christ - he is Gods spokesperson.
Lets tackle issue 2 first. Now then, he is supposed to speak for God - specifically the God portrayed in the Bible. In order for him to ignore an issue like homosexuality - or claim that it is no longer a sin, then there has to be some evidence that the God of the Bible has changed from who he is, and the writings there in are no longer valid. He doesn't have to claim God agrees with him - he has has to claim that he agrees with God. As for determining what God says - Bible + 2000 years study = we know quite a lot about where God stands on these issues. 40 years of sexual revolution isn't going to change that.
As for issue 1 - you can't separate the belief out of the person - to do so denies the office of the pope. The pope, by definition, represents people - first to God, second to the nations. If the pope is supposedly everything argued above, then it is his duty to try to pursuade national opinion.
The same thing for you and I - we both vote our belief system. To ask us not to is to ask us to cease being who we are. In fact - by telling me (or anyone else) not to try to "create national laws based on our beliefs" you are in fact youself "creating national laws based on your belief".
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 20 2005, 01:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 20 2005, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 20 2005, 12:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 20 2005, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To all the people claiming that I want to change the Catholic church, let me repeat myself. I don't care what you believe in your private life. I have no intention to start a movement to change the RCC, or any other religion for that matter. I may disagree with the Church's policies, but I am not advocating that the Church as a whole renounce what they believe.
What I want, and what this topic is about, is a Church that either doesn't affect the politics of the world around it, or a Church willing to actually compromise when it comes to issues that affect the entire world (not just the people of the Church). If I may quote myself: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that 1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or 2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, this is why this pope is, in my opinion, a bad selection. He WILL attempt to change or influence the policies of other countries (especially the USA, with these suddenly religious Republicans in control), and he will NOT consider policies tolerant of viewpoints outside of standard Church doctrine. That is all, and it is a fact - when you look at his record - that that is exactly how Benedict will act. That is precisely the opposite direction the Catholic church needed to go after John Paul's death. The previous pope reached out to other religions and cultures; this new pope has already in his career excommunicated a priest for holding the sacraments with a Protestant priest. You simply can't defend that. Likewise, you can't defend the Church when they try to impose their morality on other people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just to know, do any of you here who say im christian/ lutheran etc actually go to church every sunday? Im a RC and i only go a few times a year. My motto i Love thy neighbour as you love yourself, if you try follow that, i am sure things will be A OK. Wether that be you being a good human being, or that meaning youl go to heaven...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Damn straight, except I go to Church considerably more often than a few times a year. We have a good priest at my church. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that 1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or 2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that doing those things is precicely the function of a pope! The pope is literally the vicar of Christ - he is Gods spokesperson.
Lets tackle issue 2 first. Now then, he is supposed to speak for God - specifically the God portrayed in the Bible. In order for him to ignore an issue like homosexuality - or claim that it is no longer a sin, then there has to be some evidence that the God of the Bible has changed from who he is, and the writings there in are no longer valid. He doesn't have to claim God agrees with him - he has has to claim that he agrees with God. As for determining what God says - Bible + 2000 years study = we know quite a lot about where God stands on these issues. 40 years of sexual revolution isn't going to change that.
As for issue 1 - you can't separate the belief out of the person - to do so denies the office of the pope. The pope, by definition, represents people - first to God, second to the nations. If the pope is supposedly everything argued above, then it is his duty to try to pursuade national opinion.
The same thing for you and I - we both vote our belief system. To ask us not to is to ask us to cease being who we are. In fact - by telling me (or anyone else) not to try to "create national laws based on our beliefs" you are in fact youself "creating national laws based on your belief". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know the pope is supposed to be our direct connection to God, but a lot of people don't believe that (yourself included), and almost as many would resent him preaching his views as absolute truths. As such, his word should NOT be taken into consideration when formulating national policy. Furthermore, everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt, because even the pope can't preach to every single situation, and blindly applying his quotes to everyday situations will often result in misinterpretations, and sometimes grave injustices.
The problem is, I suppose, more to do with governments like the current administration that use what the pope says as support for their own policies at home. The fact that the pope, and Christianity in general, looks down upon homosexuals should not be a factor when determining national policy, and I should NOT turn on CNN and be greeted by statements like "America is a Christian nation." That's just not right.
Oh, and a quick sidenote: point 2 wasn't aimed at the pope, it was aimed at his followers who claim to have just as much moral authority and truth behind them as he does. And as for not being able to separate faith from law, if you are the president you can use your faith as inspiration and guidance, but I object to using it as a <u>reason</u> for advocating certain policies.
However, as much as governments are to blame, the pope could definitely help the situation. But I hold few hopes that the new pope will help the situation at all. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The same thing for you and I - we both vote our belief system. To ask us not to is to ask us to cease being who we are. In fact - by telling me (or anyone else) not to try to "create national laws based on our beliefs" you are in fact youself "creating national laws based on your belief".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree with that, mostly because a law that, for instance, outlawed **** marriage only takes away rights. It does not bestoy rights upon other people; indeed, the only people it affects at all are the one group that it would hurt. The same thing for abortion laws: outlawing abortion only takes away rights. People who disagree with both issues would still be allowed to disagree and abstain from them should they be legalized. No one is going to force a woman to get an abortion, even if it is legalized. So my view is not legislating a belief system, it simply allows everyone to believe what they want to believe.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 20 2005, 01:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 20 2005, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem is that doing those things is precicely the function of a pope! The pope is literally the vicar of Christ - he is Gods spokesperson.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It all boils down to this here. In order for the Pope to change/modernize/allow something, he must find basis for that change in the bible or other source coming from God. Regardless of how liberal or modern a Pope is, he couldn't change the fact that he must back up that change with "God wants".
How well this new Pope does will be determined in how he is able to deal with the gap between RCC doctrine and the world's current cultural standards. And on many issues, that is a very large gap.
Diazo
Edit: <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I know the pope is supposed to be our direct connection to God, but a lot of people don't believe that (yourself included), and almost as many would resent him preaching his views as absolute truths. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the very reason even a liberal pope couldn't change the church's stance on homosexuality, or birth control, or whatever. If he does it without a clear message from God stating "God wants", then at the very least he would be looking at a fight from the more traditional (conservative?, hardline?) members of the church to make that change.
I don't want the Church to change its stance, I just don't want that stance to affect politics. That means no governments adopting it, and no promotion of the RCC doctrine by the pope towards governments. He can chastise governments for inhuman conduct and the like, he can preach to individuals, but directly influencing the policies of nations is a no-no.
<span style='color:white'>Read <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>this</a>. Pay special attention to items #2 and #6.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another interesting fact - he is pope 111 - which is the second to last according to certain prophecies... the next one being the anti-christ. He already fulfilled his prophecy (Gloria Olivia - glory of the olives) as Benedict means "of the olives" (many thought this pope would be a benedictine monk).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me to direct you to Matthew 24:36
"But of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven but my father only. [Jesus speaking]"
Rumors of Christ's return have been circulating since 70 A.D. [probably earlier]. They've all been wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 20 2005, 02:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 20 2005, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another interesting fact - he is pope 111 - which is the second to last according to certain prophecies... the next one being the anti-christ. He already fulfilled his prophecy (Gloria Olivia - glory of the olives) as Benedict means "of the olives" (many thought this pope would be a benedictine monk).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me to direct you to Matthew 24:36
"But of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven but my father only. [Jesus speaking]"
Rumors of Christ's return have been circulating since 70 A.D. [probably earlier]. They've all been wrong.
Allow me to direct <i> you </i> to the book of Revelation, chapter 15 onward is about the end of the world. (Prior chapters are about the second coming of "jesus")
(Note 1: Supposedly there is still an arguement who wrote what gospel first, but Matthew and Mark are the first two. Therefore, John's account is at a later date.)
(Note 2: put various figures in quotes for personal reasons, no offense.) :-)
Just incase no one is 100% famailar with the book of Revelation. :-) <!--QuoteBegin-biblegateway.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (biblegateway.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b> NIV(New International Version) </b> Revelation 15
1 I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues–last, because with them God's wrath is completed.
2 And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God
3 and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages.
4 Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”
5 After this I looked and in heaven the temple, that is, the tabernacle of the Testimony, was opened. 6 Out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues. They were dressed in clean, shining linen and wore golden sashes around their chests. 7 Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls filled with the wrath of God, who lives for ever and ever. 8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from his power, and no one could enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.
<b> Revelation 16 </b> 1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour out the seven bowls of God's wrath on the earth.” 2 The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. 3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died.
4 The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5 Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: “You are just in these judgments, you who are and who were, the Holy One, because you have so judged; 6 for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.” 7 And I heard the altar respond: “Yes, Lord God Almighty, true and just are your judgments.”
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony 11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.
12The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East.
13 Then I saw three evil[a] spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.
15 “Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed.”
16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
17 The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!” 18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. 19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. 21 From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit* I'm sorry I am off topic, but you can't state something that is contradicted in the very book you are quoting. Also edited the verse seperation, its much easier to read now. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 20 2005, 02:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 20 2005, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't want the Church to change its stance, I just don't want that stance to affect politics. That means no governments adopting it, and no promotion of the RCC doctrine by the pope towards governments. He can chastise governments for inhuman conduct and the like, he can preach to individuals, but directly influencing the policies of nations is a no-no. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oops. I could have been a bit clearer here. Reading through this thread, I got the impression that "if a more liberal pope was elected, the church could change" was going around, even though no one actually had said it. Which prompted my post, your post Sky just happened to be the one I quoted.
But yes, I agree 100% with you that the RCC should not affect politics. Unfortunatly, it does. It probably comes back to the fact that so many of our politicians are religious in one way or another, with a significant chunk of them being catholic, that even if the politicians try to leave religion out of the laws they make, religion still ends up influencing them.
Getting back to the new pope, he will hopefully recognize that many of the people/govements/etc. he will be dealing with do not share his opinions and he will not try to use his position as pope to convert them, but rather he use the influence of his position grants him to improve what he can and try to make this world a better place, without trying to make the world all catholic.
<!--QuoteBegin-Diazo+Apr 20 2005, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diazo @ Apr 20 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But yes, I agree 100% with you that the RCC should not affect politics. Unfortunatly, it does. It probably comes back to the fact that so many of our politicians are religious in one way or another, with a significant chunk of them being catholic, that even if the politicians try to leave religion out of the laws they make, religion still ends up influencing them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is completely inexplicable to me. Before GWB, was there any other president who referred to religion this much? When did the Republicans adopt Christianity's definition of morality as a main plank in their platform? Is it just his personal views on the presidency and his religion, and it'll all go away in 4 years, or is this how Republicans are going to be from now on? Yes, I just asked 3 questions in a row; does this even deserve its own topic? 4, dammit.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 20 2005, 04:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 20 2005, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Diazo+Apr 20 2005, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diazo @ Apr 20 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But yes, I agree 100% with you that the RCC should not affect politics. Unfortunatly, it does. It probably comes back to the fact that so many of our politicians are religious in one way or another, with a significant chunk of them being catholic, that even if the politicians try to leave religion out of the laws they make, religion still ends up influencing them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is completely inexplicable to me. Before GWB, was there any other president who referred to religion this much? When did the Republicans adopt Christianity's definition of morality as a main plank in their platform? Is it just his personal views on the presidency and his religion, and it'll all go away in 4 years, or is this how Republicans are going to be from now on? Yes, I just asked 3 questions in a row; does this even deserve its own topic? 4, dammit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sky.. create the topic, I think it deserves its own space. :-)
In answer to one of them, I do not recall any president referring to religion as much. Other then one of the founding fathers, and even he agreed government and relgion do not mix.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 20 2005, 08:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 20 2005, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do not recall any president referring to religion as much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Born the same year I was ( 1981 ), neither of us really has the experience to back up or refute such a statement. Lets see... We can discount Reagan... Unless you were ( are? ) some super genius prodigy type kid... So at the earliest there is Bush Sr. and then Clinton and now GWB.
According to Sky's profile, he has even less experience. Gotta take Bush Sr. off his slate... The first term of Clinton should go as well. It would be generous to leave the second term, but hey... I can be generous at times, even when it comes to a 9-13yr old that was interested and had a basic understanding of politics.
Still, its amazing how little history records about famous people. Concentrating instead on the important actions and then weaving that person around said actions. I have to wonder how much has been lost and so it is a good query... How religious were our past Presidents? Hrmmm... A good query indeed.
As to a politician referencing religion a lot... Big deal. That is what freedom of religion and free speach protect. You cannot expect an individual to keep that which helps him define his morals out of discussion. Whether it be the Pope or the President. With GWB, as long as he is following the law and a theocracy we do not become, he is free to reference his religion as a foundation for his beliefs and morals all he wants. As a matter of fact, more power to him. Contrary to what you believe, this is a Christian nation ( i.e. the majority are Christian... ~54% is an estimate ), so it should be no surprise that religion has an impact on our society and culture, which is reflected in our policies and laws.
This does not mean that there cannot be a separation of church and state, which is something I do believe in ( which is more than I can say about a religion ), but it also means, which I suppose is a bit of a paradox, that government and religion are intertwined. This is not limited to the good ole US of A though... It is an aspect of the vast majority of nations.
You've claimed others are elitist because they openly express their faith and their views which are shaped by that faith... The ironic thing is that that is hardly any different than what you are doing here. Looking down on others, not necessarily becuase they have a differing opinion on quite a few subjects as you, but more likely because you cannot seem to understand or do not like how their religion helps to form their world view.
Religion is a beautiful thing... It has been used for great good throughout history... Unfortunately, just like many other things, it has also been used for great evil. Religion is not infallible, but it is a great unifying force and should not be dismissed as irrelevant or anachronistic, whether it be at the local, national or global level.
The Pope has every right to preach to the followers of his religion and those followers, in many countries, have every right to express their views and run for public office should they so desire. Expecting any of them to not have their religion affect their opinions is comparable to me expecting you to pick a girlfriend and not let your attraction for that individual have any bearing on the decision.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 20 2005, 04:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 20 2005, 04:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 20 2005, 02:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 20 2005, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another interesting fact - he is pope 111 - which is the second to last according to certain prophecies... the next one being the anti-christ. He already fulfilled his prophecy (Gloria Olivia - glory of the olives) as Benedict means "of the olives" (many thought this pope would be a benedictine monk).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me to direct you to Matthew 24:36
"But of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven but my father only. [Jesus speaking]"
Rumors of Christ's return have been circulating since 70 A.D. [probably earlier]. They've all been wrong.
Allow me to direct <i> you </i> to the book of Revelation, chapter 15 onward is about the end of the world. (Prior chapters are about the second coming of "jesus")
(Note 1: Supposedly there is still an arguement who wrote what gospel first, but Matthew and Mark are the first two. Therefore, John's account is at a later date.)
(Note 2: put various figures in quotes for personal reasons, no offense.) :-)
Just incase no one is 100% famailar with the book of Revelation. :-) <!--QuoteBegin-biblegateway.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (biblegateway.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b> NIV(New International Version) </b> Revelation 15
1 I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues–last, because with them God's wrath is completed.
2 And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God
3 and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages.
4 Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”
5 After this I looked and in heaven the temple, that is, the tabernacle of the Testimony, was opened. 6 Out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues. They were dressed in clean, shining linen and wore golden sashes around their chests. 7 Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls filled with the wrath of God, who lives for ever and ever. 8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from his power, and no one could enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.
<b> Revelation 16 </b> 1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour out the seven bowls of God's wrath on the earth.” 2 The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. 3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died.
4 The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5 Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: “You are just in these judgments, you who are and who were, the Holy One, because you have so judged; 6 for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.” 7 And I heard the altar respond: “Yes, Lord God Almighty, true and just are your judgments.”
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony 11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.
12The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East.
13 Then I saw three evil[a] spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.
15 “Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed.”
16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
17 The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!” 18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. 19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. 21 From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit* I'm sorry I am off topic, but you can't state something that is contradicted in the very book you are quoting. Also edited the verse seperation, its much easier to read now. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How did I contradict myself?
No one knows the hour or day when all of Revelation will be fulfilled. John (who wrote it) didn't even know WHEN it would happen, he just knew what he saw.
Nevermind DarkAti.. if you don't see it I can't show it to you. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 22 2005, 04:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 22 2005, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nevermind DarkAti.. if you don't see it I can't show it to you. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK. Because it isn't there? <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm also interested in where the bible contradicted itself in the two listed passages. I don't see it and would like to hear where you see it at. PM is you are interested.
Ouch, this is now very hard to stay on topic as you have left this so open, Cyanide <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Unless there is an extremely obvious thing that I am missing, I can only guess:
a) That the angels participate in the final hours of this earth, and so this contradicts the part that states that they don't know when it will happen? That doesn't make sense though, as I interpret Jesus's statement as under conditions of time. Only God knows when this will happen, but nearing that time he would let the angels know. At the time of writing, the angels had no idea. That's how I interpret it.
b) "No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake." How would Matthew know this? This doesn't really prove a lot true but that line confuses me.
Or...well, I don't know. I'll have to read it again some other time. I have never read any of this before so it is new to me.
Comments
Contrary to popular opinion - Christianity has never been about Popularity or Tollerance.
For example - Jesus says that "I am the way, the truth and the life... <b>NO ONE</b> gets to the father but through me"
that means that for all those who follow buddah, or mohommed - sorry - Jesus says your out.
As for ministering to criminals - Jesus never forgave their sins and then let them be a criminal still... No - a key to christianity is "repentance" - turning away from sin and NOT DOING IT ANYMORE!!!
Now - since we are all so eager to - apply that to Homosexuality - it is very easy for Jesus to love a Homosexual, forgive his/her sin - while at the same time Hating Homosexuality and expect that person (who was just forgiven) to give up that immoral lifestyle. Conversely - if the person continued living a homosexual lifestyle - what good was the forgiveness?
Here is what I don't understand - why should a Church have to change its doctrine in order to be "tollerant" - it is the same doctrine it has always had. Like has been said before - if you don't like the doctrine - don't be a member.
@Illuminex - for a non-christian, you sure put up the best defence of christian doctrine I have seen in a while around these parts. I apreciate your knowledge in these areas - and even though you reject it, you respect it. That is rare to find.
Now to the wonder that is Sky's and Illum's "discussion", if it can be called that.
Its funny how someone can call a group of people an elitist, tell them that their beliefs are wrong, then go on and tell them how to fix it. Its even more humorous when someone preaches tolerance, then goes about catagorizing a whole group of people and says that they are bad.
Im not catholic, Im Lutheran..... and I hardly practice it at that. I will not presume to be an expert like everyone else here (just because you went to school in a privete school does not make you an expert, but it gives you a better grounding then me). All my knowledge comes from priests and a couple of "zealots"(excuse my sarcasm).
From my everyday experience, most priests and catholics I have meet have thought homosexuality is wrong, but believe the lord will forgive. God does not hate his children, nor does the pope. The pope believes homosexuality is wrong, but he loves homosexuals all the same.
To say that all catholics are intollerant and hate, is an insult to a lot of my friends. Much like Illum views it as an insult to his mother, and is ready to defend her to the end. Now I know you can go quoting the bible to hell, and if you feel so inclined you can do so. Just try and remember that the bible does not make the faith alone.
Contrary to popular opinion - Christianity has never been about Popularity or Tollerance.
For example - Jesus says that "I am the way, the truth and the life... <b>NO ONE</b> gets to the father but through me"
that means that for all those who follow buddah, or mohommed - sorry - Jesus says your out.
As for ministering to criminals - Jesus never forgave their sins and then let them be a criminal still... No - a key to christianity is "repentance" - turning away from sin and NOT DOING IT ANYMORE!!!
Now - since we are all so eager to - apply that to Homosexuality - it is very easy for Jesus to love a Homosexual, forgive his/her sin - while at the same time Hating Homosexuality and expect that person (who was just forgiven) to give up that immoral lifestyle. Conversely - if the person continued living a homosexual lifestyle - what good was the forgiveness?
Here is what I don't understand - why should a Church have to change its doctrine in order to be "tollerant" - it is the same doctrine it has always had. Like has been said before - if you don't like the doctrine - don't be a member.
@Illuminex - for a non-christian, you sure put up the best defence of christian doctrine I have seen in a while around these parts. I apreciate your knowledge in these areas - and even though you reject it, you respect it. That is rare to find. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't mind so much except that the Catholic Church (i.e the Pope) has tremendous POWER in this mortal world, and while I respect their right to have their own beliefs and tenets and what not, it scares the crap out of me what the Pope, with hsi enormous power might do to cram his beliefs down our throats, possibly in very unpleasant ways.
Yesd, believe it or not, everything has to change with the times...even the church. Popes of past have called for holy wars...Crusades to wipe out infidels and take back a holy place. That was accepted practice back then. Would most Christians agree to the killing of people of other religioons in this day and age? I think not. And I think even the church would admit that the world is ROUND by now, certainly, however much they might've hated having to contradict a literal interperetation of their religion.
Why don't the rest of us like intolerance? Because it usually leads to bad things happening. the Crusades of the past is just one example. If you're being intolerant, but you're not doing anything to the rest of us, then go right ahead! Otherwise, people will be fearful of what you might do.
I still say we need to give Pope Benedict a few 100 days before we see how Hardline he is, and se how he deals with things before wee can rip & tear, or applaud him.
I still say we need to give Pope Benedict a few 100 days before we see how Hardline he is, and se how he deals with things before wee can rip & tear, or applaud him. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
every sunday...
You can have spirituality and connection with God without being a part of organized religion.
What I want, and what this topic is about, is a Church that either doesn't affect the politics of the world around it, or a Church willing to actually compromise when it comes to issues that affect the entire world (not just the people of the Church). If I may quote myself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that
1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or
2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you
I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, this is why this pope is, in my opinion, a bad selection. He WILL attempt to change or influence the policies of other countries (especially the USA, with these suddenly religious Republicans in control), and he will NOT consider policies tolerant of viewpoints outside of standard Church doctrine. That is all, and it is a fact - when you look at his record - that that is exactly how Benedict will act. That is precisely the opposite direction the Catholic church needed to go after John Paul's death. The previous pope reached out to other religions and cultures; this new pope has already in his career excommunicated a priest for holding the sacraments with a Protestant priest. You simply can't defend that. Likewise, you can't defend the Church when they try to impose their morality on other people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just to know, do any of you here who say im christian/ lutheran etc actually go to church every sunday? Im a RC and i only go a few times a year. My motto i Love thy neighbour as you love yourself, if you try follow that, i am sure things will be A OK. Wether that be you being a good human being, or that meaning youl go to heaven...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn straight, except I go to Church considerably more often than a few times a year. We have a good priest at my church.
Well Nem0, I certainly understand your point. Ratzinger has definately taken a quite radical position in recent years. However, I would not judge him too soon.
He was the head of an organisation that was installed to maintain the integrity of the church. This is a dificult task and he surely had to make unpleasant descisions for the sake of internal politics. It is known that he did not like this responsibility and has asked numerous times to be relieved of this position.
In his youth, he was a very liberal political active person, and many old friend from those days have hope that he now will regain some of those qualities. His choice of name tells much of his intentions. Many of the popes that took the name of Benedictus were cosidered "popes of peace".
I would not mark him as hardliner before he has had a chance to proof himself.
What I want, and what this topic is about, is a Church that either doesn't affect the politics of the world around it, or a Church willing to actually compromise when it comes to issues that affect the entire world (not just the people of the Church). If I may quote myself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that
1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or
2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you
I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, this is why this pope is, in my opinion, a bad selection. He WILL attempt to change or influence the policies of other countries (especially the USA, with these suddenly religious Republicans in control), and he will NOT consider policies tolerant of viewpoints outside of standard Church doctrine. That is all, and it is a fact - when you look at his record - that that is exactly how Benedict will act. That is precisely the opposite direction the Catholic church needed to go after John Paul's death. The previous pope reached out to other religions and cultures; this new pope has already in his career excommunicated a priest for holding the sacraments with a Protestant priest. You simply can't defend that. Likewise, you can't defend the Church when they try to impose their morality on other people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just to know, do any of you here who say im christian/ lutheran etc actually go to church every sunday? Im a RC and i only go a few times a year. My motto i Love thy neighbour as you love yourself, if you try follow that, i am sure things will be A OK. Wether that be you being a good human being, or that meaning youl go to heaven...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn straight, except I go to Church considerably more often than a few times a year. We have a good priest at my church. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that
1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or
2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you
I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that doing those things is precicely the function of a pope! The pope is literally the vicar of Christ - he is Gods spokesperson.
Lets tackle issue 2 first. Now then, he is supposed to speak for God - specifically the God portrayed in the Bible. In order for him to ignore an issue like homosexuality - or claim that it is no longer a sin, then there has to be some evidence that the God of the Bible has changed from who he is, and the writings there in are no longer valid. He doesn't have to claim God agrees with him - he has has to claim that he agrees with God. As for determining what God says - Bible + 2000 years study = we know quite a lot about where God stands on these issues. 40 years of sexual revolution isn't going to change that.
As for issue 1 - you can't separate the belief out of the person - to do so denies the office of the pope. The pope, by definition, represents people - first to God, second to the nations. If the pope is supposedly everything argued above, then it is his duty to try to pursuade national opinion.
The same thing for you and I - we both vote our belief system. To ask us not to is to ask us to cease being who we are. In fact - by telling me (or anyone else) not to try to "create national laws based on our beliefs" you are in fact youself "creating national laws based on your belief".
What I want, and what this topic is about, is a Church that either doesn't affect the politics of the world around it, or a Church willing to actually compromise when it comes to issues that affect the entire world (not just the people of the Church). If I may quote myself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that
1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or
2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you
I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, this is why this pope is, in my opinion, a bad selection. He WILL attempt to change or influence the policies of other countries (especially the USA, with these suddenly religious Republicans in control), and he will NOT consider policies tolerant of viewpoints outside of standard Church doctrine. That is all, and it is a fact - when you look at his record - that that is exactly how Benedict will act. That is precisely the opposite direction the Catholic church needed to go after John Paul's death. The previous pope reached out to other religions and cultures; this new pope has already in his career excommunicated a priest for holding the sacraments with a Protestant priest. You simply can't defend that. Likewise, you can't defend the Church when they try to impose their morality on other people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just to know, do any of you here who say im christian/ lutheran etc actually go to church every sunday? Im a RC and i only go a few times a year. My motto i Love thy neighbour as you love yourself, if you try follow that, i am sure things will be A OK. Wether that be you being a good human being, or that meaning youl go to heaven...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn straight, except I go to Church considerably more often than a few times a year. We have a good priest at my church. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, even if God did hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them their [rights]. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that
1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or
2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you
I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that doing those things is precicely the function of a pope! The pope is literally the vicar of Christ - he is Gods spokesperson.
Lets tackle issue 2 first. Now then, he is supposed to speak for God - specifically the God portrayed in the Bible. In order for him to ignore an issue like homosexuality - or claim that it is no longer a sin, then there has to be some evidence that the God of the Bible has changed from who he is, and the writings there in are no longer valid. He doesn't have to claim God agrees with him - he has has to claim that he agrees with God. As for determining what God says - Bible + 2000 years study = we know quite a lot about where God stands on these issues. 40 years of sexual revolution isn't going to change that.
As for issue 1 - you can't separate the belief out of the person - to do so denies the office of the pope. The pope, by definition, represents people - first to God, second to the nations. If the pope is supposedly everything argued above, then it is his duty to try to pursuade national opinion.
The same thing for you and I - we both vote our belief system. To ask us not to is to ask us to cease being who we are. In fact - by telling me (or anyone else) not to try to "create national laws based on our beliefs" you are in fact youself "creating national laws based on your belief". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know the pope is supposed to be our direct connection to God, but a lot of people don't believe that (yourself included), and almost as many would resent him preaching his views as absolute truths. As such, his word should NOT be taken into consideration when formulating national policy. Furthermore, everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt, because even the pope can't preach to every single situation, and blindly applying his quotes to everyday situations will often result in misinterpretations, and sometimes grave injustices.
The problem is, I suppose, more to do with governments like the current administration that use what the pope says as support for their own policies at home. The fact that the pope, and Christianity in general, looks down upon homosexuals should not be a factor when determining national policy, and I should NOT turn on CNN and be greeted by statements like "America is a Christian nation." That's just not right.
Oh, and a quick sidenote: point 2 wasn't aimed at the pope, it was aimed at his followers who claim to have just as much moral authority and truth behind them as he does. And as for not being able to separate faith from law, if you are the president you can use your faith as inspiration and guidance, but I object to using it as a <u>reason</u> for advocating certain policies.
However, as much as governments are to blame, the pope could definitely help the situation. But I hold few hopes that the new pope will help the situation at all. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The same thing for you and I - we both vote our belief system. To ask us not to is to ask us to cease being who we are. In fact - by telling me (or anyone else) not to try to "create national laws based on our beliefs" you are in fact youself "creating national laws based on your belief".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree with that, mostly because a law that, for instance, outlawed **** marriage only takes away rights. It does not bestoy rights upon other people; indeed, the only people it affects at all are the one group that it would hurt. The same thing for abortion laws: outlawing abortion only takes away rights. People who disagree with both issues would still be allowed to disagree and abstain from them should they be legalized. No one is going to force a woman to get an abortion, even if it is legalized. So my view is not legislating a belief system, it simply allows everyone to believe what they want to believe.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It all boils down to this here. In order for the Pope to change/modernize/allow something, he must find basis for that change in the bible or other source coming from God. Regardless of how liberal or modern a Pope is, he couldn't change the fact that he must back up that change with "God wants".
How well this new Pope does will be determined in how he is able to deal with the gap between RCC doctrine and the world's current cultural standards. And on many issues, that is a very large gap.
Diazo
Edit:
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I know the pope is supposed to be our direct connection to God, but a lot of people don't believe that (yourself included), and almost as many would resent him preaching his views as absolute truths.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the very reason even a liberal pope couldn't change the church's stance on homosexuality, or birth control, or whatever. If he does it without a clear message from God stating "God wants", then at the very least he would be looking at a fight from the more traditional (conservative?, hardline?) members of the church to make that change.
Allow me to direct you to Matthew 24:36
"But of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven but my father only. [Jesus speaking]"
Rumors of Christ's return have been circulating since 70 A.D. [probably earlier]. They've all been wrong.
-----
Back on-topic-ish;
I'm not catholic... but... er... Godspeed. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
Allow me to direct you to Matthew 24:36
"But of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven but my father only. [Jesus speaking]"
Rumors of Christ's return have been circulating since 70 A.D. [probably earlier]. They've all been wrong.
-----
Back on-topic-ish;
I'm not catholic... but... er... Godspeed. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL, DarkAti, so... contradictory.
Allow me to direct <i> you </i> to the book of Revelation, chapter 15 onward is about the end of the world. (Prior chapters are about the second coming of "jesus")
(Note 1: Supposedly there is still an arguement who wrote what gospel first, but Matthew and Mark are the first two. Therefore, John's account is at a later date.)
(Note 2: put various figures in quotes for personal reasons, no offense.) :-)
Just incase no one is 100% famailar with the book of Revelation. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin-biblegateway.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (biblegateway.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b> NIV(New International Version) </b>
Revelation 15
1 I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues–last, because with them God's wrath is completed.
2 And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God
3 and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are your deeds,
Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways,
King of the ages.
4 Who will not fear you, O Lord,
and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come
and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”
5 After this I looked and in heaven the temple, that is, the tabernacle of the Testimony, was opened.
6 Out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues. They were dressed in clean, shining linen and wore golden sashes around their chests.
7 Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls filled with the wrath of God, who lives for ever and ever.
8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from his power, and no one could enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.
<b> Revelation 16 </b>
1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour out the seven bowls of God's wrath on the earth.”
2 The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image.
3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died.
4 The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood.
5 Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: “You are just in these judgments,
you who are and who were, the Holy One,
because you have so judged;
6 for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.”
7 And I heard the altar respond: “Yes, Lord God Almighty,
true and just are your judgments.”
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire.
9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony
11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.
12The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East.
13 Then I saw three evil[a] spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
14 They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.
15 “Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed.”
16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
17 The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!”
18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake.
19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.
20 Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found.
21 From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit* I'm sorry I am off topic, but you can't state something that is contradicted in the very book you are quoting. Also edited the verse seperation, its much easier to read now. :-)
Oops. I could have been a bit clearer here. Reading through this thread, I got the impression that "if a more liberal pope was elected, the church could change" was going around, even though no one actually had said it. Which prompted my post, your post Sky just happened to be the one I quoted.
But yes, I agree 100% with you that the RCC should not affect politics. Unfortunatly, it does. It probably comes back to the fact that so many of our politicians are religious in one way or another, with a significant chunk of them being catholic, that even if the politicians try to leave religion out of the laws they make, religion still ends up influencing them.
Getting back to the new pope, he will hopefully recognize that many of the people/govements/etc. he will be dealing with do not share his opinions and he will not try to use his position as pope to convert them, but rather he use the influence of his position grants him to improve what he can and try to make this world a better place, without trying to make the world all catholic.
Diazo
Which is completely inexplicable to me. Before GWB, was there any other president who referred to religion this much? When did the Republicans adopt Christianity's definition of morality as a main plank in their platform? Is it just his personal views on the presidency and his religion, and it'll all go away in 4 years, or is this how Republicans are going to be from now on? Yes, I just asked 3 questions in a row; does this even deserve its own topic? 4, dammit.
Which is completely inexplicable to me. Before GWB, was there any other president who referred to religion this much? When did the Republicans adopt Christianity's definition of morality as a main plank in their platform? Is it just his personal views on the presidency and his religion, and it'll all go away in 4 years, or is this how Republicans are going to be from now on? Yes, I just asked 3 questions in a row; does this even deserve its own topic? 4, dammit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sky.. create the topic, I think it deserves its own space. :-)
In answer to one of them, I do not recall any president referring to religion as much. Other then one of the founding fathers, and even he agreed government and relgion do not mix.
Born the same year I was ( 1981 ), neither of us really has the experience to back up or refute such a statement. Lets see... We can discount Reagan... Unless you were ( are? ) some super genius prodigy type kid... So at the earliest there is Bush Sr. and then Clinton and now GWB.
According to Sky's profile, he has even less experience. Gotta take Bush Sr. off his slate... The first term of Clinton should go as well. It would be generous to leave the second term, but hey... I can be generous at times, even when it comes to a 9-13yr old that was interested and had a basic understanding of politics.
Still, its amazing how little history records about famous people. Concentrating instead on the important actions and then weaving that person around said actions. I have to wonder how much has been lost and so it is a good query... How religious were our past Presidents? Hrmmm... A good query indeed.
As to a politician referencing religion a lot... Big deal. That is what freedom of religion and free speach protect. You cannot expect an individual to keep that which helps him define his morals out of discussion. Whether it be the Pope or the President. With GWB, as long as he is following the law and a theocracy we do not become, he is free to reference his religion as a foundation for his beliefs and morals all he wants. As a matter of fact, more power to him. Contrary to what you believe, this is a Christian nation ( i.e. the majority are Christian... ~54% is an estimate ), so it should be no surprise that religion has an impact on our society and culture, which is reflected in our policies and laws.
This does not mean that there cannot be a separation of church and state, which is something I do believe in ( which is more than I can say about a religion ), but it also means, which I suppose is a bit of a paradox, that government and religion are intertwined. This is not limited to the good ole US of A though... It is an aspect of the vast majority of nations.
You've claimed others are elitist because they openly express their faith and their views which are shaped by that faith... The ironic thing is that that is hardly any different than what you are doing here. Looking down on others, not necessarily becuase they have a differing opinion on quite a few subjects as you, but more likely because you cannot seem to understand or do not like how their religion helps to form their world view.
Religion is a beautiful thing... It has been used for great good throughout history... Unfortunately, just like many other things, it has also been used for great evil. Religion is not infallible, but it is a great unifying force and should not be dismissed as irrelevant or anachronistic, whether it be at the local, national or global level.
The Pope has every right to preach to the followers of his religion and those followers, in many countries, have every right to express their views and run for public office should they so desire. Expecting any of them to not have their religion affect their opinions is comparable to me expecting you to pick a girlfriend and not let your attraction for that individual have any bearing on the decision.
Allow me to direct you to Matthew 24:36
"But of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven but my father only. [Jesus speaking]"
Rumors of Christ's return have been circulating since 70 A.D. [probably earlier]. They've all been wrong.
-----
Back on-topic-ish;
I'm not catholic... but... er... Godspeed. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL, DarkAti, so... contradictory.
Allow me to direct <i> you </i> to the book of Revelation, chapter 15 onward is about the end of the world. (Prior chapters are about the second coming of "jesus")
(Note 1: Supposedly there is still an arguement who wrote what gospel first, but Matthew and Mark are the first two. Therefore, John's account is at a later date.)
(Note 2: put various figures in quotes for personal reasons, no offense.) :-)
Just incase no one is 100% famailar with the book of Revelation. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin-biblegateway.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (biblegateway.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b> NIV(New International Version) </b>
Revelation 15
1 I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues–last, because with them God's wrath is completed.
2 And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God
3 and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are your deeds,
Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways,
King of the ages.
4 Who will not fear you, O Lord,
and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come
and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”
5 After this I looked and in heaven the temple, that is, the tabernacle of the Testimony, was opened.
6 Out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues. They were dressed in clean, shining linen and wore golden sashes around their chests.
7 Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls filled with the wrath of God, who lives for ever and ever.
8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from his power, and no one could enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.
<b> Revelation 16 </b>
1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour out the seven bowls of God's wrath on the earth.”
2 The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image.
3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died.
4 The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood.
5 Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: “You are just in these judgments,
you who are and who were, the Holy One,
because you have so judged;
6 for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.”
7 And I heard the altar respond: “Yes, Lord God Almighty,
true and just are your judgments.”
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire.
9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony
11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.
12The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East.
13 Then I saw three evil[a] spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
14 They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.
15 “Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed.”
16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
17 The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!”
18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake.
19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.
20 Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found.
21 From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit* I'm sorry I am off topic, but you can't state something that is contradicted in the very book you are quoting. Also edited the verse seperation, its much easier to read now. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did I contradict myself?
No one knows the hour or day when all of Revelation will be fulfilled. John (who wrote it) didn't even know WHEN it would happen, he just knew what he saw.
~ DarkATi
OK. Because it isn't there? <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b><span style='font-size:23pt;line-height:100%'>?</span></b>
EDIT: If you'd like to contend, please, PM me, this is pretty off-topic.
~ DarkATi
Unless there is an extremely obvious thing that I am missing, I can only guess:
a) That the angels participate in the final hours of this earth, and so this contradicts the part that states that they don't know when it will happen? That doesn't make sense though, as I interpret Jesus's statement as under conditions of time. Only God knows when this will happen, but nearing that time he would let the angels know. At the time of writing, the angels had no idea. That's how I interpret it.
b) "No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake." How would Matthew know this? This doesn't really prove a lot true but that line confuses me.
Or...well, I don't know. I'll have to read it again some other time. I have never read any of this before so it is new to me.