Jump to content
Kasanova King

The Religion/Spirituality Thread

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@Oldest Goat,

@soon, asked me a question, to which I responded. Then Soon said this:

BH, Im tempted to Scripture test all these claims only because you have such a focus on their supposed roots in Scripture.  I will avoid that as much as possible though. Because I asked about your experience of fasting.

Im not sure how the "fully human" aspect of Jesus relates to the timeless God head.  'God made flesh' remained outside of time?  To me entering into the flesh is one and the same as entering into time.  The presence of the sun is what provides the conditions for creation to thrive.  Our orbits around the sun is time and time inevitably leads to the death of the flesh.  Its kinda the whole deal, no?

Thats a fascinating reasoning.  Helping Jesus think happy thoughts while he, in this reasoning; fully God, is tortured.  I dont understand why Jesus wouldn't think about his return and peace on Earth, oneness with God and Creation?  Not eating meat makes him happier?  Why didn't redeeming humanity make him happy, but living like vegetarians do year round does?

Then he said this:

The Catholic church did not begin in the 1st century community.

so I then provided facts to back up everything I said. 

But I get called the "catty" one? Or that I am being disrespectful. I'm just trying to correct misinformation here.


Listen. I do not hate you. I have no real interest in studying things like the Bible academically. I have no desire to micromanage you or anyone.

The few points I really take issue with and cannot tolerate are rather simple, but very important:
-All the pedophiles and people in the Vatican/church who systematically protect them and the utter hypocrisy of heralding such a corrupt church as a moral authority.
-Going overboard and thinking your faith is worthy of superseding logic and reason, which to your great discredit you have described as evil works of the devil.
-Believing things like being gay, masturbation, fucking out of wedlock etc etc as wrong and teaching that warped judgmental/hateful attitude to your kids and others.

Can't really think of anything else. If you solve those 3 points of issue then all the other stuff like how I think the Bible is mostly rubbish; I will live with and chalk up to just being my opinion.

As a sign of good faith, when I get around to reading the Bible I'll point out all the parts I consider good.

Edited by Oldest Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soon said:

yes

@soon,

Clearly we have a different definition of what Jesus was, that's why I asked the questions I asked. I was trying to gauge your beliefs, not dodge the questions. So here goes...

For starters we believe Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY man, all at once. We don't subscribe to the idea that once God became man, he abides by the same laws as the rest of us. For if he did, how could he have done so many miracles? So we don't dare to try and understand what God can and can not do, even as a man. So many of the questions you asked, I feel, can be answered there. 

As for fasting, it's not just about "helping Jesus think happy thoughts". It's about service, sacrifice, suffering, and obedience.  We do these things to please him. He gave up SO much for us, what's a little sacrifice for him? Besides Catholics still hold the OT laws as in place, unless Jesus specifically addressed them. Also Jesus himself DID place importance on fasting. 

Finally, Catholics place importance on suffering. Any earthly suffering we experience, if we offer them up to the Lord (by prayer) and accept them, they are pleasing to God. It doesn't matter how big or small the suffering is, could be a hurt toe. But by doing this, it sorta frees you from the burden of the suffering. Obviously the pain still exists, but the worry is gone. So I suppose fasting is related to this in some regards. By giving up things, we ARE making a sacrifice, we ARE suffering by going without certain pleasures, and by doing them for the Lord, it pleases him. 

I don't have time at the moment to get into more detail here (my phone is about to die). So hopefully these braid strokes will help you understand a bit better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@soon,

Clearly we have a different definition of what Jesus was, that's why I asked the questions I asked. I was trying to gauge your beliefs, not dodge the questions. So here goes...

For starters we believe Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY man, all at once. We don't subscribe to the idea that once God became man, he abides by the same laws as the rest of us. For if he did, how could he have done so many miracles? So we don't dare to try and understand what God can and can not do, even as a man. So many of the questions you asked, I feel, can be answered there. 

As for fasting, it's not just about "helping Jesus think happy thoughts". It's about service, sacrifice, suffering, and obedience.  We do these things to please him. He gave up SO much for us, what's a little sacrifice for him? Besides Catholics still hold the OT laws as in place, unless Jesus specifically addressed them. Also Jesus himself DID place importance on fasting. 

Finally, Catholics place importance on suffering. Any earthly suffering we experience, if we offer them up to the Lord (by prayer) and accept them, they are pleasing to God. It doesn't matter how big or small the suffering is, could be a hurt toe. But by doing this, it sorta frees you from the burden of the suffering. Obviously the pain still exists, but the worry is gone. So I suppose fasting is related to this in some regards. By giving up things, we ARE making a sacrifice, we ARE suffering by going without certain pleasures, and by doing them for the Lord, it pleases him. 

I don't have time at the moment to get into more detail here (my phone is about to die). So hopefully these braid strokes will help you understand a bit better. 

Yes, about 95% of the world believers believe in Christ as fully God and Fully man.  Fully man maters as much as fully God and does suggest a different manner of being God.  But Im starting to get the impression that you dont intend to actual address things Im saying, but rather you are here to teach us.

Why do you think your suffering makes Jesus pleased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I disagree that the early church was not the Catholic Church, albeit with certain qualifications. In fact many of the first seven ecumenical councils are acknowledged by the Protestant denominations, as is the Latin calendar and many of the earliest Saints. That does not predispose that the Catholic Church remained static after the Patriarchal Era had ended; it too also developed into something else, particularly during the 16th Reformation/Renaissance during which it became (what historians call) ''Tridentine Catholicism''. Consequentially historians prefer the term ''Western Christendom'' to describe the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. This is not just in order to acknowledge the changes that happened in Catholicism, but also to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Medieval Church; there was for example a greater de-centralised/regional character than under Tridentine Catholicism.  

If you look at the history of Christianity it is basically like a family tree with various schisms over the ages; each one of those schisms sees a breakaway branch from its root branch, but they crucially, as well as repudiating their reason for the schism and everything that would come after the schism, also gained an inheritance of everything that arrived before their own particular schism. 

christianity_branches.png

During that early period, before Ephesus, everybody was ''Catholic'' (Universal).

(In actual that that is not really true as that graph is simplified. There were the Hebraic Nazarenes who disagreed with Pauline Christianity, and who were destroyed when the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 AD. There were also the Gnostics who believed in this weird mystical Christianity involving ''emanations and aeons''. Continuous schism is a feature of Christianity!)

This info graphic has the Catholic church starting at the latest possible point in the time frame that Ive been saying.  And it doesnt indicate it starting in the Apostolic era.

So Id like to ask for clarification.  Given this info graphic, are you saying you're behind the idea that because the early church was seen as universal (with out sects) to mean that the Roman Catholic Church has always been? Just because they adopted the word Universal?  

It was the official Church of the Empire.  Thats where words like Universal have meaning.  Also it is a sect - and has paganism with in it for one - which would mean it could not exist in a pre-sectarian, universal Christian world.  

Then theres the definition of Orthodox.  Orthodox meaning "true" "right" "traditional" "original" "ordinary or usual type; normal"

To me, and many others, it looks like those two hyper institutionalized sects went head to head finding powerful and authoritarian names when they came into being through newly emerging definitions at the ecumenical councils.  Because by defining their identity from one another, they in a sense lost half their congregation. 

 

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, soon said:

This info graphic has the Catholic church starting at the latest possible point in the time frame that Ive been saying.  And it doesnt indicate it starting in the Apostolic era.

So Id like to ask for clarification.  Given this info graphic, are you saying you're behind the idea that because the early church was seen as universal (with out sects) to mean that the Roman Catholic Church has always been? Just because they adopted the word Universal?  

It was the official Church of the Empire.  Thats where words like Universal have meaning.  Also it is a sect - and has paganism with in it for one - which would mean it could not exist in a pre-sectarian, universal Christian world.  

Then theres the definition of Orthodox.  Orthodox meaning "true" "right" "traditional" "original" "ordinary or usual type; normal"

To me, and many others, it looks like those two hyper institutionalized sects went head to head finding powerful and authoritarian names when they came into being through newly emerging definitions at the ecumenical councils.  Because by defining their identity from one another, they in a sense lost half their congregation. 

 

Well if you're Catholic you believe that it all begins with St Peter and ''rock of my church'' statement so we are dealing with something very early indeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well if you're Catholic you believe that it all begins with St Peter and ''rock of my church'' statement so we are dealing with something very early indeed. 

Catholics believing something internally doesn't really mean anything though.  I don't understand why you posted an info graphic that doesnt support your words?

 

Edited by soon
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soon said:

Catholics believing something internally doesn't really mean anything though.  I don't understand why you posted an info graphic that doesnt support your words?

Catholics believe he was the first Bishop of Rome, and considering he was an apostle and that he died c. 68 AD, we are early indeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(unrelated, stand alone post)

I love this rendition of this traditional song.  Theres varied lyrics.  This one includes this couplet, which i find powerful

"oh come clear wisdom, come with all you bring/ we see you now disguised as everything"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Catholics believe he was the first Bishop of Rome, and considering he was an apostle and that he died c. 68 AD, we are early indeed. 

"we" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, soon said:

"we" ?

How older can you possibly get than an apostle, i.e. a disciple of Jesus, being that church's first bishop?

I do not believe this as I'm not Catholic, nor in fact religious, but to deny the antiquity of the Catholic church is simply historical incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

How older can you possibly get than an apostle, i.e. a disciple of Jesus, being that church's first bishop?

I do not believe this as I'm not Catholic, nor in fact religious, but to deny the antiquity of the Catholic church is simply historical incorrect.

No one denies that Christianity began with Christ.  

Your info graphic correctly demonstrates the facts of the birth of the Roman Catholic Church.  I would have been more giving ad let it be pope leo, but many sources only have a firm institution later as indicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soon said:

No one denies that Christianity began with Christ.  

Your info graphic correctly demonstrates the facts of the birth of the Roman Catholic Church.  I would have been more giving ad let it be pope leo, but many sources only have a firm institution later as indicated.

Catholics would trace their church back to St Peter. This is irrefutable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ephesians 6:13-17 

13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. 15 As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. 16 With all of these,[b] take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

 

gDYNC0jl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2018 at 6:27 PM, soon said:

Ephesians 6:13-17 

13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. 15 As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. 16 With all of these,[b] take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

 

gDYNC0jl.jpg

Like I said, the willy of God man, its all about the willy!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Speaking of which, apparently the Vatican has Jesus's foreskin (Holy Prepuce) in its reliquary collection! 

Sorry, come again? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Sorry, come again? :lol:

It is true - well they claim it is his. It was in the possession of Charlemagne the Great who probably received it from Byzantium; Charlemagne then passed it on to Pope Leo III in 800 AD. It was the object of veneration at a pilgrimage centre for awhile. Now it is in the vaults. It was still in the Vatican's possession when an inventory was compiled in 1905, and presumably is still in their possession today.

Relics being relics, the situation is complicated by the fact that there were a bunch of rival claimant ''Holy Foreskins'' during the Middle Ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is true - well they claim it is his. It was in the possession of Charlemagne the Great who probably received it from Byzantium; Charlemagne then passed it on to Pope Leo III in 800 AD. It was the object of veneration at a pilgrimage centre for awhile. Now it is in the vaults. It was still in the Vatican's possession when an inventory was compiled in 1905, and presumably is still in their possession today.

Relics being relics, the situation is complicated by the fact that there were a bunch of rival claimant ''Holy Foreskins'' during the Middle Ages.

Yeah but...it'd go manky surely, wouldn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Yeah but...it'd go manky surely, wouldn't it? 

I have no idea how the procedure of maintaining one works. Presumably it is dried out. I wouldn't care to speculate!

It is probably not even his. It is probably some random. If we acknowledge the relics in the Catholic Church's possession, John the Baptist had four heads, and Jesus was nailed to the cross with 40 nails!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have no idea how the procedure of maintaining one works. Presumably it is dried out. I wouldn't care to speculate!

It is probably not even his. It is probably some random. If we acknowledge the relics in the Catholic Church's possession, John the Baptist had four heads, and Jesus was nailed to the cross with 40 nails!!

IF it is his, and I say IF, then I would wager it is incorrupable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Physical evidence that the Church goes all the way back to the peter :lol:

- The Fraction of the Christ :lol:

- "Kiss the ring"

tT3ZNsvh.jpg

:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have no idea how the procedure of maintaining one works. Presumably it is dried out. I wouldn't care to speculate!

It is probably not even his. It is probably some random. If we acknowledge the relics in the Catholic Church's possession, John the Baptist had four heads, and Jesus was nailed to the cross with 40 nails!!

If he was just some carpenters son when he was born then why would anyone know to hang onto it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×