Okay, here goes.

1. Man and Woman are created.;)
2. Woman chose to disobey God and thus committed the first sin.:eek:
3. Because of her, the rest of us have to pay.:(
4. Animals had to be sacrificed in the OT to earn acceptance from God.:(
5. In the NT, Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. (Hey, I wasn't even born yet! ) The deal was, if you believe that Jesus died for your sake as a way to pay for your sins, THEN I (GOD) will accept you into my kingdom.:cool:

Why torture Jesus that way? Looks like a source as powerful as God could come up with a better plan wouldn't you think? As a parent, you don't punish child A when child B disobeyed do you. That would just be all kinds of wrong:mad:

My love for my children is unconditional and I would never ever turn them away. And I especially would never send them somewhere to be tortured! (Hell) NEVER, no matter what. They could have disobeyed me, not accepted my sacrifice made for them, or even cursed me.
Still, I'd never turn my back on them. In MY opinion, neither would God. This story just does not add up.

Its not a condition. It's a respect issue. It's a conscious choice to say I choose You God and promise to do all that You ask of me. Just as if you were to tell your children... You are not allowed to do something bad for you, if you choose to do this, you won't be allowed in my home where you can hurt your siblings. I still love you but I can't allow you to influence others.

Its not a condition. Its a respect issue. Its a conscious choice to say I choose You God and promise to do all that You ask of me. Just as if you were to tell your children... You are not allowed to do something bad for you, if you choose to do this, you won't be allowed in my home where you can hurt your siblings. I still love you but I can't allow you to influence others.

Are you saying that if a non believer went to heaven, he/she could hurt the other people there and be a bad influence to them?

AND if for some unthinkable reason,my child chose not to accept my conditions, and I would not let them into my home, it would end right there. I would not send them to a place where they would be tortured and burned for eternity.

Thanks for trying but it still does not add up.

OK, look at in the simplest terms I can come up with.
If you were offered a free new car. the only condition being that you were responsible to keep it washed every week, would you take it? Of course you would. Now if you chose to ignore the cleanliness stipulation and the person who gave it to you took it back. Would that be the givers fault? Of course not. It is your fault. God has offered a free gift of salvation. The only stipulation is that you must follow his teachings and learn to live your life according to his wishes and teachings. It is your choice to follow the rules or not. That is what free will is.

450donn,
Very good post.
Even though God may not take a person into His heaven where everythin must be perfect and pure He still loves the children who are not there.
God's love an mercy are perfect but so is His justice.
All of God's attributes are perfect or He is not God.
AND...
All being perfect they must be in balance with each other.
If they are not them perfection is lost.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I understand all of your analogies. I get that!

Even though God may not take a person into His heaven where everythin must be perfect and pure He still loves the children who are not there. From arcura's post.

What does it matter if he still loves the people who are in hell? How does that help?

Imagine a person that has led an exemplary nearly flawless life. Did all the right things because that's just who he is. The only thing is, he is jewish. Now, because he does not believe Jesus is the messiah, he is going to hell. That's what you are saying to me.

Answer the hard questions people and stop talking about just the pretty parts.
Another example - you have given your child a choice to follow your rules or not. IF they do, then you welcome them home. (Heaven)
If they don't, you will not allow them into your home.
In fact, not only can you not come home but I am going to send you to an awful place where you will be tortured and burned forever. Remember I still love you though.

Face it, this is the ugly truth you keep avoiding.

Would any of you present this ultimatum to your child? Unless you tell me no, I will just have to assume that you would.

You don't have a problem with God doing it.
Everything you describe is black or white. There is no grey area.

The issue is God is love, but he is also just, he is also one that demands his rules be followed.

He has set the rules, you may not like them, I may not like them, to you they may not be fair, but God set them up to be this way.

He gave mankind a way to gain forgiveness one that requires nothing but love and commitment. No work or act just love and acceptance of Christ. What greater love is there than that.

God does not in fact doom anyone to hell, man dooms hisself by refusal to accept Christ. The choice of life or death is mans to make.

And there is no flawless life, all men are sinners and must repent and accept Christ to be saved, There is no "third" choice no back door.

And Jesus was born Jewish, as was most of the early church, so when the words were said, that no one is good enough, the jews were included in that comment too.

you have given your child a choice to follow your rules or not. IF they do, then you welcome them home. (Heaven)
If they don't, you will not allow them into your home.
But that's not the Gospel. There's no issue about following rules in order to get into heaven.

Just my point of view:


As a parent, I would push my child out of the way of an oncoming car that is sure to kill the child. I would rather that I get killled, then my child.

God sees that sin as that oncoming car and death, an eternity away from God [ hell ], is inevitable.

God knows there is nothing that we can do to get away from that car or survive.

God knows that the only way for his child [ we sinners ] to survive or escape is if HE, in the person of Jesus Christ, takes the punishment for our sins [ being hit by a car ], as painful as it is. God knows that HE can take the hit [ death ] and survive [ resurrection ]. By that act; death and sin are conquered.

This is a merciful and loving God, because HE sacrificed, that we sinners not get the just punishment that we deserve.

It is up to us whether we accept that gift, that grace, to trust in God, and to be with God for all eternity.

If a person, sadly, makes the choice not to believe in God or accept His mercy... then that is their choice.







"Imagine a person that has led an exemplary nearly flawless life. "






That is the thing, you don't have to be perfect or flawless or follow every rule, every commandment, every second of your life. God knows that it is impossible for us to live like that.

Read the Gospels, who does Jesus talk to - the flawed, the sinners [ The samaritan woman, the thief on the cross, the women caught in adultery, the tax collectors, the demon possessed, the lepers etc. ]
Who did Jesus rail against? The pharisees, [ legalists ] those that thought that by following the rules better than most that they were better; they looked down upon others as sinners.


Now the God that I believe in, knows I am a sinner and weak, and He forgives and loves me just the same. [ parable of the prodigal son ].


A cruel and merciless god, would not have sacrificed himself for me, for sinners. That god would have millions of rules that we have to folow - other wise you get fried. This a god that would not intervene with a car coming to kill us.







G&P

cozyk,
First of all please remember that that God IS perfect in all His aspects so there MUST be a balance with them all including love and justice.
Justice demands punishment if you are evil.
If you are purposely evil you are rejecting God, then in the end He rejects you unless you have reformed are sorry for your sins and confessed your sins.
About the Jew you mentioned, there are theologians who claim that there is a separate salvation for Jews because they are God's first born and chosen people. God chose to have the Messiah born a Jew and the bible says that the Jewish people will all come to accept Jesus as their Messiah. That may happen to those who are in Purgatory, but I do not know.
Now please get this, The Catholic Church teaches that the king of peace, love and mercy is Jesus Christ who will be the final Judge of who goes where so it is possible that the person with a near flawless life may be saved.
Also Purgatory is the place where a person's impurities (sinful nature) is purged so that they can be pure and enter heaven.
I know that most Protestant do not believe in Purgatory even though the bible has several passages that indicates a place like Purgatory exists.
I'm very happy that God has provided such a place where more sinful people can pass through to salvation.
At every Mass world wide the Catholic Church prays for the salvation of all those who are in friendship with Jesus.
If a person is trying to live a good and decent life even though they do not know about Jesus they can be considered to be in friendship with Jesus because of their life style, effort and intent.
I believe that.
In fact I have often prayed that all souls will eventually make it to heaven for I do think that an eternity of anguish in punishment for a sinful life of less than 150 years is a bit excessive.
I also pray that God's perfect and infinite will will be done.
If you have prayed the Lord's pray you have asked that God's will be done.
I like you because you show yourself to be a person of love and mercy.
We (the world) need everyone to be that way. It would be the end of wars, terrorists, rapists, murderers, and all the other terrible and nasty things people do to each other.
But that is NOT the way the world is and I fear it will stay that way till the return of Christ the King and judge.
So far we Christians have failed in converting everyone to the love and salvation of God through Jesus Christ.
There are over 2 billion Christians, but 4 billion are not.
There's a lot of work to be done.
Pope John Paul II (often now called John Paul The Great) asked all Catholics to be more evangelical and in fact urged all Christians to be so.
I hope that we all are working to help save more souls.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The answer to your questions is a tough-love answer.

Anyone who has sin can't get into "heaven" (be with perfect God for eternity) as He intended when He created the first persons.

It is clear that ALL people have sin because they are not perfectly righteous as God is.

Therefore ALL people are going to hell.

Unless their sin is removed. Sin and its consequences is what Jesus "saved" us from. It's a gift for anyone who will receive it by faith.

Ro 3:21-25
21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.
NIV

Ro 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
NIV

1 Jn 3:4-5

4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.
NIV

Inthebox,
I like you post.
Particularly the example of saving a child from death via the on coming car.
I'm going to remember that to use if an opportunity to use it arrises.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

If you are purposely evil you are rejecting God,

By your way of thinking would the inverse be true? If someone is rejecting God would they be evil?

Hypothetical question: Let's say that a group/tribe of people were born on an island totally cut-off from the modern world. They have no knowledge of the Christian Church, Jesus Christ or God. Having no knowledge they obviously cannot follow the word of God, does this make them evil? Does this mean that they will be sent to hell?

MarkwithaK's,
Many Christians think that those island people you mentioned will go to hell.
I don't and the Catholic Church does not.
I believe that they may be saved.
Jesus is the judge of that.
I think that anyone who say that so and so IS going to hell should not do so because they do not know for certain how Jesus will judge a person on that judgment day.
God knows everything about everyone including what is in their history, hearts, souls and minds.
No human being knows all of that about a person.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I think that anyone who say that so and so IS going to hell should not do so because they do not know for certain how Jesus will judge a person on that judgment day.


Then how can any religion say that any one person walking this Earth is doomed to hell or will be admitted into Heaven despite what their sins are?

Is murder acceptable if it is committed for 'the right reasons'? What about the Crusades?

I know that one of the Ten Commandments says to 'Honor thy Father'. Well my father is a worthless piece of scum, does that damn me to hell even though I may be a good person otherwise?

cozyk
It has nothing to do with punishing child A when child B dissobeys!
Jesus is God.He is our father because His name is Everlasting Father Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
So it is clear that God Himself suffered for us!
You ask... Imagine a person that has led an exemplary nearly flawless life. Did all the right things because that's just who he is. The only thing is, he is jewish. Now, because he does not believe Jesus is the messiah, he is going to hell. That's what you are saying to me.?

Romans 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

You also write... Another example - you have given your child a choice to follow your rules or not. IF they do, then you welcome them home. (Heaven)
If they don't, you will not allow them into your home.
In fact, not only can you not come home but I am going to send you to an awful place where you will be tortured and burned forever. Remember I still love you though.

It is not where God sends us , but it is where we choose to be.
If I live my life following my Father's advice on how to live my life to be safe,then I am with God my Father and God my Father is with me. If I don't then I am not with God my Father and God my Father is not with me .Hell is simply the absence of God and it is my choise to decide if I want to be with Him or not!

I have a question for you...
What has God done to you that you false accuse Him so hard for things that He is not to blame?
Do you think you have more wisdom than Him?Do you think your righteousness is better than His?
Is your love greater than His?
Now you answear the hard questions!

MarkwithaK
You wrote... I know that one of the Ten Commandments says to 'Honor thy Father'. Well my father is a worthless piece of scum, does that damn me to hell even though I may be a good person otherwise?

Your father may be the way you describe him to be.If so it is not your job to point the finger out to him and shout GUILTY !Be very sure that at the very same time you do that , someone else's finger is pointed out to you shouting GUILTY!
If your father is guilty of something , don't expose him because the same thing will happen to you.Cover his weakness and I don't mean lie about it but let's say you have cut yourself and you are bleeding.Don't go around showing everybody the blood but cover the wound and heal it!

Unfortunately, most of this discussion is moot. People argue about it all the time as if understanding THIS somehow takes precedence over anything, and it doesn't.

God's teaching, His lifestyle demands, couldn't be more simple:

1) Love God (or put in modern terms, stop thinking WE are the center of the universe and anything is OK, it's not, there is a higher responsibility and authority, even if we think we're in charge.)

2) Love Others as you love yourself (This includes respecting the rights of others to NOT do things our way.)

3) In all situations, whatever the issue, whatever the debate or confusion, resort to rules #1 and #2 above and you'll be in God's will.

As humans, like it or not, we have a humanistic and self-based concept of right and wrong. God wants us to have a selfless and Godly sense of right and wrong.

Most of us simply aren't up to the task. And instead of admitting that, or staying focused on FIXING that, we stray off into debates like this one to pass the time. We create these little "what if" stories just further the argument. It's odd, actually.

I completely understand this debate, both sides. I've argued both. And during the whole debate, not a single thing was resolved, no one was clothed or fed or healed or pacified... nothing.

Cozy, you're asking if God's love is conditional. That's easy, there is no debate... No, it is not conditional. But prefacing this debate with that is just a red herring. This isn't about conditionality, it's about freedom of the soul.

So, if you're a free soul, and some person is striving to save you from the oncoming vehicle... guess what? You can still choose to let yourself get hit. You get to know what the right thing is and still NOT do it.

Look around this forum, most of the people here are looking for help with the cars they've stepped in front of (metaphorically speaking).

For me, I state it simply - if it respects the laws of nature, if it elevates mankind above my personal needs, if it helps me help others... then it's good and Godly and blessings will flow in my life for doing THOSE things.

I can't state that is true of debates like this one. It blesses no one, it divides people, and if there's anything Satan wants (or whatever evil you can believe in), he wants people who could be out doing GOOD locked in a room somewhere debating something irrelevant.

Let's not get roped in by it.

About the Jew you mentioned, there are theologians who claim that there is a separate salvation for Jews because they are God’s first born and chosen people. God chose to have the Messiah born a Jew and the bible says that the Jewish people will all come to accept Jesus as their Messiah. That may happen to those who are in Purgatory, but I do not know.
I guess that's something. It's been several thousands of years and the jews have not changed their mind. Does that mean there are millions of jewish souls hanging out in purgatory?


.Now please get this, The Catholic Church teaches that the king of peace, love and mercy is Jesus Christ who will be the final Judge of who goes where so it is possible that the person with a near flawless life may be saved.
Thank goodness for that. See, I'm not worried about myself. God and I are pretty tight. I worry about others that have lived a godley life in spite of either not believing in God or that Jesus was more than just a great example. I believe Jesus was sent to show us how it's done. That is, live a godly life.


Also Purgatory is the place where a person’s impurities (sinful nature) is purged so that they can be pure and enter heaven.
I know that most Protestant do not believe in Purgatory even though the bible has several passages that indicates a place like Purgatory exists.
This is what I mean when I say people take from the bible what they want. So how definitive can it be?

I'm very happy that God has provided such a place where more sinful people can pass through to salvation.
Because you are a kind hearted man. I can tell.

At every Mass world wide the Catholic Church prays for the salvation of all those who are in friendship with Jesus.
If a person is trying to live a good and decent life even though they do not know about Jesus they can be considered to be in friendship with Jesus because of their life style, effort and intent.
I believe that.
That's more like it.

In fact I have often prayed that all souls will eventually make it to heaven for I do think that an eternity of anguish in punishment for a sinful life of less than 150 years is a bit excessive.
That is exactly my point.

I also pray that God's perfect and infinite will will be done.
If you have prayed the Lord's pray you have asked that God's will be done.
I like you because you show yourself to be a person of love and mercy.
Thank you, Lord knows I try.

But that's not the Gospel. There's no issue about following rules in order to get into heaven.

What about the ONE rule that is most important according to Christians.
You can only enter the kingdom of Heaven through Jesus.
I believe in Jesus. I believe there is a good chance that he "died for our sins" even though I still think God could have come up with a better plan.
You keep missing my point. According to Christians, even if you spent your time on this earth doing good works, but you just believed Jesus was a good example, not the son of God, you go to hell. I don't believe this and I don't understand how any rational thinking person would think hell was meant for these people.

cozyk
Thanks.
I agree with LBeaucare mostly except for his statement about debates such as this one.
I find them to be very beneficial in several ways.
I don't know about others, but I'm old, with a bad heart and legs so I can not be out and around helping people as I once did.
But I can be here on the computer trying to be of help for others regardless of what LBeaucare believes or says about being here.
I think others are here for their own reasons and I do not know what they are.
Neither does LBeaucare .
Peace and kindness,
Fred

What about the ONE rule that is most important according to Christians. You can only enter the kingdom of Heaven through Jesus.

You are lumping all Christians together and dumping them into the same bucket. Only the conservative/fundamentalist Christians hold that belief with no wiggle room allowed.

From Arcura
God knows everything about everyone including what is in their history, hearts, souls and minds.

Now, THAT is what I've been waiting for.

WonderGirl,
Yes Jesus is the only way to heaven BUT he is the judge, no one else is.
That is the difference between dennominations
Some think that they can judge even themselves by saying "I am saved".
Only Jesus can and will determine that, not anyone else so the bible tells us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Jesus is God.He is our father because His name is Everlasting Father Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
[COLOR="Blue"

You ask... Imagine a person that has led an exemplary nearly flawless life. Did all the right things because that's just who he is. The only thing is, he is jewish. Now, because he does not believe Jesus is the messiah, he is going to hell. That's what you are saying to me.?

Romans 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: Huh???

11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; What???

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
I THINK i get this. People that are good just because it's the right thing to do, not because it was told to them?

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Scripture is written in such circles that it takes so much effort to figure out what is being said. :confused:

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.:confused:

You also write... Another example - you have given your child a choice to follow your rules or not. IF they do, then you welcome them home. (Heaven)
If they don't, you will not allow them into your home.
In fact, not only can you not come home but I am going to send you to an awful place where you will be tortured and burned forever. Remember I still love you though.

It is not where God sends us , but it is where we choose to be.
Pure semantics.

Hell is simply the absence of God and it is my choise to decide if I want to be with Him or not!
That's more like it. I've been trying to say that the literal description of hell that many christians believe in is a fire-ey inferno.
That is why you have to be careful spewing out literal interpretations. I spent much of my childhood in anguish thinking that my dead grandfather had been tossed into this inferno. The pain of the burning never stopped becase he couldn't eventually die and the agony would stop. He was feeling it every minute, every day, for eternity.COLOR]

I have a question for you...
What has God done to you that you false accuse Him so hard for things that He is not to blame?
I don't blame God. I blame the christian background that left me living in fear and worry for people who were not like we were.

Do you think you have more wisdom than Him?Do you think your righteousness is better than His?
Heck no. But I do have a few questions for him when I get there. I also don't think he is angry that I question, I think he may be proud.


Is your love greater than His?
Now you answear the hard questions![/QUOTE]
I'd say he loves a lot more people than I do for sure.
Have I answered your hard questions? If not, let me have it.

cozyk
Thanks.
I agree with LBeaucare mostly except for his statement about debates such as this one.
I find them to be very beneficial in several ways.
I don't know about others, but I'm old, with a bad heart and legs so I can not be out and around helping people as I once did.
But I can be here on the computer trying to be of help for others regardless of what LBeaucare believes or says about being here.
I think others are here for their own reasons and I do not know what they are.
Neither does LBeaucare .
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, just call me JB... hehe.

I apologize if I managed to push the "doesn't matter" concept too hard in my post because it wasn't the main point.

Also, the image of people locked away debating things was, as you've pointed, full of exceptions. Forgive my short-sightedness.

I spend a lot of time in the relationships forums offering assistance and counsel, so I do exactly as you suggest myself, and you're right... it does help others.

My only issue is with the adversarial tone debates like this can take, and I'm mostly worried the topic itself is used in people's minds to discount the concept of pursuing Godly values... all because they can find fault with the other "believers" and how they pursue those beliefs.

That's my main point. It is a common debate tactic to find a fault (or perceived fault) with someone and offer it as a means to discount the entire person or their whole point of view. Very common, legal practices are founded on this ability. Ugh.

That's why I think rule #3 in my original post has to be our abiding principle... simply saying "Follow Rules #1 and #2 in all things". Anything less is our humanism mucking things up.

So, let the debate ensue, but let none doubt in the meantime that our understanding of how and why God does things is NOT required for them to still be better than our way of thinking and doing them. But we should still strive to understand them, nonetheless.

JB,
Thanks for that.
You are right, people do use tactics in a debate, several of them.
But let the debate continue.
Some here get shut down that I think should not have been.
They were frustratingly left hanging in limbo when they could have been completed or nearly so.
Oh well, so it goes. Everyone to his own opinion.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

What about the ONE rule that is most important according to Christians.
You can only enter the kingdom of Heaven through Jesus.
I believe in Jesus. I believe there is a good chance that he "died for our sins" even though I still think God could have come up with a better plan.
You keep missing my point. According to Christians, even if you spent your time on this earth doing good works, but you just believed Jesus was a good example, not the son of God, you go to hell. I don't believe this and I don't understand how any rational thinking person would think hell was meant for these people.

This is a topic that many have trouble with. I think, as Wondergirl mentioned, many don't hold to this belief in a literal sense.

There's the idea that there is not just one way... given that there are so many people who simply do not hold the same beliefs... it seems a bit arrogant for one group to think they hold the only answer. It may be the only answer for them, but a different way may be followed by someone else.

Someone born and raised in Iran, for example, will likely believe something totally different from someone born and raised in Japan. Does one hold the only answer? Someone born and raised within a tribe in Ghana may never have been exposed to any sort of organized religion, but will hold their own beliefs instead... so are they counted out?

I have my own beliefs that align pretty much with how I was raised... as is likely the case with the majority of people. Sure some people do actually study various religions and decide for themselves what to believe or follow. They may choose not to follow any at all, or decide their beliefs don't fit exactly into any particular religion, but most people likely believe what they believe simply from being born into the family that they were. If they had been born elsewhere, there is a good chance they would believe something very different. There may be some influence along the way from family, friends, spouses, etc. but you often won't change someone's core beliefs. A Christian is not likely going to change the beliefs of a Muslim anymore than a Muslim will convert a Christian.

The core teachings of religion is basically the same regardless of which one it is... the golden rule transcends throughout... and that holds true whether someone believes in a religion or not... believes in God or not... believes in an afterlife or not... believer, agnostic, or atheist alike. There may be a good, even purposeful, reason for that.

DoulalC,
History records that many people have changed there belief from one to another. In some cases thousands have done so all at one time.
Then there are those who believe that there are several ways to heaven.
I believe that Jesus IS the way but HE is the only one who determines who goes for He knows everything about each person; what is in each's history, heart, mind, and soul.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yes, I agree... there have been plenty of missionaries who have converted many people, but for those who believe in a specific religion today, you would be hard pressed to find vast numbers easily converted. Just as an example... do you think someone could come along and convert you to follow Buddhism, Islam, Scientology, etc. Do you think you would be able to convert someone who believes strongly in Santeria to become a Christian?

You have your beliefs, that which may not be the same as someone else's in another part of the world.
For you, the way to heaven in through Jesus Christ, for someone else it may be through Allah, or perhaps the belief that there is no heaven and their soul will live again.

This is a topic that many have trouble with. I think, as Wondergirl mentioned, many don't hold to this belief in a literal sense.

There's the idea that there is not just one way....given that there are so many people who simply do not hold the same beliefs....it seems a bit arrogant for one group to think they hold the only answer. it may be the only answer for them, but a different way may be followed by someone else.

Someone born and raised in Iran, for example, will likely believe something totally different from someone born and raised in Japan. Does one hold the only answer? Someone born and raised within a tribe in Ghana may never have been exposed to any sort of organized religion, but will hold their own beliefs instead....so are they counted out?

I have my own beliefs that align pretty much with how I was raised.....as is likely the case with the majority of people. Sure some people do actually study various religions and decide for themselves what to believe or follow. They may choose not to follow any at all, or decide their beliefs don't fit exactly into any particular religion, but most people likely believe what they believe simply from being born into the family that they were. If they had been born elsewhere, there is a good chance they would believe something very different. There may be some influence along the way from family, friends, spouses, etc., but you often won't change someone's core beliefs. A Christian is not likely going to change the beliefs of a Muslim anymore than a Muslim will convert a Christian.

The core teachings of religion is basically the same regardless of which one it is....the golden rule transcends throughout...and that holds true whether someone believes in a religion or not....believes in God or not....believes in an afterlife or not....believer, agnostic, or atheist alike. There may be a good, even purposeful, reason for that.


I understand this to mean, “One faith is as good as another”. Are Christians to take Buddhism (or any other different faith) as an equivalent? If our Christian faith is this subjective, then why bother with faith at all; especially if its tenets become the least bit onerous?

JoeT

Are Christians to take Buddhism (or any other different faith) as an equivalent?
Are you, Joe, expecting a life-long Hindu to take Christianity as an equivalent?

I'm guessing you will have as much difficulty convincing a devout Hindu that Christianity is the only religion worth having as the Hindu will have convincing you the same about Hinduism. (The interesting thing is, Hindus don't care what you believe in and will not try to change your beliefs.)

I understand this to mean, “One faith is as good as another”. Are Christians to take Buddhism (or any other different faith) as an equivalent? If our Christian faith is this subjective, then why bother with faith at all; especially if its tenets become the least bit onerous?

JoeT


I'm merely speculating... perhaps one faith is as good as another in terms of the core teachings and the final outcome that most propose to achieve. All religions require faith and have tenets to follow. Faith is what is required in any meaningful relationship. Christians are taught what they believe to be the truth... but so are those who follow Islam, Scientology, Buddhism, etc..

You can have great faith without following any particular religion. My only point is that people come to their beliefs (whether that is a belief in God or not) through various means... most often from what their families believe or what they were exposed to growing up. Why do you think different countries tend to have a greater number of followers in certain religions? It is because the vast majority of people born and raised there are exposed to, and taught, to believe that way. Their beliefs make perfect sense to them, just as your beliefs make perfect sense to you. Maybe that is part of the design... bring to people what they can accept, understand, and believe in.

My question is what makes one religion anymore "true" than another? What would be the reason for different denominations within the Christian religion if there was only one way to believe? If there is room for some alternatives there, why not elsewhere?

What is "the way" for one religion will not be the same for another... but perhaps that is not necessarily a problem if the way one leads their life and how they interact with others and the world around them bring them to the same place with the same purpose.

...if there's anything Satan wants (or whatever evil you can believe in), he wants people who could be out doing GOOD locked in a room somewhere debating something irrelevant.

Let's not get roped in by it.


Comments on this post:
inthebox agrees: Telling people that God's love is there for the accepting, is hardly irrelevant.

I state things so strongly sometimes the point I'm making gets clouded. Yes, proclaiming God's love to others is not irrelevant, on any platform, even locked away in a room debating. It's relevant.

But the point of my paragraph you got that from was about losing productivity for good while we have these debates. That's all I meant.

When I was young and being discipled by my Youth Pastor, he gave us a warning I've never forgotten. He said something to the affect of:

"If Satan can't keep you from God, if he can't keep you away from Him, he may try a different tactic. He will tempt you into "super-Christianity", the kind of mentality that makes you so caught up in religion and rules and humanity's take on right/wrong that we become ineffective evangalists. He may have lost us, but if he can make us into "super-Christians" (think Pharisee), then he has nothing to fear from us when it comes to others. We'll spend all of our time arguing and debating amongst ourselves. And worse, when we DO interact with non-believers, we'll freak them out with our walls and intolerance. Jesus warned against this strongly, our attitude and demeanor with others must always be one of approachability and non-condescension. People will listen and respect a man who lives his beliefs rather than wields them like an axe."

Something like that.

DoulaLC,
You may be right that conversion of large numbers of people does not take place today, by maybe not...
But I personally know of several conversions to Christianity.
One of them was a Muslim at a college here in Montana to Christianity. There have been several of those.
Another is the conversion of many Jews to Christianity and some of them have become ministers or Priests.
I myself was able to aid the Holy Spirit in the conversion of a druid to Christianity.
He received a grand slam in graces.
That is he was baptized, had his first confession, confirmed, and received the Eucharist in ceremonies all the same day.
The national news often tells us of several Muslims whose lives have been lost or threatened.
So you see that there are many conversions that take place every year yet today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JBeaucaire,
You youth pastor made a good point.
Wielding ones belief with an axe is counter productive.
I have been trying to convince some others here that doing that, such as telling people they are going to hell in not the thing to do.
But I disagree about discussions.
I have been involved in them for years and because of them I continue to learn and grow.
They are very helpful for me and I strongly suspect that is so for many others.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Are you, Joe, expecting a life-long Hindu to take Christianity as an equivalent?

I'm guessing you will have as much difficulty convincing a devout Hindu that Christianity is the only religion worth having as the Hindu will have convincing you the same about Hinduism. (The interesting thing is, Hindus don't care what you believe in and will not try to change your beliefs.)

Not likely, I can't sit on the floor with my legs folded.

Not likely, I can't sit on the floor with my legs folded.
Thank Vishnu that Hindus don't care what your religion is, Joe, and don't mind that you're a Christian. Otherwise, you might be subjected to knee-bending therapy.

Wondergirl,
As I explained here in post #35 many people DO convert every year to Christianity.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Thank Vishnu that Hindus don't care what your religion is, Joe, and don't mind that you're a Christian. Otherwise, you might be subjected to knee-bending therapy.

Thank you, Vishnu.

Your response presumes that I'm intolerant of other religions. I don't think I ever said or implied intolerance. Here, in a forum of ideas, to be tolerant does not mean I should abandon my faith and take up another for the sake of a harmony in thought. But, what I have done is avoid agreement with tenets dogmatically opposed to my faith. And, hopefully doing so with some rationality.

Its not the bending of the knee, I've no problem with this. It's the folding of the legs - I'm physically incapable of it – I don't know why, it just can't be done.

JoeT

My question is what makes one religion anymore "true" than another? What would be the reason for different denominations within the Christian religion if there was only one way to believe? If there is room for some alternatives there, why not elsewhere?

What is "the way" for one religion will not be the same for another....but perhaps that is not necessarily a problem if the way one leads their life and how they interact with others and the world around them bring them to the same place with the same purpose.

The idea of two equal faiths having mutually opposed tenets is irrational. There can be only one absolute truth, without which we would have a schizophrenic God.

The argument that takes the form; “one religion is as good as another;” is a notion that is terribly illogical. Given any two denominations if either one holds one or more mutually contradictory fundamental truths (without the conflict they wouldn't be different denominations), since both can't be true, one or both must be wrong. Since religion shouldn't teach error in faith, then these two religions can only be equal when in error. The religion without an error is said to represent God's reveled truth and as such is the one, true, universal faith.

JoeT

JoeT,
I believe that is True.
I agree.
Fred

Your response presumes that I’m intolerant of other religions.
I was trying to be funny, Joe.

I was trying to be funny, Joe.

Oops

The religion without an error is said to represent God’s reveled truth and as such is the one, true, universal faith.
And that one true religion just happens to be yours.

And that one true religion just happens to be yours.

Certainly.

JoeT

The idea of two equal faiths having mutually opposed tenets is irrational. There can be only one absolute truth, without which we would have a schizophrenic God.

The argument that takes the form; “one religion is as good as another;” is a notion that is terribly illogical. Given any two denominations if either one holds one or more mutually contradictory fundamental truths (without the conflict they wouldn’t be different denominations), since both can’t be true, one or both must be wrong. Since religion shouldn't teach error in faith, then these two religions can only be equal when in error. The religion without an error is said to represent God’s reveled truth and as such is the one, true, universal faith.

JoeT

Reminds me of what is happening in my kids' sports today;

There is a trophy not only for first place but for second third etc... ;)


I am dismayed that non-Christians view Christianity, or more likely Christians as intolerant, and I am as much to blame. I'm not preaching denomination, just that those who don't believe start with the gospels and ask God all your questions.

God keeps track of the "points" if you don't believe, and you can never score enough to win in His eyes.

However; God gives you a trophy [ heaven if you will ] just for participating, if you believe. :)






G&P

DoulaLC,
You may be right that conversion of large numbers of people does not take place today, by maybe not....
But I personally know of several conversions to Christianity.
One of them was a Muslim at a college here in Montana to Christianity. There have been several of those.
Another is the conversion of many Jews to Christianity and some of them have become ministers or Priests.
I myself was able to aid the Holy Spirit in the conversion of a druid to Christianity.
He received a grand slam in graces.
That is he was baptized, had his first confession, confirmed, and received the Eucharist in ceremonies all the same day.
The national news often tells us of several Muslims whose lives have been lost or threatened.
So you see that there are many conversions that take place every year yet today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yes, I agree, people do convert to various religions... I had mentioned this sometimes happens through family, friends, spouses, etc.. I have known of people who have converted to Chrisitanity as well, and also those who converted to Islam, Judisim, Buddhism, and a few who are now agnostics or atheists.

It's a small percentage of people who actually go out and truly study numerous religions before deciding what they believe or don't believe. Certainly some will have religious studies in school, but I'm talking of more than that limited exposure.

The point is that the majority will follow what they were raised in and hold fast to that. If you had been born into a family and raised in Japan, Iran, or India odds are you would be believing something different from what you do today. This is why you see specific religions as being prominent in different countries. It's likely you were born into a Christian household, or at least at some point in your life you were influenced by another Christian, thus this is what you know to be true.

Unless someone becomes convinced that what they have learned to be true in the past is incorrect, or they don't have truly strong beliefs one way or another to begin with, or as sometimes has been seen they are persecuted until they "believe", they are unlikely to be converted.

I would assume that you are so certain of your belief in Christianity that no one would be able to sway you to believe otherwise... so holds true for many people of other faiths.

Many religions teach that their way is the only way to God, but others see a bigger picture. One where different religions, faiths, and beliefs are presented to humanity in the way they can understand and accept for where they happen to be in the world.

The idea of two equal faiths having mutually opposed tenets is irrational. There can be only one absolute truth, without which we would have a schizophrenic God.

The argument that takes the form; “one religion is as good as another;” is a notion that is terribly illogical. Given any two denominations if either one holds one or more mutually contradictory fundamental truths (without the conflict they wouldn't be different denominations), since both can't be true, one or both must be wrong. Since religion shouldn't teach error in faith, then these two religions can only be equal when in error. The religion without an error is said to represent God's reveled truth and as such is the one, true, universal faith.

JoeT

They are opposed tenets when you believe only one to be true. For a Christian, believing Jesus is the Son of God does not oppose someone else's teaching that Jesus was a great teacher for example. As a Christian, that is your truth, as it should be according to the teachings of the Christian religion. It does not, however, negate the truth of someone else; it does not make someone any less Christian to accept that others will hold different beliefs.

While there certainly are some differences in the tenets of various religions, there are also many similarities... especially in regard to mankind. I would think God would be able to discern what is in someone's heart and mind.

Many denomonations do hold different truths. For example, many do not believe Catholics to be Christians, partly because of their worship of Mary. When someone should be baptised brings about questions. How much is free will and how much is preordained comes into question. The positions women are allowed to serve will vary among denominations. Some denominations teach sacraments, others do not. Homosexuality is viewed differently among different denominations. So which are the correct truths? Who decides?

Someone's views on what may constitute an error in faith will obviously be determined by what their particular religion teaches.

Doula,
Where have you been all my life? Your posts are exactly what I have been trying to say to my fundamentalist friends and family. It tends to get emotional because they are so deeply rooted in believing their beliefs are the only TRUE beliefs. I've tried to convey all the things you have mentioned, but it never comes out as cool, calm, and collective as you have done here. The next time this comes up, I may use some of your words.
Imagine the peace and acceptance that could run rampant if we all had the same attitude toward differences that you do.

Doula,
Please get this straight.
Catholics do NOT worship Mary.
They worship God only.
They hold her in high esteem because God chose her to be the mother of His son and her son, Jesus, also did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Doula,
Please get this straight.
Catholics do NOT worship Mary.
They worship God only.
They hold her in high esteem because God chose her to be the mother of His son and her son, Jesus, also did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I was merely repeating what I have heard and that is that some Christians do not believe Catholics to be Christians for various reasons, one being that they pray to Mary through the Hail Mary. To some, this is considered as worshiping Mary.

The point of mentioning this was to show that even within the Christian religion you will find differences of opinion as to what is truth and what isn't. You find the same disagreement in regard to Mormonism.

I was merely repeating what I have heard and that is that some Christians do not believe Catholics to be Christians for various reasons, one being that they pray to Mary through the Hail Mary. To some, this is considered as worshiping Mary.

The point of mentioning this was to show that even within the Christian religion you will find differences of opinion as to what is truth and what isn't. You find the same disagreement in regard to Mormonism.
To non-Catholics, praying to Mary is the same as worshipping her, i.e. treating her as a god who can deliver from evil and rain down blessings.

Yes, to clearify, those that teach that Catholics worship Mary have never studied and do not know what the church teaches, or far worst they know but wish to spread lies. There is a large anti catholic movement for some reason as there are anti mormon movements, There are some hate groups that pretend to be christian that even print tracts against various christians that don't teach along some guide lines. These type of hate groups do nothing but to confuse those that have never had the chance or taken the time to study the acutal facts.

Asking Mary to pray or act on your behalf, or Peter or James or any of the Saints is to a Catholic no different than asking your church group to pray for you, to a Catholic, since to a Catholic, all of the Church both here and in heaven are all part of the Church,

Mary has no spcial powers but does have the ability as we all do, to petition christ to listen to a request.

And for some issues, things are fairly simple, some practices, are a matter of wording, and the importance a group holds it.

To non-Catholics, praying to Mary is the same as worshipping her, i.e., treating her as a god who can deliver from evil and rain down blessings.

How very odd. Are they unaware of the ancient distinction between veneration and worship? Do they have a problem with intercessory prayer in general? Do they never ask those who are especially pious or devout to pray for them? (The criticism has never made much sense to me.)

Not all non-Catholics have a problem with this. Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and many Anglicans pray to Mary. It's really just Protestants, or rather, some Protestants who have a problem with this very, very ancient practice.

How very odd. Are they unaware of the ancient distinction between veneration and worship? Do they have a problem with intercessory prayer in general? Do they never ask those who are especially pious or devout to pray for them? (The criticism has never made much sense to me.)

Not all non-Catholics have a problem with this. Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and many Anglicans pray to Mary. It's really just Protestants, or rather, some Protestants who have a problem with this very, very ancient practice.
"Just some Protestants" pray to Mary (via the rosary) to intercede for them. I see. What about the other non-Catholics, i.e. Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc.

They are opposed tenets when you believe only one to be true. For a Christian, believing Jesus is the Son of God does not oppose someone else's teaching that Jesus was a great teacher for example. As a Christian, that is your truth, as it should be according to the teachings of the Christian religion. It does not, however, negate the truth of someone else; it does not make someone any less Christian to accept that others will hold different beliefs. While there certainly are some differences in the tenets of various religions, there are also many similarities....especially in regard to mankind. I would think God would be able to discern what is in someone's heart and mind.

Then all truth is relative? Next time you get a speeding ticket tell the cop that you can drive safely at 70-mph even if the posted speed limit is 50-mph. After all, speed is relative. A simpler example; how much is 2+2. What would keep us from using Doula-Math and decide that all algorithms equal whatever feels good at the time. Let's say today is a '5' day; thus 2+2=5 according to Doula-Math? Can I conclude from this that if you ask for change of a 5 dollar bill, I can give you two pars of two one dollar bills? Come to think of it I like this. Let's do some more “relative” math with real money!

There is but one Truth. That truth is absolute. To say that truth is relative to the observer creates absolute pandemonium, both in a theological sense and in nature. To say that God reveals one truth to you and another truth to me is relativism. How many truths do you think there are? There is only one truth, whether we are capable of understanding that truth is not material. We know that since God exists is creation demonstrates that truth exists, its immutable, its eternal, it is spiritual, unconstrained by time, and superior to man's law. From which we can conclude that “not only that truth is in [God], but that [God] is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Prima Q, 15 a5” (see also https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/what-truth-277387-25.html#post1376851 )


Many denomonations do hold different truths. For example, many do not believe Catholics to be Christians, partly because of their worship of Mary. When someone should be baptized brings about questions. How much is free will and how much is preordained comes into question. The positions women are allowed to serve will vary among denominations. Some denominations teach sacraments, others do not. Homosexuality is viewed differently among different denominations. So which are the correct truths? Who decides?

Yes, many faiths hold different truths, and all but one of them is wrong. Whether certain Christians hold that Catholicism is not Christian isn't relevant. I don't recall reading anywhere in the Scriptures where we are told to take a poll and decide what's right and what's wrong. Again, whether you recognize it or not, there is only one truth in faith. You can read my comments as arrogance or haughtiness (and I'm sure it does seem that way – relatively speaking), it still doesn't alter the truth – truth still remains immutable and absolute. The decision has been made for us by Christ. Christ is the founder on which Peter and the remaining Apostles are the foundation on which the Church is built.

Fr_Chuck and Fred responded to the Mary comment, so I won't respond here.


Someone's views on what may constitute an error in faith will obviously be determined by what their particular religion teaches.

Again this is a true statement. Even still, it doesn't change “Truth”. It remains as it was, as it is, and as it will be; one and the same immutable and absolute truth.

JoeT

My point is (and I do have one) is that it is almost universally accepted (***perhaps "believed" is a better word***) that Catholics, who revere and pray to Mary, are considered worshippers of her and equate her with God. I live in a very culturally diverse area. I'll take a poll (random sample) and get back to you.

It was once almost universally accepted that the sun orbits the earth. So what? People are often ill-informed and opinionated *at the same time*.

JoeT, WHAT kind of proof do you have that there is only one truth and it just happens to be yours? What the bible says doesn't count so PLEASE don't start with endless verses of scripture. Unless you also have proof that the bible is the only book of truth. But then you've got all those rewrites and everything, so how reliable could that be even if it was the truth in the beginning?

It was once almost universally accepted that the sun orbits the earth. So what? People are often ill-informed and opinionated *at the same time*.
Precisely! So then why all the opinionated and ill-informed people regarding Mary's position? Millions?

Precisely! So then why all the opinionated and ill-informed people regarding Mary's position? Millions?

You've lost me. I have no idea what you're on about. I'm out.

A simpler example; how much is 2+2. What would keep us from using Doula-Math and decide that all algorithms equal whatever feels good at the time. Let’s say today is a ‘5’ day; thus 2+2=5 according to Doula-Math? Can I conclude from this that if you ask for change of a 5 dollar bill, I can give you two pars of two one dollar bills? Come to think of it I like this. Let’s do some more “relative” math with real money!

There is but one Truth. That truth is absolute. To say that truth is relative to the observer creates absolute pandemonium, both in a theological sense and in nature. To say that God reveals one truth to you and another truth to me is relativism. How many truths do you think there are? There is only one truth, whether or not we are capable of understanding that truth is not material. We know that since God exists is creation demonstrates that truth exists, its immutable, its eternal, it is spiritual, unconstrained by time, and superior to man’s law. From which we can conclude that “not only that truth is in [God], but that [God] is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Prima Q, 15 a5” (see also https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/what-truth-277387-25.html#post1376851 )



Yes, many faiths hold different truths, and all but one of them is wrong. Whether or not certain Christians hold that Catholicism is not Christian isn’t relevant. I don’t recall reading anywhere in the Scriptures where we are told to take a poll and decide what’s right and what’s wrong. Again, whether you recognize it or not, there is only one truth in faith. You can read my comments as arrogance or haughtiness (and I’m sure it does seem that way – relatively speaking), it still doesn’t alter the truth – truth still remains immutable and absolute. The decision has been made for us by Christ. Christ is the founder on which Peter and the remaining Apostles are the foundation on which the Church is built.

Fr_Chuck and Fred responded to the Mary comment, so I won’t respond here.



Again this is a true statement. Even still, it doesn’t change “Truth”. It remains as it was, as it is, and as it will be; one and the same immutable and absolute truth.

JoeT

Yes, 2+2= 4... as does 3+1... @@+@@... and 1+1+1+1. They are all true, just expressed differently.

Back to my original point, the truth of one person may not be the truth of another. If you were born and raised in a country such as India, for example, you would very likely believe something else to be the truth. Certainly there will be exceptions, but it is likely that most people believe what they do because that is how they were raised.

Of course you feel your beliefs are the truth... as you should.

Precisely! So then why all the opinionated and ill-informed people regarding Mary's position? Millions?


Because of the work of many hate groups that work hard on spreading lies about the catholic church for one. The millions of papers, tracts and books they push. And of course since they don't use icons many people are sadly just not educated enough to know the difference. They accept easy to believe myths instead of learning the truth.

Because of the work of many hate groups that work hard on spreading lies about the catholic church for one. The millions of papers, tracts and books they push. And of course since they don't use icons many people are sadly just not educated enough to know the difference. They accept easy to beleive myths instead of learning the truth.
I don't think it has anything much to do with hate groups. It was completely accepted by my Protestant church body when I was growing up that anyone saying the rosary and praying to Mary was, for all intents and purposes, worshipping her. Catholic churches always had statues and paintings of her, more obvious sometimes than those of Jesus. There was/is an entire cult around her -- Mariology it was/is called. Protestants called it Mariolatry.

There was no way to learn the truth except to ask an area priest, and, of course, back in the '50s, no self-respecting Protestant asked questions of a Catholic priest. There just wasn't any kind of fellowship back then. The Protestant Reformers did think that Catholics were wrong to invoke Mary as a mediator or to intervene. The doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Mary's Bodily Assumption into Heaven gave further reason for Protestants to think Mary was considered to be more than just a human, and was close to being a god.

Hate, no. Ignorance, yes. I'm glad churches and denominations and people of various beliefs now feel much more comfortable sharing their ideas and values.

Well what you call common knowledge was taught that way by someone, they either knew better or were talking uneducated, merely many thinking does not make it true.

But in fact there are many groups that publish tracts and give them out by the 1000's every day spreading the lies. And the people will not accept the truth when told, not because they eve know the teachings only because that was what they were taught,

So many churches teach lies about the catholic church, this is not uncommon

But hate, yes there is one publishing group I can think of for sure, they sell and give out 10's of thousands of tracts a day with nothing but hate for catholics and mormons mixed in with some for salvation.

But then you've got all those rewrites and everything, so how reliable could that be even if it was the truth in the beginning?


I don't understand what you are saying - rewrites and everything?

I don't understand what you are saying - rewrites and everything?

You think the text in the bible is in it's original form? What about the different translations, the thousands of years, the different interpretations

But hate, yes there is one publishing group I can think of for sure, they sell and give out 10's of thousands of tracts a day with nothing but hate for catholics and mormons mixed in with some for salvation.

Why do so many go to the trouble to spread hate for the catholic church?

well what you call common knowledge was taught that way by someone, they either knew better or were talking uneducated, merely many thinking does not make it true.

But in fact there are many groups that publish tracts and give them out by the 1000's every day spreading the lies. And the people will not accept the truth when told, not because they eve know the teachings only because that was what they were taught,

So many churches teach lies about the catholic church,, this is not uncommon
Protestant seminaries taught their ministerial students that it was Mariolatry, etc. and when those students became ministers, they carried those ideas into congregations. There was no hate in any of it; that's just how it was. I never heard hate preached.

Wondergirl,
If I asked you to pray to god for me, would you?
"Pray" is another way of saying "ask". Those two words have same meaning.
So if I pray to you to pray for me to God am I worshiping you and equating you to God.
No, of course not.
We Catholics and others ask Many (whom we believe is one of the many saints in heaven) to pray for us. We DO NOT worship her no matter what others may think or say.
The Rosary prayer which has been mentioned here is an example.
In it are the words "pray for us".
There is no worship for Mary in that prayer.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
If I asked you to pray to god for me, would you?
"Pray" is another way of saying "ask". Those two words have same meaning.
So if I pray to you to pray for me to God am I worshiping you and equating you to God.
No, of course not.
We Catholics and others ask Many (whom we believe is one of the many saints in heaven) to pray for us. We DO NOT worship her no matter what others may think or say.
The Rosary prayer which has been mentioned here is an example.
In it are the words "pray for us".
There is no worship for Mary in that prayer.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Where were you back in 1955, Fred? (My posts were all past tense, not 2009 thinking.)

Wondergirl,
I was here on earth in 1955.
Why do you ask?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
I was here on earth in 1955.
Why do you ask?
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I wasn't talking about NOW, Fred, but about earlier thinking among Protestants.

Never mind

Akoue,
I was a Lutheran for over 30 years.
Now you know why I started looking into other faiths including the Catholic.
So much hate made me wonder why when some of my best friends were Catholic or others and they were very nice people.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
If I asked you to pray to god for me, would you?
"Pray" is another way of saying "ask". Those two words have same meaning.
So if I pray to you to pray for me to God am I worshiping you and equating you to God.
No, of course not.
We Catholics and others ask Many (whom we believe is one of the many saints in heaven) to pray for us. We DO NOT worship her no matter what others may think or say.
The Rosary prayer which has been mentioned here is an example.
In it are the words "pray for us".
There is no worship for Mary in that prayer.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Why would you want Mary to pray for you when you can just pray directly to God yourself? What is the point?

Why would you want Mary to pray for you when you can just pray directly to God yourself? What is the point?
Christians believe prayer is a powerful thing, and, the more prayer there is for you or for something, the more hopeful they are God will intervene somehow. That's why you will hear people say, especially during an illness or a family tragedy, "Pray for me" or "Keep me in your prayers."

In fact, I read somewhere recently that people who are prayed for have faster and better recoveries. Would have to check that...

cozyk,
Mary the mother of Jesus has more influence than I do.
I also pray to Jesus and God the trinity.
I have also asked other saints to pray for me.
Saints are at the throne of God in heaven.
Therefore they are holy, pure and closer to God than I am.
Asking saints to pray for us is part of the communion of saints.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
Yes that is true.
The more payer the better.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

In fact, I read somewhere recently that people who are prayed for have faster and better recoveries. Would have to check that....


Several studies have, in fact, been done on this very topic. Athough there may be a placebo effect on people who are aware they are being prayed for, there is no evidence that prayer has any efficacy in scientifically-controlled studies.

The Mayo Clinic did a study in the 1990's and both Columbia University and the NIH have done prayer studies. All concluded prayer had no effect. Anecdotal evidence, of course, on the efficacy of prayer abounds.

Athos,
Thanks for that information.
I have had prayers answered so, of course, I believe in them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl agrees: Perhaps the benefit is most of all to the pray-er...




Pray-ers benefitting from their own prayers is non-controversial. Just as meditation or a host of other practices can benefit an individual, so one's prayer can produce a beneficial effect on the psychological health of the pray-er. This effect HAS been scientifically proven but is attributed to alpha waves in the brain.

Athos,
Yes, that is how many scientists attribute it.
Some folks don't want to give God credit for anything good.
How sad that is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Several studies have, in fact, been done on this very topic. Athough there may be a placebo effect on people who are aware they are being prayed for, there is no evidence that prayer has any efficacy in scientifically-controlled studies.

The Mayo Clinic did a study in the 1990's and both Columbia University and the NIH have done prayer studies. All concluded prayer had no effect. Anecdotal evidence, of course, on the efficacy of prayer abounds.


And yet... the research and studies have, and are, continuing... so a definitive answer has apparently not been determined...

Athos,
Yes, that is how many scientists attribute it.
Some folks don't want to give God credit for anything good.
How sad that is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Why give God credit for something which is proven to be purely physiological??

Capucin,
What has been proven purely physical without God's involvement?
I have hear only opinions on that, not proof.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And yet....the research and studies have, and are, continuing....so a definitive answer has apparently not been determined........


What continuing studies are you referring to?

Protestant seminaries taught their ministerial students that it was Mariolatry, etc., and when those students became ministers, they carried those ideas into congregations. There was no hate in any of it; that's just how it was. I never heard hate preached.


Hate can be preached in many ways. It doesn't have to be ranting and raving; it can simply be preaching untruth. Catholics have been explaining to Protestants for five hundred years that Mary is venerated (highly respected) not adored (worshipped), yet many Protestants continue to hang onto this old canard like a dog on a bone. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.

That ministerial students repeated what they were told in seminaries is understandable, but then one is forced to ask why were the seminaries passing on an obvious untruth.

On the other hand, it is not hard to see how Protestants can become confused over the issue. Especially when the Catholic Church declares Mary to be Queen of Heaven or titles her Co-Redemptrix or calls her Mother of God. To the uninformed, these are certainly god-like appellations and the real distinction can get lost. But a word or two of explanation should suffice to dispel the misunderstanding.

Okay, here goes.

1. Man and Woman are created.;)
2. Woman chose to disobey God and thus committed the first sin.:eek:
3. Because of her, the rest of us have to pay.:(
4. Animals had to be sacrificed in the OT to earn acceptance from God.:(
5. In the NT, Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. (Hey, I wasn't even born yet! ) The deal was, if you believe that Jesus died for your sake as a way to pay for your sins, THEN I (GOD) will accept you into my kingdom.:cool:

Why torture Jesus that way? Looks like a source as powerful as God could come up with a better plan wouldn't you think? As a parent, you don't punish child A when child B disobeyed do you. That would just be all kinds of wrong:mad:

My love for my children is unconditional and I would never ever turn them away. And I especially would never send them somewhere to be tortured! (Hell) NEVER, no matter what. They could have disobeyed me, not accepted my sacrifice made for them, or even cursed me.
Still, I'd never turn my back on them. In MY opinion, neither would God. This story just does not add up.

cozyk - I agree, the story as you have presented it wouldn't make sense because it would seem that each of God's children could be rejected arbitrarily and condemned. However, if the story were that not every single human being is a child of God but only those whom God chooses to save, then I think the idea of God's love being conditional makes more sense.

According to the bible, anyone who rejects the teaching of Jesus Christ is not following God but is following his father, the Devil. I reference John 8:

"So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will become free'?”

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

The issue in this confrontation is that these people refused to believe the words of Christ. They rejected his teaching as one come from God. Jesus rebukes them and makes a clear statement to them that even though they think they are children of God, the fact is that they are not. God is not their father... the Devil is. Primarily because in their unbelief, they sought to kill him.

The question then becomes, how does God feel about these types of people—specifically those who reject the teaching of Jesus Christ for their own? Consider John 3 which lays it out a little more specifically:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should NOT PERISH but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever BELIEVES in him is NOT CONDEMNED, but whoever DOES NOT BELIEVE IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, because he has NOT BELIEVED in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

Now, either the bible I read is wrong and God would never condemn anyone or my bible has it right and those who are resistant to and hostile towards the truth will be condemned because of it. Cozyk, God is love... he evidenced it by sending Jesus Christ to pay for our sins. Yes, you weren't alive when Christ died but the offer stands on the table even for you. You can continue on in your unbelief that God would ever punish someone for his sin or you can humble yourself and see that you (just like me) are an unworthy and morally perverse creature. But the good news of the gospel is that though we are morally unworthy of God, he is willing to forgive us and cleanse us of our unrighteousness... we must repent and turn from our sin and unbelief.

On the other hand, it is not hard to see how Protestants can become confused over the issue. Especially when the Catholic Church declares Mary to be Queen of Heaven or titles her Co-Redemptrix or calls her Mother of God. To the uninformed, these are certainly god-like appellations and the real distinction can get lost. But a word or two of explanation should suffice to dispel the misunderstanding.
Then what are the words of explanation?! Queen of Heaven and Co-Redemptrix are heady titles to justify if Mary is not a god(dess) and worthy of worship.

Then what are the words of explanation?!! Queen of Heaven and Co-Redemptrix are heady titles to justify if Mary is not a god(dess) and worthy of worship.

Well, let's see, the title "Queen of Heaven" has been around since the Council of Ephesus, and Irenaeus had already described the view that she is co-Redemptrix. This is to say that any interested party could do a little reading on his or her own and readily discover plenty of "words of explanation". Those words shouldn't have to be delivered personally to each Protestant in order for the hyperbole to come to and end. The Catholic Church doesn't exactly keep this stuff a secret.

Well, let's see, the title "Queen of Heaven" has been around since the Council of Ephesus, and Irenaeus had already described the view that she is co-Redemptrix. This is to say that any interested party could do a little reading on his or her own and readily discover plenty of "words of explanation". Those words shouldn't have to be delivered personally to each Protestant in order for the hyperbole to come to and end. The Catholic Church doesn't exactly keep this stuff a secret.
That avoidance to respond to an honest inquiry is probably why the continued confusion.

Wondergirl,
Mary is the Mother of Christ the King (God the Son) so the bible tell us.
Being the mother of a King she is a queen and the mother of God the Son.
It is a simple as that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That avoidance to respond to an honest inquiry is probably why the continued confusion.

It's not avoidance. It's tired fingers: To expect a summary on an internet forum of the relevant features of Marian doctrine would be a preposterous demand. I don't know how to provide a course in Mariology in the space of an AMHD post. Maybe that's my failing; but it's not avoidance. (PM De Maria, he tends to be better at this than I.) As I say, a little initiative on anyone's part will readily yield all the "words of explanation" one wants. One can then, having done a modicum of research on one's own initiative, come to an informed opinion about the relevant doctrines of the Catholic Church. But to sling around terms like "Mariolatry", in preference to doing some work to inform oneself first, is not intellectually honest. By all means, make the case that Mary shouldn't be venerated. That's perfectly reasonable. But to assert that Catholics and Orthodox worship Mary is to show that one hasn't done that work first.

Wondergirl,
Mary is the Mother of Christ the King (God the Son) so the bible tell us.
Being the mother of a King she is a queen and the mother of God the Son.
It is a simple as that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Actually, it's a lot more than that, especially the co-Redemptrix part. (I've spent the last fifteen minutes reading Catholic-approved and sponsored information on the Internet.)

Actually, it's a lot more than that, especially the co-Redemptrix part. (I've spent the last fifteen minutes reading Catholic-approved and sponsored information on the Internet.)

There you go! It's not hard to find.

Wondergirl.
To me it IS as simple as that.
Thanks.
Fred

Yeah, now I'm sorry I looked it up. What I've read supports Mary's vaulted status and makes it look like worshipping her is the obvious reaction to her position.

Yeah, now I'm sorry I looked it up. What I've read supports Mary's vaulted status and makes it look like worshipping her is the obvious reaction to her position.

Wow, all that after a whole fifteen minutes!

Wow, all that after a whole fifteen minutes!
Let me see. I was faulted for not looking it up, and, when I did, I was faulted for not reading enough. I guess I need a Catholic in my life after all to personally explain it to me.

Lemme see. I was faulted for not looking it up, and, when I did, I was faulted for not reading enough. I guess I need a Catholic in my life after all to personally explain it to me.

I'm sorry this is turning into an argument. I thought I was providing a good explanation, but I see now I didn't explain enough; rather I made a claim about Catholic belief. That claim happens to be correct but, as Akoue said, it's not easy to put all the history into a post here.

Some Catholics have a special devotion to Mary, but even these NEVER say she is a goddess. Does she APPEAR to be a goddess, or at least a demi-goddess, to those outside of Catholicism? Frankly, sometimes yes. But the truth of the matter is that, in fact and belief, she is NOT. I would think the testimony of Catholics themselves would be enough to put the matter to rest. Or a genuine attempt to research the issue to find the official explanations of these things.

When, in the face of denial and/or research, non-Catholics continue to insist that Catholics worship Mary, I cannot help but think an agenda is at work here - an agenda to disparage Catholic belief. Although relegated these days pretty much to the fundamentalist wing of Protestantism, it's still out there - a hangover from the Reformation.

I'm sorry this is turning into an argument. I thought I was providing a good explanation, but I see now I didn't explain enough; rather I made a claim about Catholic belief. That claim happens to be correct but, as Akoue said, it's not easy to put all the history into a post here.

Some Catholics have a special devotion to Mary, but even these NEVER say she is a goddess. Does she APPEAR to be a goddess, or at least a demi-goddess, to those outside of Catholicism? Frankly, sometimes yes. But the truth of the matter is that, in fact and belief, she is NOT. I would think the testimony of Catholics themselves would be enough to put the matter to rest. Or a genuine attempt to research the issue to find the official explanations of these things.

When, in the face of denial and/or research, non-Catholics continue to insist that Catholics worship Mary, I cannot help but think an agenda is at work here - an agenda to disparage Catholic belief. Although relegated these days pretty much to the fundamentalist wing of Protestantism, it's still out there - a hangover from the Reformation.


It's not your explanation Athos; WonderGirl has heard this more than once before – from me. That’s why she’s swinging so hard. Once before, I think she said, a virgin birth is believable, but it’s beyond God’s capacity for Mary to have an immaculate birth.

WonderGirl, did I get that right?

JoeT

Athos and Joe,
Well said.
Well done.
Fred

a hangover from the Reformation.
Luther liked Mary A LOT!

Luther liked Mary A LOT!

He even praised the veneration of Mary. But Luther was not the whole of the Reformation, as you know. The heart of the Reformation campaign against Catholic doctrine regarding Mary was in England (which had long had a very strong Marian tradition).

Akoue,
'Yes that is true,
The Protestants started a big attack on Mary that has lasted to this day.
I wonder how her son liked that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It's not your explanation Athos; WonderGirl has heard this more than once before – from me. That's why she's swinging so hard. Once before, I think she said, a virgin birth is believable, but it's beyond God's capacity for Mary to have an immaculate birth.

WonderGirl, did I get that right?

JoeT
No, you didn't.

I have always believed Jesus' birth was pure and sinless, immaculate. I do not agree that Mary "had to be" immaculate. I had told you back then that that belief diminishes God's power. It always seemed to me that one of the major points of the Christmas story was that God honored a lowly, sinful, human virgin as the mother of His Son. What a wonderful example of God's desire to reach out to each of us in our own humanity!

And then I wondered why would the immaculateness stop with Mary. Why wasn't her mother immaculate--and her mother--and her mother... all the way back to Eve?

Wondergirl
Mary HAD to be immaculate so that original sin did not pass on the he Son in any way.
God's power made her to be that way so there was no diminishing of God's power except in the minds of some people.
With God ALL THINGS are possible.
And He chose to have His Son born perfect of Mary, a human being.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I understand all of your analogies. I get that!

Even though God may not take a person into His heaven where everythin must be perfect and pure He still loves the children who are not there. From arcura's post.

What does it matter if he still loves the people who are in hell? How does that help?

It explains that they rejected Him, not He rejecting them.


Imagine a person that has led an exemplary nearly flawless life. Did all the right things because that's just who he is. The only thing is, he is jewish. Now, because he does not believe Jesus is the messiah, he is going to hell. That's what you are saying to me.

Not according to Catholic doctrine. The Scripture says:
Exodus 20:6
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Keeping God's commandments is how we love God. And a Jew who keeps God's commandments will be shown mercy though he reject Jesus:
Matthew 12: 31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#848)


Answer the hard questions people and stop talking about just the pretty parts.

Ok.


Another example - you have given your child a choice to follow your rules or not. IF they do, then you welcome them home. (Heaven) If they don't, you will not allow them into your home.

Not exactly. Have you ever read about the Prodigal Son? If you study that parable, you will see that the son voluntarily the Father's house. And when he returned, he was welcomed.


In fact, not only can you not come home but I am going to send you to an awful place where you will be tortured and burned forever. Remember I still love you though.

That goes to the above. No one is sent to hell, They voluntarily go there:
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1037
7 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic
URL: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1037 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1037.htm)


Face it, this is the ugly truth you keep avoiding.

I don't think its an ugly truth. I'm amazed at the beauty and justice of it. God doesn't force our wills.


Would any of you present this ultimatum to your child? Unless you tell me no, I will just have to assume that you would.

It is you who don't want to face the hard truths. Its usually the child who gives the ultimatum. How many times do parents plead with a child to remain at home, but the child runs away and is lost to drugs, crime or worse?

I know people with children on drugs whom they can't permit back in their home because they will rob them blind or because they are afraid of them. I know people who have been run off because they've left their loved ones in crack houses.

So, face up to the ugly facts. When people turn and do evil, and they won't listen to reason, even though you love them, will you let them back in your home?

But God does let them back in, if they repent. But if they don't, then it is they who have turned from Him.


You don't have a problem with God doing it. Everything you describe is black or white. There is no grey area.

Because God doesn't break faith with us. It is the sinner who breaks faith with God.

Sincerely,

Wondergirl
Mary HAD to be immaculate so that original sin did not pass on the he Son in any way.
God's power made her to be that way so there was no diminishing of God's power except in the minds of some people.
With God ALL THINGS are possible.
And He chose to have His Son born perfect of Mary, a human being.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
So Anne, her mother, also had to be immaculate so that original sin did not pass on to Mary in any way.

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Keeping God's commandments is how we love God. And a Jew who keeps God's commandments will be shown mercy though he reject Jesus
No one--Jew, atheist, Christian, Buddhist, African pigmy, Aleut--can keep God's commandments.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. Romans 3:10

No one--Jew, atheist, Christian, Buddhist, African pigmy, Aleut--can keep God's commandments.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. Romans 3:10

Jesus Himself said:
Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I don't think He would have said that if it couldn't be done.

And St. Paul seems to think that some have not sinned:
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So Anne, her mother, also had to be immaculate so that original sin did not pass on to Mary in any way.

Non sequitur. God caused St. Mary be born without sin. Not St. Anne.

From the fact that Scripture says that all have sinned it doesn't follow that all had (or have) to sin. The two claims are in different modalities. So De Maria is quite right to say that the passages adduced by Wondergirl do not demonstrate the *impossibility* of sinlessness.

Non sequitur. God caused St. Mary be born without sin. Not St. Anne.
God caused Jesus to be born without sin, so why Mary too?

From the fact that Scripture says that all have sinned it doesn't follow that all had (or have) to sin. The two claims are in different modalities. So De Maria is quite right to say that the passages adduced by Wondergirl do not demonstrate the *impossibility* of sinlessness.
Some humans have lived sinless lives?

From the fact that Scripture says that all have sinned it doesn't follow that all had (or have) to sin. The two claims are in different modalities. So De Maria is quite right to say that the passages adduced by Wondergirl do not demonstrate the *impossibility* of sinlessness.

Since Scripture says that death is the wage of sin, we have also the evidence that Enoch and Elijah never physically died. They were carried into heaven.

God caused Jesus to be born without sin, so why Mary too?

Jesus is God.

Some humans have lived sinless lives?

Enoch, Elijah, children who die in the womb, children who die before the age of reason. Even adults who never achieve the age of reason before they die.

Since Scripture says that death is the wage of sin, we have also the evidence that Enoch and Elijah never physically died. They were carried into heaven.
Enoch and Elijah lived sinless lives?

Some humans have lived sinless lives?

Jesus was human, and he was without sin. Mary was human, and Luther believed she was without sin.

....so why Mary too?

We believe it is fitting that God should take on Immaculate flesh and reside within an Immaculate womb.

Logically, also, if Mary had sinned, then she would have been under Satan's dominion. And the child in her womb would have been under Satan's dominion also, because she to whom He was subject would have been subject to Satan.

Capiche?

Enoch and Elijah lived sinless lives?

Did they die?

We believe it is fitting that God should take on Immaculate flesh and reside within an Immaculate womb.

Logically, also, if Mary had sinned, then she would have been under Satan's dominion. And the child in her womb would have been under Satan's dominion also, because she to whom He was subject would have been subject to Satan.

Capiche?
No. God's power then gets diminished forthwith.

No. God's power then gets diminished forthwith.

God is omnipotent. Nothing can diminish God's power.

God is omnipotent. Nothing can diminish God's power.
Then He shouldn't have to make Mary sinless in order to produce a sinless Jesus.

Then He shouldn't have to make Mary sinless in order to produce a sinless Jesus.

And then he shouldn't have to die on a cross in order to redeem a sinful humanity.

No. God's power then gets diminished forthwith.

How so?

Then He shouldn't have to make Mary sinless in order to produce a sinless Jesus.

Perhaps. But we don't make the call. He does. This is how He chose to do it.

Perhaps. But we don't make the call. He does. This is how He chose to do it.
I don't agree. Your church makes that call.

I don't agree. Your church makes that call.

And yours, apparently. Read Luther, "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God".

De Maria,
Well said.
Well done.
Those who went to hell paved their way there by their thoughts and actions.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't agree. Your church makes that call.

If that is true, She was given that power by God Himself:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

De Maria,
Yes that is true.
Fred

If that is true, She was given that power by God Himself:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
That verse has nothing to do with Mary's being immaculate. Please explain the connection.

And yours, apparently. Read Luther, "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God".
The Lutheran Church does not go along with every jot and tittle written by Luther. From catholicculture.org -- "Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn't explicitly and formally teach it."

Wondergirl.
I believe De Maria was commenting on your statement that The Church made the call and not on Mary.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The Lutheran Church does not go along with every jot and tittle written by Luther. From catholicculture.org -- "Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn't explicitly and formally teach it."

Okay. But it certainly shows that it's not just "your" Church (as you said to De Maria), very disapprovingly. Do you feel Luther was mistaken to favor the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? If so, why?

Wondergirl,
I was a Lutheran for over 30 years.
I know what you mean.
Have you read the book "There We Stood, Here We Stand" by Timothy Drake?
I highly recommend it to all Lutherans and Catholics.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

We all have a choice in life, its up to you if you enter the Kingdom.
God is love, that all that manners.

Okay. But it certainly shows that it's not just "your" Church (as you said to De Maria), very disapprovingly. Do you feel Luther was mistaken to favor the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? If so, why?
Very disapprovingly?? I'm trying to understand the various facets of something here.

Luther was born into a Catholic family, was a Catholic monk for 16 years, had had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church when he nailed up his 95 Theses. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which had been established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV, was part and parcel of Luther's beliefs. It was part of his being like any teaching one grows up with and has unquestioningly accepted is part of one's being.

In contrast, I grew up with and unquestioningly accepted the teaching that Mary was not immaculate, was not sinless. I'm hearing the Catholic Church's reasoning behind it, but have not yet been convinced, especially since the Immaculate Conception is not mentioned at all in the Bible.

Was Luther mistaken? I don't think that's the right question.

Very disapprovingly???? I'm trying to learn something here.

So I misunderstood, then? Okay, so much the better. So do you think Luther was mistaken?

Wondergirl.
That's great news.
I hope you are learning something here.
I have been learning ever since I came to askmehelpdesk.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

So I misunderstood, then? Okay, so much the better. So do you think Luther was mistaken?
I just found out I can't write, edit, post, reread my post, and edit...

Was Luther mistaken? I don't think that's the right question.

I just found out I can't write, edit, post, reread my post, and edit...

I know the feeling.


Was Luther mistaken? I don't think that's the right question.

I don't know what the right question is. That's just the one I was asking. I'm interested to know what you think about this.

Edit for clarity: Was Luther mistaken to have favored the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

No, you didn't.

I have always believed Jesus' birth was pure and sinless, immaculate. I do not agree that Mary "had to be" immaculate. I had told you back then that that belief diminishes God's power. It always seemed to me that one of the major points of the Christmas story was that God honored a lowly, sinful, human virgin as the mother of His Son. What a wonderful example of God's desire to reach out to each of us in our own humanity!

And then I wondered why would the immaculateness stop with Mary. Why wasn't her mother immaculate--and her mother--and her mother...all the way back to Eve?

Mary was made sinless, protected from original sin, "By a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ" she is protected from sin. She was “full” of grace. Like a container, every void was filled with grace. (Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854)
Obtained by the grace God. That Mary was the “new” Eve, made righteous, Blessed among women . (Cf. Luke 1:42)

"[I embrace] the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
Eve…”having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.” St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 3, 22

And remembering that salvation includes being risen, body and soul, into heaven we see why many believe in the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

Irenaeus goes on to say,”… also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the Virgin Mary set free through faith.” St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 3, 22, 4

St. Jerome adds that, “In those days, as I have said, the virtue of continence was found only in men: Eve still continued to travail with children. But now that a virgin has conceived (Isaiah 7:14) in the womb and has borne to us a child of which the prophet says that Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called the mighty God, the everlasting Father, (Isaiah 9:6) now the chain of the curse is broken. Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary. And thus the gift of virginity has been bestowed most richly upon women, seeing that it has had its beginning from a woman. As soon as the Son of God set foot upon the earth, He formed for Himself a new household there; that, as He was adored by angels in heaven, angels might serve Him also on earth.” St. Jerome, Epistle 22, par. 21

In my opinion this best describes the new Eve. At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143 (CCC, 494)

See also my comments in the thread “The Immaculate Conception.” It’s my recollection you objected then too. Does an immaculate Mary scare you?

JoeT

I am Sooooooo Confused!!

Do these differences really matter? Am I going to be afraid I ask?
Oh boy...

I am Sooooooo Confused!!!!

Do these differences really matter? Am I going to be afraid I ask?
Oh boy..................

Lol! Fair enough. Where did we lose you? Are there specific questions that you have or is it more like, "What the &*ck are these people talking about?!"

CozyK,'
Yes they really matter to a great many people.
But don't be afraid. Just do as wondergirl and I do... learn
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Edit for clarity: Was Luther mistaken to have favored the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
As I had posted earlier --

Luther was born into a Catholic family, was a Catholic monk for 16 years, had had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church when he nailed up his 95 Theses. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which had been established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV, was part and parcel of Luther's beliefs. It was part of his being like any teaching one grows up with and has unquestioningly accepted.

In contrast, I grew up with and unquestioningly accepted the teaching that Mary was not immaculate, was not sinless. I'm hearing the Catholic Church's reasoning behind it, but have not yet been convinced, especially since the Immaculate Conception is not mentioned at all in the Bible.

Was Luther mistaken? It was in his bones and blood. I cannot condemn him for believing it.

Lol! Fair enough. Where did we lose you? Are there specific questions that you have or is it more like, "What the &*ck are these people talking about?!"

It's more like "What the @#$% are they talking about?" Maybe since I know nothing about Catholics or Lutherans it contributes to my confusion. The only thing I know about Catholics is that where I grew up (South Carolina) there was maybe 3 Catholics in the whole town. When I lived in Philadelphia, I was probably one of 3 that was not Catholic.

Fred, It hasn't mattered to me before and it still does not matter. I think a lot of energy is spent on arguing details that are not important. The big picture people, concentrate on the big picture.:)

Enoch, Elijah, children who die in the womb, children who die before the age of reason. Even adults who never achieve the age of reason before they die.
RE: sinlessness. That I do not agree with.

As I had posted earlier --

Luther was born into a Catholic family, was a Catholic monk for 16 years, had had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church when he nailed up his 95 Theses. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which had been established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV, was part and parcel of Luther's beliefs. It was part of his being like any teaching one grows up with and has unquestioningly accepted.

Well, conditioning doesn't explain it, since he was willing to reject lots of other Catholic doctrines with which he had lived all his life. He chose to reject Papal primacy; he chose to retain the Immaculate Conception.


In contrast, I grew up with and unquestioningly accepted the teaching that Mary was not immaculate, was not sinless. I'm hearing the Catholic Church's reasoning behind it, but have not yet been convinced, especially since the Immaculate Conception is not mentioned at all in the Bible.

Well, lots of stuff isn't mentioned in the Bible. Lots of stuff that is true. One thing that is in the Bible is that Mary is "full of grace" (Joe brought this up).


Was Luther mistaken? It was in his bones and blood. I cannot condemn him for believing it.

Goodness, no, I really wasn't trying to get you to condemn him for it. I want to understand why you think he was mistaken to believe it.

Does an immaculate Mary scare you?
What an odd question!

As I said back on #108, "I have always believed Jesus' birth was pure and sinless, immaculate. I do not agree that Mary "had to be" immaculate.... It always seemed to me that one of the major points of the Christmas story was that God honored a lowly, sinful, human virgin as the mother of His Son. What a wonderful example of God's desire to reach out to each of us in our own humanity!"

Luther was born into a Catholic family, was a Catholic monk for 16 years, had had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church when he nailed up his 95 Theses.

If you think Martin Luther didn't intend to separate from the Church, think again.

The Protestant draft of the Confession was rejected by Emperor Charles V in September 1530. Some considerable time was given by the Emperor for the Protestants to consider a rejoinder more in keeping with Rome. A confidant of Luther, Philip Melanchthon, wrote a response which was immediately rejected. Luther, knowing that continued resistance would be a schism, defiantly wrote to the Emperor in his response, “The Augsburg Confession must endure…Not even an angel from Heaven could alter a syllable of it, and any angel who dared to do so must be accursed and damned. Still less might Emperor, Popes, or bishops sit in judgment on it. The stipulations made that monks and nuns still dwelling in their cloisters should not be expelled, and that the Mass should not be abolished, could not be accepted; for whoever acts against conscience simply paves his way to Hell. The monastic life and the Mass covered with infamous ignominy the merit and suffering of Christ. Of all the horrors and abominations that could be mentioned, the Mass was the greatest.“ In our liberal world of today, even this would be taken as open defiance.


Luther was open about his motives to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ. We do know that on March 7, 1522, while in Wittenberg, Luther went into a long diatribe against the Church and Pope Leo X in particular. Luther called him “a nit which has not yet turned into a louse, a brat whose father was a bug, a donkey who wants to read the psalter…a sacrilegious murderer…a chosen tool of the Devil, a papistical sea-serpent, a blackhead and a bad as the worst rogues whom indeed he outrivals, an abortion of a fool, an limb of Satan.” I'd say it was a bit impolite. But as to his motive, Luther wrote, “If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines… If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of the Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall.” Now, this seems to me to be a political movement aimed at bringing Christ's Kingdom down. (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)


But that defiance was present as early as 1518. In a letter to Jodocus Trutfetter, a former professor, Martin Luther exhibited his commitment to the destruction of the Church. He wrote, “To speak plainly, my firm belief is that reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted….a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of greatest weight for me…” (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)


We don't see a hapless stooge being surreptitiously led around by the nose. Rather we see a recalcitrant schismatic who knows the results of his deeds. The religious war that followed at Zurich in 1531 lasted for nearly 117 years. Luther was the first of among the elitist leading the proletariat in what was to become history's fist “Revolution” replacing God's perfect law with man's subjective and fallible law.

In Luther's words, when referring to the Catholic Church it means “These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all Churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.” What great respect, so much so, that he was just looking for a way to reform the Church, right?

This is the type of theological genius we can expect from Martin Luther “I cannot get over the blindness of the Pope's theologians. To imagine that the mighty forces of sin, death, and the curse can be vanquished by the righteousness of man's paltry works, by fasting, pilgrimages, masses, vows, and such gewgaws. These blind leaders of the blind turn the poor people over to the mercy of sin, death, and the devil. What chance has a defenseless human creature against these powers of darkness? They train sinners who are ten times worse than any thief, **ore, murderer. The divine power of God alone can destroy sin and death, and create righteousness and life. " (Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 1535)


Indeed, Martin Luther thought he could bring down the Kingdom of God, the Roman Catholic Church. But, not only will it prevail against the gates of hell, it also prevailed against Luther.

JoeT

If you think Martin Luther didn’t intend to separate from the Church, think again.
I don't agree. Luther loved the Church. If you read all that you posted more carefully, you will see what I mean. Luther loved the Church (who wouldn't - so much grace and beauty!), but he hated what he saw as injustices being committed by greedy people in charge.

I don't agree. Luther loved the Church. If you read all that you posted more carefully, you will see what I mean. Luther loved the Church (who wouldn't - so much grace and beauty!), but he hated what he saw as injustices being committed by greedy people in charge.

Well, actually, as Heiko Oberman has shown, Luther (and other German members of his very small order) disliked Italians and other "swarthy" Mediterraneans. And this well before his later years, when even his wife told him to tone down the rhetoric. There's a ton of documentary evidence that he didn't like these people coming into Germany and telling good Germans what to do. A lot of the work done on this has been done by Lutheran historians.

Does an immaculate Mary scare you?

JoeT

Why would you say that, Joe? Wondergirl is simply questioning the doctrine. As she wrote, she was brought up without that being part of her religious upbringing. Do you expect her to jump on the Catholic bandwagon because you and others believe it?

When you offer as a proof (or support) that Mary was "full of grace" and therefore sinless, this strikes me as stretching a phrase to a place it was never intended to go. Whether Mary was or wasn't this or that strikes me as minutiae. The story of Mary is a lovely one and a big part of Christian culture but not worth getting insulting about.

My only objection to Protestants on this Mary issue is when some misrepresent Catholic belief (that she is worshipped as if she were God). After all Catholics ought to know what they believe.

The big picture people, concentrate on the big picture.:)
I think all of us (arcura, akoue, Athos, Joe, De Maria) agree on that. God loves us unconditionally, and, in turn, our response is to not only love God in return but also love others unconditionally.

Well, actually, as Heiko Oberman has shown, Luther (and other German members of his very small order) disliked Italians and other "swarthy" Mediterraneans. And this well before his later years, when even his wife told him to tone down the rhetoric. There's a ton of documentary evidence that he didn't like these people coming into Germany and telling good Germans what to do. A lot of the work done on this has been done by Lutheran historians.
Which says what?

Which says what?

How about a different thread? That's right, it says "How about a different thread?"

How about a different thread? That's right, it says "How about a different thread?"
In other words, let's give this thread back to cozyk?

In other words, let's give this thread back to cozyk?

This is what I'm thinking. She's been really patient with us, and we should stop abusing that patience.

And I'm sorry for being short with you earlier. There were a couple of times when I really couldn't see where you were coming from enough to sort out what you were trying to say. So let's just agree to disagree for now and quiver our arrows.

I guess I having something new to take to confession. (Yes, wondergirl, that was just for you!)

Ps: I'm pathologically incapable of using emoticons, but I think you can guess which one would have accompanied the parantheses.

Why would you say that, Joe? Wondergirl is simply questioning the doctrine. As she wrote, she was brought up without that being part of her religious upbringing. Do you expect her to jump on the Catholic bandwagon because you and others believe it?

When you offer as a proof (or support) that Mary was "full of grace" and therefore sinless, this strikes me as stretching a phrase to a place it was never intended to go. Whether Mary was or wasn't this or that strikes me as minutiae. The story of Mary is a lovely one and a big part of Christian culture but not worth getting insulting about.

My only objection to Protestants on this Mary issue is when some misrepresent Catholic belief (that she is worshipped as if she were God). After all Catholics ought to know what they believe.

Point well made and I’ll try to “tone” it down. However, you may be mistaking my straightforward comments as being combative. I’ve found that beating around bushes only seems to stir-up dust.

JoeT

This is what I'm thinking. She's been really patient with us, and we should stop abusing that patience.

And I'm sorry for being short with you earlier. There were a couple of times when I really couldn't see where you were coming from enough to sort out what you were trying to say. So let's just agree to disagree for now and quiver our arrows.

I guess I having something new to take to confession. (Yes, wondergirl, that was just for you!)

Ps: I'm pathologically incapable of using emoticons, but I think you can guess which one would have accompanied the parantheses.
Maybe we can somehow return this thread to its original subject? And I would be more than happy to post on a thread about Luther and the Reformation and his intentions and beliefs and very interesting supper guests. (I'll bring the dessert). I hope Athos and Joe and arcura et al. will join us.

Wondergirl,
You saidn"I think all of us (arcura, akoue, Athos, Joe, De Maria) agree on that. God loves us unconditionally, and, in turn, our response is to not only love God in return but also love others unconditionally"
I fully adree with you on that..
I think all of the Christians here also will do so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe,
Yes, as you said, "I've found that beating around bushes only seems to stir-up dust".
I think it also disturbs the bush.
LOL
Fred
.

Akoue
Yes, since there are disagreements here let's agree to disagree but keep the discussion going.
I for one am learning as it goes on.
Fred

What continuing studies are you referring to?


Any number of universities around the world have and are studying the idea. The University of Florida for example has a program for it. Many medical schools are now including the idea of prayer and healing as part of their training for residents. Enough doctors have seen results that should not have happened and that they are hard pressed to explain scientifically. There are possible answers, but they can be neither proved nor disproved either.

The idea that the results are not universal, as in everyone getting healed when they pray or are prayed for, is what holds up many who don't believe there is any connection. Could it just be due to the person's own physiological response... sure. Might there be more to it... that is what has many interested enough to keep looking at the prospect.

Those who do believe understand that just because an event did not have the results they had hoped for, or prayed for, does not mean it didn't turn out how it was supposed to. This is partly where the idea of God's plan comes about.

Any number of universities around the world have and are studying the idea. The University of Florida for example has a program for it.

The idea that the results are not universal, as in everyone getting healed when they pray or are prayed for, is what holds up many who don't believe there is any connection.


Could it just be due to the person's own physiological response.....sure.

The University of Florida study has nothing to do with the issue at hand. That study studied the effect of prayer on stress management for the elderly. No one denies that personal prayer for ones self can be efficacious.

The results ARE universal. Every scientifically-controlled study has shown no effect. No exceptions.

"The person's own physiological response". You're missing the point. The question is about whether prayer works for others, not the person doing the praying. "Prayer at a distance" so to speak.

DoulaLC,
Thanks for that information.
God can and has said no to many prayers.
Fred

Athos,
Thanks for that affirmation.
Our God who heals definitely works in mysterious ways!
WG

The University of Florida study has nothing to do with the issue at hand. That study studied the effect of prayer on stress management for the elderly. No one denies that personal prayer for ones self can be efficacious.

The results ARE universal. Every scientifically-controlled study has shown no effect. No exceptions.

"The person's own physiological response". You're missing the point. The question is about whether prayer works for others, not the person doing the praying. "Prayer at a distance" so to speak.

Check out some recent journals and sited works. There have been recent studies and ones that are still being done.
Yes, I agree, some studies have not found any connection... there is no doubt about that as those are well documented and published.

My statement was not that these studies do not exist, but simply that there has been more recent research since the '90's and that research continues.

DoulaLC,
Right you are.
Fred

Check out some recent journals and sited works. There have been recent studies and ones that are still being done.
Yes, I agree, some studies have not found any connection....there is no doubt about that as those are well documented and published.

My statement was not that these studies do not exist, but simply that there has been more recent research since the '90's and that research continues.

If I'm not mistaken, both Duke and Georgetown medical schools have recently done studies on "remote prayer".

Akoue.
I'll see what I can find on that.
I hope others do.
Fred

Check out some recent journals and sited works. There have been recent studies and ones that are still being done.
Yes, I agree, some studies have not found any connection.



You didn't cite any works. How can I check them out? Please state what these recent studies are.

To your last sentence: NO study has found ANY connection!

I don't know the journal, but this study claims to show some benefit from intercessory prayer.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450

The Duke study (1998) claims to have shown:


However, those receiving alternative therapies "had lower absolute complication rates and a lower absolute incidence of post-procedural ischemia during hospitalization." Of the four alternative therapies, intercessory prayer seemed to provide the greatest therapeutic benefits.

The Duke study (1998) claims to have shown:


The study you quote was acknowledged to have been flawed by all concerned. Duke did a second study with 700+ patients, several prayer groups from various religions, and rigidly controlled with accepted scientific testing methods. It was a three-year study ending in 2003.


Here is the conclusion from the Duke Medicine News and Communications publication:

By Duke Medicine News and Communications

Published: July 14, 2005



DURHAM, N.C. -- Distant prayer and the bedside use of music, imagery and touch (MIT therapy) did not have a significant effect upon the primary clinical outcome observed in patients undergoing certain heart procedures, researchers at Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University Medical Center, the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) and seven other leading academic medical institutions across the U.S. have found.

The study you quote was acknowledged to have been flawed by all concerned. Duke did a second study with 700+ patients, several prayer groups from various religions, and rigidly controlled with accepted scientific testing methods. It was a three-year study ending in 2003.


Here is the conclusion from the Duke Medicine News and Communications publication:

By Duke Medicine News and Communications

Published: July 14, 2005



DURHAM, N.C. -- Distant prayer and the bedside use of music, imagery and touch (MIT therapy) did not have a significant effect upon the primary clinical outcome observed in patients undergoing certain heart procedures, researchers at Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University Medical Center, the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) and seven other leading academic medical institutions across the U.S. have found.

I'm not surprised. I didn't mean to advocate anything. I just came across it and thought you guys might like to take a look.

All:

My two cents worth as to whether science can prove the prayer or miracle phenomenon is best expressed by Chesterton.

Men can construct a science with very few instruments, or with very plain instruments; but no one on earth could construct a science with unreliable instruments. A man might work out the whole of mathematics with a handful of pebbles, but not with a handful of clay which was always falling apart into new fragments, and falling together into new combinations. A man might measure heaven and earth with a reed, but not with a growing reed. G.K. Chesterton


JoeT

I don't know the journal, but this study claims to show some benefit from intercessory prayer.

Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial -- Leibovici 323 (7327): 1450 -- BMJ (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450)

This is a fascinating study. The prayer took place 4-10 years AFTER the patients had been discharged from the hospital. Some had died. So here we have intercessory prayer working retroactively! The doctor who conducted the experiment and wrote the original article was proving a point with a tongue-in-cheek article.

Amazing what you can find on the internet.

Here's the link - norvik.com/prayer. See #6 Rabin Medical Center Israel - Retroactive Prayer.

This is a fascinating study. The prayer took place 4-10 years AFTER the patients had been discharged from the hospital. Some had died. So here we have intercessory prayer working retroactively! The doctor who conducted the experiment and wrote the original article was proving a point with a tongue-in-cheek article.

Amazing what you can find on the internet.

Here's the link - norvik.com/prayer. See #6 Rabin Medical Center Israel - Retroactive Prayer.

Crazy academic humor!

Did the other study turn up anything of interest?

If I'm not mistaken, both Duke and Georgetown medical schools have recently done studies on "remote prayer".

The Georgetown study:


"Those hoping for confirmation of a positive therapeutic effect of distant prayer were to be disappointed. As Matthews explained, "Neither multivariate nor univariate analysis showed a statistically significant overall improvement after intervention in the 10 outcome variables for the group receiving.. . Distant intercessory prayer (n = 19) when compared with the group receiving no.. . Distant prayer (n = 21)." And the placebo effect was in evidence: "Although only.. . 48% [of patients] actually received distant prayer and individuals were blinded to distant prayer treatment status.. . 73% [believed they received] distant prayer. These patients were more likely than others to have improvement in global function.. . And reductions in pain."


Translation: Distant (intercessory) prayer did not work. Dale Mathews, MD, is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Georgetown who conducted the study.

I found this about intercessory prayer..

Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html)

Peace and kindness,
Fred

I found this about intercessory prayer..

Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html)

Case 1 - This 1983 study measured 24 variables. 18 showed no difference, 6 showed a small difference. The study author keyed on the 6 favorable variables, ignoring the other 18. These 6 variables were declared important only AFTER the study. This is NOT proper methodology. Again, AFTER the study was done, the author determined the scoring method - it is crucial to determine the scoring method PRIOR to the study. When corrected for these flaws, the study was inconclusive.

Case # 2 - More of the same - shaky scoring and shaky variables. Larry Dorsey, a supporter of remote healing, said, "This study has missed the mark. We would want to see statistically significant life-or-death effects, which simply did not occur".

Case # 3 - This is the same Israeli study I mentioned in the above post to Akoue. See that post. What is interesting is that Arcura's source makes a point of mentioning that only Christian prayer proved effective. This study presumably was carried out with Jewish prayer.

Case # 4 - This is the last study mentioned. I will only quote the study itself which should suffice. "The LACK of efficacy in this study could be due to theological problems with the study design". When a source is cited as proof of intercessory prayer, and that very source states that there was a lack of proof, I begin to wonder why such a citation was made in the first place.


I have now replied to several posts on this issue. It should be apparent that every study cited could have been carefully researched (googled) for all the pertinent facts BEFORE posting it here. I don't have the time to continue doing all the research.

Athos
Thanks for your observation.
I still believe prayer works for me.
But U must keep in mind that God answers prayer 4 ways.
1, Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. You've go to be kidding.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Okay, here goes.

1. Man and Woman are created.;)
2. Woman chose to disobey God and thus committed the first sin.:eek:
3. Because of her, the rest of us have to pay.:(
4. Animals had to be sacrificed in the OT to earn acceptance from God.:(
5. In the NT, Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. (Hey, I wasn't even born yet! ) The deal was, if you believe that Jesus died for your sake as a way to pay for your sins, THEN I (GOD) will accept you into my kingdom.:cool:

Why torture Jesus that way? Looks like a source as powerful as God could come up with a better plan wouldn't you think? As a parent, you don't punish child A when child B disobeyed do you. That would just be all kinds of wrong:mad:

My love for my children is unconditional and I would never ever turn them away. And I especially would never send them somewhere to be tortured! (Hell) NEVER, no matter what. They could have disobeyed me, not accepted my sacrifice made for them, or even cursed me.
Still, I'd never turn my back on them. In MY opinion, neither would God. This story just does not add up.

1. No issues here.
2. Still no issues, story is true.
3. Wrong. We're not suffering for Eve's choices. We suffer because of our own.
4. Sacrifices weren't for "acceptance," they were a form of worship. People used to place their hands upon a goat's head to symbolize the passing of their sin and then send the goat into the wilderness.
5. Story true, no issues.

Jesus wasn't ordered, He chose to make that sacrifice; He even prayed and asked God if there was any other way. There wasn't. Jesus is the only substitute for sin; He's perfect. What can be better than perfection?

I'm asking honestly: what do you think God should have done? What other way should there be?

The big Q for me is, why did God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden in the first place? He had created a perfect universe. Everyone and everything was happy and existed/lived in peace. Why that particular tree?

To show us that we have a free will. God didn't make us to be puppets; He made us to think for ourselves.

To show us that we have a free will. God didn't make us to be puppets; He made us to think for ourselves.
Adam and Eve didn't know they had free will?

Yes, they did know. God specifically told them not to eat from that tree; they chose to do it. That's free will. God could have stopped them, but that defeats the whole purpose of free will.

Yes, they did know. God specifically told them not to eat from that tree; they chose to do it. That's free will. God could have stopped them, but that defeats the whole purpose of free will.
I'm wondering why God put the tree there in the first place. It's like a mom setting a plate of freshly-baked chocolate chip cookies on the table, telling her children not to eat any, then going away to a different part of the house.

Adam and Eve had free will and apparently knew that. Why would God play devil's advocate and put temptation right in front of them?

Okay, here goes.

1. Man and Woman are created.;)
2. Woman chose to disobey God and thus committed the first sin.:eek:
3. Because of her, the rest of us have to pay.
4. Animals had to be sacrificed in the OT to earn acceptance from God.
5. In the NT, Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. (Hey, I wasn't even born yet! ) The deal was, if you believe that Jesus died for your sake as a way to pay for your sins, THEN I (GOD) will accept you into my kingdom.:cool:

Why torture Jesus that way? Looks like a source as powerful as God could come up with a better plan wouldn't you think? As a parent, you don't punish child A when child B disobeyed do you. That would just be all kinds of wrong:mad:

My love for my children is unconditional and I would never ever turn them away. And I especially would never send them somewhere to be tortured! (Hell) NEVER, no matter what. They could have disobeyed me, not accepted my sacrifice made for them, or even cursed me.
Still, I'd never turn my back on them. In MY opinion, neither would God. This story just does not add up.


this 8384, let me put it this way,

1. I personally don't believe that just two people came together to populate the world. You do realize incest was necessary to get this ball rolling, right? I know most christians would never question what the bible says , so I'm going along with this story for the sake of argument. Evolution makes more sense to me.

2. Still, just playing along.

3. :rolleyes: okay... sure

4. I don't really worship God as much as I "honor" God. I don't feel that rituals of any Kind, from touching a goats head to hanging a man on a cross is what a true God is looking for. To require "worship" from his people is to insinuate that God has an ego that needs to be fed. To honor God is to say, I'll live a life that will please God by helping, caring, sharing, and loving each other.

5. Maybe, maybe not. I wasn't there and I don't know anyone that was. I hope he didn't have to go through all that suffering because my behavior in my life is not based on that event. I would strive to be a good steward of God no matter what. There appears to be evidence that Jesus lived. If all those stories of his acts of kindness are true, then I believe God sent him to us to show us how it is done. How to live a way that is true and pure.

My last paragraph is just showing how preposterous this scenario really is.
It's a father allowing his son to be tortured and killed to provide a way for his other kids not to burn in hell for eternity since they were born of sin through no fault of their own.

And to create another hurdle, these sinful people will have to admit that they are sinners and that I did send my son to suffer a horrible death because of them. Oh, and one more thing. I gave you free will so don't screw it up. Of course, since I AM God, I could have just kept that gift of free will to myself and we could have just avoided this whole mess.

Being God and all, looks like I would have seen this coming. Darn... Hindsight IS 20/20. Yeah Sounds like a vicious circle of bad planning to me if I were the creator of all people.

"Free will", is the christians way of saying... hey, it's not God's fault you are in the predicament you are in. He did you a FAVOR when he gave you free will. It's a GIFT. Yeah, that's it! :rolleyes:Yeah, the gift that keeps on giving.

You didn't cite any works. How can I check them out? Please state what these recent studies are.

To your last sentence: NO study has found ANY connection!


Here are a few that show studies have been done since the 1990's... enough interest has been shown on the topic that many studies have been done and, while some have found them to be conclusive, others have not and feel further study should be done. This is just a small sampling from the US alone:


Can Prayer Heal? (http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/can-prayer-heal)


Howstuffworks (http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=prayer-healing.htm&url=http://www.dukemednews.com/news/article.php?id=9136)


Researchers Look at Prayer and Healing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302177.html)


Praying for the sick – can science prove it helps? (http://news.bahai.org/story/656)

this 8384, let me put it this way,

1. I personally don't believe that just two people came together to populate the world. You do realize incest was necessary to get this ball rolling, right? I know most christians would never question what the bible says , so I'm going along with this story for the sake of argument. Evolution makes more sense to me.

2. Still, just playing along.

3. :rolleyes: okay...sure

4. I don't really worship God as much as I "honor" God. I don't feel that rituals of any Kind, from touching a goats head to hanging a man on a cross is what a true God is looking for. To require "worship" from his people is to insinuate that God has an ego that needs to be fed. To honor God is to say, I'll live a life that will please God by helping, caring, sharing, and loving each other.

5. Maybe, maybe not. I wasn't there and I don't know anyone that was. I hope he didn't have to go through all that suffering because my behavior in my life is not based on that event. I would strive to be a good steward of God no matter what. There appears to be evidence that Jesus lived. If all those stories of his acts of kindness are true, then I believe God sent him to us to show us how it is done. How to live a way that is true and pure.

My last paragraph is just showing how preposterous this scenario really is.
It's a father allowing his son to be tortured and killed to provide a way for his other kids not to burn in hell for eternity since they were born of sin through no fault of their own.

And to create another hurdle, these sinful people will have to admit that they are sinners and that I did send my son to suffer a horrible death because of them. Oh, and one more thing. I gave you free will so don't screw it up. Of course, since I AM God, I could have just kept that gift of free will to myself and we could have just avoided this whole mess.

Being God and all, looks like I would have seen this coming. Darn...Hindsight IS 20/20. yeag Sounds like a vicious circle of bad planning to me if I were the creator of all people.

"Free will", is the christians way of saying...hey, it's not God's fault you are in the predicament you are in. He did you a FAVOR when he gave you free will. It's a GIFT. Yeah, that's it! :rolleyes:Yeah, the gift that keeps on giving.

1. Actually, Adam & Eve didn't have children until after they had sinned. Maybe they were meant to be the only ones, who knows?

2. Going along...

3. Not sure what you mean by that comment.

4. Worshipping God is honoring Him. If He is so powerful that He created everything, why shouldn't he be praised?

5. That's good that you try to be the best person you can. Unfortunately, not everyone does and that lands us into the world we live in now. People are selfish and evil. They don't care who they hurt or destroy, as long as they get what they want.

Christ didn't die for us simply because we were born into sin; Christ died because we all sin on a daily basis. Even my pastor sins, and he admits it in front of the entire congregation. The importance is acknowledging that you screwed up and trying to not repeat the same mistake(s).

Yes, free will IS exactly that. For example, let's say an attractive woman works with your husband. For him to have an affair with her would be his free will decision; would you believe him if he said, "Well, that's not really my fault. The temptation was put there by God, so too bad for you and our marriage"? I'm going to be presumptuous and say no.

Adam and Eve didn't know they had free will?

Interestingly, according to one old Jewish traditon, they didn't. It was the serpent who disclosed this to them. Prior to that, they were so thoroughly in harmony with God that they were unaware of possessing a will separate from his.

Interestingly, according to one old Jewish traditon, they didn't. It was the serpent who disclosed this to them. Prior to that, they were so thoroughly in harmony with God that they were unaware of possessing a will separate from his.
So why did God plunk those delicious-smelling, warm and fresh chocolate chip cookies in front of them? He's omniscent. He knew what would happen. He knew they would grab a cookie and eat it. He knew they would sin. He knew they would need a Savior. Why start the ball rolling with the plate of cookies?

this8384,
Good questions.
Thanks for asking them,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

this8384,
Good questions.
Thanks for asking them,
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Wondergirl, not this8384, is asking the questions.

Wondergirl
Cookies??
LOL
I thought it was fruit from a fruit tree.
Y think that It was a test to see if man would obey God,
Fred

So why did God plunk those delicious-smelling, warm and fresh chocolate chip cookies in front of them? He's omniscent. He knew what would happen. He knew they would grab a cookie and eat it. He knew they would sin. He knew they would need a Savior. Why start the ball rolling with the plate of cookies?

I don't know. For giggles?

Don't forget, though, God's foreknowlegde isn't causally necessitating. His knowing what would happen didn't cause it to happen. Hence this8384's point about free will. I think we are bound to run into a serious roadblock with your question--though it's a question I share, and for which I can't find a satisfying answer: The why-questions can be pushed all the way back. Why create in the first place? I feel the force of the questions, even though I'm not entirely sure the questions are the right ones.

Wondergirl
cookies???
LOL
I thought it was fruit from a fruit tree.

The Bible never says fruit tree. Adam and Eve ate of the tree's "fruit," what has been produced by the tree. I'm thinking it was a chocolate chip cookie tree.

I don't know. For giggles?

Don't forget, though, God's foreknowlegde isn't causally necessitating. His knowing what would happen didn't cause it to happen. Hence this8384's point about free will. I think we are bound to run into a serious roadblock with your question--though it's a question I share, and for which I can't find a satisfying answer: The why-questions can be pushed all the way back. Why create in the first place? I feel the force of the questions, even though I'm not entirely sure the questions are the right ones.
I didn't say anything about cause, or that God caused it to happen.

In the same way, the mother's putting the plate of cookies on the table did not cause her children to take any.

Y think that It was a test to see if man would obey God,
Fred
Why was a test needed? This was Paradise.

The Bible never says fruit tree. Adam and Eve ate of the tree's "fruit," what has been produced by the tree. I'm thinking it was a chocolate chip cookie tree.



Mmmmmm, now that surely would have been tempting... ;)

I didn't say anything about cause, or that God caused it to happen.

In the same way, the mother's putting the plate of cookies on the table did not cause her children to take any.

Does the mother who puts the plate on the table *know* that the children will take them? No, even though she may have good reason to suspect it. God, however, *knew* what would happen, and God's foreknowledge can't be mistaken. At any rate, I didn't attribute any claim about causation to you; I was just offering an additional point for consideration.

I don't know. For giggles?

Don't forget, though, God's foreknowlegde isn't causally necessitating. His knowing what would happen didn't cause it to happen.

I disagree. This is the age-old problem of man's free will vis-à-vis God's omnipotence and omniscience. Logically, one side or the other has to give. It may be insoluble.

I disagree. This is the age-old problem of man's free will vis-a-vis God's omnipotence and omniscience. Logically, one side or the other has to give. It may be insoluble.

Yeah, I was thinking of Augustine's solution, which argues that knowledge isn't a causally necessitating factor. Knowing the p doesn't make it the case that p. This strikes me as quite plausible, even where the knowledge is infallible. It isn't God's knowing that p that made p happen (since God's infallible foreknowledge extends to future *contingents*).

1. Actually, Adam & Eve didn't have children until after they had sinned. Maybe they were meant to be the only ones, who knows?

2. Going along...

3. Not sure what you mean by that comment.

4. Worshipping God is honoring Him. If He is so powerful that He created everything, why shouldn't he be praised?

5. That's good that you try to be the best person you can. Unfortunately, not everyone does and that lands us into the world we live in now. People are selfish and evil. They don't care who they hurt or destroy, as long as they get what they want.

Christ didn't die for us simply because we were born into sin; Christ died because we all sin on a daily basis. Even my pastor sins, and he admits it in front of the entire congregation. The importance is acknowledging that you screwed up and trying to not repeat the same mistake(s).

Yes, free will IS exactly that. For example, let's say an attractive woman works with your husband. For him to have an affair with her would be his free will decision; would you believe him if he said, "Well, that's not really my fault. The temptation was put there by God, so too bad for you and our marriage"? I'm going to be presumptuous and say no.


1. So what are you saying. Since they were on a roll of sin, they decided to go all the way and have sex with their own family members?

2. okay...

3. I meant okay... for the sake of argument:rolleyes:

4. Nothing wrong with praising God. Go for it, but it is not what god is seeking. Like I said, he doesn't have that egoic need that we do.

5. You are correct. There are people in the world like that.
I believe you get what you put out there. If you cause misery, you will eventually feel that same misery. That is just MY belief that resonates truth and common sense to me. I have no hard fact and neither does anyone else. You can only go on what you believe for whatever reason you believe it.

I have NO PROBLEM admitting when I screw up and apologizing to God for it. And if he loves me anything like I love my kids, he will forgive me and love me even when I falter.
That is between God and me. Nobody needed to die for it. Tell me this. Are you good and believe in God and Jesus, etc. just to stay out of hell or would you be doing exactly what you are doing now even if you had never heard of God, Jesus, or bible?

No, he would be responsible for his own choices. Let me give you an example.

Your little boy has free will as we all do. That's one of the many functions of the brain. To decipher what's the best or easiest or fun-ist, or safest, or most rewarding choice to go with. Now, say you are god.

You have provided a pass or fail situation. You have explained the consequences.
Pass and your reward is a glorious experience beyond description.
Fail and your punishment will be never ending agony, pain, and darkness.

You've told little Johnny not to eat the cookies on the table. Now, he has his free will but his flesh is weak and he gives in to the temptation EVEN though he knew the consequences.

Now, you set up the consequences so you have to follow through.
So, you send your little boy to hell. But hey, HE did it to HIMSELF so there. He was warned.

Would you ever set up consequences like this for your child? Of course not, the stakes are too high. And I don't believe a loving God would do this to his children anymore than you or I would. Something as enormous as eternity hinging on something as shaky as
Free will doesn't make sense.

Here are a few that show studies have been done since the 1990's....enough interest has been shown on the topic that many studies have been done and, while some have found them to be conclusive, others have not and feel further study should be done. This is just a small sampling from the US alone:


Can Prayer Heal? (http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/can-prayer-heal)


Howstuffworks (http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=prayer-healing.htm&url=http://www.dukemednews.com/news/article.php?id=9136)


Researchers Look at Prayer and Healing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302177.html)


Praying for the sick – can science prove it helps? (http://news.bahai.org/story/656)

DoulaLC, Have you read all my replies to this question? Every case cited has been shown to be in error. I simply can't keep refuting every instance found on the internet. If you do your due diligence, truly examine every case you cite, you will find they are filled with flaws. I know because I've done it. If, after examining thoroughly every case you cite, you then truly believe you have a solid case, I will be willing, one final time, to reply.

What is apparent is that, in their zeal to prove the issue, all proponents skip or omit important facts. This is understandable, but it's not scientific evidence.

Yeah, I was thinking of Augustine's solution, which argues that knowledge isn't a causally necessitating factor. Knowing the p doesn't make it the case that p. This strikes me as quite plausible, even where the knowledge is infallible. It isn't God's knowing that p that made p happen (since God's infallible foreknowledge extends to future *contingents*).

It is not knowledge alone. The difficulty comes into play when God is described both as all-knowing AND all-powerful (in the sense that he is the creator). Being the creator and all-knowing, God knows what his creation will do - even before he creates his creation. Can God's creation act against what God has foreknown? If so, God is changeable and therefore not perfect (not God). And, knowing what his creation will do (sin, say, and go to hell) why would God create his creation in the first place? Now the problem of all-loving comes into play. It's a conundrum that no one has ever explained logically.

I think the fundamental problem is time. As creatures, we think of time as linear. To God, time must be non-linear. If time is non-linear, cause and effect goes out the window. If cause and effect goes out the window, our logic (and reason) fails. Another way of saying this is that, to God, there is no time. Augustine, as far as I know, may have been the first to posit God outside time. But he doesn't seem to have followed it to its logical conclusion.

The answer found in the Book of Job may be the only answer, which is really, to humans steeped in rationality, a non-answer.

I trust I have thoroughly muddled the question.

disagrees: What is p

cozyk, why the reddie? I didn't say anything factually incorrect (read then rules).

"p" is just a variable, standing in for whatever you want it to. Sheesh.

To God, time must be non-linear.
I've always been told--and believe--God is not caught in time, is not bound by it, is outside of it. For God, like for my cats, it is always Now.

Athos,
I think you may be right that the problem can not be solved by we mortals.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Athos,
I think you may be right that the problem can not be solved by we mortals.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I suspect you're right, my friend. I tried to give you an "agree' but it wouldn't let me.

DoulaLC, Have you read all my replies to this question? Every case cited has been shown to be in error. I simply can't keep refuting every instance found on the internet. If you do your due diligence, truly examine every case you cite, you will find they are filled with flaws. I know because I've done it. If, after examining thoroughly every case you cite, you then truly believe you have a solid case, I will be willing, one final time, to reply.

What is apparent is that, in their zeal to prove the issue, all proponents skip or omit important facts. This is understandable, but it's not scientific evidence.

Yes, I have read your replies... :) Please read through each article... they will state that some studies have not found a connection. I am in agreement with you that some studies have shown there to be no connection. I never said they didn't. You had said that studies in the 1990's had found this to be true... I agree, that is the conclusion those studies came to.

I was stating, and have shown, that there have been studies since that time and that, while some have also come to that conclusion, some of those conducting such research are not wholly convinced and that further studying takes place.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all... just simply stating that enough people believe in the possibility, so that possibility continues to be studied... in other words, to many people, it is not a done deal even if it is to others.

I'm sorry, I just didn't understand what you were trying to say.

"It isn't God's knowing that p that made p happen"

I have NO PROBLEM admitting when I screw up and apologizing to God for it. And if he loves me anything like I love my kids, he will forgive me and love me even when I falter.
That is between God and me. Nobody needed to die for it. Tell me this. Are you good and believe in God and Jesus, etc. just to stay out of hell or would you be doing exactly what you are doing now even if you had never heard of God, Jesus, or bible?

No, he would be responsible for his own choices. Let me give you an example.

Of course God loves us, there's no debate there. God never stops loving us. That's a common misconception and I hate it when so-called "Christians" go around telling people that God hates them because they're gay, because they murdered someone, because they sleep around, etc. God hates our sin but still loves us.
If nobody needed to sacrifice, then how do we cleanse ourselves of sin? What option do we have? Are you suggesting that we, as humans, are worthy of Heaven all by ourselves?


Your little boy has free will as we all do. That's one of the many functions of the brain. To decipher what's the best or easiest or fun-ist, or safest, or most rewarding choice to go with. Now, say you are god.

You have provided a pass or fail situation. You have explained the consequences.
Pass and your reward is a glorious experience beyond description.
Fail and your punishment will be never ending agony, pain, and darkness.

You've told little Johnny not to eat the cookies on the table. Now, he has his free will but his flesh is weak and he gives in to the temptation EVEN though he knew the consequences.

Now, you set up the consequences so you have to follow through.
So, you send your little boy to hell. But hey, HE did it to HIMSELF so there. He was warned.

Would you ever set up consequences like this for your child? Of course not, the stakes are too high. And I don't believe a loving God would do this to his children anymore than you or I would. Something as enormous as eternity hinging on something as shaky as
free will doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure if "Johnny" is supposed to be Jesus, or us. Assuming it's us, we don't have to go to Hell. God doesn't give us one chance to sin and that's it, the same way you don't give your kids one chance. If you give your kids multiple chances and they continue to disobey you, what do you do? You punish them, correct? Why should God be any different? Why should we get a free pass to say, think, do what we feel without consequences? We have punishment in our world here; you break the law, you go to jail. What sense would it make to create a system of order, only to change the rules for the afterlife?

Well god loves everyone and well he didn't have too pay for our sins but he did so the least you can do is respect his commands. Even if you disobey his commands Gods love is unconditional!! Always remember that:cool:mad:cool:

[QUOTE=this8384;1487061]Of course God loves us, there's no debate there. God never stops loving us. That's a common misconception and I hate it when so-called "Christians" go around telling people that God hates them because they're gay, because they murdered someone, because they sleep around, etc. God hates our sin but still loves us.
If nobody needed to sacrifice, then how do we cleanse ourselves of sin? What option do we have? Are you suggesting that we, as humans, are worthy of Heaven all by ourselves?

I don't like it when people say God hates people that are this or that too.:mad:

For me, "cleansing ourselves from sin" is something that happens every time I go to God with remorse, sorrow, with the sincerest promise to do better and ask for forgiveness.

I feel like God's response to me is , "of course, thank you for your sincerity , I believe you. Now, go along, continue doing the best you can, and I'll be waiting for you here in "heaven" when I call you home." And...never forget how much I love you."

How is that for another option?
See, no sacrifice by another person was needed for God and I to have this exchange. I am responsible for my own relationship with God. Yes, we are worthy if we choose to be. If you spend your life just smacking God in the face so to speak and live only for your own egoic needs, then you have screwed yourself.

I'm not sure if "Johnny" is supposed to be Jesus, or us. Assuming it's us, we don't have to go to Hell.

Johnny is us, also known as children of God
The parent here is God.

God doesn't give us one chance to sin and that's it, the same way you don't give your kids one chance. If you give your kids multiple chances and they continue to disobey you, what do you do? You punish them, correct? Why should God be any different? Why should we get a free pass to say, think, do what we feel without consequences?


I'm not saying that God should put up with continued disrespect. There should always be consequences for actions. And of course I know God doesn't just give us one chance.

What I am really referring to is the unyielding opinion that some christians have that no matter what good works you do, if you don't believe Jesus is your savior or that there is even a God, your butt is going to hell. I don't believe God is that cruel or that small. There are MANY reasons why someone believes as they do. I think God takes all that into consideration and is not that cut and dry with his reward or punishment.

No one that has a moral compass at all is going to think "I can do anything I want and all I have to do is ask for forgiveness and all will be fine". God knows the difference, he not that gullible.

I don't like it when people say God hates people that are this or that too.:mad:

For me, "cleansing ourselves from sin" is something that happens every time I go to God with remorse, sorrow, with the sincerest promise to do better and ask for forgiveness.

I feel like God's response to me is , "of course, thank you for your sincerity , I believe you. Now, go along, continue doing the best you can, and I'll be waiting for you here in "heaven" when I call you home." And...never forget how much I love you."

How is that for another option?
See, no sacrifice by another person was needed for God and I to have this exchange. I am responsible for my own relationship with God. Yes, we are worthy if we choose to be. If you spend your life just smacking God in the face so to speak and live only for your own egoic needs, then you have screwed yourself.


That's the whole thing though. Old Testament practices didn't allow for us to approach God; that's why they had priests, the one person who was pure enough to enter into the Temple and ask God to forgive everyone's sin. Christ died so that we have that direct connection to God. We don't need a priest's forgiveness, which is why I don't agree with Catholicism; when we've sinned, we can go directly to God and confess. That was why Jesus sacrificed His life and is referred to as our Savior, because we had no direct path to God before His death and resurrection.


I'm not saying that God should put up with continued disrespect. There should always be consequences for actions. And of course I know God doesn't just give us one chance.

What I am really referring to is the unyielding opinion that some christians have that no matter what good works you do, if you don't believe Jesus is your savior or that there is even a God, your butt is going to hell. I don't believe God is that cruel or that small. There are MANY reasons why someone believes as they do. I think God takes all that into consideration and is not that cut and dry with his reward or punishment.

No one that has a moral compass at all is going to think "I can do anything I want and all I have to do is ask for forgiveness and all will be fine". God knows the difference, he not that gullible.


That's why the Bible says "Faith without works is dead." You can't proclaim to believe God's Word and then not act on it. They go hand-in-hand.

That's the whole thing though. Old Testament practices didn't allow for us to approach God; that's why they had priests, the one person who was pure enough to enter into the Temple and ask God to forgive everyone's sin. Christ died so that we have that direct connection to God. We don't need a priest's forgiveness, which is why I don't agree with Catholicism; when we've sinned, we can go directly to God and confess. That was why Jesus sacrificed His life and is referred to as our Savior, because we had no direct path to God before His death and resurrection.

I would hope that if I lived during that time that I would have the same thought process as I do now.

Just because the OT practice did not "allow" us to approach God one on one , I would still be a free thinker. Just like now, I'd say "who comes up with this stuff?"
YOU do what you gotta do. If that is to speak to God through a priest, go for it." Personally, I think God would love to hear from me direct.

What makes a priest anymore grand in Gods eyes than anyone else.? That sounds more like "pompous God". Did no one think for themselves. Just blindly follow the custom of the day? Geeesh!
Christ would not have had to die for that if people just thought for themselves.

cozyk
What makes you think that people in the OT could not have direct contact with GOd.
The OT had many cases of where people did just that.
Also why did Jesus establish a Church whose followers were the first priests?
Jesus also gave the Holy Spirit to guide them which The holy Spirit did and still does.
Think on that for awhile.
Also this, I am Catholic and I have much more direct contact with God than I do with my priests.
But my priest has the power to forgive my sins just as Jesus does. The difference is that of direct, face to face, confession of my sins which the priest helps me with.
And I do get an out loud verbal answer from the priest that I do not get from Jesus.
There is a great satisfaction in that.
I and a billion other Catholics (plus with some other denominations) have that great grace and joy that others without priest do not have.
Having been a Protestant for many years and now a Catholic for over 30 years has dramatically taught me that difference.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

cozyk
What makes you think that people in the OT could not have direct contact with GOd.
The OT had many cases of where people did just that.
Also why did Jesus establish a Church whose followers were the first priests?
Jesus also gave the the Holy Spirit to guide them which The holy Spirit did and still does.
Think on that for awhile.
Also this, I am Catholic and I have much more direct contact with God than I do with my priests.
But my priest has the power to forgive my sins just as Jesus does. The difference is that of direct, face to face, confession of my sins which the priest helps me with.
And I do get an out loud verbal answer from the priest that I do not get from Jesus.
There is a great satisfaction in that.
I and a billion other Catholics (plus with some other denominations) have that great grace and joy that others without priest do not have.
Having been a Protestant for many years and now a Catholic for over 30 years has dramatically taught me that difference.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I agree Fred...

Such confessions are tangible remission of sin for the penitent; not a covering over of sin.

JoeT

cozyk
What makes you think that people in the OT could not have direct contact with GOd.
The OT had many cases of where people did just that.
What makes me think that? Read post 224.


Also why did Jesus establish a Church whose followers were the first priests?
Jesus also gave the the Holy Spirit to guide them which The holy Spirit did and still does.
Think on that for awhile.
I'm thinking.:confused: "Gave the holy spirit to guide them." How do you give someone a holy spirit. You mean Jesus put thoughts into their heads that they believed were put their by God?:confused:

Also this, I am Catholic and I have much more direct contact with God than I do with my priests. And so you should.

But my priest has the power to forgive my sins just as Jesus does. You think?

The difference is that of direct, face to face, confession of my sins which the priest helps me with.
And I do get an out loud verbal answer from the priest that I do not get from Jesus.
Why do you have to go into those little confessional booths. I mean if you are going to be as intimate as to share your sins with him. and he knows your voice , what is the point of the booths?

There is a great satisfaction in that.
If it gives you satisfaction to confess your sins to another man, and have him forgive you, then you are doing what works for you and that's great.

I and a billion other Catholics (plus with some other denominations) have that great grace and joy that others without priest do not have.
Do you have to make an appointment, or is there a standard confession time, do you have to get in line? How does that work?


Having been a Protestant for many years and now a Catholic for over 30 years has dramatically taught me that difference.
I'm glad that you are happy with your faith.
Do you mind if I ask you why you left the Protestants?

Peace and kindness,
Fred


What makes me think that? Read post 224 .

CozyK.
First of all I believe Jesus has the power to give anything He wants to.
The bible says that Jesus said to his apostles, "Receive the Holy Spirit" so I believe He did give them the Holy Spirit.
Next, I don't think that, I know it because Jesus gave his priests the power to forgive or bind sins when he said, "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:19). And again I believe Jesus.
Next the little confession booths were for security away from other parishioners but that has been done away with. Now days I sit in a separate room face to face with my priest.
Next there is a special time before Mass for those who want to confess.
Sometimes there are a few waiting. Also a person can ask for a special appointment. I have done so when I needed to.
Next the reason I left was because of the great hatred of the Catholics I witnessed with the Protestants and I began to wonder about that for I had seen unfounded hatred among people against people so I went to studying the Catholic faith.
You might say I went to the Dodge vehicle dealer not the Ford dealer to find the truth about dodge vehicles.
I found that the Catholic Church was much more accurate to what the bible said than what the Protestants were telling. Also I found that the Protestants were not telling the truth about what the Catholic taught about Mary, The Eucharist, Confession and other of their teachings.
So I became a Catholic.
I hope that answers your questions.
If you have more please ask.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Let me clarify; when I said that people in the OT couldn't "approach" God, I certainly didn't mean that they couldn't communicate with Him through prayer and worship. I meant in the aspect of the remission of their sins.

I believe that no religion can save you; faith can. Unlike Fred, I don't agree that a priest can forgive your sins; only God can forgive them. I don't believe that the Pope is holy because he's human, just like the rest of us and sins just as we do. I don't pray to Mary or believe she was holy, even though she gave birth to Jesus because she, too, was human and sinned just as we do. I believe what the Bible says about Jesus being the Way, the Truth and the Light.

I don't agree that a priest can forgive your sins; only God can forgive them.
It isn't the priest or minister who forgives the sins. It is God who does the forgiving. The priest is acting in God's place. Since we can't see God or hear Him audibly forgive our sins, the priest takes on the role of God in the formal setting of a church service or private confessional. But anyone at anytime, OT or NT or yesterday or today or in the future, can come to God to ask forgiveness. Never does the Bible say this cannot be done privately and personally.

It isn't the priest or minister who forgives the sins. It is God who does the forgiving. The priest is acting in God's place. Since we can't see God or hear Him audibly forgive our sins, the priest takes on the role of God in the formal setting of a church service or private confessional. But anyone at anytime, OT or NT or yesterday or today or in the future, can come to God to ask forgiveness. Never does the Bible say this cannot be done privately and personally.

This is what I was referring to:

But my priest has the power to forgive my sins just as Jesus does.

I agree that anyone can come to God and ask forgiveness. I don't think it's necessary to confess to a priest because a priest has no control over whether we are forgiven; that is something God chooses to do because He loves us.

this8384.
Do you believe that you can forgive sins?
I do.
Jesus taught us that and even so in prayer...
"Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us."
I believe that priests can forgive sins because Jesus gave them the power to do so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't believe that I can forgive sins, certainly not. I believe that I can forgive someone who may have hurt me and make a conscious decision not to harbor resentment against them. But if they don't repent of it, then it's still sin. Me not being angry about it doesn't make it okay for them to do.

It isn't the priest or minister who forgives the sins. It is God who does the forgiving.

OK... I agree



The priest is acting in God's place. Since we can't see God or hear Him audibly forgive our sins, the priest takes on the role of God in the formal setting of a church service or private confessional.

Nope this is the i~ i~ RED FLAG i~ i~ The priest never takes the role of God! Priests are partakers of what would be a heavenly calling, and should remain faithful to Jesus, The Anointed One. Their part in confession is instruction towards correctness, and in obedience of righteousness.




But anyone at anytime, OT or NT or yesterday or today or in the future, can come to God to ask forgiveness. Never does the Bible say this cannot be done privately and personally.

Agree... From what scripture has shown, when the priest instructed confession to be done, whether it was private or the entire congregation. The priest would direct each or all to make confession unto God.

Note Isaiah when God tells us to come to Him, and together with Him talk of His promises. (Isaiah 43:26)

Isaiah 46:25-26 I, [even] I, [am] he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

The priest never takes the role of God! Priests are partakers of what would be a heavenly calling, and should remain faithful to Jesus, The Anointed One. Their part in confession is instruction towards correctness, and in obedience of righteousness.
Of course that's what the priest does. When he faces the altar, he is one with the congregation, just another lamb of God. When he turns to face the congregation, as when he pronounces the forgiveness of sins, he is acting in God's stead, in His place. The same goes for the rest of the liturgy. Please ask your priest or minister. It's standard liturgical practice.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Adam refused to eat and had reminded Eve of God's command about that particular tree.
I can just hear Adam saying, "Spit it out, Eve! Quick! Spit it out before the Lord walks over here again!"

I don't think anyone has addressed this point. In the story of the fall into sin, yes, Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit, but it didn't take much to convince Adam to take a bite too. Women have historically gotten a bad rep because Eve "fell" first. I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Adam refused to eat and had reminded Eve of God's command about that particular tree.

In defense of women everywhere, I like to think that it took all the cunning of Satan to convince Eve to eat of the fruit, but it took only a few sweet words from Eve to get Adam to take a bite.

Everyone knows that satan isn't man's greatest weakness ;D. Why did God give women such hypnotizing hips?

In defense of women everywhere, I like to think that it took all the cunning of Satan to convince Eve to eat of the fruit, but it took only a few sweet words from Eve to get Adam to take a bite.

I have to spread the rep, Wondergirl, but this is a great point. I always make it a point to emphasize this with students. The guys don't like it! Go figure.

All of the above sounds like a lot of pomp and circumstance to me. Too much brew-haha. If you have done wrong by God, go to God and humbly ask for his forgiveness. If you have done wrong by someone else, go to God and that person. Other than that, there is no need to involve anyone else. It is none of their business. God does not need a mediator and neither do we.

Their part in confession is instruction towards correctness, and in obedience of righteousness.

Instruction towards correctness?? That sounds strange.

All of the above sounds like a lot of pomp and circumstance to me.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Confession and absolution have been a ritual in church services for thousands of years.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Confession and absolution have been a ritual in church services for thousands of years.

That is true, yet it is why I don't care for church services, too much ritual. Not enough real.

3. Because of her, the rest of us have to pay.
Of course, none of us would have believed the serpent and would have then eaten the fruit. We all go through each day without gossiping, lying, cheating, stealing, dishonoring someone, hating, envying, being jealous, being angry. Nope. No succumbing to temptation and fruit-eating for any of us.

That is true, yet it is why I don't care for church services, too much ritual. Not enough real.
So how would you bring in "real"? What would you change and add?

That is true, yet it is why I don't care for church services, too much ritual. Not enough real.

If you are having problems with all the pomp and ceremony in one church why drop out completely. Why not try another flavor of church?
Not everyone is satisfied with the way the catholic church for instance conducts it's servi8ces. Some don't like my brand either. I really don't care. As long as you are in a spirit filled church that preaches the word of God I really don't care where you attend.

I attended church regularly for 40 plus years. I've been a Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian. I've been a member of six different churches. The best church I've ever attended took place in a high school , was extremely casual, there was no "stand up, recite this, kneel down say that." There was a band that played secular music that was in some way connected to the message for that day. I don't care for hymns. They just seem to d-r-a-g-g-g- on and the wording is so old. ( I like more energetic music) They had skits most Sundays that would convey a point and make you think. The minister did not "preach" to us and did not talk down to us or ever shout to us from a lofty pulpit. The only reason I stop going was because it was in Richmond Va. And we moved to Pa. I have been searching for that same kind of church ever since, and believe me, I've looked under every rock. Even churches that have so called "contemporary services" aren't nearly as casual as the one in Richmond. But, I keep my eyes and ears open to this day, I just don't visit that much anymore.

I have been searching for that same kind of church ever since, and believe me, I've looked under every rock. Even churches that have so called "contemporary services" aren't nearly as casual as the one in Richmond. But, I keep my eyes and ears open to this day, I just don't visit that much anymore.
Have you contacted that church in Richmond to find out where similar and associated churches are in PA? Are you close to NY or NJ or OH that you would go across state lines for that kind of church if one is there?

Have you contacted that church in Richmond to find out where similar and associated churches are in PA? Are you close to NY or NJ or OH that you would go across state lines for that kind of church if one is there?

I spoke to the Richmond church about that before I left. They guided me to a particular kind of church to look for, but when I attended, it wasn't the same thing. "Too bible-ley"
I live in Atlanta now. Haven't found anything here in the 5 years I've been here.

If you are having problems with all the pomp and ceremony in one church why drop out completely. Why not try another flavor of church?
Not everyone is satisfied with the way the catholic church for instance conducts it's servi8ces. Some don't like my brand either. I really don't care. As long as you are in a spirit filled church that preaches the word of God I really don't care where you attend.

That's funny. :p

While you're at it, why not make up your own religion? What does Jesus have to do with it anyway? Why have rituals? What does it matter that Jesus established them? Why become a member of Christ's Church? What does it matter that Jesus established it?

Yeah, that's funny.

Akoue,
Yes that ia a good point and good to make it known to students.
I think the guys don't like it because the point hits home.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.