₦airaland Forum

doclan: .. Mawning Maria.. I dnt wana exchange words answering posts, bt I wana clerify smtin to U.. Quoting from Douay catholic translation, 1TIM 2vs5 reads "For there is one GOD; and one mediator of GOD and men, the man Christ Jesus" if faced wt a questn lyk who is Man's mediator to GOD? will it nt be gr8 to answer Mary? And get it wrong? It clearly is Christ... No one nids a priest to interprete the bible to him, God's understanding is all we need.. @ Superior1, with all dilligence, teach them the actual truth. God bless all.

So why do people go to pastors, friends, family to intercede for them?

rhowly: As a former devout catholic I would know. If only catholics could admit some of their doctrines were man-made and other denominations or faiths could see and realize that catholics are aware that most of their ways of worship are not based strictly on bible teachings but nonetheless hold on tenaciously to them all these arguments would cease. People often win arguments but not people. These arguments hinge greatly on PRIDE. One party trying to prove d other baseless and the other trying to erect structures midair but silently saying your victory during this argument is all u take home. *sighs*

I cant find where Christ said anyone should make a "Bible." Yet the Catholic Church compiled and made it in the fourth century.

Is that also a man-made tradition we should do away with?

@Superior,

The Catholic Church is presently being persecuted by the most powerful country in the world - USA - because we are fighting for the right of the unborn child to live.

You, superior, what have you or your "church" ever done to protect the unborn from the genocide they are going through worldwide?

Please answer the simple question and provide evidence.

I am giving you present-day easily verifiable examples.

If you can answer me, I'll move to ancient times.

superior1: Catholic Church is the epitome of hatred, persecution, paganism and demonism. It is obvious you are not familiar with Church history, how can you say Catholic Church is being persecuted, are they not Chief persecutor of scientists and everyone who doesn't buy into their heretic doctrines?

Wake up and smell the coffee, it is time you flee the religion of dead bones and marianism.

Just one obvious example.

The Catholic Church is the biggest Charity provider in the world.

Nobody comes close.

You, Superior1, what good have you done for mankind?

So the Bible is God?!

When they contradict the Catholic Church, they usually end up crazy.

Fab4succex: Bible is said to be the word of God...& according to JOHN 1:1-It says that "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD,AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD,AND THE WORD WAS GOD"..So,let it b clear to you that the BIBLE IS GOD..

We Catholics also wonder how the Church has survived all the hatred, envy and persecution fron the biggest and most powerful human institutions in the world.

Then we hear Jesus whisper those words again:

"The gates of hades shall not prevail against you."

"I will be with you until the end of the age."

And our hearts are relaxed.

[quote author=WIMUNR?]Sometimes I wonder how almost 2 billion people are held in the bondage of CATHOLICSM!!!
Vatican City, well done o, you guys are damn good. Less than a thousand peeps (most of them 'oldies') effectively and effortlessly enslaving such a large population of people scattered around the world.
The vatican understanding that a physical god appeals better to man, coupled with the threat posed by the early CHRISTIANS, decided to adopt a form of christianity that has so much pagan dimension to it....talk abt the statutes, the crucifix, the festivals and other hidden clues.

The bitter truth is that catholics are not Christians, they are just "Pagans clothed in christianity".
I pray they find true salvation though.

Sometimes I imagine the number of petitions and prayers wasting on Mary's remains wherever it is. It's no better than praying through Sango or Amadioha.[/quote]

@ bernimore,

Can you please be open and honest?

Did Cardinal Pell say
"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them,"?

Yes or No?

You criticize the Cardinal for saying it was impossible to know when there was a first human...

Yes or No?

There is a woman I love so much...

There is a woman I love...

There is a woman I love so much...

Her name is Mary.

Mary... Mary... Mother Mary...

Mama we love you.

adino: Thank you for this song. God Bless You.

You're welcome. God bless you too.

PhenomenonVFX: Welldone @italo. I like the way u have given ur answers even though I dont believe in all of them I do appreciate a good argument. It shows that u are not like most religious people like @turnstoner who dont even know what evolution is about (they think it is about monkeys spontaneously turning into humans) but have dedicated every breath they can muster to oppose it.
Being a deist, I do believe in evolution and being a scientist, the evidence is clear for the open-minded to see. I believe evolution is the tool the Creative Source uses in making ever-improving living beings. A wise designer would rather make a design that is capable of adapting to new situation and generating properties that best matches the situation: Adaptive Control.
For the continued sustainance of the world, the beings in it have to be as diverse as possible in order for the to be more chance of some of them surviving.

Thanks. I have learnt that many people will hold on to their belief or unbelief (especially publicly) even though they are clearly proved wrong. I dont try to force anyone to believe what I believe. I am not against people of other creeds. I am only against the hypocrisy of turning a blind eye to obvious truth and/or clinging to clear lies and untruths and unverified or unverifiable information simply to make a case for our belief. So all I say is: lets present our facts and arguments fairly and honestly...and any person of truth and integrity will be able to find truth.

adeaugustus: Very Funny the way you guys turned a sensitive topic into a catholic vs evolution. You probably don't understand religion, you're arguing based on doctrine rather than religion. Thanks

Sorry, are you the same person that typed the OP or did someone hack into your account?

Is Catholicism not a religion?

adeaugustus: Religion teaches that we're all going to die and go to heaven, it teaches that there is a supreme man that created human and we're going to give an account of what we did on earth to him. Christians believes that the world would come to an end. (I don't know what the Muslim believes as per the rapture thing).


But recent discoveries are contradicting this believe, human race is gradually undergoing evolution, which means another version of humanoid is succeeding the homo sapiens. I think what happened during the dinosaur era is currently happening to the human race too. Remember that over twenty one (21) species of humanoid co-existed with Homo Sapiens, and it is an established fact that the difference between Neanders and Homo Sapiens is less than 0.004%. (maybe there is another version of human already!) All facts and events are pointing towards the reasoning that our great grand children might be something different from us! We've got people with various "disorder":
1. Blue-eyed kid in China.
2. Schizophrenia.
3. People that don't forget whatever they see.
3. Geeks
4. Master crammers.
5. E.t.c.
If you check the stat for the increase in the rate of Autism over the century, it's alarming! And it is proven that autistic brains are hyper-sensitive, hyper-perspective, hyper-plastic e.t.c. Which gives them a modern version of brain.


If you join the dots, then you would observe that, human being is gradually undergoing evolution, which is contrary to the general religious believe.


My question (concern) is this: Does any of the religion in practise have a prepared argument or explanation on religion and evolution?

The species before Homo Sapiens will they be judged too? What of the ones that would succeed us?

If you don't believe in evolution, what do you have to say about discoveries of all this creatures that existed before the religious book records? The earth is over 14 billion years or so, but the religious book record is not to as dated as the earth.

Am a bit confused over here, is there any reasonable explanation to all this?

You started your OP with "religion TEACHES," then you accuse us of talking doctrine not religion.

You obviously dont know that doctrine means teaching.

You need either a dictionary or humility to accept wrong or both.

BERNIMOORE: the problem here is not about the timing, as you want to change the topic, but rather

cardinal pell could not imagine that 'all people could decend from a single pair of parent(adam and eve) as a source

this can be seen from the way he stated that "According to Genesis"

"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them"



rather than forcing timing on this issue, the cardinal was only expressing that he does not see where adam and eve 'fits in' in the human's existence. He is not sure that adam/eve can be responsible for the source of our existence!

[size=14pt]simply put; he cast doubt on our source of existence, by fighting the holy scripture![/size]

You anti-Catholics dont even bother to read thoroughly and confirm what you read before you start your criticism.

It wasnt Cardinal Pell that said
"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them,"

It was the writer of the article.

Secondly, it was you who first criticized the Cardinal for saying it was impossible to know when there was a first human...

...then when I told you to tell us when there was a first man, you started accusing me of making it about timing.

Why cant you people be honest for once?

Ave Maria, O Maiden, O Mother,
fondly thy children are calling on thee;
thine are the graces unclaimed by another,
sinless and beautiful Star of the sea.

Mater amabilis, ora pro nobis,
pray for thy children who call upon thee;
Ave Sunctissima, Ave Purissima,
sinless and beautiful Star of the sea.


Ave Maria, the night shades are falling,
softly, our voices arise unto thee;
earth’s lonely exiles for succour are calling,
sinless and beautiful Star of the sea.

Mater amabilis, ora pro nobis,
pray for thy children who call upon thee;
Ave Sunctissima, Ave Purissima,
sinless and beautiful Star of the sea.


Ave Maria, thy children are kneeling,
words of endearment are murmured to thee;
softly thy spirit upon us is stealing,
sinless and beautiful Star of the sea.

Mater amabilis, ora pro nobis,
pray for thy children who call upon thee;
Ave Sunctissima, Ave Purissima,
sinless and beautiful Star of the sea.

Dear Catholics, make sure you go to mass to celebrate with our mother. Dont let the haters dampen your mood or make you lose sight of the essence of the celebration. Let them wallow in their bitterness and envy.

Ave Maria!

BrightCar: DROP ALL THESE HERESIES. GOD THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT MAKES THE GODHEAD. WHOEVER SHALL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD (JESUS) SHALL BE SAVED. HE IS TALKING TO THE LIVING ON THIS EARTHLY PLANET, YOU DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH MARY THEN TO JESUS. MARY, PETER, JOHN, AND OTHERS WILL NEVER HEAR YOUR VOICE OR YOUR SUPPLICATIONS IN HEAVEN,(GOD HAS NOT GIVEN THEM THE POWER) HOW MUCH MORE INTERCEDING FOR YOU. THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN INTERCEDE ON OUR BEHALF WHEN WE PRAY IN JESUS NAME. WHEN WE PRAY, WHOM DO WE PRAY TO? OFCOURSE THE FATHER, BUT THROUGH THE SON JESUS CHRIST. PLEASE SEARCH YOUR SCRIPTURES VERY WELL.

What about those filthy greedy randy pastors...can they intercede for you?

free2ryhme: where in this scipture was it writing expressly that mary shld pray for us?

Where in the scripture was it expressly written that Mary should not pray for us?

free2ryhme: when did angel Gabriel's greeting becomes a prayer

If it is only a greeting, then why are trying to hang yourself because we are greeting Mary?

free2ryhme: Jesus taught us how to pray Luke 11:1-13

not angel Gabriel

We Catholics say the 'Our Father' more than any other group of people in this world.

jude d writer: All these r doctrines of devils! Catholic, u miss road o! Turn to JESUS 4 salvation. Go to a pentecostal church like d RCCG for spiritual guide and growth.

Why should I leave the Church Jesus founded 2000yrs ago and go to a shop that a man opened a few years back?

Efiko: God has not changed, He is still the same jealous God of Exodus 20.

The second commandment states clearly:
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above (including Mary in heaven) or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God

..Hence bowing down/praying to "mary" or the saints (dead or alive) is nothing but 1st degree idolatry

You are saying Joshua engaged in idolatry in Joshua 7 when he lay prostrate before images and prayed?

I thought Joshua was a prophet.

adeaugustus: Both.
Psychological in the sense that the species that existed before us never believed in any supernatural power, psychological again, because the "cave man" were not as wise as the current humanoid, they never had to worry about climate change, child abuse, birth control and some other stuff we worry about this days. Right?

Maybe because they didnt have a soul...hence, were not human.

turnstoner: Only science propounded the theory of evolution. Any religion laying claim to or trying to align itself with the theory of evolution as propounded by Charles Darwin is a fraud.

Poor you. Always exposing your ignorance and enforcing it with arrogance for the world to see.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a Catholic, prefigured evolution before Darwin ever dreamt of it.

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance). It is named after the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories as a supplement to his concept of an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity, in parallel but separate lineages with no extinction. Lamarck did not originate the idea of soft inheritance, which proposes that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring.


When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in On the Origin of Species, he continued to give credence to what he called "use and disuse inheritance", but rejected other aspects of Lamarck's theories. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology. Despite this abandonment, interest in Lamarckism has continued (2009) as studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism

I advice you again: shut up until you know what you are talking about!

The relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and science is a widely debated subject. The church has often been a patron of science, and founded schools, universities and hospitals. Catholic scientists, both religious and lay, have led scientific discovery in many fields. Conversely, the conflict thesis and other critiques posit that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between the Church and science. Pope John Paul II wrote that "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."

Where in earlier times, science and theology were considered very much intertwined, in modern times, the processes of the empirical sciences and the theological claims of religions are more commonly viewed as belonging to different (and sometimes conflicting) spheres.

From ancient times, Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals and the Church remains the single greatest private provider of medical care and research facilities in the world. Following the Fall of Rome, monasteries and convents remained bastions of scholarship in Western Europe and clergymen were the leading scholars of the age - studying nature, mathematics and the motion of the stars (largely for religious purposes). During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarkism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, particularly in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.

The conflict thesis proposes an intellectual conflict between the Church and science. The original historical usage of the term asserted that the Church has been in perpetual opposition to science. Later uses of the term denote the Church's epistemological opposition to science. The thesis interprets the relationship between the Church and science as inevitably leading to public hostility, when religion aggressively challenges new scientific ideas — as in the Galileo Affair. An alternative criticism is that the Church opposed particular scientific discoveries that it felt challenged its authority and power - particularly through the Reformation and on through the Enlightenment. This thesis shifts the emphasis away from the perception of the fundamental incompatibility of religion per se and science-in-general to a critique of the structural reasons for the resistance of the Church as a political organisation.

The Church contends that natural reason, being a God-given capacity, is not opposed to the Church's teachings and the church therefore holds that its role throughout history has led to progress of science and intuitive reasoning.[clarification needed][1] This view is contested by some secular historians, who speak of an historically varied relationship, which has shifted from active and even singular support; to bitter clashes (with accusations of heresy).

To read more, visit: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

adeaugustus: Before the renaissance period, catholic was all over science. The Vatican did their best to bury the field. They believe that the subject should not be studied from the materialism perspective but rather idealism. I am replying you from a mobile device, hence I wouldn't be able to give links, but if you're a bit familiar with Ancient science and Philosophy, you would observe that catholic nearly buried science.

Can you give me examples? Mention names and real instances that we can verify...and not just blind accusations.

adeaugustus: If you are into reading, you might want to read Dan Brown's book; Angels and Demon and the Da Vinci Code, while they're more of fiction, it actually points out what happened during the early centuries.

You said they are more of fiction. How then can we reference it in an argument like this?

The sooner you realize that Dan Brown is just out to sell his books and make money, the better for you.

adeaugustus: Humanism
The Renaissance was not only a time of
great art and architectural achievement, by
people like Da Vinci and Michelangelo, but it
was also a time for questioning the
established way of thinking. The established
way of thinking at the time was greatly
influenced by the Catholic Church and as a
result the questioning attitude of people like
the humanists came into conflict with
accepted Church teachings. Humanism
entails two important characteristics, both
of which greatly influenced reform of the
Church and scientific advancement:
1. A questioning attitude
2. The idea that heaven was important
but that time on earth should be
enjoyed and used to accomplish great
things - value of the human existence
for its own sake
These two ways of thinking greatly
influenced scientific advancement, new
forms of art, and religious controversy.
www.icsd.k12.ny.us/legacy/highschool/socstud/global2_review/renaissance.htm

My friend, the Catholic Church has always had many enemies because it is God's Church. Satan loves to use people to smear it and distort the facts to criticize the Church. That is why Pope Francis would greet Muslims on Eid-el- Fitr and some haters would say he is trying to establish an evil one world order. That is why a minute percentage of priests would defile kids and people will portray it to look like all Priests are pedophiles. I'm sure in 500years time, haters will peddle these lies and exaggerations and people like you will believe.

In my next post I will show you what wikipedia has to say about the Catholic Church and Science...with real verifiable people and events, not just wild allegations and insinuations.

adeaugustus: Before the renaissance period, catholic was all over science. The Vatican did their best to bury the field. They believe that the subject should not be studied from the materialism perspective but rather idealism. I am replying you from a mobile device, hence I wouldn't be able to give links, but if you're a bit familiar with Ancient science and Philosophy, you would observe that catholic nearly buried science.

Can you give me examples? Mention names and real instances that we can verify...and not just blind accusations.

If you are into reading, you might want to read Dan Brown's book; Angels and Demon and the Da Vinci Code, while they're more of fiction, it actually points out what happened during the early centuries.

You said they are more of fiction. How then can we reference it in an argument like this?

The sooner you realize that Dan Brown is just out to sell his books and make money, the better for you.

Humanism
The Renaissance was not only a time of
great art and architectural achievement, by
people like Da Vinci and Michelangelo, but it
was also a time for questioning the
established way of thinking. The established
way of thinking at the time was greatly
influenced by the Catholic Church and as a
result the questioning attitude of people like
the humanists came into conflict with
accepted Church teachings. Humanism
entails two important characteristics, both
of which greatly influenced reform of the
Church and scientific advancement:
1. A questioning attitude
2. The idea that heaven was important
but that time on earth should be
enjoyed and used to accomplish great
things - value of the human existence
for its own sake
These two ways of thinking greatly
influenced scientific advancement, new
forms of art, and religious controversy.
www.icsd.k12.ny.us/legacy/highschool/socstud/global2_review/renaissance.htm

My friend, the Catholic Church has always had many enemies because it is God's Church. Satan loves to use people to smear it and distort the facts to criticize the Church. That is why Pope Francis would greet Muslims on Eid-el- Fitr and some haters would say he is trying to establish an evil one world order. That is why a minute percentage of priests would defile kids and people will portray it to look like all Priests are pedophiles. I'm sure in 500years time, haters will peddle these lies and exaggerations and people like you will believe.

In my next post I will show you what wikipefia has to say about the Catholic Church and Science...with real verifiable people and events, not just wilf allegations and insinuations.

Dear Catholic, go to mass today and rejoice with your mother and your siblings all over the world.

We have our mother in heaven. Alleluia!

lilbakar: I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU STILL CANNOT COMPREHEND THE WHOLE ISSUE HERE, GOD HAS ASKED MUHAMMAD(PBUH) TO BELIEVE NOT JUST IN THE GOSPEL BUT ALL OTHER BOOKS THAT HE HIMSELF (GOD) GAVE OR REVEALED TO OTHER PROPHETS, AS I HAVE SAID INITIALLY, GOD ACKNOWLEDGES THE GOSPEL IN ITS ORIGINALITY, THAT IS WHAT GOD IS ALSO ASKING MUHAMMAD TO BELIEVE, BUT NOT THE INVENTED MATTERS IN THE BIBLE, BROTHER YOU CANNOT TELL ME THAT TODAY'S BIBLE ARE IN TOTALITY GOD'S WORDS,YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN I DO FROM TRUE HISTORY THAT THE BIBLE WAS ACTUALLY REWRITTEN, IN THE PROCESS ALOT OF ADDITION AND OMITION WERE DONE, TO ENHANCE THE CLAIMS OF PAUL

AM NOT TRYING TO FORCING ANYONE TO BELIEVE IN MUHAMMAD AS A PROPHET OR ACCEPT ISLAM IT IS WRONG ISLAMICALLY QUR'AN[002:256] "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand- hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things".
BECAUSE ON THE LAST DAY EVERY NATION WILL BE RAISED BEHIND THEIR PROPHETS, BUT THE FEAR IS TO BE RAISED BEHIND YOUR PROPHET AND BE REJECTED, BECAUSE YOU BELIEVED IN WHAT THOSE BEFORE YOU HAS INVENTED. I REST MY CASE

Answer the questions I asked you directly and stop filling the thread with garbage.

BERNIMOORE: (bolded above)if a cardinal who people look up to as a devoted man of God with faith in God's word the bible does not even believe or doubt what was written in his own bible, it potrays the cardinal as MISLEADING and incapable of representing Christ people!

cardinal pell's problem was that he did not agree that all humans came from the first couple adam and eve, hence relying on his opinion;


"He said it was impossible to say when there was a first human".


[size=14pt]im·pos·si·ble[/size] (m-ps-bl)
adj. impossible meaning:

[size=14pt]1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.

2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.[/size]

im waiting for another translation of impossible, where it willbe translated to be 'posible'!

the cardinal lost it! and its a shame for him to even come out in that shameful way

You tell us when there was a first human then...

JMAN05: what did that verse of the bible i quoted say? did adam and eve live up to 1000years? so they died that day in God's sight.

when i say day, i mean day as God sees it, not from human stand point. of course they physically died within that thousand years. what is itching ur tongue?

You're very funny. If you believe Adam could have died 1000years later when God said he died "that day," what is the difference between your thinking on this matter and that of the Cardinal who believes that the earth could be billions of years old.

It seems like you are one of those "christians" who just like to condemn anything 'catholic.'

You havent still told me which parts are literally true and which arent, papa wey sabi everything.

@plaetton,
Why do you insist on rewriting the English dictionary?

Believe the dictionary you quoted, not me.

mazaje: Myth means something is true, eh?. . .I hear you. . .

My friend, even this link you posted is clearly corroborating my position that a myth is not necessarily false yet you are bent on forcing it to agree with you.

Re-read the five definitions and see that the one that clearly relates to the creation story is number 1.

Tell me how that means myths are always false.

Instead it clearly provides that it may be true or false.

Do you agree with this dictionary or do you have another one that can prove me wrong?

mazaje: Didn't you see the other definitions there?. . .

1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth?s=t


Besides the one you quoted clearly says false popular belief. . .Myth is never true, if you have any definition of a myth that says it is true pls bring it. . .

My name is not www.dictionary.com

Evil Brain: lol @ italo

Changing the meaning of well know words to win an argument is a time honoured tactic of religious apologetics.

1+1=2? But what is the real meaning of the word 2?