₦airaland Forum

gen2genius:
Jesus is not a carved/sculptured image. Jesus is the embodiment of God. Stop blaspheming by comparing Jesus with what you carve out with your hands!

And as I said before you have no one to point to, either among Jesus or the early disciples, that advocated that carved images be used in worship, or that you should bow to them. Even when, out of wonder and amazement, John the Revelator wanted to bow before the angel that showed him some things concerning the end time, he was STRICTLY forbidden from doing so. Revelation 22:8-9 says: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God."


If it's forbidden to bow before an angel of God in worship, how can it be scriptural to bow before a graven image or before the Pope in worship?

Oh but you're the one that said something about images?

And where in scripture is it forbidden to bow before an angel of God in worship?
Oh you're also assuming that Catholic bow beofre a graven image or the Pope in worship. Go through the post I've already talked about that. Don't make me do this again.

Jesus is not a carved/sculptured image

So must it be carved?
Why then do you oppose the bowing to the Pope the Pope isn't carved, he has flesh as Christ has flesh.

Recognise:
[size=16pt]@^[/size]

What a preposterous and ludicrous statement

and completely out of context and not relevant . . .

https://www.connectingsingles.com/i/emot/sigh.gif I give up & rest my case . . . ^{This is like beating a dead horse}

So if I don't see it your way I'm automatically wrong?
I didn't take anything out of context, if anyone is ever guilty of that, it's you guys. You clearly mis everything that is being said by the Catholics and assume that we must be wrong instead of trying to reason things through and see maybe we are actually right.

He spoke about images and how we worship them, I try to correct him by showing him that it is not the images that is wrong it is the worshipping of images that is wrong.

He needs to learn to be careful in how he says things then. Because in the process he blasphemes.

You asked for it so don't blame me when the facts stare you in the face. For your sake I hope you will see it for what it is without the usual excuses, and cover up

So if I show how you misinterpret scripture and misunderstand the writings of the Church or misquote the Church you won't even bother reading it. You will only say I am trying to cover up? So what should I do, leave you to your faults? I think not.

John 17:11 records Jesus praying , " And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

Only God is holy, yet the popes have taken on that title that only belongs to God. Jesus also said "call no man Father, for there is one Father which is in heaven"

God is not the only one that is holy, there are several others that are called Holy in the Bible

Exodus 3

5 And he said: Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground

Even the ground is called holy.

Exodus 12

16 The first day shall be holy and solemn, and the seventh day shall be kept with the like solemnity: you shall do no work in them, except those things that belong to eating.

A day is called holy

Exodus 19

6 And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation. Those are the words thou shalt speak to the children of Israel.

Israel is holy, since Israel is the foreshadowing of the Church, the Church is holy

Exodus 22

31 You shall be holy men to me: the flesh that beasts have tasted of before, you shall not eat, but shall cast it to the dogs
The people will be holy

Acts Of Apostles 10

22 Who said: Cornelius, a centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and having good testimony from all the nation of the Jews, received an answer of an holy angel, to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee

The angel is called holy

"call no man Father, for there is one Father which is in heaven"

Jesus means that no one should be elevated to the level of God.

But calling someone Father is not wrong and is very scriptural.

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers."

1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus." why would Paul call himself father of the people when Jesus commanded that no man shall be called father, is Paul breaking that commadment? I think not.

1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church "fathers." Is John disobeying Jesus? Absolutely not

There's so much more so honey check your interpretation again.

"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men , Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." - Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895, pg. 15

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth, by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.

Should I go on Lady?

I wonder if you're going to once again ask of me for references? They are all there even if they are from way back when

And once again you misunderstand the saying and you fail to remember that the english language has evolved from then so the way it was understood is different from the way we would understand it now.

But still if I were living at that time, I would agree with all that is said.

Why?
Because I understand the role of the Pope as Vicar of Christ. Which ultimately is the role of the Prime minister. Look at the Davidic Kingdom that Christ sits on the throne of. There is a prime minister and the prime minister has the power of the King as if he and the King are the same. WIth the ring given to the prime minister by the King any decree by the prime minister cannot be revoked even by the King himself. Therefore at that time the Prime minister is acting upon the authority of the King as if he were the King himself. So the Prime minister in speaking ex-cathedra is the King himself.

This takes us back to the Bible where we see Peter being given the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and whatever he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever he looses shall be loosed in heaven. We also see the prophecy of this in Isaiah 22 where the Prime minister is given the Keys to the Kingdom of David and when he shuts no one shall open and when he opens no one shall shut.

So try not to be so deceitful eh.

What questions did you ask that I didn't answer? You asked a single question - Is God being inconsistent? - and I answered you, so why the hysteria?

Actually I asked more than that. Go back and read through, Bobby clearly didn't miss them so I suggest you go back and see my questions.

Don't you understand simple English? Does any of the passages you mentioned talk about carved or sculptured images? Are you saying God sculptured Jesus out of stone or clay or wood and therefore Catholics have the licence to do same ? I never thought you'd need explanation on the passages you quoted but since you seem to be misinterpreting them, let me inform you that what the scripture implies is that all you need to know about God is in Christ. That's what the Bible means by "image of God," not that you should be carving out images for yourself to bow down to. Simple!

No but the claim of you guys is that images are wrong. I proved that images aren't wrong because Jesus is an image of God. You also claimed that bowing is worshipping, I have also proven that not all acts of bowing is worshipping.

And I ask you, if you claim to be a Christian, why don't you emulate Christ? Did he bow to or taught you to make and bow to any images? And when he taught you about prayer, did he say anything about using images? When the first Christians, including Peter whom you claim to be the first pope, began their ministry did you read about them using images in worship?

Are you forgetting that Jesus himself is an image?

That is not an opinion Lady. Its a fact.

You've proven it to not be a fact.

To be honest the bible is God's words, and hence I make no distinction. But frankly neither Old or New testament ascribe to disobedience to God's specific instructions to not bow to graven images, whether or not we have a clue as to anybody's motives for bowing.

How do you know the Bible is God's words. The quran claims to be God's words, do you believe it?
Unfortunately you misunderstand what is meant as a graven image.
So then when a person bows to another person that person is committing idolatry?
Or how about when the Jews adored and bowed before the ark, if what you take the commandment to be wouldn't that mean they committed idolatory and that God commanded it?
Or how about when the bronze serpent was put in the temple and used in Jewish worship wouldn't that according to you be idolatry?

Seriously just because one bows does not mean it is worship. Bowing is not always a form of worship. If the intent is to be worship then it is worship, but if the intent is not to be worship then it is not worship.

If bowing means worshipping then the OT is full of idol worshippers.
Lot would be guilty of worshipping the angels in Sodom when he bowed to them Gen 19:1
Joseph's brothers bowed before Joseph
Joshua prostrated before an angel
Saul bows before Samuel
Nathan bows before King David
2 Chron. 29:29-30 - King Hezekiah and the assembly venerate the altar (an altar is an image) by bowing down in worship before the sin offerings.
Dan. 2:46 - the king fell down on his face paying homage to Daniel and commands that an offering be made to him.
King Solomon bowed before his mother when she took her throne as Queen by his side 1 Kings 2:19

So not all bowing is idolatrous. So no I am not defending any idolatrous practices because our bowing is not idolatrous.

That is because you're confusing the issues. The 2nd commandment is a direct instruction given to Moses for God's people not to make any images, and to use those images as a means of worshiping God directly. In other words God doesn't want us to use intermediaries when we are in the act of worshiping Him. God wants us to come to Him directly and individually in worship.

No I am not confusing the issues you are. That's all the more reason why I say learn what the Church teaches before you falsely accuse us. The Church doesn't teach that those statues are intermediaries. The Church doesn't even teach that those statues do anything. They're just physical reminders and serve the same purpose as the ark of the covenant, the bronze serpent and the cherubims. The images are only used to worship God, the images themselves are not being worshipped. I have said that continuously and consistently here. You're only saying what I'm saying.
We do go to him directly and individually.
That's what we do at Mass. We as a community offer Christ sufferings on the cross to God (what you call breaking bread), we also do it individually when he tell the Priest to let everyone know what the Mass is being offered for, and we do it individually when we are praying at Mass. At Mass you are praying to God by adoring him, petitioning him and praising him.

As regards the furniture of the temple they are not to be seen as graven images in the sense of the 2nd commandment. They serve as illustrations to meet an objective which is to make it easier for the Children of Israel to have a better understanding of the plan of salvation. For example, the shew bread represents Jesus who is the bread of life, The 12 golden candlesticks represent the light of God, and His people that continuously lead into truth and freedom.

Finally you get my point.

The problem with this view is itself erroneous. St. Peter said we should not have private interpretations of scriptures. I gather that what he meant is that we should allow the scriptures to explain themselves, seeing they are in unity. Christ Himself used scriptures to defeat the devil.

Whoa so you do know that S. Peter says we shouldn't have private interpretations of scripture so why do you privately interprete scripture?
I understand what you're trying to say by allowing scripture to explain itself, but there's no way scripture can explain itself, only people can explain scripture, you'll actually need a person. But I do understand and I do agree. I will take it a step further to tell you what Catholic principles are for interpreting scripture.

1) To understand the Bible we must look for the meaning the writers intended. We must go back to the time, place, way of life, mode of thinking, and manners of expression of the people of the Bible.

2) We must interpret a given passage in light of the other passages that relate to it. Therfore no picking one passage and disregarding the other. A classic example of this is Matthew 26:26-28, where Jesus said over the bread and wine: "This is my body, This is my blood." Curiously enough, many fundamentalists refuse to take this passage literally. But Catholics must interpret it in the light of John 6, where Jesus proclais himself to be the bread of life. When Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, many of his hearers abandoned him. Jesus did not call them back and tell them, "You misunderstood. I only meant that in a symbolic way." What he was asking them to believe was hard to accept, and when they refused Jesus sadly let them go. Other verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:27 also point to the real presence of Jesus under the appearances of the bread and wine.

3) Biblical scholars often accentuate one point of an issue without denying all the other dimensions of that issue. Remember above where I was saying you should see the other side of the coin, that when you directly say one thing you're indirectly saying another thing. The writers of the Bible were careful enough not to do that.
So in Galatians 3:1-9, Paul emphasizes that justification comes through faith in Christ rather than through observance of the Jewish law. By saying this Paul is not denying the importance of good works, for in Galatians 5-6 he emphasizes them as the way to "inherit the Kingdom of God."

4) Aramaic language spoken by Jesus tends to use colorful expressions not meant to be taken literally. Some of the parables are examples of this. This kind of language is not easy to translate into English.

5) Most passages in the OT needs to be interpreted in light of Jesus Christ and the NT. As a general rule, it is safe to say that if an OT passage attributes something to God that we cannot attribute to Jesus Christ, then that passage is probably not to be taken literally. For example it is not likely that God actually commanded military leaders to slaughter every man, woman, and innocent child in the cities they overran; it is far more likely that these leaders mistakenly believed God to be behind their directives and that their erroneous attitudes are reported as they perceived them.

Lady you keep referring to the bronze serpent as an image, and that God contradicted Himself apparently when He gave Moses the command to place it on a pole. Why would you bring God's repute into question just because you're looking for excuses to justify the idolatrous methods of Catholicism? Can't you see what you're doing? Can't you see that its a plot of the devil to trap you?

Lol ok darling relax. I don't think that God contradicts himself. In an effort to get you to see my point I take your own view and turn it into a question to you. So when I'm asking why God contradicts himself I am actually trying to get you to see that with your reasoning or interpretation of the bible verse you are indirectly saying that God contradicts himself.

@gen2genius.

I currently have little patience for illogical people or people who wish to rant and refuse to answer my questions but expect me to answer theirs.

I asked you several direct questions, please answer them. I never stated anything about my belief so I don't know where you're getting that from.

One more time answer my questions.

Go ahead. But one thing you must know is, if you claim to be a CHRISTian, then be a follower of the teachings and examples of Christ. Otherwise, calling yourself a Christian is a misnomer

2 Corinthians 4
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them

Christ himself is an image.

Colossians
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins; 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature

Ha look at that in the NT we actually have an image of God.

The making of images are not prohibited, it is the worshipping of those particular images that are prohibited.
Worshipping does not mean one bows, so bowing before anything doesn't constitute worship.

Yes He used both sets of offices that were specifically introduced for a particular reason. The priests represented the people to God, while prophets represented God to the people. The Priests had a set of instructions to follow that were given by the prophets, as it related to the sanctuary services. The prophets were the mouth piece of God ensuring that God's will was known to both the people and the priests.

In the case of worship however, each person came to God as individuals. Each person developed their own relationship with God on a daily basis. If there was a matter that needed to be brought to the people, the prophet would make God's will known through revelations and visions.

But your initial post was that God doesn't need representatives on earth. Why then would the prophets represent God? Is God being inconsistent?

All are free to come as long as they do not attempt to derail my thread. If they say I am judgmental its only because they do not realize the importance truth. What would be the point of stressing love, if that love is built on a false premise of ignoring God's gems of truth? It simply means that they do not know God, and are falsely representing Him. Sin must be exposed as sin even if it means offending those who practice it. Jesus once said "truth is an offense but not a sin"

Truth is an offense and that's why  you're banging your head against the wall fighting against the truth. You assume you know the truth, ofcourse this is based on your own interpretation of the Bible, so can you please explain to me how you became the infallible interpreter of the Bible.

Yes you responded by defending idolatry, rather than confess that what has been displayed in the photos are downright wrong and sinful. How can anyone see those photos and walk away arguing about the semantics of worship? How can you, when its obvious what is happening.

So then you accused me falsely?
Confess to what when you finally said the same things I was saying. I told you before and I will say it again. You believe in all that the Catholic Church teaches you just don't know it. You erroneously think the Catholic Church believes in things that she does not and that she practices something that she does not.
Maybe you need to learn what the teachings of the Catholic Church is before you continue to fight your own beliefs.

But that is what the thread is all about. The photos are proof enough. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Not quite, photos are also very misleading and they're easily changed. One may have found a picture that has been photoshopped and made to look like something else. For example, last week there was a piture of Obama and the french president and a woman. It looked like Obama was checking her out by looking at her backside but initially he was actually helping her to stand up because she fell. Turns out it was the french president that was checking out the woman. People accused Obama of doing what he wasn't doing. And you are doing the same.
So just because you see something in a photo doesn't mean that the photo hasn't been tampered with reveal what isn't initially true.

And besides the photo doesn't say "ignore the Bible" your claim is that Catholics are told to ignore the Bible and now the burden of proof is on you to provide Catholic teaching that tells Catholics to ignore the Bible.

But in post 123 you said these words, "There is a saying: Never wrestle with a pig, you will only get dirty and the pig will only like it. Ignorance certainly is the best answer for a fool. Apparently Bobbyaf has shown that he doesn't know what reason is."

I gave a saying and no where in my saying did I say Bobby is a pig. If you happen to read that in there, that is your palava and apparently you must have felt guilty. But rest assured I had no intention of calling you a pig.

I made the following statement to prove that  you wish not to reason but make the assumption that you know the truth when you are very much human and very much flawed and are prone to misinterpreting and imsunderstanding things. You assume your interpretation of the Bible to be the truth, but you fail to understand that you are human and your reasoning can be flawed, and as you've shown several times here you contradict yourself and your interpretations of the Bible contradict each other. So Bobby are your interpretations of the Bible perfect?

Because most of those people find the catholic church a rather convenient place to be, seeing they can smoke, and drink alcoholic beverages, and commit all manner of sins. They don't worry you see. They can always confess their sins to a priest rather than go directly to Jesus.

The Catholic Church is anything but convenient and that's why people are always attacking us for being too conservative and too strict in rules and beliefs. If you think confession is convenient think again. Imagine having to face up to your sins and confront them. You seriously think that's simple. If it was simple, none of you would be so against it, infact you would all be jumping on it.
Smoking is not encouraged in the Church, as it damages ones body and we are called to see our bodies as the temple of God and to therefore respect it and not defame it.
Alcohol is not prohibited because alcoholic beverages are not wrong, drinking too much is wrong. Don't forget Jesus was also accused of being a drunk, he wouldn't have been accused if he wasn't seen drinking.
And we don't confess the sins to the Priest as a person, we confess the sins to Christ. The forgiveness that comes from the Priest is actually the forgiveness of Christ as Christ gave the power to forgive and not forgive sins to the apostles (John 20:21-23)and we see St. Paul exercise that authority when he forgives the sins of others in the person of Christ (2 Cor 2:10).

Because they fear the Catholic church, nothing more. They are spineless creatures.

Riiiighhht.

If that is the case how come there is such a vast difference between what is taught in the Catechism, and what is taught in the bible. Let me give you an example, According to the Bible, it was God's design for a husband and wife to become one flesh and to cleave to each other, and yet the Roman Catholic church says otherwise. They have another man-made doctrine condemning priests to celibacy, something which God never intended. Bishops i.e. pastors, according the Bible are supposed the husband of one wife (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6), Roman Catholicism adds to the Bible by placing an undue burden upon the clergy by forbidding them to marry (I Timothy 4:1-3), the Bible calls this a "doctrine of devils!"

Have you even read the Catechism to be able to make such a claim?
The Cateshims outlines Christian beliefs and shows how we arrive at those beliefs from scripture.
You're only stating your own opinion based on the your own personal interpretation of the Bible, which you haven't proven to be the infallible interpreter of. So how is your interpretation the correct interpretation?

Out of courtesy I addressed them even though they were irrelevant.

But you claim not to address them because they were irrelevant. You're contradicting yourself again.

Is that your reason for my finding your posts irrelevant?

I'm not the one who said your posts are irrelevant, you're the one who said my posts are irrelevant. You're the one that's insecure, I have no problem defending my faith and answering questions pertaining to it. However you've done nothing but dodge and try to twist things. I pray one day you will get over your fear and insecurity.
I do not have a problem taking on anyone with any belief, that's why I gladly debate with muslims because I am very confident in my faith and I defend my faith with intellect. I don't just say it and pray that no one catches that I don't make any sense.

Don't bother to waste your time.

Then stop making false claims.

I am certain you weren't discussing Judas as a disciple who was being used by Jesus. The only role he played was to handle the money bag.

I am very certain I was talking about Judas, and also certain you had no idea who I was talking about because you are not in my head. Have you forgotten that before Judas betrayed Jesus he was given the power to cast out demons and to heal and preach the gospel?

That was never an issue in our discussion. The discussion centered around the disciples, and you were the one who brought them up. Now in your deception you're making it look as if I am ignorant of the fact that God's Spirit did annoint others before Jesus' birth. Its typical of you to try and deceive.

That was the issue. You made a statement trying to debunk my point and then showed your ignorance in it. Go back and read what you said. You were implying that the Holy Spirit did not act through anyone or annoint anyone until after the death of Jesus, I was correcting you by showing you how flawed your statement was. It was your statement and not mine. We were talking about the disciples but your statement went on a broader spectrum and if a muslim or non-christian were reading this thread and trying to get info about Christianity you would have steered them wrong. You have to remember that this is a public forum and me and you are not the only ones reading.

I never said that. You're assuming that.

I am not assuming anything, and I don't accuse you of anything. I made my statement that way because I know you don't see the other side of the coin when you speak sometimes. You completely dismiss the notion that when you directly say one thing you are indirectly saying another, and the thing you indirectly say is heretical. It is good to always look beyond.

Trying to prove your knowledge?

No, my knowledge is also flawed, afterall I am human, but I do try to reason beyond the obvious and to see both sides of the coin before I speak.
I'm sorry if I made you feel stupid, that is not my intention.
I do try to believe that you have good intentions, but I also know you're human and flawed and so far you clearly don't want to reason things through. You assume the Church is wrong, instead of trying to understand why it is we believe what we believe, and then weigh it well. If it makes no sense to you, then don't believe. But it makes sense to me, so I believe.
And trust me you'd believe too if you were to scope through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and then also learn Catholic teachings and I do mean Catholic teachings not what you think the Church teaches or what someone has led you to believe is Catholic teaching.

If that is your attempt to use the early church's glitches, and minor shortcomings even in the presence of God's Son, to minimize the evils of the RCC, you're making a sad mistake. don't confuse the struggles of the followers of Christ with outright attempts to destroy persons who do not agree with the RCC's beliefs. Please don't insult our intelligence.

I don't insult your intelligence, you insult your own intelligence. My point was to show that because someone sins or because a group of people sins does not mean they are not truly in God's Church or are not God's Church. Your criteria for God's Church is flawed.

No one is arguing that. This is a perfect example of one of your irrelevant points. There is a vast difference in sinning willfully, and making mistakes. The disciples made mistakes along the way, but there can be no comparison with the atrocities that were committed by the Roman catholic church during the period 538 AD to 1798 AD, when Catholicism reigned supreme, and did as it pleased.

You are arguing that. Apparently you think that because a group of people sinned they cannot be God's Church. How is willfull sinning different from making mistakes. If a man commits adultery he sins willfully but it is also a mistake as long as he realises what he has done is wrong. You'd be amazed how many credible historians disagree with popular assumptions like yours.

You need a refresher course in history. Millions died not just a few.

1) I'm trying to understand how this relates to the post of mine you quoted
2) Do you want to check those numbers again?
3) Most of what the Church has done she has done it in defense of herself. First from the muslims when they attakced and killed christians and took over christian land. Second the inquisition is not about killing people, there never were any killings, the inquisition still exists and it is not about what people think it is. The inquisiton is for those who claim to be Catholics who preach/teach/ or act heresies. It was never aimed at Protestants or muslims or jews even. If one professed to be of another faith, they were set free or given to the state if they committed a criminal act.

No. The Holy Spirit is.

So how then does your own interpretation contradict itself and others who also claim to be interpreting from the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?

@gen2genius

Shall I show it to you from the NT that images are not wrong?

Why would God give a commandment not to make any images and then break it ultimately by making himself an image?

@ gen2genius

It is entirely your opinion that Catholics engage in idolatrous practices. We're not justifying idolatrous practices we're showing that our practices aren't idolatrous by trying to have you expand your own knowledge of what idolatry is and what idolatry isn't.

By your post, are you insinuating that God is inconsistent? That the OT is just the OT and the NT is just the NT and there is no relation between them?

Are you also insinuating that idolatry was permitted in the past with the use of the ark and the bronze serpent and the images of chrerubims and such in the temple?
Why would God give a commandment and then ask that the commandment be broken?

Could it be that maybe it is your reasoning that is flawed and not ours? And that it is your interpretation of the Bible that is errant and not ours? Or will you now claim that your interpretation of the Bible is flawless and you are therefore the infallible interpreter of the Bible?

Are you insinuating that the practices in the OT were abolished in the NT?

gen2genius:
Are the Israelites Christians?

Are you following the Mosaic tradition or the teachings of Christ?

Why don't you FOR ONCE stop referring to what happened before Christ came and say something about what he taught and instructed?

Is it then convenient for you to focus on the OT when it suits you and then the NT when it suits you?
Did Christ abolish the Mosaic law? Was the Mosaic law flawed?

Bobbyaf:
@ Lady

Do you really desire to go there?

Yes darling I do, and please make sure what you present actually has something to do with the question asked.

unitee:
most christians are guilty of following just some parts of the bible that suits their perceptions, hence some worship idols but closes eyes on some scriptural evidences of God's anger towards that one good example is when Moses was up the Mountain and the israelites built a god/cow to worship

The same way God himself commanded the same Isrealites to build graven images to use for their salvation. Seriously when will you guys realise you're interpretint the biblical passage wrongly.

that was not my quote lady. Your memory seems to be fading,

that's why I wasn't replying to you.

Can see lots of guys condeming this, the same guys that will reject women and deny the pregancy when a gf finds herself in this situation, What other option do u leave them with??

You'll be amazed how very few those guys are. One I know got his gf preggers and proposed to her, they were in college. She went and had an abortion because she didn't want to be pregnant on her wedding day. He called off the wedding because he couldn't marry the woman who killed his son.
They found out it was a boy.
The stupidity of some women never cease to amaze me.

I think there's a consensus here that abortion is flat out wrong because it is what it is the taking of life.
And even at that people still say it non-chalantly.

Our society doesn't value life anymore.
If the least amongst us cannot be protected how do we expect to protect everyone else.

Abortion should never be a choice. I don't see how murder should be a choice. And at no time is there a medical reason to determine which life is better. In orders no medical reason to have an abortion. Unless someone wishes to explain to me how we can choose which life is more important.

But at Poster.

I am confused. Are you really expecting women to come here and tell their ordeal?
Women suffer psychologicall from this. I personally know one who suffers nightmares. Thank God with the birth of her child now she sleeps a bit better, but she occasionally gets depressed over the other child that she aborted.

Abortion is a disservice to women.

We need to learn self control and that's the problem. There is no such thing as chastity anymore and now we've resulted to killing a life in order to have our own lives.
Since when do people die for not having sex?

thisnigga:
aiite id do that,

thanks luv

thisnigga:
i have other questions to ask you but first please answer my first question,

I am asking this of you because I am sure you are person of sound mind. Can you please take the discussion about him to his personal page, message him or e-mail him please and not derail the thread. Thanks

CHAPTER III
INTELLEGO UT CREDAM
Journeying in search of truth
24. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Evangelist Luke tells of Paul's coming to Athens on one of his missionary journeys. The city of philosophers was full of statues of various idols. One altar in particular caught his eye, and he took this as a convenient starting-point to establish a common base for the proclamation of the kerygma. “Athenians,” he said, “I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, 'To an unknown god'. What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:22-23). From this starting-point, Saint Paul speaks of God as Creator, as the One who transcends all things and gives life to all. He then continues his speech in these terms: “From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:26-27).
The Apostle accentuates a truth which the Church has always treasured: in the far reaches of the human heart there is a seed of desire and nostalgia for God. The Liturgy of Good Friday recalls this powerfully when, in praying for those who do not believe, we say: “Almighty and eternal God, you created mankind so that all might long to find you and have peace when you are found”.(22) There is therefore a path which the human being may choose to take, a path which begins with reason's capacity to rise beyond what is contingent and set out towards the infinite.
In different ways and at different times, men and women have shown that they can articulate this intimate desire of theirs. Through literature, music, painting, sculpture, architecture and every other work of their creative intelligence they have declared the urgency of their quest. In a special way philosophy has made this search its own and, with its specific tools and scholarly methods, has articulated this universal human desire.

Ok why has everyone disappeared?

23. This is why the Christian's relationship to philosophy requires thorough-going discernment. In the New Testament, especially in the Letters of Saint Paul, one thing emerges with great clarity: the opposition between “the wisdom of this world” and the wisdom of God revealed in Jesus Christ. The depth of revealed wisdom disrupts the cycle of our habitual patterns of thought, which are in no way able to express that wisdom in its fullness.
The beginning of the First Letter to the Corinthians poses the dilemma in a radical way. The crucified Son of God is the historic event upon which every attempt of the mind to construct an adequate explanation of the meaning of existence upon merely human argumentation comes to grief. The true key-point, which challenges every philosophy, is Jesus Christ's death on the Cross. It is here that every attempt to reduce the Father's saving plan to purely human logic is doomed to failure. “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the learned? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20), the Apostle asks emphatically. The wisdom of the wise is no longer enough for what God wants to accomplish; what is required is a decisive step towards welcoming something radically new: “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, ; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not to reduce to nothing things that are” (1 Cor 1:27-28). Human wisdom refuses to see in its own weakness the possibility of its strength; yet Saint Paul is quick to affirm: “When I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10). Man cannot grasp how death could be the source of life and love; yet to reveal the mystery of his saving plan God has chosen precisely that which reason considers “foolishness” and a “scandal”. Adopting the language of the philosophers of his time, Paul comes to the summit of his teaching as he speaks the paradox: “God has chosen in the world, that which is nothing to reduce to nothing things that are” (cf. 1 Cor 1:28). In order to express the gratuitous nature of the love revealed in the Cross of Christ, the Apostle is not afraid to use the most radical language of the philosophers in their thinking about God. Reason cannot eliminate the mystery of love which the Cross represents, while the Cross can give to reason the ultimate answer which it seeks. It is not the wisdom of words, but the Word of Wisdom which Saint Paul offers as the criterion of both truth and salvation.
The wisdom of the Cross, therefore, breaks free of all cultural limitations which seek to contain it and insists upon an openness to the universality of the truth which it bears. What a challenge this is to our reason, and how great the gain for reason if it yields to this wisdom! Of itself, philosophy is able to recognize the human being's ceaselessly self-transcendent orientation towards the truth; and, with the assistance of faith, it is capable of accepting the “foolishness” of the Cross as the authentic critique of those who delude themselves that they possess the truth, when in fact they run it aground on the shoals of a system of their own devising. The preaching of Christ crucified and risen is the reef upon which the link between faith and philosophy can break up, but it is also the reef beyond which the two can set forth upon the boundless ocean of truth. Here we see not only the border between reason and faith, but also the space where the two may meet.

22. In the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul helps us to appreciate better the depth of insight of the Wisdom literature's reflection. Developing a philosophical argument in popular language, the Apostle declares a profound truth: through all that is created the “eyes of the mind” can come to know God. Through the medium of creatures, God stirs in reason an intuition of his “power” and his “divinity” (cf. Rom 1:20). This is to concede to human reason a capacity which seems almost to surpass its natural limitations. Not only is it not restricted to sensory knowledge, from the moment that it can reflect critically upon the data of the senses, but, by discoursing on the data provided by the senses, reason can reach the cause which lies at the origin of all perceptible reality. In philosophical terms, we could say that this important Pauline text affirms the human capacity for metaphysical enquiry.
According to the Apostle, it was part of the original plan of the creation that reason should without difficulty reach beyond the sensory data to the origin of all things: the Creator. But because of the disobedience by which man and woman chose to set themselves in full and absolute autonomy in relation to the One who had created them, this ready access to God the Creator diminished.
This is the human condition vividly described by the Book of Genesis when it tells us that God placed the human being in the Garden of Eden, in the middle of which there stood “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (2:17). The symbol is clear: man was in no position to discern and decide for himself what was good and what was evil, but was constrained to appeal to a higher source. The blindness of pride deceived our first parents into thinking themselves sovereign and autonomous, and into thinking that they could ignore the knowledge which comes from God. All men and women were caught up in this primal disobedience, which so wounded reason that from then on its path to full truth would be strewn with obstacles. From that time onwards the human capacity to know the truth was impaired by an aversion to the One who is the source and origin of truth. It is again the Apostle who reveals just how far human thinking, because of sin, became “empty”, and human reasoning became distorted and inclined to falsehood (cf. Rom 1:21-22). The eyes of the mind were no longer able to see clearly: reason became more and more a prisoner to itself. The coming of Christ was the saving event which redeemed reason from its weakness, setting it free from the shackles in which it had imprisoned itself.

David I asked you to leave. If you are not willing to have an adult intelligent discussion, then please take your madness elsewhere and stop derailing my thread.

21. For the Old Testament, knowledge is not simply a matter of careful observation of the human being, of the world and of history, but supposes as well an indispensable link with faith and with what has been revealed. These are the challenges which the Chosen People had to confront and to which they had to respond. Pondering this as his situation, biblical man discovered that he could understand himself only as “being in relation”—with himself, with people, with the world and with God. This opening to the mystery, which came to him through Revelation, was for him, in the end, the source of true knowledge. It was this which allowed his reason to enter the realm of the infinite where an understanding for which until then he had not dared to hope became a possibility.
For the sacred author, the task of searching for the truth was not without the strain which comes once the limits of reason are reached. This is what we find, for example, when the Book of Proverbs notes the weariness which comes from the effort to understand the mysterious designs of God (cf. 30:1-6). Yet, for all the toil involved, believers do not surrender. They can continue on their way to the truth because they are certain that God has created them “explorers” (cf. Qoh 1:13), whose mission it is to leave no stone unturned, though the temptation to doubt is always there. Leaning on God, they continue to reach out, always and everywhere, for all that is beautiful, good and true.

No where have i said that christianity is equivalent to suspending your intellect

That is the whole point of this encyclical. READ FOR ONCE DAVID AND PROVE FINALLY THAT YOU ACTUALLY CAN REASON.

But first let me take on two errors i highlighted here - If we know that christianity is the true religion by reason then why is everyone not a christian? Does it mean only christians can reason and the rest out there are idiots with no brain?

Because not everyone reasons in the truth. And because we are human reasoning can be flawed.

Muslims think it's ok to lie because Allah said that they can lie when they face death. Yet one of Allah's commandments is that one shouldn't lie. How does that make sese?

No it doesn't mean that only Christian can reason, but it does mean that to set things in proper light one has to include faith with their reasoning.
The reasoning you're speaking of is the flawed reasoning that one can do without God. But the reasoning spoken of in this encyclical is the reasoning that is set in the correct perspective in light of faith.

How come Paul with all his educational qualifications denounced Christ and Peter the fisherman was a disciple? What about the chief priests, the scribes and pharisees who must have read all the prophecies on Christ cover to cover? They missed the messiah and ordinary Zacheus found Him?

What does this have to do with the price of beans. The article speaks of A and you're here speaking of B.
Why don't you read the encyclical first before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
I swear David I give you way too much credit and I doubt you have a degree in anything.

If we shld go by reason alone then why shld i believe a bible that talks about Jonah being in the belly of a whale for 3 days? Does that make sense to you? At least the Bahai's dont make such really tall claims . . .

WHAT THE HELL? I'm sorry who said anything about reason alone. Can you point me to the part of the article that speaks of reason alone or did you happen to miss the title of the thread that says FAITH AND REASON

Did you come here to just start something or did you actually come here to have an intelligent discussion?

If your purpose is to derail the thread let me know so I can completely ignore you or ask that your posts be deleted because this is nonsense.

davidylan:
i think the fundamental problem here is most of the time you dont take the pains to understand what others have to say . . . you just take comments on face value and start attacking others personally in defence of catholicism.

When i say reason has nothing to do with faith . . . i dont mean the suspension of your brain. Afterall you need that brain to believe in faith no?

Ok you know what get the hell outta here. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and decided to have an intelligent discission but I see you don't know what an intelligent discussion entails. Please leave.

What a minute all of a sudden you need your brain to believe in faith?
Dude are you even paying attention to anything that has been said or not?

1) This thread is not about having reason alone, if anything it was written to debunk atheists who make the claim that one doesn't need faith. This encyclical shows that it is with faith that one can properly reason and understand humanity.

Instead of bringing your hatred here, how about you actually read through.

Why should I listen to you when you have no intention of listening to me?

The mama wey born u better pass de one wey born me?

make i listen to u but u no wan listen to me, comon GET LOST.

davidylan:
that is the idea of the pope . . . it isnt found anywhere in the bible. Hebrews 11 is probably one of the best chapters on faith . . . infact if we were to use human reasoning (which your pope advocates here) . . . faith is about the stupidest thing on earth.

Heb 1:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Believing in something i have not seen is highly unreasonable . . . how can i plan?

All the other heroes of faith . . . depicted in Heb 11 went way against reason. Why would Abraham venture out to a land promised that he had never seen? why would a childless 90 yr old man with an 80 yr old wife believe a fairy tale about him having his descendants as many as the sand on the seashore?
Does it make sense to tell people facing the red sea to "go forward"? Forward to where? A sure drowning?

No wonder you contradict yourself a lot. In your christianity one does not have to think, one does not have to reason. How is one supposed to know that one is believing the truth if one doesn't examine it?

Why do you not believe in Islam? Islam is a faith and if reason cannot work with faith you should have no problem believing in Islam

I repeat again - if faith and reason went hand in hand . . . NONE of the scientists today would be atheists.

Um no, faith alone, isn't it, reason alone won't do it. But with faith and reason one can truly understand God.
God wouldn't give us a brain for it to be unusable. He would've created us brainless if reason wasn't necessary.
If the scientists had faith along with their reason they would be one of the best defenders of the christian faith.

And I don't think you understand what faith and reason is.
Did you read the thread from the beginning or did you come in at the middle of the conversation and start jumping to conclusions?

Also how is one supposed to understand the Bible if they don't reason with it. Or are you trying to imply that God intends for christians to not think?

In order to understand faith one needs reason.

Example. Why is the Christian faith the true faith? Because it is the only one that makes sense.

In a world where there are different faith how can one know which one is telling the truth? The one that makes sense of things.

It makes no sense that God would contradict himself, so that pretty much rules out Islam, Bahai and others. How does one know that these faiths contradict by reason.

davidylan:
that is NOT true.

1. What does the author define as "truth"?
2. John 14:6[b] Jesus saith[/b] unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

If attaining "truth" was merely a matter of "reasoning" then salvation would only be for those with an IQ higher than 140.

how about you read past that and see the next thing that is said and tell me if it contradicts what you said. selsective reasoning is not good.
And how is one exactly supposed to understand faith. Like this so far says faith and reason go hand in hand, if there's a contradiction one must be wrong.

20. Seen in this light, reason is valued without being overvalued. The results of reasoning may in fact be true, but these results acquire their true meaning only if they are set within the larger horizon of faith: “All man's steps are ordered by the Lord: how then can man understand his own ways?” (Prov 20:24). For the Old Testament, then, faith liberates reason in so far as it allows reason to attain correctly what it seeks to know and to place it within the ultimate order of things, in which everything acquires true meaning. In brief, human beings attain truth by way of reason because, enlightened by faith, they discover the deeper meaning of all things and most especially of their own existence. Rightly, therefore, the sacred author identifies the fear of God as the beginning of true knowledge: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7; cf. Sir 1:14).

19. The Book of Wisdom contains several important texts which cast further light on this theme. There the sacred author speaks of God who reveals himself in nature. For the ancients, the study of the natural sciences coincided in large part with philosophical learning. Having affirmed that with their intelligence human beings can “know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements, the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars, the natures of animals and the tempers of wild beasts” (Wis 7:17, 19-20)—in a word, that he can philosophize—the sacred text takes a significant step forward. Making his own the thought of Greek philosophy, to which he seems to refer in the context, the author affirms that, in reasoning about nature, the human being can rise to God: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5). This is to recognize as a first stage of divine Revelation the marvellous “book of nature”, which, when read with the proper tools of human reason, can lead to knowledge of the Creator. If human beings with their intelligence fail to recognize God as Creator of all, it is not because they lack the means to do so, but because their free will and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way

No2Atheism:
don't mind them, it seems the bones did not remember that the pope was supposed to be some sort of Super-human or something, wat a load of hogwash, catholics just like muslims are doomed to their fooly unless the Creator specially decides to save them.

Cus the truth is that no matter wat, some of them would rather choose to die than believe what the bible says that is contrary to what the Roman Catholic Church says, which is quite sad if it be considered.

Um I'm sorry can you please show me and explain to me how Catholics believe that the Pope is a super-human, please?
Make sure you back up your statements darling. It's not good to lie.

No2Atheism:
abomination wetin i wan take semeramis image do, abeg biko wayo wayo , oya change that thing quick quick,

Wats semeramis.
That's the pic of Mary breastfeeding Jesus, abi Mary no be e mama again? Explain how the pic is wrong please?
I love it, it's beautiful and it expresses motherhood very well.

As far as the bible is concerned, Roman Catholism is Paganism end of story.

Actually as far as the Bible is concerned the Catholic Church is the true Church and the only Church that teaches everything contained in the Bible, and the only Church that properly interprets the Bible and it makes sense.

As far as your interpretation of the Bible is concerned you think that the Catholic Church is about paganism. Unfortunately you haven't proven how you are the infallible interpreter of the Bible. But you have proven that your intepretations contradict themselves.

Bobbyaf:
@ Monicaa

You didn't know that?

You're assuming she's ignorant. Answer her question. Where do the Pope and Catholics call themselves God?