₦airaland Forum

@huxley,

Many thanks for your reposte. I'll take the time to reply as well; but my observation is that Dawkins rants and misrepresentations may not be useful to us here. I know that many people may find McGrath quite unsuitable because in their way of thinking, they fail to understand that he is as passionate for truth and evidence as Dawkins claims to be. The difference is that Dawkins is assertive on his presumptions, while McGrath is honest to the core. At the end of the day, the real gist to be had is that McGrath actually dealt with Dawkins' objections in a very thoughtful manner that no one who is open enough to see would have failed to observe it.

Later then, I'm trying to follow up another recently opened thread by Queenisha. Thanks all the same.

[quote author=_Queenisha link=topic=175953.msg2854429#msg2854429 date=1222367373]Jesus is indeed Lord![/quote]Yes, He is. Halleluyah!

Perhaps I should just cut to the chase and go directly to my conversion. What do you think?

rampagain:
@pilgrim

if i was wt You right now,i would have hijacked You long time and locked You up inside one room,to hear d whole story sharp sharp

take it easy,and don't rush

Lol. . . I won't rush.

Continued. . .

So, I fell in love with a Christian, not so much because he was unashamed to be identified as one; but more because he was intelligent, terribly handsome and everyone was talking about him. It wasn't long before I also terrorised drove away all my rivals with assertiveness and got him to notice me.

the big thing, however, was that I was too scared to let anyone at home know. I also thought that if I could get him to be devoted to me (not that I was even that pretty like Beyonce), then he would soon want to propose and then be converted to Islam.

We kept our "secret" going for a while; but sooner than later we got talking about our faith and God. The thing that struck me was that he never argued back. Smiling, he would listen to my rants for ages, and I could see his European face blush with embarrassment, and then when I was done, we talked about other things. . especially about Nigeria. He had always wanted to see Africa, and here was the girl that was pumping up his adrenaline towards that visit.

It was never to happen. They moved to another state in the USA - and he had not even stopped by to let me know. I was so embarrassed in class when someone else broke the news, and thought within myself: "ye right! the Christian he was!" Moments later that very day, I got a letter from him, explaining why he could not come to our house to speak to me - because of my "radical father".

That semester was tough for me, and I spent too much time thinking about him that I failed my exams. But I had woken up to ask a lot of questions about why we were so divided if we believed in the same 'God'?

I healed from it, fell in love again with yet another Christian. This time, I didn't waste anytime breaking the news to my mum. She wisely asked me to speak to my dad about it. Three weeks passed before I did. Smiling, he only asked his name. I had barely pronounced his name before he said that I needed to prepare for a very important trip with him to Pakistan. The thing about my dad is that he never forced us to do anything; but this time I saw the stern warning and knew better than to object. I'll skip the visit to Pakistan and come back to it later. Suffice to say that I had to swallow my words when I witnessed the hudood law, and that again brought serious questions to my mind.

I hate you!

My boyfriend's place was one of my first port of calls when I returned to Georgia, USA. Being a moderate muslimah wasn't a problem mingling in school with friends in the democracy of the West. He welcomed me warmly, shook my hands and accorded me all the respects. I didn't waste time presenting my souvenirs to him - an English translation of the Quran by Yusuf Ali. Thanking me, he did what most Muslims find very offensive - he placed the Quran on his coffee table! But that was my mistake, because I belonged to the sect in Islam who believed that the hands of a kafir/infidel should never touch the Quran. I snatched it up, walked out and promised myself I was never going back to their home.

A few weeks passed, he always tried to call but I never answered. Meanwhile, I had begun to wonder about the strange appearance of Christian literature in my dad's study. I never questioned him about this, but thought he was arming himself with information to deflate Christian apologists. There were churches all over Atlanta where we lived, and I thought some fellows had been trying to make an impression on my dad - they were in for serious shock (or so I thought).

My Christian boyfriend went away to Afghanistan, having been conscripted to fight the tyrannical taliban. Not that it was any concern of mine, but I begged him not to go, giving the excuse that killing a muslim was seriously earning him hell from Allah. He thanked me, but his mum persuaded him to obey the call of his government. When I discovered what had happened, I prayed for him every single day - but 2 weeks on the battlefield, and he was dead!

Typical of my mindset, I called the mother. When she picked the phone, I yelled into the receiver: "I hate you! You killed my only love!!" She thanked me, and hung up. As a muslim, I didn't attend the funeral (although the democracy of USA was protective enough for me to have done so). However, his sister persuaded me to visit them - and I did. After we settled, the mother (with tears in her eyes and a painful smile), began by saying - (I can't remember everything she said though):

                 "I'm sorry that *Kylie went to war. And I'm sorry he was your love.
                  But I'm his mother, and I have no one to share my hurt. People have
                  said the same things to me; but I can understand your own hurt -
                  because he was the man you had fallen in love with."

Then she gave me a letter Kylie had written shortly before he left:

                  "Dear **pilgrim.1 ^{(**actually he used my name)},

                   Life is strange, but whatever happens,
                   I want you to know that I may not come back
                   but I love you so so much it hurts to leave you.

                   Yea, I like your Nigerian accent. . . funny.
                   but I want you to know I and your dad have been talking
                   - ask him, he would tell you. The man loves Jesus more than you know!
                   I do as well, and I deeply long for you know the Jesus you never met!

                   *Kylie, in pure love from Christ."

I left without a word, and went home to ask my dad a question: "Has Kylie been talking church with you?" "No," he said, "he didn't talk church, he talked about Jesus Christ!"

*Kylie was his pseudonym, not real name.

to be continued. . .

manmustwac:
Pilgrim1 So what events made You become a christian then?

I will share them, but I don't want to jump and skip between lines - that's why I'm taking it logically. Several things actually happened that turned me inside out and opened my eyes to a lot. They will be shared subsequently.

Hehe. . . I will share periodically. I'm just too shy just now, but will overcome my blushing and put some more.

JeSoul:
Olabowale will soon come in here and start talking about trinity, whether Jesus is a christian etc . . .

Lol, when he does, make una just blank am. He go get the message that this thread is not for arguments but a friendly sharing of testimonies that have touched our lives as Christians. I hope the moderators will help us tidy this thread and clean it up of such invasion if they ever occur.

Shalom.

rampagain:
was pilgrim a muslim?

I was.

Thank you again, Queenisha, for this invitation. Actually, a lot of people (including Catholics, non-religious friends and a few Muslims) who visit the forum in this section have hinted the same thing, but I was not quite sure if the time for me to do so was ripe enough.

All the same, I shall try between times to make inputs - although it may not be chronological in order of events. First, I would like to say a few things from the limited perspective of my own experience (so readers should please understand that I do not speak for the whole Muslim ummah). Then going on from there, develop my naratives with a few highlights that are germane to what I ultimately will share. Perhaps, it might help a few who may not be conversant with Muslim terms if I offer simplistic paraphrases where applicable. . . yada-yada-yada.
Okay, here:

I count myself a very fortunate person, having grown up from a humble background, the 3rd child out of 5 brilliant minds from my wonderful parents. Ours was a moderate Muslim family who believed the Quran with all our hearts as the literal word of Allah, and Muhammad as the most noble and last prophet among all those who were prophets. Consequently, we kept our muslim rites with diginity and pride; and whenever any misfortune befell anyone, we simply did not question it and ascribed it to the will of Allah. Certainly, we were very proud to be among "the best of mankind", for our sect in Islam held that very belief as a core value.

Growing Up

My dad was very protective of us children. I never saw a man who was as loving towards his family, or yet as religious in his devotions. He inspired us with his example of deep hunger for knowledge, never boasting of his credentials even though he was widely read. Naturally, I had warmed my way to his heart and 'overthrew' my siblings in the competition for his affection and attention - mostly because I was the most troublesome, rascally, argumentative and often screamed with loud sobs until I got my way. Ironically, I was often bullied in school and would run home to cry my eyes out, instigating my elder brothers to go slap some heads around. often, they would pretend to make a lot of noise but left me to fend for myself.

Our relations with neighbours were cordial. Since our parents respected people, we were brought up never to speak derogatorily about anyone. Trust us, while I and my siblings said 'amin' to that injunction, we would run around and abuse everyone in the neighbourhood. Our parents knew how to handle us - very gently reminding us of being thrown to hell with unbelievers - the kafir/infidel. For me, it was worse than that - because as a young female, it was only from my dad I heard that women far out numbered males in hell. All the same, we had the fortune of being loved by our parents.

We lost almost everything when the then Lagos State government relocated people from Maroko because the place was to be developed for new residents and businesses. I was away on holiday in the north (Kano) and arrived Lagos as a lost child. The cohesion we enjoyed in the Muslim community in Eti Osa easily helped me reconnect with my family, and we found a place to settle in Ipaja.

I was looking forward to returning to school when the fortune came for us to travel abroad. Briefly, I've travelled extensively around Europe, visited home several times and then finally . . em. .  fell in love. The problem was that he was a Christian, and for a Muslim lady to date a Christian man was just simply a violation of our belief in Islam. But that incident opened my eyes to the realities of my faith - where do I go from here?


To be continued. . .

@~Lady~,

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=175942.msg2853746#msg2853746 date=1222359160]Fatima is the place in Portugal that Mary appeared to the three little shepherd children she told them to pray the rosary and she told them to add the Fatima prayer to it.[/quote]Another way of asking the same question as davidylan is this:

"WHEN was the Rosary rite first initiated, and by WHO?"

Perhaps when that question is answered in simple terms, then it becomes easy enough to understand whether or not it has anything to do with the early Christians.

@~Lady~,

Now, let me point out something very important to readers here for our benefit:

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Latria is the worship due God, Dulia is the reverence of humans, Hyperdulia is the high reverence of Mary and Mary alone, notice that is not saying Hyperlatria, so it is not equating Mary to God or putting her on the same level as God, insted it is saying Hyperdulia, placing it a bit abve other humans but not anywhere close to God.
Please use the proper definitions of the terms thanks.[/quote]Noting that you stated: "Hyperdulia is the high reverence of Mary and Mary alone", one wonders why you applied the same thing for the serpent in this quote:

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]The one paid to the serpent was hyperdulia because the Israelites looked up to it for help.[/quote]Isn't it plain that you are making your own argument even weaker by the minute with such confusion?

I'm doing okay by God's grace. Hmm. . na wah for the financial wahala currently going on. But that would be anoda talk when I move over to the apppropriate thread. Good to read from you, blessings.

Hi Queenisha,

Well, that would be noble. I would be available to make inputs and share on highlights in that thread (bearing in mind that I would not like to hurt the feelings of readers). But that would be okay, if and where permitted.

How are you doing anyhow?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim
Always interesting to see you guys analyse stuff, seriously I still wonder about you, are you reading philosophy?

Yep, . . lol. . I failed it the first time, though - but aced it on my resit. It was part of my required thesis.

Chrisbenogor:
Trying to get me hands on that thomas nagel stuff.
Cheers.

Good one. Cheers.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Ok now what does HYPERDULIA mean? Is hyperdulia equal to God?[/quote]I'm not the one defining the term for Catholics - rather, your authorities are the ones who said: "the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia". Is that not clear enough, abi wetin we dey miss?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]The one paid to the serpent was hyperdulia because the Israelites looked up to it for help.[/quote]Thanks for that attempt, but sorry - looking up at something is not to be mistaken for HYPERDULIA. And ahem. . . God nowhere said that they looked up to the serpent "for help" - this is your fabu, so please make another believable excuse.

Meanwhile, as defined by your Catholic encyclopedia, HYPERDULIA is "worship paid to her" - so, are you saying that HYPERDULIA was the case with the serpent because it was "worship paid to it?" You claimed hyperdulia for the serpent O. . . so please come back and let us confirm from you that you suppose serpent worship is part of your personal interpretation for what God never said!

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]It was their savior at that point.[/quote]I hear - so Jesus Christ was not Saviour at that point, abi? No, I did not accuse you, I'm only asking you. And if He was THE Saviour, how many Saviours do we have in Christianity?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Te one to the cherubim was dulia, the one to the man was dulia,[/quote]DULIA is defined as "our worship of distinguished servants of God" by Catholic encyclopedia. Now, please show us where anyone ever worshipped man, cherubim, or serpent?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]if the images of Mary is graven, then the bronze serpent is a graven image too, and so must Jesus, because just as the serpent was lifted up so was Jesus, so why did God allow it?[/quote]Answer again:

(a) Jesus is not a graven image; your "must" is terrifyingly sad, because you're forcing your opinion to make Him such.
(b) NOBODY ever accorded the bronze serpent any "worship" of dulia or hyperdulia.
(c) To force this unfortunate musings upon Mary is to add what is not in Scripture for your own prejudices.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]When you actually start being truthful we will get somewhere.[/quote]Please calmly show HOW I have misrepresented anything here, thank you.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Are you sure about that? Because last time I checked the greeting given to Mary was "Hail, full of grace, blessed are yu among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb"[/quote]I've been through that before - please have the patience to see it in the other Catholic thread. Where are the verses for the Rosary, not some mumbled recitation with rubber beads? Who were the Christians in the Bible going about with a bead that you have failed to show us?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]The Our Father is the prayer taught to us by Jesus himself. The birth of Jesus is in the Bible, the death of Jesus is in the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus is in the Bible, the baptism of Jesus is in the Bible, the woman clothed with the sun is in the Bible.[/quote]Knock-knock. . . please can you wake up and come back to reality? My discussions have not spun off that tangent the way you sparked off there. Where is dulia, hyperdulia, and latria for those graven images were the questions I asked O. . . not the baptism, birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]These are what make up the rosary prayer.[/quote]Hehe. . . you meant to say they were "made up" but not in the Bible, kwo? This is really funny! No wonder we have waited forever for you to post the verses!

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]But since you all advocate that prayer is wrong, please tell me why do you recite Psalm 23, where is it advocated that you recite it?[/quote]Eh? Who is advocating that prayer is wrong? I no fit laff again O!

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]I bet you won't find a single verse that says "pray the psalm 23" [/quote]No, because we don't pratise Psalm 23 recitation on a number of beads, thank you! Anymore after-thoughts?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Stop being hypocritical, start being truthful and start with yourself.[/quote]My dear, I thank you for the compliments. We all just wonder that you who shout it often has been most wanting in that very thing.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]It's already been defined for them, I defined for her earlier and the other lady did the same, but when you have people who are hell bent on being deceitful, what do you get? Holier than thou hypocrites.
Homegirl skipped it all, that's why she has not answered any of my questions. I dare her to actually answer a question.[/quote]Thank you again for the homegirl. I suppose others will point you to where my answers are and help you to read.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Liar, you know very well that it has been given to you. Stop pretending as if you didn't see it. Answer my questions.[/quote]Thank you for the compliment again O. . . hehe! If you can't read, wait and let others show you the answers I have given. Remain blessed.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Stop rushing through posts, actually read them, this was my response. You could have found it on page 9. Actually read through you will get some answers.[/quote]I'm sorry, ~Lady~, dulia has been given another meaning by you for convenience sake. Please consult the reference I gave you from the Catholic online Encyclopedia and see for yourself.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]You might want to take your own advice, deliberating twisting things to suit you isn't good.[/quote]I'm used to such talk, actually. It might have helped if you pointed out how I twisted anything.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]False truth are lies.[/quote]I've seen enough in yours to skip them and deal with other worries of more particular notice.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]For example when you said that the name Glory of Israel was due to God alone, that was a lie, It has always been Glory in Israel, in Ecclesiasticus, he said he would set his glory on Israel.[/quote]Bru-ha-ha-ha!!   This Lady, I never knew you're so confused!! Please help me here, if you can -- which one are you arguing now:

             ~ Glory in Israel?
             ~ Glory of Israel?
             ~ Glory on Israel?

Please calm down, and let's discuss this issue plainly. If I was lying by quoting the text directly, so were the Catholic Fr. René Laurentin and late Pope John Paul II who both quoted the same thing as I quoted it and both recognized it as a divine title! Let me remind you again:

[list][list][quote=Fr. René Laurentin]"As Jesus enters the Temple Simeon greets him as 'the glory of Israel' (Luke 2:32). This is a divine title."[/quote][/list][/list]

[list][list][quote=Pope John Paul II]'In that 40-day-old infant it sees the “light” destined to illumine the nations, and presents HIM as the “glory” of the people of Israel (cf. Lk 2:32). It is he who must conquer death, as the Letter to the Hebrews proclaims, explaining the mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature” (Heb 2:14), having taken on human nature.'

source: 'Eucharistic Celebration on the Feast of Presentation'  (Sunday, 2 February 1997, also posted on an official Vatican website))[/quote][/list][/list]

Lol, ~Lady~, if my quoting the text directly and as did Fr. René Laurentin and Pope John Paul II did is a lie, that makes 3 of us already! Yikes!!   I told you, before you vex blow your trumpet anyhow, go and check again and again! It doesn't hurt to do so.

Meanwhile, the fact that the title "the Glory of Israel" is a divine title is recognized both by Fr. René Laurentin, Pope John Paul, and several Catholic authorities. Yikes - if I go by your assertion, then that simply increases the list of liars!

Again O. . . if you were informed at all, you would know that I wasn't lying when I posted the reference that Catholics refer to Mary as "the Glory of Israel" - because that is precisely what she is called in the Catholic common prayer known as "[url=http://holycrosslynchburg.org/prayers.htm#Litany%20Of%20Loretto]Litany of Loreto[/url]" ("Glory of Israel - pray for us ". So, for all the millions of Catholics who have said that prayer, we may go by your assertion and increase the list to millions of Catholic liars, abi?

~Lady~, just simply check the reference, it saves you such waist and empty brashness. Unless you can show us that it was not "Glory of Israel" but rather "Glory on/in Israel", then the Catholic list will include millions of liars from your accusation alleged against the point.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]You have solicited non-catholic websites, I checked the catholic websites and Mariolatria is not encouraged, I know for a fact that you got that from a non-catholic website so don't come here and lie.[/quote]You are too quick to accuse others, you know; and I offer my many thanks for the compliment. I don't remember saying that the definition of Mariolatry was given by a Catholic website; what I offered was that dulia, hyperdulia, and latria are from Catholic websites.

However, even when we speak of Mariolatry, Catholics perfectly understand what we mean - so what's the problem with that? And yes, if you want to know, I got the meaning as commonly used among religious scholars - such as:

                  ~ The PHRONTISTERY: (scroll down)
                  Mariolatry  -  worship of the virgin mother 
                  Mariology  -  study of the Virgin Mary

                  ~ YourDictionary.com
                  Mariola[b]try[/b]  -  veneration of the Virgin Mary, when regarded as carried
                                       to an idolatrous extreme;

                  ~ YourDictionary.com
                    Mario[b]logy[/b]  -  the branch of Christian theology that deals with the Virgin Mary.

Besides, those sites (PHRONTISTERY, YourDictionary.com) are not Protestant sites - they are used by even non-religious people; and when we speak of MARIOLOGY and MARIOLATRY, they all understand what we mean even among Catholics.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Latria is the worship due God, Dulia is the reverence of humans, Hyperdulia is the high reverence of Mary and Mary alone, notice that is not saying Hyperlatria, so it is not equating Mary to God or putting her on the same level as God, insted it is saying Hyperdulia, placing it a bit abve other humans but not anywhere close to God.
Please use the proper definitions of the terms thanks.[/quote]I did not edit or change anything - that is why I quoted them directly because I know you would react the same way panic-stricken Catholics have reacted in the past when I debated them. Please let's be simple in these matters and look at what your authorities have said:

[list][list][li]As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).source: Catholic Encyclopedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm [/li][/list]

There! They called it the "worship", not the revisionist euphemism you have engineered here.

Hi @~Lady~,

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Show us where anyone actually worshipped Mary in contravention of the warnings in God's Word. If the reverence of the serpent in the desert wasn't wrong, what is wrong with the reverence of Mary?[/quote](1) Please give us the verse where the Bible said anyone ever reverred the serpent. Just a verse, thank you.

(2) When you find us that verse, tell us which of the Catholic terms for "worship" (dulia or hyperdulia) was used in that verse, thank you again.

(3) And when you are done, please show us if HYPERDULIA was used for the serpent the same way that you're making a parallel for Mary-reverence here (remember that the Catholic authorities define that reverence as HYPERDULIA), many thanks.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]You are so laughable, you can't even answer a simple question.[/quote]Thank you. Since I offered that you get the same answers from the other thread from the links I posted in the previous page and you're too lazy to go check them out, the simple thing to do is to cease pretending you can't read and instead ask simple questions.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]I have asked time and time again, what is the difference between the golden calf and the bronze serpent?[/quote]I have answered too many times already: none of them were ever accorded either DULIA, HYPERDULIA, or LATRIA. Since you must always use the same excuse and deny them again, my answers have not changed. When you find the DULIA, HYPERDULIA and LATRIA for the golden calf and bronze serpent, then please let us read it for ourselves, thank you again.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]They were both graven images of things infact animals, why were the Israelites punished for one and then other one they were even asked to look to it for help?[/quote]God did not command anyone to worship either of them.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]If it is so simple to refute and if my argument lack substance why do you have such a hard time answering the questions?[/quote]Because I have answered, provided texts, quoted Catholic references, pointed you to links, offered you direct quotes from your Bishops - and repeated them  in the two threads on the same discussion. Since you cannot read them, I am now pretending you can't see them so that you can continue to fill the pages. So, it's just about time you stop boring people like KarmaMod and quote the verses directly for your Catholic worship of those images.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]Once again stop making the claim that Catholics are asked to worship Mary in the form of latria, if you cannot be truthful then cease to speak and spread lies about the Church.[/quote]I don't remember making such a statement, do you mind? If I did, I apologise upfront - but it would be nice for you to quote where I said that Catholics are being asked to worship Mary and let's read the context again.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]I haven't been ducking under any excuse other than asking you answer simple questions that you cannot answer. Let me repeat that for you I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU QUESTIONS TO ANSWER, BUT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO, my whole point has never been to prove that worshipping of graven images in wrong, but to show you that just because it is an image doesn't mean it is worshipping.[/quote]I like people who are losing their cool when they cannot offer simple evidence for their assertions. Please use point 1,580 in your fonts next time to shout it - it doesn't change anything. I answered your questions, and since you can't see the answers, I am only pretending ignorance for the moment and asking you to show us the worship/veneration/reverence/ of those images you find in the Bible, thank you yet again.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]That is te reason why I have asked you to tell me the difference between the golden calf and the bronze serpent, weren't both of them images?[/quote]As already answered:

[list][list]"I have answered too many times already: none of them were ever accorded either DULIA, HYPERDULIA, or LATRIA. Since you must always use the same excuse and deny them again, my answers have not changed. When you find the DULIA, HYPERDULIA and LATRIA for the golden calf and bronze serpent, then please let us read it for ourselves, thank you again."[/list][/list]

Repeating the same thing is a very good device when you have nothing to say - and inviting me to repeat the same thing ad hominem is not helping your argument.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]So please don't skip over, actually answer the question rather than result to the usual tactic of concluding a discussion and in the process confusig people. ANSWER THE QUESTION:  [size=13pt]WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GOLDEN CALF AND THE BRONZE SERPENT?[/size][/quote]Okay, again let me pretend ignorance for your sake - "pretend", I said. . . because you are only beginning to make for a good laugh for these panic-attacks:

[list][list]"I have answered too many times already: none of them were ever accorded either DULIA, HYPERDULIA, or LATRIA. Since you must always use the same excuse and deny them again, my answers have not changed. When you find the DULIA, HYPERDULIA and LATRIA for the golden calf and bronze serpent, then please let us read it for ourselves, thank you again."[/list][/list]

Repeating the same thing is a very good device when you have nothing to say - and inviting me to repeat the same thing [i]ad hominem is not helping your argument.[/i]

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2852906#msg2852906 date=1222350224]ARE THEY BOTH IMAGES OR NOT?

WHY WERE THE ISRAELITES PUNISHED FOR ONE AND THEN ASKED TO LOOK TO THE OTHER?[/quote]Again O. . let me repeat for your sake!  
~~  "God did not command anyone to worship either of them."

huxley:
3) The miseducation of science in schools with the teaching of creationism, etc.

Teaching creationism in schools is not miseducation - it is a theory as much as evolutionary biology is a theory. There are many shades of evolutionary biology, as there are about creationism. Let me show you a few things happening currently around us:

Atheism should be taught in schools:

~~ Institute of Public Policy Research (BBC)

~~ Atheism to be taught in RE lessons

Would you say that it is alright to teach atheism in British schools? If such a state of affairs is being proposed in our schools, is that not stark [b]mis[/b]education as well? We al know that atheism is not science; and to teach atheism as science or anything of the sort is the kind of hypocrisy that is second nature to some of these fellas. While decrying the teaching of theistic ethics in schools, the same guys are busy hooting for a curriculum for atheism in our schools. Are we missing something here across the border?

huxley:
Dawkins is not a philosopher. Hense, he tends to steer clear of deep philosophical arguments.

Another way of putting that is this: Dawkins is not intelligent enough to hold rational philosophical dialogue, and that is why he is too shy to expose his lack in this regard in public debates.

huxley:
If you did read "The God Delusion" that fact would be very obvious.

Aye.

huxley:
Strong philosophical atheist find this arguments a little unsatisfactory ( I remember having the same feeling) not because they were wrong but because they did not go far enough. I am yet to see a robust philosophical rebuttal of TGD.

Nope - there are several atheist who have opined openly that Dawkins is seriously mistaken in some of his views. Of course, Dawkins' response has usually been to rail at them instead of being open to learn from sound critique. As for robust philosphical rebuttal of TGD, it is simply the case that the TGD does not even measure up as a philosophical treatise.

huxley:
Would be interesting to see your arguments against Dawkins or any other arguments.

Someday we shall get there.

huxley:
Although Flew has criticised Dawkins I simply cannot remember the main thrust of his criticism. Please can you enlighten me?

Well, for the most part, what I have read in Flew's persuasion of an Intelligent Mind leaves me none the wiser as you. Briefly, Flew only shares why he became a deist rather than a theist. As such, it is a bit quizzical to argue for a desitic worldview when my persuasions are more inclined and concretly Christian theism.

Regards.

@huxley,

It's great to read your efforts at a working and practical definition of both theism and atheism. When we have a functional understanding of the terms either way, it then becomes easier for us to find a common ground for the germane questions of this discussion.

That said, here are a few things to highlight from yours:

huxley:
Now, on Richard Dawkins.  I must admit, when I first became aware of Darkins, I thought his style was too abrasive and tended to distance my position from his, but that was about 20 years ago.  I have since learnt a lot about the subject and have revised my views about him.  I must also admit,  there is a lot that I do agree with him these days.  Of course, that does not mean I agree with him on everything, nor am I a disciple of his.  He will be the last one to encourage discipleship and committment to him.  I am sure he would rather ask you to look at the evidence/facts he present.  In order words, supposing what he said was being said by someone else, would they have the same force;

It matters very little to me, at least, if it was someone else saying what Dawkins had said. The main issue is what has he really said that makes for a coherent discussion? When we examine the conclusions from his argument as a whole, would we be concerned at all that it was said by someone else?

huxley:
Take for instance, the core of his criticism;

1)  The labelling of children as Christian, Moslem, Jewish.  He regards this as a form of child-abuse.  Ok, these are strong words, but I have yet to see any good rebuttal of his point.

N/B ~ Edited:

First, there have been several very sound rebuttals of Dawkins' polarized views. Alistar McGrath is one name that even Dawkins will not forget in a hurry; and a few examples rebutting the latter may include:

https://images.alibris.com/isbn/9780664233044.gif 
God and the New Atheism:
A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens
by John F Haught

https://images.alibris.com/isbn/9781405125390.gif
Dawkin's God: Genes, Memes,
and the Meaning of Life
by Alister E McGrath

https://www.atheistdelusion.net/images/books-thumbnails/1_1_Dawkins-Delusion-McGrath.jpg
The Dawkins Delusion
by Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt McGrath

https://www.atheistdelusion.net/images/books-thumbnails/11_Dawkins-Letters-LARGE.jpg
The Dawkins Letters:
Challenging Atheist Myths
by David Robertson

Of course, each one of these writers have their varied styles; but I especially enjoyed Alistair McGrath's books because they essentially and concisely captured Dawkins' most vociferous arguments in a neat package and engage the reader with the salient points. David Robertson is appreciated by many people for showing how very much Dawkins misrepresented the Biblical message.

huxley:
We rarely call children Keynesian, Marxist, Smithian, etc, etc.  So why should we label children with labels they did not chose for themselves?

Theism and all the "-isms" mentioned above are not on the same philosophical grounds. Even so, look at it from the other point I argued earlier: do we not think that George Smith's appellation of babies as [b]a[/b]theist is rather in the same league as Dawkin's child-abuse propaganda? However, it is true that children, on the other hand, may not have chosen to call themselves 'Christians, Jewish', etc., yet one should understand why those children are addressed as such - because they grew up in Christian or Jewish homes. Now Dawkins may have a problem with that; but we would really have to question whether he was not proposing a hideous child-abuse campaign for teaching children anti-Christian ethics! The issue here is not whether children lack or do not lack theistic beliefs: rather, it is an irrational campaign to promote godlessness among children that we should discourage.

huxley:
2)  Why do religions deserve respect?  No other ideologies in life is respected simply for being an ideology, so why should religion?

Quite to the contrary, Dawkins is being mischievous - carpriciously and embarrasingly mischiecous for a man who wears the title of "professor". Wait a minute, how do you think Dawkins reacts to remarks of his atheism and theory of evolutionary biology? Do you assume the mistake of thinking that he welcomes disrespect to his theories? Not in the least. Now the question is this: if Dawkins craves respect for his theories and yet cannot respect other people's views about the reality of life, who's playing the hypocrite?

Chrisbenogor:
Maybe both sides could start by having a common definition of what some important terms like worship, bowing, veneration and so on in the discourse means both in the present day and the past. Just maybe that would make the line of division a bit clearer.

Precisely. Applause again!

@ Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Gee, Thanks for that.

Pastor AIO:
I know Thomas Nagel is an atheist, but he is what I call an honest Atheist. He addresses the issue of things such as consciousness and shows that it challenges the atheist position. Challenging your position is also being called critical thinking, which is different from attacking the position, and which is also something that I encourage religious people to do too. Or, in my dreams, I wish religious people could be more critical of their own positions.

Your point well noted. Thanks again.

My dear imhotep,

Calm down broderly. . . calm down, lol.  Me sef I don vex like you before, until God dealt with my heart and showed me there is a better way: and that is, to enter into a rational dialogue with them. I know, it is not as easy as it sounds, and that is quite humbling, because we don't know everything. Yet, I have known quite a number of people who are atheistically inclined who are quite reasonable when they get to know for a fact that Christians are not irrational "eggheads". That is why it should not come as a surprise to so many of us that there are some people who describe themselves as theistic atheists - atheists who are inclined to believe in some "God" of sorts.

imhotep:
My problem is that while the theists develop their own belief systems independently, the atheists are so [b]insecure [/b]that they INISIST on bringing down theisitic systems before they feel good about themselves. Absurd!!

No, imhotep, not all of them 'insist' that is the default situation. I'm not trying to placate or compromise with atheistic persuasions; but the fact is that there are so many that are atheistically inclined and yet very reasonable people - so many of them (to my surprise). The problem is that the most irrational ones among them who have access to the media at large drive their extremisms to make a bad case for atheism indeed. These others are a small group - and they make the most unintelligible noise ever! Yet, you will find that these men are a constant embarrassment to their group, as not so many are inclined to applaud their rants - an example:

           Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher
           ~~ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/01/scidawkin101.xml)

I think we can accommodate the thin line here, which is that we should be careful to not generalize. One poorly thinking theist does not mean that every theist is an egghead. We can reason with them and take on the issues they present in a very amicable and intelligent manner - this is what makes so many of them interested in what we have to say.

imhotep:
I have challenged all the atheists on this forum to disprove the existence of God, its been 8 months now . . . no response. I wonder what the hell they are talking about if they cannot disprove the existence of God (or other spirits).

Hmm, . . well, I'm not so sure that I can "prove" God's existence either. Let me explain: "proof" is not the same thing as "logic". I can provide the logical explanation for the existence of God: this is like saying, I can't show you God to your naked eyes, but I can show you WHY His existence cannot be discounted.

On the other hand, such thinkers as Thomas Nagel (himself an atheist) have argued that atheists should be careful to argue that God does not exist! No one can "prove" that He does not exist, as no one can supply "proof" that He does. The question lies in the type of proof that people are asking for. Mathematical proofs only tend to theorems, not "proof" in the same way as spiritual matters are investigated. Thus, one can "prove" that the sum of angles in a triangle amounts to 180°. There are mathematical theorems for such "proofs".

But what kind of theorems can one apply to negate spiritual realities? Since some rationalists are too embarrassed to admit that there exists no such theorems for investigating such phenomena, they generally tend to deny those realities. What their arguments amount to is simply using logic to make imploding statements (ie., assertions that suddenly collapse upon the person who is making such arguments).

Phew! I didn't want to go on this far; but my point is that we should not be so angry with these guys. Some will listen, some will not. Those who listen will ask further intelligent questions, and we should never assume that we know all the answers. What we can do is invite them to a dialogue such that they would have the oportunity to look inward at their own assumptions and see that in so many ways, they often do not have a handle on their persuasions.

Pastor AIO:
Here is some really interesting recent stuff that has happened to Nagel:
From here : http://www.nyunews.com/news/campus/1.749538

He also wrote some really interesting stuff about consciousness which truly challenges the physicalist/naturalist/atheist position. Provoking the issue that there are proofs that cannot be demonstrated. Ie which are subjective rather than objective.

Here: http://members.aol.com/neonoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

Em, guys. . . I think we are making a fundamental mistake here that might be worth pointing out. The Nagel I was pointing out to our friend huxley is quite a different one from the above. If we all know that, then no need for this friendly correction.

Ernest Nagel is not to be mistaken for Thomas Nagel. We can do a simple Wiki-search and see the difference:

(1.) Ernest Nagel (Nov. 16, 1901 - Sept. 22, 1985) was a philosopher of science whose definition of atheism is the one I have tried to bring to our attention so far.

(2.) Thomas Nagel (b. July 4, 1937) was also a philosopher; but the difference is that he is a Jewish atheist. This is why we really need to know what Thomas Nagel's position is (by reading his arguments) before we can assume that he was "challenging" the atheist position. Was he? Well, IMHO I don't think so - as an [b]a[/b]theist himself, he maintained a critical analysis of what atheism should be understood to be, and not the simplistic and retired idea advanced by such philosophers as George Smith.

We need to be careful to make such distinctions. It is just like the mistake of someone mixing up the name "Dawkins" for "Hawkings"; or even another one -

~ Stephen Evans (British actor and comedian, b. Nov. 27, 1970)

~ Stephen Evans (58 year old Diplomat and Foreign Affairs specialist on Afghanistan)

~ Stephen Evans (Professor of Life Cycle Engineering).

So, which of the "Stephen Evans" would we be looking at?

The same thing is important here, that we don't confuse the a[/b]theists sharing the name [b]Nagel ~ either Thomas Nagel or Ernest Nagel.

imhotep:
If atheism is not a religion, what is it doing in the RELIGION section of the forum
Same goes for evolution. . .

Lol, @imhotep,

This is a religion section, true. But discussing atheism is contingent on discussing theism. The atheist addresses his questions to the theist, and this might be the most appropriate place to engage in such a dialogue. What do you think?

davidylan:
Thank you, i thot i was the only one tired of the usual "fill the entire thread with meaningless words as a way of dodging the real issue" prank.

Hmm, na today?

KarmaMod:
So when are we re going to see the verses advocating the rosaries because all this all yada yada is boring me.

Lol. . . you never start! Anyone can see how evasive her replies have been. You no go find the verses - they don't exist!

~Lady~, just to reassure you and remove any tendencies of the excuse of being lazy to go and check, let me simply give you by reposting what the Catholic website says:

[list][list]There are several degrees of this worship:

[li]if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.[/li]

[li]When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).[/li]

[li]As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).[/li]

source: Catholic Encyclopedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm [/list][/list]

Now, dear ~Lady~. . .the terms have been outlined in their various types of "venerations". Whether it is dulia, hyperdulia, or latria, can you show us where any such terms applies to:

                 ~~ the worship of man

                 ~~ the worship of the bronze serpent

                 ~~ the worship of cherubims

                 ~~ the worship of graven images?

Em, please retire that excuse of we do not "worship" Mary - your Catholic Encyclopedia quoted above makes the case to the contrary by stating: "the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia".  Now, in the same manner, please show us the HYPERDULIA or DULIA in any one of the above events of the serpent, the cherubim, man, and the graven images of Mary as you have always excused them from the Bible. Just simply show us from the Bible - that will do. Thank you again.

My dear ~Lady~,

I knew there were actually no substance to your arguments, and that's why I twigged that it was best that I left you to have a good time filling the pages just to progress the thread. Most of the arguments you were advancing have been dealt with, and even your attempts to reharsh the same issues here have added nothing to the salient points I presented to you.

An example to the point: ask a Catholic to justify their bowing down in worship to graven images, and one is by default to get the same answer - "what about the serpent?" or "the cherubim on the ark of the covenant?" or "what about this or that image in the Bible?" - and for all that, you have not been able to show where anyone - ANYONE - actually worshipped these things in direct contravention of the warnings in God's Word.

Since you have always ducked under those excuses, that is why I asked these simple questions:

Do you care to offer simple verses (as I did) to show where latria, dulia, or hyperdulia was ever used in reference to:

                  ~~ the worship of man

                  ~~ the worship of the bronze serpent

                  ~~ the worship of cherubims

                  ~~ the worship of graven images?

And yet you terse response was yet another buckling with:

Do not ask me to prove something that we do not believe in. I know you didn't get your references from a Catholic site or eligitimate one, because Mariolatry is against Church teaching and is not found in Church doctrine to be what we should do.

This is the biggest laugh I've had in a long time!! For crying out loud, if you knew the Catholic Church did not believe in such things, why have you been ducking under the excuses of the bronze serpent, the cherubim and the graven images of Mary? You excuse them under the term "veneration" - but even if I should grant you that, are you so unaware that I was referring to the catholic doctrine of "veneration" as defining "dulia" and "hyperdulia"?!?   Are you the only Catholic that is so vastly oblivious of this fact?

In consonance thereto, I asked you to find where any of those terms (latria, dulia, or hyperdulia) fit the events of the serpent, the cherubim, man, or even the graven images. I wasn't surprised you would evade that one so smartly - because for all intents and purposes, you who cried "veneration" could not establish where any of those venerations (dulia or hyperdulia) were applied to any one of those events in the Bible. QED. As it so happens, the simple thing to do was yet evade the questions directly, tuck them neatly under an excuse that translates into incognisance on your part. . . and you are happy to have placated the attention of other readers? Na wah!

~Lady~, humility is simply admitting that you either don't know, or that you cannot accept the fact as it appears. I have not solicited references from non-Catholic sources: rather, I went directly to your own Church affirmations so that you will be aware of what your leaders define for the world. To pretend these issues and then come back hooting that the Catholic Church does not believe in them, is to categorically deny the same things you had used in defence of your affirmations! Em. . . I think others are seeing already how evasive and untenable this attitude actually is. I grant you your excuse, though. . . you cannot establish them from the Bible - because in none of those events did the Bible ask any man to venerate those objects whether by dulia, hyperdulia or even latria! So, what are you still doing with graven images then?

So when you stop using a standard that doesn't apply to us, then you'll get your answers.

Laughable!! My dear ~Lady~, why don't you do the very basic thing here by checking out the references? I quoted directly from a Catholic authority - please see it here: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm). Is that to be taken as below your Catholic standard?!? Or are you just so panic-striken? Haba!!

Anyway, enjoy.

@justcool,

justcool:
If we believe the Bible, then the actual source of these words are Jesus.

Just out of curiosity, could I ask you pointedly: do YOU believe in the Bible?

Then what is wrong with you folks admitting that it is the Bible from where Abd-Ru-Shin lifted those statements? Just what is wrong with simply admitting to that plain truth?

justcool:
The source of the above sayings(which was correctly passed down in the Bible) is Jesus. Or better God or the TRUTH. The saying originated in the TRUTH, and was latter written in the Bible. Not all references to it comes from the Bible. An eyewitness could render the same account without ever reading the Bible.

It is queer indeed that you guys would be making these claims behind Abd-Ru-Shin's back and yet still sounding vague. I'm sorry, but I don't see how you have clarified the issues here. Even if those words are recorded in the Bible and yet the argument is that they did not originate from the Bible (any language is okay by me), if they originated from God and are found in the Bible, then what is wrong with admitting that the Bible can be trusted? Please reflect on this issue very carefully - because to come back and disparage any part of that Book will invite very cutting remarks from me about Mr Abd-Ru-Shin's books.

I find it very queer for people to draw from (no, actually LIFT statements from the KJV Bible) and yet come back and claim they originate from God! Haba! The Biblical scriptures were not even written in English; and Abd-ru-Shin was not even writing in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic either! But isn't it queer that he would lift direct statements from the KJV Bible with Elizabethan English and you guys would assume that the verbatim statements are from the TRUTH or God or. . .? Lol. . the KJV Bible is a translation - and Abd-Ru-Shin lifted the direct KJV diction! Queer for a claim of your source.

justcool:
John 11:25
John 14:6
Luke 23:34

All these are accounts of the saying by different disciples. The sayings did not originate from the deciles, neither did the saying originate in the books or written accounts of the disciples.

I hear - and for all that, Abd-Ru-Shin lifted their sayings.

justcool:
I will give another example:
Supssing Obama once said, "America should make me the next President."
This saying will be carried by various news media -- Vanguard newspaper, CNN, Fox News, The Guardian Newspaper and etc.

It will be wrong to assume that whoever uses that quote got it from the news media. The person quoting may have been standing next to Obama when He said it. Although both the quoter and the news media are referencing the same quote, the quoter is only drawing from Obama and not the news media.

The origin of the word remains Obama, not the news media or the person quoting Obama. This holds true if the words are quoted or reported exactly as Obama said it.

I like your bold - and the same thing applies when I stated that Abd-Ru-Shin lifted straight from the KJV Bible on those verses. There are other translations of the Bible in English; if it helps, here are a few examples of how those verses are rendered in them:

"I am myself that day and that life" ~~ John 11:25 (BBE - Bible in Basic English)
"I am the one who raises the dead to life" ~~ John 11:25 (CEV - Contemporary English Version)
"I am the one who brings people back to life" ~~ John 11:25 (God's WORD)
"I am the rising again, and the life" ~~ John 11:25 (YLT)

Now, even though all these are in English, can you tell me, justcool, why Mr. Abd-Ru-Shin would prefer to lift directly the KJV Bible quotes instead of any one of the above or any other? Doesn't that tell you anything as yet? You claim that he got them direct from the source - that was merely his claim; but the evidence strongly points out that he got them direct from the KJV of the Bible. QED. Anyone can see that as plain as daylight. Unless you are telling me that the native language of the "source" is KJV English?

Cheers.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2849667#msg2849667 date=1222293749]

When we read instances where men bowed to other men, it helps to understand the context - it had nothing to do with worship (see 1 Chron. 21:21 as an example). Do not assume that references to men bowing to men is necessarily encouraging the practice of Mariolatry or Mary-graven-image-veneration.

WHOA!!! So you know this and yet you still don't understand? Did it ever occur to you that Mariolatry is exactly the same as what these men were doing. Did it ever occur to you the context in which Mariolatry is taken or is it because it's given a name that makes you eerie of it?[/quote]Lol. . . rather than express shock, please simply point out what in my quote refers to any one of the catholic doctrine of latria, dulia, or hyperdulia.

I know what I stated, and nothing in those references justifies what Catholicism claims for Mary. I asked questions which are yet unattended - just roundabout arguments is all I have been reading from you. Do you care to offer simple verses (as I did) to show where latria, dulia, or hyperdulia was ever used in reference to:

               ~~ the worship of man

               ~~ the worship of the bronze serpent

               ~~ the worship of cherubims

               ~~ the worship of graven images?

Verses will be more helpful than the arguments filling pages that are saying nothing as yet.

Cheers.

@~Lady~,

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2849620#msg2849620 date=1222293119]You still haven't provided me with document, and I will research this more from the Bible and Church before I can answer you.[/quote]Please refer to the previous page and harvest the links I offered. they will take you to the other thread where I have more than provided articulated evidence to the fact. Pick any from there and treat. I apologise upfront that I'm too lazy to reharsh the same retired arguments here.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2849620#msg2849620 date=1222293119]You may have missed some parts in the Bible, or may have taken things out of context, so until more info on this can be found there won't be an answer on it from me. Please show references, and make sure they are accessible.[/quote]The references have been offered as pointed out above. Please point out the "out of context" issues you find therein.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2849620#msg2849620 date=1222293119]Oh yes that's right you've already convinced yourself that those are graven images and instead you don't see them as anything but, so it doesn't matter if I say we don't worship them as long as you've convinced yourself that those are graven images and you see people bow to them then that means it must be worshipped, what you failed to do is answer my question on the bronze serpent and the ark. why were images made out of gold and bronze held in high regards and even one of them contained the Word of God and the other one well it was the saviour of the Isrealites in the desert, so weren't those graven images too? And why were they permitted?[/quote]Unless you deliberately missed them, here again:

(a) there is no reference in the Bible that anyone bowed down to those images to worship them. They were never at any time venerated as Catholics venerate the images of Mary. If you find the quotes, please oblige us.

(2) I did not make up my mind. I asked questions, I got denials instead. I then offered evidence; what greeted me was absolute silence and nothing to counter those claims.

What I read here from you is not a clear pointer to show that the references I offered are not as they say. Rather, you have only been arguing evasively, which is not the same thing as definitive answers from the Bible.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2849620#msg2849620 date=1222293119]What's worse is that one was in the image of a serpent, how can a serpent be good here?[/quote]Did they venerate those serpents? Which of the Catholic doctrine of latria, dulia, and hyperdulia did Israel apply to the bronze serpent? If you cannot find any such, what then is the basis of assuming what was never stated in Scripture?

You sound more like assuming things with a strained polarization where you haven't reasoned things through. Arguing for the serpent does not mean they venerated or worshipped or paryed to it. if you think otherwise, please no long arguments, just post the verses to show us.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2849620#msg2849620 date=1222293119]Oh no not at all, infact I am actually doing a devotion to Mary, I'm sure at this point you think I am an idolator and that's fine and dandy.[/quote]If you want to call yourself such, that's fine. But don't assume I have alleged that at you when I didn't do so.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2849620#msg2849620 date=1222293119]Infact it is encouraged, because see a prayer is a petition and in the prayer you ask for help. What people don't realise is that when they say mummy pray for me they are praying to their mother also, for as long as they're petitioning they're praying so I guess we all should stop asking for help or petitioning.
But asking Mother Mary to pray for me or petitioning Mother Mary to petition for me or Praying to Mother Mary to pray for me is highly encouraged because her intercession is powerful. Who better than to reach the heart of a child than the mother. See people underestimate the bond between Mother and Child, the biggest mistake Non-Catholics make is expecting Jesus to not listen to his Mother, like do we expect him to dishonour her?[/quote]Lol, I have dealt with this same issue in the other thread. I wish you would take some time and go through before repeating the same thing here, so that fresh issues will be dealt with. Prayer to Mary cannot be justified in God's Word.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2849620#msg2849620 date=1222293119]And no she is not just a random woman that was chosen she was planned from the beginning, because Christ too was planned from the beginning, God didn't decide later on to send his Son forth to the earth born of a woman, o no he let us know that enmity would be put between the woman and the serpent. The woman is very important here, and well we know that Mary had to be without sin because God can't dwell in sin.
So we do pray to Mary and we proudly say thank you to her for her help. We know the one person that Christ would never turn away would be his mother, she gave birth to him, nursed him, raised him, and a sword pierced her soul when she watched her Son die on the cross, she is the sorrowful mother, no child can look at his mother's sorrow and turn away from her.
Or do you think Christ would dishonour his mother by simply dismissing her and treating her like any regular person, if he would, he would dishonour her, and we know Christ isn't going to sin or go against himself, HE IS THE COMMANDMENT.
I believe she plays a role in our salvation, so I don't see what the problem there is. Or do you not believe she plays a role in our salvation? and if so why? please explain because I would think the woman who allowed God's will in her life, and humbled herself and accepted the vocation given her and carried out her duties to the glory of God, and gave birth to God, who is our savior had a role in our salvation.[/quote]Nothing new. It only goes to show that the Bishops who referred to Mary as the saviour of the people of Rome do so out of tradition, not out of regard to God's Word.

@justcool,

justcool:
@pilgrim 1
I was going to let m_nwankow answer your post which is directed to him but then I saw something that blew my mind. I have to comment on it.

The answer is capital "NO"

The Book of life is not the Bible neither can any book written by man be the Book of Life. It is funny that all religions claim that their scriptures is the Book of Life.

Before going into what the book of life is, let remind ourselves what the Bible is. I know that you are very educated and obviously well read and intelligent and I assume that you most have read the history of the book that we call the Bible.

First of all the Bible is not a book as such. It is a room where the early fathers collected ancient scriptures and letters written by the apostles to various churches. Only later, did compile some of the scriptures and letters written by the apostles into what we today call the bible. For example, there were more that just four gospels. The father that included only for in the bible did so, not because of the lack of authenticity of the discarded gospels; he included the four most similar, just because there are four winds -North wind, east wind, west wind, and south wind.
Most of the books in the new testament were not even written to be scriptures but rather they a personal letters that Paul or other apostles wrote to various churches.
It is unfortunate that Christians today have rather descended to the worship of the bible as an infallable word of God, even though History clearly shows how much the book have been interfered with.
Scriptures are never meant to be looked at as the Book of Life. The Scriptures are just revelations or prophecies which should bear witness to the Truth, i.e. point to the people towards the Truth. The scriptures written by man are not the ETERNAL TRUTH which only God can bring. But the scriptural prophecies are meant to prepare the people so that when the TRUTH comes that might recognise HIM. If humans can pass down the TRUTH as such undistorted, then why did Jesus had to come to bring the TRUTH.

Even in the Bible, so many verses point to the fact that the scriptures or the bible does not grant salvation. There is no salvation in the Bible. Salvation only lies in the TRUTH, in the original words of Jesus. From the Bible we read:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
(John 5:39)(new American standard Bible version.)

In another translation we read:

"You study the Scriptures in detail because you think you have the source of eternal life in them. These Scriptures testify on my behalf"(John 5:39)(Gods word translation)

From the above verses we see that regarding the scriptures as the book of life or thinking that salvation lies in the scriptures is wrong. Scriptures are meant to bear witness to the Truth, i.e prepare the people for the Truth. Example the prophecy of Isaiah is meant to prepare the people for the coming of Immanuel. If people had understand Isaiah and have developed the right attitude towards his prophecy, then they will surely recognise Immanuel when He arrives. But due to their worship of the scripture, when Immanuel's stands before them, they will be too bent on the scriptures to look up and recognise Him.

Even Paul warned against this. In Corinthians we read:

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." (1 Corinthians 13:10) (King James Version)

Here we see the predominant writer of the New Testament tell us that they know and only prophesy in parts, i.e. their knowledge and prophesy is not complete, thus not perfect. He also reminds us to do away with their imperfect prophey when that which is perfect comes, i.e. when the TRUTH comes.

How can a book whose author honestly told you the he knows only in parts be the book of life or the infallable word of God. This worship of the Bible, which is predominant among Christian's is a sin against the first commandment of God.

Therefore rightly considered, the bible is neither the book of life nor the infallable word of God.

The book of life which will be opened during Judgement contains the names of all the creatures that came into existence. All the creatures in creation, their names are recorded in the book of life, which only God can allow one to read. Only God knows the names of all the creatures in existence. Spiritual death is synonymous to being erased from the book of life.

Thanks and remain blessed.

I think my reply just above addresses these concerns. If the case can be made with clear evidence that Abd-Ru-Shin got those Biblical statements from anywhere else other than from the KJV of the BIBLE, please show us such a "book". If otherwise such a reference or document cannot be shown, it still leaves your replies largely wanting.

Regards.

@justcool,

How body? Thanks for your addition and analogy. I anticipated someone might misread me, so here's the chance to clarify what you are missing.

Actually, the implication of my inputs was not to undermine the Bible in any way. Many would have feared it so, but not at all. The thing is that Abd-Ru-Shin took Biblical declarations and gave them his own interpretations. That is precisely the issue here as regards two very serious points:

(1) Biblical prophecies

(2) Biblical statements

Anyone may fancy going to the moon and writing books about their experiences. What is the real wonder is that they would make such assertions and yet quote directly from the Bible while making a case of abstract nuances. This is why I asked simply and continue to do so: where does one find those particular prophecies that Abd-Ru-Shin claims in his book as I mentioned earlier? If no one can tell, it is simply because they are too embarrassed to admit that he was referring to Biblical prophecies.

Now, what is the nature of interpretation of Biblical prophecies? Please note - I said interpretation of Biblical prophecies. Even when other prophets have tried to understand divine prophecies preceding them, they weren't vague - an example as we find in Daniel 9:2 -

[list][list]"In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem."[/list][/list]

Notice: if Daniel was to understand anything about the prophecies conveyed to Jeremiah, he would not be vague - and surely he was not. He mentioned books and references which others could access in his day. Of course, if I wanted to be sure about what Daniel was claiming in regards to the seventy years, all I need to do is consult the book of Jeremiah in the Bible - and sure enough the prophet Jeremiah definitely spoke of that prophecy of seventy years (see Jeremiah 25:12 and 29:10). There were no ambiguities in Daniel's reference to "books".

Now someone might object here that the verse speaks of "book[b]s[/b]" in the plural. I have no worries about that - because Daniel was definitely reading other writings besides Jeremiah. What other writings? Please see 2 Chronicles 36:21 ~~ "To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years."

What here is the issue? Two things, really:

(a) Jeremiah was one of the books that Daniel was reading; and 2 Chronicles constitute a further reference that Daniel was reading as well.

(b) Daniel was not being vague, but when he mentioned books, of course other people could go and read those same books as Daniel mentioned. Instead of speaking exoteric language of travelling to the moon and cutting through 3 times dimensions, blah, blah - he simply made his point that the "books" he had used to understand the prophecy of the seventy years were readily available for anyone to check them out!


The problem with people lifted direct quotes from the Bible and pretending that it was somewhere else they got it from is what undermines their claims. You cannot find these statements anywhere else:

52. I am the Resurrection and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by me!
66. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!

These are direct lines lifted straight out of the Bible - and here are the references:

"I am the Resurrection and the Life" ~~ John 11:25
"No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me" ~~ John 14:6
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" ~~ Luke 23:34

Please go and check them out! You will not find statements like those in any other veda or holy writ other than the Bible. What is even more remarkable is that those statements were lifted direct from the KJV of the Bible - which tells us what Mr. Abd-Ru-Shin has been reading all along!

I could go on and cite so many examples; but as regards the Biblical prophecies and the words lifted from the KJV of the Bible - it just simply shows the case of what I stated earlier: Grail Message draws heavily from the Bible. Anyone who doesn't agree is free to disagree; but they would need more than fancy ideas of time travel to justify their disagreement. The prophets in the Bible were not vague or abstract men - they didn't try to spin things around.

Many blessings.