Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Very simple:

Why the fukc do other sects of Christianity always try to pick out the Catholic and bash him/her?

(Directed at anyone, but mostly JIA)

How have I condemned or as you say "bashed" Catholics?

I point out the fact that there are many traditions that Catholic leaders teach and practice that are grossly unbiblical and now I stand accused of bashing?

http://www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm

I surmise that after you perused this link yesterday (and saw for yourself that there are many things amiss with what the Catholic leaders teach, enjoin, and practice) that you felt like I was bashing the Catholic religion. Roc. anything that I expose is not done with ill will but in an effort to bring awareness. If I saw someone committing a crime and I have access to a phone, you better believe that I am going to notify the proper authorities. It is no different with sounding the alarm about false (meaning that it cannot be substantiated by the Bible) doctrines, practices, and traditions. I don't want anyone to fall victim to any cult. I am a watchman on the walls as it were. I never thought that I would be condemned for my good intentions.

Very sorry, I meant it in the way since you're a fundamentalist that you've probably encountered it many times before.

Protestants bash Catholics, because of their different views and ideas of how the religion should be.

Here is what I wrote yesterday. It is all true.

The Catholic leaders have made the Word of God (the Bible) of no effect through their traditions that they have handed down and many such things that they do. Furthermore they teach as doctrines the commandments of men. They have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.


Mark 7:13
making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.


Mark 7:7
And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.


2 Timothy 3:5
having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

I sincerely apologize if what I have done is wrong, but I don't believe (in my heart of hearts) that exposing Catholic leaders is wrong.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
(Directed at anyone, but mostly JIA)

Then this doesn't deserve a thread.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Here is what I wrote yesterday. It is all true.

The Catholic leaders have made the Word of God (the Bible) of no effect through their traditions that they have handed down and many such things that they do. Furthermore they teach as doctrines the commandments of men. They have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

You have a lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrine if you believe the Catholics have made the Bible of "no effect."

But it isn't just Catholics is it... tell me of Mormons and Orthadox and JW's and...



Well any body exposing themselves is bad. Though I'm not sure the last time I saw a Catholic leader jump out of the shadows in a trench coat and flash.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Protestants bash Catholics, because of their different views and ideas of how the religion should be. It's the way it seems to have always been. Many Catholics are really sick of being called non Christian.. I have Roman Catholic relatives right from the boot (Italy)....

Protestants feel that THEY only know the truth, and many feel the Catholics are of the devil lead by the Antichrist himself...ie, the Pope.......Many get this view from the prophecies of Daniel and the Book of Rev...

But yet again the Catholics did change one of the commandments.......the 4th.......and did away with the one that talked about idols.

Originally posted by debbiejo
It's the way it seems to have always been. Many Catholics are really sick of being called non Christian.. I have Roman Catholic relatives right from the boot (Italy)....

Protestants feel that THEY only know the truth, and many feel the Catholics are of the devil lead by the Antichrist himself...ie, the Pope.......Many get this view from the prophecies of Daniel and the Book of Rev...

But yet again the Catholics did change one of the commandments.......the 4th.......and did away with the one that talked about idols.

Meh, most Christian sects/denominations feel they are the only ones doing it right and all the other ones are leading people astray.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Why the fukc do other sects of Christianity always try to pick out the Catholic and bash him/her?


How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?

Maybe Christians don't like how the Catholic pay off victims of sex abuse?

I think you need to go to bed now................hahaha

Catholics are Chirstians.

I know.........

Congratuionalaytiones.

Originally posted by Alliance
Congratuionalaytiones. anything for an athiesticdelusionial-ism.mindedfellow........

faeries.

Originally posted by Nichole
Maybe Christians don't like how the Catholic pay off victims of sex abuse?

Yes, because no other Christian sect or denomination has had sexual scandals in the past.

Originally posted by Alliance
faeries.

I never said that I saw them.........It's other people...........lol

Originally posted by Nichole
Maybe Christians don't like how the Catholic pay off victims of sex abuse?

I have stated what I take issue with; it is nothing personal.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I never said that I saw them.........It's other people...........lol

I got captured by them once. It's what you get when you say "I'll step in that mushroom ring if I want!"

Or was that pixies? Might actually have been Nixies. Or do they live in water? Water Nymphs? Not as fun as Dryads.... I know it wasn't Brownies, which aren't actually made of chocolate in a mythological sense.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I got captured by them once. It's what you get when you say "I'll step in that mushroom ring if I want!"

Or was that pixies? Might actually have been Nixies. Or do they live in water? Water Nymphs? Not as fun as Dryads.... I know it wasn't Brownies, which aren't actually made of chocolate in a mythological sense.

The mushroom people are little dwarfs..aren't they....>> ME

A chocolate Brownies........they will hate you now!!

*picked up book* Faeries like flowers and plants...Gnomes, gnomes.........they like mushrooms.......yes

Oh btw, Gnomes don't like technology........

Originally posted by debbiejo
I never said that I saw them.........It's other people...........lol

Originally posted by debbiejo


The mushroom people are little dwarfs..aren't they....>> ME

A chocolate Brownies........they will hate you now!!

*picked up book* Faries like flowers and plants...Gnomes, gnomes.........they like mushrooms.......yes

But don't pixies live at the bottme of the garden? And if you enter a pixie circle (I'm sure it is a ring of musrooms) you are caught? And time passes differently? You gone minutes but when you get free 40 years have passed?

They live under the heel of my SWAT boots.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But don't pixies live at the bottme of the garden? And if you enter a pixie circle (I'm sure it is a ring of musrooms) you are caught? And time passes differently? You gone minutes but when you get free 40 years have passed? *picks up book again* Pixies and faeries hate each other........ohhhhhhh pixies can decrease in size.......They love flower garden and herb beds...oh oh oh and mushrooms being their FAVORITE PLANTS.......They like to make merry..

You're probably wondering about my book collection now aren't ya......lol

*scrapes pixie guts off of sole*

Originally posted by debbiejo
*picks up book again* Pixies and faeries hate each other........ohhhhhhh pixies can decrease in size.......They love flower garden and herb beds...oh oh oh and mushrooms being their FAVORITE PLANTS.......They like to make merry..

You're probably wondering about my book collection now aren't ya......lol

Of course not, who doesn't have a stack of books on occult matters and mythology on there bookshelves...

Oh, of course! I'm thinking fairy rings, but they can also be called pixie rings according to my book.



I heard they were trying to evolve an acidic sort - like a Xenomorph and pixie hybrid.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Of course not, who doesn't have a stack of books on occult matters and mythology on there bookshelves...



Every healthy household should have them.

Alliance??? These little creatures can get angry ya know..........Make a persons life misserable....especially Bogies, Gremlins, .oh and thoughs Kobolds......they throw things...........*puts book down*

ranting <<<-----Kobold.....

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is no different with sounding the alarm about false (meaning that it cannot be substantiated by the Bible) doctrines, practices, and traditions.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I point out the fact that there are many traditions that Catholic leaders teach and practice that are grossly unbiblical and now I stand accused of bashing?



Did it ever once occur to you that we don't follow the Bible literally as you do?



A cult? You do know that the Catholic relgion is older than any protestant religion in existence and that one of the criteria for being a cult is to be a "new" religion? Hmm, were you aware of that? Because I got the opinion you knew nothing about Catholism yet continued to bash it and its members.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I heard they were trying to evolve an acidic sort - like a Xenomorph and pixie hybrid.

I don't know what it is, but I'm sure i can whip up something in the lab to fight it.

Originally posted by debbiejo


Every healthy household should have them.

Alliance??? These little creatures can get angry ya know..........Make a persons life misserable....especially Bogies, Gremlins, .oh and thoughs Kobolds......they throw things...........*puts book down*

ranting <<<-----Kobold.....

A Kobold like Yokyok from Order of the Stick?

"Hello. My name is Yokyok. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

To the OP. Isn't JIA a Catholic? They're the ones that get people to join through fear of God, not love of God, are they not?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
To the OP. Isn't JIA a Catholic? They're the ones that get people to join through fear of God, not love of God, are they not?

Heavens no, I speaks out against all Christians that aren't like he. The thing is he wont tell anybody which denomination he belongs to, thus showing which group he believes is right.

We know that it isn't Mormon, Catholic or JW.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Heavens no, I speaks out against all Christians that aren't like he. The thing is he wont tell anybody which denomination he belongs to, thus showing which group he believes is right.

We know that it isn't Mormon, Catholic or JW.

Sorry, not thinking clearly, JW? Anyways, he's Jesustologist until we pinpoint it, all in favor?

Jehovah's Witnesses.

*

***I am very well versed in Catholic doctrine. Catholics do not believe the Scriptures...in point of fact, they deny the Scriptures and their spurious doctrines are in opposition to the Scriptures. In fact, I challenge you to have me prove it.

**************************************************
**********



***Every diocese in the U.S. has pedophile or homosexual priests who molest young boys and girls. Some diocese's have had to declare bankruptcy because of the many lawsuits against them. The Catholic Church has used every ploy available to protect these perverts and has tried to evade compensating the families of the victims at every opportunity. Not only that but the lives of these victims will never be the same because of the psychological damage done to them.

Perhaps the reason you never "saw a Catholic leader jump out of the shadows in a trench coat and flash" was because he was wearing a priestly robe!

Marchello

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
To the OP. Isn't JIA a Catholic? They're the ones that get people to join through fear of God, not love of God, are they not?

I am not a Catholic nor have I ever been. I am classified by society as a Christian (non-denominational).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not a Catholic nor have I ever been. I am classified by society as a Fundamentalist Jesustologist (denominational).

Fixed

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Heavens no, I speaks out against all Christians that aren't like he. The thing is he wont tell anybody which denomination he belongs to, thus showing which group he believes is right.

We know that it isn't Mormon, Catholic or JW.
He's nondenominational, or in other words, he is basically his own sect of Christianity.

Edit: Sorry JIA, you must have posted yours as I entered the editor.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not a Catholic nor have I ever been. I am classified by society as a Christian (non-denominational).

Well since all denominations are all Christian that is essentially a cop-out. Catholics and all the rest.

So either you attend a Church, or you are a Church of one.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
you are a Church of one.

*cough* Cult *cough*

The Church of one is the best cult ever...it only has one member and can never grow.

But we are all one.........

Not you...you and your "intelligence'

What is the true day of worship? Sunday or Saturday?

Originally posted by EMILIE
What is the true day of worship? Sunday or Saturday?

There is no such animal. We worship God on any day now.

According to the bible it is the Sabbath, Saturday.

Colossians 2:16-17
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Originally posted by EMILIE
What is the true day of worship? Sunday or Saturday? Biblically, the specified day of worship is the seventh day. Given this, the actual day is relative. Traditionally the Jews recognize the Sabbath on Saturday and Christians recognize the Sabbath on Sunday. This tradition is followed throughout the Bible. This is merely tradition as far as my knowledge of the subject goes, the sabbath is a day of rest that occurs once every seven days.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Colossians 2:16-17
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.


Well, that is quite a contribution.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Colossians 2:16-17
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
That verse is talking about their feast sabbaths.......I think there are 7 of them through out the year.

Tell me JIA, in your Church of one do you subscribe to the doctrinal lines of any actual denomination/sect, or do you merely interpret what you believe the Bible to be saying? Were you baptised? Which sect/denomination did it? If you get married, in which sect/denomination Church will it occur?

*

***You contend that Catholics are Christians. Would you please define what a "Christian" is? This is not meant to be a flippant question because unless we are both on the same page as to what a Christian is we cannot come to a mutual consensus.

Thanks,

Marchello

Originally posted by Regret
He's nondenominational, or in other words, he is basically his own sect of Christianity.


He is like Saint Paul who wishy-washy believes and hear the ministry of Christ...

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***You contend that Catholics are Christians. Would you please define what a "Christian" is? This is not meant to be a flippant question because unless we are both on the same page as to what a Christian is we cannot come to a mutual consensus.

Thanks,

Marchello

Tch. A Christian is a universal term, and umbrella term for a person who believes Jesus was the Messiah/savior and follows the Bible. It is that simple. Catholicism is a denomination/sect based upon doctrinal interpretations of the Bible. The same as Protestants, Mormons, JW, Seven Day Eventists, Brethren and so on.

They are classified as Christians because the believe Jesus is the Christ. Nothing can change that, no matter how much some people want to say "Your not interpreting it right so you aren't Christian.

Want it simpler? Jesus + Bible = Christian.

All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholics. Savvy?



Dodging my question are we?

JIA? Dodge?

Dodge? More like run the opposite way.

DODGEBALL!

Duck, Dodge, Dip, Dive, and Dodge.

Or just smash the ball into "he who runs away."

Eh, that might work.

*crack*

Nice throw. nailed JIA right in the head.

oh did I?

Thats violent

Originally posted by Alliance
JIA? Dodge?

I think he deserves the name the artful Dodger (though the Dodger was good at dodging, JIA is rather obvious when he does it.)

First in the Chick thread he pretty much says "I don't they are propaganda, maybe those people who do are just paranoid."

When given a set of specific examples from the things Chick was claiming and portraying he did everything in his power to avoid answering whether he actually thought they were true or false (things like conspiracy theories, false history and the like.) Now above I asked him about his Church of one. His response is Biblical quotes that have nothing to do with the question.

JIA cant respond to anything, kind of like that "ADarksideJedi" who put me on ignore because I challenged her beliefs.

Honestly, I don't get these people. If they're so "holier than thou," why all the emphsis on the "dark side" which given Lucas' childish interpretation, is against everythign they stand for.

Originally posted by debbiejo
...You had stated before "should we follow after the Commandments of men?".......Well it was a MAN, Constantine that changed the Sabbath to Sunday....Man changed that.....see?

What? I never said said anything about we should follow after the commandments of men. What are you talking about.

waht?

Originally posted by Alliance
JIA cant respond to anything, kind of like that "ADarksideJedi" who put me on ignore because I challenged her beliefs.

Honestly, I don't get these people. If they're so "holier than thou," why all the emphsis on the "dark side" which given Lucas' childish interpretation, is against everythign they stand for.

Ignorant hypocrisy?

And I don't know, is ADarksideJedi actually Jackie Malfoy? She used to sign JM after her posts to...

I saw someone else do that today. Do we have some socks?

hmmm what kind?
ankle or knee high??


LMAO

Um judging by the 3 of differnt avatars that have signed their name .jm


...waist high.

Originally posted by Alliance
I saw someone else do that today. Do we have some socks?

Quite possible, the seem attracted to the forum like moths to a flame.

wow

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Quite possible, the seem attracted to the forum like moths to a flame.

Maybe it because they have opinons the size of Everest and facts the size of their


{edit} actually, that'd be interesting to see.

Does a small phallus make you more prone to be religious? Maybe I can restore my confidence in natural selection after all! tongue_ss

Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe it because they have opinons the size of Everest and facts the size of their


{edit} actually, that'd be interesting to see.

Does a small phallus make you more prone to be religious? Maybe I can restore my confidence in natural selection after all! tongue_ss

Perhaps, there seems to have been some valid theories (psychological) that a good number have sought out religion as a way to hide from their insecurities - God loves you no matter what. He accepts you no matter what.

As such they are able to channel their own self loathing towards the people/groups who don't have their God's blessing.

i.e. the well endowed.

Originally posted by Alliance
i.e. the well endowed.

Yes, God didn't want people to be well endowed.

*

***And, of course, you do err...not knowing the Scriptures.

The Lord Jesus Christ was the Great Physician ...and this is what He said: "And Jesus answering said unto them, 'They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance'" . It is not enough for a person to know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Great Physician. To be "cured" of the malady that afflicts them...they must "go" to Him for the "cure." Many people know that He is the Messiah/Saviour ...but mere "mental assent" cannot nor will not make them a "Christian." Until one goes to Him as their Great Physician...and accepts Him as the "cure" for their malady...they will remain "sick" and PERISH ...for He is the ONLY cure (Saviour) .

To become a "Christian" ...you must see yourself for what you really are...a sinner. You may not like to hear that but it does not change the fact that you are...for it is written: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" ..."As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God" ..."For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

(Continued)

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***And, of course, you do err...not knowing the Scriptures.

A witty come back there. Trust me, I know the scriptures. I know them enough even to tell you that your point is irrelevant.

You asked the question, I answered it. What I told you was the way Christians are defined in theological terms, in linguistic terms, in terms of categorisation.

Jesus + Bible = Christian.

And doesn't matter one iota how they interpret the Bible, it doesn't stop them being Christian. It doesn't matter one iota if they have other things in addition to the Bible, it doesn't stop them being Christian. It only affects them in terms of denomination. It is that interpretation, that doctrine, that makes them Catholic or Protestant or whatever.

Jesus + Bible = Christian. It doesn't get any simpler then that.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
...Jesus + Bible = Christian. It doesn't get any simpler then that.

Actually, the term "Christian" was used contemptuously to refer to followers of the Way (i.e. Jesus Christ). Those who hated, persecuted, and harrassed Jesus' followers gave them this name out of disdain, to mark and label them. It was not intended to designate any religious denomination as such.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Actually, the term "Christian" was used contemptuously to refer to followers of the Way (i.e. Jesus Christ). Those who hated, persecuted, and harrassed Jesus' followers gave them this name out of disdain, to mark and label them.

And later they became Catholic.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Actually, the term "Christian" was used to contemptuously to followers of the Way (i.e. Jesus Christ). Those who hated, persecuted, and harrassed Jesus' followers gave them this name out of disdain, to mark and label them.

Historicity. Originally perhaps, however in the modern world its meaning has changed.

And now it is the category one goes in if you belong to a Christian sect/denomination. And to qualify as such one has to believe Jesus is the Christ, which usually goes hand in hand with the Bible.

So sorry, but that doesn't change:


Jesus + Bible = Christian.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Actually, the term "Christian" was used contemptuously to refer to followers of the Way (i.e. Jesus Christ). Those who hated, persecuted, and harrassed Jesus' followers gave them this name out of disdain, to mark and label them. It was not intended to designate any religious denomination as such.

It is still the highest honor to be called a Christian.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is still the highest honor to be called a Christian.

No, not according to Osama Bin Lodan.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is still the highest honor to be called a Christian.

So? What does that have to do with the topic at hand? The non-rational attempt to claim that Catholics are not in fact Christian when in in terms of definition they are?

Page 2:

You must repent (turn away from your sins). Repentance is not making a resolution to do better and it is not conviction of sin, for a person can be convinced that he is wrong and still not repent. Repentance is a change of mind, a change of heart, and it results in a change of action: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" .

You must trust in the "completed work" that Jesus Christ accomplished for you on the cross...you must believe that Jesus Christ "took your place" on the cross, died for your sins (although He never sinned) and was resurrected bodily from the dead : "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL . And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can NEVER take away sins: But this man, after He had offered ONE SACRIFICE for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God: From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool" .

Salvation is a GIFT of God...and we cannot earn it by our good works . God gives it to us "free" when we place our FAITH in the "completed work" of the Lord Jesus Christ as the satisfaction for our sins . He died as our "substitute" and took the punishment for our sins upon Himself (even though He never sinned) and became our "sacrifice" to satisfy the righteousness required by God . Now because salvation is a GIFT that God offers us "freely"...we must "receive" it to be "saved"...that is, we must "reach out" in faith and receive the GIFT of God : "For the wages of sin is death; but the GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" . (Continued)

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 2:

You must repent (turn away from your sins). Repentance is not making a resolution to do better and it is not conviction of sin, for a person can be convinced that he is wrong and still not repent. Repentance is a change of mind, a change of heart, and it results in a change of action: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" .

You must trust in the "completed work" that Jesus Christ accomplished for you on the cross...you must believe that Jesus Christ "took your place" on the cross, died for your sins (although He never sinned) and was resurrected bodily from the dead : "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL . And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can NEVER take away sins: But this man, after He had offered ONE SACRIFICE for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God: From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool" .

Salvation is a GIFT of God...and we cannot earn it by our good works . God gives it to us "free" when we place our FAITH in the "completed work" of the Lord Jesus Christ as the satisfaction for our sins . He died as our "substitute" and took the punishment for our sins upon Himself (even though He never sinned) and became our "sacrifice" to satisfy the righteousness required by God . Now because salvation is a GIFT that God offers us "freely"...we must "receive" it to be "saved"...that is, we must "reach out" in faith and receive the GIFT of God : "For the wages of sin is death; but the GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" . (Continued)

And? The relevance? You must believe in Jesus and the things the Bible said he did?

It doesn't change the definition. There are Christians who think the Bible is metaphorical and figurative, there are ones who believe it is exactly as it says it is. Doctrine.

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 2:

You must repent (turn away from your sins). Repentance is not making a resolution to do better and it is not conviction of sin, for a person can be convinced that he is wrong and still not repent. Repentance is a change of mind, a change of heart, and it results in a change of action: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" .

You must trust in the "completed work" that Jesus Christ accomplished for you on the cross...you must believe that Jesus Christ "took your place" on the cross, died for your sins (although He never sinned) and was resurrected bodily from the dead : "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL . And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can NEVER take away sins: But this man, after He had offered ONE SACRIFICE for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God: From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool" .

Salvation is a GIFT of God...and we cannot earn it by our good works . God gives it to us "free" when we place our FAITH in the "completed work" of the Lord Jesus Christ as the satisfaction for our sins . He died as our "substitute" and took the punishment for our sins upon Himself (even though He never sinned) and became our "sacrifice" to satisfy the righteousness required by God . Now because salvation is a GIFT that God offers us "freely"...we must "receive" it to be "saved"...that is, we must "reach out" in faith and receive the GIFT of God : "For the wages of sin is death; but the GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" . (Continued)

There is nothing to repent for. Do not begrudge your life, for the road you have traveled has brought you here, and this is heaven.

Page 3:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" ..."In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (unmerited favor)" .

To be redeemed from the consequences of your sins you must receive Jesus Christ personally as your Saviour by faith and trust in the "completed work" that He accomplished for you on Calvary's cross.

Rejection of God provision of salvation through Jesus Christ is eternal death in Hell . The choice is yours alone to make .

My prayer for you is that you will accept God's precious GIFT of salvation...and that receiving it you will experience that PEACE which surpasses all understanding .

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 3:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" ..."In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (unmerited favor)" .

To be redeemed from the consequences of your sins you must receive Jesus Christ personally as your Saviour by faith and trust in the "completed work" that He accomplished for you on Calvary's cross.

Rejection of God provision of salvation through Jesus Christ is eternal death in Hell . The choice is yours alone to make .

My prayer for you is that you will accept God's precious GIFT of salvation...and that receiving it you will experience that PEACE which surpasses all understanding .

Marchello

There is nothing to be saved from.

*

***Your words are the words of an unregenerate sinner in need of salvation...only the Lord Jesus Christ can redeem you. Too it would do no good to try and reason with you...for you are beyond reason...too proud to see your unregenerate condition.

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***Your words are the words of an unregenerate sinner in need of salvation...only the Lord Jesus Christ can redeem you. Too it would do no good to try and reason with you...for you are beyond reason...too proud to see your unregenerate condition.

Marchello

I suspect if I cared I might find that insulting, but I don't.

You are an unregenerate ignorant person in need of a bit of learning.. You asked "what makes a person Christian?"

I responded with the way in which a Christian is classified, and that it is a term that is perfectly appropriate and accurate in the way in which it is used. I can't help it you have some sort of arrogant assumption you and you particular Christian group are the only true ones. You can sing that song till the cow come home, but it doesn't change the way Christians are defined.

And I would be unlikely to believe any claims of salvation coming from those who met with something they are incapable of debating respond with "sorry, But I guess you a sinner and lost." - You are far to proud to listen, which is far more damning I would say.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You have a lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrine if you believe the Catholics have made the Bible of "no effect."

But it isn't just Catholics is it... tell me of Mormons and Orthadox and JW's and...



Well any body exposing themselves is bad. Though I'm not sure the last time I saw a Catholic leader jump out of the shadows in a trench coat and flash.

????

How does Orthodoxy fit in with the Mormons and Jehowa's Witnesses?

Orthodox Christianity PRE-DATES Catholisism.

I don't actually know HOW it can be compared to Mormonism and Jehowa's Withness, who are farely new denominations.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You have a lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrine if you believe the Catholics have made the Bible of "no effect."

But it isn't just Catholics is it... tell me of Mormons and Orthadox and JW's and...

Mormons follow the Bible heavily, We do not deviate from it. We do have scripture and prophets that bridge the gaps left in the Bible, and gaps exist as anyone should know if they have studied the Bible, but we do not make the Bible of "no effect." We have made of "no effect" erroneous interpretations and beliefs based on misinterpretation of the Bible though.

Now, in a manner JIA is correct. In Catholic belief tradition is often stronger than scripture. It is believed that the general Catholic community will follow the correct path, and so, if the general community of the Catholic Church does something long enough it becomes a part of the Church.



Tradition is equal in weight to Scripture, but it is used to interpret scripture, so tradition must be held as the more accurate by the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is still the highest honor to be called a Christian.


Says who ?

I used to be Christian....I never got any respect for it.

*

***Not so. The Scriptures define what and who you are: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us...Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father: but he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also." .

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***Not so. The Scriptures define what and who you are: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us...Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father: but he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also." .

Marchello

So are you saying that once you are saved, you can then loose that salvation?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is still the highest honor to be called a Christian.

No. It is not.

Im pretty much starting to into my catholic religion even more. I dont rally care what christians and other religions say about mine. I keep on beliving

*

***That's nice.

**************************************************
******
*

***There is nothing wrong with being "ignorant"...and it is not a crime. Too, "ignorance" is salvagable...however , "stupidity" is terminal.

Unregenerate? You know me not for I have only posted a couple of times here...and my deportment and words have not been such that one would conclude that I was unregenerate. However, I have read many of your posts...and your words describe who and what you are in your heart: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" .

**************************************************
******

*

***Not so. You are a terrible theologian...and a WORST mathematician. Using your logic and assuming it is valid that: Jesus + Bible = Christian...we have the following equations...all of which are "inequalities"...to wit:
(A)Roman Catholicism
Jesus + Bible + ORAL TRADITION + papal "Ex-Cathedra" pronouncements + teachings of the Magisterium DOES NOT = Christian
(B)Mormons (Continued)






I can't help it you have some sort of arrogant assumption you and you particular Christian group are the only true ones. You can sing that song till the cow come home, but it doesn't change the way Christians are defined.

And I would be unlikely to believe any claims of salvation coming from those who met with something they are incapable of debating respond with "sorry, But I guess you a sinner and lost." - You are far to proud to listen, which is far more damning I would say.

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***That's nice.

**************************************************
******
*

***There is nothing wrong with being "ignorant"...and it is not a crime. Too, "ignorance" is salvagable...however , "stupidity" is terminal.

Unregenerate? You know me not for I have only posted a couple of times here...and my deportment and words have not been such that one would conclude that I was unregenerate. However, I have read many of your posts...and your words describe who and what you are in your heart: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" .

**************************************************
******

*

***Not so. You are a terrible theologian...and a WORST mathematician. Using your logic and assuming it is valid that: Jesus + Bible = Christian...we have the following equations...all of which are "inequalities"...to wit:
(A)Roman Catholicism
Jesus + Bible + ORAL TRADITION + papal "Ex-Cathedra" pronouncements + teachings of the Magisterium DOES NOT = Christian
(B)Mormons (Continued)






I can't help it you have some sort of arrogant assumption you and you particular Christian group are the only true ones. You can sing that song till the cow come home, but it doesn't change the way Christians are defined.

And I would be unlikely to believe any claims of salvation coming from those who met with something they are incapable of debating respond with "sorry, But I guess you a sinner and lost." - You are far to proud to listen, which is far more damning I would say.

Flaming because you were proven wrong is, well, STUPID.

Great. So you're condemning 1 billion people because they have a tradition? STUPID.

Why are you talking about someone being arrogant when you are the one incapable of arguing yet attempt to bash others who can?

Page 2:

Bible + Jesus + Pearl of Great Price + Book of Mormon + Doctrine and Covenants DOES NOT = Christian.

(C)Jehovah Witnesses
Jesus + Bible + "Scripture Studies" DOES NOT = Christian

(D)Seventh Day Adventists
Jesus + Bible + "Spirit of Prophecy" and her writings DOES NOT = Christian

Roman Catholicism is a "cult" based on other sources of "authority" other than the Scriptures...and in DIRECT opposition to them. They are not Christians because they believe not in the Jesus as portrayed in the Scriptures...albeit your protestations to the contrary.

Bottom Line: All Catholics are not Christians...and no Christians are Catholic. Savvy?

ADDENDA: Sorry I left part of your post at the bottom of my previous post to you.

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 2:

Bible + Jesus + Pearl of Great Price + Book of Mormon + Doctrine and Covenants DOES NOT = Christian.

(C)Jehovah Witnesses
Jesus + Bible + "Scripture Studies" DOES NOT = Christian

(D)Seventh Day Adventists
Jesus + Bible + "Spirit of Prophecy" and her writings DOES NOT = Christian

Roman Catholicism is a "cult" based on other sources of "authority" other than the Scriptures...and in DIRECT opposition to them. They are not Christians because they believe not in the Jesus as portrayed in the Scriptures...albeit your protestations to the contrary.

Bottom Line: All Catholics are not Christians...and no Christians are Catholic. Savvy?

ADDENDA: Sorry I left part of your post at the bottom of my previous post to you.

Marchello

All Christian religions today came from the Roman Catholic church.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All Christian religions today came from the Roman Catholic church.

Except for Greek Orthodox.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Except for Greek Orthodox.

I could be wrong but I think the Catholic church came from, or divided from the Greek Orthodox church.

*

***He did not prove me wrong at all...all he did was to "deny" everything I said and offered no references or proof of any kind. Anyone can deny anything...however, until they can offer proof of their denials...all it is: is a denial and "nothing else."

****************************************

*

***I am condemning no one. What I am doing is quoting what the Scriptures are saying...they are the words of God as written in His Word. You don't have to believe them if you don't want to...but don't say that I condemn anyone when I quote them.

Here is what the Scriptures say about your "traditions" ..."Beware lest any man spoil you through philosopy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" ...and again "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by TRADITION from your fathers" .

****************************************

*

***I am not arrogant when I quote Scripture to prove my point. Those who are truly arrogant are those who argue and can't prove their point by some verifiable authority...that is truly the "epitome" of arrogance!

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***He did not prove me wrong at all...all he did was to "deny" everything I said and offered no references or proof of any kind. Anyone can deny anything...however, until they can offer proof of their denials...all it is: is a denial and "nothing else."

****************************************

*

***I am condemning no one. What I am doing is quoting what the Scriptures are saying...they are the words of God as written in His Word. You don't have to believe them if you don't want to...but don't say that I condemn anyone when I quote them.

Here is what the Scriptures say about your "traditions" ..."Beware lest any man spoil you through philosopy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" ...and again "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by TRADITION from your fathers" .

****************************************

*

***I am not arrogant when I quote Scripture to prove my point. Those who are truly arrogant are those who argue and can't prove their point by some verifiable authority...that is truly the "epitome" of arrogance!

Marchello

Why do you believe the bible?

no but your ignorant to use an unreliable source ,as the bible is, to prove a point

*

***Sir:

That is a very good question...and I will answer it if you are sincere in wanting to know the answer. I am not here to argue with anyone...only to reason with people and share what I have in Christ. If you are open to that, I would be honored to give you my reason for my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***Sir:

That is a very good question...and I will answer it if you are sincere in wanting to know the answer. I am not here to argue with anyone...only to reason with people and share what I have in Christ. If you are open to that, I would be honored to give you my reason for my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Marchello

I would certainly like to know it. If you have a real good reason to believe or evidence I would not deny it, but usually I just hear nonsense from believers. That will certainly not make me believe.

Originally posted by Marchello
I am not here to argue with anyone...only to reason with people and share what I have in Christ.

. Reason.

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***Sir:

That is a very good question...and I will answer it if you are sincere in wanting to know the answer. I am not here to argue with anyone...only to reason with people and share what I have in Christ. If you are open to that, I would be honored to give you my reason for my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Marchello

So please, tell me why do you believe in the bible?

BTW you don't have to call me sir.

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 2:

Bible + Jesus + Pearl of Great Price + Book of Mormon + Doctrine and Covenants DOES NOT = Christian.

(C)Jehovah Witnesses
Jesus + Bible + "Scripture Studies" DOES NOT = Christian

(D)Seventh Day Adventists
Jesus + Bible + "Spirit of Prophecy" and her writings DOES NOT = Christian

Roman Catholicism is a "cult" based on other sources of "authority" other than the Scriptures...and in DIRECT opposition to them. They are not Christians because they believe not in the Jesus as portrayed in the Scriptures...albeit your protestations to the contrary.

Bottom Line: All Catholics are not Christians...and no Christians are Catholic. Savvy?

ADDENDA: Sorry I left part of your post at the bottom of my previous post to you.

Marchello

So you want technical information?

Okay then, if we take Christian literally, it means (paraphased, can't remember complete) "Follower of Christ" so every "cult" you just listed, in the strictest sense, is "Christian".

"Bible, they wrote their own version"

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
????

How does Orthodoxy fit in with the Mormons and Jehowa's Witnesses?

Orthodox Christianity PRE-DATES Catholisism.

I don't actually know HOW it can be compared to Mormonism and Jehowa's Withness, who are farely new denominations.

Oh, sorry, it was just a badly worded post - I was commenting on JIA's prejudice against all those Christian groups - and the fact he finds in all of them reason to call them unchristian. I was being specific about the Catholics (as per the topic) and then reminded him about the problems he finds with Mormons and Orthodox and JW etc . Not actually saying his objection to Catholicism was the same as his objections to those other Christians I mentioned.

The only way they fit in together is they all approach the religion differently. But then every Christian sect/denomination does, hecne why there is so many.



And that is making my point. The fact Mormon's are "bridging gaps", adding texts of near equal value, people say you should not be considered Christian. I say that is garbage - you have Jesus, you have the Bible, you are Christian. The Catholics, instead of the book of Mormon, have their traditions which they believe traces back to Peter. People say they should not be Christian because of that - garbage I say. They meet the definition - they have Jesus and the Bible. They are Christian.

But anyway, as I explained above, I wasn't implying the Bible was of no effect with the Mormon's, nor was I implying the Catholics do, I was just commenting on how a person, say JIA, can find fault with nearly all types of Christian.



It can only be taken literally - he is arguing doctrine as what defines a Christian - it doesn't, doctrine etc. defines denomination, sect. A Christian is person who believe Jesus is the Christ.



Your wit astounds me.



Well, kudos to you, you are the first person I have ever met that is proud of being ignorant. And that somehow gives you the authority to comment on my "stupidity" - dear me, the cynical things I could say to you if I wasn't worried they might go over your head.



If it walks like a duck... you refuse to pay any attention to literal definition, a definition you will find in any dictionary, religious text book, encyclopedia etc. You are arguing against all those kinds of things written by experts... as is your right. But when you refuse to listen, well, that seems fairly unrepentant.



Hmmm. Please, pop down to your locally university. Get the books, the things with pages and words, down off the shelves. If you are reading the ones relevant to the topic, you will discover I am on theologically sound ground (maths has nothing to do with it) - DOCTRINE defines denomination/sect. ADDITIONAL FEATURES define denomination/sect. CHRISTIANITY is not a denomination/sect. It is the term for the religious group as a WHOLE. For any person who believe JESUS IS THE CHRIST. Thus Catholics are CHRISTIAN of the ROMAN CATHOLIC denomination/sect.

Can it be any clearer?



Irrelevant - doctrine. The are by definition Christian.



Irrelevant - doctrine. The are by definition Christian.

Oh, and by the way - translations are not writing your own. Tell me - do you read from the original pages actually penned by Luke and all that? No? Then guess what - you are most certainly reading a translation. Or a copy.



Irrelevant - doctrine. The are by definition Christian.



Sound check... is this on? Good.

How one views Jesus depends on Biblical interpretation. It might be a shock to you... but very few people view things the same way! The Catholics don't have to view Jesus like you to be classified as Christian. All they have to do is think he is the Christ... and guess what? THEY DO! And you know what that means, as much as it might upset you... they are every bit as Christian as you.

bout the title: i dunno....

*

***No...that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that he NEVER had salvation...so he has nothing to lose. He was IN a group of believers...but he was not OF that group of believers...so he went out so that he might be manifest that he was not OF that group. He was never saved.

Marchello

Page 1:

*

***Please bear with me because this will be a lengthy discourse...and you deserve an answer that will explain why I feel as I do about the Bible. Too, I excerpted certain things from people that express my feelings and I incorporated them in my explanations to you.

"I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other witnesses. They reported to us supernatural events which took place as the fulfillment of specific prophesies and their writings are divine rather than human in origin." But before your eyes roll over in your head let me show you from the Bible the whole point of that statement.

The apostle Peter tells us the following: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased.' We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with Him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." .

(A)Why do I choose to believe the Bible?...because:
(1)It is a reliable collection of historical documents...that's what Peter wrote here..."We did NOT follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Continued)

Because every once in a while, God gets bored and likes to have a good laugh, y'know?

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 1:

*

***Please bear with me because this will be a lengthy discourse...and you deserve an answer that will explain why I feel as I do about the Bible. Too, I excerpted certain things from people that express my feelings and I incorporated them in my explanations to you.

"I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other witnesses. They reported to us supernatural events which took place as the fulfillment of specific prophesies and their writings are divine rather than human in origin." But before your eyes roll over in your head let me show you from the Bible the whole point of that statement.

The apostle Peter tells us the following: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased.' We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with Him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." .

(A)Why do I choose to believe the Bible?...because:
(1)It is a reliable collection of historical documents...that's what Peter wrote here..."We did NOT follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Continued)

Ok, why do you believe that the bible is a reliable collection of historical documents?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, why do you believe that the bible is a reliable collection of historical documents? I actually think it's a good read, you know...a cup of hot cocoa, a good fire in the fireplace, a cuzzy warm blanket. I mean, it has sex, love and loads of violence. Oh the drama.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I would agree. But do you believe in the bible absolutely and literally? I believe it to be a good story with some historical points.

Page 2:

What he is telling us is that he didn't just make this stuff up...he didn't just sit down and decided to make up a bunch of stuff and write a bible...he said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories."

The truth of the matter is...the Bible is verifiable...there is a huge volume of evidence that validates its content. To date, there are over 23,000 archeological "digs" that verify what the Bible has pinpointed as to the location of historical events and accompanied by the artifacts there. When the Bible says something is somewhere...they WILL find it there. Not one piece of archeological evidence has ever discredited anything in the Bible.
(2)Too, there is an historical basis for the Bible...it gives names, places, dates and archeological evidence which has proved the validity of the Bible over and over again. Therefore...it is not "blind" faith that we put in the Bible...we trust the Bible because it has been proven trustworthy...it has a verifiable "track record" and NOT filled with legends, myths and "fairy tales."

In Luke we are told: "Many have tried to report on the things that happened among us. They have written the same things that we have learned from others...the people who saw those things from the beginning and served God by telling people this message. Since I myself have studied carefully from the beginning, most excellent Theophilus, it seemed good for me to write it out for you. I arranged it in order to help you know that what you have been taught is TRUE." .

Luke was an historian and a physician...an educated man...he went looking for the FACTS...for the EVIDENCE...and when he found it...he arranged it in order and wrote it down .

(B)Now let us look at the next phrase in Peter's discourse: "...but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" . (Continued)

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 2:

What he is telling us is that he didn't just make this stuff up...he didn't just sit down and decided to make up a bunch of stuff and write a bible...he said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories."

The truth of the matter is...the Bible is verifiable...there is a huge volume of evidence that validates its content. To date, there are over 23,000 archeological "digs" that verify what the Bible has pinpointed as to the location of historical events and accompanied by the artifacts there. When the Bible says something is somewhere...they WILL find it there. Not one piece of archeological evidence has ever discredited anything in the Bible.
(2)Too, there is an historical basis for the Bible...it gives names, places, dates and archeological evidence which has proved the validity of the Bible over and over again. Therefore...it is not "blind" faith that we put in the Bible...we trust the Bible because it has been proven trustworthy...it has a verifiable "track record" and NOT filled with legends, myths and "fairy tales."

In Luke we are told: "Many have tried to report on the things that happened among us. They have written the same things that we have learned from others...the people who saw those things from the beginning and served God by telling people this message. Since I myself have studied carefully from the beginning, most excellent Theophilus, it seemed good for me to write it out for you. I arranged it in order to help you know that what you have been taught is TRUE." .

Luke was an historian and a physician...an educated man...he went looking for the FACTS...for the EVIDENCE...and when he found it...he arranged it in order and wrote it down .

(B)Now let us look at the next phrase in Peter's discourse: "...but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" . (Continued) And the fact that God said to his ghost writer to write in 7 days he created heaven and earth because at the time of said writing the people could not grasp or comprehend the fact that the earth has been around millions and millions of years? i'm confused? <---(notice the question mark at the end of that)

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 2:

What he is telling us is that he didn't just make this stuff up...he didn't just sit down and decided to make up a bunch of stuff and write a bible...he said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories."

The truth of the matter is...the Bible is verifiable...there is a huge volume of evidence that validates its content. To date, there are over 23,000 archeological "digs" that verify what the Bible has pinpointed as to the location of historical events and accompanied by the artifacts there. When the Bible says something is somewhere...they WILL find it there. Not one piece of archeological evidence has ever discredited anything in the Bible.
(2)Too, there is an historical basis for the Bible...it gives names, places, dates and archeological evidence which has proved the validity of the Bible over and over again. Therefore...it is not "blind" faith that we put in the Bible...we trust the Bible because it has been proven trustworthy...it has a verifiable "track record" and NOT filled with legends, myths and "fairy tales."

In Luke we are told: "Many have tried to report on the things that happened among us. They have written the same things that we have learned from others...the people who saw those things from the beginning and served God by telling people this message. Since I myself have studied carefully from the beginning, most excellent Theophilus, it seemed good for me to write it out for you. I arranged it in order to help you know that what you have been taught is TRUE." .

Luke was an historian and a physician...an educated man...he went looking for the FACTS...for the EVIDENCE...and when he found it...he arranged it in order and wrote it down .

(B)Now let us look at the next phrase in Peter's discourse: "...but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" . (Continued)

So you believe the bible is true because it's says that it is true. I don't believe that you are that gullible. So, before you knew any thing about the bible, what made you first believe it?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Very simple:

Why the fukc do other sects of Christianity always try to pick out the Catholic and bash him/her?

(Directed at anyone, but mostly JIA)

Because we are bored and have nothing else to do...

*shrugs* I dunno really. I never had a problem with Chatholics, Mormans or anything under the sun.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Very simple:

Why do other sects of Christianity always try to pick out the Catholic and bash him/her?

(Directed at anyone, but mostly JIA)

The only validation for the rest of Christianity is if the Catholic Church is not correct. The Catholic Church must be false or all other sects are incorrect. Many people have difficulty separating the individual from the beliefs they subscribe to, and so personal attacks occur.

*

***Sir:

'Tis sad that you would comment negatively before I have even completed my correspondence to you...which tells me that you have rejected anything that I have or will present in the future. Too, it tells me that you are not open to the truth...nor do you want to know the truth that the Scriptures present.

I do not come to this board to castigate anyone or cast aspersions on their religion...I only come here to share my faith. You have rejected beforehand my "sharing"...therefore I will not continue to go on with this discourse for it would be an exercise in futility...confirming what is written: "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are LOST" .

Marchello

*

***There in NO empiracal proof that this is true...on the contrary, there is a volume of evidence that says otherwise.

Marchello

*

***Yes, you are...but at least you are honest about it.

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***There in NO empiracal proof that this is true...on the contrary, there is a volume of evidence that says otherwise.

Marchello

Which evidence is that. PLEASE. Refresh my memory.

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***There in NO empiracal proof that this is true...on the contrary, there is a volume of evidence that says otherwise.

Marchello

Actually that is about as far from the truth as possible. The earth has been around for billions of years. All geological/geographical/physical evidence supports this.

The is no proof it has only existed for a Biblical 5000 year or whatever. Especially as there is archaeological evidence of things like Aboriginals in Australia for 20,000 years.

The only place that claim the earth existed for a shorter period is... well, books written in periods where they lacked the scientific knowledge to know better. Like the Bible. That, I am afraid to say, is not a volume of evidence.

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***Sir:

'Tis sad that you would comment negatively before I have even completed my correspondence to you...which tells me that you have rejected anything that I have or will present in the future. Too, it tells me that you are not open to the truth...nor do you want to know the truth that the Scriptures present.

I do not come to this board to castigate anyone or cast aspersions on their religion...I only come here to share my faith. You have rejected beforehand my "sharing"...therefore I will not continue to go on with this discourse for it would be an exercise in futility...confirming what is written: "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are LOST" .

Marchello

Ok, this is annoying, so here is a bit of advice:

Use the quote tag: the quotation {/quote} (just use the square brackets instead on the close.)
I typically open more tabs and cut and paste including the quote tags from a reply page, if I quote more than one person/post in a single post.

Now please use the quotes, this ** crap is a pain to read through

Page 1:

*

***Thank you...I believe I will.

No where in the Bible does God tell us the exact year of Creation. But by simply studying the scriptures we can certainly get an idea of when this took place.

(1)Evolutionists believe the earth is old
Evolutionists claim that the Earth and the solar system is about 4.55 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%). They believe this amount of time is necessary for all the life forms on earth to evolve.

(2)The present is not the key to the past
We can not look at current rates of rock formation, erosion, etc to determine the age of the earth because there may have been factors in the past that are not happening in the present. In fact the Bible tells us just that. A flood covered the entire earth...this would alter, shift and mix up the entire face of the earth. This flood also altered the rate of sediments laid down, the formation of sedimentary rock and also the rate of erosion. Something that may take many years to form today (the Grand Canyon for instance) could have formed quite quickly during the flood.

The Bible even predicted that in the "last days" there would be those who scoff at the Bible, and claim that "all things continue as they were from the beginning" . This seems to say that there would be a predominance of uniformatarianism thinking. Mountains form slowly today, so they assume that they must have formed slowly in the past. The Creation model tells us that mountains formed quickly as the result of the flood.

(Continued)

Page 2:

(3)No matter how old the earth is, Evolution is impossible
Everything we know of Science (entropy etc..) tells us that even if the world was millions or even billions of years old, evolution would still be impossible. In the popular press we are led to believe that the antiquity of the earth is a proven fact. We are told that all
Scientists believe the world is old, and that all of our dating methods confirm this. The truth is, many well qualified Scientists, and lay people alike are well justified in their belief that the earth, and universe is quite young.

A secret they have learned is one that you may never have been told. It is this: Though a few assorted dating
methods give the age of the earth in millions of years, there are far more that limit the age of the earth to a mere few thousand years. Why are we not told of these? It is because they go against the politically correct notion of Evolution.

Evolutionists believe that the universe slowly began to form 20 billion years ago. They believe the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. While many Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was Created instantaneously about 6 thousand years ago.

Both of these are belief systems. Neither one can be proven because no one was there to witness the event, and it can not be repeated. But we can examine the evidence and decide which one is more plausible.

(Continued)

Page 3:

(4)The Rocks
There are many layers of rock all over the world. These rock are separated into layers one on top of the other in what is called "rock strata". Can we tell how old the earth is by looking at this strata? The layers of rock on the bottom would have to have been laid down before the layers on top. But how long before? This is one area that Creationists and Evolutionists disagree on. Evolutionists believe that each layer represents a period of time.. or an era. A layer may have been laid down over a hundred or even a few thousand years. Though it seems reasonable at first to think that you can look at the numerous layers of rock to estimate the age of the earth (estimating that each strata is hundreds or thousands of years old), those who do so will run into many problems.

First, we don't know how long it took for those layers to form. We weren't there. We can't assume a steady rate of accumulation based on how long it takes today. If there was a world wide flood (as described in Genesis) then many layers of soft sediments would stratify at one time. These soft sediments would later harden as the waters receded and form rock. If there was a flood, then you could have what appeared to be "millions of years" of strata formed in a period of a
few months.

(Continued)

Page 4:

QUESTION: "Rock does not form in thousands of years. this CAN be proven. Go to a body of water that existed long ago that has dried up and tell me if the entire thing is rock. If rock could form in thousands of years, then any area(after the "flood" receded) not covered by water would be rock. how would you explain this? and how would the soft
sediments produce many layers? Wouldn't there just be the one?"
RESPONSE: Like I said before we have different things happening today than happened at the time of the flood. The pressure of all these sediments would be enough to form rock. There would be many layers all formed at the same time. They are different layers (not just one layer) because the sediments were stratified while wet, based on their density. Take a jar, fill it with sand, and rock of different sizes. Then fill it with water, and shake it. As it settles the particles will separate based on their density, and will settle into layers. If the water receded (like in the flood) and a great deal of pressure was added (a million pounds of wet sediments laying on top of each other) then these would form rock in a very short period of time. We simply don't have the pressure exerted on the sediments today that existed at the flood.

Not all sediments would become rock.

(5)The Grand Canyon
If you look at the Grand Canyon you will see thousands of layers of sedimentary rock. The Creationist and the Evolutionist can both look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions. The evolutionist who believes in an ancient earth will look at these layers of rock and determine that these layers formed slowly over millions of years. The Creationist who believes the Bible looks at the same evidence but comes to a different conclusion as to how these layers were formed. The Creationist knows that these layers could not have formed over millions of years. As there is little or no erosion between the layers. This is consistent with all the layers being laid down at the same time
(the flood). (Continued)

Originally posted by Marchello
No where in the Bible does God tell us the exact year of Creation. But by simply studying the scriptures we can certainly get an idea of when this took place.

An impossibly short time ago.



Uh... that is not right. They can tell the age. And you do know they take things into the calculations like sediments and foreign matter and all that? That they have reached a point where they can with reasonable accuracy give a date without people being able to say "Floods!"

And you do know the Biblical story of the flood is impossible don't you? Impossible. And without proof?



Holy dodgy science Batman!



Ah huh. Were exactly are you getting this information? Because I can assure you it is way off.



Holy Conspiracy Batman!

Care to explain which secret lab you snuck into in order to steal the piece of paper with the "secret age of the earth" on it from?

And you do realise that when evolution was first proposed it faced ignorant opposition from the well entrenched creation theory? Care to explain the logic behind evolution being politically correct when it was presented in a time of religious control where the Church defined what was correct and what wasn't? Maybe it has something to do with... dancing all over the claims of creationists with proof of its own claims?



First - claim to explain how come we know about cultures that existed 20,000 years ago? 10,000? 6,001? Might it be because the earth is older then 6000 years?

Oh, and the universe it believed to be 13.7 billion years old. With a concession of 200 million either way?



*coughfalsecough* One is science with proof. The other is belief with no proof. We don't need to have been at the beginning to know.

Page 5:

The Creationist interpretation is that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the flood. The receding flood waters would cut through the soft sediments, leaving the canyon. These soft sediments later hardened into their present form. The canyon may have formed while it was solidifying, as the waters receded (possibly very quickly) it would cut through these layers like butter. Some people claim that it took a little bit of water (the small river) a lot of time (millions of years) to form the canyon. But it could have been the opposite...a lot of water (the flood) and a little bit of time.

(6)Polystrate fossils
There are many fossils that go through several layers of rock, these are called polystrate fossils (the name polystrate means "many strata", pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D.).

Polystrate fossils are a problem for those who believe rock layers take millions of years to form. If each of these layers of rock formed over millions of years, then why are there trees standing straight up through several different layers? A tree would have died, fallen over and rotted in just a short time. It is clear that the layers were laid down
and hardened in a short period of time.

(Continued)

Biblical flood? Impossible.

Ark with two of every creature? Impossible.

The science in this? Imposssible.

Where it leaves the theory? Nowhere.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Biblical flood? Impossible.

Ark with two of every creature? Impossible.

The science in this? Imposssible.

Where it leaves the theory? Nowhere.


Eternal universe? Ridiculous, false, and impossible.

Evolution? Absurd, false, and impossible.

The plausibillity and logistics of this? Impossible.

Where it leaves the theory? Awaiting its death knell.

Page 6:

The rock encasing polystrate fossils is sedimentary rock. It is rock that was once soft sediment laid down by water, that later hardened. All the layers of rock around the tree would have had to have formed at the same time. It would take a lot of water and a lot of mud for this to happen. I believe that during the flood, as described in the Bible, several layers of soft sediments were washed into place around the tree. A short time later, as the flood waters receded the sediments
would turn to stone similar to the way cement hardens as it dries.

The Evolutionist who doesn't believe the Bible, and does not believe there ever was a flood can not allow himself to accept this interpretation. Because if there was a flood, then the Bible was right. And if the Bible is right, then there Is a God.. And if there is a God, then God has the right to make rules for us to follow.

So, the evolutionist tries to explain away or ignore polystrate fossils. I am aware that there have been some polystrate fossils formed in the time since the Genesis flood. These formed by small floods like we have today in very localized areas. What I am talking about here is entire forests encased in rock. This could only take place in a flood of Global proportions. Just like the one described in Genesis.

According to John Morris Ph.D. some polystrate trees intersect more than one coal layer. (pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. Masterbooks, 1994).

(Continued)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Eternal universe? Ridiculous, false, and impossible.

Evolution? Absurd, false, and impossible.

The plausibillity and logistics of this? Impossible.

Where it leaves the theory? Awaiting its death knell.

First of all there is not the slightest bit of evidence of a global flood.

Second there is no way there would be enough water on earth for it to do as it did, and technically there would be nowhere to go once the flood was over. Which means we would still be under water today bar a few of the tallest mountains - which scientists no didn't evolve through a biblical flood.

Third there is no ship in history capable of doing what the ark did - that is holding "two of every creature" and enough food for them.

If such a ship did exist in ancient times it would have sunk. Care to read these words slowly "THE ARK IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY" - EITHER THE BIBLE IS EXAGGERATING or IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL!

Oh, did I mention no proof of a global flood? Where as there is enough proof to support how old the earth is scientifically? Oh, and archaeological evidence that shows there were human cultures about more then 6000 years ago? And that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by a world drawing flood? Fancy.

And the theory waiting its death knell? Strange that is seems to be going from strength to strength while the Christianities numbers are actually falling - death knell indeed.

And funny - evolution absurd and impossible? So what is it that the greater scientific community is talking about when they say it is accurate? Tell me, tell us here and now JIA:

Is the scientific community wrong? All those experts who feel they have a ton of proof, tell us, are they wrong?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
First of all there is not the slightest bit of evidence of a global flood.

Second there is no way there would be enough water on earth for it to do as it did, and technically there would be nowhere to go once the flood was over.

Third there is no ship in history capable of doing what the ark did - that is holding "two of every creature" and enough food for them.

If such a ship did exist in ancient times it would have sunk. Care to read these words slowly "THE ARK IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY" - EITHER THE BIBLE IS EXAGGERATING or IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL!

Oh, did I mention no proof of a global flood? Where as there is enough proof to support how old the earth is scientifically? Oh, and archaeological evidence that shows there were human cultures about more then 6000 years ago? And that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by a world drawing flood? Fancy.

And the theory waiting its death knell? Strange that is seems to be going from strength to strength while the Christianities numbers are actually falling - death knell indeed.

You forgot to refute (or at least attempt to refute) the point about an eternal universe.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You forgot to refute (or at least attempt to refute) the point about an eternal universe.

Because at this time we don't have a coherent, dominant theory on what occurred prior to the Big Bang - was there just a cycle of universes contracting/expanding? Does it have to do with quantum physics? Black holes? They are theories, and eventually it seems one will find the necessary evidence to set itself apart from the rest (most likely being the quantum one since it suggests that it is indeed possible for new matter to... well, we will wait and see.)

This is opposed to the Biblical theory that God spoke the universe into being - once again - no proof for this. There is proof to support everything theorised about the age and evolution of the universe from Big Bang onwards - no sign of that to support God creating it in seven days.