|
Post by jeepnut on Feb 10, 2006 2:07:04 GMT -5
The world may never know... He is right. My grandfather was apart of the Masons at some point in his life. I know he is not a luciferian. Most of the rumors about the Masons are just speculations made by paranoid people. It's even possible they made it all up themselves. No one really knows because like any private club their internal affairs involve no one but themselves. Yes I have seen pentagrams used in some of their symbols, but a pentagram doesn't specifically represant the Devil. They are no differant from the Lyons club, or the Kiwanis. It's just a bunch of old people who donate money to charities. As for the Catholic thing. It doesn't matter that much. All the little things don't really matter in the long run. Catholics believe that Salvation is only obtained through Jesus Christ's sacrifice, just as well as the Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians and so on. So stop fighting with each other over all the little differances, it does nothing but distract us, and divide us so that we lose all of our unity and attention on the more important matters. As Christians we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and that's all that should matter. We should work together to help save the many lost people in the world. Well spoken. You too iamcatholic.
|
|
|
Post by bloodwarrior on Feb 12, 2006 12:20:08 GMT -5
ok so i read the links and i still don't know if i agree entirely with you. but i was also wondering why you have a different bible than others. so if you could awnser that for me it would help alot. thank you for bieng patient and helpful with me.
|
|
|
Post by iamcatholic on Feb 12, 2006 15:28:15 GMT -5
ok so i read the links and i still don't know if i agree entirely with you. but i was also wondering why you have a different bible than others. so if you could awnser that for me it would help alot. thank you for bieng patient and helpful with me. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it like this: "It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical". They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees) and parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament." And that quote was found here:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm Basically the reason was that when Luther split with the Catholic church he no longer recognized the authority of the church which had originally created the Bible, and instead used only the books that the Jews had in their 'Old Testament'. Catholics, and I believe eastern orthodox christians keep all the original books.
|
|
|
Post by Derwydd. on Feb 25, 2006 17:52:56 GMT -5
i don't fully agree with catholisism((sp?))
before i continue please correct me if i'm horribly wrong, this is only what i know
i think the traditions are prety useless now, it seems to be that all the meaning has been sucked out of a lot of what they do nowadays. not all but some of them
funny how almost everyone who was baptised as a baby believes that they are catholic and/or christian
the whole deal with praying to the saints i don't understand
and the pope i don't get either... how can a man appointed by men to be pope not be .... fired((for lack of a better term)) because he is 'God's chosen dude for the job'
again, i'm not angry or anythin, and if you could correct me or inform me of anything it would be greatly appreciated
|
|
|
Post by In Christ, the metalhead on Feb 26, 2006 15:12:15 GMT -5
i don't fully agree with catholisism((sp?)) before i continue please correct me if i'm horribly wrong, this is only what i know i think the traditions are prety useless now, it seems to be that all the meaning has been sucked out of a lot of what they do nowadays. not all but some of them funny how almost everyone who was baptised as a baby believes that they are catholic and/or christian the whole deal with praying to the saints i don't understand and the pope i don't get either... how can a man appointed by men to be pope not be .... fired((for lack of a better term)) because he is 'God's chosen dude for the job' again, i'm not angry or anythin, and if you could correct me or inform me of anything it would be greatly appreciated i've wondered the same stuff, but i do respect the catholic church, they were basically the first church and got us started.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Feb 26, 2006 16:43:44 GMT -5
I respect genuine Catholics, but since it's such a common denomination, there are so many non-committal ones who give it a bad name. It's unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by Samhain on Feb 26, 2006 22:45:40 GMT -5
i've wondered the same stuff, but i do respect the catholic church, they were basically the first church and got us started. They weren't the first church, granted they did start early enough to have the greatest influence on modern christianity. I do know a few genuine catholics, and they are great people. I just don't see the point in the ritualistic nature of the church. There is too much involved with symbolism, and almost meaningless taking of communion. I'm baptist, so we don't do communion except on Easter, and even then it feels vain for me. I try to take it seriously, but there isn't really any emotion when I take part in it. It's too much like taking a pill. I also disagree with the Popes authority. He is just a man, as fallible as the rest of us, he should not be lifted up and praised so much. We baptists have Billy Graham though, so I can't say very much.
|
|
|
Post by Solid on Feb 26, 2006 23:22:08 GMT -5
We baptists have Billy Graham though, so I can't say very much. Hahaha...
|
|
|
Post by Samhain on Feb 27, 2006 20:42:04 GMT -5
Well, it's true, we practically worship him. The general consensus among baptists(and just southerners in general) is "well, Billy Graham said so...so it must be good."
|
|
|
Post by Solid on Feb 27, 2006 21:04:29 GMT -5
Ya, and I'm hoping you aren't like that.
|
|
|
Post by iamcatholic on Feb 28, 2006 0:45:37 GMT -5
to xrejectx...
I AGREE THAT WAAAAAAAAY TO MANY CATHOLICS ARE HYPOCRITS. lol, honestly 99% of people's problems with catholics is because people don't truly practice, but they call themselves catholic and think thats good enough. stupid, sickening, nuff said.
I think myself or jeepnut posted up some stuff about saints earlier... basically the reason is the same as if you ask your priest/minister/friend to pray for you. Only they're in heaven, so their prayers are perfect, not being subject to temptation anymore and such.
As for the pope, I don't fully know what you're asking, but for the choosing of a pope we truly believe that the holy spirit intervenes. One example I know of is pope John Paul the first. When he was voted pope, he protested greatly against it and was convinced he was the wrong man. He also insisted on being called 'the first' even though there was no other. He said "there will be a second soon". He died a month after his appointing of a seemingly random heart failure, and John Paul 2 succeeded him. crazy stuff.
to samhain...
Just wondering what your reasoning is in saying Catholicism is not the first church. As the beginning of Catholicism is actually in the bible, with the appointing of Peter as Pope, i don't think its possible for any church to start before that. I'm interested to hear what you think
|
|
|
Post by Samhain on Feb 28, 2006 22:48:57 GMT -5
Give me specific verses. I had never heard that before. and Solidstate, no I'm not like that. I do think that Billy Graham is a great person, but I don't base my opinions on what he says.
|
|
|
Post by Solid on Feb 28, 2006 23:48:49 GMT -5
Cool.
|
|
|
Post by iamcatholic on Mar 3, 2006 22:58:26 GMT -5
Matthew 16.13-20 That is the founding of the Catholic church. Now unless you find Martin Luther somewhere before chapter 16.... haha jokin. I know you guys don't believe that the church he talked about was catholic. Just wondering... what church do you think was first?
|
|
|
Post by Derwydd. on Mar 9, 2006 23:58:20 GMT -5
to xrejectx... I AGREE THAT WAAAAAAAAY TO MANY CATHOLICS ARE HYPOCRITS. lol, honestly 99% of people's problems with catholics is because people don't truly practice, but they call themselves catholic and think thats good enough. stupid, sickening, nuff said. I think myself or jeepnut posted up some stuff about saints earlier... basically the reason is the same as if you ask your priest/minister/friend to pray for you. Only they're in heaven, so their prayers are perfect, not being subject to temptation anymore and such. As for the pope, I don't fully know what you're asking, but for the choosing of a pope we truly believe that the holy spirit intervenes. One example I know of is pope John Paul the first. When he was voted pope, he protested greatly against it and was convinced he was the wrong man. He also insisted on being called 'the first' even though there was no other. He said "there will be a second soon". He died a month after his appointing of a seemingly random heart failure, and John Paul 2 succeeded him. crazy stuff. ahh thanks dude, i'm still kinda curious as to why you don't just pray straight to Jesus/God ... but i do understand it better now. for the pope thing, it seems odd to me... how a man can be voted((or however they do it)) to be a pope. and yet he cannot be removed of that position by men. but the purpose of the pope to me is cool, but again.. why can't people connect straight to their creator?
|
|