Virgin Mary

Harika · 17-02-2015 02:58PM

Festus wrote: »

Neither has hell

I think Hell has just a bad PR department, cause in the end we only have information from the other guys, telling us that hell sucks. So basically Pepsi telling people that Coca Cola tastes bad. Does that mean Coca Cola tastes bad, compared to Pepsi?

hinault · 17-02-2015 06:06PM

Harika wrote: »

Some weeks ago I attended a baptism and the baby was crying through all the procedure. Does that mean that it does not agree with it? Is it to small to understand? Then why would it count as initiation of a person in to the Church? Whatever the baby wants is ignored by the parents and when we talk about the Baptism as rejection of the spiritual state that is Original Sin, then again it was not a conscious decision made by the baby. It was done for it by the parents. How can this have a meaning? If I would jump out behind a tree, speak some magic words and throw noodles at you, would that mean you suddenly became touched by His Noodly Appendage?
Edit: Doing some research it looks like baptism of infants has anyway no meaning http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html

The parents/guardians/godparents of that baby being baptised make the decision on the baby's behalf to have that person baptised as a Christian.

Parents/guardians/godparents make decisions every day for people in their care. Baptism of a baby is one example.

hinault · 17-02-2015 06:08PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

That's the part that annoyed me the most by hinault's answers. The fact that he kept going on about free will and being able to choose to reject God...all the while talking about a ceremony that has some sort of magical effect being done on a baby who is not yet capable of making those choices.

The parents/guardians/godparents have exercised their free will to make a decision on the baby's behalf.

The parents/guardians/godparents can choose not to have their baby baptised too.

That's free will also.

hinault · 17-02-2015 06:11PM

Safehands wrote: »

He obviously believes the whole "original sin" aspect of the baptism, which is his right. But original sin is tied up with so many other Catholic teachings including the virgin birth.
The one thing I don't like about Hinault's answers is the implied threat, 'there are consequences to not being baptised'!
Oh, yeah, Limbo is not gone away you know!

Implied threat?
There is no implied threat on my part.

The consequences of doing something, or not doing something, are set forth by Jesus Christ.
If consequences = implied threats so be it.

Gunney · 17-02-2015 06:11PM

Harika wrote: »

I think Hell has just a bad PR department, cause in the end we only have information from the other guys, telling us that hell sucks. So basically Pepsi telling people that Coca Cola tastes bad. Does that mean Coca Cola tastes bad, compared to Pepsi?

AFAIK Coca Cola doesn't use flavour enhancers developed from aborted babies the way Pepsi does.

(don't believe me? Look up Senomyx Pepsi)

I've also heard Coca Cola is green before they colour it. Maybe it also is made from the same stuff as Soylent Green.

hinault · 17-02-2015 06:17PM

Safehands wrote: »

Yes, so obey the church or you'll end up in one or other of these places. DON'T question! And most of all DO NOT think for yourself. Let the church do that for you!

The Gospel teaches that man has to love God.

The teaching reads "'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind"
Those who claim to believe therefore must love God with their heart, their soul and their mind

It follows that for the believer the standard is very high to reach in order to love God, because to believe fully with your heart, soul and mind, all at the same time throughout life's vicissitudes, isn't easy.

The mind bit suggests to me that a believer must think about God, question if necessary, in order to be convinced intellectually that belief in God is rational.

silverharp · 17-02-2015 06:29PM

Out of curiosity why was Jesus baptised by John? jesus was without sin so he wouldnt have needed to be baptised?

Harika · 17-02-2015 06:29PM

hinault wrote: »

The parents/guardians/godparents of that baby being baptised make the decision on the baby's behalf to have that person baptised as a Christian.

Parents/guardians/godparents make decisions every day for people in their care. Baptism of a baby is one example.

<snip from next post>

The teaching reads "'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind"
Those who claim to believe therefore must love God with their heart, their soul and their mind

It follows that for the believer the standard is very high to reach in order to love God, because to believe fully with your heart, soul and mind isn't easy.

So if the godparents make a decision on the babies behalf, against the will of the baby, it is the free will of the baby to be baptized?
How does that demonstrate that the baby loves God with heart, soul and mind? How does the action of the godparent save the baby from limbo, but the guy in control has a hands off approach here?

RikuoAmero · 17-02-2015 06:35PM

hinault wrote: »

The Gospel teaches that man has to love God.

The teaching reads "'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind"
Those who claim to believe therefore must love God with their heart, their soul and their mind

It follows that for the believer the standard is very high to reach in order to love God, because to believe fully with your heart, soul and mind, all at the same time throughout life's vicissitudes, isn't easy.

The mind bit suggests to me that a believer must think about God, question if necessary, in order to be convinced intellectually that belief in God is rational.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word must...

hinault · 17-02-2015 07:44PM

Harika wrote: »

So if the godparents make a decision on the babies behalf, against the will of the baby, it is the free will of the baby to be baptized?
How does that demonstrate that the baby loves God with heart, soul and mind? How does the action of the godparent save the baby from limbo, but the guy in control has a hands off approach here?

The free will is exercised by the adults in the case of a baby's baptism.

The teaching that one must love God with heart, soul and mind is presumably directed to those who have been baptised and confirmed
Confirmation being the affirmation of faith by the baptised person.

For someone who considers Baptism, and presumably all faith, as being fiction, you seem to be very exercised by what others choose to believe.

Harika · 17-02-2015 07:53PM

hinault wrote: »

The free will is exercised by the adults in the case of a baby's baptism.

The teaching that one must love God with heart, soul and mind is presumably directed to those who have been baptised and confirmed
Confirmation being the affirmation of faith by the baptised person.

Whose assumption is this? Or for which denominations does this count?

Edit: I am just curious, like Reza Aslan, as muslim also wrote a book about Jesus, what ended in this hilarious Fox interview.

hinault · 17-02-2015 08:01PM

Harika wrote: »

Whose assumption is this? Or for which denominations does this count?

Edit: I am just curious, like Reza Aslan, as muslim also wrote a book about Jesus, what ended in this hilarious Fox interview.

I can't speak for denominations.

For catholics, confirmation is the affirmation of what took place at baptism.

See 1298
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a2.htm

Safehands · 18-02-2015 10:00AM

hinault wrote: »

The Gospel teaches that man has to love God.

The teaching reads "'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind"
Those who claim to believe therefore must love God with their heart, their soul and their mind

It follows that for the believer the standard is very high to reach in order to love God, because to believe fully with your heart, soul and mind, all at the same time throughout life's vicissitudes, isn't easy.

The mind bit suggests to me that a believer must think about God, question if necessary, in order to be convinced intellectually that belief in God is rational.

I'd be very worried about a God, who claims to love me, who demands that I love him. That kinda distorts the concept of love.
Frankly, I don't believe it.

silverharp · 18-02-2015 10:54AM

Safehands wrote: »

I'd be very worried about a God, who claims to love me, who demands that I love him. That kinda distorts the concept of love.
Frankly, I don't believe it.

When you add in all the hissy fits he allegedly did in the old testament when his people disobeyed him you have a god that not only wants to be loved but has form for killing you if you don't. The God of the Jews and Christians is not in the slightest bit plausible.
At a minimum Jesus should have come up with a back story that the whole OT was a fiction.

hinault · 18-02-2015 11:10AM

Safehands wrote: »

I'd be very worried about a God, who claims to love me, who demands that I love him. That kinda distorts the concept of love.
Frankly, I don't believe it.

For something that you don't believe in, you do an awful of posting about an entity which you don't believe in

keano_afc · 18-02-2015 12:22PM

hinault wrote: »

Baptism is the initiation of a person in to the Church, and Baptism is a rejection of the spiritual state that is Original Sin.

One fundamental teaching throughout Christianity is that no one can be saved without the help - grace - of God.

Baptism is the initial point at which a person can be in receipt of God's grace. Without Baptism, according to Christian teaching, one can't receive God's grace and therefore that person cannot be saved.

I dont want to derail the thread, but thats rubbish. Baptism is an outward display of an inward acceptance of Christ. Look at the examples in scripture. The Philippian jailer for one. The thief on the cross was not baptised and he is in the presence of God today. To say one cannot be saved without baptism is wrong and completely against the salvation that Jesus spoke of and died for.

hinault · 18-02-2015 01:30PM

keano_afc wrote: »

I dont want to derail the thread, but thats rubbish. Baptism is an outward display of an inward acceptance of Christ. Look at the examples in scripture. The Philippian jailer for one. The thief on the cross was not baptised and he is in the presence of God today. To say one cannot be saved without baptism is wrong and completely against the salvation that Jesus spoke of and died for.

St.Matthew's gospel teaches that Jesus final command is for the apostles to go to all nations and to baptise people in those nations, circa 2,000 years.

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

So for the past 2,000 years baptism has been the command to the church.

If baptism is not necessary for salvation, why did Jesus command the apostles to baptise all nations circa 2,000 years ago? What is the point of issuing that command?

Finally baptism can be gained in ways other than the outward application of oil, water and prayer.
For example, baptism can be obtained through martyrdom.

keano_afc · 18-02-2015 02:52PM

hinault wrote: »

St.Matthew's gospel teaches that Jesus final command is for the apostles to go to all nations and to baptise people in those nations, circa 2,000 years.

So for the past 2,000 years baptism has been the command to the church.

If baptism is not necessary for salvation, why did Jesus command the apostles to baptise all nations circa 2,000 years ago? What is the point of issuing that command?

Finally baptism can be gained in ways other than the outward application of oil, water and prayer.
For example, baptism can be obtained through martyrdom.

I must have missed the part in that verse where Jesus continued "...because no man can see the kingdom of heaven unless he is baptised".

RC people tend to have a habit of basing entire doctrine around a very loose interpretation of a verse (or even part of a verse). There is nothing in what you quoted that said baptism is essential for salvation.

A question then, is the thief on the cross in heaven?

@Mods. I dont want to derail this thread, happy to have my post moved if it is deemed off topic.

hinault · 18-02-2015 03:46PM

keano_afc wrote: »

I must have missed the part in that verse where Jesus continued "...because no man can see the kingdom of heaven unless he is baptised".

RC people tend to have a habit of basing entire doctrine around a very loose interpretation of a verse (or even part of a verse). There is nothing in what you quoted that said baptism is essential for salvation.

A question then, is the thief on the cross in heaven?

@Mods. I dont want to derail this thread, happy to have my post moved if it is deemed off topic.

Confession is the only way for sins to be forgiven.
Forgiveness can only be obtained by baptised people from 2,000 years ago to the present. That is church teaching.

You're entirely free to choose whether or not baptism is a pre-requisite for receiving forgiveness for sins.

The thief on the cross sought forgiveness for what he did. He recognised his own guilt and he humbled himself in making that admission of guilt to Jesus.
I accept that Jesus reply to the thief indicates that the thief was absolved of his guilt.

After Jesus died and rose from the dead, Jesus commanded that people be baptised.

Safehands · 18-02-2015 09:42PM

hinault wrote: »

For something that you don't believe in, you do an awful of posting about an entity which you don't believe in

There is an awful lot of clearly untrue material being put out there by people who believe in the old testament, which directly impacts people's lives. If people held these beliefs and kept them to themselves then there would be no need to challenge them. But when you, for example make throw away comments like those you have made, such as saying people know the consequences of not being baptised, you are affecting people's lives. There are many innocent, good people who believe and who are influenced by these type of intimidatory comments. Those people need to be protected from people who suggest that some harm will come to them, in this life or the next, if they don't conform to the churches way of doing things.
I have pointed out that the Genesis account is just wrong. The whole issue of original sin should be stamped out. That would involve the correcting of certain other facts, one of which is the teaching that Mary was a virgin, which suggests that natural procreation is somehow, tainted, which it is not!

hinault · 18-02-2015 10:16PM

Safehands wrote: »

There is an awful lot of clearly untrue material being put out there by people who believe in the old testament, which directly impacts people's lives. If people held these beliefs and kept them to themselves then there would be no need to challenge them. But when you, for example make throw away comments like those you have made, such as saying people know the consequences of not being baptised, you are affecting people's lives. There are many innocent, good people who believe and who are influenced by these type of intimidatory comments. Those people need to be protected from people who suggest that some harm will come to them, in this life or the next, if they don't conform to the churches way of doing things.

I'm not disputing that there are many good living people.

But to insinuate that people can access God's grace without having received the sacraments is not being charitable.
Further these insinuations could lead to the eternal imperilment of souls, if those souls abide by the insinuations made here.

Safehands wrote: »

I have pointed out that the Genesis account is just wrong. The whole issue of original sin should be stamped out. That would involve the correcting of certain other facts, one of which is the teaching that Mary was a virgin, which suggests that natural procreation is somehow, tainted, which it is not!

And your authority to decide what is and what isn't factual derives from where, exactly?

You've no authority. Much less sufficient understanding to know what is and what isn't factual.

keano_afc · 18-02-2015 10:42PM

Confession is the only way for sins to be forgiven.

Agreed. 1 John 1:9 tells us God forgives sins of we confess to him.

Forgiveness can only be obtained by baptised people from 2,000 years ago to the present. That is church teaching.

This is wrong. Can you point me to scripture that backs this up? Saying forgiveness is only open to those that are baptised is wrong.

You're entirely free to choose whether or not baptism is a pre-requisite for receiving forgiveness for sins.

Again, where is the scripture to support this?

The thief on the cross sought forgiveness for what he did. He recognised his own guilt and he humbled himself in making that admission of guilt to Jesus.
I accept that Jesus reply to the thief indicates that the thief was absolved of his guilt.

Well it more than indicates it, it's pretty definitive. "Today you will be with me in paradise". Seems pretty clear to me.

After Jesus died and rose from the dead, Jesus commanded that people be baptised.

Not expressly. He commanded the disciples to go into the world and make disciples of men. To see them brought to salvation through Christ.

Look, at the end of the day lets look to Jesus and see what He said on the subject. don't you think that if baptism was required for salvation, Christ would have at least mentioned it once in His ministry? The way to salvation is clear. Look at the Philipian jailer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household." Then they were baptised. It's an outward display of an inward acceptance of Christ.

Again, I don't want to derail the thread. But I don't want some new convert who's just trusted the Lord for salvation thinking he won't get into heaven because he hasn't been baptised. It's simply not true.

hinault · 18-02-2015 11:06PM

keano_afc wrote: »

This is wrong. Can you point me to scripture that backs this up? Saying forgiveness is only open to those that are baptised is wrong.

Not expressly. He commanded the disciples to go into the world and make disciples of men. To see them brought to salvation through Christ.

St Mark 16 : 14-16.

Jesus said to them (apostles), “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

St.John 3:5

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

St Matthew 28:18

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Epistle of St.Peter 3:21

"It is the baptism corresponding to this water which saves you now — not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience given to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

keano_afc wrote: »

Look, at the end of the day lets look to Jesus and see what He said on the subject. don't you think that if baptism was required for salvation, Christ would have at least mentioned it once in His ministry? The way to salvation is clear.

John, Mark and Matthew.

Safehands · 18-02-2015 11:44PM

hinault wrote: »

I'm not disputing that there are many good living people.
But to insinuate that people can access God's grace without having received the sacraments is not being charitable.
Further these insinuations could lead to the eternal imperilment of souls, if those souls abide by the insinuations made here.

Boy you are unrelenting. You simply have no idea the damage those warped views can cause! I don't think you really care either.

hinault wrote: »

your authority to decide what is and what isn't factual derives from where, exactly?
You've no authority. Much less sufficient understanding to know what is and what isn't factual.

I'm prepared to be proven wrong. So Hinault, is the Genesis account factual?

hinault · 18-02-2015 11:50PM

Safehands wrote: »

Boy you are unrelenting. You simply have no idea the damage those warped views can cause! I don't think you really care either.

False charity, which is what you peddle here, causes far more damage.

Safehands wrote: »

I'm prepared to be proven wrong. So Hinault, is the Genesis account factual?

I accept the lessons taught in Genesis.

RikuoAmero · 19-02-2015 12:32AM

Hinault, keano_afc, just popping into say this. Look at what the two of you have been doing. You've both got different views on your religion, both of you believe him/herself to be right and the other person wrong, and whenever you want to prove your point, you both quote the bible.

Can you guys, Hinault especially since I've actually chatted with him/her, understand why I don't believe christianity? Even if one day I was to say "Yeah, the bible is a trustworthy source", I'd still have the problem of a million different interpretations of it. I'm still waiting for keano to reveal s/he's actually been quoting from a non-catholic version of the bible (it's what I expect). Given that, why should I place any trust in the bible?

I accept the lessons taught in Genesis.

I like the dodge there. The "I know what you want me to say, but I won't say it. I'll just say I accept the lessons, but I won't admit to saying that I believe the story (the very story that's supposed to be the entire reason for my saviour) is false".

hinault · 19-02-2015 12:49AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I like the dodge there. The "I know what you want me to say, but I won't say it. I'll just say I accept the lessons, but I won't admit to saying that I believe the story (the very story that's supposed to be the entire reason for my saviour) is false".

There is no attempt on my part to dodge concerning Genesis.

It is my view that when reading the Bible, the reader takes away the message being taught by the accounts told in the Bible.

If the man and the woman named in the Genesis were not actually called Adam and Eve, but were actually called John and Ann instead, would that alter the lesson of what that man and woman did to defy God? I'd argue that it wouldn't take away one iota from the lesson of defying God.

The important part for me, and I can only speak for myself, is that the lessons taught by the texts in the Bible are what is important.

Folk will use any excuse to try to find one incorrect fact in Scripture, or to try to find one inconsistency in Scripture, to try to justify their non belief.

That is their choice.
I make a different choice to their choice.

RikuoAmero · 19-02-2015 12:57AM

hinault wrote: »

I'd argue that it wouldn't take away one iota from the lesson of defying God.

The lesson of course being that if you don't obey God in absolutely everything, he will f things up for you and not just for you but for all of your descendants.

Before you try to retort back and take me to task for my cheek, I'm being completely accurate. That's what happened after A & E ate the apple. God cursed them and their descendants for what is quite clearly a setup (given the narrative in Genesis)

hinault · 19-02-2015 01:06AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The lesson of course being that if you don't obey God in absolutely everything, he will f things up for you and not just for you but for all of your descendants.

Before you try to retort back and take me to task for my cheek, I'm being completely accurate. That's what happened after A & E ate the apple. God cursed them and their descendants for what is quite clearly a setup (given the narrative in Genesis)

A&E were told the rules from the outset. (Genesis Chapter 2).

A&E took the decision to break the rules and they went ahead and broke the rules. (Genesis Chapter 3)

By breaking the rules, A&E fooked things up, not God.
If they had instead followed the rules, we'd all be better off.

RikuoAmero · 19-02-2015 01:17AM

hinault wrote: »

A&E were told the rules from the outset. (Genesis Chapter 2).

A&E took the decision to break the rules and they went ahead and broke the rules. (Genesis Chapter 3)

By breaking the rules, A&E fooked things up, not God.
If they had instead followed the rules, we'd all be better off.

Nice. You fell into my trap.
First...
1) The thing they were told not to do, is eat the apple of the knowledge of good and evil. Going by that, it's logical to conclude that, prior to eating the fruit, they would have had no knowledge of good and evil. In that regards, they would be like toddlers who don't know why you tell them not to touch the fancy plates you keep on the shelf. They wouldn't have understood why they would have to follow God's command. They couldn't conceive of the consequences.
2) If God had really meant for them to not eat it, why would he leave the tree in the middle of the garden and leave A & E 'alone' (that's in quotes because last I heard from a christian, God is everywhere or something along those lines
3) Nice retort. You didn't acknowledge the point I raised about it being a setup, instead just ignoring it entirely. Is that because you don't have a rebuttal to it?
4) How is it just to punish all of humanity for the actions of two of its members? If you say something along the lines of "God can do what he wants" you're defending tyranny there, not justice.

As for "if they had followed the rules, we'd be better off"...watch this video please

Lastly, if you reply with something along the lines of "Genesis is not meant to be read literally", I refer you back to your own words, what I quoted from you at the top of this comment. You said A & E f'd things up, as if it's a historical fact, much like if you were to say "Washington founded the USA".

Virgin Mary

Comments