Discovery Channel & Vatican Team for Exorcism Series

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not that suffering can’t shape the soul. It’s the logical inconsistency in explaining the suffering. People claim to have their sight restored, their arthritis healed, their cancer removed, etc. but nobody claims to have a limb restored.

It’s pretty obvious why. All of these other ailments can spontaneously remit, and be credited to divine intervention. However, it never happens with limb regeneration since that is impossible in humans. Maybe god only heals the tails of lizards? [/quote]

I guess you’re mistaking me for a fundamentalist again. Both/and.

If someone is healed, there is no reason to think that it is not because of a medical explanation, and there is no reason to believe that Providence isn’t involved. However, medical explanations for the curing of ailments doesn’t mean all miracles now have medical explanations. I have yet to hear a valid explanation for Padre Pio’s stigmata that he had for 50+ years.[/quote]

That’s the thing; why do these miracles never happen, not even once, in cases like amputation where there is no viable alternate explanation?

On stigmata, one obvious explanation is that the wounds are self-inflicted. It might be intentionally fraudulent, or it might be psychosomatic (see research on psychogenic purpuras) where people experience painful bruising, swelling, and bleeding through intact skin.[/quote]
If you saw it or heard about it (limb regeneration) would you believe in God? It seems like you are looking for reasons to not believe rather than reasons to believe. Raising the dead isn’t good enough?

62

If it was reliably demonstrated in a lab, with alternate explanations accounted for, of course I would take it as evidence for God.

On raising the dead, there are many cases of near death experiences. If you’re referring to Lazarus, I don’t consider anything written in the bible or other holy books to be reliable evidence for anything. If I did, I could as easily be a Muslim or a Buddhist as a Christian.

63

http://www.loveoneanothermagazine.org/nr/the_main_topic/a_sign_for_nonbelievers.html

64

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Surely, as God can do it infinitely easy; however, you have to look at the righteousness of the person praying. Would a righteous person be praying to heal an amputee? Because suffering can be used as penance for our sins. There is a well known Bishop who once was approached by a man who had been suffering for a few years and came to the Bishop in a last ditch effort to rid himself of suffering. When the man asked the Bishop to pray for his suffering to disappear, the Bishop cocked back and slapped the man across his face and rebuked the man, “Why do you ask for the Lord’s gift to be gone from you?”
[/quote]

That’s just messed up.
[/quote]

What is messed up about my message? And, you shouldn’t end sentences with prepositions.[/quote]

That’s just messed-up, as in… That’s just wrong. There is no preposition when you consider the context and meaning of the words.

The ministry of Jesus was about healing, atonement, salvation. Jesus healed the sick and suffering all over the place, and hold us to do the same. I would have been much more impressed if the bishop rebuked the ‘suffering’ and/or the ‘sickness’. It would have been much closer to the glorious work of Jesus.

That poor guy. I hope he found relief somewhere else.

[/quote]

That’s because you disagree with the Catholic Church’s teachings on suffering, and we have the anointing of the sick for a reason. There is back story to the Bishop and the man.

Either way, we’re supposed to consolidate our Lord’s suffering and carry the crosses that the Lord gives us.

65

First of all, I’m not familiar with the RCC teaching on suffering – but you’re right, it sounds like I would likely disagree with it (just guessing here).

As for the ‘Anointing of the Sick’ — I’m honestly afraid to ask, but I will anyway. What the heck is that?? Using the words ‘anointing’ and ‘sick’ in the same phrase seems oxymoronic, unless of course it’s… ‘Heal the sick with your anointing’.

If there is a back story to the bishop and the man…do tell. Hopefully it will make the bishop appear to be less of a heartless, arrogant ass.

Yet another baffling RCC phrase…'Consolidate our Lord’s suffering and carry the crosses the Lord gives us". Look, I’ve wrestled my way through more than my share of ‘suffering’. My conclusion is that it’s all about getting THROUGH IT, taking it down, and kicking it to the curb. LONG-SUFFERING is for jerks. VICTORY over suffering is what it’s all about. And I believe the ministry of Jesus supports this view.

66

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
First of all, I’m not familiar with the RCC teaching on suffering – but you’re right, it sounds like I would likely disagree with it (just guessing here).

As for the ‘Anointing of the Sick’ — I’m honestly afraid to ask, but I will anyway. What the heck is that?? Using the words ‘anointing’ and ‘sick’ in the same phrase seems oxymoronic, unless of course it’s… ‘Heal the sick with your anointing’.
[/quote]

Anointing of the sick, is the sacrament sometimes called upon as Last Rites, but is specifically for those who are sick. You call a Priest, he comes into your house and he anoints you with oil and asks the Lord, if it is His will, to heal you. It’s actually in the Bible if you wish to look it up. I don’t have it off the top of my head, however I can give you a clue it is with the when Jesus comes back to his people after Calvary and ordains them to forgive sins and anoint the sick.

He was an ex-seminarian of his and personal friend of the Bishop, I believe. I could be wrong, either way doesn’t matter it is the moral of the story.

It is part of a prayer St. Padre Pio created, the priest with a stigmata for 51 year years, who ate 300-400 calories a day, slept 2-3 hours a night, and mortified his flesh for Christ.

I am sure you don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s belief in suffering, after all it comes from the Bible and is one of the hard teachings to accept. But, I digress.

In Colassians 1:24 Paul says, Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church.

Jesus himself said, blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst, those who are persecuted for righteousness’s sake. All those are people in suffering, one sounds to be depressed, one sounds to be in a state of loss, one has no food or drink and one is being martyred for the faith.

Being the Mystical Body of Christ as Paul says, we are still in suffering for Jesus’ sake because of a continuing Calvary. His sacrifice is for all and for all times. If we are with Jesus we will suffer, because Jesus suffered.

It doesn’t sound like Paul is excited over victory of his sufferings, he sounds like he is excited and rejoices for his sufferings in Christ.

67

The Anointing of the Sick is very good, but I don’t agree with the RCC limitations on who can administer it and who can receive it. There have been other anointed people who lay on the hands. Such effective faith healings are really interesting.

I still don’t get the story of the bishop and the man. It must be an inside RCC joke, so OK, whatever.

As for all the suffering, I guess it’s a matter of where one chooses to focus and put attention…the Passion (suffering) or the Resurrection (victory). Obviously, both are important and necessary in the Christ story. But I’ve always held that the Resurrection (victory) is the moral of the story. There is no more need to suffer because Christ paid the price for us. His work is DONE! DONE! DONE! Our job is to slay our own demons to work out our salvation and align with Him in Victory. Not wallow in suffering. WTF? This is one of the primary reasons that I am not, and never will be, a Catholic. Too dark.

Finally, wasn’t it Paul that went babbling about clean foods, unclean foods and women? As if food and gender matter in Christ! What the heck happened there?

68

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
The Anointing of the Sick is very good, but I don’t agree with the RCC limitations on who can administer it and who can receive it. There have been other anointed people who lay on the hands. Such effective faith healings are really interesting.
[/quote]

So, you disagree with the Bible? And, yes laying on of hands is nice, but it’s not for the sick it’s for the sacrament of Confirmation, and it is to confer on them the Holy Ghost after Baptism.

Let’s look at what Mark reports about the 12 Apostles after Jesus ordained them and sent them out two by two, “They cast out many demons, and annointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.”

Let’s look at scripture that clarifies it more, James says, “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the Prebysteros (Gk.) of the Church, and let them pray over him, and anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”

No, it’s not a joke. It’s a story to get a point across to people. To realise that we aren’t called to live a life void of suffering, if we’re to live in the Mystical Body of Christ, we’re going to experience suffering.

[quote]
As for all the suffering, I guess it’s a matter of where one chooses to focus and put attention…the Passion (suffering) or the Resurrection (victory). Obviously, both are important and necessary in the Christ story. But I’ve always held that the Resurrection (victory) is the moral of the story. There is no more need to suffer because Christ paid the price for us. His work is DONE! DONE! DONE! Our job is to slay our own demons to work out our salvation and align with Him in Victory. Not wallow in suffering. WTF? This is one of the primary reasons that I am not, and never will be, a Catholic. Too dark.

Finally, wasn’t it Paul that went babbling about clean foods, unclean foods and women? As if food and gender matter in Christ! What the heck happened there? [/quote]

So, what you’re saying is that it matters if you take the Bible seriously, because Paul is simple in his statement, “I rejoice in my sufferings for [Jesus’] sake…” I don’t know, you should show me.

69

You mis-read my post. I said I disagree with the LIMITATIONS that the RCC puts on the anointing of the sick. For example, only priests can do it, not laypeople. Only Catholics can recieve it, not anyone else.

70

Your definition of the Mystical Body of Christ and mine are likely to be very different. I agree that one MAY suffer, but only on the way there, as error is burning off, so to speak.
To me, the Mystical Body of Christ is non-dualistic, spotless, an all-consuming light, love, understanding, peace, compassion, beauty, life energy & power.

It is the very victory over sin, sickness, death, division and suffering of any kind. Further, it encompasses all space and is the divine part of every person living and dead. I believe if one is truly living, moving and having his/her being in Christ, then suffering is far far far away. This is the risen victorious Christ.

71

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
You mis-read my post. I said I disagree with the LIMITATIONS that the RCC puts on the anointing of the sick. For example, only priests can do it, not laypeople. Only Catholics can recieve it, not anyone else. [/quote]

Oh, I read your post. It just doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think you read the Bible verse I posted, though. I’ll do it again, “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). It’s in the Bible, call the Presbyters of the Church, they’ll anoint you with oil…that was revealed by Christ himself in Mark 6:13 – in the Bible, that is Christ’ limitation, Catholics didn’t arbitrary make that up. And, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, what limitation do you not like? What…do you want non-sick people to be anointed with oil, in the sacrament called…anointing of the sick?

72

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Your definition of the Mystical Body of Christ and mine are likely to be very different. I agree that one MAY suffer, but only on the way there, as error is burning off, so to speak.
To me, the Mystical Body of Christ is non-dualistic, spotless, an all-consuming light, love, understanding, peace, compassion, beauty, life energy & power. It is the very victory over sin, sickness, death, division and suffering of any kind. Further, it encompasses all space and is the divine part of every person living and dead. I believe if one is truly living, moving and having his/her being in Christ, then suffering is far far far away. This is the risen victorious Christ.[/quote]

I guess that’s because I get mine from the Bible. Paul is in the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. And, yet he rejoices in his sufferings. Where do you get your idea for the MBOC?

73

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
You mis-read my post. I said I disagree with the LIMITATIONS that the RCC puts on the anointing of the sick. For example, only priests can do it, not laypeople. Only Catholics can recieve it, not anyone else. [/quote]

Oh, I read your post. It just doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think you read the Bible verse I posted, though. I’ll do it again, “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). It’s in the Bible, call the Presbyters of the Church, they’ll anoint you with oil…that was revealed by Christ himself in Mark 6:13 – in the Bible, that is Christ’ limitation, Catholics didn’t arbitrary make that up. And, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, what limitation do you not like? What…do you want non-sick people to be anointed with oil, in the sacrament called…anointing of the sick?

[/quote]

Have you been up all night? Why don’t you get some sleep and read it again tomorrow.

74

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Your definition of the Mystical Body of Christ and mine are likely to be very different. I agree that one MAY suffer, but only on the way there, as error is burning off, so to speak.
To me, the Mystical Body of Christ is non-dualistic, spotless, an all-consuming light, love, understanding, peace, compassion, beauty, life energy & power. It is the very victory over sin, sickness, death, division and suffering of any kind. Further, it encompasses all space and is the divine part of every person living and dead. I believe if one is truly living, moving and having his/her being in Christ, then suffering is far far far away. This is the risen victorious Christ.[/quote]

I guess that’s because I get mine from the Bible. Paul is in the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. And, yet he rejoices in his sufferings. Where do you get your idea for the MBOC?[/quote]

I think there is a fine line between ‘rejoicing in suffering’ because you know you’ll end up in a much better place when its over…

and prolonged ‘rejoicing is suffering’ because one gets into it. Like self-mortification. That’s a little sick.

75

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Your definition of the Mystical Body of Christ and mine are likely to be very different. I agree that one MAY suffer, but only on the way there, as error is burning off, so to speak.
To me, the Mystical Body of Christ is non-dualistic, spotless, an all-consuming light, love, understanding, peace, compassion, beauty, life energy & power. It is the very victory over sin, sickness, death, division and suffering of any kind. Further, it encompasses all space and is the divine part of every person living and dead. I believe if one is truly living, moving and having his/her being in Christ, then suffering is far far far away. This is the risen victorious Christ.[/quote]

I guess that’s because I get mine from the Bible. Paul is in the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. And, yet he rejoices in his sufferings. Where do you get your idea for the MBOC?[/quote]

I think there is a fine line between ‘rejoicing in suffering’ because you know you’ll end up in a much better place when its over…

and prolonged ‘rejoicing is suffering’ because one gets into it. Like self-mortification. That’s a little sick.[/quote]

I have a question, have you ever read a little story about what happened on a hill named Calvary?

Are you one of those that thinks that if one suffers for a long time that they are a sinful horrible person and they deserve the suffering?

76

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
You mis-read my post. I said I disagree with the LIMITATIONS that the RCC puts on the anointing of the sick. For example, only priests can do it, not laypeople. Only Catholics can recieve it, not anyone else. [/quote]

Oh, I read your post. It just doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think you read the Bible verse I posted, though. I’ll do it again, “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). It’s in the Bible, call the Presbyters of the Church, they’ll anoint you with oil…that was revealed by Christ himself in Mark 6:13 – in the Bible, that is Christ’ limitation, Catholics didn’t arbitrary make that up. And, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, what limitation do you not like? What…do you want non-sick people to be anointed with oil, in the sacrament called…anointing of the sick?

[/quote]

Have you been up all night? Why don’t you get some sleep and read it again tomorrow.
[/quote]

Um, I woke up not to long ago, why would I go back to bed?

Anyway, then explain what you think the limitations the Catholic Church puts on the anointing of the sick?

And stop calling it RCC, we are not Roman Catholics we are Catholics. Roman Catholic and Roman Catholic Church is a 16th century term used by Protestants. Roman Catholic Church has never been used as title by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in any official manner. I mean we have a lot of titles, but never have we used the title Roman Catholic Church, it’s a complete and utter insult to people’s cultures!

77

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not that suffering can’t shape the soul. It’s the logical inconsistency in explaining the suffering. People claim to have their sight restored, their arthritis healed, their cancer removed, etc. but nobody claims to have a limb restored.

It’s pretty obvious why. All of these other ailments can spontaneously remit, and be credited to divine intervention. However, it never happens with limb regeneration since that is impossible in humans. Maybe god only heals the tails of lizards? [/quote]

No you don’t get it, god only heals the tails of RIGHTEOUS lizards.

Doh.

78

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
You mis-read my post. I said I disagree with the LIMITATIONS that the RCC puts on the anointing of the sick. For example, only priests can do it, not laypeople. Only Catholics can recieve it, not anyone else. [/quote]

Oh, I read your post. It just doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think you read the Bible verse I posted, though. I’ll do it again, “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). It’s in the Bible, call the Presbyters of the Church, they’ll anoint you with oil…that was revealed by Christ himself in Mark 6:13 – in the Bible, that is Christ’ limitation, Catholics didn’t arbitrary make that up. And, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, what limitation do you not like? What…do you want non-sick people to be anointed with oil, in the sacrament called…anointing of the sick?

[/quote]

Have you been up all night? Why don’t you get some sleep and read it again tomorrow.
[/quote]

Um, I woke up not to long ago, why would I go back to bed?

Anyway, then explain what you think the limitations the Catholic Church puts on the anointing of the sick?

And stop calling it RCC, we are not Roman Catholics we are Catholics. Roman Catholic and Roman Catholic Church is a 16th century term used by Protestants. Roman Catholic Church has never been used as title by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in any official manner. I mean we have a lot of titles, but never have we used the title Roman Catholic Church, it’s a complete and utter insult to people’s cultures![/quote]

How do you rationalise the fact that in the bible, only a handful of pages were actually written by jesus himself.

79

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Do I really need to explain what I find disgusting about the idea that disability, sickness, and disease are gifts?[/quote]

And I am sure you find killing the elderly who are suffering of old age to be an honorable ideal, as well.

No, I didn’t say disability, sickness, and disease were gifts, I said suffering could be a gift.

I do not look at disability, sickness, and disease as gifts, I consider suffering a gift. However, we have to acknowledge that suffering stems from evil. It stems from the sins of the world. Jesus suffered and his suffering stemmed from evil of the world, but it was a gift to the world at the same time. Again, get off your horse as if you are superior to me because I believe suffering can be a gift. It’s not like are readily helping the suffering in the world.

You just stand on the side lines and point fingers. Good job.[/quote]

I guess earthquakes are caused by suffering then. You learn something new every day.

80

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
You mis-read my post. I said I disagree with the LIMITATIONS that the RCC puts on the anointing of the sick. For example, only priests can do it, not laypeople. Only Catholics can recieve it, not anyone else. [/quote]

Oh, I read your post. It just doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think you read the Bible verse I posted, though. I’ll do it again, “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). It’s in the Bible, call the Presbyters of the Church, they’ll anoint you with oil…that was revealed by Christ himself in Mark 6:13 – in the Bible, that is Christ’ limitation, Catholics didn’t arbitrary make that up. And, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, what limitation do you not like? What…do you want non-sick people to be anointed with oil, in the sacrament called…anointing of the sick?

[/quote]

Have you been up all night? Why don’t you get some sleep and read it again tomorrow.
[/quote]

Um, I woke up not to long ago, why would I go back to bed?

Anyway, then explain what you think the limitations the Catholic Church puts on the anointing of the sick?

And stop calling it RCC, we are not Roman Catholics we are Catholics. Roman Catholic and Roman Catholic Church is a 16th century term used by Protestants. Roman Catholic Church has never been used as title by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in any official manner. I mean we have a lot of titles, but never have we used the title Roman Catholic Church, it’s a complete and utter insult to people’s cultures![/quote]

How do you rationalise the fact that in the bible, only a handful of pages were actually written by jesus himself.[/quote]

Do you know something I don’t know? Which pages of the Bible did Jesus write?