[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Clearly, its claim against claim when you hold the GREAT ENCYCLOPEDIA up as the ultimate source of scholarly information in the western world. IT is for dimwits and 6th grade reports.
[/quote]
6th grade? You’re right, I’ve obviously given you a difficult reference. My apologies. Here’s one more at your level: http://www.catholicmom.com/catholic_kids.htm
[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
pookie wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm
Tell that to the 250,000 dead from the december tsunami in the Indian ocean.
How is it different from the 250,000 who die in an average day on earth?
Non sequitur.
[/quote]
The only reasons you would bring up the Tsunami are
A) You know its an extremely long drawn out multiple page discussion and you get some kind of masochistic pleasure from seeing how many pages we can make this thing or
B) You know its an extrememly long answer and hope we’ll all give up and go to church or sumpthing.
[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Clearly, its claim against claim when you hold the GREAT ENCYCLOPEDIA up as the ultimate source of scholarly information in the western world. IT is for dimwits and 6th grade reports.
6th grade? You’re right, I’ve obviously given you a difficult reference. My apologies. Here’s one more at your level: http://www.catholicmom.com/catholic_kids.htm
[/quote]
That site is an 11th century forgery! I oculdn’t even find the section on pedophilia.
[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
pookie wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm
Tell that to the 250,000 dead from the december tsunami in the Indian ocean.
How is it different from the 250,000 who die in an average day on earth?
Non sequitur.
[/quote]
Nonni-non-non sequitor. I didn’t draw a syllogistic conclusion, I just asked a question.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Massif wrote:
I have said previously in other similar threads that I personally believe that many people, including yourself, SH, put too much emphasis on the words that were written and not the message behind them. I believe this the same way that you believe everyone else is wrong.
I don’t believe it! Someone here actually makes sense! Alleluia!
The entire point of Baptism is to welcome Jesus into your heart and soul. In the end, I do not believe that Jesus would sit back and think “Screw this guy. The priest didn’t even say it in Aramaic”.
Churches also charge for it (or at least “expect” a donation). They also get your name, your family’s name and other assorted infos that are quite useful for when they’ll need further “donations.”
Yes, I am a cynical man.
I don’t even believe that a person has to be a member of a church to be “saved”. If a person welcomes Jesus into their heart and lives a good life, I believe that to be enough.
You’re on the right track. Have you noticed that you can have a good heart and lead a good life without Jesus? The message existed long before he ever came along (ie, the “Golden Rule”).
If you must have some kind of “scripture” or written guidelines and principles, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pretty good guide.
Being a Christian is not about following every word ever written about Jesus to the letter. It is about believing in Jesus and the Big Man Upstairs, living a good, wholesome life, and helping your fellow man to do the same. Jesus never said “Follow the Orthodox Church to the letter”, he said “Believe in me”.
“Living a good, wholesome life, and helping your fellow man to do the same.”
The rest is fluff.
[/quote]
pookie:
The following web site is one which you may find interesting, I know I did:
This looks pretty accurate.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pookie:
The following web site is one which you may find interesting, I know I did:
http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2002/10/02
[/quote]
Buddha got there first.
http://www.bahainyc.org/presentations/goldenrule/golden-rule5.html
[quote]doogie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pookie:
The following web site is one which you may find interesting, I know I did:
http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2002/10/02
Buddha got there first.
http://www.bahainyc.org/presentations/goldenrule/golden-rule5.html[/quote]
Buddha never claimed to be God!
[quote]doogie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pookie:
The following web site is one which you may find interesting, I know I did:
http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2002/10/02
Buddha got there first.
http://www.bahainyc.org/presentations/goldenrule/golden-rule5.html[/quote]
All of these sayings originated from the Jewish one and were carried to the Orient through the Greco-Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great who had a great respect for Jewish beliefs. My brother, who is a professor of Eastern religions, and history, tells me that it is widely accepted by historians that the Hinduism and Buddhism we know today were a fusion of the religions of India and China with the Platonistic philosophy brought by Alexander et. al.
On what Kuz wrote:
i am so glad that you’ve responded to the “catholic bashing” …
it gets a bit tiresome…
i too am anxiously awaiting this…pk…to emerge with some intelligent replies.
oh…and… for those of you who are not catholic but enjoy criticizing us…
it’s time to find another religion to pick apart…jeez
[quote]pookie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Just when I thought the thread was dying Pookie comes back ablazing!
I’m not quitting until stellar_horizon has gotten laid at least once. I’ll accept a partner of either gender too.
Anyway, Pookie, humor me here and let’s reason on what the biblical conclusion would be. Again I ask, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, ever, where would they be today?
What is this? No one told me they’d be a pop quiz during the weekend.[/quote]
That’s what pop quizes are, nobody knows they’re coming till they’re ‘popped’ on you.[quote]
They’d still be in Eden with a lot of descendants.[/quote]
Very close. Eden would have been extended earth-wide in obedience of the direction to ‘fill the earth’. But we agree they would still be humans on earth for eternity.[quote]
Not bad. Unfortunately we know they didn’t eat meat at that time. And if you were perfect and saw a naked, perfect woman, I don’t think it would take you long to figure out what to do. I’d probably agree witht the hell comment.
We know? Sheesh. Pretend the Serpent was made of tofu.[/quote]
Yes, we know. Remember we’re sticking to Bible teachings for this discussion. The eating of animals was only permitted following the Flood.[quote]
Dead on. No mention made of anything other than ‘you shall die.’ ‘From dust you are and to dust you will return.’ Nothing immortal about them nor a ‘spirit’ side. No need for it as can be seen once the first question above is answered.
Yeah, but since God is lying, maybe He’s also lying (by omission) by not telling them they have souls and that He’ll gleefully roast those for eternity if they’re bad.[/quote]
Now this statement intrigues me the most. What was God lying about in your opinion?[quote]
God was often in a foul mood in the old testament and maybe it was a bad day for Him. (He’d just worked for seven days straight for the first time in an eternity, He probably had “uncaused soreness” all over.) He didn’t feel like explaining what eternal torment and gnashing of teeth was, so “die” was close enough.[/quote]
Nice stab at the Orthodox there. That ‘uncreated’ this and that makes me roll my eyes too. Keep in mind there is no such place of torment as hell. More pagan ideas melded into Christendom. Die means die. Also those creative ‘days’ were thousands of years in length. ‘Day’ was another figure of speech.[quote]
I wonder if He’s pissed that His “pain of childbirth” curse to Eve has been lifted by the simple anaesthetic procedure known as an epidural.[/quote]
You should find the closest woman who has had a child and ask if it’s become a breeze to give birth.[quote]
Again, humor me. I’m interested in your conclusion BASED ON SCRIPTURE to this question.
I don’t know how long you’ve been following this thread, but I have to inform you that I’m not the most assiduous reader of scripture.[/quote]
Don’t sell yourself short. You know more about the bible than most Orthodox. [quote]
True. However what similarity was there between Adam and Jesus that no other human has ever shared? Relates to why Jesus could not possibly have been God.
I give up, why don’t you tell us?[/quote]
You disappoint me. You spend so much time arguing back and forth with the religious right but don’t want to think this one out for a minute? I have a feeling if you don’t figure it out completely you’ll at least be closer than the ‘mystical’ posters.
Interesting how one who doesn’t put faith in the bible can more clearly see it’s actual teachings in many instances than those professing belief.
Fishlips, just one question: do your eyes literally burn if you so much as look at a prayer from an Orthodox service because you have never responded-in at least 7-8 different opportunities, to any of these writings. I don’t know, I just get the feeling that you refuse or are somehow unable to read them?
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
pookie wrote:
I’ll accept a partner of either gender too.
[/quote]
Well that’s nice. Pookie comes out. But gender is a psychological description, the correct biological term is sex.
Um
Sorry Pookie
Sounds like he may be torn here
Enough with the fantasies
Pookie, get some hemerhoid cream, but stop with the denial
OK that’s graphic enough
You want him to use that pick up line on his mom?
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
pookie wrote:
I’ll accept a partner of either gender too.
Well that’s nice. Pookie comes out. But gender is a psychological description, the correct biological term is sex.
Fishlips wrote:
nobody knows they’re coming till they’re ‘popped’ on you.
Um
Fishlips wrote:
Unfortunately we know they didn’t eat meat at that time.
Sorry Pookie
And if you were perfect and saw a naked, perfect woman, I don’t think it would take you long to figure out what to do.
Sounds like he may be torn here
We know? Sheesh. Pretend the Serpent was made of tofu.
Enough with the fantasies
Pookie wrote
He probably had “uncaused soreness”
Pookie, get some hemerhoid cream, but stop with the denial
Fishlips wrote
that makes me roll my eyes too.
OK that’s graphic enough
You should find the closest woman who has had a child and ask if it’s become a breeze to give birth.
You want him to use that pick up line on his mom?[/quote]
(Thusly, you pervert the meaning of the bible by your interpretation)
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
This looks pretty accurate.[/quote]
If you’re going to have a picture of some naked guy on the internet, then you have to remember that there’s only one hand on the keyboard, not two.
Thanks for the nightmares. 
Roman Catholic Church = Franco-Latins
If you want to be involved with a reformed Christian faith that enjoys adding and subtracting doctrines and dogmas while at the same time manipulating holy tradition, Roman Catholicism is for you. Here, one man becomes God’s vessel and infallibly establishes his own rules and regulations as he sees fit, despite veering away from holy tradition and Patristic teaching. Roman Catholics have one Pope in this regard (Ratzinger).
Protestant denominations = Franco-Latin revolutionaries
If you want to be involved with an ultra-reformed Christian faith that enjoys subtracting doctrines and dogmas while at the same time minimizing holy tradition, Protestantism is for you. Here, every man becomes God’s vessel and infallibly establishes his own rules and regulations as he sees fit, despite veering away from holy tradition and Patristic teaching. Protestants have millions of popes in this regard (themselves).
Orthodox Christian Church = One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church
If you want to be involved with the Christian faith which the early Church practiced and preached and wish to adhere to every single teaching, tradition, & command of the Bible, then Orthodox Christianity is for you. Here, the teaching and purity of the authentic Church is preserved via Apostolic succession with perfect accordance of the Bible as well as Patristic teachings.
Orthodox Christianity is like Minute Maid orange juice. Aaaah, so good. 100% pure. Nothing added. Nothing taken away.
[quote]The Creed
[i]I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light: true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by Whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; And arose again on the third day according to the Scriptures; And ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life; Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets. In ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, And the life of the age to come. Amen.[/i][/quote]
pookie, I suggest you run and tell your wife that Roman Catholicism is neither Apostolic, nor Catholic, nor Holy despite what it’s been labeled. You can call a cat a dog because it walks on four feet and digs in the mud before taking a dump, but it doesn’t mean it actually is. You directed us to the early Christian creeds which backfire on you (proving your profound ignorance). Next time you cite something, make sure it helps your argument instead of hurting it…
In 1054 when they [the Franco-Latins] innovated upon the early Christian Faith by adding the filioque clause, they clearly fell into heresy. I courteously posted 15 heresies of their deviant faith which Roman Catholics recognize as being changes, substitutes, and innovations upon that which the Apostles preached back on page 4. Refer back to it. Is the Roman Catholic Church truly Apostolic? No!
The term Catholic does not only mean universal in the Nicene Creed; it also signifies something being taught always and by all. Let’s see, they [the Franco-Latins] preached the concept of indulgences during the Crusades from the 1100’s-1400’s. This was a new innovation on the Christian Faith that was indigenous only in the western hemisphere of the Roman Empire. Is the Roman Catholic Church truly Catholic? No!
When the Frankish nomadic hoardes invaded, slayed and exiled hundreds of Orthodox Christian bishops in the 800’s in the West, and replaced them with warlord puppets disguised as God-fearing clergy, thereby invalidating the holy grace of Apostolic lineage through forced substitution, Apostolic succession evaporated where these atrocities unfolded. These new clergymen began to call themselves “Roman Catholics”; they externally resembled Orthodox Christian authorities but preached contrary to the early Church. Just gotta love these Roman Catholic priests who spoke about God’s love while being fully armed with daggers and swords underneath their cassocks. How appropriate… The grace of God’s priesthood is not maintained through such forced substitutions; you can’t pick up a sword, decapitate an Orthodox Christian priest, put yourself in his place, and validly say you’ve now have gained Apostolic succession, but that’s exactly what happened in the West. Is the Roman Catholic Church truly Holy? No!
Regarding them being One, I won’t even get into that. But do you know there are over 13 Popes each claiming to be the one leader of the Roman Catholic Church? The Roman Catholic Church is split into factions of traditional, Vatican I, and Vatican II believers each claiming separate authority. Woops! Your heinous claims just flew out the window.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
How ironic that three glorious Crosses should decorate the crown depicted in your avatar. Just remember, every knee shall bow to the Great King in that Day of Judgment.
pookie wrote:
And how about yours? Looks closer to Satan than any saint or Jesus… or was there a St. Minotaur I’m unaware of?[/quote]
pookie, that’s a low-blow. Besides, a few others beat you to this punch-line long ago (lothario takes the blue ribbon on that). I won’t explain my avatar again. If I posted an avatar of a Saint or Jesus Christ, I have a funny feeling you’d find a way to ridicule me for that as well. I didn’t take you for the type of guy who was deceived by wolves in sheeps’ clothing. Guess I was wrong.
I dedicate this pic to you. Have a good day.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips, just one question: do your eyes literally burn if you so much as look at a prayer from an Orthodox service because you have never responded-in at least 7-8 different opportunities, to any of these writings. I don’t know, I just get the feeling that you refuse or are somehow unable to read them?
[/quote]
Fishlips isn’t here to honestly debate. His purpose was to spew insults and lies. He’s claimed everything under the sun such as:
b[/b] that the genealogical records of Apostolic lineage were destroyed c. 70 AD (which we placed the burden of proof on him to substantiate which he failed to do),
b[/b] that the Church never practiced Apostolic succession (which we proved was a lie),
b[/b] that the Eucharist was never understood by the early Church to be the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (which we proved was a lie),
b[/b] that the early Church never taught the dogma of the Holy Trinity (which we proved was a lie), and
b[/b] that the early Church fell away (contrary to the Bible which promises that It would never fall away).
Then he wants to say that we lack reason because we convey the same interpretation of the Bible as it’s author (the Orthodox Christian Church). So much for his reliance on personal reason and common sense; see where it leads him? In addition, he forms his own private interpretation of scripture (which the Bible [i]condemns[/i]). He also fails to abide within both the oral and written traditions of the Church (which the Bible [i]commands[/i]) and last but not least, irreverently says God is “schizophrenic” when he can’t explain particular scriptures in the Bible that are in complete disaccord with his belief system.
Then he skips most of our strongpoints and goes off on tangents. I congratulated him on being a master of the strawman tactic long ago, but perhaps he mistook this as a compliment? Anyways, the reason he fails to respond to the early Church prayers & manuscripts we’ve provided him with is that there’s nothing left for him to say but, “My apologies Lord, I was wrong all this time!” Oh well, so much for his empty promises to address our posts when he “returns from out of town”. I don’t think going out of town is any impediment to his internet access as he clearly takes the opportunity to steer the discussion away from questions he refuses to concede to.
The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Let us follow the example of Saint Maximus the Confessor and leave stubborn heretics to wallow in their confusion and disbelief.
Peace be with you, brother in the Faith!
[quote]ems_girlscout wrote:
On what Kuz wrote:
i am so glad that you’ve responded to the “catholic bashing” …
it gets a bit tiresome…
i too am anxiously awaiting this…pk…to emerge with some intelligent replies.
oh…and… for those of you who are not catholic but enjoy criticizing us…
it’s time to find another religion to pick apart…jeez[/quote]
One question only. Why does the Creed written on silver and gold shield on the vatican use the Orthodox Creed rather than the Roman creed (which was changed)? Feel free to research it. Officially, the Roman Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 for holding to the earlier form of the Creed as written on the Vatican (and commanded to be put there by Pope Leo and never changed). From that date on, the Roman Church has been in a constant state of adjusting their theologyover the centuries.
One more, sorry. Did you know that the Romans invited several Orthodox representatives to Vatican II to help them make sure that they didn’t make “unneccesary” theological mistakes such as some which had to be recanted after Vatican I?