193 replies to this topic

[Keen]

Not to mention pointless.

Reincarnation is pointless if and only if there is no other form of afterlife alongside it. Since people clearly cannot remember past lives while they are alive, such memories would have to be available after death. Otherwise, reincarnation wouldn't be as much fun to speak of.

[wisp]

This has been a rather interesting thread to read.

I believe in heaven/hell and resurrection. If hell in punishment for those that have done evil deed through out their life then I think it would be a much worse fate to send them to purgatory. I tend to find a endlessness of nothingness is a far worse torture then well a persons general idea of torture.

Purgatory is generally thought to be a temporary existence where souls atone for their sins but then are considered purified after a time and are sent on to heaven.

o.o

I thought every Christian confession baptized their children.

They do baptize children, however not all baptize babies. Most denominations prefer that the child be old enough to understand what he/she is about to undertake and they wish that the child choose for him/herself to become part of the baptized community.

[masterofwind]

Purgatory is generally thought to be a temporary existence where souls atone for their sins but then are considered purified after a time and are sent on to heaven.

I still find the idea of purgatory far worse then hell though. I mean just being there waiting, maybe they have a idea about how long they are there but we really have no idea if you are told when they are going to come for you.

[TheAvengerLever]

I thought the Church abolished the belief in purgatory?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I thought the Church abolished the belief in purgatory?

You mean all that recent hoo-ha about the Catholic Church stating that unbaptised newborns and infants no longer go to limbo after they die?

Well, technically, the Catholic Church has never made an official statement regarding their fate until recently. And of course, they haven't really done so recently either. The recent document that talks about the issue is called, "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized".

Here is a link to the document.

http://www.catholicc...cfm?recnum=7529

As far as I can tell, limbo has not been abolished. The document is vague in itself. Basically it's a huge thousand word affair that states, "We think unbaptised infants and destroy foetuses might go to Heaven, but we cannot be certain". All this stuff about the Church abolishing limbo is once again media hype.

I've always doubted the media's ability to report on scientific findings properly, but now they're making me wonder whether they can even report on religious findings properly.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 11 May 2007 - 05:10 PM.

[Arturo]

Limbo has never been a Catholic belief, but a speculation. If you take JPII's Catechism of teh Catholic Church, it says taht tehy are not sure about where children would go, but that they hope they will go to heaven.

Purgatorym, however, is an official Catholic belief. And personally I liek it much more than the Hell-Heaven system. Because, you know, I don't think one should be worthy of the eternal damnation for the sins of your life. And nowhere does it say that the Purgatory is painful, as far as I know. It's just a place of purification.

[arunma]

Limbo has never been a Catholic belief, but a speculation. If you take JPII's Catechism of teh Catholic Church, it says taht tehy are not sure about where children would go, but that they hope they will go to heaven.

Purgatorym, however, is an official Catholic belief. And personally I liek it much more than the Hell-Heaven system. Because, you know, I don't think one should be worthy of the eternal damnation for the sins of your life. And nowhere does it say that the Purgatory is painful, as far as I know. It's just a place of purification.

But you do know that according to Catholic belief, there is a hell, and unbelievers (however the Catholic Church defines them) go there, do you not? Purgatory is a place where all Catholics, and possibly other Christians and righteous non-Christian theists go to be purified before heaven. In the Catholic religion, it is believed that only the saints are received directly into heaven upon their deaths, all others must pass through purgatory. So really, it isn't any different from the "hell-heaven system."

[Arturo]

That is certainly not true. I am going to quote the Lumen Gentium and other Catholic documents.

Regarding the salvation outside of the Catholic Church (From Lumen Gentium):

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Protestants:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. [...]Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.

Non-baptized people:

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. [...]Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience

And in the Catholic Church it says that peopel with mortal sins will go to Hell, because tehy ahev neglected God, and thus will tehy eb far from him. BUT they also have the hope and pray that no-one will be condemned.

Because, even if we all go to Purgatory, it's possible, and I believe it, that everyone will reach God. Soem people will do it before because of their faith or deeds, but everyone will reach him ebcause He's a Loving God.

And regarding

[TempleMaster]

Opinion only, but the Bible tells us that Baptism is not the way to get into heaven. To do that, we need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ. I've never read anywhere in the Bible where it tells us that Baptism is the key to being forgiven, but the blood of Jesus being for our sins has been mentioned.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Opinion only, but the Bible tells us that Baptism is not the way to get into heaven. To do that, we need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ. I've never read anywhere in the Bible where it tells us that Baptism is the key to being forgiven, but the blood of Jesus being for our sins has been mentioned.

What? So we have to find him, massacre him and bathe in his blood? Firstly, I don't remember Jesus ever saying that. Secondly, perhaps that is what the Catholics construed to be Transubstantiation, in which case only the Catholics would be saved. It is interesting to note exactly what this means...

[vodkamaru]

What? So we have to find him, massacre him and bathe in his blood? Firstly, I don't remember Jesus ever saying that. Secondly, perhaps that is what the Catholics construed to be Transubstantiation, in which case only the Catholics would be saved. It is interesting to note exactly what this means...

I have to agree with you here. When someone uses language specific to their religion it alienates those who don't know what you're talking about. Cleansed by the blood of Christ? What does that even mean? The blood of Jesus was spilled 2,000 years ago, and I don't think there's anymore left today. It sounds like some violent cult ritual when you say it that way. I know you mean something else but the language you use doesn't make sense to a non-christian.

Edited by vodkamaru, 15 May 2007 - 03:45 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

I'd have to say, IMO, even thinking the thought that you'd have to massacre a dead man is just...dumb. I've never met a person who would be dumb enough to think such a thing

[vodkamaru]

I'd have to say, IMO, even thinking the thought that you'd have to massacre a dead man is just...dumb. I've never met a person who would be dumb enough to think such a thing

What a helpful post! If we're all so dumb, then please enlighten us instead of just making fun of people.

Edited by vodkamaru, 15 May 2007 - 05:24 PM.

[SOAP]

What? So we have to find him, massacre him and bathe in his blood? Firstly, I don't remember Jesus ever saying that. Secondly, perhaps that is what the Catholics construed to be Transubstantiation, in which case only the Catholics would be saved. It is interesting to note exactly what this means...

I have to agree with you here. When someone uses language specific to their religion it alienates those who don't know what you're talking about. Cleansed by the blood of Christ? What does that even mean? The blood of Jesus was spilled 2,000 years ago, and I don't think there's anymore left today. It sounds like some violent cult ritual when you say it that way. I know you mean something else but the language you use doesn't make sense to a non-christian.

It's called a metaphor, people.

And Jesus did say this. Read John 6:53-59. Yeah people thought he meant it literally when he said it back then too...

[TheAvengerLever]

What a helpful post! If we're all so dumb, then please enlighten us instead of just making fun of people.

Making fun of people? Where in that post was I making fun of anyone o.o

[vodkamaru]

It's called a metaphor, people.

And Jesus did say this. Read John 6:53-59. Yeah people thought he meant it literally when he said it back then too...

Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood will has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My bllod is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven - not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever." These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

That doesn't really clarify anything. Do we have any biblical scholars to interpret?

Edited by vodkamaru, 15 May 2007 - 06:51 PM.

[SOAP]

[doublepost]

Edited by SOAP, 15 May 2007 - 07:04 PM.

[SOAP]

That doesn't really clarify anything. Do we have any biblical scholars to interpret?

Then keep on reading where it talks about how the people listening to him took it literally and got confused.

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

Jesus was talking spiritually, not his literal blood. He tries to explain this to the people but even still they had no idea what he was talking about. Does this clarify anything for you?

Edited by SOAP, 15 May 2007 - 07:05 PM.

[vodkamaru]

Then keep on reading where it talks about how the people listening to him took it literally and got confused.
Jesus was talking spiritually, not his literal blood. He tries to explain this to the people but even still they had no idea what he was talking about. Does this clarify anything for you?

I'm just wondering why TM didn't say that instead.

[SOAP]

I'm just wondering why TM didn't say that instead.

Who's TM?

Anyways, all I'm saying is that Jesus didn't mean his literal blood (which is what people back then THOUGHT he was talking). He doesn't expect us to be vampires, that's just ridiculous. He was trying to people about spiritual things by connecting them with earthly things that they could ,more easily understand. To drink of Jesus is blood is to need him like you need blood flowing through your veins.

Edit: Oh, TempleMaster. Right. Well, each Christian is different. Maybe he hasn't read the same passages I have yet.

Edited by SOAP, 16 May 2007 - 12:53 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I'd have to say, IMO, even thinking the thought that you'd have to massacre a dead man is just...dumb. I've never met a person who would be dumb enough to think such a thing

Granted, that is dumb. However, how else am I supposed to intrepret what TM said? What else could bathing in someone's blood mean?

It's called a metaphor, people.

Duh. But it's a pretty obscure metaphor, don't you think?

And really, I'm right aren't I? John 6:53-59 can be interpreted to mean that you cannot be saved unless you take part in the Communion, although quite where the Church got the idea of Transubstantiation is another kettle of fish altogether.

Jesus was talking spiritually, not his literal blood. He tries to explain this to the people but even still they had no idea what he was talking about. Does this clarify anything for you?

Anyways, all I'm saying is that Jesus didn't mean his literal blood (which is what people back then THOUGHT he was talking). He doesn't expect us to be vampires, that's just ridiculous. He was trying to people about spiritual things by connecting them with earthly things that they could ,more easily understand. To drink of Jesus is blood is to need him like you need blood flowing through your veins.

Frankly, no, it doesn't clarify anything for me. What you say makes sense, but I can't see how you can justify that interpretation. He could have just as easily said, you need me inside you, instead of all this drinking and eating him metaphor. Still, I'd rather accept that interpretation than a literal one.

[SOAP]

Would it have been easier? Everytime he came close to saying what he really meant people started calling him demon possessed. He was introducing new and abstract concepts to people who were more used to a material way of thinking. With people so interwined with material world, the only way to translate something spiritual to them is to relate to something they're more familar with. Of course it's not easy and [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people thought Jesus was crazy for what he said back then too. It's like trying to explain colors to a blind man who has never seen the light of day all his life or music to a deaf man who's never heard a single thing all his life. It's nearly impossible but Jesus managed to reach some people. Better than none.

And really would it have been better if Jesus used your words instead and some dumbasses took as a sexual invite? Nah.

And no I don't think it's an obscure metaphor. It's like me saying I'll take a bullet for my sister. The chances of those circumstances literally come true are pretty slim but she understands what I mean when I say it.

[Arturo]

Catholics interpret that verse as a reference to Holy Communion: We believe that the bread is His true Flesh and that the wine is his true blood. So basically we are eating Jesus

[TheAvengerLever]

Granted, that is dumb. However, how else am I supposed to intrepret what TM said? What else could bathing in someone's blood mean?

Think it through before jumping to conclusions perhaps.

That's the problem with the world today. No one takes the time to grasp anything anymore.

Speaking of which, the Puritans and the The Spanish Inquisition: Catholicisms contribution to Jesus Christ.

[SOAP]

Catholics interpret that verse as a reference to Holy Communion: We believe that the bread is His true Flesh and that the wine is his true blood. So basically we are eating Jesus

No comment.

[Hero of Slime]

Taking communion and being "cleansed by the blood of christ" are symbolic representaions of acepting that Jesus was crucified for the sins of man. One is saved by faith in that, not just by communion.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Think it through before jumping to conclusions perhaps.

That's the problem with the world today. No one takes the time to grasp anything anymore.

What a fantastic idea! Let's pretend that a vague metaphor can only mean one thing and belittle someone for not getting it. We have already established that it is vague enough to mean three things:

1. Literally bathing in Jesus' blood.
2. Holy Communion.
3. Needing Jesus inside you.

Sure, it's obvious that interpretation 1 isn't right, but I was making a point, that there are many ways to interpret what Jesus said. It's not obvious. After thinking about it, you can come up with at least three interpretations. I'm not imaginative enough to think up of more, but I'm sure there are more.

Speaking of which, the Puritans and the Spanish Inquisition: Catholicisms contribution to Jesus Christ.

I'll let a Catholic respond to that snide, almost irrelevant remark.

[Selena]

Clearly, Catholics still take great joy in torturing the innocent, burning girls alive who happen to have warts on their nose, and then having a nice group meeting to partake in ritual cannibalism and vampirism! It's as if the Middle Ages never ended.



Such religious affection people have toward fellow worshipers of the J-man. My stepfather's the same way. It drives me absolutely mad. Especially because my mother is a Catholic and he finds himself justified in his religious convictions to get away with little poisonous jabs at her every now and again. Perhaps a shining example of how people preach tolerance and peace and yet act the opposite because they so obviously believe in the one true Christian tradition. Like siblings bickering amongst themselves, I'd liken it. It sickens me how much hate is involved with the path to god's love, as it's frequently called.

[masterofwind]

If you believe in heaven and hell can you believe in ghosts as well?

[Arturo]

Speaking of which, the Puritans and the The Spanish Inquisition: Catholicisms contribution to Jesus Christ.

I am offended both as Catholic and as Spanish.Firstly, Spain wasn't the only country with Inquisition, but the oen with the longest one. But Protestant countries had Inquisition as well. Need I remind you of the Prosecution of queen Elizabeth I against Catholics in England?

The Catholic Church has done many bad things in the past, and in the present, but that post was absolutely uncalled of.


At least our Church doesn't say science is an invention of the devil and that evolution goes against Genesis and is therefore wrong. And how many Churches have asked to be forgiven to other people because of tehir mistakes?

And last I checked, Puritans were a kind of Protestants. They had nothing to do with that.

And I see nothing abnormal with transubstantation (or whatever it's called). But taht may be because I am Catholic. Believing taht the bread transfoprms into Jesus' flesh and teh wine into his blood is a Catholic dogma, but is shared by many other Christian churches, though in slightly different ways.

Button, if it weren't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't be Christian now. Christianism wouldn't exist now. I think that is a big contribution.

Edited by Arturo, 17 May 2007 - 05:34 AM.