A Trail of Blood

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

But my own irritation over the self-identity-belief-systems is about the lack of toleration and respect for others outside of the groups as I myself am always an outsider, and as such I can not join in any group or Church because I decide for myself what I believe and what I do not accept.

While there are individuals in any church who lack toleration and respect for others outside their group, this behavior should not be attributed to the group as a whole. There's a LOT more tolerant ones than intolerant ones.

And saying: "You don't believe as we do, therefore you are not one of us" does not qualify as intolerance or disrespect.

If anything, it's merely stating the obvious.

Creating your own belief system is all well and good - but you should not be surprised, nor take offense when a group considers you an outsider. If you place yourself on the outside a group, you are - by definition - an outsider.

That has nothing to do with tolerance or respect. It has everything to do with physics and the laws of nature.

[libby]

Originally Posted by Im_Me

How well do you really know the Catholic church (I'm just throwing this out there to make this a more informed disagreement)

As Catholics we are only REQUIRED to believe the following (as quoted from the Nicene Creed):

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten,
not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born
of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in
fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated
at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge
the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
the giver of life, who proceeds from the
Father and the Son. With the Father
and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and
apostolic Church. We acknowledge
one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come."

(Keep in mind that the word catholic here is lower case meaning one universal church of believers.)

the rest of the positions of the Church are DOCTRINE, not faith.

What part of that do you have a problem with? Even at a meeting of Catholics, you'll find differences of opinion on whether a particular doctrine is right (i.e contraception, fertility treatments, even abortion). Yet they are all similarly "good" Catholics.

Further from what I'm told (though I haven't fully gotten my mind around it yet) we firmly believe that one must NOT practice what one does not believe. In short, the Catholic faith believes we will meet the true and honest athiest in Heaven, while a Sunday Christian who does not live his purported faith may not be in the chosen.


Sounds to me a lot like what you are saying JP...So what's your beef?

Hey ImMe,
A slight correction here. We are required to believe the doctrines that the Church has declared, for instance, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Devotions like the Rosary, or praying for the intercession of saints and such is up to personal desire, but doctrine never is.
Does that mean we have intellectual assent to it? Does it mean we fully grasp the magnitude of what it means? No, but we do submit to the authority of the Church on the matter.

[Im_Me]

Originally Posted by libby

Hey ImMe,
A slight correction here. We are required to believe the doctrines that the Church has declared, for instance, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Devotions like the Rosary, or praying for the intercession of saints and such is up to personal desire, but doctrine never is.
Does that mean we have intellectual assent to it? Does it mean we fully grasp the magnitude of what it means? No, but we do submit to the authority of the Church on the matter.

I agree with your comments on Catholic doctrine. (with the addition of the Assumption of Mary).

What are your thoughts on meeting a conscientious atheist in Heaven?

[libby]

Originally Posted by Im_Me

I agree with your comments on Catholic doctrine. (with the addition of the Assumption of Mary).

What are your thoughts on meeting a conscientious atheist in Heaven?

Pretty much what you said, excepting only that the athiest was in an honest search for Truth, but just never got there.

[VoteJP]

Originally Posted by Marie

JP

Originally Posted by VoteJP

The earliest Catholic fathers do teach the same Catholic doctrine as today, but the recorded history of the New Testament Church itself does not show the same Church.

According to one old Roman document - a Roman authority wrote that the Romans soldiers had killed "all the Christians" and that appears to be the true history that "all" the first century Christians had been killed off and around 100 years later another new Church arose calling itself as "Christian" and as Catholic, but its doctrines were greatly different than what Jesus teaches in the Bible."

Originally Posted by Marie

History does not teach that, it teaches that man kept introducing new measures to support its corrupt thinking and papal abuses.

What the Bible tells us is even better than what secular history shows.

In the Bible Jesus is shown to a type of second Adam 1 Corinthians 15:45, and Adam had two children of "Cain and Able" and so did the second Adam had two children Churches. And just as Cain killed Able the evil Church killed the true Church.

And God says concerning His prophecies that He God tells the end from the beginning Isaiah 46:10 as in telling in Genesis what would happen to Christ.

And the evidence of that is in the fact that the second-brother-Church of Christ was talked about as "Cain" in the New Testament by both Jude and John as follows;

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, Jude 1:11

and

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 1 John 3:11-13

So the early Church (as Abel) was killed by the other crooked Church (Cain) and so it went on...

[libby]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

What the Bible tells us is even better than what secular history shows.

In the Bible Jesus is shown to a type of second Adam 1 Corinthians 15:45, and Adam had two children of "Cain and Able" and so did the second Adam had two children Churches. And just as Cain killed Able the evil Church killed the true Church.

And God says concerning His prophecies that He God tells the end from the beginning Isaiah 46:10 as in telling in Genesis what would happen to Christ.

And the evidence of that is in the fact that the second-brother-Church of Christ was talked about as "Cain" in the New Testament by both Jude and John as follows;

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, Jude 1:11

and

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 1 John 3:11-13

So the early Church (as Abel) was killed by the other crooked Church (Cain) and so it went on...

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

What the Bible tells us is even better than what secular history shows.

In the Bible Jesus is shown to a type of second Adam 1 Corinthians 15:45, and Adam had two children of "Cain and Able" and so did the second Adam had two children Churches. And just as Cain killed Able the evil Church killed the true Church.

And God says concerning His prophecies that He God tells the end from the beginning Isaiah 46:10 as in telling in Genesis what would happen to Christ.

And the evidence of that is in the fact that the second-brother-Church of Christ was talked about as "Cain" in the New Testament by both Jude and John as follows;

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, Jude 1:11

and

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 1 John 3:11-13

So the early Church (as Abel) was killed by the other crooked Church (Cain) and so it went on...

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


If there is an evil church (Cain) that killed the good church (Abel) as you claim, then "the gates of Hades" did indeed overcome, and ergo Jesus lied.

By all means JP, keep going. Not only are you giving Libby great amusement, but you are doing nothing but proving why there is need for an authority and exactly why Jesus left us with it.

[VoteJP]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

If there is an evil church (Cain) that killed the good church (Abel) as you claim, then "the gates of Hades" did indeed overcome, and ergo Jesus lied.

It is true that I left the interpretation incomplete because even I have my own limitations.

And it is said that Jesus went to "Hades" (the place of the dead) and three days later Jesus is said to have rose from the dead (Hades) and that is the same expectation of the Church that was killed in that it rose again at a later date.

Originally Posted by Radiant1

By all means JP, keep going. Not only are you giving Libby great amusement, but you are doing nothing but proving why there is need for an authority and exactly why Jesus left us with it.

I like authority and I am very much a supporter of rightful authority.

The thing is that authority must be based on truth and justice and accuracy and NOT on persons or peoples' positions in a hierarchy.

This is how the Church needs to be viewed as a Spiritual entity with spiritual rulers, instead of a physical Church with physical rulers.