[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]On a sidenote--why is it Mormons dedicate their lives to school? Every single mormon kid I knew was either dedicated to doing well, or at least trying way way too hard in school, to the point where they had no life. They also all liked ska, but it was weird ska, like pop-ska almost. Oddities.[/QUOTE]
I'm Mormon, and I like good ska. About school... I definitely know some book-smart members, but I definitely don't fit into that group. I'm trying hard just to keep my D+ in Physics.

HEY GOLD

IGNORE YOUR OWN THREADS MORE PLZ

And a tall one.

Hah! See? I knew it, ska's a mormon movement to convert us all!

I hesitate to comment on the back-and-forth rubbish that clogs this thread, however I would like to validate SithNazgul on one of his points where he voiced a little uncertainty.

(*within the construct of Catholic theology*, which if you think it's all wrong has no meaning for you, but if you buy or at least give credence to, as I do, may have some weight)

Time is a characteristic of the physical universe, the laws of which do not bind angels. Therefore, any action taken by angels (e.g. chosing themselves over God) does not 'happen', as it is not a definable event, it is outside time. It becomes true. Therefore, fallen angels might as well always have been fallen.

Anyway, so shallow are they with their obsession over their own power, there's really no reason as far as they're concerned to go back to a God whom they hate and have spurned. This also helps explain why once you're in Hell, you're out of Time, so THERE'S NO TURNIN' BACK. ;]

When I get back home, I'll post my Theology thesis for your enjoyment, it thrills believers and non-believers alike because I don't mess around with symantics, which are often a huge factor for confusion in religious discussion.

One last statement, and this pains me a lot, you who throw 'logic' around. Logic is a means for evaluating and expressing arguments. I've been studying logic wholeheartedly at university, and quite freqeuntly in these studies am I fondly reminded of Massassian 'discussions'. I am by no means an expert on logic, however, I can safely say that I have been exposed to logic in a more refined fashion than a majority of you here, which I'm not trying to tout, but am merely trying to muster more authority to what I'm about to say:

Logic is not a belief. It is a means towards an end, that end being demonstrating truth. Likewise, the written word is a means for communicating information. The written word is not the only way to communicate information and the written word is not the right way to communicate information. It is a way.

Logic is a way. It is not the way and it is not a destination.

Also, logic does not mean empiricism. Logic does not require concrete evidence. That is inductive reasoning, and is often fallacious or incomplete.

If you want to be purely 'logical' about things, then, it is in our best interest to have blind and ignorant faith about the way things work and therefore lead physically and mentally healthy lives without questioning our surroundings.

Because the it says somewhere in the Bible that the prophet before Jesus was the last prophet before the Messiah. I forget which book it was.

EDIT: Sorry Avenger, I took a glance at the much-talked-about squirrel thread and suddenly I got angry at the world.

Not my reasoning. Mort wanted an explanation as to why Mohammed isn't viewed as a prophet by Christians. I gave him the reason why Christians don't believe Mohanned isn't a prophet.

Hahahaha. I don't blame you.
:p

In Islam, we accept Muhammed as Gods final and greatest messanger, but we do not worship him, as God dictated that we should worship none other then him.

The actual main difference between Sunni's and Shi'a, are actually Muhammed's successors.

Sunni's regard the first four Caliphs after Muhammed as the Rightly guided Caliph, the ones who lived most accordingly to the Qur'an.

Shi'a generally reject most all of the Caliphs, except Ali, believing that he was the only rightly guided Caliph.

There are other orders in Islam, but I don't know anything about them.

Yah. Didn't mean to imply otherwise :).

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Another sidenote--the religion that seems the most true to the bible to me is Islam. It basically preaches all the goodness that man should be, also one of the most interesting counters to all christianity has come from a follower of that religion that pointed out something to me--Why do Christians worship Jesus when, in essence, he is but a false God? He is not God, not the one you should worship according to the Old Testament and 10 Commandments.
[/QUOTE]


However, Christianity is not focused on man striving to be good.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," - Romans 3:23

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:23

All have sinned, and therefore all deserve death. No matter how good we strive to be, due to our sinful nature we can never be good enough to earn our own salvation. That is why Christians (or, at least, the Lutheran church; I can't speak for denominations that I'm unfamiliar with) don't view the Commandments as the path to our salvation, because God requires that we follow them perfectly, and no man is able to follow a single commandment to God's expectations. Rather, we view it as a reminder of such; that due to our sin, we can never please God by our works alone.

"For it is by graced you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

It is by God's grace that we are saved, not by works (because, as mentioned previously, our works could never be good enough).

And perhaps one the most famous verses...

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16

Again, as mentioned previously, we are all sinful, and all deserving of death. All fall short of the glory of God. But he still loves us, and still wants us to be with him. Hence, he sent Jesus, his Son, to die in our place, for our sins, so that our debt is payed and so we can be saved. Again, christians believe that it is by God's grace that we are saved, not by our own works.

As for your other point, I myself would not say that christians worship Jesus above God the Father, but we believe them to be one in the trinity with the Holy Spirit -- that is, three Gods, but one God -- and therefore, not worshipping a false god. A lot of christians put their focus on Christ, though, so I can see how you could form that opinion, and I can't say that I disagree with you. On the one hand, Christ is the focus of everything that we believe; we believe that the Old Testament was leading up to Christ's birth, death, and resurrection for our salvation, and therefore perhaps the most important thing in the entire bible. However, I personally think that a lot of christians fail to keep things in perspective, and put more focus on Christ than on the other, just as important parts of the bible. So I would hesitate to say that you're wrong in terms of how the faith is practiced, but I can't say that I entirely agree, either.

(Again, as a disclaimer, I don't speak for every christian, and I certainly can't speak for the religions and/or denominations that I'm unfamiliar with. I can only speak for myself, and my own faith, and that is all that this post is.)


Hope that might clear things up a bit.

Thank youuuu.

look, im catholic and i do read the bible.

I love Jesus to death

I dont worship mary, but I give her all due respect

Every catholic is "catholic" to some degree.

You dont have to agree with it 100% to be catholic.

I disagree with some of the church's rules
but im still a catholic, none the less

personally, i find the simple topic "Catholics..." insulting

you could have said "question about catholics"

at least it wouldnt have sounded so degrading


anyway, crucifixion did happen idiots.

STAKES were used to hold up the CROSS in which people were NAILED TO.

It also mentions ST.PETER was also cruxified.

He demanded to be cruxified upside down since he wouldnt dare be cruxified the same way Jesus was.


If you wanted to know, you should have looked it up, not brought up this offensive topic

Yeah, God has quite the superiority complex.

Guy above me is right.

Define worship...I pray to the Virgin Mary, but I dont know if I use the word worship....Hmm thats a sticky one.

We do.

And those people would be sorely misinformed. Christians regard Jesus as the Christ, the son of God, and God Himself. Muslims regard Muhammed as a voice of God, and recipient, transcriber, and messenger of God's true words. That's why you'll never see an English Koran - the Koran, itself, is literally the words of Allah, and must be kept in Arabic to preserve the true meaning of God's words. You'll find English, German, French, and other translations of the Koran, but they will all be "The English Rendition of the Koran," and never just "The Koran."

That's another dividing point between Islam, and Christianity and Judaism. Muslims see the Torah and the Bible as originally divine, but have since been filtered through the bias of men, and can not be considered reliable sources of God's commands.



No. They believe that, yes, Jesus had an immaculate conception and birth, but this was because he was a prophet of God, not because he was the son of God. Muslims do not refer to him as the Christ.



That link only states that the reason Mary is considered sinless by the Catholic Church is because Mary is considered sinless by the Catholic Church. What Biblical evidence is there that states that Mary was sinless?

And if all humans are sinners due to their nature, shouldn't that mean that Mary herself is a sinner too?

*cough*
*cough2*

There is none, it's all inferential evidence. It's assumed that she was sinless, based on how she is described in the bible. But it doesn't say anywhere as a hard fact, that she is indeed sinless.

Nope, it's focused on being as good as possible while scorning the bad in you. But you are, by nature bad, so all efforts are futile. What a joyous and enlightening religion. Gotta love hating yourself.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]There is none, it's all inferential evidence. It's assumed that she was sinless, based on how she is described in the bible. But it doesn't say anywhere as a hard fact, that she is indeed sinless.[/QUOTE]


What Biblical evidence is there that states all evidence must be from the Bible?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Nope, it's focused on being as good as possible while scorning the bad in you. But you are, by nature bad, so all efforts are futile. What a joyous and enlightening religion. Gotta love hating yourself.[/QUOTE]

You are not describing Catholicism.

Hey don't blame me!

:p

Because interpretations are subject enough to the fallability of man without basing fallible interpretations on fallible evidence.

If the Bible is the sole authority, why are there so many denominations? There cannot be multiple versions of the truth.

No, there isn't. The Bible is true. The interpretations, rules, and laws extrapolated from the Bible, however, are not necessarily true, and an individual must decide what he or she believes.

Unless you believe that God continues to reveal things to your pope/prophet/pastor/piccolo flute player etc.

But that is a whole other can of worms.

You are correct - an individual must decide what he or she believes. However, the Bible says itself that it is not the foundation of truth -- so what is?

What are you Jewish?

Oooooooh buuuuuuurn

kirby, im not jewish, i said im catholic

i believe (and i dont mean to offend anybody) that jesus died for our sins

and thats why i love him


hence how christianity was formed

Where does it say that?

Here's a few verses:

This seems to contradict your original statement. You say that there cannot be multiple truths, yet this states that the church is the foundation of truth. Based on this, if there is only one "truth" there could only be one denomination. So are you trying to say that only one truth, or church, is correct?

I don't really see how this implies that the Bible is not the "foundation" of truth. So, because I need help understanding chemistry means chemistry is not true? I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.

Well, considering that this is well before mass printing was feasible, everyone couldn't have a copy of every single document that would later be conglamerated into the Bible. Thus, the spoken word (and the occasional letter) was the only really reliable way to convey information. Again, this really doesn't seem to say anything about the truthfulness of the Bible.

Yes.


You will not find different chemistry teachers teaching different 'truths' from the same chemistry book..different topic, really.



Everything wasn't written down, either:


My point is that the Bible itself does not say that it is the sole authority - it actually says the opposite. So, it begs the question - who has the authority to interpret scripture? You and I obviously believe different things, yet the Bible is the same (well, relatively - someone removed a few books from the Protestant version..)..who's to say that one of us is right? We cannot have conflicting opinions and yet still be correct. I believe that the authority to interpret Scripture is held by the Catholic Church.

...Which, I'm assuming, is the Catholic Church? :p

And that's where I disagree. You assume someone is right, where I believe that no one is. But that's not really the point. The bulk of the Bible is largely regarded as "divinely" inspired, is it not? Therefore, by saying that the Catholic Church has the ability to interpret it, are you not essentially saying that they have the authority to change God's will?

Because chemistry books aren't as contradictory. :p

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

The Catechism states:


The Church also encourages people to read the Bible:


A few notes on tradition:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp


I think many people would be surprised to learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches - it stands in stark contrast to what many think is actually taught.