Tough Questions

[Nicoletta]

loco...how did you know my nickname was nikki? prolly just a guess. cool.

um, i was saying that "Catholisism" is a big topic. we could make another posting and talk about that issue there. but this is fine. i would have done it myself, but i didn't want to steal your idea.


------------------
Nicoletta
;oD

[Nicoletta]

okay. less get down.

catholisism i have never understood. it seems to reward a lot of half-way work. now, understand, i'm not casting stones because i screw up ALL THE TIME.

okay, what's with all the rules? like there aren't enuf things for us to remember when walking this narrow road...

no birth control? what if my husband and i(i'm not actually married yet, just an example...) do not want children at this stage in our lives? what if i have hormonal problems and the doctor wants to put me on these pills to regulate my menstrual cycle and to control extreme pain and other symptoms of sickness? (okay, too much information.)

confession? to a priest? when Jesus died on the Cross, when He GAVE His life for me and you and everyone else...the last thing He said was, "It is finished." He took care of everything...why do i need to go ask someone else to be forgiven? that's like saying what Christ did isn't good enough.

"Mary, mother of GOD, pray for us..."?????
Mary was the virgin mother...she was the channel GOD chose to put part of His plan into action thru. She is not a god, she is not like GOD, she was a woman, just like me. She was chosen because GOD loved her. NOT because she was Holy all by herself. Jesus died for her, too. i guess someone thinks she's got some pull up there with the "Big GUYS" so they keep bothering her for stuff. i have even heard some Catholics telling me she was perfect. okay. (Jesus is the only perfect person that ever was. DUH) Jesus was the only person EVER without sin. He was not born from the seed of a man, He was born thru the seed of GOD and a virgin, there for he is not subject to the issue that every human has sinned because of 'original sin' because He was not conceived thru sexuality. since childbirth is linked to Adam and Eve, the first human sinners, then Mary is indeed imperfect because she was conceived thru sex. one Catholic friend of mine told me it was a sin to have sex...so when i pointed out the fact that she had other children he was very confused. anyway she didn't remain a virgin. the Bible says that Joseph, her husband, KNEW HER NOT, until after the baby Jesus was born.

idols? what's with all the statues of stuff? doesn't the Bible say not to make graven images of anything on the earth, above the earth or below it? so why do they have statues of this saint, or that saint, or of Mary, that they kneel before???

IN ADDITION...why do they have statues of CHRIST??? His appearance on earth was not supposed to be another issue to squabble about...whether he was this color or that...and besides...HE ISN'T ON THE CROSS ANYMORE, SO WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP TRYING TO PUT HIM THERE??? and don't get me started on Nativity scenes...

and what about their Bible??? why are there extra books in it? did my Bible leave stuff out? or did they add things to their Bible? there is a very strong warning about that kind of nonsense...


and what about this think with church only lasting an hour? who started that? who is the person that said WORSHIP of the MOST HIGH GOD had to be LIMITED to an hour??? that's not just a Catholic thing, though...

just some things to ponder...hee-hee!

------------------
Nicoletta
;oD


[This message has been edited by Nicoletta (edited 19 April 2000).]

[Nicoletta]

i know, that was a mouthful!!!

[El_Criollo]

Mary was not a sinner by having more children, for sex between married people is not sin in any fashion, way or form.

She did call God her Savior, therefore you have to concede for her that she did recognize herself as needing Salvation in the first place: sinners need Salvation.

Also Romans chapter 3 states that no one in humanity is without sin, except Jesus. So the logic follows that Mary was a sinner too; the least sinful of women ever, but a sinner nonetheless.

------------------
desde_el_Jurutungo_de_Bairoa

[locostyle]

Nikki,

In reference to the Bible, it was the protestants who took out the seven books and parts of Esther and Daniel that are in the catholic version.

The last verse of revelations is the one that says addition or omission will be punished by God. Popular belief is that this applies to the entire Bible, but it only applies to John's revelation. They put it last to give just that impression. Those specific books and parts must contain material not supported by the protestants. If it applied to the whole Bible, we protestants would be in trouble for altering the holy scriptures, no?

[La_mere]

I'm sorry, but my humble opinion is:
De qué nos vale saber la biblia de rabo a cabo y contestar preguntas basandonos en lo que dice un pastor o cura ( mortales que sienten y padecen como nosotros) y a la hora de ayudar nuestro prójimo, no tenemos la capacidad para hacerlo. A la hora de pensar humanitariamente, perdemos la postura. Si tenemos que empujar para meternos al subway, lo hacemos. Y asi por el estilo, les exorto que se siente a meditar de la clase de seres humanos que somos (Y QUE CONSTE YO NO SOY PERFECTA, TENGO MIS DEBILIDADES AL IGUAL QUE TODOS, PERO NO PREDICO EN VANO).
De la existencia de Dios, yo no tengo duda, pero de la manera en que la religión nos manipula sí.

[El_Jibaro]

Loquito:

The parts of the Catholic Bible that you are talking about were not taken out by Protestants. Those additions to the Old Testament were as they are called: ADDITIONS that were added to the Hebrew Scriptures when they were translated into Greek around 200BC. Did you know that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic? Maybe you don't, so I suggest reading a little before you make your uninformed postings.

In the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament, called in Hebrew: Tanach, they only have the 66 books that appear in any "Protestant" Bible.

The Book of Judith, the First and Second Books of Maccabbees, the Book of Tobias, the Book of Wisdom, the Book of Baruch, and a few other Deutero-Canonical Scriptures are not written in Hebrew. They were written mostly in Greek and placed together with the Greek Translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures, called the Septuagint. These books are called Deutero-Canonical by Catholics and the Protestants call them Apocriphals [or the Apocripha]. The were not considered INSPIRED and part of the Bible by the Catholic Church until after Martin Luther's "90-some Thesis", when the Catholic Church then had a convention called the Council of Trent and declared them Sacred [around 1500AD].

Jews on the other hand already determined that they were not inspired around 90AD, in what is called the Canon of Jamnia. In matters of the Old Testament I concede to the Jews to determine what is INSPIRED and what is not (wouldn't you? ). The Apostle Paul wrote: "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God." - Romans 3.1,2 Therefore, in matters of what constitute the Word of God, the Jews are the best to be qualified to make the judgement call on which writings are sacred, and which are not.

The first Christians may have read them, since the use of the Greek Old Testament [Septuagint] was widespread around the First Century AD, but Jesus and the Apostles were very careful not to quote them directly as far as they being the Word of God. It is clear that in Christian churches with significant numbers of Christian Jews that could read the Old Testament in Hebrew there was enough discernment to differentiate between real Sacred Scripture and the imitation Sacred Scripture. Therefore, no significant Christian Doctrine in the New Testament is based in any of the Deutero-Canonical writings. It took several centuries for the use of the Deutero-Canonicals to be used for questions of doctrine, and this not until the Christian Faith became the Official Faith of the Roman Empire [interesting...]. For example praying for dead people to go to heaven is something alien to the New Testament, and the notion of Purgatory is a conclusion of Aristotelian Philosophy married to Christian dogma; only in the Deutero-Canonical can those doctrines find some type of validation.

In matters of the New Testament there is no disagreements between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches. And that is GOOD!!! More so, with the fact that there are churches that don't like certain portions of the New Testament. The Catholic Church has a very hard time swallowing Letter to the Romans while many Protestant churches have a real hard time swallowing the Letter of James. Anyway, those writings are the WORD OF GOD, and the fact that people still get uncomfortable when they read it shows that it still retains its Power [Hebrews 4.12] .

La Mere: There are many "Religious" Pharisees, and there are many "Not-Religious" Pharisees. In any case, the "Religious" Pharisee likes to see himself better than the non-religious people, and the "Not-Religious" Pharisee likes to see himself better than the religious people. Both are SELF-RIGHTEOUS. Instead of comparing themselves to imperfect human beings, they should see themselves in the light of the ONLY ONE WHO IS RIGHTEOUS [Jesus], the One Who Died on the Cross to save all of us sinners [me first]. La Mere, try not be any of both types of Pharisees.

By the way, I am not a pastor or a priest, I am just an Aerospace Engineer by trade.

------------------
Manuel Alonso