|
|
Post by falklands on Mar 8, 2006 18:23:41 GMT -5
I'll respond to the rest of this later, but I gotta reply to this. Of course God's plan for mankind was to be able to reproduce! Do you think he designed the body for reproduction *just in case* man sinned? Obviously not. Look at Genesis 1: "27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
God designed man to multiply. It was necessary for Eve to give birth to someone regardless of whether they sinned or not. Making babies within the sacrament of marriage is no sin at all, yet you make it out to be. If I was going to get married knowing that by raising a family I would necessarily sin in the act of making them I wouldn't get married.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Mar 10, 2006 14:08:29 GMT -5
Well, sorry if I made it sound like a sin. I think its great. However, for reasons stated above I don't think it would have been so great for Mary to have lots of kids. That's what I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Mar 20, 2006 22:13:43 GMT -5
Its been ten days now, you all couldn't have left me could you  ? |
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Mar 21, 2006 11:22:42 GMT -5
My life is getting a lot busier these days, my friend. For example, the hours of music practice are getting longer and longer... Plus I have a big essay to write, a test to take, choir music to memorize, pieces to compose, and so on... perhaps I should try and respond in Word Documents, in little sections, then paste the whole on to this website... Hey! That's an idea that I'll probably follow up...
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Apr 4, 2006 9:38:08 GMT -5
Well, I'm bored, the place is dead, and nothing has happened for the past couple o' months (except for Anti TD, which did get some press). So I'm going to start yet another topic and see if I can get Falklands to respond in Word Documents ;D (though I would like to add that if anybody else feels like it they can argue as well).
Lets start a topic that hasn't actually been touched on, the Apocrypha (or technically the Deuterocanonical books for Catholics, but Apocrypha has fewer syllables ;D).
First off, yes, we have manuscripts. In fact at least a couple of the books are found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. But we do have proof that this wasn't some made up part of the bible Catholics are using to thwart Google in their conquest of the world ;D.
Second, the exact same people who said the rest of the bible was the bible, said the Apocrypha was inspired scripture. The only reason this is a problem is because the Jews back then decided anything written in Greek wasn't part of the Old Testament and therefore wasn't part of the bible. Later Martin Luther decided to use the same argument (though it made no sense seeing as how he still kept the New Testament).
So the Apocrypha is part of the bible for 1500 years until along comes Luther. He says, "I don't agree with everything that's in the bible." Though beans kid. I can't just kick out the Ten Commandments can I? Well, apparently Luther decided he could, where did he get the authority to do that? Anyway, he kicked it out and now its faked evidence the Catholics have to make the Anti-Christ, a.k.a the Pope, even more powerful when the Rapture rolls around (incidentally, Luther also tried to have James taken out of the bible because of what it said about Faith and Works, but apparently nobody bought that).
Now, if I can just get somebody besides Falklands to answer this we can have a grand ole' time screaming at each other over the internet (I love technology).
|
|
awaz
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by awaz on Apr 19, 2006 8:58:10 GMT -5
Well apparently you can't. :-) Word documents or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geberia on May 3, 2006 10:57:04 GMT -5
umm I've never even heard of the Apocrypha, so I really have nothing to say  |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on May 3, 2006 13:10:25 GMT -5
Wap! Wap! Wap! OK, I'm back now  . The Apocrypha is part of the bible that got kicked out when Luther came along. It had the book of Maccabees, and other books with weird titles like that. Also with some great, meaningful stories (like the guy who slept under the pigeons, *plop* and he went blind, true story ;D). |
|
|
|
Post by Geberia on May 3, 2006 16:24:36 GMT -5
so, you mean it was part of the Maccabees, or a type of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by falklands on May 3, 2006 18:47:06 GMT -5
Just a quick message:
Don't let Heartofgold fool you, Geberia. ;D The Bible you know now was finalized as being divinely inspired Scripture without the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha had been marked down as being useful, but not an authoritative source of truth. Then through the years it came into the canon, but it was never unanimously accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on May 4, 2006 12:36:34 GMT -5
OK now I'm confusing you. Lets try again. I just used the book of Maccabees as an example. The Apocrypha is a portion of the bible with books you've never read in it.
Well it was unanimously accepted by the Catholic church, which was the only church for 1500 years so... take that! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by gynovia on May 4, 2006 12:43:12 GMT -5
Well it was unanimously accepted by the Catholic church, which was the only church for 1500 years so... take that! ;D oh. riiight. and if the Catholics accept it it must be true  LOL jk |
|
|
|
Post by Geberia on May 4, 2006 13:00:28 GMT -5
Yeah, HeartofGold's got me all confused and I'm talking about something that I didn't even know existed until yesterday! LOL. Well, have the Catholics put the Apocrypha in their Bibles yet? Before we put it in ours I would expect that they have it in theirs ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on May 6, 2006 13:31:32 GMT -5
Yea, its been there for about, oh, I'd say close to 2000 years ;D.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geberia on May 7, 2006 19:25:31 GMT -5
Well, if you want to debate pick another subject, because I can't debate on something I've never hear about, much less read it  For what its worth, I don't believe the Maccabees are part of the Bible. ( But I know you aren't saying that the Apocrypha and Maccabees are one and the same.) Umm.....how about the baptism of babies? I know you and Falklands probably already covered that though ;D I'll have to read past arguments |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on May 7, 2006 22:20:52 GMT -5
Oh boy, now you've asked for it.... ;D
"Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to s. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to s. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Alright, this is the basic theory. So if you want to we can start from here....
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on May 8, 2006 20:37:17 GMT -5
I've never been baptized myself. It seems like a lot of other people here have. I think my parents have, but I haven't. Not sure why, but I've never had it done.
If I may make an assumption based on your theory, Heartofgold, then I get that you're saying that I'm going to Hell because I'm not baptized. Am I correct in I disagreeumption?
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on May 8, 2006 22:33:08 GMT -5
No, and here's why. While yes, the bible says you need baptism, it says baptism is extremely important, and in general, you're going to need it, God doesn't always play by the rules. Example, the Catechism says you need baptism, but God doesn't use the Catechism, so your not necessarily doomed. In layman's, easy to understand terms, the Catholic Church thinks you're ignorant (no offense intended, by the way, and you are now free to call me ignorant all you want ). But God doesn't throw people into hell for ignorance. If you knew and believed with your heart and soul that baptism was necessary for salvation, but didn't do it, it might be a different story. However, I think your OK. |
|
|
|
Post by Geberia on May 9, 2006 11:18:32 GMT -5
I've been baptized, not in a Catholic church, and not when I was a baby. let me see if I get this straight - baptism is a necessary part of salvation, but you don't really need it to go to heaven  Seems a contradiction. What if a baby is baptized, then grows up to be a criminal and dosn't care a thing for God? Is he still saved, or only "partially" because he didn't have works? I'm sorry for not stating my direct viewpoints on baptism so you can cross-examine me ( lOL), but I gotta run. Will do soon! |
|
|
|
Post by gynovia on May 9, 2006 11:39:03 GMT -5
I was baptized. when i was, like 9 or somthing. to me Baptism is more of a public announcement of your faith. It proves to other believers the sencerity of your faith in Jesus Christ. However, it is NOT imho, affiliated with salvation in the sense that it is part of your salvation. baptism does not save you. it proves that you have accepeted Jesus....... that is why i don't understand why they baptize babies. cuz, babies havn't made a personal decision to accept Jesus. but neways..... |
|
|
|
Post by Armany on May 10, 2006 18:17:39 GMT -5
No, and here's why. While yes, the bible says you need baptism, it says baptism is extremely important, and in general, you're going to need it, God doesn't always play by the rules. Example, the Catechism says you need baptism, but God doesn't use the Catechism, so your not necessarily doomed. In layman's, easy to understand terms, the Catholic Church thinks you're ignorant (no offense intended, by the way, and you are now free to call me ignorant all you want ). But God doesn't throw people into hell for ignorance. If you knew and believed with your heart and soul that baptism was necessary for salvation, but didn't do it, it might be a different story. However, I think your OK. OK. I hopefully will get baptized in my lifetime. However, I won't take you up on your offer of calling you ignorant. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by falklands on May 10, 2006 19:18:39 GMT -5
Hey, Heartofgold, I'm getting less and less time on the computer to do this sort of thing, so I decided to leave the former discussion as it is, or else it WILL go on indefinitely, and seeing as you have more time you will ALWAYS be picking on me to answer back... ;D
There is one thing I'd like to note about the faith/works issue. Look at Titus 3:4-8:
"4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people."
This, I believe, also exemplifies what James had in mind. You see that he was writing particularily to the believers, who were already saved. By being apathetic in the way of works, their faith was becoming dead and useless. Once we are saved we must "devote ourselves to good works." Nothing in the way of works saves us, however. In Titus, he says that we are not saved by works but by faith. And then he goes down to say that we should do good works. You've been saying this is "pretty important", linking it to salvation (and almost saying that because it is so important that it must have something to do with salvation). But hasn't the writer of this book just denied that works plays a part in salvation? Yes, and we must accept it as such. But, then, how do works matter? Get this: good works are for the advancement of the gospel of Christ, and the nurturing of the body of Christ - so that others may receive salvation, not just yourself. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 said he would endure anything rather than place an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Taking a mirror reading of that, we can infer that he would do anything to further the gospel of Christ. And that is what we must do.
I will rarely spend as much time as I did on this, but I just wanted to leave a say on that - it also could have relevance to the current Baptism thing...
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on May 13, 2006 11:43:38 GMT -5
Great, fine, no penalty will be laid upon you ;D (I wasn't baptised a Catholic either). Well, verses like the one in acts and other verses say its necessary, but if you're just ignorant (once again by Catholic standards, no offence intended), I don't think you get thrown in hell. For example, we can take this to faith. Hitler, I think we'll all agree, is probably in hell right now. Sorry. Now, did he go to hell because he didn't believe in God? Or did he go to hell because of what he did? The answer, obviously, is what he did. But what if you meet a nice atheists? Most atheists don't have Hitler mind sets. In fact most people are nice people, weather they believe in God or not. They are a lot of Atheists who, you know, give to charities, have good families, so on and so forth. Now, they know this "God thing" is out there, but they don't believe in it. This makes them just ignorant, correct? But when they die, do they all go to hell? They did great things over their lifetime, had a lot of their priorities straight, but die without ever believing in God. Does God still look at their life, go, "wow these people were great! I'm gonna set them- oh wait, oooooooooo, bad, down they go" and throw them in hell? So now we flip it around. If Armany died tomorrow (don't get too worried though ), would Armany go to hell (note this is provided Baptism is necessary for salvation)? I don't think so, because he doesn't believe it. Ignorance (key word, and I know I'm going to make more enemies with this post then I've ever had before ;D), plays the key part here. God doesn't look at his life, go "yea, we can bring him up, he was a nice- oh wait, shoot he wasn't baptised, burn son. Man, I wish we could change that." So there you are, I spent a long time telling you too so you'd better agree with me . Well no, baptism is important, but if your just a total (insert whatever word you want here), its not going to help one bit. But what about "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Or "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). Or "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21). Other verses like this convince me that Baptism is more than just a public pronouncement. Alright I think I'd sorda half agree with you (I think ;D). The thing is though, I get the feeling this all comes out to the same thing. If you don't have works your faith is dead, meaning works are necessary for salvation. I do kinda see what your saying though. Works further faith, not salvation (although I still think this is all kinda iffy, look at the Hitler stuff above). But for reference purposes everybody, you can't call yourself a good Christian if you tell the little old lady wanting help across the street to buzz off. The theological whys behind it I think are what we're actually debating here (although I'm beginning to think we both basically agree anyway ;D). |
|
|
|
Post by falklands on May 13, 2006 18:06:04 GMT -5
Well, verses like the one in acts and other verses say its necessary, but if you're just ignorant (once again by Catholic standards, no offence intended), I don't think you get thrown in hell. For example, we can take this to faith. Hitler, I think we'll all agree, is probably in hell right now. Sorry. Now, did he go to hell because he didn't believe in God? Or did he go to hell because of what he did? The answer, obviously, is what he did. But what if you meet a nice atheists? Most atheists don't have Hitler mind sets. In fact most people are nice people, weather they believe in God or not. They are a lot of Atheists who, you know, give to charities, have good families, so on and so forth. Now, they know this "God thing" is out there, but they don't believe in it. This makes them just ignorant, correct? But when they die, do they all go to hell? They did great things over their lifetime, had a lot of their priorities straight, but die without ever believing in God. Does God still look at their life, go, "wow these people were great! I'm gonna set them- oh wait, oooooooooo, bad, down they go" and throw them in hell? So now we flip it around. If Armany died tomorrow (don't get too worried though ), would Armany go to hell (note this is provided Baptism is necessary for salvation)? I don't think so, because he doesn't believe it. Ignorance (key word, and I know I'm going to make more enemies with this post then I've ever had before ;D), plays the key part here. God doesn't look at his life, go "yea, we can bring him up, he was a nice- oh wait, shoot he wasn't baptised, burn son. Man, I wish we could change that." So there you are, I spent a long time telling you too so you'd better agree with me . I think this is exemplified by James 4:17 - "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." We all know that the Bible tells us to get baptized, whether or not we believe that it has an effect on our salvation. So we gotta get baptized. If we don't, then we sin. So do it. Then everyone's happy. Sometimes, here, I think we are all in agreement on the application of the issues (i.e. do works, and get baptized), but haggle over the theological implications... This also comes down to James 4:17. We sin if we tell the little old lady trying to cross the street to buzz off. Titus tells us to devote ourselves to good works, and not doing good works is sin, for we all know the right thing to do there. But we are saved by the grace of God through faith. However, works are still a necessary part of our Christian life. I'd say that none of our works at all get us into heaven as such, looking at Titus 3:5. Works, however, further the cause of the gospel, bringing more members into the faith (which Paul says he would suffer anything rather than stand in the way of). Looking at it from another angle, if you don't do any works, your faith is not going to be strong at all - a "dead" faith. I'll concede here; the way that they are necessary is that if you simply sit there and do nothing when you could be doing works (works including a whole manner of things), then your faith will be of no use to you - it will be dead, hence, you would not have had a saving faith in the first place. Are we in agreement now? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on May 13, 2006 19:28:03 GMT -5
Yes, we are. Creepy, I didn't think we'd ever reach this point ;D.
|
|
?
. The Apocrypha is part of the bible that got kicked out when Luther came along. It had the book of Maccabees, and other books with weird titles like that. Also with some great, meaningful stories (like the guy who slept under the pigeons, *plop* and he went blind, true story ;D).
For what its worth, I don't believe the Maccabees are part of the Bible. ( But I know you aren't saying that the Apocrypha and Maccabees are one and the same.)
Seems a contradiction.