Consulting the dead.

Religions > Bible > Consulting the dead.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 42 of 43

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Streamer"
Date:	14 Dec 2004 08:43:09 PM
Object:	Consulting the dead.

The Bible condemns necromancy (consulting the dead).
Prayers to "saints" who have died are sinful.
-----------------------
Let there not be found among you anyone who immolates his son or daughter in
the fire, nor a fortune-teller, soothsayer, charmer, diviner, or caster of
spells, nor one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the
dead. (Deuteronomy 18:10-11)
-----------------------
When Jesus' disciples asked him how they were to pray, Jesus didn't tell
them to consult dead "saints." He told them to pray directly to God, their
Father (Luke 11:1-4).
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 02:43:58 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:23:25 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:ld3cs0p69j6am3m30g2dgmckt5021vkmo2@4ax.com...

You first of all need to trust the Bible as "the final authority".
Think of one good reason the apostles would have lied. These men ALL
died HORRIBLE deaths because of ONE reason. They all REFUSED to recant
their own belief in the Risen Christ.

AKA, mich, if you don't interpret the bible in JW's way, you are going to
hell. How dare you interpret scripture in God's way instead of JW's way!
Bad bad man! :p

You are lying again! That is a nasty pattern, to be a pathological
liar, RS! And it proves that God's Holy Spirit is NOT in you.
I never said that you or Mich or anyone else had to accept "my
interpretation." There are HUNDREDS, perhaps THOUSANDS of legitimate
variations on Christianity.
What is NOT up for debate is how to be born again, the necessity of
doing so, and the proper way to be baptized.
Interestingly, The True Church REJECTS all three teachings.
??????
jw

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 04:12:19 AM

<snip JW's hate mongering lies>
I did not lie. I merely stated how you made me feel. You are making me
feel that the only way I can be right is if I agree with you. Ask any Roman
Catholic in here who you have talked to. For the first two or three days of
our discussion, I was very respectful and recieved none of that respect in
return. Therefore, I have made a mockery of this whole debate because the
non-Catholic half of it is so narrow-minded.
It isn't a lie to say how you make me feel, but the truth.
-RS
.

User: "Doc Watson -- the \Usenet GHOST!\ :O"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 03:26:08 PM

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:12:19 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

I did not lie. I merely stated how you made me feel. You are making

feel that the only way I can be right is if I agree with you.

How true.
And when you DARE to disagree with liar-jophnnie, suddenly you are
labelled a demoniac, and threatened with 'court action'.
Have a good chuckle, and forget his idle taunts.
He hasn't got a leg to stand on.
--
The official Usenet GHOST....
haunting romanists EVERYWHERE!
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! BOO!
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 11:45:46 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:26:08 -0500, "Doc Watson -- the \"Usenet
GHOST!\" :O)" <me@you.net> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:12:19 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

I did not lie. I merely stated how you made me feel. You are making

feel that the only way I can be right is if I agree with you.

How true.
And when you DARE to disagree with liar-jophnnie, suddenly you are
labelled a demoniac, and threatened with 'court action'.

Again, sadly, a "sister in Christ" (LOL!!!) scorns a brother in Christ
in the presence of a pagan, who she would otherwise HATE!!!
Elaine the HATER strikes again.
And lies again.
jw
snip
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 11:44:13 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:12:19 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

Well, that's ONE POV. It certainly isn't mine, as you made sure I
knew that
RCC was the 1st church
RCC invented the Bible
the statues in the "churches" aren't idols
etc.
Therefore, I have made a mockery of this whole debate because the

non-Catholic half of it is so narrow-minded.

pot kettle.
MT 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and
broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through
it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life,
and only a few find it.
I have chosen the narrow way.
Since you PROUDLY represent "the largest church on the planet" you can
HARDLY call your "church" the narrow way.
MT 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit
you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or
figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but
a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and
a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear
good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their
fruit you will recognize them.
jw

It isn't a lie to say how you make me feel, but the truth.

-RS

User: "Mich"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 08:32:25 PM

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:ld3cs0p69j6am3m30g2dgmckt5021vkmo2@4ax.com...

Do as you like. We are done.

jw

If you wish...goodbye
Andre
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 02:47:01 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:32:25 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:ld3cs0p69j6am3m30g2dgmckt5021vkmo2@4ax.com...

Do as you like. We are done.

jw

If you wish...goodbye

I wish. You already said if I were God, you'd prefer hell. That
certainly sounds like you are not interested in communicating with me
at all.
And that is fine. You're one less hell-bound man-worshipper to waste
my time on.
But you HAVE been presented the gospel, which you utterly rejected (no
surprise), so my hands are clean of your blood.
jw

Andre

User: "Mich"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 08:28:45 AM

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:594ds0hh2h9de9v0as4p37udv283hgaq1s@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:32:25 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:ld3cs0p69j6am3m30g2dgmckt5021vkmo2@4ax.com...

Do as you like. We are done.

jw

If you wish...goodbye

I wish. You already said if I were God, you'd prefer hell. That
certainly sounds like you are not interested in communicating with me
at all.

JW, if, according to your interpretation of scripture, a person is not fully
immersed into water by baptism, he is going into hell....I am sincere when I
say that I would not take the chance to enter into heaven even if I was
asked to by God under such conditions.Why? My first question in my mind
would be "what kind of rules exist in heaven anyways"?
Secondly,jw, I have asked, as I did to others, an exchange of opinions,
and not to be preached at.This is not to say that I expect you to respect my
beliefs, just as you are not to expect me to respect yours. But instead of
simply telling me that I am not a chrisitan, we ought to focus on writing
specifically on the issues as such.
I need to appologize for the statement I made to RS...this certainly
"wasn't" christian of me to do so.This nevertheles, jw, is a reason as to
why I personally
believe in the sacrament of penance, and the doctrine of purgatory. While, I
believe to be a christian, I continuously fall into sin.When I'll die, I'll
die a sinner.
I leave it up to you whether you want to continue the discussion or not.
Andre
.

User: "Streamer"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 10:29:14 PM

"Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:10sdoa9r5blsv53@corp.supernews.com...

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:594ds0hh2h9de9v0as4p37udv283hgaq1s@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:32:25 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:ld3cs0p69j6am3m30g2dgmckt5021vkmo2@4ax.com...

Do as you like. We are done.

jw

If you wish...goodbye

I wish. You already said if I were God, you'd prefer hell. That
certainly sounds like you are not interested in communicating with me
at all.

As I undestand JW's posts, he never said that if a person is not fully
immersed into water by baptism, he is going into hell.

Why? My first question in my mind
would be "what kind of rules exist in heaven anyways"?
Secondly,jw, I have asked, as I did to others, an exchange of opinions,
and not to be preached at.This is not to say that I expect you to respect
my
beliefs, just as you are not to expect me to respect yours. But instead of
simply telling me that I am not a chrisitan, we ought to focus on writing
specifically on the issues as such.

The Bible is clear enough to know which is God's children or not.
Answer this: According to the Bible, how do a person become a child of God?

I need to appologize for the statement I made to RS...this certainly
"wasn't" christian of me to do so.This nevertheles, jw, is a reason as to
why I personally
believe in the sacrament of penance, and the doctrine of purgatory. While,
I
believe to be a christian, I continuously fall into sin.When I'll die,
I'll
die a sinner.
I leave it up to you whether you want to continue the discussion or not.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	21 Dec 2004 12:07:53 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:28:45 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:594ds0hh2h9de9v0as4p37udv283hgaq1s@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:32:25 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:ld3cs0p69j6am3m30g2dgmckt5021vkmo2@4ax.com...

Do as you like. We are done.

jw

If you wish...goodbye

I wish. You already said if I were God, you'd prefer hell. That
certainly sounds like you are not interested in communicating with me
at all.

JW, if, according to your interpretation of scripture, a person is not fully
immersed into water by baptism, he is going into hell...

I neither said nor suggested that. Sadly, you missed a poll I took a
few months ago. I asked the Christians in the Baptist group (many in
the group are not Christians of ANY brand) if, under 3 circumstances,
where someone
1. had insufficient water to be immersed
2. had NO water to be baptized in
3. had no pastor to baptize him
would a few splashes from his canteen/water bottle do for baptism?
The answers I got reflected my own.
IF a person comes to a saving faith in Christ, he is INSTANTLY
baptized in the Holy Spirit, the ONLY "baptism" necessary.
therefore, water baptism, thought it is STRICTLY symbolic, is
non-essential, as the thief on the cross proved. He expressed faith in
Christ, but was never "baptized', at least not in water.
So, you see, you have misunderstood me, TYPICAL of Roman Catholics
(sorry) who only HEAR what they WANT to hear, who only SEE what they
WANT to see.
..I am sincere when I

say that I would not take the chance to enter into heaven even if I was
asked to by God under such conditions.Why? My first question in my mind
would be "what kind of rules exist in heaven anyways"?

They are all listed in the Bible, if you're curious. Simply put your
preconceptions behind, and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you. If you
are unwilling to do that-- and you said you are unwilling to do that--
then you are not open to God, but only to Rome.

Secondly,jw, I have asked, as I did to others, an exchange of opinions,
and not to be preached at.

For that, I might apologize. I'm the grandson of a Southern Baptist
pastor / preacher. They say 'preaching is in the blood. In my case,
it's true. I began preaching at the ripe old age of 12. I gave my
testimony at my 5,000 + member church.
This is not to say that I expect you to respect my

beliefs,

Good. While I TRY to respect you, I cannot respect a belief system
that I believe is responsible for BILLIONS of people cooking in hell.
just as you are not to expect me to respect yours.
That's fine. My concern is finding "common ground." And once I simply
CLARIFIED my positions on half-a-dozen issues, you were no longer
interested in discussing the issues with me.
I thought I'd "save us some time" and give you my views in a nutshell.
You felt cut off, and that's fine.
I also am not encouraging this communication. This may be my last note
to you. I merely responded this time because I thought you had raised
issues that were worthy of clarifying, like my insisting that if you
weren't baptized "my way', you were going to burn in hell.
But instead of

simply telling me that I am not a chrisitan, we ought to focus on writing
specifically on the issues as such.

As far as I am concerned, whether you are a Christian in the New
Testament sense (what other sense is there?) is the most important
issue.
And when you said, up front, with no coaxing, that you doubt the
resurrection, I simply told you that, by the bible, if you reject the
resurrection, you can't be a Christian. I also gave you the relevant
passages. Including Romans 10:9-10

I need to appologize for the statement I made to RS..

I have forgotten what you are referring to, but apology accepted. And
I apologize for my own sharp tongue. If I had not told you, I am
bi-polar, meaning I have a behavior disorder. I was born with it, it
will always be a part of me, and so I can be very disagreeable without
knowing I am doing it. And even if you tell me, I will not promise to
understand OR to know how to change my behavior.
At least, where I fall down with my bi-polar disorder, I make up by
being honest. No tact, but you know what I think.
..this certainly

"wasn't" christian of me to do so.This nevertheles, jw, is a reason as to
why I personally
believe in the sacrament of penance,

And we're back to you mentioning a phrase, "sacrament of penance..."
which I don't find in the Bible.
Let me explain something here. As I understand it, "sacraments" impart
grace.
My problem, then, with sacraments, is that the only grace we need, we
receive when we are born again. It's permanent. We can ask for more,
but that's a prayer, not a matter of eating God or drinking His blood.
And there are OTHER problems with "the literal body and blood."
and the doctrine of purgatory.
Again, if you believe in purgatory, you don't understand "grace."
Meaning, when Jesus died, He forgave all sin. Past, present, and
future. When you seek "penance" "indulgences", "purgatory", that is
saying that the blood of Jesus isn't sufficient. You are saying you
need MORE than the blood of Christ.
You don't.
While, I

believe to be a christian, I continuously fall into sin.When I'll die, I'll
die a sinner.

Until you believe that He rose bodily from the grave, and that you
accept the concept of being born again, you will die in your sin and
be eternally sorry you didn't make better choices.
Sadly, I also promised you that if you were born again, that would NOT
mean you could not continue to be Roman Catholic, although most people
who are born again, come out of the RCC.
You, sadly, have rejected being born again. Period.

I leave it up to you whether you want to continue the discussion or not.

As far I am concerned, this will be our last communication. I am open
if you are; but I sense you aren't open.
jw

Andre

User: "Mich"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	21 Dec 2004 09:32:18 AM

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:l7efs0tj15eqic4luc2khh0tipfdjc5cr9@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:28:45 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)
That's fine. My concern is finding "common ground." And once I simply
CLARIFIED my positions on half-a-dozen issues, you were no longer
interested in discussing the issues with me.

No it had nothing to do with you opinions, jw, it is at the end of the post,
you wrote "Do as you like. We are done." This is the reason why I said you
cut me off...nothing other than this.

I also am not encouraging this communication. This may be my last note
to you. I merely responded this time because I thought you had raised
issues that were worthy of clarifying, like my insisting that if you
weren't baptized "my way', you were going to burn in hell.
As far I am concerned, this will be our last communication. I am open
if you are; but I sense you aren't open.

jw

Andre

Tell you what, jw; since my interpretation of your understanding for me to
be opened, is to agree with your teachings, I will speak with others
instead, but if you reply directly to something I write, I will write you
back.
Andre
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	22 Dec 2004 08:34:57 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:32:18 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:l7efs0tj15eqic4luc2khh0tipfdjc5cr9@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:28:45 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

That's fine. My concern is finding "common ground." And once I simply
CLARIFIED my positions on half-a-dozen issues, you were no longer
interested in discussing the issues with me.

No it had nothing to do with you opinions, jw, it is at the end of the post,
you wrote "Do as you like. We are done." This is the reason why I said you
cut me off...nothing other than this.

As far I am concerned, this will be our last communication. I am open
if you are; but I sense you aren't open.

jw

Andre

I may have done you one unkindness.
Let me clear it up. I ASSUMED your responses to a number of
questions, which I stated. You came right behind me and agreed with my
assessment of your views. As I read and answered, you followed
PRECISELY the path I assumed you would follow. My INTENT, which you
missed was to say, IF I HAVE RAD YOUR POSITION ACCURATELY, I see no
"squiggle room," and as far as *I* am concerned we are done.
I should have given you a post or two to react, and for that, I
apologize.
But even as you ask for clarity on a number of issues, you continue to
state the RCC "party line" with which I have been familiarized for
roughly 50 years now.
So "tell me something I DON'T know!"
jw

User: "Doc Watson -- the \Usenet GHOST!\ :O"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	23 Dec 2004 09:10:39 PM

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:34:57 -0800, j w <j_w<no>@yahoo.com> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

So "tell me something I DON'T know!"

jw

I can... in ONE WORD:
ANYTHING
--
The official Usenet GHOST....
haunting romanists EVERYWHERE!
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! BOO!
.

User: "Mich"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	23 Dec 2004 08:54:43 AM

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:nfbks0trfecdc7j6re13jph0hkrm3s2t16@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:32:18 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

j w @yahoo.com> <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:l7efs0tj15eqic4luc2khh0tipfdjc5cr9@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:28:45 -0500, "Mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

That's fine. My concern is finding "common ground." And once I simply
CLARIFIED my positions on half-a-dozen issues, you were no longer
interested in discussing the issues with me.

No it had nothing to do with you opinions, jw, it is at the end of the

post,

you wrote "Do as you like. We are done." This is the reason why I said

you

cut me off...nothing other than this.

As far I am concerned, this will be our last communication. I am open
if you are; but I sense you aren't open.

jw

Andre

Tell you what, jw; since my interpretation of your understanding for me

be opened, is to agree with your teachings, I will speak with others
instead, but if you reply directly to something I write, I will write you
back.

Andre

I may have done you one unkindness.

Let me clear it up. I ASSUMED your responses to a number of
questions, which I stated. You came right behind me and agreed with my
assessment of your views. As I read and answered, you followed
PRECISELY the path I assumed you would follow. My INTENT, which you
missed was to say, IF I HAVE RAD YOUR POSITION ACCURATELY, I see no
"squiggle room," and as far as *I* am concerned we are done.

I should have given you a post or two to react, and for that, I
apologize.

But even as you ask for clarity on a number of issues, you continue to
state the RCC "party line" with which I have been familiarized for
roughly 50 years now.

So "tell me something I DON'T know!"

jw

I am not trying to tell you any secret teachings,jw, and certainly am not
trying to preach to you.
I am very simply giving you my personal religious understanding and biblical
interpretations...
which might very well be wrong, and "this" I acknowledge.
Andre
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	15 Dec 2004 04:44:09 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:50:15 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"Streamer" <Stream_Haze@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mcOvd.1630$%X5.903@fe12.lga...

Those in Christ have no spiritual death. But God didn't told us to consult
or pray to them.
What you do falls to the category of necromancy. You speak & pray to the
dead. Why?
(Luke 11:1-4) Pray directly to God.

Look up the definition of necromancy. It is summoning passed spirits in
order to predict the future so you can mold it. To consult is to call them
to your presence (summon spirits) and to inquire about the future. That is
necromancy. We ask those in heaven and earth to pray for us.

Your arguments are basic, those that I have heard a thousand times before.
You are a neophyte and your arguments are nothing but parcels of driveling
fallacies.

You missed the point, deliberately most likely. The point IS, Jesus
gave us 2 model prayers. BOTH require us to pray to the Father, not to
some other. He did NOT tell us, "and if my father isn't available,
pray to my mother, or to a dead saint."
He DID tell us, "When you pray, say, our Father..."
That was a COMMAND, not a suggestion.
Where do YOU get authority to defy Christ's command?

Those who died in Christ, are they ghosts, spirits, or what ?
Tell me what do you mean by being of life. And give bible verse pls.

You don't need a verse to know that we are beings of life. We are designed
to live forever. Our spirits are eternal,

Incorrect. Only God is eternal. We will live forever as of the moment
we are conceived.
We are NOT "eternal" as we had a beginning. Only God is "eternal",
having no beginning, no end.
And you TRULY ought to read the Bible more as you keep butchering it.
meant to return to our Heavenly

Father or suffer eternal darkness if we should so abandon Him.

We do not "return" to the heavenly Father, since we never "left Him."
We are NOT "eternal beings."
Your sola

scriptura attitude isn't justified if you need exact wording for something
to be valid.

Sola scriptura is based on the FACT that scripture is not subject to
human interpretation, which is what Rome has been doing with it ever
since there has been an RCC.
Sola scriptura is based on Gal 1, which says VERY clearly that what
the apostles were writing in the 1st C would mark the END of the Bible
as we know it.
Your directly to Jesus argument isn't valid either.
You argue with Jesus Himself? "When you pray, say, Our Father..."
It isn't

wrong to turn to your brother or sister and ask him or her to pray for you.

That is someone you know, someone on this side of the veil!
I have ONE question for you. If you are going to believe as you damn
well please, and as Rome dictates, I have NO issue with that
whatsoever. What DOES concern me is that you cling to some passages,
and you choose to ignore those you don't like. If you are gong to
reject so much of the Bible, why kid yourself and call yourself a
"Christian?"

That is taking your intention to someone other than Jesus; Whether they are
in heaven or on earth is a miniscule difference. Angels watch over us, we
know that from scripture. When we enter into heaven, we join the myriads of
angels.

No, we do not. We are ABOVE the angels in heaven. And they are our
SERVANTS on earth. You will not find ONE angel that I can think of who
gave humans orders.
Imagine yourself in heaven, wouldn't you be sad if you wouldn't be

able to watch over those you leave behind? I would.

You do not know what God has planned for you after this world.

---------------------------------------------
Another charge commonly levelled against asking the saints for their
intercession is that this violates the sole mediatorship of Christ, which
Paul discusses: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ's
mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a
mediator.

Bottom line is you could care less what the Bible says. You are
dedicated to following Rome period.
And I wonder, if the directive came down from Rome that henceforth,
every Roman Catholic would be required to keep swine, and every Roman
Catholic would be required to eat swine feces with every meal.
Would you be so willing to follow Rome THEN?
First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he

is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between
the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in
the least by the fact that others intercede for us.

You CONTINUE to logic your way around Christ's commandments.
So find some other religion to follow and stop pretending to be a
Christian.
jw
snip
RCC crappola storm.
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	15 Dec 2004 02:17:40 PM

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:qo40s0l8d2mho8v4liftsniljv7hcbc08i@4ax.com...

God is always available! But here's what you are missing. We don't pray to
saints, as you think it. Asking a saint in heaven to pray for us isn't
praying to the saint. It is asking the saint to pray for us.
It isn't wrong to ask someone to pray for us. When we turn to a friend next
to us and ask them to pray for us, that isn't praying to them. In the same
way, we believe (and it is justified) that the saints in heaven are able to
hear us and as well, to pray for us to the Lord.

He DID tell us, "When you pray, say, our Father..."

Which we do. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: We do not
pray to the saints as we pray to God. To pray = to petition to someone. In
modern society it has come to mean "to petition to God" but in older
definitions (which the Church stands by) it has meant to petition anyone.

That was a COMMAND, not a suggestion.

Where do YOU get authority to defy Christ's command?

We do not defy Christ's command. On the contrary, we only excel, taking the
outline of pray Christ has given us and, joining in communion with our
friends on earth and the saints in heaven, unite our prayers together. You
think because we call out to someone in heaven that we are praying to them
(as we pray to God). You are mistaken. You are seeing that tradition as
what you want to think it is, not what it really is.

Incorrect. Only God is eternal. We will live forever as of the moment
we are conceived.

God has and always will be eternal. I said we are designed to live forever,
for our spirit is eternal. As you know, infinity in mathematics only has to
go one way. There can be a mark of beginning in infinity, yet no end.
(positive or negative infinity). In the same way, we are positive infinity.
We have a beginning (our birth) yet in Christ, there is no death( no end).

We are NOT "eternal" as we had a beginning. Only God is "eternal",
having no beginning, no end.

And you TRULY ought to read the Bible more as you keep butchering it.

On the contrary, I am not butchering it. You think I am butchering it only
because I do not interpret it in the same way you do. I interpret it with
the guidance of the entire Church (both in heaven and on earth).

We do not "return" to the heavenly Father, since we never "left Him."
We are NOT "eternal beings."

We have not left him? Physically we have. We are bound by the confines of
this physical shell we call our bodies. Our spirit is inside, that which
makes us unique individuals, that which will live far beyond the bodies we
occupy. We are indeed separate from the Father physically, as the Father
isn't hear on earth. When Christ was hear on earth, he was separate from
the Father. That is why when he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven
to sit at the right hand of the Father becoming one with him both
spiritually and physically. I didn't say we are separate from God, I merely
pointed out our Heavenly Father. We aren't in heaven no, hence separate
from Him.

Sola scriptura is based on the FACT that scripture is not subject to
human interpretation, which is what Rome has been doing with it ever
since there has been an RCC.

Sola scriptura neglects that scripture is incomplete. You foroget that
Christ established a church through Peter, gave him the keys to the kingdom
of heaven so that whatever he let loose on earth would be loosed in heaven.
You interpret it clumsily, stating that since petros is masciline and petra
is feminine and Peter is referred to as Petros in greek, then Peter is the
small rock and Christ said "and on this rock". There are two arguments to
this:
A small rock is still a rock, a pebble is still a rock and certainly Peter
would be small because he would be a servant to the will of the Father. We
must all seek to make ourselves smaller, for in that we find humility.
2. Cepha, the term for rock in Aramaic, is feminine but there is no known
masculine translation. Peter was called Cepha, the rock, yet in translating
it into Greek the writer of those synoptic gospels masculinated it to fit
Peter.
Also there are many feminine words which can describe masculine objects. I
don't want to bore you with the languages and the exact words, however,
because I would have to dig into my spanish and french notes.
As for not being subject to human interpretation, it is very clearly subject
to human interpretation. It is not only what the Church is doing
(interpreting), it is what you are doing (interpreting). You think, in your
own way, that you are justified through God in your interpretations. There
are millions of people, however, who hold to different interpretations than
you who feel justified by God.
You seem very arrogant to think that your interpretation is correct and the
time enduring interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church is incorrect,
though properly justified through any good catholic apologetics work.

Sola scriptura is based on Gal 1, which says VERY clearly that what
the apostles were writing in the 1st C would mark the END of the Bible
as we know it.

Indeed that is true, but that doesn't mean it is complete. It very well
states that it isn't complete.

You argue with Jesus Himself? "When you pray, say, Our Father..."

Let me clarify for the neophyte:
"Your 'directly to Jesus' argument isn't valid either."
Jesus said "When you pray, say 'Out Father...'"
Do you always say those words exactly? No! I have heard many protestants
pray and I have never heard a protestant recide the Lord's prayer outside of
their service (if even recited in the service). Where is this prayer?
Christ told you all how to pray, yet I have rarely heard the Lord's prayer
being recited. It is such a perfect model of how to pray to the Father. We
recite it quite often from our heart with pure and good intentions.
Again, turning to our friends on earth and the saints in heaven and asking
them to join us in our prayers isn't wrong. It isn't praying to them, for
it isn't taking away from the Father (it is only adding to the worship of
Him).
God enjoys hearing our prayers, needs, and petitions. I am quite sure that
He enjoys hearing them through those around us and those in heaven as well.

I have ONE question for you. If you are going to believe as you damn
well please, and as Rome dictates, I have NO issue with that
whatsoever. What DOES concern me is that you cling to some passages,
and you choose to ignore those you don't like. If you are gong to
reject so much of the Bible, why kid yourself and call yourself a
"Christian?"

When have I rejected so much of the Bible? My interpreting it differently
than you doesn't mean I am rejecting it. On the contrary, I could claim
that since your interpretation is different than mine, you are wrong and
rejecting the truth. I do not chose to do that, however, since I feel that
God speaks to us through scripture in many different ways. I simply
understand that there is more to interpreting scripture than reading it and
reflecting on what it may mean. I chose to look at the historical aspect.
One of my greatest undertakings in my study of scripture was when someone
referred to the sons of Aaron and how they should act in regards to an
issue. I then traced the complete lineage of Aaron back to the original
tribes in order to extrapolate into the future how it would reflect on the
actions of those who weren't descendants of Aaron's sons. The fact of the
matter is that when God speaks to a group of people or to an individual
person, He is speaking to that group of people or to that individual person.
Though we can find meaning in what He says, if it is not for us to hear,
then it simply isn't for us. I will give examples if you wish.
My point, however, is that though I am not versed in the exact wording of
every single passage in scripture, there are no parts that I ignore, no
parts that I reject. In fact, my bible is much different than yours, by 13
books. I could say that those 13 books are quite significant. In fact, I
do find myself finding them significant. Why do you reject those books? If
you are going to reject so much of the Bible, why kid yourself and call
yourself a Christian?
A Christian isn't defined by his knowledge of scripture. A Christian isn't
defined as having perfect interpretations of scripture (those
interpretations are impossible because we are human and bound to make
mistakes). Christ was talking to His people in ancient Jerusalem. They
didn't get it! Where do you find justification in stating that you get it?
If his disciples didn't understand, what makes you so sure that your
interpretations are perfect?
Christians aren't defined by their ability to understand, but their ability
to trust.
If a man turns to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and then for some reason
is cut off from the rest of the world for the rest of his life with no
access to scripture, does that man stop becoming a Christian if that man
trusts in Jesus Christ? Certainly not! We are not bound by the mistakes we
make in our translations (for we all make these mistakes). I chose to stand
by the time enduring interpretations of the Holy Catholic Church, which is
justifyably established by Christ through Peter. You do not chose that,
however, beause in your interpretations, you don't feel that Christ
established the Church through Peter. I respect that because I don't see
that difference as being important. I only concern myself with the fact that
you trust Christ as Lord and Savior. All mistakes will be forgiven (even
those you don't know you are making) because we do make many mistakes that
we are unaware of.
Get my drift?

No, we do not. We are ABOVE the angels in heaven. And they are our
SERVANTS on earth. You will not find ONE angel that I can think of who
gave humans orders.

We are above those in heaven? In God's eyes, aren't we all equals? Christ
was our servant on earth... does that mean we are above Him? One angel that
I can think of who gave humans orders...
Genesis 16:9
Genesis 16:11
Genesis 48:16 (Angel who delivered from harm)
Numbers 22:32
blah blah blah NT Time
Matthew 1:20
Matthew 1:24 (angel comanded him)
Matthew 2:13
Mattew 28:5
Luke 1:13
Luke 1:19
Luke 1:30'ish
Luke 2:9, 13
Acts 7:25 (an angel appeared to Moses in the burning bush [wait... didn't he
instruct Moses to deliver Israel? :p] )
Acts 10:5
Acts 12:7-9
Rev 1:1
All of Revelation speaks to the angels of the Churches (messengers of the
Churches).
These angels are kind of demanding considering they are our servants... you
claimed there would be no angel sent to us to give us orders... yet these
are clear examples when an angel of the Lord very clearly gave orders.
They were orders from the Lord, of course, but these angels were given the
authority to give the orders themselves. If you chose not to interpret it
this way, so be it. I chose to interpret it this way, that we are equal to
them. We are not above them. The angels were created by the Lord as
servants to the Lord. We were created by God and we will be at His side one
day, serving Him. I believe, though it is not stated explicitley, that
those saints in heaven are, in fact, angels, and that when we go to heaven,
we become angels (take on the form of angels) so that in our own smallness,
we may understand fully the realm of heaven. There are, however, archangels
who are messengers, servants, warriors of God (Gabriel, Michael, Raphael).

You do not know what God has planned for you after this world.

It doesn't hurt to imagine :) Got gave us a wonderful ability to imagine.
I think he finds joy in seeing what we do imagine heaven to be like.

Bottom line is you could care less what the Bible says. You are
dedicated to following Rome period.

You make such a wild claim, as if you know me so well. When I look at your
arguments and justifications, they are nothing I haven't faced before. In
the past five years I have not found any arguments against the Catholic
Church that I haven't heard before. I do care what the Bible says. I do my
best in my studies to return it to its root, as well, so I can understand it
in an historical context as well as theological.

And I wonder, if the directive came down from Rome that henceforth,
every Roman Catholic would be required to keep swine, and every Roman
Catholic would be required to eat swine feces with every meal.

That would be hardly likely considering that any doctrine passed hence forth
is a doctrine of teaching and theology. There are no doctrines from the
papacy which tell us how to live our every day lives.
If you are going to give an example, at least give a very realistic one.
The papacy would not deliver a teaching that leads us further away from God,
for any doctrine delivered by the papal office is one that is God inspired.

Would you be so willing to follow Rome THEN?

You CONTINUE to logic your way around Christ's commandments.

You continue to think I do. You are close minded, arrogant, hubris, and
irritating. You do not understand Catholic teachings or practices. You
think you are 100% correct in your interpretations. Being human, that is
impossible. You claim that since we interpret scripture differently than
you, that we are wrong. All I have tried to do is reach out to you as a
brother in Christ. All you have done is pushed me away. That is very
Christ-like of you.
What will it be, friend? Will you take my hand as a brother in Christ and
look beyond our differences? You will find that they are smaller than you
think they are. Or will you continue to push me away, pretending that you
are a true Christian and that myself, in my humble traditions, have lost
Christ?
If I turn to Jesus and cry out "save me, Lord! Please forgiven me!" He will
indeed. You claim, however, that because of my associations with teh Roman
Catholic Church and my faith in God-inspired doctrine through the papal
office, that I am wrong. I have given proper and complete scriptural
justification for our teachings. You haven't even considered them, for you
snipped them or you didn't respond to them at all or you called it "RCC
crappola"
I am trying to reach out to you as a brother in Christ. You are pushing me
away. Who is doing the right thing here?
I can only hope that you will open your eyes to the truth behind how you are
acting. I am not discriminating your faith at all. I admire it, instead,
for you have found solid faith in Christ outside of the guidance of the
Church. I, myself, have found such faith with the guidance of the Church.
I reach out to you... you push me away. I am trying to live a life that
Christ has commanded me to live, and that the Church has guided me through.
I cannot neglect Church doctrine, for it is so clear to me that it is
God-inspired. It brings me closer to God.
You have a claim that is so painful and truly agonizes my heart:
"So find some other religion to follow and stop pretending to be a
Christian".
You do not nor cannot understand how much that hurts me, for a brother and
potential friend in Christ to push me away. In doing that, you claimed that
every single Roman Catholic throughout the past 1850 years did not know
Jesus Christ. I know Him and love Him and know that He speaks to us through
the Roman Office. I know my traditions and beliefs to be true, because they
only bring me closer to God. There is no tradition or belief I hold which
pushes me away from God. Truth cannot push one further from God, but only
bring Him closer. Though God isn't leading you down the path of the Church,
do not forget that God calls out to different people in different ways.
Please, then, understand that you and I are the same in our faith in Christ.
Do not cast me away because you do not agree with some of my traditions.
Even the apostles of the Lord didn't do that when they were wrong. They
recognized that despite their differences, they were still brothers in
Christ.
What is it then? Will you continue to push me away or will you take my hand
in brotherhood, recognizing that though we have different traditions and
different paths to Christ, we will meet in the end and laugh over how
miniscule those differences actually were?
-RS
-RS
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	16 Dec 2004 11:15:49 AM

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:qo40s0l8d2mho8v4liftsniljv7hcbc08i@4ax.com...

semantics. A game I don't play.

It isn't wrong to ask someone to pray for us. When we turn to a friend next
to us and ask them to pray for us, that isn't praying to them. In the same
way, we believe (and it is justified) that the saints in heaven are able to
hear us and as well, to pray for us to the Lord.

He DID tell us, "When you pray, say, our Father..."

Which we do. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: We do not
pray to the saints as we pray to God.

IN YOUR OPINION. The BIBLE says otherwise.
jw
snip
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	16 Dec 2004 12:55:46 PM

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:15:49 -0800, j w <j_w<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:

LOL!!!
You're kidding, right?
I went to 2 different dictionaries and both said that "pray" means "ask".
So your excuse that you don't pray to dead people is an oxymoron.
BTW, there is only one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ.
Your substitutes won't work.

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	17 Dec 2004 07:39:01 AM

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:15:49 -0800, j w <j_w<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter

CB, I believe this comment belonged under RS, and not under me.
Nevertheless, good comments.
And I am glad to see we have managed to "put our differences behind
us" and move on.
It's nice to see you came around!
;-) (humor)
God bless!
jw
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	17 Dec 2004 10:46:31 PM

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 05:39:01 -0800, j w <j_w<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:15:49 -0800, j w <j_w<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:

CB, I believe this comment belonged under RS, and not under me.

you're right.
I just used the opportunity to reply to him.

Nevertheless, good comments.

And I am glad to see we have managed to "put our differences behind
us" and move on.

It's nice to see you came around!

;-) (humor)

God bless!

And may God bless you also.

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	14 Dec 2004 09:24:53 PM

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:54:35 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

Correction:

necromancy is conjuring the dead.

"Nor one who consults ghosts, or spirits, or seeks oracles from the dead."

Those in Christ have no death, so they aren't ghosts or spirits or oracles
from death.

Necromancy is a specific dark art in which one conjures the dead,
communicating with the spirits of the dead in order to predict or mold the
future. It is considered black magic, sorcery.

You should read Scripture sometime so you will know what you are talking
about.
Try 1 Samuel 28
It seems Samuel didn't appreciate Saul disturbing him.

Those in heaven aren't ghosts and aren't spirits of the dead, they are
beings of life.

If you want more explaination, I will give it, of course.

-RS

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	14 Dec 2004 09:33:25 PM

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7abvr09v5ak60leo10nnjkc9mle945tuud@4ax.com...

You should read Scripture sometime so you will know what you are talking
about.
Try 1 Samuel 28

It seems Samuel didn't appreciate Saul disturbing him.

Those in heaven aren't ghosts and aren't spirits of the dead, they are
beings of life.

You proved my point exactly. In that passage, Saul called upon a necromaner
who raised Samuel from the afterlife and asked Samuel's advice about what to
do. As I said:
Necromancy is a specific dark art in which one conjures the dead (spirits
who have passed to the next life) communicating with them in order to
predict or mold the future. It is considered black magic, sorcery.
I think you should read scripture more carefully.
-RS
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	15 Dec 2004 06:45:41 PM

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:33:25 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7abvr09v5ak60leo10nnjkc9mle945tuud@4ax.com...

You should read Scripture sometime so you will know what you are talking
about.
Try 1 Samuel 28

It seems Samuel didn't appreciate Saul disturbing him.

Those in heaven aren't ghosts and aren't spirits of the dead, they are
beings of life.

You proved my point exactly. In that passage, Saul called upon a necromaner
who raised Samuel from the afterlife and asked Samuel's advice about what to
do. As I said:

Necromancy is a specific dark art in which one conjures the dead (spirits
who have passed to the next life) communicating with them in order to
predict or mold the future. It is considered black magic, sorcery.

Kinda like what the rcc practices.

I think you should read scripture more carefully.

I understand Scripture.
You only understand what your molesters, aka priests, want you to understand.

-RS

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	15 Dec 2004 07:38:21 PM

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hjm1s0pcd14hb0rjahmfi6e48lgr5obb57@4ax.com...

Kinda like what the rcc practices.

I have something for you:
You are displaying a level of ineptitude which borders on the imbecilic.
Go read a few books on necromancy and you will see that it isn't calling out
the name of someone in heaven and asking them to pray for you. Necromancy
is summoning spirits who have passed to the next world and bringing them
back to this one, to extract from them information regarding future events
and to harness their foresight in order to benefit yourself.
Calling for the intercession of the saints isn't that. To say it is only
causes your true ignorance to shine.

I understand Scripture.
You only understand what your molesters, aka priests, want you to
understand.

You are a hate-mongering neophyte. Do I need to shine the statistics in
your face? I know dozens of priests. I know one priest who was accused
rightfully of being sexually active. That priest, however, did nothing
illegal. He broke his vow of celibacy resulting in his removal from his
position. 4% of the clergy in America were accused. 1% were found guilty.
About 4% of the clergy from 1950 to 2002 were accused. 4,392 clergymen,
almost all priests, were accused of abusing 10,667 people with 75% of the
incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984.
The number of deasons stood accused were .25%
Of those 4,392, 929 were accused of child abuse.
in 10% of the allegations, no action was taken against the priest.
in 6%, investigation was made and then found immediately innocent, they were
returned to ministry.
29% were suspended and 24% were placed on administrative leave.
81% of the victims were males. 40% were boys aged 11 to 14 (the age they
said they were abused).
There were no legitimate accounts on which the priest was accused of abusing
the child during the sacrament of reconciliation.
Of those priests who were accused, 56% had one victim, 27% had two or three,
17% had more than three. 3% had more than 10 victims and these 149 priests
accounted for 2,960 victims (28% of the allegations)
3% of the priests who were accused were conviced, 2% recieved prison
sentences. The vast majority of priests who were accused (97%) were accused
of sexual abuse on adults but nothing was found to be illegal, for it isn't
illegal for a priest to have sexual contact with an adult.
As for most studies, such as Chicago press and Boston Globe recieved similar
studies saying that the report of priests acused were between 2200 and 3000
and of those, 2% were legitimately accused.
Critics state it is because of the vow of celibacy, but that isn't a
legitimate reflection given the innocent status of the 96% of priests and
99% of religious life who have no problem with that vow.
The vast majority of these claims were found to be false.
One good example is Fr. Geoghan, accused by 100 different victims yet
convicted of just one single instance of sexual assault on a child. Because
of this, Geoghan was murdered by a fellow prisoner while serving his prison
sentence. Since then, his accusation was expunged from his legal record.
Fr. Lousi Miller of Kentucky: pleaded guilty to 44 counts of indecent or
immoral acts and six charged of first degree sexual abuse involving at least
21 children between 1957 and 1982. He was sentenced to 20 years
imprisonment.
Fr. Fortune, committed of 29 acts before he committed suicide in 1999.
Fr. Grennan, accused of abusing 12 girls. He was removed from the parish
and then reinstated on the day of the confirmation, leading to a walk out by
parents. He was never prosecuted after it was found out that the girls were
lying.
Fr. McGennis: Acused of one act of sexual abuse. He was conviced and an
apology was sentenced to the family and the girl (the girl only demanded an
apology).
Fr. Kos: the most well known in the south (Texas). His trials resulted in
the payment of 23 million to nine former altar boys who claimed they were
abused.
My point for these: We aren't dealing with the clergy as a whole. We are
dealing with problems on individuals. I looked at many statistics and
studies from within and outside of the Catholic Church, many from news
organizations who often write against the Catholic Church. The studies
indicate that on average, 4% of the clergy were accused and of that, less
than 1% were rightly accused and from that percentage, only a miniscule
amount were found guilty of a crime.
Of those that were guilty of a crime, many of them were known for having
drug problems that they kept hidden, as well as histories of abuse when they
were children. This doesn't justify their actions but it doesn't reflect
the validity of the entire Church.
These guilty clergy members are the ravenous wolves that Christ warned us
about! And those who make this issue bigger than it really is, spreading
lies and hatred (as you did) are eternal wolves, bent on using anything to
bring down the institution of the Church which has endured for so long.
Stop spreading your lies, stop spreading the hatred.
-RS

-RS

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter

User: "CB"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	15 Dec 2004 10:17:49 PM

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:38:21 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hjm1s0pcd14hb0rjahmfi6e48lgr5obb57@4ax.com...

Kinda like what the rcc practices.

I have something for you:
You are displaying a level of ineptitude which borders on the imbecilic.

You need to try a little harder at your insults.
If you're going to insult someone you need to at least irk them just a little.
However, bam has been trying that for a very long time and cannot succeed.
of course, bam is a failure.
And you are a failure for listening to the nonsense spewed by the rcc.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know
not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is
forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither
have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
<snip catholic nonsense>
"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
Ann Coulter
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Consulting the dead.	16 Dec 2004 03:11:05 AM

"CB" <country2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hjm1s0pcd14hb0rjahmfi6e48lgr5obb57@4ax.com...

You need to try a little harder at your insults.
If you're going to insult someone you need to at least irk them just a
little.

Not trying to insult, merely trying to point out that you aren't approaching
our discussion from a carefully thought out scholastic perspective. It is
difficult to talk about Catholic faith with someone who thinks it to be
something it isn't.
I will make this as monosyllabic as possible:
statues in Catholic churches != graven images
asking saints to pray for you != necromancy
worship >= giving honor to someone deserving
prayer == petition
God => alpha
God => omega
saints == everyone who places their hope in Jesus
canonized saints == those who led virtuous and good lives, shining beacons
of virtue, good examples for us to follow
!= is not equal
== exactly equal

= greater than or equal to

=> points to
I couldn't make it any simpler than that. If you are going to argue against
what we teach, at least know what it is that we teach. What anti-Catholic
fundamentalists say we teach isn't what we teach. If you want to know what
we teach, you are going to have to go to catholic apologetics websites, the
Catechism, or to a few learned priests and clergymembers. Though some of
them may be wrongly representing Catholic teachings (because they are human
and humans make mistakes), combining them all together should let you get
the gist of it.
Go to any devout Catholic and ask them if we worship statues. We will tell
you outright "No!" with a hearty laugh or look of perplexity. Take it from
us. We know (or those who are devout Catholics who understand that a part
of being Catholic is defending Catholic faith) what we believe. What you
are telling us that we believe isn't what we believe. So listen to us. I
have my faith and if someone asks me a question about my faith, I will tell
them the truth to the best of my ability, and guide them to sources which
will extend and justify my beliefs. Do not, however, tell me what I believe
because you aren't me.
-RS
.